Human Rights Commission v. Labrie, Inc.

668 A.2d 659 (Vt. 1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Labrie purchased Limehurst Mobile Home Park in May 1981. There were 33 mobile home lots. Labrie, Inc. (D) purchased the park from Labrie in October 1987. The Labrie’s were the sole shareholders and corporate officers. When the park was purchased the lease term on occupancy stated that only one family shall occupy a mobile home on a permanent basis. In 1982, that was changed to allowing no children under 18 to reside in any home on their lots. In July 1988, the provision was changed again, but the age restriction was to apply based on a statute, VSA 9-4508(b). In April 1989, it was revised again to indicate that no more than two permanent occupants per lease premises were allowed for leases after July 1, 1988, and before that date the provision was to be grandfathered but the number of occupants could not be expanded beyond what existed on July 1, 1988. One mobile home housed a family with minor children. They moved there prior to 1982. No persons with minor children moved in since Labrie purchased in 1981. The Labries also own two other mobile home parks, four homes leased as residential units and twelve mobile homes throughout Vermont. There were minor children living in many of the homes. McCarthy purchased a mobile home in the Park for $7,000 in August 1986. They were sent a letter reminding them that the park was for adults only. In July 1989, McCarthy contacted a broker to sell their home because Luanne was pregnant. The broker determined that McCarthy should ask $18,000 for the home. A son was born on September 19, 1989, and when they arrived home from the hospital, they got a letter from D informing them that they must vacate. They got additional letters and verbal notices. On December 28, 1989, they were served with a summons and complaint for eviction. McCarthy then informed D that they had a deposit on the sale of their home but D informed McCarthy that they would not deal with the sale until the eviction issue was resolved. The home was eventually sold on March 2, 1990 for $13,000. At trial, the broker testified that half of the potential purchasers were ineligible because a minor child put them over the occupancy limit. The court determined that the fair market value of the home was $13,000. Further, Luanne was embarrassed to leave her home and she had trouble sleeping and chest pains. McCarthy moved to their parent’s house and had to share a family room in the basement with their newborn child. Luanne began taking medications for her chest pains. McCarthy filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission (P) and this action was instituted in 1990. P alleged that D violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against people with minor children. Even though their policies were facially neutral, their occupancy restrictions had a discriminatory impact. D maintained that the limit was due to water and septic capacity. Expert testimony was entered by both sides regarding those capacities. The court found that D’s evidence was not credible. The court concluded that P had established that McCarthy was evicted due to the presence of a minor child. McCarthy was awarded $2,700 in attorney’s fee, $1,500 for emotional distress, $3,000 for loss of civil rights, and $3,000 in punitive damages. The court also awarded P $6,000 in civil penalties. The court then permanently enjoined D and awarded p $51,072 in attorney’s fees, $2,194.39 for expenses and $240 in costs. D appealed.