VERMONT SUPERIOR CIVIL DIVISION COURT Orange Unit Case No. 25-CV-00057 5 Court Street Chelsea VT 05038 802-685-4610 www.vermontjudiciary.org
Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND JUDGMENT
The present matter is an eviction. Plaintiff Andrew Stacy seeks to remove Douglas
Burns and Stephanie Austin from their dwelling unit at 243 Seaver Road in Williamstown,
Vermont. This matter came before the Court for a bench trial on April 21, 2025. Both
parties presented evidence and testimony regarding the eviction. Based on this hearing,
the Court makes the following findings and conclusions.
Factual Findings
Burns and Austin began occupying the mobile home at 243 Seaver Road in 2018.
At the time, Justin Lawrence owned the mobile home and property. Defendants testified
that about three years ago Lawrence effectively abandoned his responsibilities as
landlord and that they had been performing their own repairs and maintenance to the
Order Page 1 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al property. It is not clear, but it appears that Burns and Austin had stopped paying rent to
Lawrence during this time.
In May of 2024, Lawrence sold the property and mobile home to Stacy who was
working with his parents to secure his first home. Following the sale, Stacy sent Burns
and Austin a notice to terminate tenancy based on the sale but gave them only 30 days to
vacate the premises. In August 2024, Stacy filed an ejectment action based on this
termination, but he soon withdrew it because the notice was incorrect. To terminate a
tenancy for no cause, Stacy needed to give Burns and Austin 90 days of notice, and if he
had intended to evict based on the sale of the property, then notice needed to go to
Burns and Austin before the sale. The result was notice that was neither fish nor fowl
under 9 V.S.A. § 4467, which governs how notices of termination must be given under
the Vermont residential rental act.
On August 27, 2024, Stacy and his mother hand delivered a new notice of
termination for 90 days that became effective November 27, 2024. It is on this notice that
the present ejectment is based.
Burns and Austin and their family continue to reside in the rental unit. At no time
has Stacy sought or demanded rent from Burns and Austin, and the Defendants have
lived rent-free during Stacy’s ownership. Stacy states that while the eviction is for no
cause, his intent is to clean up the property and occupy it himself as his first home.
Order Page 2 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al Burns and Austin raised only two defenses to Stacy’s complaint. Burns and Austin,
in their answer, claim that the eviction was filed in retaliation for complaining about
habitability issues. Burns and Austin cite to the rebuttable presumption of retaliation
under 9 V.S.A. § 4465. The Defendants’ second defense is that their middle child has
been recently diagnosed with autism and is currently enrolled in a good program in the
Williamstown school district. They fear any termination before June 19th could disrupt his
educational resources.
Taking the first affirmative defense, Stacy, through his mother’s testimony, and
exhibits presented persuasive evidence that the present eviction is not retaliatory. This
evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption. The evidence indicates that the
habitability issues pre-date Stacy’s ownership and go back to the prior owner’s neglect.
Burns and Austin have long known of these issues and have acted to repair and maintain
where possible and have withheld rent for several years. The evidence shows that Stacy
did not buy the property with the intent of being a landlord and that he intended to
occupy the property himself. The first complaint was filed in error based on technical
deficiencies, and Stacy has consistently refused rent and has disclaimed his role as a
landlord. Put plainly, Stacy bought the property for himself. He intended to have any
tenants vacate before he took possession, but he did not purchase with the intent to
maintain or provide landlord services. As such, the present action is not retaliatory or
malicious. It is an effort as a new owner to control and possess the land that he
purchase and to legally end the rental relationship that pre-dates his ownership and
Order Page 3 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al control. For these reasons, the Court finds no retaliatory intent or purpose to the present
litigation, and Stacy has satisfied his burden to burst the presumption under 9 V.S.A. §
4465.
As to Burns’ and Austin’s second defense, there are two problems with granting
any judgment or delay on their child’s educational situation. First, the law does not have
provisions in the rental act to prevent or delay an eviction based on personal
circumstances. Second, the Court takes judicial notice that there are legal protections,
such as the McKinney-Vento Act 1(42 U.S.C. §§ 11431, et seq.) that provide guarantees
that their children may remain enrolled in their present school through the completion of
the school year even if their housing circumstances change, and they are pushed out of
the district.
The Court recognizes that Burns and Austin face hard choices and difficult
circumstances in this eviction. They have lived at the property for seven years, and for
the last three they have acted alone to maintain the property. They have sought
alternative housing, but their means are limited. Mr. Burns runs an e-bay business out of
his home, which means the home is not only a residence but a place of business and
warehouse for his inventory. Every eviction requires one party to upend their lives, to
remove to a new location, and to make substantial changes. This is not an easy task for
individuals with means and resources. For families on the margins, it can be all
consuming and devastating. In this case, Burns and Austin face significant hurdles.
Legal Conclusions Order Page 4 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al Under 9 V.S.A. § 4468, a landlord who properly terminates a lease is entitled to
bring an ejectment action under 12 V.S.A. §§ 4761, et sec. to seek damages and return
of possession. In this case, Plaintiff Stacy seeks possession of the rental property and
does not seek any monetary damages. Under 12 V.S.A. § 4854, if a landlord
demonstrates that he is entitled regain possession, then the Court shall issue judgment
for possession.
In this case, Stacy has demonstrated, based on the evidence and testimony, that
he is entitled to judgment pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 4854. Burns and Austin have lived at
the property for 7 years and pursuant to both Vermont common law and the terms of their
lease, they have a month-to-month tenancy, otherwise known as a tenancy at will. Stacy
has established that he properly drafted and delivered the termination of tenancy on
August 27, 2024. This notice complies with 9 V.S.A. § 4467, and it gave Defendants 90
days to vacate the premises as allowed under Section 4467 of the termination of their
tenancy on November 27, 2024. 9 V.S.A. § 4467(c)(1)(B). Burns and Austin continue to
occupy the rental unit despite the termination of their tenancy.
As a no cause eviction, Stacy need not establish the basis for the eviction, but he
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
VERMONT SUPERIOR CIVIL DIVISION COURT Orange Unit Case No. 25-CV-00057 5 Court Street Chelsea VT 05038 802-685-4610 www.vermontjudiciary.org
Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND JUDGMENT
The present matter is an eviction. Plaintiff Andrew Stacy seeks to remove Douglas
Burns and Stephanie Austin from their dwelling unit at 243 Seaver Road in Williamstown,
Vermont. This matter came before the Court for a bench trial on April 21, 2025. Both
parties presented evidence and testimony regarding the eviction. Based on this hearing,
the Court makes the following findings and conclusions.
Factual Findings
Burns and Austin began occupying the mobile home at 243 Seaver Road in 2018.
At the time, Justin Lawrence owned the mobile home and property. Defendants testified
that about three years ago Lawrence effectively abandoned his responsibilities as
landlord and that they had been performing their own repairs and maintenance to the
Order Page 1 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al property. It is not clear, but it appears that Burns and Austin had stopped paying rent to
Lawrence during this time.
In May of 2024, Lawrence sold the property and mobile home to Stacy who was
working with his parents to secure his first home. Following the sale, Stacy sent Burns
and Austin a notice to terminate tenancy based on the sale but gave them only 30 days to
vacate the premises. In August 2024, Stacy filed an ejectment action based on this
termination, but he soon withdrew it because the notice was incorrect. To terminate a
tenancy for no cause, Stacy needed to give Burns and Austin 90 days of notice, and if he
had intended to evict based on the sale of the property, then notice needed to go to
Burns and Austin before the sale. The result was notice that was neither fish nor fowl
under 9 V.S.A. § 4467, which governs how notices of termination must be given under
the Vermont residential rental act.
On August 27, 2024, Stacy and his mother hand delivered a new notice of
termination for 90 days that became effective November 27, 2024. It is on this notice that
the present ejectment is based.
Burns and Austin and their family continue to reside in the rental unit. At no time
has Stacy sought or demanded rent from Burns and Austin, and the Defendants have
lived rent-free during Stacy’s ownership. Stacy states that while the eviction is for no
cause, his intent is to clean up the property and occupy it himself as his first home.
Order Page 2 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al Burns and Austin raised only two defenses to Stacy’s complaint. Burns and Austin,
in their answer, claim that the eviction was filed in retaliation for complaining about
habitability issues. Burns and Austin cite to the rebuttable presumption of retaliation
under 9 V.S.A. § 4465. The Defendants’ second defense is that their middle child has
been recently diagnosed with autism and is currently enrolled in a good program in the
Williamstown school district. They fear any termination before June 19th could disrupt his
educational resources.
Taking the first affirmative defense, Stacy, through his mother’s testimony, and
exhibits presented persuasive evidence that the present eviction is not retaliatory. This
evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption. The evidence indicates that the
habitability issues pre-date Stacy’s ownership and go back to the prior owner’s neglect.
Burns and Austin have long known of these issues and have acted to repair and maintain
where possible and have withheld rent for several years. The evidence shows that Stacy
did not buy the property with the intent of being a landlord and that he intended to
occupy the property himself. The first complaint was filed in error based on technical
deficiencies, and Stacy has consistently refused rent and has disclaimed his role as a
landlord. Put plainly, Stacy bought the property for himself. He intended to have any
tenants vacate before he took possession, but he did not purchase with the intent to
maintain or provide landlord services. As such, the present action is not retaliatory or
malicious. It is an effort as a new owner to control and possess the land that he
purchase and to legally end the rental relationship that pre-dates his ownership and
Order Page 3 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al control. For these reasons, the Court finds no retaliatory intent or purpose to the present
litigation, and Stacy has satisfied his burden to burst the presumption under 9 V.S.A. §
4465.
As to Burns’ and Austin’s second defense, there are two problems with granting
any judgment or delay on their child’s educational situation. First, the law does not have
provisions in the rental act to prevent or delay an eviction based on personal
circumstances. Second, the Court takes judicial notice that there are legal protections,
such as the McKinney-Vento Act 1(42 U.S.C. §§ 11431, et seq.) that provide guarantees
that their children may remain enrolled in their present school through the completion of
the school year even if their housing circumstances change, and they are pushed out of
the district.
The Court recognizes that Burns and Austin face hard choices and difficult
circumstances in this eviction. They have lived at the property for seven years, and for
the last three they have acted alone to maintain the property. They have sought
alternative housing, but their means are limited. Mr. Burns runs an e-bay business out of
his home, which means the home is not only a residence but a place of business and
warehouse for his inventory. Every eviction requires one party to upend their lives, to
remove to a new location, and to make substantial changes. This is not an easy task for
individuals with means and resources. For families on the margins, it can be all
consuming and devastating. In this case, Burns and Austin face significant hurdles.
Legal Conclusions Order Page 4 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al Under 9 V.S.A. § 4468, a landlord who properly terminates a lease is entitled to
bring an ejectment action under 12 V.S.A. §§ 4761, et sec. to seek damages and return
of possession. In this case, Plaintiff Stacy seeks possession of the rental property and
does not seek any monetary damages. Under 12 V.S.A. § 4854, if a landlord
demonstrates that he is entitled regain possession, then the Court shall issue judgment
for possession.
In this case, Stacy has demonstrated, based on the evidence and testimony, that
he is entitled to judgment pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 4854. Burns and Austin have lived at
the property for 7 years and pursuant to both Vermont common law and the terms of their
lease, they have a month-to-month tenancy, otherwise known as a tenancy at will. Stacy
has established that he properly drafted and delivered the termination of tenancy on
August 27, 2024. This notice complies with 9 V.S.A. § 4467, and it gave Defendants 90
days to vacate the premises as allowed under Section 4467 of the termination of their
tenancy on November 27, 2024. 9 V.S.A. § 4467(c)(1)(B). Burns and Austin continue to
occupy the rental unit despite the termination of their tenancy.
As a no cause eviction, Stacy need not establish the basis for the eviction, but he
has provided sufficient grounds to overcome any presumptions under 9 V.S.A. § 4465
concerning retaliation.
At the same time, the Court finds that Defendants Douglas Burns and Stephanie
Austin have demonstrated evidence of hardship and issues with removing themselves
from the rental unit specifically related to the length of time that they have lived at the Order Page 5 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al property, Mr. Burns' home-based business, and the limited resources to remove
themselves. In this respect, the Court finds that it is in the interests of justice to extend
the period of time for the Writ of Possession to execute from 14 days to 35 days.
Toussaint v. Stone, 116 Vt. 425, 429 (1951) (allowing courts to extend time for removal to
remove property).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is Ordered and Adjudicated that Plaintiff Andrew Stacy
shall have judgment in this matter against Defendants Douglas Burns and Stephanie
Austin pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 4854. The Court Clerk shall issue a Writ of Possession
concurrent with this order in favor of Plaintiff Stacy against Defendants Burns and Austin.
The length of time for service of this writ is extended by order of the Court from 14 days
to 35 days between initial service and execution. This extension is intended to provide
Defendants with additional time to ensure that they are able to remove themselves and
their possessions from the property. No damages are awarded based on the limited
nature of Plaintiff's claims, which were limited strictly to the issue of possession and
occupancy of the property.
Electronically signed on 4/22/2025 12:49 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)
Vermont Superior Court Filed 04/22/25 Orange Unit
Daniel Richardson Superior Court Judge
Order Page 6 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al yce E. Mc Keeman Assistant Judge·
The Hon Laurel Mackin Assistant Judge
Order Page 7 of 7 25-CV-00057 Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al