Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Alger v. Vt. Dep't of Labor and Indus.
(Vt. Super. Ct. Franklin County filed, Dec. 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55086
Description
Tenants Seek to Enjoin Order to Vacate and Ask Court to Enforce Code Violation Remedies Against Landlords, Not Tenants
Abstract
Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief ordering
defendants to enforce remedies for building safety violations
through referral to the state’s attorney for criminal and
civil prosecution of landlords rather than by requiring tenants to
vacate their apartments in the absence of any imminent hazard and
without notice and the opportunity for a hearing. Plaintiffs seek
to represent a class of Vermont residential tenants who face loss
of their homes by defendants’ orders because of
plaintiffs’ landlords’ failure to remedy violations.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants have long been aware of the
building’s history of code violations. They contend that
defendants found that the building constituted an imminent fire
hazard and ordered the owner to vacate an apartment in which power
had been turned off and to begin repairs. Plaintiffs allege that,
although the apartment was vacated, the repair deadline was not
met, and defendants ordered the building closed. They say that they
face homelessness if forced to vacate. They claim that defendants
did not serve them with the closure order in a lawful manner; that
the order is invalid because it contains no finding of an imminent
hazard, nor does an imminent hazard exist; that the order violates
defendants’ statutory duty to enforce orders through referral
to the state’s attorney and that the closure order violates
the due process guarantees of the state and federal constitutions
by seizing plaintiffs’ leasehold interest in property without
notice and opportunity for a hearing.
