Georges Way v. Harrington

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Windsor Unit Case No. 25-CV-02569
12 The Green
Woodstock VT 05091
802-457-2121
www.vermontjudiciary.org

GEORGE'S WAY LLC v. MATTHEW HARRINGTON

DECISION ON THE MERITS

Landlord, George’s Way, LLC, appeals from the small claims division’s decision awarding Tenant,
Matthew Harrington, double his security deposit under 9 V.S.A. § 4461(e) for willfully withholding the
deposit beyond the 14 days after Tenant vacated the apartment. Landlord appeals encompasses two
positions. First, Landlord contends that the small claims court erred in finding that it had wrongfully
withheld the security deposit as Landlord claims it took more than 14 days to determine the extent and
cost of the damage to the dwelling unit, which by extension delayed Landlord’s accounting and
determination of what to withhold. Second, Landlord contends that the small claims court erred in
determining that the withholding was willful. Landlord contends that he should not be obligated to
double the amount of security deposit.

The Cour has reviewed the record and the Appellant’s filings. Appellee has not filed a reply or
participated in the appeal process. Following this review, the Court denies the appeal and Affirms the
decision of the small claims court.

Standard of Review

The scope of this Court’s review on appeal is limited. An appeal from a small claims court’s
judgment is heard and decided “based on the record made in the small claims court.” 12 V.S.A. § 5538.
The “appeal is limited to questions of law.” V.R.S.C.P. 10(d). If the small claims court has applied the
correct law, this court will affirm its “conclusions if they are reasonably supported by the findings.”
Maciejko v. Lunenburg Fire Dist. No. 2, 171 Vt. 542, 543 (2000) (mem.). In turn, the findings of fact must be
supported by the evidence, Brandon v. Richmond, 144 Vt. 496, 498 (1984), and such findings “must be
construed, where possible, to support the judgment,” Kopelman v. Schwag, 145 Vt. 212, 214 (1984). The
court’s review of the small claims court's legal conclusions, however, is “non-deferential and plenary.”
Maciejko, 171 Vt. at 543 (quoting N.A.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Pafundi, 169 Vt. 437, 439 (1999)).
Order Page 1 of 4
25-CV-02569 GEORGE'S WAY LLC v. MATTHEW HARRINGTON
Small Claims Court Findings

On April 2, 2025, the small claims division made the following findings. On September 1, 2024,
Tenant vacated the dwelling unit he had rented from Landlord at mid-day as he had promised Landlord.
On September 9, 2024, Tenant contacted Landlord’s agent about his security deposit. The agent indicated
that the Landlord did not intend to return the deposit within the 14-day window but would be following
the parties’ lease. Landlord went to the unit to inspect it, but it did not respond to Tenant. On September
16, 2024, Tenant reached out again, and Landlord’s agent informed Tenant that Landlord would need
more time to assess damages and compose an estimate for the costs of damages and repairs. Later that
day, Landlord’s agent emailed Tenant an estimate of painting and cleaning costs that exceeded $2,000. On
September 18, 2024, Landlord mailed Tenant a refund of $150 from the security deposit. On September
23, 2024, Tenant received the itemized letter detailing the withholdings.

The small claims court found that the Tenant vacated the dwelling unit on September 1, 2024.
While Landlord suggests that the date was later because Tenant had indicated that the cleaners were still
working on the first, the finding is supported by the evidence and was within the discretion of the small
claims court to have found that this was the date he ceased to possess and occupy the dwelling unit. The
plain meaning of the word “vacate” is “to surrender occupancy or possession.” Black’s Law Dictionary at
1546 (7th ed. 1999). The Court finds no error in this finding.

Legal Analysis

The remainder of the small claims’ court’s findings follows from this initial finding. Under Section
4461(c), “A landlord shall return the security deposit along with a written statement itemizing any
deductions to a tenant within 14 days from the date . . . the tenant vacated the dwelling unit, provided
landlord received notice from the tenant of that date.” 9 V.S.A. § 4461(c) (emphasis added). This
provision applies to all residential leases, regardless of the specific lease language. 9 V.S.A. §§ 4453, 4454
(all obligations under the Vermont Residential Rental Act are implied in all leases and no lease provision
shall try to circumvent the provisions of the Act). The evidence shows that Landlord did not deliver the
remainder of the security deposit until more than 17 days after Tenant vacated the apartment. The
itemized list was not delivered until more than 22 days after Tenant vacated. This is a violation of the
plain language of Section 4461(c), and the small claims court was correct in concluding that Landlord had
not complied with the provisions of Section 4461(c), which does not permit a landlord to extend or
modify the 14-day return and notice provision.

Order Page 2 of 4
25-CV-02569 GEORGE'S WAY LLC v. MATTHEW HARRINGTON
As the small claims court noted, this provision is intended for strict compliance. As the Vermont
Supreme Court noted:

The security deposit section of the Landlord and Tenant Act is clearly a consumer
protection provision regulating contractual security deposit procedures . . . . The primary
obligation of the landlord is to return the deposit, net of any deduction for damage to the
premises or for unpaid rent. Accompanying the payment, if any, must be an itemization of
any deductions . . . .
In re Soon Kwon, 2011 VT 26, ¶ 15. As the Vermont Supreme Court has also noted, the basis for the
withholding must be facially valid and will comply with the provisions of Section 4461(c), even if the
charges are later overturned. Barry v. Khamnei, 2013 WL 2922540, at *5 (Jun. 12, 2013) (unpub. mem.).

Whether or not the small claims court accepted Landlord’s representations in this case that it was
delayed in making an assessment of the costs to perform repairs to the apartment, the failure of Landlord
to abide by the Section 4461(c) timelines is fatal to its claim. Therefore, the small claims court’s judgment
regarding the wrongful withholding of the security deposit is affirmed as consistent with the language and
intent of Section 446 and supported by the evidence. 9 V.S.A. § 4461(e) (“If a landlord fails to return the
security deposit with a statement within 14 days, the landlord forfeits the right to withhold any portion of
the security deposit.”).

Turning to the issue of willfulness, the small claims court found that there was no impediment to
Landlord returning the deposit, and Tenant had reminded Landlord on September 9, 2024 of its obligation
to return deposit. The small claims court found that these facts, along with the implication from
Landlord’s agent that Tenant should not expect the deposit on the 14th day but would look to the later
deadlines in the lease constituted a willful withholding.

The word “willful” is not defined in Section 4461 or within the Vermont Residential Rental Act.
The Vermont Supreme Court stated, “[t]he term ‘wilful’ though given different definitions under different
circumstances cannot well mean less than intentional and by design.” In re Chase, 2009 VT 94, ¶ 26
(quoting State v. Burlington Drug Co., 84 Vt. 243, 252 (1911)). In this respect, “willful” means intentional
and by design as opposed to accidental. Wendell v. Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 123 Vt. 294, 297 (1963). In
this case, the small claims court found that the totality of the circumstances indicated that Landlord chose
not to timely comply with the 14-day requirement of Section 4461(c). Landlord on appeal contends that it
did not intend or design to return the security deposit and notice of withholding late but rather blames the
time that it took to finish the estimates. This argument misperceives what both the small claims court
found as well as what the implication of a willful withholding constitutes. The legislature in drafting
Section 4461 chose not to include provisions for extensions of the timeline for returning a security deposit.
Order Page 3 of 4
25-CV-02569 GEORGE'S WAY LLC v. MATTHEW HARRINGTON
Instead, it created a hard and fast rule. A party must return a deposit or give notice of withholding within
14 days after a tenant vacates. Landlord' defense is effectively a claim of ignorance as to the strict

compliance requirement. This defense, however, has long been held to be no defense or excuse. Citibank
(South Dakota), NA v. Department ofTaxes, 2016 VT 69, J 28.
Taken in a light most favorable to the judgment, the Court finds that the evidence supports a

finding by the small claims court that the withholding was willful. For these reasons, the small claims
court decision on this point is affirmed.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the decision of the small claims court is Affirmed, and the present appeal

is dismissed.

Electronically signed on 8/21/2025 1:24AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

Xp
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge
Vermont Superior Court
Filed 08/21/25
Windsor nit

Ordet Page 4 of 4
25-CV-02569 GEORGE'S WAY LLC v. MATTHEW HARRINGTON