The Vermont Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of The Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Nicole Tourangeau, affirming a lower court's decision in favor of a landlord in an eviction case. The ruling, issued on November 6, 2026, affects tenants and landlords in mobile home parks across the state, clarifying the application of Vermont's landlord-tenant laws.

The case arose when Nicole Tourangeau, a tenant in a mobile home park owned by The Housing Foundation, Inc., failed to pay her rent. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to rental agreements and the consequences of nonpayment.

Background

The Housing Foundation, Inc. is a landlord that operates a mobile home park in Milton, Vermont. Nicole Tourangeau, the tenant in question, rented a lot space in this park. According to the written lease, Tourangeau was required to pay $436 per month in rent. However, she failed to make her payment for October 2025, leading the landlord to file a complaint for eviction.

In November 2025, the landlord notified Tourangeau via certified mail that her tenancy would end on December 12, 2025, unless she paid her outstanding balance of $832.61. Despite this notice, Tourangeau did not pay the full amount and remained in possession of the lot. This was not her first encounter with eviction proceedings; she had previously defeated an eviction action in May 2025 by paying her overdue rent into court.

The case was heard in April 2026, where both parties presented their arguments. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the landlord, awarding judgment of possession and ordering Tourangeau to pay the landlord a total of $1,268.61 in rent, along with $2,713.93 in attorney’s fees and costs.

The Ruling

The Vermont Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Paul L. Reiber and Associate Justices Nancy J. Waples and Christina E. Nolan, reviewed the trial court's decision. The court affirmed the judgment, stating, "Because tenant had already relied on the curative provision in § 4773 earlier the same year and had again stopped paying rent, landlord was entitled to bring a new eviction action, and tenant no longer had the legal right to end the new action by paying what was then owed."

The court emphasized that Vermont law allows a tenant to defeat an eviction action by paying all rent due only once within a twelve-month period. Since Tourangeau had previously defeated an eviction action within that timeframe, she was not entitled to do so again. The court also noted that Tourangeau did not challenge any factual findings made by the lower court, as she failed to order a transcript of the hearing.

Regarding the award of attorney’s fees, the court pointed out that Tourangeau did not adequately explain why the award should be reversed, and thus, the court did not address her challenge. The lease agreement explicitly stated that the landlord could recover attorney's fees and costs incurred in obtaining possession of the lot after lease termination.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for both tenants and landlords in Vermont. It clarifies the limitations on a tenant's ability to redeem their tenancy after a previous eviction action has been resolved through payment. Tenants must be aware that they can only utilize the redemption option once within a twelve-month period, which could affect their decisions regarding timely rent payments.

Landlords, on the other hand, gain a clearer understanding of their rights in eviction proceedings. The court's affirmation of the lower court's ruling reinforces the legal framework that allows landlords to pursue eviction when tenants fail to meet their rental obligations. This case may serve as a precedent for similar eviction actions in the future, emphasizing the importance of compliance with lease agreements.

What's Next

While the Vermont Supreme Court has affirmed the lower court's ruling, it is unclear if Tourangeau will seek further legal recourse or if there are related cases pending. The court's decision, however, stands as a significant interpretation of landlord-tenant laws in the state.