Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Citation
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Parent Document
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2006-02-10
Other Sections in This Document (25)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
Full Text
1,083 charsDooley, J. ¶ 1. Contractor Ernest Salo appeals from a superior court order awarding him only a portion of his attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Vermont’s prompt payment act, 9 V.S.A. § 4007(c), against owners George Charos, John Charos, and Patricia Costello. The case arises out of a contract under which contractor was to remodel owners’ house. Contractor prevailed below on his claims for breach of contract and conversion, and on owners’ claims for defective workmanship, but the superior court did not award him all of his attorneys’ fees. On appeal, contractor argues that the trial court erred when it: (1) separated out the percentage of the total verdict that represented the payment-withholding claim from the claims for *352breach of contract and conversion, and awarded attorneys’ fees under the prompt payment act only for that portion of the fees associated -with the payment-withholding claim; and (2) specifically disallowed attorneys’ fees associated with unsuccessful mandatory and voluntary mediation. We reverse and remand for imposition of a new attorneys’ fee award.