Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Full Text

670 chars
¶ 17. For the above reasons, we hold that the court erred in both limiting contractor’s attorneys’-fee award to reflect the proportion of the recovery for violation of the prompt payment act and in denying recovery for legal fees related to mediation. Ordinarily, we would remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion and fashion an award in light of the considerations we have announced in this opinion. For example, the determination of whether there is a common core of facts, and to what extent, is normally entrusted to the trial court in the first instance. See L’Esperance, 2003 VT 43, ¶ 24 (affirming trial court’s finding of a core of operative facts).