Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Citation
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Parent Document
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-01-14
Other Sections in This Document (57)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
Full Text
2,619 chars¶ 37. The statute awards attorney’s fees to “the substantially prevailing party,” recognizing that more than one party can recover, especially in a construction contract case, but only one party can be found to have prevailed. 9 V.S.A. § 4007(c) (emphasis added). Thus, its language is consistent with the overwhelming law from around the country that in the case of offsetting verdicts, the holder of the net verdict on the main claim has prevailed. See T. Goger, Annotation, Who Is the “Successful Party” or “Prevailing Party” for Purposes of Awarding Costs Where Both Parties Prevail on Affirmative Claims, 66 A.L.R.3d 1115, 1119-20 (1975) (citing cases). In a leading California case, the court found that the plaintiff construction company was the “successful party” where plaintiff won a net judgment even though the defendant homeowner had prevailed on a counterclaim for faulty construction. Moss Constr. Co. v. Wulffsohn, 253 P.2d 483, 484-85 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1953) (now superseded by statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1032, defining prevailing party to include “the party with a net monetary recovery”). The court noted that “the party awarded the net judgment is the prevailing litigant and thus the successful party.” Id. at 485; accord De Witt, 499 P.2d at 600 (designating contractor as prevailing party even though homeowner allowed an offset and noting that trial court does not have discretion to refuse to award attorney’s fees to penalize contractor for not paying subcontractor); Distefano v. Hall, 69 Cal. Rptr. 691, 697 (Ct. App. 1968) (naming contractor the *91prevailing party and awarding attorney’s fees despite offset to owner because contractor received the net recovery); Corley, 863 So. 2d at 1246 (entitling contractor to attorney’s fees under similar Florida statute even though as a result of offset to owner net recovery was less than a fifth of the amount of the last unpaid installment due from owner); Szoboszlay v. Glessner, 664 P.2d 1327, 1333-34 (Kan. 1983) (under landlord and tenant statute, tenant was successful in suit for return of a security deposit, and entitled to attorney’s fees, even though landlord received smaller offsetting counterclaim judgment for unpaid rent); Schmidt v. Colonial Terrace Assocs., 694 P.2d 1340, 1345 (Mont. 1985) (in construction contract case, contractor was prevailing party and entitled to attorney’s fees even though purchasers were awarded an offset equal to more than 50% of the amount awarded to contractor). I see no reason not to follow the decisions from other states; they are clearly consistent with the language of our statute.