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
1,296 chars¶ 7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to invoke the “late fee” provision concerning attorney’s fees because Crosbie had a good faith basis under § 4007(a) for withholding payment of the outstanding balance for two reasons. First, as the jury found, Fletcher Hill breached the contract by failing to complete the installation of the home in a workmanlike manner. Indeed, Crosbie’s counterclaim describes a list of substantial deficiencies, including the fact that the two structural halves of the house were not properly set on the foundation, with one side of the house resting approximately three-quarters of an inch higher than the other. The jury confirmed Fletcher Hill’s breach by answering Jury Interrogatory 4 — “Did the Plaintiff breach the contract by not performing in a workmanlike manner at least in part?” — in the affirmative, and awarding Crosbie $4000. In addition, in assessing Fletcher Hill’s request for attorney’s fees, the trial court noted that “there was an adequate basis in the record, had [the jury] chosen to do so, to provide more relief to the defendant,” and that as a result of the “issues of poor workmanship” and “the substantial deficiencies in the construction,” Crosbie “was within her rights to withhold funds under the circumstances.”