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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8209845/fletcher-hill-inc-v-crosbie/ ↗

Full Text

1,103 chars

¶ 14. Neither the language of § 4007(c) nor the case law cited by the dissent dictates that determining whether a party substantially prevailed turns on a simple mathematical comparison of the parties’ respective recoveries. First, although the dissent is correct that the statute “accords no discretion to the court to deny fees where it applies,” post, ¶ 34, determining “where it applies” — or identifying the substantially prevailing party — falls within the trial court’s discretion, and does not flow automatically from the calculation of the net victor. Furthermore, the use of the words “the substantially prevailing party,” 9 V.S.A. § 4007(c) (emphasis added), does not imply that *83there must be a substantially prevailing party in every case. It indicates, as the dissent points out, that there can be, at most, one substantially prevailing party. Applying the dissent’s “net victor” approach, however, would mandate an award of fees in every construction contract case that does not result in a “draw,” since the net victor would automatically qualify as the substantially prevailing party.

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text