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

1,085 chars

¶ 17. The one case cited by the dissent involving a statute identical to § 4007(c) suggests that identifying the net victor does not end the inquiry. In Bridges PBT v. Chatta, 2003 PA Super. 122, 821 A.2d 590, the court recognized that requiring an award of attorney’s fees simply because a party won a net judgment would effectively “write out the modifier ‘substantially.’” 2003 PA Super. ¶9. Because we “presume that legislative language is inserted advisedly and not intended to create surplusage,” In re South Burlington-Shelburne Highway Project, 174 Vt. 604, 606, 817 A.2d 49, 52 (2002) (mem.), we refuse to read “substantially” out of § 4007(c) by equating the “substantially prevailing party” with the party holding a net judgment. Cf. In re Marriage of Murphy, 763 N.E.2d at 938 (“We thus presume that the legislature was familiar with the construction courts had previously given to the term ‘prevail’ and opted to require instead that a party ‘substantially’ prevail to prevent application of the lower threshold for ‘prevailing’ that had been applied in other contexts.”).

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text