Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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)

Full Text

932 chars
Dooley, J.,
¶ 21. dissenting. Noting that the jury could have awarded more relief to defendant than it did, the trial court apparently felt that it would do rough justice by refusing to award attorney’s fees to either party and by reducing plaintiff’s interest recovery rate by half. If the attorney’s fees issue involved only a matter of discretion in the trial court, I would affirm for the reasons stated by the trial judge and the majority. It is not, however, a matter solely of discretion, and the decision is contrary to the clear law governing this issue. Similarly, the trial court’s interest rate ruling is not sustainable on the rationale stated by the trial court or the majority, but if a further record is made, might be sustained on a different basis. Accordingly, I would reverse the attorney’s fees denial and remand the interest rate issue. I dissent from the majority’s decision to uphold the trial court rulings.