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
1,432 chars¶ 34. I can also find no ground to refuse to apply the prompt payment statute, 9 V.S.A. § 4007(c), which provides that “the substantially prevailing party in any proceeding to recover any payment within the scope of this chapter shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees.” See generally J. Hays, Prompt Payment Acts: Recent Developments and Trends, 22-SUM Construction Law 29, 30 (explaining that eighteen states have prompt payment statutes similar to Vermont’s statute). The purpose of the prompt payment act is to provide protection to contractors and subcontractors. See R.W. Sidley, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 319 F. Supp. 2d 554, 560 (W.D. Pa. 2004) (decided under virtually identical Pennsylvania prompt payment act). There is no dispute that the statute applies to this action if plaintiff comes within its specific terms. We must apply it according to its plain meaning. DJ Painting, Inc. v. Baraw Enters., 172 Vt. 239, 247, 776 A.2d 413, 420 (2001). By its terms, it is mandatory and accords no discretion to the court to deny fees where it applies. See Corley v. Rivertown, Inc., 863 So. 2d 1244, 1246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (under similar Florida statute, court must award attorney’s fees when the statute applies); John B. Conomos, Inc. v. Sun Co., 2003 PA Super. 310, ¶¶ 30-31, 831 A.2d 696 (under virtually identical Pennsylvania statute, court must award attorney’s fees when the statute applies).