Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Citation
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Parent Document
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2017-04-14
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
- Alden v. Richardson (2017)
Full Text
446 charsWhile the court did not make specific findings on each item of claimed damages, it clearly found Mr. Richardson and his contractor more credible with respect to each of the above items than the testimony provided by Ms. Nash and her mother-in-law. Determining the credibility of witnesses when competing testimony is given is clearly the role of the finder of fact, who was the small claims judge. Ms. Alden raises the following issues on appeal.