Title: Gallagher v. Leary

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Gallagher v. Leary  (95-152); 164 Vt 633; 674 A.2d 787

[Filed 08-Jan-1996]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-152

                            NOVEMBER TERM, 1995


John and Tina Gallagher              }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Chittenden Superior Court
                                     }
Nancy Leary                          }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S994-93CnC


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Defendant appeals from a superior court order approving a special
  master's report and awarding judgment to plaintiffs in the amount of
  $3,168.07 for fees previously paid to defendant for her services as a
  residential designer.  We reverse.

       In 1992, plaintiffs read about defendant as an "architectural and
  interior designer" in the Burlington Free Press and contracted with her for
  her services in planning a two-story addition to their 1790 federal-style
  house.  The contractor hired to do the building discovered that the
  construction drawings produced by defendant were based upon a mistaken
  measurement.  The roofline of the addition was two and a half feet higher
  than that of the existing roofline, rather than the six inches as shown in
  the schematic plans.  To correct the problem, defendant drew alternative
  plans, which the contractor followed.  The alternative plans established a
  roofline for the addition in keeping with plaintiff's specifications.  The
  contractor's bill for the remedial work was $1,848.  Plaintiffs sued
  defendant for breach of contract and professional malpractice, based on
  defendant's errors in measurement in drawing the blueprints.  The report of
  the special master, adopted by the superior court, recommended that
  defendant pay plaintiffs $1,848.00 for costs due to contractor's remedial
  work, and that defendant return the design fee of $3,168.07 paid by
  plaintiffs.  Defendant appeals only the portion of the judgment requiring
  her to return the design fee.

       Defendant argues that the special master erred in allowing plaintiffs
  to recover the design fees, for two reasons: (1) that defendant did not
  violate the architectural licensing statute because 26 V.S.A. §
  124(a)(5)(A) exempts design services for detached single-family dwellings
  from the provisions of the statute, and (2) that the licensing statute does
  not authorize the recovery of design fees as a penalty for violation.  We
  address only the second issue, which is dispositive of the appeal.

       For several reasons, we do not permit recovery of design fees for a
  violation of the 

    

  architectural licensing statute, 26 V.S.A. § 122(a).  First, the
  licensing statute itself does not authorize recovery of fees.  See In re
  Lake Providence Properties, Inc.,