Title: Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crobsibe (2002-348)178 Vt. 77; 872 A.2d 292

2005 VT 1

[Filed 14-Jan-2005]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                  2005 VT 1

                                No. 2002-348

  Fletcher Hill, Inc.	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Windsor Superior Court

  Susan Crosbie	                                 September Term, 2004

  Alan W. Cook, J.

  Matthew J. Ragaller of Boylan Associates, P.C., Springfield, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Martha M. Davis of Law Office of Martha M. Davis, Windsor, for
    Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J. (Ret.) and
            Gibson (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   This action arises out of the construction of
  a modular home by plaintiff Fletcher Hill, Inc. for defendant Susan
  Crosbie.  Fletcher Hill appeals (1) the trial court's denial of its request
  for attorney's fees, and (2) the court's determination of the rate of
  prejudgment interest.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  Crosbie entered into a construction contract with Fletcher
  Hill for construction and installation of her modular home.  The contract
  contains a "late fee" provision which states that "[a]ll outstanding
  balances over 30 days due from date of invoice will be charged 2% per month
  interest plus attorney's fees."  Disputes arose during the course of
  construction, and ultimately Crosbie refused to pay Fletcher Hill the
  amount due on the final invoice.  Fletcher Hill filed a mechanic's lien
  against Crosbie's property, and then filed suit for breach of contract. 
  Crosbie counterclaimed, alleging that Fletcher Hill breached the contract
  because it did not complete the installation in a workmanlike manner.  She
  further claimed that Fletcher Hill breached the contract by not paying its
  subcontractors, thereby subjecting her property to a lien filed by a
  subcontractor.  Indeed, after filing a contractor's lien on the property,
  the complaining subcontractor obtained a judgment for $3500 against
  Fletcher Hill and then served Crosbie with a trustee process for that
  judgment.  

       ¶  3.  At trial, the jury found that Crosbie breached the contract by
  failing to pay the final invoice and awarded Fletcher Hill $15,067.  The
  jury also found that Fletcher Hill breached the contract by failing to
  perform in a workmanlike manner and awarded Crosbie $4000 for "sums spent
  to remedy any defects or omissions."  At a subsequent hearing to determine
  attorney's fees and prejudgment interest, the trial court refused to award
  either party attorney's fees, and awarded Fletcher Hill prejudgment
  interest at the statutory rate of 12% per year from the date the suit was
  filed.  Fletcher Hill appealed.  We review the trial court's ruling on
  attorney's fees and prejudgment interest for abuse of discretion.  Young v.
  N. Terminals, Inc., 132 Vt. 125, 130,