Allard v. Halasz, 687-11-16 Wncv (Teachout, J., Apr. 14, 2017)

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Washington Unit Docket No. 687-11-16 Wncv

WILLIAM ALLARD on appeal from 

Plaintiff–Appellee

Small Claims

v. Docket No. 186-7-16 Wnsc

ANNETTE HALASZ

Defendant–Appellant

DECISION ON APPEAL

Defendant–Appellant Annette Halasz has appealed from a small claims judgment in favor 

of her contractor, Plaintiff–Appellee William Allard. The small claims court awarded him a 

judgment for the amount of unpaid “general contractor” charges related to a renovation project 

that Ms. Halasz had refused to pay. The court found in her favor with regard to charges related 

to a door that she also refused to pay but Mr. Allard did not cross-appeal so that ruling is not 

contested on appeal.1

On appeal, Ms. Halasz asserts that there was no evidence of any agreement for the 

general contractor charges (10% of subcontractor expenses) before the small claims court. She 

claims that the court merely found that such a charge would have been reasonable and then 

assessed it. Ms. Halasz further asserts that such a charge is not standard practice, there was no 

contract, and the charge was unreasonable.

An appeal from a small claims judgment is heard and decided “based on the record made 

in the small claims court.” 12 V.S.A. § 5538. The “appeal is limited to questions of law.” 

V.R.S.C.P. 10(d). If the small claims court has applied the correct law, this court will affirm its 

“conclusions if they are reasonably supported by the findings.” Maciejko v. Lunenburg Fire 

Dist. No. 2, 171 Vt. 542, 543 (2000) (mem.). In turn, the findings of fact must be supported by 

the evidence, Brandon v. Richmond, 144 Vt. 496, 498 (1984), and such findings “must be 

construed, where possible, to support the judgment,” Kopelman v. Schwag, 145 Vt. 212, 214 

(1984). The court’s review of the small claims court’s legal conclusions, however, is “nondeferential and plenary.” Maciejko, 171 Vt. at 543 (quoting N.A.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Pafundi, 

169 Vt. 437, 439 (1999)).

The court has listened to the recording of the small claims hearing and reviewed the 

entire record of this case. The small claims court ruled orally at the end of the hearing. The 

judge clearly found that the parties in fact agreed to the general contractor charge at the inception 

of their relationship, though there was not a written agreement so stating. She explained that an 

oral agreement is enforceable, which is correct. The finding that there was an agreement was 

1 Although Mr. Allard mentioned this issue in his reply memorandum, he did not properly preserve the issue by 

filing his own cross appeal.
2

amply supported by extensive testimony to that effect from Mr. Allard. Testimony is evidence

on which findings of fact may be based. 

While the court also found that the charge was a reasonable practice, presumably based 

on Mr. Allard’s testimony that it is usual and customary, it did not find Ms. Halasz liable merely 

because the fee was reasonable. It expressly found a contract. To the extent that the small 

claims court found Mr. Allard credible on this issue rather than Ms. Halasz, credibility 

assessments are reserved for the finder of fact, the small claims judge in this instance. 

There is no legal error.

ORDER

The judgment of the small claims court is affirmed.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of April 2017.

_____________________________

Mary Miles Teachout

Superior Judge