Anderson v. Johnson
19 A.3d 86
Vt.2011Background
- Plaintiffs purchased a Barre, Vermont home in April 2005 and sued for negligent misrepresentation and CFA violations.
- They alleged misrepresentations about lot size due to seller’s subdivision and outdated documents provided by BCK.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing negligent misrepresentation against the seller and precluding compensatory damages based on the claimed value difference.
- Court allowed other CFA remedies; trial proceeded on damages, with plaintiffs seeking $35,000 in damages and return of BCK’s commission.
- Jury found reliance and deceptive conduct but awarded no damages or restitution, and no relief of any kind.
- The trial court awarded plaintiffs attorney’s fees under CFA. On appeal, the issue became whether fees were proper when no relief was awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May CFA attorney's fees be awarded when the jury awarded no relief? | Anderson argues fees are mandatory to enforce CFA and promote public policy. | BCK argues fees require some relief or injury; no damages or other relief were awarded. | Fees reversed; no relief or injury supported fee award. |
| Whether plaintiffs prevailed on a cognizable CFA remedy warranting fees despite zero damages | Anderson contends CFA aims to deter misconduct and vindicate rights; fees serve that purpose. | BCK contends no remedy or public-interest relief occurred to justify fees. | Not warranted; no significant legal relief or public interest shown. |
| Whether the decision to award fees could be sustained under CFA public-policy objectives | Anderson emphasizes broad CFA goals and deterrence. | BCK asserts absence of harm or remedy undermines fee award. | Rejected; remedy absence defeats fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- L'Esperance v. Benware, 175 Vt. 292 (2003 VT 43) (fee-shifting to promote enforcement, even without damages)
- Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Starling, 470 A.2d 1162 (Vt. 1983) (remedies to encourage fairness and integrity in commerce)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (nominal damages do not bar fee recovery where substantial relief achieved)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (evokes the 'results obtained' factor for attorney’s fees)
- Peabody v. P.J.'s Auto Village, Inc., 153 Vt. 55 (1989) (damages and fees where misrepresentation affected expectations)
- Vastano v. Killington Valley Real Estate, 2010 VT 12 (2010 VT 12) (fee awards may reflect broader acts beyond direct damages)