Charles Chandler v. Rutland Herald Publishing
2016-136
Vt.Aug 23, 2016Background
- Charles Chandler (pro se) sued Rutland Herald Publishing for libel; the trial court struck the complaint under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041.
- This Court previously affirmed the order striking the complaint in a prior appeal, making that judgment final.
- After the anti-SLAPP motion was granted, the trial court awarded Rutland Herald $32,266.73 in attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party.
- Chandler appealed again, attacking both the merits of the underlying libel dismissal (previously affirmed) and the reasonableness/documentation of the fee award.
- Rutland Herald moved for appellate attorneys’ fees and sought sanctions, alleging Chandler submitted a doctored engagement letter and other misconduct; Chandler denied fraud and sought sanctions against Rutland Herald.
- The Supreme Court declined to revisit the merits (res judicata/issue preclusion), upheld the fee award, and denied both parties’ sanction motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chandler may relitigate the merits of the anti‑SLAPP dismissal | Chandler argued the strike order was incorrect and reasserted substantive claims | Rutland Herald relied on the finality of the prior appellate decision and res judicata | Court: Claims barred by prior appeal; may not be revisited |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $32,266.73 in attorney’s fees under the anti‑SLAPP statute | Chandler contended fees were undocumented, unrelated, fraudulent, and unreasonable | Rutland Herald submitted itemized billing records and counsel affidavit supporting hours and rates; anti‑SLAPP mandates fees to prevailing defendant | Court: Award affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion in lodestar calculation or acceptance of records |
| Whether purported fabricated evidence and other conduct by Chandler warrants sanctions or discovery into his finances | Chandler denied fraud and sought sanctions against Rutland Herald | Rutland Herald alleged Chandler submitted a modified engagement letter and redacted article date, asking for sanctions and discovery | Court: Conduct raised concerns but was not unequivocally deceptive in the appellate record; sanctions denied and motions for sanctions by both parties denied |
| Whether appellate attorneys’ fees should be awarded immediately by suspending appellate rules | N/A (Chandler opposed) | Rutland Herald asked the Court to use V.R.A.P. 2 to award fees now | Court: Declined to suspend rules; awarded-appellate-fee claims must be pursued in superior court under V.R.A.P. 39 |
Key Cases Cited
- L’Esperance v. Benware, 175 Vt. 292 (2003) (lodestar method and trial court’s wide discretion in attorney fee awards)
- Whippie v. O’Connor, 190 Vt. 600 (2011) (issues decided in first appeal are not revisited in subsequent appeals)
- Lamb v. Geovjian, 165 Vt. 375 (1996) (res judicata bars relitigation of matters raised or that should have been raised previously)