American rule in Vermont

2025DJ Painting, Inc. v. Baraw Enters., Inc., 172 Vt. 239, 246 (2001).

2025DJ Painting, Inc. v. Baraw Enters., Inc., 172 Vt. 239, 246 (2001).

2011We recognized an equitable exception to the American Rule rule in In re Gadhue, 149 Vt. 322, 328-30 (1987).

2011We recognized an equitable exception to the American Rule rule in In re Gadhue, 149 Vt. 322, 328-30 (1987).

2011Courts can deviate from the American rule “but ‘only in exceptional cases and for dominating reasons of justice.’” See l\/lonahan v. Gl\/IAC Mortgage Corp., 2005 VT 110 , 11 76, 179 Vt. 167 (quoting Sprague v. ’l`iconic Nat’l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 167 (1939)).

2011Courts can deviate from the American rule “but ‘only in exceptional cases and for dominating reasons of justice.’” See l\/lonahan v. Gl\/IAC Mortgage Corp., 2005 VT 110 , 11 76, 179 Vt. 167 (quoting Sprague v. ’l`iconic Nat’l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 167 (1939)).

2017Bd. , 140 Vt. 405 , 407, 438 A.2d 394 , 396 (1981) ( "Vermont follows the 'American' rule on litigation expenses, which requires each party to bear his [or her] general litigation expenses.").

2017Bd. , 140 Vt. 405 , 407, 438 A.2d 394 , 396 (1981) ( "Vermont follows the 'American' rule on litigation expenses, which requires each party to bear his [or her] general litigation expenses.").

2013See, e.g., Knappmiller v. Bove, 2012 VT 38, ¶ 5 (mem.) (reaffirming exception to general rule that parties bear their own attorney’s fees and costs where “the wrongful act of one person” has made it necessary for another to incur litigation expenses (quoting Albright v. Fish, 138 Vt. 585, 591 (1980)); Agency of Natural Res. v. Lyndonville Savings Bank & Trust Co., 174 Vt. 498, 501 , 811 A.2d 1232, 1236 (2002) (mem.) (recognizing that courts have inherent authority, to be exercised “with cautious restraint,” to award attorney’s fees “in those exceptional cases where justice demands”); In re Gad

1997Albright v. Fish, 138 Vt. 585 , 422 A.2d 250 (1980); see also State v. Whitingham Sch.

2014See id. 1 Contrary to Attorney Edward’s argument, an attorney’s duty of zealous representation does not excuse deviation from the responsibilities established by Rule 11, which ensure that representations to the Court in support of judicial relief are based on accurate information “formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.” 4 WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED : The Court GRANTS Defendants’ amended motion to vacate and VACATES the September 17, 2013 foreclosure judgment and the July 2, 2013 default judgment.

2014See id. 1 Contrary to Attorney Edward’s argument, an attorney’s duty of zealous representation does not excuse deviation from the responsibilities established by Rule 11, which ensure that representations to the Court in support of judicial relief are based on accurate information “formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.” 4 WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED : The Court GRANTS Defendants’ amended motion to vacate and VACATES the September 17, 2013 foreclosure judgment and the July 2, 2013 default judgment.

1994See Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Starling, 143 Vt. 527, 535 , 470 A.2d 1157, 1162 (1983) (Vermont follows “American” rule, which requires each party to bear its own costs and attorney fees).

1994See Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Starling, 143 Vt. 527, 535 , 470 A.2d 1157, 1162 (1983) (Vermont follows “American” rule, which requires each party to bear its own costs and attorney fees).

2017We have consistently found that "[o]ur standard for departing from [the American Rule] is demanding." Knappmiller v. Bove , 2012 VT 38 , ¶ 4, 191 Vt. 629 , 48 A.3d 607 (mem.).

2017We have consistently found that "[o]ur standard for departing from [the American Rule] is demanding." Knappmiller v. Bove , 2012 VT 38 , ¶ 4, 191 Vt. 629 , 48 A.3d 607 (mem.).

2008Powell, Powell on Real Property § 62.05, at 62-47 (stating that the modern trend "favor[s] the view that a spite fence that serves no useful or beneficial purpose is unlawful," and that an aggrieved party may file an action for damages and abatement); King, 509 P.2d at 786 ("Under the modern American rule,... one may not erect a structure for the sole purpose of annoying his neighbor.").

2008Powell, Powell on Real Property § 62.05, at 62-47 (stating that the modern trend “favor[s] the view that a spite fence that serves no useful or beneficial purpose is unlawful,” and that an aggrieved party may file an action for damages and abatement); King, 509 P.2d at 786 (“Under the modern American rule,... one may not erect a structure for the sole purpose of annoying his neighbor.”).

2008Claims Svcs., Inc., 2008 VT 8, ¶ 16 (citing Harsch Props., Inc. v. Nicholas, 2007 VT 70 , ¶ 11), or in the rare cases in which an appellant can demonstrate bad faith or other conduct sufficient to create an exception to the American rule.

2008Claims Svcs., Inc., 2008 VT 8, ¶ 16 (citing Harsch Props., Inc. v. Nicholas, 2007 VT 70 , ¶ 11), or in the rare cases in which an appellant can demonstrate bad faith or other conduct sufficient to create an exception to the American rule.

1986Furthermore, “[a]n award of attorney’s fees is in derogation of the common law, and statutes allowing for the award of such fees should be strictly construed.” B & L Motors, Inc. v. Bignotti, 427 So. 2d 1070, 1074 (Fla. Dist.