Allard v. Halasz ( 2017 )

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 “non-
deferential 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.
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
2