Anderson v. Johnson, 2011 VT 17 (mem.)

Defendant broker appeals from a jury verdict finding it liable for violation of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act but awarding no compensatory damages or other relief, as well as from an order granting attorney’s fees to plaintiff homebuyers. Defendant contends that the court erred in awarding attorney’s fees. We conclude that the award of attorney’s fees was erroneous in this case, where the verdict granted plaintiffs no relief, vindicated no significant legal rights, and advanced no broader policy interests.

The jury found that plaintiffs had reasonably relied on material representations by Defendant, that the representations were likely to be deceptive or misleading to the average reasonable consumer, and that they had influenced plaintiffs’ decision to enter into the contract of sale. The jury also found, however, that plaintiffs had suffered no damages from their entry into the contract, and declined to award any damages for lost value or restitution. The trial court ruled that an award of attorney’s fees is mandatory when a violation of the CFA has been found, even in the absence of actual damages. The court approved an award for $54,310.73, plus costs of $1871.80.

Despite the technical statutory violation, plaintiffs were ultimately induced to purchase nothing less than, or different from, what they thought that they were purchasing. Where no damages or other relief is awarded, or merely nominal damages are awarded, the purpose of a statutory fee-shifting provision may be served where the plaintiff has prevailed on a significant legal issue or accomplished some broader “public purpose” underlying the legislation.

The case at bar fits none of these categories. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant was careless in providing confusing materials relating to the property’s boundaries, but their suit exposed no “lawless” or unscrupulous misconduct, much less any broader pattern of socially irresponsible behavior likely to deceive or mislead the consumer. The record at most shows that Defendant committed a mistake that was later corrected and resulted in no harm to plaintiffs. Nothing in the case suggests that the verdict will serve to deter future misconduct, educate consumers or vendors, or promote a more honest and open marketplace. Plaintiffs’ suit, in short, yielded no relief to plaintiffs, vindicated no significant legal rights, and advanced no broader public goals. That portion of the judgment awarding plaintiffs attorney’s fees is reversed.