Simone v. Morse

7ermont Superior Court
Filed 03/12/26
Caledonia Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Caledonia Unit Case No. 24-CV-03889
1126 Main Street Suite 1
St. Johnsbury VT 05819
802-748-6600
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Jeffrey Simone et al v. Amanda Morse

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (Motion: 11)
Filer: Brice Simon
Filed Date: February 03, 2026

The motion is GRANTED IN PART.

Following the court's entry of j udgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $43.32,
plaintiffs have requested their reasonable attorney's fees. Section 24 of the parties' lease
provides that if defendant defaulted on her obligations thereunder, plaintiffs "may elect to
cure such default and the cost of such action shall be added to [defendant's] financial
obligations under the Lease, including reasonable attorney's fees." Exh. 1, § 24. See also 12
V.S.A. § 4854. The court previously concluded that defendant defaulted on the lease by
failing to vacate following the lawful termination of her tenancy. Plaintiffs are accordingly
entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees.
Plaintiffs request $14,387.93 in fees, representing approximately 48 hours of legal
work by Attorney Brice Simon at the rate of $300 per hour between November 2024 and
December 2025. Defendant renews her objection any award of attorney's fees, and further
argues that if fees are awarded, they should be reduced to (i) exclude fees incurred after
May 9, 2025, when the court dismissed defendant's counterclaims because defendants were
not "successful" after that point given that they only recovered $48.32; (ii) exclude fees
spent defending the counterclaims because such claims fall outside of the scope of Section
24 of the lease; and (iii) exclude any fees where counsel's billing entries were redacted.
Accounting for these exclusions, defendant argues that the fee award should be reduced to
no more than $2,177.93.

A panel of the Vermont Supreme court recently explained the relevant framework
for evaluating an attorney's fee award:

In calculating the award of attorney's fees, the court looks to the most useful
starting point, the 'lodestar figure,' by determining the number of hours
reasonably expended on the case multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and
then adjusting that fee upward or downward based on various factors. Those
factors may include the novelty of the legal issue, the experience of the
attorney, and the results obtained in the litigation, among others.
Bourne's Inc. v. Lemelson, No. 24-AP-260, 2025 WL 1356368, at *4 (Vt. May 9, 2025)
(unpub. three-justice entry order). Whether hours were "reasonably expended" requires
exercise of "billing judgment" to determine whether certain time billed should be excluded
from the fee request as "excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary." Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1988).
Defendant does not challenge Attorney Simon's rate or argue that the time he
expended on any particular task was unreasonable. Rather, as noted above, defendant's
arguments focus on the scope of the fee provision in the parties' lease, Attorney Simon's
billing records, and the overall time spent in pursuit of a two-figure monetary judgment.
The court is not persuaded that time spent defending the counterclaims should be
excluded as a matter of course. Defense of the counterclaims is reasonably included in the
cost that plaintiffs incurred to cure defendant's default under the lease. Defendant's other
arguments, however, are more compelling. Attorney Simon's redactions make it difficult to
analyze the reasonableness of his billings. And a fee award of approximately $14,000
following a judgment of less than $50 strikes the court as excessive.
The court will accordingly exclude from the fee request the entries where redactions
prevent the court from determining the reasonableness of the fees expended. Specifically,
the court excludes entries for 9/24/25 ($60), 10/21/25 ($150), 10/24/25 ($300), 11/14/25
($240), 7/18/25 ($30), 8/7/25 ($60), 9/2/25 ($30), 9/3/25 ($30), 9/17/25 ($180), 9/18/25 ($60,
$90), 5/9/25 ($120), 5/19/25 ($150) and 9/12/24 ($210), for a total of $1,710, which reduces
plaintiffs' fee request to $12,677.93
There remains a significant disparity between the fee award and the results
obtained, as noted above. On one hand, Attorney Simon's efforts resulted in plaintiffs
regaining possession, defeating defendant's counterclaims, and obtaining a judgment that
exceeded the amount of the retained security deposit. On the other hand, defendant vacated
voluntarily after suit was filed, the counterclaims were dismissed long before trial, and a
significant amount of time and resources were subsequently expended for an ultimate
recovery of $43.42. The court concludes the modest damages obtained in this case (and
potentially available as reflected by plaintiffs' request at trial for only approximately
-

$1,500) warrants a significant reduction of the fee award. The court will accordingly award
one third of plaintiffs' 1lodestar amount (after accounting for the exclusions above), for a
total of $4,183.72, and issue an amended judgment.

Electronically signed on: 3/11/2026 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

Benjamin D. Battles
Superior Court Judge