In re Tucker

Annotate this Case
In re Tucker  (97-018); 167 Vt. 580; 703 A.2d 1128

[Filed 15-Oct-1997]


                          ENTRY ORDER

                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-018

                        OCTOBER TERM, 1997


In re Guardianship of Alda Tucker     }   APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }     Franklin Superior Court
                                      }
                                      }     DOCKET NO. S147-96 Fc


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       In this case a social worker employed by hospital filed a petition in
  probate court to appoint a guardian for a hospital patient.  The petition
  was granted and the hospital sought reimbursement for its legal fees from
  the patient's guardian.  The probate court ordered the guardian to
  reimburse the hospital, but the superior court reversed the order and
  denied attorney's fees.  This appeal followed.

       The superior court's order denying attorney's fees to the petitioner
  is affirmed for the reason that such fees are not allowed by statute or
  contract, and no exception to the American rule applies.  Albright v. Fish,
  139 Vt. 585, 422 A.2d 250 (1980); see also State v. Whitingham Sch. Bd.,
  140 Vt 405, 438 A.2d 394 (1981).



                              BY THE COURT:



                               _______________________________________
                               John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

                              _______________________________________
                              James L. Morse, Associate Justice
     
                              _______________________________________
                              Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

                              _______________________________________
                              Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.