design fee. Defendant argues that the special master erred in allowing plaintiffs to recover the design fees, for two reasons: (1) that defendant did not violate the architectural licensing statute because 26 YS.A. § 124(a)(5)(A) exempts design services for detached single-family dwellings from the provisions of the statute, and (2) that the licensing statute does not authorize the recovery of design fees as a penalty for violation. We address only the second issue, which is dispositive of the appeal. For several reasons, we do not permit recovery of design fees for a violation of the architectural licensing statute, 26 YS.A. § 122(a). First, the licensing statute itself does not authorize recovery of fees. See In re Lake Providence Properties, Inc., 168 B.R. 876, 881 (W.D.N.C. 1994) (<HOLDING>). The Vermont architectural licensing statute
holding failure to comply with  851b was harmless error in part because defendant did not comply with  851c procedures for challenging prior convictions holding that termination of parental rights may be supported by past neglect in addition to failure to sub stantially comply with performance agreement holding that court would not impose penalties for failure to comply with licensing requirements in addition to those specifically set out in statute holding that absent extraordinary circumstances a failure to comply with the statute requires a dismissal with prejudice holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits