# 04-14-00811-CV I N THE C OURT OF A PPEALS F OURTH D ISTRICT S AN A NTONIO

RANDY COLEMAN AND JIM COLEMAN COMPANY, Appellants

V. RALPH DEAN, Appellee On Appeal from Cause No. 11-04-49987-CV In the 79 Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

th The Hon. Richard C. Terrell, Presiding Judge 

## APPELLEE’S BRIEF

Charles C. Webb, Jr. Parker S. Webb W EBB C ASON , PC 710 North Mesquite Street Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-2312 TEL : 361.887.1031 FAX : 361.887.0903 EMAIL : charlie@wcctxlaw.com EMAIL : parker@wcctxlaw.com Frank Weathered State Bar No. 20998600 D UNN , W EATHERED , C OFFEY , R IVERA & K ASPERITIS , P.C. 611 South Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 TEL : 361.883.1594 FAX : 361.883.1599 EMAIL : frank@weatheredlaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ACCEPTED 04-14-00811-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/30/2015 10:41:29 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKT A B L E O F C O N T E N T S P A G E

In de x o f Aut ho rit ie s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii i
St at eme nt of t he Cas e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi i
St at eme nt Reg ard in g Ora l Arg um en t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi i
Is su es Pres en te d.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi ii
St at eme nt of F act s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Su mma ry of t he Argu men t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Arg um en t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
I. Su ffi ci en cy of t he Evi de nc e to Su pp or t Li ab il it y u nd er t he DTPA for Act ua l an d Ad di ti on al Damag es
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. In tro du ct io n.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. St an da rd of R ev ie w.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Lau nd ry Lis t Vi ol at io ns
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. So ur ce, s po ns or sh ip , app ro va l . . . ...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Ch arac te ris ti cs , in gr ed ie nt s, u se s, b en efi ts , or q ua nt it ie s .
. . . . . . . . . 14
3. Ri gh ts , remed ie s, o r ob li ga ti on s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Fai lu re t o d is cl os e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Ji m Co le man Co mp an y’ s R el at io ns hi p t o t he Tran sa ct io n was Su ffi ci en t t o Im po se DTPA Liab il it y o n t ha t Def en da nt

. . . . . . . . . . . 15
D. The Vio la ti on s wer e a Pro du ci ng Cau se of Eco no mi c Dama ge s.
. . . . . . 17

iiE. App el la nt s Kn owi ng ly Eng ag ed in DTPA Viol at io ns
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

II. Att or ne y F ees
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
III. The Ju dg men t d oe s n ot Award Treb le (or Dou bl e) Re co ve ry
. . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Rel ie f Req ue st ed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
RULE 9.4 (i) (3 ) CERTIFI CATION.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

iiiI N D E X O F A U T H O R I T I E S P A G E

C A S E S
Bas ic Ener

gy Se rv ., Inc . v. D-S-B Pr op er ti es , Inc ., 36 7 S .W.3d 25 4, 2 70 (Tex . App .—Ty le r 20 11 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Cen tu ry 21 Real Est at e Co rp . v. Homet ow n Rea l Es ta te Co ., 89 0 S .W.2d 11 8, 1 28 (Tex . App .—Tex ark an a 1 99 4, wri t d en ie d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Ci ty of Kel le r v. Wi ls on , 16 8 S .W.3d 80 2, 8 27 (Tex . 20 05 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8
Co x v. S ta te , 44 8 S .W.3d 49 7, 5 05 (Tex . App .—Ama ril lo 20 14 , pet . pen di ng ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Cu ll in s v. Fo st er

, 17 1 S .W.3d 52 1, 5 35 -3 6 (Te x. Ap p.— Hou st on [14 Dis t.] 2 00 5, p et . den ie d)

. . . 20 th
For d Mo to r C o. v. Le de sma , 24 2 S .W.3d 32 , 46 (Tex . 20 07 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
For t Wo rt h El eva to rs v. Rus se ll , 70 S.W.2d 39 7, 4 06 (Tex . 19 34 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Gre en Int ’l, In c. v. So li s, 95 1 S .W.2d 38 4, 3 89 (Tex . 19 97 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Hed le y Feed lo t, In c. v. Wea th er ly Tru st , 85 5 S .W.2d 82 6, 8 37 (Tex . App .—Ama ril lo 19 93 , pet . den ie d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hen ne ss ey v. Va ng ua rd

Ins . Co., 89 5 S .W.2d 79 4, 8 02 -0 3 (Te x. Ap p.— Amari ll o 1 99 5, wri t d en ie d)

. . . . . . 6, 1 3, 1 5
Hru sk a v . Fir st St at e Ban k, 74 7 S .W.2d 78 3, 7 85 (Tex . 19 88 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

ivIn re J

oh ns on , 34 0 S .W.3d 76 9, 7 75 (Tex . App .—Sa n An to ni o 2 01 1, p et . den ie d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 7
K.C. Roo fi ng Co ., Inc . v. Abu nd is , 94 0 S .W.2d 37 5, 3 77 (Tex . App .—Sa n An to ni o 1 99 7, wri t d en ie d)

. . . . . . . . . . . 18
Mel od y Home s Mf

g. Co . v. Bar

ne s, 74 1 S .W.2d 34 9, 3 51 (Tex . 19 87 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Si eg le r v. Wi ll ia ms, 65 8 S .W.2d 23 6, 2 40 -4 1 (Te x. Ap p.— Hou st on [1 Dis t.] 1 98 3, n o wri t).

. . . . . . 18 s t
Smi th v. Herc o, In c., 90 0 S .W.2d 85 2, 8 59 (Tex . App .—Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 95 , writ de ni ed ).

. . . . . . . . 15 Sp il lma n v . Sel

f S er ve Fi

xt ur e Co ., Inc ., 69 3 S .W.2d 65 6 (Te x. Ap p.— Dall as 19 85 , writ ref’d n.r.e .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
To dd v. Perr y Home s, 15 6 S .W.3d 91 9, 9 22 (Tex . App .—Dal la s 2 00 5, n o p et .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
To ny Gul lo Mot or s I, L.P. v. Ch ap a, 21 2 S .W.3d 29 9, 3 11 (Tex . 20 06 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 , 21
Tr ea su re Cit

y v. S tr an ge , 62 0 S .W.2d 81 1, 8 14 (Tex . Civ . App .—Dal la s 1 98 1, n o wri t).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
U.S. Fir e In s. Co . v. Mil la rd , 84 7 S .W.2d 66 8, 6 72 (Tex . App .—Ho us to n [1 Dis t.] 1 99 3, n o wri t).

. . . . . . . 6, 1 5 s t

S T A T U T E S
T E X

. B U S

. & C O M M

. C O D E § 17 .45 (9 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
T E X

. B U S

. & C O M M

. C O D E § 17 .46 (b )(2 , 3, 5, 7, 12 , 24 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
T E X

. B U S

. & C O M M

. C O D E § 17 .50 (a)( 1) (A, B).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7

vT E X

. B U S

. & C O M M

. C O D E § 1 7.5 0( b) (1 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

R U L E S
T E X

. R. C IV

. P. 32 4( b) (2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

viS T A T E M E N T O F T H E C A S E

Thi s is a DTPA cas e in vo lv in g a co nc ret e mo du la r ho me th at was ne ve r de li ve red as pr om is ed , de sp it e co ns um er Ral ph Dean ’s do wn pa ym en t of mo re th an ha lf th e pu rch as e pr ic e. CR 29 3. Th e t ria l co ur t ren de red a po st -an swe r de fau lt 1 ju dg men t ag ai ns t de fen da nt Ran dy Co le man ; an in st ru ct ed ve rd ic t ag ai ns t de fen da nt
Liv in g Mo du la r; an d a ju dg men t ba se d on a ju ry ve rd ic t ag ai ns t de f e n d a n t Ji m Co le man Co mp an y. 4 RR 12 -1 3, 22 -2 4, 31 , 35 -3 6; CR 37 5. Liv in g Mo du la r ha s no t
ap pe al ed ; Ran dy Co le man ha s br ou gh t a res tri ct ed ap pe al ; an d Ji m Co le man C o m p a n y ha s fil ed an or di na ry ap pe al

. CR 45 5, 45 9. Ran dy Co le man an d J i m Co le man Co mp an y ha ve fil ed se pa rat e br ie fs , bu t th ei r is su es are the sa me. The refo re, pl ai nt iff /a pp el le e Ral ph Dean is res po nd in g to bo th ap pe al s wit h on e br ie f. All th e
pa rti es wil l be refe rred to he rei n in di vi du al l y by na me (Ran dy Co le man an d Ji m Co le man Co mp an y wi ll als o s om et im es be co ll ect iv el y re ferr ed to as Ap pe ll an ts ).

S T A T E M E N T R E G A R D I N G O R A L A R G U M E N T App el la nt s ha ve req ue st ed or al arg um en t bu t ha ve no t ex pl ai ne d why

. Dean

su bm it s or al arg um en t is un ne ces sa ry be cau se th e r e c o r d is sh or t an d si mp le , an d
ap pl ic ab le la w is well se tt le d. Dean is th eref or e req ue st in g or al ar gu men t on ly
“co nd it io na ll y” in th e ev en t t he Co ur t g ran ts App el la nt s’ req ue st

.
Appellee shall cite t h e Clerk’s Record as “CR,” the Reporter ’s Record as “RR,” and 1 Plaintiff’s Exhibits as “PX.” Ther e ar e no def ense e xhibits. viiI S S U E S P R E S E N T E D

In ad di ti on to th e is su es st at ed in App el la nt s ’ br ie fs , Dean pr es en ts th e fo ll owi ng ad di ti on al is su es : 1. Ha v e th e App el la nt s waiv ed th ei r fact ua l su ffi ci en cy ch al le ng es by
fai li ng to in cl ud e th e p oi nt in a mo ti on for ne w tri al ?
2. Has Ji m Co le man Co mp an y waiv ed it s se gr eg at io n arg um en t reg ard in g
at to rn ey ’s fees by fai li ng to ob je ct to th e te st im on y on at to rn ey ’s fees or to th e ch arg e of th e co ur t?
3. Has Ji m Co le man Co mp an y w a i v ed it s ch al le ng e to th e qu al it y of th e

ev id en ce on at to rn ey ’s fees by fai li ng to ob je ct to th e te st im on y on t h a t g r o un d or
ot he rwis e rai se th e is su e in th e tr ia l co ur t?

viiiS T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S

Whi le at a hu nt in g sh ow i n H o u s t o n , Dean an d hi s wife Ali sa , wh o res id e in
San di a, Tex as , pa ss ed a b oo th mar ke ti ng co nc ret e mo du la r ho mes
. 3 RR 16

. The
bo ot h ha d a Li v i n g Mo du la r si gn , bu t Ran dy Co le man , who was pr es en t, ha nd ed
Dean a Ji m Co le man Co mp an y bu si ne ss card wit h Ran dy ’s na me on it an d to ld Dean
he was an ex ecu ti ve wit h Ji m Co le man Co mp an y. PX-1 ; 3 RR 19 - 20 , 22 , 69 -7 0. Als o
pr es en t were Way ne Co le man , Ran dy ’s br o t h e r, who li ke wis e sa id he was an

ex ecu ti ve wit h J im Co le man Co mp an y, an d Bob Oak s, who app eare d to be he lp in g th e Co le man bro th ers wit h s al es . 3 RR 16 -2 1.
Dean le arn ed th at th e ho mes were man uf act ur ed in M e x i co , th en tru ck ed to
th ei r in te nd ed si te s. 3 RR 22

. Afte r vi si ti ng wit h Ran dy an d Wayn e Co le man , Dean

ret ur ne d ho me an d, fo ll owi ng di sc us si on s wit h Ali sa , ev en tu al ly de ci de d t o l o ok
fu rth er in to pu rch as in g a mo du la r ho me to pl ace on so me recr eat io na l pr op ert y th ey

own ne ar Pre mo nt , Texa s. 3 RR 1 6- 17

. Dean ret ur ne d to Hou st on on se ve ral oc cas io ns to ne go ti at e th e pu rch as e of a

mo du la r ho me. 3 RR 2 2- 24 , 30 -3 1, 33 , 38 , 41 -4 3, 4 5- 46 , 71 , 88

. Se e PX-3 , 4 (s al es br oc hu res ). Each ti me, he met wit h Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo y e e s a t Ji m Co le man Co mp an y faci li ti es
. Id

. The se faci li ti es were lo cat ed on Ji m Co le man Co mp an y pre mi se s and co nt ai ne d Ji m Co le man Co mp an y of fic es
. Id

. Ji m Col ema n

1Co mp an y emp lo ye es in cl ud ed Ran dy Co le man , who sa id he was a vi ce-p res id en t an d

pa rt own er of Ji m Co le ma n Co mp an y; Way ne Co le man , R an dy ’s br ot he r who al so

sa id he was an ex ecu ti ve (v ic e-p res id en t) wit h Ji m Co le man Co mp an y; an d Bo b
Oak s. 3 RR 21 , 26 , 40 -4 1, 55 -5 7, 82 , 84 ; PX-4

. Se e PX-1 0 (Ji m Col ema n Co mp an y web si te co nf

irm in g Ran dy Co le man ’s posi tio n an d re spon sib il it ie s wit h Ji m Co le man Co mp an y)

. Ran dy Co le man to ld Dean he mai nt ai ne d an of fic e at th es e faci li ti es
. 3 RR 26 , 40

. Se e PX-1 (b us in es s card ). Oak s was reac ha bl e th ro ug h th e Ji m Co le man Co mp an y s wit ch bo ard

. Dur in g th e on -g oi ng ne go ti at io ns , th e Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye es
rep res en te d to Dean th at Ji m Co le man Co mp an y co ul d man uf act ur e an d se ll awn in gs fo r th e mo du la r h o m e
. 3 RR 41 -4 2. Se e PX 2 (b ro ch ur e co nt ai ni ng pi ct ur es of

awn in gs ). Thi s was de sc rib ed as a “mo du la r op ti on .” Id

. Ji m Co le man Co mp an y
emp lo ye es , in cl ud in g Ran dy Co le man , of fere d to Dean to mak e su ch awn in gs
. 3 RR
41 -4 2.
At no ti me, di d an yo ne te ll Dean th ere was no affi li at io n be twee n Ji m Co le man C o m p a n y a nd Liv in g Mo du la r. 3 RR 42

. To th e co nt rary , Ji m Co le man Co mp an y

cau se d Dean to be li ev e th at Liv in g Mo du la r was affi li at ed wi t h a n d f in an ci al ly

su pp or te d by Ji m Co le man Co mp an y an d th at he wou ld es se nt ia ll y be pu rch as in g th e

mo du la r ho me fr om Ji m Co le man Co mp an y. 3 RR 4 2, 4 6- 47 , 56 -5 8, 7 8, 8 5- 90

.

2Bas ed up on th e co nf us io n crea te d an d rep res en ta ti on s mad e reg ard in g th e

mo du la r ho me, to ge th er wit h th e fai lu re to di sc lo se th e la c k o f an y rel at io ns hi p be twee n Ji m Co le man C o m p a n y an d Liv in g Mo du la r, Dean pu rch as ed a co nc ret e

mo du la r ho me fo r $6 3,7 00 in Octo be r 20 09 , mak in g a do wn pa ym en t of $3 0,0 00 fo r de li ve ry by Tha nk sg iv in g 20 09

. PX-6 (p ur ch as e or de r), 7 (in it ia l de po si t). Alt ho ug h
“Liv in g Mo du la r” was pr in te d on th e pu rch as e or de r, it was co mp le te d by Bo b Oak s,

a Ji m C o le man Co mp an y emp lo ye e wit h an of fic e at Ji m Co le man Co mp an y in
Hou s to n. PX-6 ; 3 RR 46

. Dean was ev en gi ve n a Ji m Co le man Co mp an y pe n wit h
whi ch to si gn t h e p u rch as e or de r. 3 RR 58

. A co up le of week s la te r, Dean pa id an ad di ti on al $3 ,00 0 at Ran dy Co le man ’s req ue st

. PX-8

. He al so in cu rred ou t-o f-p oc ke t

ex pe ns es of $ 14 ,65 9.3 8. PX-9

. It was al so rep res en te d to Dean by Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye es th at a Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye e, at Ran dy Co le man ’s di rect io n, co u l d c u st om de si gn Dean ’s mo du la r ho me us in g a Ji m C o l ema n Co mp an y co mp ut er pr og ram lo cat ed at Ji m Co le man Co mp an y’ s pl an t. 3 RR 34 , 4 2- 43 . F ol lo win g th e p ur ch as e

or de r, th e de si gn fo r th e mo du la r ho me pu rch as ed by Dean was in fact cu st om iz ed by

a Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye e us in g a J i m Co le man Co mp an y co mp ut er
pr og ram at t he Ji m Co le man Co mp an y p la nt . 3 RR 77 , 86 -8 7; PX-5

.

3The mo du la r ho me w a s n e v e r de li ve red

. 3 RR 36 -3 7, 49 , 53 -5 4. Des pi te

rep eat ed at te mp ts by Dean to as cert ai n th e st at us of hi s pu rch as e or de r, fo ll owe d by

at te mp ts to le arn why th e ho me was ne ve r de li ve red , Dean was ne ve r gi ve n a st rai gh t

an swe r. Eve nt ua ll y, Ran dy Co le man , Way ne Co le man , an d Bo b Oak s qu it ret ur ni ng
Dean ’s cal ls . 3 RR 36 -3 7, 4 9, 5 3- 54

. On th e fir st mo rn in g of tri al , J im Co le man Co mp an y’ s at to rn ey su gg es te d to
th e ju ry for th e fi rs t t im e th at de li ve ry of t he ho me was di sr up te d b y d ru g c art el s i n
Mex ic o. 2 RR 65

. No ev id en ce was ev er of fere d to su pp or t th is cl ai m, an d no on e ha d

ev er g iv en Dean th at as a reas on
. 3 RR 37

. In fact , Dean sp eci fic al ly ask ed whet he r th ere was ris k en ta il ed in th e ho me be in g man uf act ur ed in Mex ic o an d he was as su red
th ere was no t. Id

. If he ha d be en to ld ot he rwis e, he wou ld no t ha ve pu rch as ed th e ho me. 3 RR 4 1.
S U M M A R Y O F T H E A R G U M E N T
The ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e Ju ry ’s fin di ng s of DTPA li ab il it y an d
da mag es as to Ji m Co le man Co mp an y (a nd th e tr ia l co ur t’s co rres po nd in g fi nd in gs
ag ai ns t Ran dy Co le man ). Amo ng ot he r vi ol at io ns , bo th App el la nt s, in di vi du al ly an d
th ro ug h vi ce-p rin ci pa ls , kn owi ng ly vi ol at ed th e DTPA by cau si ng co nf us io n as to ,

an d mi sr ep res en ti ng , th e so ur ce, sp on so rs hi p, ap pr ov al , cert ifi cat io n, affi li at io n,

co nn ect io n, an d st at us of Liv in g Mo du la r an d th e mo du la r ho me in qu es ti on , as well

4as Liv in g Mo du la r’s an d th e mo du la r hom e’s as so ci at io n wit h, or cert ifi cat io n by , Ji m

Co le man Co mp an y. Th is was a pro du ci ng cau se of bo th be ne fit -o f-t he -b arg ai n a nd

ou t-o f-p oc ke t da mag es i n cu rred by Dean

. The DTPA cl ai ms were di st in ct an d

s e p a r a te fro m an y br each of co nt ract cl ai ms , an d th e DTPA vi ol at io ns w e r e in de pe nd en t o f an y c on tra ct ua l re la ti on sh ip be twee n t he pa rti es
. Ji m Co le man Co mp an y’ s arg um en ts th at Dean fai le d to se gr eg at e hi s at to rn ey fees an d th at th e ev id en ce of at to rn ey fees is co nc lu so ry were waiv ed at tri al an d are be in g rai se d fo r th e fir st t i m e o n a p pe al

. Eve n if th os e arg um en ts ha d no t be en waiv ed , mo reo ve r, th ere was no du ty to seg reg at e at to rn ey fees an d th e ev id en ce of
fees is no t co nc lu so ry
. The fin al ju dg men t do es no t award do ub le or tre bl e rel ie f. It is pl ai nl y a jo in t

an d se ve ral ju dg men t, an d Dean di sa vo ws an y rig ht to reco ve r hi s da mag es mo re th an

on ce.

5A R G U M E N T

I. Suff

ic ie ncy of the Ev id ence to Supp or t L ia bi li ty unde r the DTPA fo r Actua l a nd Addi tio na l Da mag es A. In tro duct io n App el la nt s’ ch ie f co mp la in t is th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id e n ce to su pp or t
li ab il it y an d da mag es fo r DTPA vi ol at io ns (J im Co le man Co mp an y’ s se co nd an d
th ird is su es , and Ran dy Co le man ’s fir st an d s eco nd is su es ). 2
In or de r to es ta bl is h li ab il it y un de r th e DTPA, Dean ha d to sh ow t ha t (1 ) Ji m Co le man Co mp an y an d Ran dy Co le man vi ol at ed a sp eci fic pr ov is io n of th e Act; (2 )
th e vi ol at io n was a pr od uc in g cau se of hi s in ju ry ; an d (3 ) he r e l i e d o n t h e fal se , mi sl ead in g o r de cep ti ve act or p ract ic e to hi s de tri men t. T E X

. B U S

. & C O M M

. C O D E § 17 .50 (a)( 1) (A, B). In th at ev en t, he is en ti tl ed to rec o ve r hi s eco no mi c da mag es ,

co ur t cos ts , an d reas on ab le an d nec es sa ry at to rn ey ’s fees

. Id

. at §§ 17 .50 (b )(1 ), (d ). Upo n a “k no win gl y” fin di ng , he may al so reco ve r “ad di ti on al da mag es ” of no t mo re th an th ree t im es th e amo un t o f eco no mi c d ama ge s. Id. at § 1 7.5 0( b) (1 ).

In their briefing, both Appellants make ref ere nce more than once to Dea n’s alterna te claim 2 for brea ch of contra ct. In addition to the DTPA claims, an instructed verdic t was also grante d against Living Modular, and a post-answe r default judgment against Randy Coleman, for brea ch of contra ct. 4 RR 12-13, 22-24, 31. As to Jim Col eman Company, howeve r, the trial court ref used to submit brea ch of c ontrac t to the jury, and that is not w hat the judgment a gainst Jim Coleman Company is based on. 4 RR 38-39; CR 363-66, 374. A DTPA claim i s separ ate and distinct from an action on an underlying contra ct, and is not depende nt on any contra ctual rela tionship betwee n the parties. E.g. Henne ssey v. Vanguard Ins. Co., 895 S.W.2d 794, 802-03 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 1995, writ denied) (citing U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Millard, 847 S.W.2d 668, 672 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] 1993, no st writ)). T o the extent Dea n discusses brea ch of contra ct here in, there fore , it only applies to Randy Coleman.
6B. Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w

The Co ur t’s st an da rd of rev ie w is well s e t t le d. Whe n rev ie win g a le ga l

su ffi ci en cy or “n o ev id en ce” ch al le ng e, th e Co ur t de te rmi ne s “wh et he r th e ev id en ce
at tri al wou ld en ab le reas on ab le an d fai r mi nd ed pe op le to reac h t h e v erd ic t un de r

rev ie w.” In re Jo hn so n, 34 0 S.W.3d 76 9, 77 5 (Tex

. App .—Sa n Ant on io 20 11 , pe t.
de ni ed ) (q uo ti ng Ci ty of Kel le r v. Wil so n, 16 8 S.W.3d 80 2, 82 7 (Tex

. 20 05 )). The
Co ur t vi ews th e ev id en ce in th e l i g h t m o s t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t, cred it in g fav or ab le ev id en ce if reas on ab le ju ro rs co ul d an d di sr eg ard in g co n t r a r y ev id en ce

un le ss reas on ab le ju ro rs co ul d no t. Id

. at 77 5- 76

. App el la te co ur ts wil l su st ai n a le ga l

su ffi ci en cy or “n o ev id en ce” ch al le ng e on ly whe n: (a) th ere is a co mp le te ab se nc e of

ev id en ce of a vi ta l fact ; (b ) th e co ur t is ba rred by ru le s of la w or ev id en ce fro m gi vi ng weig ht to th e o nl y e vi de nc e o ffer ed to pro ve a vi ta l fa ct ; © th e ev id en ce o ffer ed to
pr ov e a vi ta l fact is no mo re th an a mer e sc in ti ll a; or (d ) th e ev id en ce co nc lu si ve ly

es ta bl is he s t he op po si te of t he vi ta l fa ct

. Id

. at 77 6. By co nt ras t, whe n rev i ewin g a fact ua l su ffi ci en cy ch al le ng e, th e Co ur t

co ns id ers al l th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng an d co nt rad ic ti ng th e fin di ng
. Id

. The Co ur t wil l

se t as id e t h e f

i n d i ng on ly if th e ev id en ce is so weak or th e fin di ng is so ag ai ns t th e
g r e a t weig ht an d pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at it is cl earl y un ju st

. Id

. “J ur or s

ar e t h e s o l e ju dg es of th e cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es an d th e weig ht to gi ve th ei r

7te st im on y.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Ci ty of Kel le r, 16 8 S.W.3d at 81 9) ). “Th ey may ch oo se to

be li ev e on e wit ne ss an d di sb el ie ve an ot he r.” Id

. “Re vi ewin g c o ur ts can no t im po se th ei r own op in io ns to th e co nt rary .” Id

. “Co ur ts rev ie win g al l th e ev id en ce in a li gh t
fav or ab le to t h e ve rd ic t th us as su me th at ju ro rs cred it ed te st im on y fav or ab le to th e

ve rd ic t an d d is be li ev ed ev id en ce co nt rary to it .” Id

. 3
The on ly wit ne ss to tes ti fy to li ab il it y a nd da mag es was R al ph Dean , an d th e

on ly do cu men ta ry ev id en ce ad mi tt ed was th at of th e p la in ti ff. Ran dy Co le man was of co ur se no t pr es en t at t r i a l

. A s a s an ct io n, in tu rn , Liv in g Mo du la r (wh o was

un rep res en te d by an att or ne y a t t ria l an d b arre d b y la w f ro m rep res en ti ng it se lf pr o

se ) an d J im Co le man Co mp an y wer e n ot all owe d t o p res en t an y wi tn es se s, a ru li ng Ji m Co le man Co mp an y ha s no t ch al le ng ed on ap pe al

. Se e 2 RR 9- 11 , 17 , 19 , 22 -2 3.
In rev ie win g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su pp or t th e ju ry ’s li ab il it y an d da mag e fin di ng s, th eref

or e, th e Co ur t is li mi te d to Dean ’s te st im on y an d th e p l a i n t i f f ’ s

ex hi bi ts . Not su rp ris in gl y, al l o f th is ev id en ce i s fa vo rab le to th e ju ry ’s ve rd ic t.

Neither Randy Coleman nor Jim Coleman Company filed a motion for new t ri al t h at 3 included a fac tual sufficie ncy point or reque sted a new trial (post-ver dict, Randy Coleman filed nothing, while Jim Coleman Company filed only a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdic t s ee king rendition of a take nothing judgment, CR 379). There fore , they have waived any fac tual sufficie ncy challenge

. T E X

. R. C IV

. P. 324(b)( 2). Dea n is only discussing the standard of revie w for fac tual sufficie ncy out of an abundanc e of caution in the unlikely event the Court deter mines there was no wa iver.
8C. La undr y L is t Vio la tio ns

The ju ry fo un d t ha t Ji m Co le man Co mp an y co mmi tt ed on e or mo re of th e fo ll owi ng “l au nd ry li st ” in frac ti on s co nt ai ne d in se ct io n 17 .46 (b ) of th e DTPA (an d
th e tr ia l co ur t m ad e th e sa me fi nd in gs in de fau lt ag ai ns t Ra nd y C ol ema n) :

(a) cau si ng co nf

us io n or mi su nd ers ta n d i ng as to th e sour ce, sp on so rs hi p, ap pr ov al , or cert ifi cat io n of go ods or ser vi ces ; (b ) cau si ng co nf

us io n or mi su nd ers ta nd in g as to affi li at io n, co nn ect io n, or as so ci at io n wit h, or cert ifi cat io n b y, an ot he r; (c) rep res en ti ng th at go od s or se rv ic es ha ve sp on so rs hi p, ap pr ov al , ch arac te ris ti cs , in gr ed ie nt s, us es , be ne fit s, or qu an ti ti es whi ch th ey do no t h av e; (d ) rep res en ti ng th at a pe rs on ha s a sp on so rs hi p, ap pr ov al , st at us , affi li at io n, or c o n ne ct io n whi ch he do es no t ha ve ; (e) rep res en ti ng th at an ag ree m e n t co nf ers or in vo lv es rig ht s, rem ed ie s, or ob li ga ti on s whi ch it do es no t ha ve or in vo lv e; (f) fai li ng to di s c l os e in fo rma ti on co nc ern in g go od s or se rv ic es whi ch was kn own at th e ti me of th e tra ns act io n if su ch fai lu re to di sc lo se su ch in fo rma ti on was in te nd ed to in du ce th e co ns um er in to a tra ns act io n in to whi ch th e co ns um er wou ld no t h a ve en te red ha d th e in fo rma ti on be en di sc lo se d.

9CR 36 2. Se e T E X

. B U S

. & C O M M

. C O D E § 17 .46 (b )(2 , 3, 5, 7, 12 , 24 ). In fin di ng th e

la un dr y li st vi ol at io ns by Ji m Co le man C o m p a n y , th e ju ry was mi nd fu l th at , as in st ru ct ed by th e tr ia l co ur t:

Ji m Co le man Co mp an y can on ly act or fai l to pe r f or m a req ui red act th ro ug h th e act io n of an ag en t, se rv an t or emp lo ye e of J i m C o l e man Co mp an y
. . . . Liab il it y fo r a co rp or at io n can no t be crea te d by an y a c t or fai lu re to pe rfo rm a re qu ire d a ct by an y per so n who is no t an agen t, se rv an t o r emp lo ye e.
Fo r th e Ji m Co le man Co mp an y to be li a b l e fo r da mag es cau se d by an Age nt , S erv an t or Emp lo ye e, su ch act io n or om is si on to act mu st be wit hi n th e co ur se of th e ag en cy or emp lo ym en t o f th e Age nt , Serv an t o r Emp lo ye e. CR 36 1. Se e e.g
. Hed le y Feed lo t, In c. v. Wea th er ly Tr us t, 85 5 S.W.2d 82 6, 83 7 (Tex

. App .—Ama ril lo 19 93 , pe t. de ni ed ). Und er th e la w, Ji m Co le man Co mp an y is li ab le
fo r an ag en t’s DTPA vi ol at io ns wit hi n th e sc op e of hi s ag en cy ev en if Ji m Co le man Co mp an y h ad no kn owl ed ge of th e vi ol at io ns
. Id

. The ev id en ce is mor e th an amp le

to su pp or t t he ju ry ’s fin di ng th at Ji m Col ema n Com pa ny , act in g th ro ug h it s age nt s, in cl ud in g v ic e-p rin ci pa ls , vi ol at ed th e DTPA.

1. So urce , spo ns or sh ip , app ro va l . . . .
Sect io ns 17 .46 (b )(2 , 3 & 5) of th e Act are “p rim ari ly co nc ern ed wit h de cep ti on in th e or ig in or en do rs eme nt [o r affi li at io n] of a go od or se rv ic e [o r pe rs on ].” Se e Co x

v. St at e, 44 8 S.W.3d 49 7, 50 5 (Tex

. App .—Ama ril lo 20 14 , pe t. pe nd in g) (co ns tru in g

10su bd iv is io n (b )(2 )). I n th e cas e at ba r, th e ev id en ce is pr act ic al ly co nc lu si ve (th ere

b ei ng no th in g to co nt rad ic t it ) th at Ji m Co le man co mp an y emp lo ye es R a n d y Co le man , Way ne Co le man , an d Bo b Oak s cau se d co nf us io n as to , or mi sr ep res en te d,
th e so ur ce, sp on so rs hi p, ap pr ov al , cert ifi cat io n, affi li at io n, co nn ect io n, an d st at us of
Liv in g Mo du la r an d th e mo du la r ho me in qu es ti on , as well as Liv in g Mo du la r’s an d
th e mo du la r ho me’ s as so ci at io n wi th , or c ert ifi cat io n b y, J im Co le man Co mp an y. Whi le t h e h u nt in g sh ow bo ot h whi ch fir st gr ab be d Dean ’s at te nt io n ha d a Liv in g Mo du la r si gn , Ran dy Co le man ha nd ed Dean a Ji m Co le m a n Co mp an y bu si ne ss card wit h Ran dy ’s na me on it (n ot a Liv in g Mo du la r card ) an d to ld Dean he

w a s an ex ecu ti ve wit h Ji m Co le man Co mp an y, no t Liv in g Mo du la r. PX-1 ; 3 R R
1 9

- 20 , 22 , 69 -7 0. Way ne Co le man li ke wis e sa id he was an ex ecu ti ve wi t h J i m Co le man Co mp an y, n ot Liv in g M od ul ar. 3 RR 1 6- 21

. Co ns is te nt wit h th is , th e se ve ral oc cas io ns whe n Dean ret ur ne d to Hou st on to

ne go ti at e on a mo du la r ho me to ok hi m e a ch ti me to mee t wit h Ji m Co le man C om pa ny emp lo ye es at Ji m Co le man Co mp an y faci li ti es
. Id

. The se faci li t i e s w e r e lo cat ed on Ji m Co le man Co mp an y p rem is es an d c on ta in ed Ji m Co le man Co mp an y of fic es
. Id

. The Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye es in cl ud ed Ran dy Co le man , who

sa id he was a vi ce-p res id e n t a n d p a rt own er of Ji m Co le man Co mp an y; Way ne Co le man , who al so sa id he was an ex ecu ti ve (v ic e-p res id en t) wit h Ji m Co le man

11Co mp an y; an d Bo b Oak s, who he lp ed ou t wit h sa le s at Ji m Co le man Co mp an y. 3 RR

21 , 26 , 40 -4 1, 55 -5 7, 82 , 84 ; PX-4

. Se e PX-1 0 (J im Co le man Co mp an y web si te

co nf irm in g Ran dy Co le m a n ’s po si ti on an d res po ns ib il it ie s wit h Ji m Co le man Co mp an y)

. Ran dy Co le man to ld Dean he mai nt ai ne d an offi ce at thes e fac il it ie s. 3
RR 26 , 40

. Se e PX-1 (b us in es s card ). Oak s was reac ha bl e th ro ug h th e Ji m Co le man Co mp an y s wit ch bo ard

. Dur in g th es e on -g oi n g n e g o ti at io ns , th e Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye es
rep res en te d to Dean th at Ji m Co le man Co mpa ny (n ot Liv in g Mo du l a r ) c o u l d

man uf act ur e an d se ll awn in gs fo r th e mo du la r ho me. 3 RR 41 -4 2. Se e PX 2 (b ro ch ur e

co nt ai ni ng pi ct ur es of awn in gs ). Thi s was de sc rib ed as a “mo du la r op ti on .” Id

. Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye es , in cl ud in g Ran dy Co le man , of fere d to Dean to mak e

su ch awni ng s. 3 RR 4 1- 42

. All of th is cau se d Dean to be li ev e th at he wou ld es se nt ia ll y be pu rch as in g th e

mo du la r ho me fro m Ji m Co le man Co mp a ny , wit h whi ch Liv in g Mo du la r was affi li at ed an d by whi ch Liv in g Mod ul ar was fin an ci al ly su pp or te d. 3 RR 42 , 46 -4 7,
56 -5 8, 78 , 85 -9 0. Hen ce, th ere was co nf us io n an d mi sr ep res en ta ti on as to th e so ur ce,
sp on so rs hi p, ap pr ov al , cert ifi cat io n, affi li at io n, co nn ect io n, an d st at us of Liv in g
Mo du la r an d th e mo du la r ho me in qu es ti on , as well as th ei r as so ci at io n wit h, or
cert ifi cat io n b y, J im Co le man Co mp an y.

12The ju ry ’s ve rd ic t an d th e tri a l co ur t’s ju dg men t in th e cas e at ba r refl ect th e

ru le th at th e DTPA on ly req ui res acq ui es cen ce to fal se rep res en ta ti on s of or

co nf us io n cau se d by an ot he r reg ard in g th e de fen da nt

. Hen ne ss ey v. Van gu ar d In s. Co ., 89 5 S.W.2d 79 4, 80 3 (Tex . App .—Ama ril lo 19 95 , pet . den ie d) . In Hen ne ss ey , th e c o u r t of ap pe al s he ld th at th e co ns um er ha d pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of a (b )(5 ) la un dr y li st vi ol at io n to wit hs ta nd mo ti on fo r su mma ry ju dg men t by sh owi ng th at th e de fen da nt co mp an y al lo wed it s lo go to ap pe ar on an un affi li at ed co mp an y’ s

c on tra ct wit h th e co ns um er. Lik ewis e in th e cas e at ba r, Ji m Co le man C o m p a n y al lo wed it s own vi ce-p rin ci pa ls , Ran dy an d Way ne Co le man , to op erat e Liv in g
Mo du la r on th e bu si ne ss pr emi se s of Ji m Co le man C o m p an y; to us e Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye es , su ch as Bo b Oak s, to he lp or ch es tra te th e sa le ; an d to rep res en t
Ji m Co le man Co mp an y’ s av ai la bi li ty an d ex pe rti se to cu st om iz e th e mo du la r ho me wit h cu st om a w n i n gs an d de si gn mo di fic at io ns
. Tha t Ran dy an d Way ne Co le man were fa mi ly mem be rs an d v ic e-p rin ci pa ls is pa rti cu la rly pro ba ti ve
. Hen ne ss ey, 89 5
S.W.2d at 8 04 (“Th is is pa rti cu la rly tru e whe n th ere is a cl os e rel at io ns hi p b et ween th e p art y mak in g th e rep res en ta ti on an d th e pa rty who se sp on so rs hi p o r ap pr ov al is
be in g a ss ert ed .”).

132. Cha ra cter is tic s, i ng redi ents , use s, be nefi ts , or q ua nti tie s

Lik ewis e, th es e Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo y e e s m is rep res en te d th e ch arac te ris ti cs , in gr ed ie nt s, us es , be ne fit s, or qu an ti ti es of th e mo du la r ho me or de red by Dean

. Fo r in st an ce, th ey mi sr ep res en te d th at th e ho me wou ld be tra ns po rte d fro m
Mex ic o, de li ve red to th e pa d si te la id ou t by Ral ph Dean ne ar Prem on t, an d av ai la bl e fo r th e Dean fam il y’ s us e an d en jo ym en t. It w a s ne ve r de li ve red

. The Dean s ha ve

ne ve r ev en see n i n p ers on th e h om e th ey pu rch as ed , let alo ne en jo ye d i ts us e. 3. Rig hts , remedi es , or o bl ig at io ns The se Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye es al so mi sr ep res en te d th at an
ag reem en t (th e pu rch as e or de r, as su pp le men te d by th e va rio us ve rb al unde rs ta nd in gs be twee n th e p art ie s) co nf erre d o r in vo lv ed rig ht s, re med ie s, or ob li ga ti on s whi ch it
di d no t ha ve or in vo lv e. It was rep res en te d, fo r in st an ce, th at th e pu rch as e or de r ga ve
Dean th e rig ht to de li ve ry of a fu ll y fab ric at ed mo du la r ho me, as cu st om iz ed by a Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye e us in g a co mp ut er pr og ram at Ji m Co le man co mp an y’ s pl an t i n Ho us to n. Th is of c ou rs e n ev er h ap pe ne d.

4. Fai lu re to dis cl os e The ev id en ce sh ows th at Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye es fai le d to di sc lo se in fo rma ti on co nc ern in g Liv in g Mo du la r whi ch was kn own to th em at th e ti me Dean

en te red in to th e tra ns act io n an d th at su ch fai lu re was in te nd ed to in du ce Dean in to th e

14tra ns act io n. Sp eci fic al ly , Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye es fai le d t o d i sc lo se to

Dean , at an y ti me, th at Liv in g Mo du la r an d Ji m Co le man Co mp an y were no t
affi li at ed an d th at Ji m Co le man Co mp an y was no t go in g to su pp or t, sp on so r, or ba ck
up in an y way th e man uf

act ur e, de li ve ry , or en d- qu al it y of th e mo du la r ho me or de red by hi m. The y al so fai le d to di sc lo se th e r i sk s in fab ric at in g mo du la r ho mes in
Mex ic o. 4
5. Ji m Col ema n C om pa ny ’s R el at io ns hi p to the Tra ns ac tio n was

Suff ic ie nt to Impo se DTPA Lia bi li ty on tha t Defen da nt
A DTPA c l ai m is se pa rat e an d di st in ct fro m an act io n on an un de rly in g

co nt ract , an d is no t d e p e n d e nt on an y co nt ract ua l rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e pa rti es
. E.g. Hen ne ss ey , 89 5 S.W.2d at 80 2- 03 (ci ti ng U.S. Fir e In s. Co

. v
. Mil la rd , 84 7
S.W.2d 66 8, 6 72 (Tex . App .—Ho us to n [1 Dis t.] 1 99 3, n o wri t))

. s t
To im po se DTPA li ab il it y on Ji m Co le man Co mp an y, th eref or e, Dean on ly

ne ed ed to pr ov e th at (1 ) he so ug ht go od s or se rv ic es by pu rch as e or le as e; (2 ) th e
go od s or se rv ic es fo rme d th e ba si s fo r hi s co mp la in t; an d (3 ) Ji m Co le man Co mp an y

Other than failure to disclo s e, intent is not rele vant in this case
. Appellants spend time 4 arguing that the evidenc e is ins u ff i cient to show that they intended to not honor the agre ement to fabr icate and deliver the modular home at the time the agre ement was made. Intent “has never been an element of a DTPA ‘laundry list’ claim unless the specific provi s i o n require s intent.” Smith v. Herc o, Inc., 900 S.W.2d 852, 859 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, writ denied)

. Other than a failure to disclose claim, the DTPA require s a showing of intent only wher e the consumer is seeking rec overy of treble (additional) damage s based on a rec overy of both economic damage s and mental anguish , taken together. T E X

. B U S

. & C O M M

. C O D E § 17.50(b)( 1). Her e, Dea n did not rec over mental anguish damage s, there fore he neither sought nor rec overe d any additional damage s that take mental anguish into acc ount. 15(a) vi ol at ed on e or mo re of th e la un dr y li st pr act ic es in co nn ect io n wit h th e

tra ns act io n, or (b) sou gh t a ben efi t from th e tra ns act io n. Mel od y Homes Mfg

. Co

. v.
Bar ne s, 74 1 S.W.2d 34 9, 35 1 (Tex

. 19 87 ) (el eme nt s 1 & 2) ; Bas ic Ene rg y Se rv ., In c.

v. D-S -B Pr op er ti es , In c., 36 7 S.W.3d 25 4, 27 0 (Tex

. App .—Ty le r 20 11 , no pe t.) (el eme nt 3: “[P] la in ti ff mu st sh ow its tra ns act io n was co nn ect ed wit h th e de fen da nt
th ro ug h (1 ) a rep res en ta ti on by th e de fen da nt th at reac he d th e pl ai nt iff or (2 ) a be ne fit
fro m the pl ai nt iff ’s tra ns act io n th at reac he d th e de fen da nt .”); To dd v. Perr y Homes , 15 6 S.W.3d 91 9, 92 2 (Tex

. App .—Dal la s 20 05 , no pe t.) (el eme nt 3: “Wh ere th ere is

no co nt ract ua l pr iv it y be twee n th e de fen da nt an d th e co ns um er, ‘th e co nn ect io n can be de mo ns tra te d by a rep res en ta ti on th at reac he s th e co ns um er or by be ne fit fro m th e

se co nd tra ns act io n t o t he in it ia l s el le r.”).
It is un di sp ut ed th at Ran dy Co le man , Way ne Co le man an d Bo b Oak s were al l
emp lo ye es of Ji m Co le man Co mp an y. Ji m Co l ema n Co mp an y’ s emp lo ym en t of
Ran dy a n d W a yn e Co le man as ex ecu ti ve s was ad mi tt ed by vi ce-p rin ci pa ls of Ji m Co le man co mp an y, na mel y R an dy an d Way ne Co le man , bo th of who m were vi cepr es id en ts of Ji m Co le man C o m p a n y
. Se e ge ne ra ll y Tr ea su re Ci ty v. St ra ng e, 62 0
S.W.2d 81 1, 81 4 (Tex

. Ci v. A pp. —Dal la s 19 81 , no writ ) (ci ti ng For t Wor th Elev at or s

v. Rus se ll , 70 S.W.2d 39 7, 40 6 (Tex

. 19 34 )) (co rp or at e of fic ers are co ns id ered vi cepr in ci pa ls ). It was th es e vi ce-p rin ci pa ls of Ji m Co l e m a n C om pa ny who no t on ly

16acq ui es ced in th e ap pe aran ce t ha t J im Co le man Co mp an y’ s was affi li at ed wit h a nd

a sp on so r of Liv in g Mo du la r, th ey act iv el y fo st ered th e ap pe aran ce, an d th eref or e th e

co nf us io n. D. The Vi ol at io ns were a Prod uci ng Caus e o f Eco no mic Dama ge s The ju ry was pr op erl y in st r u c t e d th at pr od uc in g cau se is “a cau se th at was a

su bs ta nt ia l fact or in br in gi ng ab ou t th e da m a g e s , i f an y, an d wit ho ut whi ch th e da mag es wou ld no t ha ve oc cu rred . Th ere may be mo re th an on e pr od uc in g cau se .”
CR 36 2. Se e ge ne ra ll

y For d Mot or Co

. v. Led es ma, 24 2 S.W.3d 32 , 46 (Tex

. 20 07 ).
The ev id en ce is ov erwh el mi ng th at th e en um erat ed vi ol at io ns of th e DTPA by
Ji m Co le man Co mp an y emp lo ye es , in cl ud in g vi ce-p rin c ip al s Ran dy an d Way ne Co le man , were a pr od uc in g cau se of eco no mi c da mag es to Dean

. He an d hi s wife
Ali sa pa id ou t $3 3,0 00 , an d sp en t an ot he r $1 4,6 59 .38 in ou t-o f-p oc ke t ex pe ns es , fo r

a mo du la r ho me th at was ne ve r de li ve red

. Dean te st ifi ed un eq ui vo cal ly th at it was th e

co nf us io n an d mi sr ep res en ta ti on s, co up le d wit h hi s ig no ran ce as an in n o c e nt

co ns um er, th at le d hi m to pl ace $3 3,0 00 do wn on th e mo du la r ho me an d i n c u r t he

r e la te d ou t-o f-p oc ke t ex pe ns es
. Bu t fo r th e DTPA vi ol at io ns , th e tra ns act io n ne ve r

wou ld ha ve oc cu rred , an d th e mea su res of th e da mag es su ffer ed are clas si c be ne fit

of -th e-b arg ai n a nd ou t-o f-p oc ke t. 5

As to damage s, Appellants asser t in their briefs that the amount awa rded exce eds the amount 5 pled. Compare CR 294-95 (total of $39,204 pled) with CR 364, 375 (total of $47,659.38 awa rded)

. While Dean did not seek or obta in a post-ver dict trial amendment to confor m the pl eadings to the
17E. Appel la nts Kno wing ly Eng ag ed i n DTPA Vio la tio ns

Fi na ll y, App el la nt s ch al le ng e th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id e n c e t o s up po rt th e ju ry ’s fin di ng th at Ji m Co le man Co mp an y kn owi ng ly en g a g e d i n vi ol at io ns of th e DTPA’s la un dr y li st (an d th e tri al co ur t’s de fau lt fin di ng to th e sa me effe ct ag ai ns t
Ran dy Co le man ). The e vi de nc e, ho wev er, i s s uf fic ie nt

. Pu rs ua nt to th e Act, th e j u r y w as in st ru ct ed th at a pe rs on act s “k no win gl y”
whe ne ve r he ha s “act ua l aware ne ss of th e fal si ty , un fai rn es s, or de cep ti ve ne ss of th e
act or pr act ic e. Actu al aware ne ss may be in ferr ed if ob je ct iv e man ife st at io ns in di cat e th at a pe rs on act ed wit h actu al aware ne ss .” CR 3 63

. Se e T E X

. B U S

. & C O M M

. C O D E § 17 .45 (9 ). The re was no ob je ct io n t o t hi s i ns tru ct io n. Actu al aware ne ss may be in ferr ed fro m the ci rcu ms ta nc es
. E.g. K.C. Roo fi ng Co ., In c. v. Abu nd is , 94 0 S.W.2d 37 5, 37 7 (Tex

. App .—Sa n A nt on io 19 97 , writ
de ni ed ). In es se nc e, to act “k no win gl y” is th e co nv ers e o f act in g i na dv ert en tl y. Se e Cen tu ry 21 Rea l Est a t e Co rp
. v. Homet ow n Rea l Est at e Co ., 89 0 S.W.2d 11 8, 12 8 (Tex . App .—Tex ark an a 1 99 4, wri t d en ie d)

. In th e cas e at ba r, Ji m Co l e m a n Co mp an y’ s an d Ran dy Co le man ’s act ua l

aware ne ss of it s DTPA in frac ti on s may be in ferr ed fro m th e ci rcu ms ta nc es
. Ran dy
Co le man ’s aware n e ss of wha t he was do in g sp eak s fo r it se lf. As fo r Ji m Co le man
verdic t, A ppellants never objected, e ither by motion to li mit the judgment or motion for new trial. There fore , any ch al l en ge to the amount awa rded has been waived. E.g. Siegler v. Williams, 658 S.W.2d 236, 240-41 (Te x. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] 1983, no writ). st
18Co mp an y, two of the in di vi du al s vi ol at in g th e DTPA, Ran dy an d Wa yn e Co le man ,

were it s vi ce-p rin ci pa ls

. The ir kn owl ed ge was im pu te d to t h e i r pr in ci pa l. Liv in g
Mo du la r’s op erat io ns were co nd uc te d on th e pr emi se s of Ji m Co le man Co mp an y in
fu ll vi ew of th e wor ld

. The of fic es were th e sa me; th e swi tc hb oa rd was th e sa me; an d
th e cu st om de si gn ers were th e sa me. If th ey ha d di ffer en t ha ts , th ey ke pt th em on th e ha t ra ck an d d id no t wea r th em wh en de al in g wi th th e p ub li c. II
. Atto rney Fees App el la nt s’ as sa ul t on th e tri al co ur t’s award of at to rn ey fees is two

- fo ld : (1 ) th ere was a fai lu re to se gr eg at e be twee n fees in c u r r ed to pr os ecu te br each of

co nt ract an d th e DTPA, an d be twee n fees in cu rred fo r pr os ecu ti ng th e th ree di ffer en t
de fen da nt s, an d (2 ) th e te st im on y of at t o r n e y f e es was su pp os ed ly “co nc lu so ry .” Reg ard in g se gr eg at io n, th at arg um en t was waiv ed at tri al , an d in an y ev en t, th ere was

no du ty to se gr eg at e. Reg ard in g th e qu al it y of th e te st im on y it se lf, th at arg um en t ha s be en waiv ed as well , an d in an y ev en t, th ere was no th i n g “ c o n cl us or y” ab ou t th e
te st im on y.
Two wit ne ss es te st ifi ed co nc ern in g at to rn ey fees

. The fir st was Ch arl es Web b,
Mr. Dean ’s at to rn ey . T h e s eco nd was Fred Drei li ng , a Co rp us Ch ris ti tri al at to rn ey who was cal le d by Dean as an ex pe rt wit ne ss
. Mr. Web b te st ifi ed by na rrat iv e th at a

reas on ab le ho ur ly rat e fo r hi s ti me was $2 50 , an d $1 20 fo r hi s as so ci at e (a nd so n) ,

19Park er Web b. 3 RR 9 3

- 9 4

. A c c o r d in g to Mr. Web b, he ha d 92 ho ur s in th e cas e,

whi le hi s so n ha d 33

. Id

. In tu rn , Mr. Dreil in g tes ti fie d th at a reas on ab le ho ur ly rat e fo r th e DTPA c as e was $2 50 ; th e ran ge of reas on ab le fees fo r pr e p a r i n g an d try in g th e cas e was $ 25 ,00 0- $5 0,0 00 ; an d fo r an ap pe al , $1 5,0 00 -$ 25 ,00 0. 3 RR
10 8,1 10 -1 2. Drei li ng al so te st ifi ed th at th e fees wou ld be th e sa me fo r th e br each of

co nt ract cl ai m. 3 RR 11 3. The ju ry award ed $2 6,9 00 fo r at to rn ey fees th ro ug h tri al ; $1 5,0 00 fo r an ap pe al to th e co ur t of ap pe al s; an d $1 0,0 00 fo r pr oc eed in gs in th e

su pr eme co ur t. CR 36 6. App e l la nt s’ se gr eg at io n arg um en t ha s be en waiv ed

. Ji m Co le man Co mp an y

n e v e r o bj ect ed to an y of th e te st im on y reg ard in g at to rn ey ’s fees on th e gr ou n d o f
fai lu re to se gr eg at e, no r was th ei r an y su ch ob je ct io n to th e ch arg e. Se e 3 RR 92 -9 5 (Web b’ s te st im on y) ; 3 RR1 07 -1 4 (Drei li ng ’s te st im on y) ; 4 RR 36 -4 0 (o bj ect io ns to
ch arg e). Abs en t th at , an y erro r reg ard in g fai lu re to se gr eg at e is waiv ed

. Gre en In t’l , In c. v. So li s, 95 1 S.W.2d 38 4, 38 9 (Tex

. 19 97 ); Hru sk a v
. Fi r s t S t at e Ban k, 74 7
S.W.2d 78 3, 78 5 (Tex

. 19 88 ); Cu ll in s v. Fos te r , 1 71 S.W.3d 52 1, 53 5- 36 (Tex

. App .—Ho us to n [1 4 Dis t.] 2 00 5, p et . den ie d)

. th
Eve n if th e arg um en t was no t wai ve d, i t is gr ou nd le ss . Th e du ty to se gr eg at e
at to rn ey ’s fees ex is ts on ly whe re at le as t so me of th e fee s i nc ur red “rel at e so le ly to

a cl ai m fo r whi ch su ch fees are un reco ve rab le .” To ny Gul lo Mot or s I, L.P. v. Ch ap a,

2021 2 S.W.3d 29 9, 31 1 (Tex

. 20 06 ). Whe re th e at to rn ey ’s fees in cu rred ad va nc ed bo th

a reco ve rab le an d a no n- reco ve rab le cl ai m, th ere is no du t y t o s eg reg at e. Id

. at
31 3- 14

. Here, th e on ly two cl ai ms br ou gh t ag ai ns t th e d efen da nt s were DTPA an d
br each of co nt ract , bo th of whi ch al lo w fo r th e reco ve ry of at to rn ey ’s fees

. No cl ai ms

were br ou gh t whi ch do no t a l lo w fo r at to rn ey ’s fees

. Mo reo ve r, Fred Drei li ng
te st ifi ed th at th e fees in cu rred fo r br each of co nt ract were th e sa me as th os e in cu rred
fo r th e DTPA. There was n o d ut y t o s eg reg at e fee s i n t hi s ca se
. Turn in g to th e qu al it y of th e te st im on y on at to rn ey fees , th is to o is an arg um en t
th at ha s b een waiv ed . There was n o o bj ect io n t o a dm is si bi li ty du rin g th e te st im on y of ei th er Ch arl es Web b or Fred Drei li ng ; th e is su e was no t rai se d at t h e e n d o f th e
t r i al th ro ug h mo ti on fo r di rect ed ve rd ic t; it was no t rai se d du rin g ob je ct io ns t o t h e ch arg e; it was no t rai se d in th e mo ti on fo r ju dg men t no twi th st an di ng th e ve rd ic t; an d
it was n ot rai se d in a mo ti on fo r ne w tri al

. The arg um en t i s b ei ng urg ed for th e fi rs t
ti me o n a pp eal . It i s n ot ti mel y.
Mo reo ve r, th e te st im on y at is su e was no t “co nc lu so ry .” In fact , Ji m Co le man Co mp an y act ua ll y lo dg ed an ob je ct io n d u r in g th e te st im on y of Fred Drei li ng th at
Mr. Drei li ng ’s an al ys is of th e Art hu r And er se n fact or s was no t rel ev an t. 3 RR 10 9.
O f c o u rs e, th e tri al co ur t ov erru le d th e ob je ct io n. Id

. It ap pe ars , ho wev er, th at Ji m

21C o le man Co mp an y be li ev ed at tri al th at th e te st im on y was be co mi ng no t t o o

co nc lu so ry , bu t t oo de ta il ed an d p art ic ul ari zed !
II I. The J udg ment do es no t Awar d Tre bl e (o r Dou bl e) Reco ve ry App el la nt s arg ue th at be cau se th e tri al co ur t’s ju dg men t award s id en ti cal su ms of mo ne y ag ai ns t each of t h e t h r e e d efen da nt s, an d do es no t emp lo y th e wor ds “j oi nt ly an d se ve ral ly ,” it amo un ts to a tre bl e reco ve ry
. Dean ag rees wit h App el la nt s th a t t he in

ju ry su ed up on was si ng le an d in di vi si bl e, bu t th ere is no th in g in th e ju dg men t to su gg es t th at it is an yt hi ng mo re th an a jo in t an d se ve ral j ud gm en t. If
Dean su cces sf

ul ly co ll ect s an y su ms fro m Jim Co le man Co mp an y, he wil l no t ha ve th e rig ht to th en reco ve r th e sa me su ms fro m Ran dy Co le man or Liv in g Mo du la r. The

on ly reas on th e ju dg m e n t m a k e s t he award mo re th an on ce is th at th e na tu re of th e li ab il it y of Ran dy Co le man (d efau lt ) an d Liv in g Mo du la r (in st ru ct ed ve rd ic t) is
di st in ct fro m t he li ab il it y o f Ji m Co le man Co mp an y (j ur y v erd ic t). App el la nt s rel y on Sp il lma n v. Se lf Se rv e Fixt ur e Co ., In c., 69 3 S.W. 2d 65 6 (Tex . Ap p.— Dall as 19 85 , wr it ref’ d n.r.e
. )

. Th e ju dg men t in Sp il lma n , h owe ve r, is

no t qu ot ed in th e Fi fth Co ur t’s op in i o n , an d mo st im po rta nt ly , th e su ms award ed
th ere were no t id en ti cal

. The re were two de fen da nt s. T he award ag ai ns t on e de fen da nt

was fo r an amo un t th at was th e su b j e c t o f a gu aran ty , whi le th e award ag ai ns t th e
ot he r de fen da nt was fo r th at pl us th e ba la nc e rem ai ni ng owe d. In the cas e at ba r, on

22th e ot he r ha nd , th e su ms award e d are id en ti cal an d it is ob vi ou s th at th e in ju ry

su ffer ed , an d th e su ms award ed fo r su ch , are si ng le an d in di vi si bl e. The re is th eref or e

no po te nt ia l fo r do ub le reco ve ry , whi ch Dean di sa vo ws. R E L I E F R E Q U E S T E D App el le e Ral ph Dean pr ay s th at th e Co ur t affi rm th e tri al co ur t’s ju dg men t in
al l t hi ng s. He p ray s fo r al l o th er re li ef t o wh ic h h e may be en ti tl ed

.

Res pe ct fu ll y s ub mi tt ed , D U N N W E A T H E R E D C O F F E Y R IV E R A & K A S P E R IT IS , PC 61 1 S ou th Upp er Br oa dwa y Co rp us Ch ris ti , Texa s 7 84 01 T E L : 36 1.8 83 .15 94 F A X : 36 1.8 83 .15 99 E M A IL : fran k@ weat he red la w.com
BY /s / Fr an k Wea th er ed Fran k We at he red Tex as Sta te Bar No . 20 99 86 00
ATTO RNEY-I N-CHARGE FOR APPELLEE RALPH DEAN

23Of Co un se l:

Ch arl es C. Web b, J r. Tex as Sta te Bar No . 21 03 95 00 Park er S. Web b Tex as Sta te Bar No . 24 08 56 48 W E B B C A S O N , PC 71 0 No rth Mes qu it e St reet Co rp us Ch ris ti , Texa s 7 84 01 -2 31 2 T E L : 36 1.8 87 .10 31 F A X : 36 1.8 87 .09 03 E M A IL : ch arl ie @wc ct xl aw.co m E M A IL : pa rk er@ wcct xl aw.co m
J. M ic ha el Guer ra Tex as Sta te Bar No . 08 58 13 10 L A W O F F IC E O F J. M IC H A E L G U E R R A 16 00 E. Main Str eet , Sui te 22 7 P.O. Box 19 68 Ali ce, Tex as 78 33 3 T E L : 36 1.6 68 .73 44 F A X : 36 1.6 64 .10 03 E M A IL : jm gu erra 14 @g mai l.co m

RULE 9 .4(i )(3 ) CERTI FICATI ON
I cert ify th at th e fo reg oi ng do cu men t co mp li es wit h th e ty pe face req ui rem en t of Tex as Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 9

. 4 ( e ) b ecau se it ha s be en pr ep ared in a co nv en ti on al ty pe f

a c e n o sm al le r th an 14 -p oi nt fo r te xt an d 12 -p oi nt fo r fo ot no te s. Thi s do cu men t al so co mp li es wit h th e wor d- co un t li mi ta ti on s of Tex as R u l e o f App el la te Pro ced ur e 9.4 (i) be cau se it co nt ai ns 5,6 09 wor ds , ex cl ud in g th os e po rti on s ex emp te d b y Tex as Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro ced ur e 9 .4(i )(1 ).
/s / Fra nk Wea th er ed Fran k We at he red

24CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

Thi s is to cert ify th at on JUNE 30 , 20 15 , th is do cu men t was el ect ro ni cal ly fil ed pu rs ua nt to T E X

. R. C IV

. P. 21 (f)(1 ) an d a tru e an d co rrec t co py was se rv ed on co un se l of reco rd li st ed be lo w th ro ug h th e el ect ro ni c fil in g man ag er if th e ema il ad dr es s is on fil e wit h th e el ect ro ni c fil in g man ag er, pu rs ua nt t o T E X

. R. C IV

. P. 21 a(a) (1 ). If th e ema il ad dr es s of an y at to rn ey li st ed be lo w is no t on fil e wit h t h e e l e ct ro ni c fil in g man ag er, a tru e an d co rrec t co py o f t h i s d oc um en t was se rv ed pu rs ua nt to T E X

. R. C IV

. P. 21 a(a) (2 ).
/s / Fra nk Wea th er ed Fran k We at he red
Mr. Pa ul R. Lawren ce L A W R E N C E & B A C A , PLLC 21 80 Nort h Lo op Wes t, Su it e 5 10 Hou st on , Texa s 7 70 18 F A X : 71 3.8 64 .01 79 E M A IL : pr la wren ce@ lb an dd .co m At to rn ey fo r A

pp el la nt s

25