### NUM BER 13-08- 0065 0-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
ROBINS ON & HA RRISO N POU LT RY CO., INC ., A pp ellan t,
v . M A R C EL O GA L VA N , A N A L IC IA R . G A L VA N , A ND PR OVEED ORE S IN TE RN A TION A L, INC ., A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom 389t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s

Op inio n by

Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t/c ross -a ppel lee R obi nson & H ar ri son Poul tr y C o., Inc . ( Rob ins on & Har ri son) su ed appe ll ee/c ro ss -a ppel lan t M arcel o Gal v an and appel lee s A nal ic ia R. Gal v an and Prov eed ores Int erna tiona l, Inc. (Inte rn a t io nal) assertin g cause s of action thataroseJuan T r ev i no was not a par t y i n t he u nder l y i ng l i t i gat i on. 1 2 f rom co mm ercial tra n s a c t io n s between th e pa rties. Th e Galvans and Inte rnatio nal also f il e d cl a im s a ga in s tRo b in s o n &Ha rr is o n , in c l u d in g a co u n t e r- c la im fo r u s u ry. By f ive issues, which w e reorganize as th ree, Robinso n & Harrison com plains tha t the trial court commi tted re v ersi ble er ro r in aw ardin g att or ney 's fees t o the Gal v ans and I nter nati onal beca use (1) the charge issue on usury l iability w as imp rope r, (2) no a ctua l dam ages w ere awarded, an d (3) there was a li mita tions b ar. B y a sin gle issue o n cross-app eal, Marcelo
c l a i m s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r re d i n fa i l i n g t o c a l c u l a t e d a m a g e s o n t h e u s u r y c l a i m . W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND The undi sput ed facts rev eal that M arcel o, t og ether w it h J uan Trev ino , ow ned and operated a bus ine ss kn ow n as Prov eedores de T eja s (Tej as)

. W it h Robi nson & H ar ri son, 1 T ejas exported pou ltry

produ cts to custo me rs in Mexico. Tejas pro v ided the cust om ers; Rob ins on & Har ri son the product and financi ng . Beca use of an unpai d debt of $40,000,
ow ed to Robi nson & Har ri son by T eja s, Ro bin son & Har ri son sto pped doing busine ss w it h T ejas. W hen Marcelo and Robinso n & Harri s o n l a t e r discussed ren ewi ng the export busi ness throug h Int er nati onal , a new company

w hol ly ow ned bythe Gal v ans, R obi nson & Harrison agreed to extend credit but only on the condition tha t Marcelo and A n alicia
w oul d as sum e the pas t i ndebted ness of Tejas

. Theydi d s o on Ma rc h 20, 1995, and Robinso n extend ed n ew credit in the amo untof $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . Th e mo ney w as to be re-paid
w ithin twenty- one days w ith no agreed rate o f interest o n this tran saction . MarceloT h is is th e tr a n s a c tio n th a t f o r m s th e b a s is o fM a r c e lo 's u s u r y c la im

. 2 T he f or egoi ng f act s f or m t he b asi s of R obi nson & H ar r i son' s cl ai m s. 3 M ar cel o an d I nt er nat i onal do not chal l enge t hi s f i ndi ng o fl i abi l i t y , t he a war d of act ual dam ages, or 4 t he a war d of

at t or ney ' s f ees a gai nst t hem

. 3 suc ces sfull y

pai d Teja s' s p astdebtow ed to R obi nson & H ar ri son. H ow ev er , as Thomas 2 Rob ins on, p re si dent of Robi nson & H a rr is on, t est ified at tr ial , by the end of 2003, Inte rnatio nal owed Robinso n & Harrison over $100, 000 for missing produ cts. 3 Rob ins on & Har ri son filed su itag ain st Ma rc elo , An ali ci a, an d Int er nati onal i n C ounty Cou rtat Law

N o. 4, Hi dal g o Cou nty , Tex as, ass erti ng mult ipl e c auses of act ion i ncl udi ng fraud, conv ersi on, a nd s uiton a n unpa id a ccount. R obi nson & H ar ri son all eg ed th at Intern a ti o n a l defaulted by fail ing to make p ay ments on i ts acc ount and t hat t he pr inc ipa l bal ance due w as ov er

$100, 000. M arcel o, A nal ic ia, and Inter nati onal countercl aimed for
usur y as ser ti ng thatthe e n ti re d e b t that t hey as sumed as a c ondi ti on for Rob ins on & Har ri son' s e xtens ion of credi t c ons ti tuted i nterestunder Tex as law , t hus, the transacti on
w as usu rious. T hey a lso f iled a new an d sep arate law suit against Rob inson & Harri son in the 389th Di str ict Cour

t, Hi dal g o County , Texa s, ass erti ng , among othe r cl aims , breach of fiduci ar y duty and int er

ferenc e w it h c ontract s. By ag re ement, all cl aims w ere joi ned i n the 389th Di str ict C our

t. Fol low ing a tri al on th e mer it s, the j ur y retur ned a mix ed v erdict. The j ur y found for Rob ins on & Harriso n o n i ts sui t on an unpa id acc ount ag ain st Ma rc elo and Inter nati onal and awarded i t $97 ,000 in act ual damag es and a total of $295,40 5 i n attor ney 's fees. The 4 jur y al so found for M arcel o and Inter nati onal on t hei r cl aim ag ain st Rob ins on & Har ri son for i nter feri ng w it h their

contract ual rel ati ons. The jur y aw arded M arcel o and Inter nati onalR o b in s o n & H a r r is o n d o e s n o t c o m p la in o fth is lia b ility f in d in g o r th e d a m a g e s a w a r d e d a g a in s t it 5 based on t he f i ndi ng.

T he t r i al cour t al so en t er ed j udgm ent t hat R obi nson & H ar r i son t ake not hi ng f r om Anal i ci a an d t hat 6 i t t ake not hi ng f r om M ar cel o on i t s cl ai m s ofconv er si on a nd f r aud. Robi nson & H ar r i son d oes n ot chal l enge t hese t ake- not hi ng j udgm ent s. 4 $50,000 i n actual damag es. As to the usur y cl aim, al thoug h the j ur y found thatR obi nson 5 & H ar ri son re q uired th e Gal v ans to as sume t he pas t i ndebted ness of Tejas as a c ondi ti on of Robi nson & H ar ri son extendi ng credi t t o M arcel o, i t aw arded no act ual damag es based on th is findi ng . The ju ry di d, ho w ev er , award the fo ll ow ing "reason abl e fee for t he
neces sar

y se rv ic es of [the G alv ans and I nter nati onal 's ] a tt o rney ": $272,50 2.50 for prep arat io n a n d t rial, plus $12 5,0 00 if app eale d to th e cou rt of app eals an d $5 0,0 00 if appeal ed to the supreme court

. The tr ial courtrendered judg ment in conformi ty w it h the
v erdict. It is f rom th e usu ry f indings tha t all parties ap pea l. 6 III . D I S CUS S I ON By three i ss ues, R obi nson & Harr is on c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt c ommitt ed
re v ersi ble er ro r in order ing thatthe Gal v ans and I nter nati onal re c o v e r att or ney 's fees bas ed on th eir us ur y cl aim becau se there w as no j ur y qu e st io n t h at woul d s uppor t a li abi li ty findi ng and becau se the a w ard of atto rn ey 's fees was not s uppor ted b y an a w ard of act ual dam ages. It also asse rts a limitation s bar. A . Waiver Before re achi ng R obi nson & H ar ri son' s c omplain ts, w e address the Gal v ans and Inte rnatio nal's asse rtion tha t Robinso n & Harrison w aived its r ight to com plain b ecau se it
mov ed for jud g ment on the e nti re j ur y v erdict. W hen a par

ty m ov es for entry

of j udg ment and the tr ial cour

t enters the jud g ment, the par ty canno t lat er compl ain of t hat j udg ment.5

Cas u v. Ma ra thon Ref

. C o. , 896 S.W .2d S .W .3d 3 88, 3 89 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 1995, w ri t den ied ) (o p. on reh'g ); Tr ansm is si on Exch. , Inc. v. Long , 821 S.W .2d 265, 27 5 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 1, w ri t den ied ); see First Nat'l Bank of Beeville v. Fojtik , 775 S. W .2d 6 32, 6 33 ( Tex . 198 9) ( perc u ria m ). H ow ev er , t he r ig ht t o c omplai n abouta jud g ment on appeal i s p re ser v ed w hen a mov ant for

j udg ment s tates "in its m oti on to enter jud g ment t hat i t ag re es onl y w it h the form of the jud g ment," and notes "it s d is ag re ement
w it h the cont ent a nd resul t of the jud g ment." Casu , 8 9 6 S. W .3 d at39 0 (cit in g Fojtik , 775 S.W .2d a t 633)

. A moti on for ent ry of jud g ment s houl d c ontai n an ex press reser v ati on to preser v e the r ig ht t o c omplai n about a jud g ment on appeal

. See Fojtik , 775 S.W .2d a t 633

. The ju ry i n thi s c ase re ached a v erdict on June 15, 2 006, a ward in g , among othe r thi ng s, attor ney 's fees to the Gal v ans and I nter nati onal to be pai d by R obi nson & H ar ri son. On J une 21, 2006, R obi nson & H ar ri son filed i ts or ig ina l moti on for entr y of judg ment. In thi s mot ion , and rele v ant t o thi s a ppeal , R obi nson & H ar ri son noted th a t a lt h o u gh th e
v erdict s hows t hat t he tr ial cou rtshould render j udg ment for Ma rc elo and Inter nati onal ag ain st Rob ins on & Har ri son for $50, 000 for tor ti ous int er

ferenc e, [t] he v erdict furt her

sh ow s that [the Gal v ans and I nter nati onal ] are not enti tl ed to att or ney [' ]s fees on the is sue of Us ur y bec ause there w as no i ss ue submi tted by

[t he Ga lv ans and Inter nati onal ] to de ter mine Us ur y l iab il ity and the j u ry' s respon se to Issu e No. 7 w as tha t the re are no Usury dam ages. Taken as a w hol e, [ the G alv ans and I nter nati onal ] fail ed to meet thei r burden to prev ail on a ca use of acti on th at woul d ent it le them t o a recov er y of atto rney[']s fe es. Altho ugh Robinso n & Harrison requeste d "th at the Co urt rend er judgme nt in acco rdan ce
w ith the jury

verdict," it also requeste d tha t the t rial court "rend er judgme nt in acco rdan ce
w it h the propose d form of J udg ment attac hed t o t his moti on as Ex hib it' A'

. . . ." Its propose d final j udg ment g ra nted Rob ins on & Har ri son' s mot ion for e ntr y of ju d gment onW e no t e t hat a t r anscr i pt of t he Ju l y 5, 200 6 he ar i ng d oes n ot app eari n t he a ppel l at e r ecor d. 7 6 the v erdict an d de creed thatMarcelo receiv e judgme nt for tortiou s interfere nce a gainst Rob ins on & Har ri son and be aw arded $50,000 plu s p re -j udg ment i nterest

. It als o dec re ed tha t the Galv ans a nd In terna tiona l "are no t aw arde d an y atto rney[']s fe es on Usury becau se the j ur

y found there w ere no damag es due for Us ur y ." Base d on thi s l ang uag e, w e c onc lud e R obi nson & H ar ri son preser v ed i ts ri g ht t o com plain o n ap pea l abou t the aw ard of a t t o rn ey's fees to Marcelo and Inte rnatio nal. Rob ins on & Har ri son noted in it s mo ti o n for e ntr y of jud g ment t hat i t di sag re ed w it h the jury 's aw ard of

atto rney's fees to the Galvans and Inte rnatio nal based on the usury cause of acti on. See Casu , 8 9 6 S. W .3 d at39 0 (cit in g Fojtik , 775 S.W .2d at 633 ). It specif ically set ou t the basis for its disagreem ent , and its propose d judgme nt ref lected the sam e ba sis. Thus, the mot ion co ntai ned an ex press reser v ati on to preser

v e the r ig h t to co mplai n on appeal aboutthi s p orti on of the jud g ment. See Fojtik , 775 S.W .2d a t 633

. Fur ther more, R obi nson & Har ri son' s sec ond motion for new tri al file d on September 2, 20 06, referenc ed i ts e a rli er fil ed moti on, i ts propose d j udg ment, and a Jul y 5, 2006 hear ing hel d on thes e matt ers. I n i ts sec ond moti on, Robi nson & Har ri son outl ine d tha t 7 ithad been four

tee n weeks si nce the j ur y retur ned i ts v erdict, ele v en w eeks si nce the h e a ri n g, a n d m o re t h a n t e n we e k s si n c e t h e co u rt d e a d li n e t o su b m itb ri e fs . Fi n a ll y, Rob ins on & Har ri son re q uest ed that the tr ial cour t enter jud g ment herein

. In i ts thi rd and f inal mo tion for entry of ju dgme nt f iled on Nov em ber 13 , 200 6, Rob inson & Harri son a gain
re v iewed th e ti ming of the v erdict and the fili ng of i ts ear li er moti ons for ent ry

of jud g ment and s p e cif ical ly

note d tha t i t had been fiv e monthssi nce the j ur y retur ned i ts v erdict." H er ei n" i s def i ned as " a v ague wor d i n l egal docu m ent s, f ort he r eadercan r ar el y be cer t ai n whet her 8 i t m eans in this subse ction, in this section (or pa rag raph) , in this docu m ent, or in this tr

ansaction . A m ore p re c i s e p h ra s e , s u c h a s a n y o f t h e th re e ju s t l i s te d , i s p re fe ra b l e ." B RY A N G ARN ER , A D I C TI O N AR Y OF M OD E RN LEG AL U SA GE 401 ( 1995)

. W hi l e a m or e pr eci se ph r ase woul d ha v e be en p r ef er abl e i n t hi s case, we const r ue t he u se of

t he wor d " her ei n" as r ef er r i ng t o t he v er di ct as pr oposed i n R obi nson & H ar r i son' s f i r st
- f i l ed m ot i on f orent r y of

j udgm ent and r ef er r ed t o i n i t s secon d m ot i on. 7 Rob i n s o n &H a r r i s o n t h e n re q u e s t e d t h a tt h e c o u rt" i mm e d i a t e l y e n t e r a [ j ] u d g me nt
cons is tent w it h the v erdict herein ." 8 Cou rt s must re ad a ple adi ng for it s c ontentrather than i ts lab el. See gen erally T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 7 1 ( address ing a mi snomer of a pl eadi ng ); S ta te Bar of Tex. v. Heard , 603 S.W .2d 8 29, 8 33 ( T e x. 1980) ( prov idi ng thata c our t l ooks to the s ubst ance of a pl ea for relief , notmere ly

the title, to det ermin e the natu re of a plead ing). Loo king at the sub stan ce of Rob ins on & Har ri son' s mot ion s, w e c onst ru e the se cond and t hird moti ons for ent ry of jud g ment as suppl emental moti ons, not amended moti ons or new moti ons. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 62, 63 (def ining and exp la in in g a me ndm ent s of petitio ns, an sw ers, plea dings,
re spons es, or

pl eas for reli ef), 6 9 ( ex pla ini ng su ppl ementati on of a pet it ion or ans w er ), 71; In r e F if ty- One G am bli

ng D evices , 298 S.W .3d 7 68, 7 71- 73 (Tex . App.–Amar il lo 2009, pet. deni ed) ( conc lud ing thatthe use of the te rms "su ppl emental " and "amended" in the ti tl e of th e m o ti o n s d id no t a lt e r th e ir e f fe ctbu t ra th e r, afte r re viewin g t h e pu rp o se of th e pl e a d in gs and t he s ubst ance of the moti ons, ex panded the o ri g ina l re cus al cl aim to i ncl ude a
cons t i t u t i o n a l c l a i m o f d e n i a l o f d u e p ro c e s s a n d a c l a i m o f i mp ro p e r e x p a rt e com mu nicatio n betw een t he trial co urt and co unse l fo r the Sta te); Benne tt v. W ood C ounty, 200 S. W .3d 2 39, 2 41 (Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 2006, no p et.) ( "An amende d pl eadi ng su ppl ants
ear li e r p l e a d i n g s , a n d t h e s u p p l a n t e d p l e a d i n g i s n o l o n g e r p a rt o f t h e p l e a d i n g i n the
cause ."); J. M. H uber

C or p. v . Sa nta F

e Ener gy Res

. , 8 7 1 S

. W

. 2 d 8 4 2 , 8 4 4 (T e x.8

App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 4, w rit denied ) ( "An ame nde d pe tition . . . sup e rsede s all pr ior peti ti ons . . . .")

. It is apparentthat R obi nson & H ar ri son' s s econd and thi rd moti ons for ent ry of jud g ment w ere noti ntended to supersede the ori g ina l moti on. Rat her , by fil ing
secon d an d third m otion s, Robinso n & Harrison w as att em pting to bri ng to the trial cou rt's atten ti on th at t here had been on e extend e d del ay after anot her i n the entr

y of jud g ment and t hat a j udg ment as propose d i n i ts firs t moti on s houl d be re ndered i n the ca se. Rob ins on & Har ri son w as ass erti ng it s posi ti on that a s ig nific ant t ime per iod had pass ed
s in c e t h e f il in g o f

e a c h p re vio u s m o t io n a n d ye tn o ju d gm e n th a d b e e n e n t e re d

. T h u s , we cons tr ue R obi n so n & H ar ri son' s s econd and thi rd moti ons for ent ry of jud g ment as
s u p p le m e n t a l m o t io n s t o b e re a d in co n ju n c t io n wit h it s f irs t -f il e d m o t i o n . Ac c o rd in gl y, Rob ins on & Har ri son did not w aiv e its rig ht to c omplai n aboutthe aw ard of atto rn ey 's fees to th e Galvans and Inte rnatio nal. B. Usury Liability By its f irst issue, Robins o n & Harri son co mp lains of charge error, arg uing thatit proper ly obj ect ed to Ques ti on 6. In respon se, the Gal v ans and I nter nati onal as ser t t hat Robinso n & Harrison failed to preserve error. T he p ropo sed c h a rg e in clude d tw o usu ry q uest ions. Que stion 6 asked "Did R ob i ns on & H ar r i s on Po ul tr y C o. req ui re M arc el o Ga l v an a nd A na l i c i a Ga l v an t o as s um e the p asti ndebted ness of Tejas as a c ondi ti on of extendi ng credi t t o M arcel o Gal v an?" If the j ur y ans w ered "y es" to Q uest ion 6, itw as to answ er Questi on 7, the damag es q uest ion , whic h pro vide d th e fo llo wing: W hatsum o f

m one y , if

a ny, if p aid now in cash, would fairly and reason ably com pe ns at e Pl ai nt i ffs for th ei r da ma g es , i f an y , th at res ul te d from such u s u ry?T e x a s R u l e o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re 2 7 7 p ro v i d e s th a t, 9 [ t ] he co ur t shal l not i n i t s char ge co m m ent di r ect l y o n t he wei ght of t he e v i dence oradv i se t he j ur y of

t he e ff ect of

t hei r answer s, but t he co ur t ' s char ge shal l not be obj ect i onabl e on t he gr ound t hat i t i nci dent al l y const i t ut es a com m ent on t he wei ght of t he e v i dence oradv i ses t he j ur y of t he e ff ect of

t hei r answer s when i t i s pr oper l y a par t of an i nst r uct i on o r def i ni t i on. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 277. " T o be a di r ect com m ent on t he wei ght oft he ev i dence, t he i ssue su bm i t t ed m ust sugg est to th e ju ry t h e tri a l c o u rt's o p i n i o n o n th e m a tte r." I ndian Beach Prop. O w ner s' Ass' n v. Li nden , 222 S. W

. 3d 682, 702- 03 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 2007, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng H .E . B u tt G ro c e ryC o . v . B i l o tto , 985 S. W

. 2d 2 2 , 2 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ); Southm ar k M gm t

. C or

p. v . Vi ck , 6 9 2 S .W .2 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 0 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 19 85 , w ri t ref' d n

. r. e.) ).

"D o u b l e u s u ry" i s "i n te re s t i n e x c e s s o f d o u b l e th e a m o u n t o f l e g a l i n te re s t." D a n zi g e r v . S a n J a c in to 10 S a v . A s s 'n , 732 S. W

. 2d 3 00, 303 (T ex. 1987)

. As a r em edyfo r doubl y usur y , t he usur y st at ut es pr ov i de f or th e re m e d y o f c a n c e l l a ti o n o f t h e p rin c i p a l d e b t a s w e l l a s o th e r p e n a l ti e s . See Ar m strong v. St eppes Apt s. L td

. , 57 S. W

. 3d 37, 48 ( T ex. App. –For t W or t h 20 01, pet

. den i ed) ( expl ai ni ng t hat " t he cu r r ent f i nance code c o n t a i n s b o t h a f o r f e i t u r e p e n a l t y a n d a p e n a l t y f o r d o u b l e u s u r y " ) ( ci t i ng T EX
. F IN
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 305. 001, 30 5.00 2). 9 Conside r the followi ng eleme nts of dam ages, if

any, and no ne o the r. (1 ) Tw enty

percentof the amount of the pr inc ipa l, ( 2) pl us the pr inc ipa l amount o n w hic h the i nterestw as charg ed and re cei v ed, ( 3) pl us the i nterestch arg ed and re cei v ed. At t he c harg e c onferenc e on June 14, 2 006, Rob ins on & Har ri so n object ed as follows: [W ]e ha v e chal len g ed the d amag e[s ] q uest ion on u sur y . W e feel that ask ing the jur

y to cons ide r—there i s [ si c] three par ts of t he damag es. An d w e feel that by

su bmitti ng Par

ts 2 and 3, t hat' s a n i m p er mis si ble co mment on th e w eig ht of the ev ide nce[ ] bec ause itpresumes doubl e us ur y .[ ] 9 1 0 The onl y obj ect ion v oic ed by

R obi nson & H ar ri son at t he c harg e c onferenc e w as to the ins tr uct ion g iv en as par t of t he usur

y damag es q uest ion ; the basi s for the obj ectio n w as tha t the instruction w as "a n imp ermissible co mm ento n the w eight of the evidence beca use itpresumes do u b le u su ry." The tr ial co urt ov er ru led thi s o bje cti on and sta ted t hat t he charg e woul d be submi tted "as is ." Bec ause of the l ate h our , t he tr ial co urt i nformed t he p a rt ie s t h a titwo u ld si gn t h e ch a rg e a tt h e h e a ri n g b u two u ld n o tf il e itu n t il t h e n e xt10

morni ng before itw as re ad to the jur y . The tr ial co urt as ked if co unsel for R obi nson & Har ri son had "[ a]ny

probl em w it h tha t?". C ounse l re spond ed, "No, Your Honor

. Gi v en th e hour , t hat s eems to be log ic al. " The tr ial co urt s ig ned t he c harg e, s tated thati t woul d be "f iled of f icially tom orrow

m orning," a nd a gain ov erruled Rob inson & Harri son's objection s. "' [A] par ty obj ect ing to a c harg e mustpoi nt ou t di sti nct ly the obj ect ion abl e matt er and t he g ro unds of the obj ect ion .' " F o rd Mo to r Co

. v. L e de s ma , 2 4 2 S

. W

. 3 d 3 2 , 4 3 (T e x. 2 0 0 7 ) (qu o ti n g T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 274)

. Obj ect ion s t o the ch arg e and re q uest s for i nst ru cti ons must, how ev er , c omport w it h the arg uments made on appeal

. See Isaacs v . Bi shop , 249 S.W .3d 1 00, 1 13 n. 13 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2008, pet. deni ed) ; Coke v. Coke , 802 S.W .2d 2 70, 2 75 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1990, w ri t den ied ). "I n the absen ce of an obj ect ion at tr ial thatmatc hes the c omplai nt o n appea l, noth ing has been preser v ed for our

rev iew ." Isaa cs , 2 4 9 S. W .3 d at11 3 n. 1 3 (cit in g T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33 .1). Robinso n & Harrison obje cted to Que stion 7 , poin ting out distinct ly the objection able matter —namel y

par ts 2 and 3, w hic h i nst ru cte d the jur y on the d amag e c alc ula ti on. See L e de s ma , 242 S.W .3d a t 43; see als o T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 274; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3

. 1(a). F u rt h e r mo re , R o b i n s o n & H a r r i s o n s t a t e d t h a t t h e g ro u n d o f i t s o bj e c t i o n w a s t h a t t he obj ect ion abl e matt er

w as a comment on t he w eig ht of the ev ide nce. S e e L e de s ma , 242 S.W .3d a t 43; see als o T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 2 74; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33. 1(a). Th e trial court
ov er ru led R o b in so n & Har ri son' s o bje cti on to the usur y damag es q uest ion

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33. 1(a). On ap pea l, Robinso n & Harrison doe s n ot challen ge Questio n 7. Com plainin g only
o f Q u est ion 6, Rob ins on & Har ri son g enerall y as ser ts that Ques ti on 6 w as not wordedR o b in s o n & H a r r is o n a ls o a s s e r ts , a s a b a s is f o r e r r o r , t h a t t h e ju r y's ze r o a w a r d o fd a m a g e s in 11 r esponse t o Q uest i on 7 aff i r m at i v el y neg at ed a ny possi bl e f i ndi ng o fusur y . T o t he e xt ent R obi nson & H ar r i son i s a tte m p ti n g to a rg u e c o n fli c ti n g ju ry fin d i n g s w h e n i t c o n te n d s th a t "[t] h e ze ro d a m a g e s i s a l s o a b a s is to show t hat t he Jur y di d not i n f act m ake a f i ndi ng on any U sur y l i abi l i t y , " i t di d no t r ai se t hat cont ent i on i n t he tri a l c o u rt b e fo re th e ju ry w a s d i s c h a rg e d a n d h a s , th e re fo re , n o t p re s e rv e d th e a rg u m e n t fo r o u r re v i e w . See N or w est

Mortgage, I nc. v. Salinas , 9 9 9 S .W .2 d 8 4 6 , 8 6 5 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 1 9 9 9 , p e t. d e n i e d ) ("In o r d e r to p r e s e r v e e r r o r , t h e a p p e lla n t m u s t o b j e c t t o th e c o n f lic t o r in c o n s is te n c y b e f o r e th e ju r y is d i s c h a rg e d ."); see a lso T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 29 5 (pro vi di ng t ha t i f t he j ury ' s verdi c t i s " i nc om pl ete, or no t res po ns i ve to th e q u e s tio n s c o n ta in e d in th e c o u r t's c h a r g e , o r th e a n s w e r s to th e q u e s tio n s a r e in c o n f lic t, th e c o u r t s h a ll i n w rit i n g i n s tru c t t h e ju ry i n o p e n c o u rt o f th e n a tu re o f th e in c o m p le te n e s s , u n re s p o n s i v e n e s s , o r c o n fli c t, pro vi de t he j ury su c h a dd i t i on al i ns t ruc t i on s as m ay be prop er, an d reti re t he j ury for f urt he r del i be rat i on s " ).

Fur t her m or e, R obi nson & H ar r i son' s at t em pt , i fany , t o r ai se cha l l en ge s to t he su ff i ci encyof t he e v i d e n c e i s i n a d e q u a te l y b rie fe d

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1( i ) ( pr ov i di ng t hat i ssues o n ap pe al m ust be s up po rt ed by cl ea r and co nc i s e a rgu m en t s w i t h a pp rop ri ate c i t ati on s t o a utho ri t i es an d t o t he rec ord ). 11 proper ly to suppo rta findi ng of

us ur y . Spec ific all y , R obi nson & H ar ri son now as ser ts the followi ng bases for charge e rror: (1) th ere cann ot be a f inding of usury beca use th ere is no p roof of any loan t o Marcelo; (2) Questio n 6 is not suf f icient to supp ort a f inding of usury li abi li ty bec ause there i s n o ev ide nce of anyl eg al int erest ; ( 3) Tejas i s a n al ter eg o of Ma rc elo and not a thi rd par ty ; and (4 ) the jur

y coul d hav e found that the d ebt a ss umed w as legal int e re st dep end ing on the a mo untand duratio n of the loa n. By the se con ten tions, Rob ins on & Har ri son compl ain s o f the omi ss ion of ele ments from the ch arg e and
ev ide nti ar

y matte rs , notof the t ria l court' s a ll eg ed c omment on the w eig ht of the evidence. W e conclu de that Robinson & Harrison's argume nts on app eal do not com port

11
w it h the obj ect ion rais ed i n the tr ial co urt. See Isaacs , 249 S.W .3d a t 113 n.13. Therefore, beca use Rob inson & Ha rrison's o bjectio n at trial d oes n ot m atch its comp laint on app eal, nothi ng has been preser v ed for our

rev iew

. See id . (c it in g T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33 .1). W e also note that on June 15, 200 6, the mo rning followi ng the charge conferen ce and i mmediat ely

before the hear ing on Rob ins on & Har ri son' s moti on for ins tr uct ed v erdict, Ro b i n s o n & H a r r i s o n fi l e d t h e fo l l o w i n g o bj e c t i o n t o t h e p ro p o s e d j u r y c h a rg e i s sues on12

u s u ry: Defend ant s wil l show that Plain tif fs have the bu rden of

proof as to ea ch ele ment of eac h cause of act ion

. The el ements of usur y are: (1 ) a l oan of money ; (2) an a bsol ute o bli g ati on to repay the pr inc ip[ al] ; ( 3) the ex act ion of a g re ater co mpensat ion than al low ed by l aw for t he us e of the money by the bor ro w er . First Bank v. Tony's Tortilla Factory, In c. [,] 877 S.W .2d 2 85, 2 87 (Te x . 199 4). Pl ain ti ffs fail ed to submit any ev ide nce re g ardin g the pr inc ip[ al] amount of the loan or th e d uratio n of the loa n. T here fore plain tif fs failed to mee t the ir burden t o presentev ide nce that wou ld allo w the jur y to cal cul ate t he "compens ati on al lowed by l aw ". In t his w ri tten obj ect ion , R obi nson & H ar ri son ask ed th e tr ial co urt t o s tr ik e pl ain ti ffs' i ss ues submi tted to t he jur

y for usury liab il ity and damag es. At the heari ng later that mor nin g , t he followi ng ex chan ge occurred betw een t he trial co urt and Ro binso n & Harrison's coun sel: [Coun sel]: Yo u r Ho nor, I ha v e also pre pare d—which I stated y este rday,

v er bal ly , w hic h I had prepared—a

. . . propose d i ss ue on Que stion Num ber 6 w ith existence of u sury , a question for—I hav e a new

6 (a) for t he us er

[s ic] l iab il ity , [ and] Number 7 for usur y damag es . . . . I w oul d li ke— I hav e filed thes e w it h the Cou rt

. I woul d l ik e to br ing thes e to the C our t' s a ttent ion

. The Cou rt : [C ounse l] , y ou did n't file thes e in w ri ti ng y est erday

. Y ou made

y our obj ect ion s y est erday

orall y . These are w hat t hey are. I had already si g ned w it h no obj ect ion s from any p a rty y est erday

and formall y

fil e- sta mped i t t his m or nin g , but it w as s ig n e d ye s t e rd a y. These w ere fil ed after w e hav e [s ic] al re ady compl eted the o bje ct io n s o n t h e ch a rg e ye s t e rd a y. [Coun sel]: I had f iled oth er w ritten q uest ions, and I did make o bjectio ns.

T h e s e — in p a rt ic u la r, o n t h e is s u e — o n t h e is s u e o f t h e u s u ry, Que stion Num ber 6 simp ly asks— Th e C o u rt : [ C o u n s e l ] , w i t h al l du e r e s p e c t , th e s e w e re fi l e d aft e r w e had already fini shed the c harg e y est erday

. Y ou w ere s uppos ed to file thos e thi ng s i n w ri ti ng before the c harg e.13

[C ounse l] : Y our

H onor , w e need to fil e the se after the p arti es cl ose and b e fo re is s u e s a re su b m it t e d t o t h e ju ry. The Co urt: I di sag re e. Y ou are s uppos ed to file it before w e are fini shed

wit h t h e ch a rg e . W e f in is h e d t h e ch a rg e ye s t e rd a y. But they are w hat they are, and my ru li ng s are w hat t hey are. And i f this i s t aken up, you c an mak e tha t i ss ue. [C ounse l] : I j ust w ant to make s ure—I w ant t o make su re I did n'tpi ck up the C our t' s c opy . Doe s t he c our t hav e? T he Cou rt: . . . I don'tactua lly have orig inals. T hese w ere actu ally copie s, but t hey are fil e- sta mped. [Coun sel]: Okay. Tha nk y ou, Y our Hono r.

. . . [Coun sel]: I a m object[ing]—I'm object ing to the sub mission of these propose d j ur

y i ss ues si nce it 's a g re ater w eig ht of prep ond eran ce of the evidence and since the re is no evidence of these jury

issues. The Co urt: W it h al l due respect, that w as done after w e had already fil ed the charg e, y our obj ect ion

. Y ou shoul d hav e ma d e your obj ect ion before the fil ing of the c harg e. [C ounse l] : For

t h e r e cord, t hese obj ect ion s h av e al re ady been done outs ide the presenc e of the jur y and before t he j ur

y has been adv is ed of the Cou rt

. T h e Co u rt : O k a y. No ru li ng appears i n the record. After couns el for R obi nson & H ar ri son sta ted t hat i t h a d prepared new propose d is sues for t he us ur

y q uest ion s t hat h e w oul d l ik e to br ing to the Cour t' s attent ion , the tr ial
cour t, re ferr ing to it s r uli ng s made dur ing the June 14 charg e c onferenc e, i nformed c ounse l that "myr uli ng s a re w hat they are." The tr ial cour t made no ex pli ci t ru li ng on t his obj ect ion , and, from our re v iew of t he re cord, w e c annot conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt i mpli ci tl y r ule dM arce l o an d I nt er nat i onal pr ev ai l ed a gai nst R obi nson & H ar r i son o n t hei r cl ai m of t or t i ous 12 i nt er f er ence wi t h a cont r act

. I t i s undi sput ed, howev er , t hat t hi s l i abi l i t y f i ndi ng does not suppor t an awar d of a tto rn e y 's fe e s . See Sm i th v

. H en ni ng t on , 249 S. W

. 3d 6 00, 606 ( T ex. App. –East l and 2008, pet

. den i ed) ( pr ov i di ng t hat at t or ney ' s f ees m ay be r ecov er ed f r om an opposi ng p ar t y onl y when per m i t t ed b y st atut e or by cont r act , and no st at ut or y or cont r act ual basi s exi st s f ort he r ecov er y of at t or ney ' s f ees u ndert he p l ai nt i ff s' t ort i ou s i nterferen c e c l ai m s ) ( c i t ing H ol l and v. W al
- M art St ores, I nc . , 1 S. W

. 3d 9 1, 95 ( T ex. 199 9) ( per c uri am ))

. 14 on th is obj ect ion or

refused to r ule and Rob ins on & Har ri son obj ect ed to the re fusal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 3 3

. 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A )

. B e c a u s e R o b i n s o n fa i l e d t o o b t a i n a r u l i n g , t h i s o bj e cti on has not b een preser

v ed for our

rev iew

. See id . atR ule 33.1

. Havi ng concl u d e d neith er object ion w as prese rv ed for our rev iew , w e overrule Rob ins on & Har ri son' s first is sue. C. A tt or ney 's F ees A

w ard By its secon d issue, Robinso n & Harrison cont end s that , even if u suryliability is found, the aw ard of attor ney 's fees i s n ot s uppor ted b y the usur y cl aim becau se no actual dam ages aw ar d e d

. The av ailability of atto rney's fees u nde r a particular statu te is a 12 q uest ion of law

for t he c our

t. Hol lan d v . Wal- Ma rt

Sto re s , 1 S.W .3d 9 1, 94 ( Tex . 199 9) ( per cur iam)

. W e the re fore rev iew the is sue de nov o. El PasoNatural Gas Co. v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc ., 8 S .W .3d 3 09, 3 12 ( Tex . 199 9) ; see The Cadle Co. v. Ortiz , 227 S.W .3d 8 31, 835 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 7, pe t. de nied ).

1. Sec tion 38.00 1 of t he Civ il Pra ctice and Remedies Code Rob ins on & Har ri son firs t as ser ts thatno attor ney 's fees shoul d hav e been aw arded to M arcel o and Inter nati onal under se cti on 38. 001 of the Tex as Ci v il P ra cti ce and Remedi es Cod e. SeeT EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 3 8

. 0 0 1 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 8 )

. W e ag re e tha t, pursuantto secti on 38. 001, w hen no damag es are aw arded i n c lai ms for rend ered serv ices, pe rforme d l ab or , fur ni s he d ma terial, f reight or ex press overcharges, lostR obi nson & H ar r i son al so asser t s t hat t he d am ages r equest ed— i

. e. , " t he p r i nci pal am ount on whi ch 13 th e in te r e s t is c h a r g e d a n d r e c e iv e d "

— a r e a v a ila b le o n ly w h e n th e r e is a c o n tr a c t o r tr a n s a c tio n f o r p e r s o n a l, fa m i l y , o r h o u s e h o l d u s e . See T EX
. F IN
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 305. 002( b) , 349. 002( a) (Ver non 2006)

. T he j ur y was asked t o de t er m i ne d am ages f ounde d, i n pa r t , on t hi s l angua ge. Robi nson & H ar r i son, howev er , di d no t p re s e n t t h i s o b je c ti o n to th e tri a l c o u rt. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 2 7 4 ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 3 3 .1 (a ); see a lso T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 278

. W e, t her ef or e, concl ude t hatt hi s ar gum ent i s wai v ed. 15 or damag ed frei g ht or

ex press , kil led or inj ured stoc k, a sw or n account , or an oral or w ri tten cont ra ct, no a ttor ney 's fees may be aw arded. Id .; see, e.g. , Green Int'l, Inc. v. Solis , 951 S.W .2d 384 , 3 9 0 ( T e x. 1 997 ) ( "Be cause Green failed to recover dam ages on its brea ch of contractclaim, Gree n w as no t ent itled to recover at torne y 's fe es un der Se ction 3 8.0 01. "). Ma rc elo and Inter nati onal 's cl aim is not, how ev er , a cl aim cov ered by se cti on 38. 001. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 38. 001. Iti s a clai m for usur y . Therefore, R obi nson & Harrison's reliance on section 38.0 01 o f the civi l p ra c t ic e a nd rem edie s code is mis pla ced. 13 2. Sec tion 305.0 05 of the Finance Code W hile ackn owl edging that sect ion 30 5.0 05 o f the f inan ce code allows for atto rney's fees relat ed to usury, Robinso n & Harrison asserts, non eth eless, that the jury v erdict in this
cas e do e s n o t su p por

t a cl aim for attor ney 's fees bec ause there i s n o findi ng here tha t Rob ins on & Har ri son w as li abl e for us ur y and no actual damag es w ere aw arded. See T EX
. F IN
. C OD E A NN . § 305.005 ( Ver non 200 6) ; C & K In v s . v . F ie s ta G r oup, Inc ., 248 S. W .3d 234, 251 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 2007, no pet.) (c onfir ming that under financ e c ode section 3 05 a pa rty

can on ly recover atto rney's fees when the defend antis first foun d liable for us ur y ); Hoxie Im

ple m ent v

. Ba ker , 65 S.W .3d 140, 15 0 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2001, pet. deni ed) ( hol din g thatbefore a pl ain ti ff ca n hol d a d efendant li abl e for att or ney 's fees, the jur y mustfirst find a defendant l iab le under the f ina nce code)

. The ju ry , howev er , found16

in re spons e to Ques ti on 6 that Rob ins on & Har ri son re q uired th e Gal v ans to as sume t he past ind ebtedne ss of Tej as as a condi ti on of extendi ng credi t to Ma rce lo . Ha v ing
conc lud ed th at R obi nson & Har ri son preser v ed no c harg e er ro r as to Q uest ion 6 an d tha t ithas present ed no ev ide nti ar y is sues for o ur

rev iew , Q uest ion 6 was the o nly us ur y l iab il ity q uest ion before the j ur

y . See Ram os v. Fr

ito- Lay, Inc ., 784 S.W .2d 667, 668 ( Tex . 199 0) (ci ti n g T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 2 79) ( "W here . . . i ss ues are omitted w hic h const it ute only a pa rtof
a c omplet e and ind ependentground and other is sues necess ar il y referabl e to that g ro und
a re s u b m itted a nd ans w ered, t he omi tted ele ments are deemed found in suppo rtof the jud g ment i f no obje ct io n i s made and t hey are s uppor

ted b y so me ev ide nce. "). By
answ er ing thi s q uest ion i n the aff ir mati v e, t he j ur y found R obi nson & H arris o n l ia ble for
u s u ry. Furthe rmore , sectio n 30 5.0 05 o f the f inan ce cod e stat es tha t "[a ] creditor w ho is liable un der Se ction 3 05

. 0 0 1 or 305 .00 3 is also liable to th e ob lig or for reason able attor ney 's fee s se t b y t he c our t." T EX
. F IN
. C OD E A NN
. § 305. 005; see id . § 305.001 (a -1 ) (V er non 200 6) ( prov idi ng for c re dit or l iab il ity for c ontract in g for, charg ing , or recei v ing
usur iou s int erestin connect ion w it h a commerci al transacti on) ; see als o §305.00 3 ( Ver non 2006) (prov idi ng for

credi tor liab il ity for c harg ing or

recei v ing l eg al int erestthati s g re ater tha n the amo untauth oriz ed b y the sub title, en titled " Inte rest"). T he aw ard of reason able attor ney 's fees und er

se cti on 305.005 is dependent onl y on the est abl is hment of c re dit or li abi li ty , noton a findi ng of act ual damag es. See id . § 305.005 ; see a lso Dyer v. Atteb erry, No. 05- 07- 00284- CV , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 508, at * 10 ( Tex . App .– Da lla s Feb. 29, 2008) ( mem. op.)( hol din g thatbec ause the c ounterc la im for att or ney 's fees w as dependentupon a us ur y cl aim w hic h the cl aimantfail ed to es tabl is h, t he c our t found no17

e rro r in th e fa ilu re t o a ward at to rn e y's fe e s) (c it in g T EX
. F IN
. C ODE
. A NN . § 305.005 ); cf. Johns v. R amF

or wardi ng, Inc ., 2 9 S .W .3d 6 35, 6 37- 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 2000, no pet .) (h old ing , pursuantto secti on 134. 005( b) of the c iv il pract ic e and re medies code w hic h prov ide s "each person w ho prev ail s in a sui t under thi s chapt er shall be
aw arded cour

t cost s and reas onabl e and neces sar y attor ney 's fees, " that the pl ain ti ff w ho received z ero da ma ges on his Th ef t Liab ility A c tc laim was entitled to recover attorne y 's fees bec ause the j ur

y found that the d efendant c ommitt ed c iv il theft) ; Nw. Ba nk v. Couie , 642 S. W .2d 8 47, 8 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 19 82, n o w rit) (fin din g , und er predece ss or statu te to section 349 .00 3 of the f inan ce cod e, th at "a ctua l dam ages w ere no t nece ssary it ems of proof to be made .

. . i n order to re cov er

under

. . . [ar ti cl e 5060, se cti on 8. 01( b) of t he Consu me r Credit] Co de" b ecau se the se pen alties are notco mp ensa tory in nat ure and do not req uire a show ing of actual damag e) ; Stephe ns v. Fr ien dly Chevr ole t, Ltd ., No. 05- 04- 00788- CV , 2005 T ex . App. LEX IS 3170, a t * 5, * 11 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as Apr . 28, 2005, pet. deni ed) ( mem. op.)( ex pla ini ng thatse ct ion 349. 001 of the finance co de prov ide s statu tory pen alties for v iolation s of the pro v isio n s o f

chap ter 348 and beca use " the se penal ti e s a re n o tc o mp e n s a t o r y i n n a t u re " t h e y

" d o n o tre q u i re a s h o w i n g o f a ctu al dam age"). Even thou gh no actu al dam ages w ere foun d, w e con clude thatt he trial court proper ly co ncl uded t hat a ttor ney 's fees w ere av ail abl e i n thi s c ase becau se the j ur y found li abi li ty

. W e ov er ru le Rob ins on & Har ri son' s s econd i ss ue. 3. Statute of Limitations By i ts thi rd i ss ue, R obi nson & Har ri son cont ends that the usur y cl aim is bar re d by the four-y ear

st atute of li mita ti ons. H ow ev er , t his co ntent ion i s n ot s uppor ted b y cl ear and18

concise argumen ts w ith ap prop riate citatio ns to au tho rities and to the record and is, thus, ina deq uatel y

br iefed. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(i). W e overrule Robinson & Harri son's th ird and final i ss ue. 4. No Act ual D amag es A w ard ed By his s o le i s s u e , cross-app ellantMarcelo com plains th at th e trial court erred in
re fusing to cal cul ate damag es on his us ur y cl aim and t hat t he z ero damag es aw arded by the j ur y i s im mater ial and must be di sreg arded bec ause iti s o uts ide the jur y 's prov inc e. Ma rc elo now seek s to hav e thi s Cou rt cor re ct the t ri al cour t' s a ll eg ed er ro r throug h a p ro per cal cul ati on of act ual damag es and modi ficat ion of the fin al jud g ment. Par ti es, howev er , may

not inv it e er ro r by

req uest ing thatan i ss ue be inc lud ed in the charg e and then by

obj ect ing to it s submi ss ion

. See, e.g., Gen. Chem . C or p. v . D e La Lastra , 852 S.W .2d 9 16, 9 20 ( Tex . 199 3) ; Wi n k le v . T u llos , 9 1 7 S

. W

. 2 d 3 0 4 , 3 1 6 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1996, w ri t den ied ); see a lso Maddox v. Denka Chem . Corp ., 930 S.W .2d 668, 670- 71 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 6, no w ri t) ( "A par ty ca nnot
com plain when the judge subm its an issue subst ant ially similar to the one it requested ."). Aft e r f inding tha t Robinso n & Harrison required the Galv ans to assum e the past ind ebtedne ss of Tejas as a c ondi ti on of ext endi ng credi t t o M arcel o, t he j ur y w as ask ed to
answ er a da mag es q uest ion bas ed on w hat M arce lo s ubmitted a s t he meas ure of
re cov era ble damag es. The q uest ion i nst ru cte d the j ur y to cal cul ate d amag es as tw enty percentof the a mount of the pri nci pal , plus the pr inc ipa l amount o n w hic h the i nterestw as charged an d received, plus th e inte rest charged an d received . As instructed , the jury consid ered the ele me nts setout in th e cha rg e an d awarded zero dam ages.19

Ma rce lo di d no t o bje ctto th e su b m iss io n o f th is da m a ges que st io n . At t h e ch a rge conference, co unsel for M arcel o stated that , in res pectto the fin al form of the c harg e, he did "not hav e any

propose d i nst ru cti ons, obj ect ion s o r re q uest s." He had "no obj ect ion s to th e charge." Before the ju ry ret urne d its verdict, Marcelo did no t bring to the trial court's atten ti on th at t he damag es is sue eit her fail ed to appl y

the proper

measu re of damag es or appl ied an i mprop er

measu re of damag es. I nst ead, Ma rc elo req uest ed th e v er y iss ue th at he n ow seeks to av oid. T hus, Marcelo in vit e d t h e e rror aboutw hich he now com plains. Ma ddox , 930 S.W .2d a t 670 -7 1. None the less, Marcelo a rg u e s thatthe invited error doctrine doe s not ap ply in this
cas e bec ause he req uest ed th at t he er ro r be cor re cte d w hil e the cour t had pl enar

y pow er to do so and the t ri al cour t refused to do s o. See Y aqui nto v . Br itt , 188 S.W .3d 8 19, 8 29 (Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 2006, pet. denie d) (ex pla ini ng that the inv it ed- er ro r doct ri ne did no t appl y under the facts of the c ase becau se a tri al cour t may recons ide r and c hang e i ts order any ti me as lon g as ithas pl enar y pow er ); see als o McLe ndon v. McLendon , 847 S.W .2d 601, 604- 05 ( Te x . App. –Da ll as 1992, w ri t den ied ) (c oncl udi ng thatthe inv it ed- er ro r doct ri ne did not appl y

bec ause the a ppel lan t made the obje ct io ns to t he ag re ed di v orce decree known to the trial court followi ng the agreem ent ). Aft er the v erdict was received, Marcelo f il ed a moti on for jud g ment notw it hst andi ng the v erdict, moti on to dis re g ard juryf in d in gs a n d , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , m o t i o n fo r n e w t r i a l w i t h a s u p p l e me n t a l b r i e f i n s u p p o rtt h e re o f, ask ing the tr ia l co u rtto appl y othe r measures of damag es. After the jud g ment w as ent ered , Marcelo f iled a m otion to modif y , correct, or reform the j udgm ent

. In his mo tions, Ma rc elo al l e g e d t h a tt h e j u r y ' s fi n d i n g t o Q u e s t i o n 7 , c o n c e r n i n g u s u r y d a ma g e s , w as immater ial and that the t ria l co u rth ad a duty to cal cul ate a ctu al damag es. The mot ion sI n hi s m ot i on f or j udgm ent not wi t hst andi ng t he v er di ct and m ot i on t o di sr egar d t he j ur y f i ndi ngs a nd, 14 i n t he a l t er nat i v e, m ot i on f ornew t r i al , M ar cel o asked t he t r i al cour t t o ap pl y t he p r operm easur e of dam ages set f or t h i n sect i ons 3 49. 001 and 349. 002 oft he f i nance code, whi ch, i n com bi nat i on, pr ov i ded f or( 1) t wi ce t he a m ount of

i nt er est cont r act ed f or , char ged, or re cei v ed, and (2 ) fo r f ei t ur e ofal l i nt er est and al l pr i nci pal c h a rg e d a s a n a d d i ti o n a l p e n a l ty

. See T EX
. F IN
. C OD E A NN
. § § 3 4 9 .0 0 1 , 3 4 9 .0 0 2 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 6 ) . U s in g th is m e a s u re o f d a m a g e s , M a rc e l o c a l c u l a te d th e fo l l o w i n g a c tu a l d a m a g e a m o u n t: T wi ce t he i nt er est $107, 200 I nt er est 53, 600 Pr i nci pal 10, 000 T ot al $170, [ 8] 00 I n hi s supp l em ent al br i efi n sup por t of i t s m ot i on, M arcel o cal cul at ed a ct ual dam ages underan a l te rn a ti v e m e th o d u s i n g s e c ti o n s 3 0 5 .0 0 3 a n d 3 0 5 .0 0 4 o f th e fi n a n c e c o d e , s e e id

. §§ 3 05. 003, 305

. 004, as f ol l ows: Penal t y und er305

. 003 $119, 896. 05 Penal t y und er305

. 004

Pr i nci pal 10, 000. 00 I nt er est 40, 000. 00 T ot al $16[ 9] , 896. 05 M ar cel o cal cul at ed t he se ct i on 3 05. 003 penal t y of $11 9, 896. 05 b y det er m i ni ng t hat t he m axi m um i nt er est a l l o w e d b y l a w o n th e $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 p rin c i p a l a t s i x p e r c e n t in te re s t fo r tw e n ty -o n e d a y s w a s $ 3 4 .6 5

. See id. § 302. 002 ( Ver non 2006)

. D educt i ng $34. 65 f r om t he " i nt er est char ged" or$40 , 000 and m ul t i pl y i ng t hat am ount b y th re e , M a rc e l o c a l c u l a te d a s e c ti o n 3 0 5 .0 0 3 p e n a l tyo f $ 1 1 9 ,8 9 6 .0 5

. S e e id

. § 30 5. 003. M ar cel o al so use d t hi s al t ern ati ve m ea s ure of da m ag es i n hi s m oti on to m od i fy , c orrec t o r refo rm the jud gm en t fi l ed two y ea rs aft erj udgm ent was en t er ed. 20 and br ief des cr ibe d, i n det ail , w hat Ma rc elo re ferred to as a proper measu re for c alc ula ti ng dam ages and an alte rnative mea sure. Now, on a ppe al, Marcelo reaso ns tha t beca use 14 he i nformed t he tr ial co ur t of the er ro r w it h ti me to cor re ct it and the t ri al cour t refused, h e nei ther w aiv ed hi s c omplai nt on appeal nor is es topped from co mplai nin g . W e di sag re e becau se "the tr ial courtw as not author iz ed to disreg ard the j ur y 's findi ng of damag es on that g ro und w hen [ Ma rc elo made] no di sti nctobj ect ion to the measu re o f d a m a ges . . . before s ubmis si on." Mo wery v. Fant ast ic Hom es, Inc

. , 5 6 8 S

. W

. 2 d 1 7 1 , 1 7 2 -1 7 3 (T e x. Ci v. Ap p .– Da lla s 1 9 7 8 , n o w rit ) (ci ti n g Al lenv. Am . Nat'

l Ins . C o. , 3 8 0 S

. W

. 2 d 6 0 4 , 6 0 9 (T e x. 1964) ; Panhandl

e & Santa Fe Ry. C o. v . F ri end , 9 1 S

. W

. 2 d 9 2 2 , 9 3 0 (T e x. Ci v. App.–A ust in 1936, no w ri t) ). "If a par ty is precl uded from urg ing er ro rs i n the ch arg e i f no21

dis ti nctobj ect ion i s made pr ior to submi ss ion , t h e n s u rely the tr ial co urt may

not

. . . dis re g ard mater ial i ss ues w hic h hav e been submi tted w it hout a proper obj ect ion ." Mowery, 568 S. W .2d a t 172 -1 73; see W il gus v. Bond , 7 3 0 S. W .2 d 67 0 , 6 7 2 (T e x. 19 8 7 ) (" Al th o u gh
w e ag re e tha t damag es must be measured bya l eg al sta ndard w hic h s er v es to g uid e the jur y i n det er mini ng co mpensat ion for t he i nju re d par ty , t he Bon ds w aiv ed any er ro r in the
s u b mi s s i o n b y

fa i l u re t o p ro p e r l y

o bj e c t.") ; Ir

on Mountai

n Bi son Ran ch, Inc . v

. Ea sley Trailer M fg., Inc. , 42 S.W .3d 149, 15 6- 57 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2000, no pet .) ; see als o T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 274. T here fore, ev en if the me asure of dam ages in the charge w as im p ro p e r, Marcelo
canno t c omplai n because the tr ial courtsubmitt ed the damages ques ti on he re q uest ed; h e inv it ed the e rror . See M addox , 930 S.W .2d a t 670 -7 1. Mo re ov er , t he tr ial co urt w as not author iz ed to di sreg ard the j ur y 's findi ng of z ero usur

y damages w hen no di sti nctobj ect ion to t he meas ure of thos e damag es w as m a d e b e fo re sub mis si on. See Mowe ry, 568 S.W .2d a t 172 -1 73. Ma rc elo al so ass erts that the jur y 's z ero damag es aw ard is immater ial and must be dis re g arded becau se itw as outs ide the jur y 's prov inc e. See S

pen cer v. Eagle Star Ins. Co. of Am ., 87 6 S.W .2d 154 , 1 5 7 ( T e x. 1 9 94) (op. on reh'g) ( def ining an imm ate rial jury q uest ion as one that "shoul d nothav e been submi tted" and as "[a] ques ti on w hic h call s for a fi nd i ng be y on d th e prov i nc e of th e j ur y , s uc h as a q ue s ti on of l aw ")

. Again, this cont ent ion is not p ersua siv e beca use Marcelo requeste d tha t the jury det ermin e da ma ges. See Moody

v. M ainBank of Hou sto n , 667 S.W .2d 6 67, 6 20 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 198 4, w rit ref'd n.r.e .) (ho lding, in a " deb t assum ption " usury case, tha t a deb tor's request22

that a q uest ion be s ubmitted t o the jur y est ops him from subs eq uentl y compl ain ing that the question and jury

f inding w ere irrelev antor imma terial). Fi nal ly , re ly ing on Dugg an v. Marsha ll and Mi ller v. F ir st State Bank, M arcel o s ets out t he foll ow ing proposi ti on of law : W hen us ur y i s p ro per ly

pl eaded a nd s uppor

ted b y the record, th e me asure of

dam ages is a matt er of law , and the trial court ha s the du ty to ap ply the p ro per

measure of damag es. Duggan , 7 S.W .3d 888 , 892 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Di st. ] 199 9, no pet. ) (a ppl y ing thi s p ro posi ti on i n a c ommon-l aw usury case and c oncl udi ng that a c ommon-l aw

us ur y cl aim sur

v iv ed to M arshal l' s e sta te and that, therefore, "the t ri al
cour t w as author iz ed to render jud g ment for Ma rs hal l' s est ate i n the amount of $191,800 ag ain stD u ggan upon the j ur y 's findi ng thatD ug g an and Ma rs hal l had ag re ed to a 20 percenti nterestrate, w hic h the par ti es ag re e i s u sur iou s") ; Miller, 551 S.W .2 d 89, 102 (Te x . Civ . App .–Fo rt W orth 19 77) (op. on reh'g ) (a pplying this prop osition in a non -jury tr ial ), m odi

fied on other

gr ounds , 563 S.W .2d 5 72 ( Tex . 197 8 ). By hi s a ppel lat e arg uments , M arcel o ass erts that the tr ial cour t had a duty

to appl y the cor re ct measure of damag es and t o c alc ula te t he damag es based on t hat meas ure. The cas es ci ted, how ev er , do no t s ta nd for th e prop os i ti on th at th e tr i al c ou rt mu s t ap pl y th e correct
measure of damag es and cal cul ate t he damag es as a matt er of law w hen t he damag es is sue is su bmitted t o the j ur y , w it hout obj ect ion

. See D uggan , 7 S.W .3d a t 892 ; M il ler , 551 S.W .2d a t 102 ; see a lso Iron Moun tain Bison Ranch , Inc. , 42 S.W .3d a t 156 -5 7 ( ex pla ini ng tha t rev ersal is re qu ired w hen a dam ages question incorpora tes a legally -incorrect
m e a s u re of

da m a ges on ly if

th e re w a s a rul e 27 4 obje ct io n m a d e ) (ci ti n g T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 274)

. Ma rc elo has ci ted no author ity suppo rt ing his arg ument under the fact s o f this ca se,23

and w e find none. M arcel o's cross -i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led R obi nson & H ar ri son' s i ss ues and M arcel o Gal v an's cross -i ss ue,
w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Del iv ered and filed the 17th day of June, 2010.