Tex. Fin. Code Ann. §§ 392.001-.404 (West 2006). 1 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 060 -CV

Jo hnso n Sav ag e , I nc . d/ b/a P r e c isi on Tu ne , A ppe lla nt

v. Steve F ehrenkam p , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN20257 3 , HO NORAB LE MARGARET A. COO P ER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Joh n s o nS av age , I n c. d / b / a P re ci s i o nT u n e ( “P rec ision Tune”) a ppeals fr om a judg ment awa

rding appellee Steve Fe hrenka mp $4,806.11 in compensatory damag es and $38,000 in attorney s’ fee s based on the jury ’s finding that Precision Tune violate d the Texas Debt Col le c tion P ract ice s Ac t. The jury found “0” damag es for

the violation, but on Fehr enkamp’ s 1 motio n f o r ju d g me nt notwithst anding the ver dict, the district court disre g arde d eleve n of the ne g ative damag es finding s and substituted its own affirmative da mag es finding s. We will rever se the district court judg ment and re nder judg ment in Precision Tune’s f avor.2 F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On Fe bruar

y 16, 2002, Fe hrenka

mp took his 1992 Pathfinder to Pre cision Tune, a n auto re pair business, for

an oil chang e. F our day s lat er , on Fe bruar y 20, the Pathfinder’ s eng ine failed. F ehre nkamp had the ve hicle towed to another auto re pair shop, whe re a

mecha nic deter mined t h at t h e e n gi n e h ad

s ei z edu p d u e t o a l ac k o f o i l an d n o t ed t h e ab s en ce o f t h e o i l p an ’s dra i np l u g. Fe h r e n k a mp in f

o r me d Pr e c is io n T u n e o f th e e n g in e f a il ur e an d s u s p e c te d c a

u s e . Pr e c is ion Tune had the ve hicle towed to its shop and, on F ebrua ry 25, made a

rra ng ements for a

renta l car

for Fe hrenka mp. Precision Tune’s president, Mike Rouse, inspected the Pathfinder a nd conclude d that the eng ine had f

ailed due to a broken rod, not for lack of oil . A sec ond opinion from an indepe ndent eng ineer confirme d R o u s e’ s conclusion. On Mar ch 9, Prec ision Tune informed F ehre nkamp that it would not acce pt responsibility for the e ng ine fa ilure and asked Fe hrenka mp to return the r ental

car and re move the Pathfinder from the shop. Fehre nkamp had the ve hicle towed to his house. On Mar ch 22 , F e hr e nk a mp h a d it tow e d to a

Ni ssa n d e a le rs hip fo r a

re pa ir e sti mate . F e hr e nk a mp
o b t ai n ed a second e stimate from y et another repa ir shop, which eve ntually completed the e ng ine repa ir on or about Apr il 25.

Meanw hile, on Marc h 28, Precision Tune sent Fehr enkamp a letter re questing reimburse ment for $1,143 in expens es i t h ad i n curr ed for towing a

nd for the r ental ca

r. On April 11, Rouse ca lled the Fe h re n k amp hous e and le ft the following messag e on the

ans we ri ngma c hin e :

Yes, this is M ike Rou se a t Pr e c isi on Tune . I kn owy ou ’v e be e n in rec eip t of my

letter for ten day s now. Ihave not he ard f rom y ou be fo re . We —w e have to p ro c e e d le g a lly

. Just wa nte d to kn owif

—ifTex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 17.46-.63 (West 2002 & Supp. 2008). 2 3 y ou h ad p lanned to pay

us that—the amount y ou owe us for the inc ide nta ls i nv olv e d in

y our v e hic le . I

wi ll, Ig ues s, wa it unti l tomorrow bef

ore I file cha rg es. Thank you, sir.
The ne x t day , Fe hren k am p ’s attorne y sent a letter

to Rouse stating that Prec ision Tune’s ac tions constituted violations of the Texas Dece ptive Trade Practice s–C o n s u m er Protec tion Act and the 2 Te xas D e bt Col le c tio n Pr a c tic e s Ac t, and de mand ing that Pr e c isi on Tune pa y him the c os t to r e pa ir the eng ine as we ll as compensation for his lost t ime and inconve nience . Precision T u n e did not resp o n d t o the demand, a nd Fe hrenka

mp subsequently

filed this suit allegingcause s of ac tion for vio la tio ns of the de bt c oll e c tio n p ra c tic e s a c t, t he de c e pti ve tr a de pr a c tic e s– c on sume r p ro te c tio n a c t, fra ud, and neg lige nce.

After a two-da y trial, the district court submitted to the jury a cha rg e con s i sting of 35 questions cover ing the four c auses of action and inc luding se vera l damag es questions. The jury

ans we re d two of the lia

bil ity qu e sti on s af

fi rm a tiv e ly , fin din g that (1) Pr e c isi on Tune “ thr e a te ne d to file a char g e, complaint or criminal action ag ainst Steve Fe hrenka mp when Steve F ehre nkamp had not violated a criminal law” ( Question 1); and ( 2) Prec ision Tune’s neg lige nce “ proxi mately cause d the occ urre nce or

injury in question” (Question 31). Howeve r, the jury answe red a ll the associated dam a g e s qu e s ti o n s n e g a ti v e ly , f in d in g “ 0 ” d a ma g e s in an s w e r to e a c h

. T h e ju r y f ailed to find additional violations of the debt collec tion practice s act b ey ond the threat, failed to find any

v i o l a t i o n s o f

t h e d e c e p t i v e t r a d e p r a c t i c e s

– c o n s u m e r p r o t e c t i o n a c t , an d f a i l e d t o f i n d f r a u d

. F i n a l l y, the jur y awa rd e d ze ro do lla

rs in atto rn e y s’ fe e s.4 Precision Tune filed a motion for entry of judg ment, which the district cour t denied. Fe hrenka mp f iled a motion re questing that the district court disre g ard thirtee n of the seve nteen jury finding s reg ardingdamag es arising from the debt collec tion practice s act violation, and a sking the court to substitute af

fi rm ati ve dama g e finding s in their place . Fe hrenka mp did not challeng e the “0” da mag es fin dings a ssociated with the a ffirmative finding of neg lige nce. T he district cour t g rante d Fe hrenka

mp’s reque st as to eleven ne g ative da m ag e finding s—seven a ddressing compensatory

damag es re sulting fr om Precision Tune’s conduct in violation of the debt collec tion prac tices ac t and four r elating to attorney s’ fe es. The dis t rict cour t signe d a judg ment awa

rding F e hr e nk a mp $ 4, 80 6. 11 in c omp e ns a tor y dama g es and $3 8, 00 0 in a tto rn e y s’ fe e s. I n thre e iss ue s, Precision Tune asserts on appe al that the district cour t erre d by (1) a war ding da

mag es that did not result from its violation of the debt collec tion practice s act; (2) denying Precision Tune’s motion for entry of judg ment based on the jury verdic t finding zero da

mag es; and (3) awa

rding attorney s’ fe es without a finding of compe nsatory damag es re sul ting f

rom violations of the debt collec tion pr a c tic e s a c t.
STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW A motion for judgme nt notwithstanding the verdic t should be g rante d only when the evidenc e is conc lus ive and one party is entitled to recove r as a matter of la

w, or whe n a leg al p r in c ip le p r e c lu d e s r e c o v e r y . Ma n co r

p, Inc. v . Culpepper , 802 S.W .2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1990). A district court may

disreg ard a

ny jury finding on a q uestion that has no support in the evidenc e. Tex. R. C iv. P. 301. The district court m ay d i s re g ard a jury ’s ver dict and re nder judg ment

no tw ith sta

nd ingthe ve rd ic t if

no e vid e nc e su

pp or ts t he jur y ’s fi nd ing s or if a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t w ou ld5

have b een proper. Se e Till e r v . M c Lur e , 1 21 S.W. 3d

70 9, 71 3 ( Te x. 20 03 ); Brown v. Bank of Galveston , 963 S.W .2d 511, 513 (Tex. 1998). To deter mine whet h er t h e district cour t erre d in r e nd e ri ngjud g me nt n otw ith sta nd ingthe ve rd ict, we r e vie w a ll e vid e nc e in a lig ht m os t favor able to the ve rdict, indulg ing e very rea sonable infe renc e in i ts favor. City of Keller v. W ilson , 168 S.W .3d 802, 821 (Tex. 2005). The jury ’s findi ng s must not be disturbed if the re is any evidenc e of probative value to support them. International Armament Corp. v. King , 686 S.W .2d 595, 597 (T e x. 19 85 ). F ur

the rm or e , the dis tr ic t c ourt may re nd e r j ud g me nt n otw ith sta nd ingthe ve rd ic t and

s u b s t i tu t e i t s o w n j u d g m e n t o f t h e p r o p e r m e a s u r e o f d a m a g e s o n l y i f t h e e v i d e n c e p r o v e s tho se damag es conc lusively

. State v. Huffstutler , 8 71 S.W. 2d 95 5, 96 0-6 1 (Tex . App .— Au sti n 1994, no writ).

DI SCU SSIO N Compe nsa tor

y Da mage s Awa rd The pa rties ag ree that the jury ’s finding , in answer to Question 1, of a violation of the de bt c oll e c tio n p ra c tic e s a c t w a s b a se d s ole ly on un c on tr ov e rt e d e vid e nc e of the Ap ri l 11 ph on e c a ll wher ein Rouse , Pr e c is io n

T u n e ’ s p r e s id e nt, th

r eate ned to “f

ile char g es” a g ainst Fe hrenka mp. Having

answe red Q uestion 1 aff

irmatively , the jury

was re quired to answe r Questions 2 and 9, the damag es questions. Question 2 asked the jury , “What sum of m oney , if any , if paid now in ca sh, do y ou find fr om a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e wo uld

fa ir ly and re a so na bly c omp e ns a te Ste ve F e hr e nk a mp for his dama g es, if any , whi c h r esu lte d fr om thec on du c t y o uf o u n d t o e x i s t in Q u e s ti o n1 ?” (E mph a sis a dd e d. ) T he re we re fo ur se pa rate c a te g or ie s o f d a ma g e s f or the jur y to c on sid e r:Question 9 was conditioned on an aff irmative answe r to any

of Que stions 1, 3, or 5. The 3 jury answe red “No” to Q uestions 3 and 5, and a nswere d “Ye s” to Question 1, which wa s based on Rou se ’s Ap ri l 11 ph on e c a ll. Ac c or dingl y , th e ph ra se “ su c h c on du c t” in Q ue sti on 9 n e c e ssa

ri ly re fe rr e d to that ph on e c a ll. 6

2(a) the value of

time F ehre nkamp spent to pr ove he did not owe any debt to Precision Tune; 2(b) the expenses incurr ed by Fe hrenka

mp in having the Pathfinder towe d on Marc h 9, 2002; 2(c) Fe hrenka

mp’s past mental anguish; and 2(d) Fe hrenka

mp’s m en t al anguish that he may sustain in the future. Question 9 asked the jury , “What sum of money , if any , if paid now in ca sh, would fairly and

rea sonably

compensate Steve F ehre nkamp for his damag es, if any , that resulted from such co n d u ct ?” (Emphasis adde d.) For this question, there wer e nine separ ate categ ories of damag es for the jury 3 to c on sid e r: 9(a) the cost t o restore the vehicle to the conditi on it was in bef ore the Fe bruar

y 16, 2002 oil chang e; 9(b) loss of use of the ve hicle; 9( c ) c os t of

re pla c e me nt o f t

he e ng ine and

re late d r e pa ir s; 9(d) cost of the r epair

estimate fr om Southpoi nt Nissan; 9(e) cost of the tow fro m Austin High School to Ji mmy ’s Top Tec h and fr om Precision Tune to the F ehre nkamp home; 9(f) cost to Fe hrenka

mp of substitut e tra

nsportation; 9(g ) cost of the F ebrua ry 16, 2002 oil chang e;Fe hrenka mp did not ask t he dis trict court to disreg ard findings 2(c) (past mental anguish), 4 2(d) ( future me ntal anguish), 9(f) (cost of substitute transportation), or 9(i) ( past mental anguish). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e c li n e d to d is r e g ar d

f in d in g s 2 ( a ) ( v a lu e o f

ti me F e h r e n k a mp s p e nt 5 proving he wa s not indebted to Precision Tune), and 9(h) (value of time Fe hrenka mp lost from work t o ad d re s s the damag e to the vehic le). F ehre nkamp did not bring his own appea l to challeng e the court’s de nial of this reque sted relief

. 7 9 (h ) v al u e o f t i m e F eh re n k am p l o s t fr o m wo rk t o ad dre s s d am age to the vehicle; a

nd 9( i) F e hr e nk a mp’ s p a st m e nta l anguis h The jury awa rde d z er o d amag es for

eac h of the sepa

rate cate g ories in Questions 2 and 9 of the char g e. Prec ision Tune filed a motio n t o re n der judg ment on the ver dict, which the district cour t de nie d. F e hr e nk a mp f

ile d a mot ion to dis re g ard

c e rt a in j ur

y fi nd ing s and

re nd e r j ud g me nt i n h is fa vo r, wh ic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d in pa rt
. I n his motion, Fehre nkamp contende d that there was no e vidence to support the jury ’s

answe r of zero to nine Q uestions: 2(a), 2( b), 9(a ), 9(b) , 9(c) , 9(d), 9(e), 9(g ), and 9(h). He asked the c ourt to d isr e g ard

the se fi nd ing s and su bs tit ute its ow n a ff

ir mativ e fi nd ing s a s to dama g e s in

a mou nt s Fehre nk a mp a

rgue d w e re c on c lus ive ly

pr ov e n at tr ia l. The district cour t gr anted the 4 motion as to seven of the nine finding s—2(b), 9(a ), 9(b) , 9(c) , 9 (d ), 9 (e ), and 9(g )—and f or ea ch f i n d i n g s u b s t i tu t e d a d a m a g e s f

i g u r e i np l a c e o f

t h e z e r o d a m a g e s f

o u n d b y t h e j u r

y. B e c a us e 5 finding s 9(a) (cost to re store vehic le to condition be fore oil c hang e) and 9(c) (cost of r eplac ement of the e ng ine and r elated r epair s) wer e cumul a ti v e , F e hrenka

mp made an e lection to rec over da mag es under f inding 9( a); a s a re sult, finding 9(c ) is not part of the judg ment.W e n o t e t h at the sec ond tow in 9(e) is the sa me one f

or which da

mag es we re 6 reque sted in 2(b). 8

I n its first issue, Precision Tune complains that the district cour t erre d by rende ring

a jud g me nt aw ard ing F e hr e nk a mp c omp e ns a tio n f or dama g e s th a t could not hav e resulted from the conduct the jur

y fo u n d t o v i o l ate the de bt collection pra ctices a ct. Prec ision Tune argues that the damag es substituted by

the district court we re imprope r bec ause t h ey ei t h er ( 1) ac crue d or we re incurre d befor e Apr il 11, the date of the phone ca ll making the threat to file c harg es that the pa rties ag ree constitutes the debt collec tion practice s act violation; or (2) did not e manate from the threat contained in the call, but rathe r we re c aused by the damag e to the vehic le itself, which a lso occurr ed befor e Apr il 11. We ag ree . Four of the substituted damag es finding s compensate d Fe hrenka mp for damag es incurr ed bef

ore the April 11 threat e ven occur red and could not in any way have r esulted from that thre at. These are findin gs 2 (b ) (c o s t of tow on Mar ch 9 fr om Precision Tune to the Fe hrenka mp residenc e); 9(d) (cost of r epair es t i m ate done at the Nissan de aler ship on or about Marc h 2 2) ; 9( e ) ( c os t of

tw o to ws , o ne oc c ur

ri ng on F e br ua ry 20 fr om Aus tin

Hi g h Sc ho ol t o a

re pa ir shop and the other occur

ring on Marc h 9 from Prec ision Tune to the Fe hrenka mp residenc e); and 6 9( g ) ( c os t of

the F e br ua ry 16 oil c ha

ng e ). Th e ir

te mpo ra l r e latio ns hip to t he Ap ri l 11 ph on e c a ll alone c ompels the conc lusion that these damag es could not have resulted f rom any violation of the debt collec tion practice s act c ontained in that ca ll. W ith respec t to the remaining t wo s ubstitut ed finding s, it is likewise appar ent that the damag es awa rded did not flow from any threat to file char g es in violation of the debt collec tion practice s act, but rat h er from the damag e to the vehic le itself. These a re f indings 9(a ) (c ost to repair the vehicle) and 9(b) (loss of use of the vehicle)

. The jury was9

ins tr uc te d in bo th Q ue sti on s 2 and 9 to on ly awa rd dama g e s resultingfrom the conduc t violating the debt collection prac tices act. The district c ourt err ed in disre g arding the jury ’s corr ect f indings that

no ne of the c a te g or ie s o f d a ma g e s a dd re sse d in the se fi nd ing s re su lte d fr om t he c on du c t g ivi ngri se to liabilit y

in Question 1. I n it s se c on d is su e, Pr e c isi on Tune a sse rt s th a t th e e vid e nc e did no t c on c lus ive ly

es t ab l i s h t h e a m o u n t o f t h e d am age s aw ar d edt o Fe h re n k am p i nea ch o f t h e s u b s t i tu t edfi n d i n gs made by the district court. P rec ision Tune contends that the di strict court ther efor e er red in de ny ing i t s m o t i o nf

o r j u d g m e n to n t h e v e r d i c t an d i mp r o p e r l y s u b s t i tu t e d i t s f i n d i n g f o r t h o s e o f t h e j u r y. Be cause we have alr ead y co n cl u d ed that none of the ca teg ories for

which dama g es we re a

war ded inc l u d e d d a m a g e s t h a t“ r e s u l t e d

f r o m ” P r e c i s i o nT u n e ’ s a c t i o n a b l e c o n d u c t , w e n e e d

n o ta d dre ss wh e the r t he re wa s c on c lus ive pr oo f o f t he a mou nt o f t ho se dama g e s. Th e y

we re sim ply un a va ila ble to F e hr e nk amp un der th e c ha rg e su bmi tte d to the jur

y . We a g re e tha

t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in denying Pre cision Tune’s motion for e ntry of judg ment and fur

ther e rre d in rende ring judgme nt

no tw ith sta

nd ingthe ve rd ic t wi th su

bs tit ute d f ind ing s o n d a ma g e s. We s us ta in P re c isi on Tune ’s fi rs t and sec ond points of error

. Atto rne y s’ Fe eAwa rd The district cour

t, in four substitut ed finding s, awa rded Fe hrenka

mp attorney s’ fe es in the amount of $38,000 for prepa ration for trial and trial ( finding 35(a) ); $15,000 for a succe ssful appea l to the court of appeals (finding 35(b));$11,000 for init iating or respondingto a petition for

rev ie w ( f in d in g 3 5 ( c ) ) ; an d $ 5 , 0 0 0 in th e e v e n t s u c h p e ti ti o n f o r r e v ie w is g r an te d b y th e Texas Supreme Court (f

inding 35( d)). In its thi rd issue, Prec ision Tune asser ts that the attorney s’ fe e aw ardFe hrenka mp sought attorney s’ fe es under the dec eptive tra de pra ctices–c onsumer 7 protec tion a ct throug h the tie-in provision of the debt collection prac tices ac t. See Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.404(a ) (“ A violation o f this chapter is a dece ptive trade prac tice under Subchapter

E, Chapter 17, B usiness & Commerc e Code, a nd is actionable unde r that subcha pter.” ). 10 was im proper beca

use t here was no findingof the a ctual dama g es re quired to support such a n awa rd. We ag ree . Fe hrenka

mp sought attorney s’ fe es under the debt collect i o n p ra ctices a ct and the dece ptive trade p ra ct i ces- consumer pr otection ac t. See Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.403(b); Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.50(d). Attorney s’ fe es ar e re cover able unde r the de bt collection 7 prac tices ac t if the party

seekingan aw ard “ succe ssfully maintains an ac tion ” u n d er t h e act. See Te x. F in. Cod e Ann. § 3 92 .4 03 (b ); J ac k son L aw Offic e, P .C. v . Ch ap pe ll , 37 S.W .3d 15, 30-31 (Tex. App.—Ty ler 2000, pet. denied) (bec ause plaintiff failed to pr ove any actua l damag es ca

used by debt collec tion practice s, she did not succe ssfully maintain action under debt collec tion practice s
a c t and att orn ey s’ fe e s w e re no t a pp ro pr iate ); Rusk County Elec . Coop., Inc. v. F lanagan , 53 8 S. W.2 d 4 98 , 5 00 (T e x. Civ . App .— Ty le r 197 6, wr it re f’ d n.r .e .) (r e fu sin g to a wa rd a tto rn e y s’ fe e s und e r d e bt c oll e c tio n p ra c tic e s a c t w he n p la int if f’ s d a ma g es we re no t r e su lt o f u nr e a so na ble collection ef

forts). L ikewise, under the dec eptive tra de pra ctices- consumer pr otection ac t, a plaintiff cannot r ecove r attorne y s’ fe es unless he r ecove rs ac tu al d amag es. State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Be aston , 907 S.W .2d 430, 437 (Tex. 1995). Be cause we have conc luded the district court er red in disreg arding the jury ’s neg ative compensatory damag es finding s and substitut ing aff irmative ones th e r e f o r , th e r e ar e n o a c tu a l d a ma g e s to s u p p o rt a n aw ar d o f a tt o r n e y s ’ f e e s u n d e r e it h e r s tatute
. We sustain Precision Tune’s third point of e rror .11

Fehrenkam

p’s Cross-Appeal F e hr e nk a mp br ing s four cr os s- po int s on app e a l. As an init ia l matt e r, we no te that a party seeking t o al t er t h e t rial cour t’s judgme nt must file a notice of a ppeal. See Te x. R. A

pp . P. 25 .1 (c ). A p art

y tha t do e s n ot f

ile a no tic e of

a pp e a l is no t e nti tle d to mor e fa vo ra ble re lie f t

ha n it obtained in the district cour t, except for just cause

. Id. T h er ef ore, a n appellee g ener ally

may not attack the judgme nt by

cross-point. Howeve r, whe n the appe llee has se cure d a judg ment

no tw ith sta

nd ingthe ve rd ic t, h e “ mus t br ingfo rw ard by c ro ss- po int

any iss ue or po int th a t w ou ld have vitiated the verdic t or that would have pr evente d an af firmanc e of the judgme nt if the district

c ourt had render e d ju dg me nt o n th e ve rd ic t.” Te x. R. A pp . P. 38 .2 (b )( 1) . B y

his c ro ss- a

pp e a l, Fe hrenka mp contends that, in the eve n t this C ourt ag ree s that the judg ment enter ed by the district court is in err or, the prope r re medy is to rever se and r emand the c ase f or a n ew t rial rather than rende r judg ment in Precision Tune’s f avor. F ehre nkamp ar g ues that re mand is proper beca use the evidenc e supporting the zero dama g es finding s is so ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that a ne w trial is nece ssary .

A par ty challeng ing a

jury finding on an issue upon which that par ty had the bur den of proof must de monstrate that the adver se finding is a g ainst the g reat w eig ht a nd preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Do w Che m. Co. v . F ra nc is , 46 S.W .3d 237, 242 (Tex. 2001). The test is whethe r the fi nd ing is so co ntr ary to the ov e rw he lmi ng we ig ht an d pre po nd e ra nc e of the e vid e nc e a s to be c le arl y wrongand manife stly

unjust. Id. at 241. We w ill not disturb the jury ’s failure to a war d damag es and

rema nd for a new tria l unle ss w e conclude that the g reat w eig ht a nd preponde ranc e of the e vidence

re qu ir e s a

c on tr ary ans we r. Th e fi nd ing s at issue he re are lim ite d to tho se c ha lle ng e d in12

Fe hrenka mp’s motion for judgme nt notwithst anding the verdic t, which ar e 2(a ), 2(b) , 9(a) -(e ), 9(g ), 9(h), a nd 35(a) -(d)

. Wit h respe ct to finding s 2(b), 9(a )-( e), and 9(g ), we have alr eady conclude d that the zero damag es finding s were appropr iate as a matter of law beca

use it was conc lusively

proven that those damag es did not result from the only act that could have g iven rise to any liability on Precision Tune’s part under the debt collection prac tices act—that is, the April 11 phone call fro m M ike Rouse. These f

indings a re not, a s Fe hrenka

mp a rg ues, ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the e vidence

. The same rea soning applies to finding 9(h), whic h soug ht an awa rd of damag es for tim e los t f

ro m w or k to a dd re ss t he dama g e to t

he ve hic le

. Again , th e ju ry wa s c ha rg e d w ith

awa rd ingdama g e s th a t r e su lte d f ro m th e vio latio n o f the d e bt c oll e c tio n p ra c tic e s a c t f ound in Question 1, not damag es ar ising fr om the damag e to the vehic le itself.

The re maining f

inding, 2( a), is the jury ’s fa ilure to find t h at Fehrenka mp incurre d dama g e s in

the fo rm of tim e sp e nt t o p ro ve tha

t he did no t ow e Pr e c isi on Tune any mon e y . T he on ly

rec ord evide nce F ehre nkamp points to in support of this damag e question is his own testimony that he sp e nt “ pe rh a

ps fo ur ho ur s” “ jus t in de a lin g wi th P re c isi on

Tune and its re fu sa l to do wh a t it

tol d [hi m] it would do on Fe bruar y 21st.” The exis tence of this rec ord evide nce a lone does not per suade us that the jury ’s fa ilure t o fi nd damag es is so ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e as to be manifestly unjust. First, it is not at all clea r from Fe hrenka

mp’s testimony

when it was that he c laims to have spent time “de aling with Precision Tu n e. ” To secur e an a ffirmative damag es finding , Fe hrenka mp was required to demonstrate that the lost work time resulted fr om the ph on e c a ll r a the r t

ha n f ro m the ve hic le dama g e . F e hr e nk a mp’ s tes tim ony do e s not pr ov ide a tim e13

fr a me f or th e lo st wo rk

tim e . F ur

the rm or e , th e te sti mony

re g ard ingthe a mou

nt o f t ime he sp e nt, “per haps four hours,” is similarly vague. F ehre nkamp has not demonstrated that the zero damag es finding in 9( h ) is a g a in s t th e g r e a t w e ig h t an d p r e p o n d e r an c e o f th e e v id e n c e . We h o ld th a t the jury ’s fa ilure to find damag es wa s not so ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e as to be c lear ly

wrongand manife stly

unjust.

CO NC LU SION The district court e rre d in denying Pre cision Tune’s motion for e ntry of judg ment and in gr anting Fe hrenka

mp’s motion for judgme nt notwithst anding the ver dict and substituting aff irmative finding s for c ompens at o ry damag es and attorney s’ fe es. We sustain Precision Tune’ s three issues on appea l and over rule F ehre nkamp’s cr o s s - p o in ts
. Co n s e q

u e ntly , we r ever se the district

c ourt jud g me nt a

nd re nd e r jud g me nt that F e hr e nk amp take no thi ng by his c a us e s o f a c tio n a g a ins t Precision Tune.

_______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Waldrop Reverse d and Rende red Filed: Apr il 2, 2009