Opinion ID: 1782143
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: damages recoverable under the dtpa

Text: The Kishes maintain that they are entitled to recover the following elements of damages for DTPA violations: (A) treble their actual damages of payments on the contract; (B) consequential damages for removing the worthless pool; (C) cancellation of the lien and indebtedness; and (D) reasonable attorney's fees. The object of awarding a plaintiff recovery is to compensate for the actual loss sustained as a result of the defendant's conduct. The DTPA embraces this concept by permitting the injured consumer to recover the greatest amount of actual damages alleged and factually established to have been caused by the deceptive practice, including related and reasonably necessary expenses. Building Concepts, Inc. v. Duncan, 667 S.W.2d 897, 901 (Tex.Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Woo v. Great Southwestern Acceptance Corp., 565 S.W.2d 290, 298 (Tex. Civ.App.Waco 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The Act itself states in section 17.43 that the remedies provided therein are in addition to any other procedures or remedies provided for in any other law. Section 17.44 provides that the Act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are to protect consumers from the false, misleading, and deceptive business practices it condemns. The amount of actual damages recoverable under the DTPA is determined by the total loss sustained as a result of the deceptive trade practice. Smith v. Baldwin, 611 S.W.2d 611, 617 (Tex.1980). While the Act does not define actual damages, the term has been construed to mean common law damages. Brown v. American Transfer and Storage Company, 601 S.W.2d 931, 939 (Tex.1980). If the jury verdict contains more than one acceptable measure of damages, a plaintiff may be forced to elect prior to judgment the recovery he wants by waiving the surplus findings with respect to the damages. TEX.R.CIV.P. 440; Butler v. Joseph's Wine Shop, Inc., 633 S.W.2d 926, 933 (Tex.Civ.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The Kishes attempted to make such an election when they filed their Motions to Disregard Jury Finding and Motions for Judgment. The trial court erred in denying these motions.