Opinion ID: 2173542
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: award of appellate attorney's fees

Text: The TCPA provides, in pertinent part, that [a]ny person who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property, real, personal, or mixed, or any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever situated, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive act or practice declared to be unlawful by this part, may bring an action individually to recover actual damages. Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(1) (2001). Such actions may be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction, id. at (a)(2), and the court may award three (3) times the actual damages sustained where the court finds the defendant's conduct was a willful or knowing violation of the TCPA, id. at (a)(3). In addition to actual and punitive damages, the TCPA provides that, [u]pon a finding by the court that a provision of [the TCPA] has been violated, the court may award to the person bringing such action reasonable attorney's fees and costs.  Id. at (e)(1) (emphasis added). Our General Assembly has instructed Tennessee's courts to construe the TCPA's provisions liberally so as to promote, inter alia, the protection of consumers and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in part or wholly within this state. Id. § 47-18-102(2) (2001). The Act further provides that, because it is deemed remedial legislation necessary for the protection of the consumers of the state of Tennessee and elsewhere, [it] shall be construed to effectuate [its] purposes and intent. Id. § 47-18-115 (2001). This Court has previously recognized that the TCPA is remedial, rather than regulatory in nature. Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 925 (Tenn.1998). In concluding that the TCPA provides for an award of attorney's fees incurred on appeal, the Court of Appeals relied on this Court's decision in Forbes v. Wilson County Emergency Dist. 911 Bd., 966 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn.1998). The Forbes case dealt with, among other things, a claim brought pursuant to the Tennessee Human Rights Act (the THRA), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-21-101-702 (2005). The THRA prohibits discriminatory practices in several areas including employment, public accommodations, and housing and financing. See id. §§ 4-21-401, -501, -601 (2005). The legislation was enacted to, inter alia, [s]afeguard all individuals within the state from discrimination because of race, creed, color, religion, sex, age or national origin in connection with employment and public accommodations, id. § 4-21-101(a)(3), protect such persons' interest in personal dignity and freedom from humiliation, id. at (a)(4), and [f]urther the interest, rights, opportunities and privileges of individuals within the state, id. at (a)(8). Persons filing successful claims with the Tennessee Human Rights Commission may be awarded damages for an injury, including humiliation and embarrassment, caused by the discriminatory practice, and cost, including a reasonable attorney's fee.  Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-306(a)(7) (2005) (emphasis added). The THRA also preserves the rights of complainants to file a civil cause of action in chancery or circuit court, in which case the trial court is empowered to award actual damages sustained by such plaintiff, together with the costs of the lawsuit, including a reasonable fee for the plaintiff's attorney of record. . . . . Id. § 4-21-311(b) (2005) (emphasis added). This Court held in Forbes , with very little discussion, that, since the plaintiff was the prevailing party in the suit, her attorneys were entitled to reasonable compensation for their time spent in pursuing this appeal, irrespective of her failing to prevail on all of the issues on appeal. 966 S.W.2d at 422. Our decision in Forbes makes clear that legislative provisions for an award of reasonable attorney's fees need not make a specific reference to appellate work to support such an award where the legislation has broad remedial aims. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the TCPA should be construed so as to allow an award of reasonable attorney's fees generated during an appeal, and we agree with the analysis articulated by the intermediate court: The THRA and the TCPA both contain sections setting forth the purpose and intent of the respective statutes. In very general terms, the THRA is intended to assure Tennessee has appropriate legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment, public accommodations and housing. . . . See Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(2). The TCPA, on the other hand, is intended to protect consumers and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in part or wholly within this state. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-102(2). The TCPA further provides that its provisions shall be liberally construed to promote the statute's purpose. Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-102. While the THRA and the TCPA certainly are aimed at remedying vastly different wrongs, they both are comprehensive legislation intended to protect the citizens of Tennessee. Both statutes also provide for a reasonable attorney's fee. Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-306(a)(7); Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-109(e)(1). Neither statute contains any language to the effect that an award of attorney fees is limited to fees incurred at the trial court level. Given that our Supreme Court has interpreted the THRA to authorize an award of attorney fees incurred on appeal, we can find no compelling reason whatsoever to interpret essentially identical language contained in the TCPA any differently. Therefore, we hold that the TCPA does authorize an award of attorney fees incurred on an appeal. Additionally, the TCPA allows an award of attorney's fees to a plaintiff only where the trial court has found that one of the Act's provisions has been violated. Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-109(e)(1). If an appeal ensues, the wronged plaintiff's monetary judgment is at risk of being consumed by the resulting appellate attorney's fees unless they are also subject to being awarded. A plaintiff successful at trial is therefore at risk of being deremedied if unable to collect his or her reasonable appellate legal fees. Given the broad remedial goals our legislature determined to pursue with the TCPA, we do not think the General Assembly intended that result. As this Court has previously recognized, a potential award of attorney's fees under the TCPA is intended to make the prosecution of such claims economically viable to a plaintiff. Miller v. United Automax, 166 S.W.3d 692, 697 (Tenn.2005) (citing Killingsworth, 104 S.W.3d at 535). The same concern with economic viability applies equally to appellate attorney's fees. We hold, therefore, that a plaintiff may be awarded reasonable attorney's fees incurred during an appeal on a claim brought under the TCPA where one or more of the TCPA's provisions has been violated.