Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp.

• Decision Date: 23 October 2013
• Docket Number: No. 27324.,27324.
• Citation: 750 S.E.2d 78,406 S.C. 187
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Donald C. AUSTIN, Respondent, v. STOKES–CRAVEN HOLDING CORP., d/b/a Stokes Craven Ford, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2012–212843, 2013–000247.

406 S.C. 187

750 S.E.2d 78

Donald C. AUSTIN, Respondent,

v. STOKES–CRAVEN HOLDING CORP., d/b/a Stokes Craven Ford, Appellant.Appellate Case No. 2012–212843, 2013–000247.

No. 27324.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted Sept. 16, 2013.

Decided Oct. 23, 2013.

Andrew K. Epting, Jr. and Michelle N. Endemann, both of Andrew K. Epting, Jr., LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Brooks Roberts Fudenberg, of Mt. Pleasant, and C. Steven Moskos, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Justice BEATTY.

The resolution of this case involves an interpretation of a narrow portion of our opinion in Austin v. Stokes–Craven Holding Corp., 387 S.C. 22, 691 S.E.2d 135 (2010). Specifically, the consolidated appeals are the result of a dispute over the Court's holding concerning Donald C. Austin's entitlement to trial fees under the South Carolina Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act ¹ (the “Dealer's Act”) and whether this Court's denial of Austin's motion for appellate costs under Rule 222 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (“SCACR”) has preclusive effect on his right to pursue appellate and post-appellate fees under the Dealer's Act. As will be discussed, we affirm the trial judge's award of trial fees to Austin and remand this matter to the circuit court to conduct a hearing to determine what amount of appellate and post-appellate fees should be awarded to Austin.

I. Factual/Procedural History

Austin filed suit against Stokes–Craven, an automobile dealership, after he experienced problems with his used vehicle and discovered the vehicle had sustained extensive damage prior to the sale. Austin v. Stokes–Craven Holding Corp., 387 S.C. 22, 691 S.E.2d 135 (2010). In his Complaint, Austin alleged the following causes of action: revocation of acceptance, breach of contract, negligence, constructive fraud, common law fraud, violation of the Dealer's Act,² violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”), and violation of the Federal Odometer Act.³ Based on these claims, Austin sought actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs. Id. at 35, 691 S.E.2d at 141–42.

The jury found in favor of Austin and awarded damages on the following causes of action: (1) negligence with an award of $26,371.10 actual damages and $144,000 punitive damages; (2) fraud with an award of $26,371.10 actual damages and $216,600 punitive damages; (3) constructive fraud with an award of $26,371.10 actual damages; and (4) a violation of the Dealer's Act with an award of $26,371.10 actual damages. The jury also found Stokes–Craven had violated the Federal Odometer Act. Additionally, the jury found in favor of Stokes–Craven regarding Austin's claim under the UTPA. Id. at 35, 691 S.E.2d at 142. Following the verdict, Austin moved for attorney's fees in the amount of $49,936.50 pursuant to the Dealer's Act and the Federal Odometer Act.

In an order addressing the parties' post-trial motions, the trial judge ruled: (1) Austin was required to elect among his remedies; (2) the jury's finding that Stokes–Craven violated the Federal Odometer Act entitled Austin to a statutorily authorized award of $1,500 plus attorney's fees and costs restricted to those incurred in presenting the claim under the Federal Odometer Act and not the case in toto; (3) Austin was entitled to recover $4,500 in attorney's fees, as opposed to the requested $49,936.50, based on the violation of the Federal Odometer Act; (4) Austin was entitled to taxable costs in the amount of $602.26; and (5) Austin was not entitled to prejudgment interest. Id. at 36, 691 S.E.2d at 142. Austin elected to recover actual and punitive damages under his fraud claim. Id.

Stokes–Craven challenged the verdict alleging the trial judge committed several errors that warranted a new trial. Id. at 37–55, 691 S.E.2d at 142–152. In his cross-appeal, Austin contended the trial judge erred in requiring him to elect between his verdict for common law fraud and the violation of the Dealer's Act. Id. at 55, 691 S.E.2d at 152. Additionally, Austin claimed the trial judge erred in declining to award him prejudgment interest. Id. at 58, 691 S.E.2d at 153.

As to Stokes–Craven's appeal, the majority held: (1) there was no prejudicial abuse of discretion in admitting certain challenged testimony; (2) Austin offered proof of actual damages in the amount of $26,371.10; (3) Austin failed to prove Stokes–Craven violated the Federal Odometer Act with the requisite intent to defraud him as to the mileage of the truck; (4) the verdicts of fraud and violation of the UTPA were not inconsistent; and (5) there was evidence to support the jury's award of $216,000 in punitive damages. Id. at 59, 691 S.E.2d at 154.

In terms of Austin's cross-appeal, the majority held: (1) Austin was entitled to the entire amount of his request for attorney's fees and costs under the Dealer's Act, which amounted to $49,936.50; and (2) he was not entitled to prejudgment interest. Id. Ultimately, this Court remanded to the circuit court for “entry of judgment consistent with our decision.” Id. at 59, 691 S.E.2d at 154.

Relevant to the instant appeal is an analysis of the Court's divided opinion regarding Austin's entitlement to attorney's fees and costs under the Dealer's Act. In his post-trial motion, Austin sought to recover damages under all of the jury's verdicts in addition to attorney's fees and costs as statutorily authorized under the Dealer's Act and the Federal Odometer Act. Id. at 55, 691 S.E.2d at 152. The trial judge held Austin was required to elect one verdict from among the negligence, fraud, constructive fraud, and the Dealer's Act verdicts given Austin experienced one loss based on four different theories. Id. The judge also awarded Austin $1,500 in actual damages and a “reasonable attorney fee” in the amount of $4,500, which represented the time spent on recovering under the Federal Odometer Act. Id.

Because Austin was ordered to elect between the jury's verdicts, he contended on appeal that he was denied the statutorily authorized attorney's fees and costs under the Dealer's Act given he chose to recover for his fraud claim, which only yielded actual and punitive damages. Id. at 56, 691 S.E.2d at 152.

The majority opinion, which was authored by Justice Beatty and joined by Justice Waller, agreed with Austin. Id. at 56–57, 691 S.E.2d at 153. In so ruling, the majority recognized “the proposition that a plaintiff may recover attorney fees under a statutory claim in addition to punitive damages under a common law claim.” Id. at 56, 691 S.E.2d at 153. The majority noted that “[t]he rationale for this position is that an award for both does not amount to double recovery for a single wrong given attorney's fees are intended to make such claims economically viable for private citizens whereas an award of punitive damages is designed to punish wrongful conduct and deter future misconduct.” Id. Thus, because the recovery of attorney's fees under the Dealer's Act was not duplicative of the award of punitive damages, the majority found that a decision in favor of Austin would not violate “the election of remedies doctrine's prevention of double redress for a single wrong.” Id.

Having found that Austin could recover attorney's fees and costs under the Dealer's Act, the majority next considered whether Austin should be awarded the entire amount of his request or should be limited to the fees incurred in establishing his claim under the Dealer's Act. Id. at 57, 691 S.E.2d at 153. Under the specific facts of the case, the majority concluded that Austin was entitled to the entire amount of his request as it would have been “difficult to dissect Austin's counsel's fee affidavit to ascertain how much time was spent on this particular claim given the violation of the Act was based on the same facts and circumstances underlying his claims for fraud and constructive fraud.” Id. The majority found support for this conclusion in Taylor v. Nix, 307 S.C. 551, 416 S.E.2d 619 (1992), wherein this Court held that an award of attorneys' fees under the Dealer's Act was warranted even though the fee affidavit did not differentiate between the time spent preparing the claim under the Act and the non-statutory cause of action. Id. at 57, 691 S.E.2d at 153. Specifically, the Court in Taylor stated, “We hold when an action in which attorney fees are recoverable by statute is joined with alternative theories of recovery based on the same transaction, no allocation of attorney's services need be made except to the extent counsel admits that a portion of the services was totally unrelated to the statutory claim or it is shown that the services related to issues which were clearly beyond the scope of the statutory claim proceeding.” Taylor, 307 S.C. at 557, 416 S.E.2d at 622.

Justice Pleicones concurred in part and dissented in part. Although Justice Pleicones agreed with the majority that “a plaintiff who elects to receive damages awarded under a common law theory may also be entitled to recover statutory costs and attorney[']s fees to which he is entitled under a separate verdict,” he found the issue was not preserved for the Court's consideration. Austin, 387 S.C. at 64, 691 S.E.2d at 157.

Based on the majority's ruling that Austin's Odometer Act claim failed, Justice Pleicones believed Austin's “claim for attorneys' fees and costs die[d] with it.” Id. Justice Pleicones also found Austin failed to preserve any issue regarding the availability of Dealer's Act fees and costs. Id. Because the trial judge's post-trial order did not address an election by Austin between punitive damages and statutory fees, Justice Pleicones believed it was incumbent upon Austin to file a motion to alter or amend. Id. According to Justice Pleicones, Austin's failure to do so precluded him from raising any issue on appeal regarding his entitlement to fees under the Dealer's Act.⁴Id.

Even assuming the issue was...