ÿWPCî ‘nü"X!÷ÍN¤¤\32xÞPê—•ø+I÷r.!YyµL¼®Ê ;F¯övmh<„ŸºQW IÂÃ…š™§ÑÞ Sþ75ƒïv±™ô¼ßlžMèŽÃøODô¦ÆƒB´÷°¨¼/"³sÓÃ06dNDMÐ\†¹[ŸxºÉ춱ÎChfáå? N¥9e0¾­Æ–)ÕÔZhr¶8l´°Ûõj×ybiªb銬ÝzÅ\á,"–%ÿ.ý"-ÿ.Ë@ÆïµÏÏå+ëÚi‘¡è­C?_lC¿öc£V”qy¸˜˜õÌP`‚ôEØËžCVoóÐò½fýfáØM§þ°ÎºÜ ÏOHQnÕDrpX ›nzNè9d ?T•@ý-Oκ*ÙÁ&°eÚœ}¹û`Ù•T§Äº™iŸõ¶m²N©|t™#u­:¦q1cR~¡çè½Cÿ—÷«È*i¯ã¬f[yð‹4f0Ï”X—Æ|Ã_äxZ— \»°Y/$swÞzÑý i™á<¦Ý™¡}xAò?fÄÞî’eÐJXŒuAžÉ¤“[CIµ†xº½›)™ˆl.¹±þ­P=ÝàÔÕu'Á Ôÿ""-rZÕh™eEn8Äak0s¿b %\^ b 0ˆnU#NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ v‘ ÆÆÍÆ“ÆY 0DNcŠeÊïE¹¹¹(»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»bãããããããããããããããããããããããããããããããããããã 0ëëëëë BÖÖ 0¤ó D3— D-Ê 0K÷÷ ASBÆ• 0¤[ 0Dÿ A«C»H¦„-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬|&-¤i¢3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 lÝ ƒRÿ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€At€trial,€the€purchasers€testified€that€when€they€examined€the€vehicle€at€the€sellerððs€place€of€business,€they€wereÐ ° Ðnot€tall€enough€to€see€the€roof€of€the€vehicle,€which€is€6'3"€in€height.€€However,€the€plaintiff,€Mrs.€Killingsworth,€testifiedÐ tÄ Ðthat€her€friend€in€Alabama€was€6'4"€tall,€was€wearing€thick€boots,€and€was€standing€on€a€concrete€elevation,€whichÐ 8ˆ Ðenabled€him€to€see€the€roof€of€the€vehicle€and€notice€the€masking€tape.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó €Ý ƒRÿ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOral€argument€was€heard€in€this€case€on€November€15,€2002,€at€Knoxville€Fulton€High€School,€as€part€of€theÐ ° ÐCourtððs€Ô_ÔC.A.S.E.Ô_Ô€(ò òCó óourt€of€Appeals€ò òAó óffecting€ò òSó ótudent€ò òEó óducation)€project. ÀÝ ƒRÿ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„101,€òòet€seq.óó€(2001€&€Supp.€2002). Killingsworth- ù-(|G2ÿ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ ¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨ò»»Ô d(|3ÿq$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ ¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿq$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ ¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ ¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ ¥»»»ÔÑ8€LÉXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î„ ¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ ¥»îî„ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓNovember€15,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XLÉX»¼ ¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ ¥»XXLÉö#ÔJAMES€KILLINGSWORTH,€òòet€al.óó€v.€TED€RUSSELL€FORD,€INC.òòóóÔ‡XLÉX»¼ ¥Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1„149„00€€€€€€Dale€C.€Workman,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌFILED€DECEMBER€4,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„01562„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€is€an€action€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€arises€out€of€the€sale€of€anÐ xÈ  ÐÔ_ÔSUVÔ_Ô.€€James€Killingsworth,€and€his€wife,€Kathy€Killingsworth€(ð ðthe€purchasersðð),€sued€Ted€RussellÐ d´ ÐFord,€Inc.€(ð ðthe€sellerðð),€alleging€that€the€seller€failed€to€advise€them€about€damage€to€the€previously„Ð P  Ðunowned€vehicle€sold€to€the€purchasers.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€below,€the€jury€returned€aÐ <Œ Ðverdict€in€favor€of€the€purchasers,€awarding€them€$2,500.€€The€purchasers€then€moved€for€attorneyððsÐ (x Ðfees€and€discretionary€costs,€which€the€court€granted,€but€only€in€the€amount€of€$500.€€TheÐ d Ðpurchasers€appeal,€arguing€that€the€fees€and€expenses€awarded€by€the€trial€court€are€unreasonablyÐ P Ðlow.€€By€way€of€separate€issues,€the€seller€argues€that€the€purchasersðð€second€reply€brief€should€beÐ ì< Ðstricken€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€any€fees€and€costs€to€the€purchasers.€€We€vacate€andÐ Ø( Ðremand.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ä ÐÓÍÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ œì ÐVacated;€Case€Remandedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ ¥»àXLÉ}#ÔÔ‡XLÉX.¼ ¥ÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.,óó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,Ð `° ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌGeorge€W.€Morton,€Jr.€and€J.€Myers€Morton,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€JamesÐ $"t! ÐKillingsworth€and€wife,€Kathy€Killingsworth.Ð #`" ÐÌJ.€Douglas€Ô_ÔOverbeyÔ_Ô€and€Ben€M.€Rose,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Ted€Russell€Ford,€Inc.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓŸ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ ¥»XXLÉÎ #ÔÔ‡XLÉX»¼ ¥ÔÐ À&"& ÐÐ  ¬'ü"'ýà ÐI.Ð ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€December,€1999,€the€purchasers€began€shopping€for€a€new€vehicle.€€They€found€a€2000Ð ˆØ Ðmodel€Ford€Expedition€at€the€sellerððs€place€of€business€and€entered€into€negotiations€with€the€seller.€Ð tÄ ÐAs€they€were€unable€to€agree€on€a€price,€the€purchasers€prepared€to€leave€the€sellerððs€place€ofÐ `° Ðbusiness.€€At€that€time,€the€salesperson€with€whom€the€purchasers€were€negotiating€mentioned€thatÐ L œ Ðhe€had€one€1999€model€Ford€Expedition,€not€previously€owned,€left€on€the€lot.€€The€purchasers€wentÐ 8 ˆ Ðwith€the€salesperson€to€examine€this€vehicle,€and€they€were€pleased€with€what€they€saw.€€TheÐ $ t Ðpurchasers€then€bought€this€vehicle€from€the€seller.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àShortly€after€purchasing€the€1999€Ford€Expedition,€the€purchasers€took€a€trip€to€Alabama€toÐ è 8  Ðvisit€friends.€€While€unloading€some€of€their€belongings,€one€of€their€friends€noticed€some€maskingÐ Ô$  Ðtape€on€the€roof€of€the€vehicle.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Upon€further€inspection,€the€purchasers€realized€that€at€least€partÐ À  Ðof€the€vehicle€had€been€repainted.€€€After€returning€home,€the€purchasers€examined€the€vehicle€moreÐ ¬ü  Ðclosely€and€noticed€more€extensive€damage€to€the€vehicle.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€purchasers€called€the€seller€and€informed€it€of€their€discovery.€€At€the€sellerððs€request,Ð pÀ Ðthe€purchasers€returned€to€the€sellerððs€place€of€business€with€the€vehicle.€€The€sellerððs€generalÐ \¬ Ðmanager€examined€the€Expedition€and€informed€the€purchasers€that€the€vehicle€had€been€ð ðscratchedððÐ H˜ Ðin€transit€to€the€seller.€€The€purchasers€then€demanded€to€see€the€invoice€for€the€repairs€to€the€vehicle.€Ð 4„ ÐThis€invoice€revealed€that€the€vehicle€had€been€repaired€due€to€ð ðcollision€damage.ðð€€At€this€time,€theÐ  p Ðseller€offered€to€have€the€vehicle€repaired€at€a€body€shop€of€the€purchasersðð€choosing.€€In€addition,Ð  \ Ðthe€seller€offered€the€purchasers€an€extended€warranty.€€However,€at€the€time€the€offer€was€made,Ð øH Ðno€monetary€value€was€placed€on€it.Ð ä4 Ðà  àÌà  àThe€purchasers€then€had€the€vehicle€independently€evaluated.€€This€evaluation€exposed€even€Ð ¼  Ðmore€extensive€damage.€€The€purchasers€sued€the€seller€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€ProtectionÐ ¨ø ÐAct€(ð ðthe€Actðð),€claiming€that€the€seller€had€engaged€in€intentionally€deceptive€acts€byÐ ”ä Ðmisrepresenting€the€value€of€the€vehicle€and€by€failing€to€disclose€the€damage€to€the€vehicle.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€the€testimony€of€the€plaintiff,€Mrs.€Killingsworth,€and€the€purchasersðð€expert€witnessÐ X ¨ Ðrevealed€that€the€difference€between€the€price€the€purchasers€paid€for€what€they€thought€was€a€new,Ð D!” Ðundamaged€vehicle,€and€the€worth€of€the€vehicle€after€repairs,€was€between€$5,000€and€$7,000.Ô#†¼ ¥»XXLÉt #ÔÔ‡XLÉX»¼ ¥Ô€€TheÐ 0"€  Ðsellerððs€general€manager€testified€that€there€was€no€difference€in€value€between€what€the€purchasersÐ #l! Ðpaid€for€the€vehicle€and€the€value€of€the€repaired€vehicle.€€The€general€manager€also€testified€that€theÐ $X" Ðcost€to€a€customer€of€the€extended€warranty€offered€to€the€purchasers€was€approximately€$2,000.€Ð ô$D # ÐAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€jury€found€that€the€seller€had€violated€the€Act,€but€that€the€sellerððsÐ à%0!$ Ðviolation€was€not€knowing€and€willful,€and€that€the€seller€did€not€intentionally€misrepresent€the€valueÐ Ì&"% Ðof€the€vehicle.€€The€jury€awarded€the€purchasers€$2,500€in€damages,€but€declined€to€award€anyÐ ° Ðpunitive€damages.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àSubsequently,€the€purchasers€moved€the€court€to€award€attorneyððs€fees€and€discretionaryÐ tÄ Ðcosts.€€The€requested€attorneyððs€fees€amounted€to€approximately€$9,718,€and€the€discretionary€costsÐ `° Ðrequested€by€the€purchasers€equaled€approximately€$1,864,€for€a€total€of€$11,582.€€The€sellerÐ L œ Ðopposed€the€award€of€any€fees€and€costs,€asserting,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that,€as€the€purchasers€did€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðspecifically€request€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs€in€their€complaint,€they€could€not€recover€fees€and€costs.€Ð $ t ÐThe€court€then€awarded€the€purchasers€$500€in€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAt€a€hearing€on€the€purchasersðð€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€the€trial€court€made€the€followingÐ è 8  Ðstatements:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€case€came€on€to€be€tried.€€The€jury€did€what€it€saw€as€justice€inÐ ¬ü  Ðthis€case,€and€the€Court€approved€the€jury€verdict€and€approves€that.€Ð ˜è  ÐWhat€the€jury€did€in€this€case,€is€found€that€the€[purchasers€were]Ð „Ô  Ðoverreaching,€gave€the€cash€equivalent€of€what€the€[seller]€hadÐ pÀ Ðoffered€long€before€the€ð!ð€well,€not€long,€early€on€in€the€process.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnd€so,€trying€to€do€justice€and€be€fair,€the€Court€did€not€award€a€fullÐ 4„ Ðfee€in€this€case,€because€the€[purchasers]€could€have€taken€the€offerÐ  p Ðthat€the€[seller]€made,€which€this€jury€ended€up,€found€was€fair.€€TheÐ  \ ÐCourt€found€that€the€[seller],€in€this€case,€made€an€offer,€whichÐ øH Ðpartially€ð!ð€the€reason€why€I€did€award€some€fees€in€this€case,€becauseÐ ä4 Ðthe€[seller],€in€this€case,€never€offered€cash€money.€€They€offered€ð!ðÐ Ð  Ðthey€said,€Weððll€provide€extended€insurance€and€so€forth€and€so€on,Ð ¼  Ðwhich€is€not€a€ð!ð€had€they€offered€cash€money,€I€doubt€that€I€wouldÐ ¨ø Ðhave€awarded€anything€in€discretionary€cost€[sic]€or€attorneysðð€fees,Ð ”ä Ðconsidering€the€facts€of€the€case€and€what€the€jury€and€the€Court€findÐ €Ð Ðto€be€justice€in€this€case.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSo,€I€did€not€intend€to€award€full€fees€for€those€reasons,€and€I€am€notÐ D!” Ðsaying€that€the€fee€was€not€earned.€€But€the€[purchasers]€could€haveÐ 0"€  Ðaccepted€what€the€jury€found€to€be€a€fair€offer€long€before€a€lot€ofÐ #l! Ðthese€were€ever€incurred€and€thatððs€why€I€did€what€I€did.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSo,€the€Motion€to€Alter€is€overruled.€Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌFrom€this€order,€the€purchasers€appeal.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àÐ  )à$( Ðà @` àII.Ð ° ÐÌÓ0)Óà  àBefore€addressing€the€partiesðð€issues€relating€to€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs,€we€will€address€theÐ ˆØ Ðsellerððs€motion€to€strike€the€purchasersðð€second€reply€brief.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAs€the€appellants€in€this€case,€the€purchasers€filed€their€initial€brief,€asserting€as€their€onlyÐ L œ Ðissue€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€limiting€the€amount€of€the€purchasersðð€fees€and€costsÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€$500.€€The€seller,€as€the€appellee,€then€filed€a€brief€in€response€to€the€purchasersðð€issue€on€appealÐ $ t Ðand€raised€the€additional€issue€that€the€purchasers€are€not€entitled€to€any€fees€and€costs.€€TheÐ  ` Ðpurchasers€then€filed€a€reply€brief,€in€which€they€addressed€both€their€own€issue€and€the€issue€raisedÐ ü L  Ðby€the€seller.€€Subsequently,€the€seller€filed€a€reply€brief€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(c),€whichÐ è 8  Ðprovides€as€follows:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€appellant€may€file€a€brief€in€reply€to€the€brief€of€the€appellee.€€IfÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€appellee€also€is€requesting€relief€from€the€judgment,€the€appelleeÐ ˜è  Ðmay€file€a€brief€in€reply€to€the€response€of€the€appellant€to€the€issuesÐ „Ô  Ðpresented€by€appelleeððs€request€for€relief.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌThereafter,€the€purchasers€filed€a€second€reply€brief.€€The€propriety€of€the€filing€of€this€latter€briefÐ H˜ Ðis€now€challenged€on€this€appeal.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€a€situation€such€as€this,€where€both€parties€raise€issues€requesting€relief€from€the€judgmentÐ  \ Ðof€the€trial€court,€both€parties€are€entitled€to€file€reply€briefs,€provided€that€in€the€appellantððs€replyÐ øH Ðbrief,€the€appellant€responds€to€the€issues€raised€by€the€appellee.€€This€allows€the€party€who€hasÐ ä4 Ðraised€a€given€issue€to€have€the€final€word€on€that€issue.€€However,€neither€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(c)Ð Ð  Ðnor€any€other€rule€of€this€court€allows€the€appellant€to€file€a€second€reply€brief.€€Accordingly,€we€findÐ ¼  Ðand€hold€that€the€purchasersðð€second€reply€brief€should€be€stricken€from€the€record.€€It€will€not€beÐ ¨ø Ðconsidered€by€us.Ð ”ä ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ×2Óà  àThe€seller€argues€that,€as€the€purchasers€did€not€specifically€request€an€award€of€attorneyððs€Ð D!” Ðfees€and€costs€in€their€complaint,€they€are€not€entitled€to€such€relief.€€Essentially,€the€seller€assertsÐ 0"€  Ðthat€the€judgment€in€this€case€is€beyond€the€scope€of€the€pleadings.€€The€seller€asks€this€court€toÐ #l! Ðreverse€the€trial€courtððs€award€to€the€purchasers€of€$500.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€purchasers,€in€their€complaint,€specifically€claim€that€the€seller€ð ðviolated€the€TennesseeÐ à%0!$ ÐConsumer€Protection€Act,€[Tenn.€Code€Ann.]€ðð€47„18„101,€òòet€seq.óóðð€€The€Act€provides€that,€once€aÐ Ì&"% Ðtrial€court€finds€there€has€been€a€violation€of€the€Act,€the€court€may€award€the€plaintiff€ð ðreasonableÐ ¸'#& Ðattorneyððs€fees€and€costs.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(e)(1)€(2001)Ô#†¼ ¥»XXLÉ‹#ÔÔ‡XLÉX»¼ ¥Ô.€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ¤(ô#' ÐCourt€has€held€that€ð ðin€determining€whether€or€not€a€judgment€is€beyond€the€scope€of€the€pleadings,Ð )à$( Ðthose€pleadings€must€be€given€a€liberal€construction€with€all€reasonable€Ô_ÔintendmentsÔ_Ô€taken€in€favorÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€judgment.ðð€€ò òòòBrown€v.€Brownó óóó,€198€Tenn.€600,€611,€281€S.W.2d€492,€497€(1955)€(citing€ò òòòMyersÐ h+¸&* Ðv.€Wolfó óóó,€162€Tenn.€42,€50,€34€S.W.2d€201,€203€(1931)).€€Given€that€we€must€liberally€construe€theÐ ° Ðcomplaint€in€the€instant€case€and€take€ð ðall€reasonable€Ô_ÔintendmentsÔ_Ôðð€in€favor€of€the€trial€courtððsÐ œì Ðjudgment,€we€conclude€that€the€seller€was€effectively€put€on€notice€that€the€purchasers€were€seekingÐ ˆØ Ðall€relief€authorized€under€the€Act,€including€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs.€€Accordingly,€we€find€theÐ tÄ Ðsellerððs€argument€on€this€point€to€be€without€merit.Ð `° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ ¥»XXLÉÊ6#ÔÔ‡XLÉX»¼ ¥ÔÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ\;ÓÓ  Óà  àHaving€found€that€the€failure€to€specifically€plead€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs€in€their€complaintÐ  ` Ðis€not€fatal€to€the€purchasersðð€recovery€of€such€items,€we€turn€now€to€the€issue€of€whether€the€trialÐ ü L  Ðcourt€abused€its€discretion€in€awarding€the€purchasers€only€$500.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€by€noting€that€a€determination€of€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees€and€costsÐ À  Ðis€necessarily€a€discretionary€inquiry.€€ò òòòUnited€Med.€Corp.€of€Tenn.€v.€Ô_ÔHohenwaldÔ_Ô€Bank€&€TrustÐ ¬ü  ÐCo.ó óóó,€703€S.W.2d€133,€137€(Tenn.€1986);€òòò òSanders€v.€Grayó óóó,€989€S.W.2d€343,€345€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ˜è  Ð1998);€òòsee€also€óóTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.04(2).€€There€is€no€fixed€mathematical€rule€in€this€jurisdictionÐ „Ô  Ðfor€determining€reasonable€fees€and€costs.€€This€being€the€case,€an€appellate€court€will€normally€deferÐ pÀ Ðto€a€trial€courtððs€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€unless€there€is€ð ða€showing€of€an€abuse€of€[the€trial€courtððs]Ð \¬ Ðdiscretion.ðð€€ò òòòÔ_ÔThreadgillÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔThreadgillÔ_Ôó óóó,€740€S.W.2d€419,€426€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987);€òòsee€alsoÐ H˜ Ðò òSandersóóó ó,€989€S.W.2d€at€345.€€In€evaluating€the€lower€courtððs€exercise€of€its€discretion€in€a€non„juryÐ 4„ Ðsetting,€we€review€its€award€òòde€novoóó.€€We€are€not€authorized€to€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€award€unlessÐ  p Ðwe€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð  \ Ð13(d).Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€this€state,€the€establishment€of€a€reasonable€attorneyððs€fee€is€determined€in€accordance€withÐ Ð  ÐTennessee€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility€DR€2„106€(2002),€which€is€a€part€of€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.Ð ¼  ÐR.€8.€€DR€2„106€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(B)€...€Factors€to€be€considered€as€guides€in€determining€theÐ €Ð Ðreasonableness€of€a€fee€include€the€following:Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€The€time€and€labor€required,€the€novelty€and€difficulty€of€theÐ D!” Ðquestions€involved,€and€the€skill€requisite€to€perform€the€legal€serviceÐ 0"€  Ðproperly.Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€The€likelihood,€if€apparent€to€the€client,€that€the€acceptance€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðparticular€employment€will€preclude€other€employment€by€the€lawyer.Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€The€fee€customarily€charged€in€the€locality€for€similar€legalÐ ¸'#& Ðservices.Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)€The€amount€involved€and€the€results€obtained.Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(5)€The€time€limitations€imposed€by€the€client€or€by€theÐ ° Ðcircumstances.Ðœì` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(6)€The€nature€and€length€of€the€professional€relationship€with€theÐ tÄ Ðclient.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(7)€The€experience,€reputation,€and€ability€of€the€lawyer€or€lawyersÐ 8 ˆ Ðperforming€the€services.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(8)€Whether€the€fee€is€fixed€or€contingent.Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌWith€respect€to€the€final€factor,€our€Supreme€Court€has€opined€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]nÔ_Ô€attorneyððs€fee€should€beÐ Ô$  Ðgreater€where€it€is€contingent€than€where€it€is€fixed.ðð€€ò òòòUnited€Med.ó óóó,€703€S.W.2d€at€136.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAfter€applying€the€DR€2„106€factors€to€cases€involving€attorneyððs€fees,€the€courts€of€this€stateÐ ˜è  Ðhave€been€faced€with€the€issue€of€whether€an€award€of€fees€and€costs€should€be€proportionate€to€anÐ „Ô  Ðaward€of€compensatory€damages.€€In€ò òòòÔ_ÔAdkinsonÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHarpethÔ_Ô€Ford„Mercury,€Inc.ó óóó,€App.€No.€01„A„01„Ð pÀ Ð9009„CH„00332,€1991€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€114€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€M.S.,€filed€February€15,€1991),€a€juryÐ \¬ Ðfound€that€the€defendant€car€dealership€had€violated€the€Act,€and€the€jury€awarded€the€plaintiffÐ H˜ Ðdamages€of€approximately€$8,555.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*1.€€The€trial€court€then€awarded€the€plaintiff€attorneyððsÐ 4„ Ðfees€of€$20,004€and€expenses€of€approximately€$2,886.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*11.€€The€defendant€appealed,€arguing,Ð  p Ðòòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€awarding€fees€in€an€excessive€amount.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€atÐ  \ Ð*21„*22.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€analyzing€this€issue,€we€relied€on€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€case€of€ò òòòCity€ofÐ Ð  ÐRiverside€v.€Riveraó óóó,€477€U.S.€561,€106€S.€Ct.€2686,€91€L.€Ed.€2d€466€(1986).€€In€ò òòòCity€of€Riversideó óóó,Ð ¼  Ða€civil€rights€action,€the€jury€awarded€the€plaintiffs€$33,350,€and€the€District€Court€awarded€theÐ ¨ø Ðplaintiffs€their€full€requested€attorneyððs€fee€of€approximately€$245,000.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€564„65,€106€S.€Ct.€atÐ ”ä Ð2689.€€On€appeal,€the€defendants€argued€that€the€fee€award€should€be€proportionate€to€the€monetaryÐ €Ð Ðaward.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€567,€106€S.€Ct.€at€2690.€€Rejecting€that€argument,€the€Supreme€Court€stated€theÐ l¼ Ðfollowing:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€rule€that€limits€attorneyððs€fees€in€civil€rights€cases€to€a€proportionÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€damages€awarded€would€seriously€undermine€CongressððÐ #l! Ðpurpose€in€enacting€ðð€1988.€€Congress€enacted€ðð€1988€specificallyÐ $X" Ðbecause€it€found€that€the€private€market€for€legal€services€failed€toÐ ô$D # Ðprovide€many€victims€of€civil€rights€violations€with€effective€accessÐ à%0!$ Ðto€the€judicial€process....€€These€victims€ordinarily€cannot€afford€toÐ Ì&"% Ðpurchase€legal€services€at€the€rates€set€by€the€private€market.и'#&` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÓUÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMoreover,€the€contingent€fee€arrangements€that€make€legal€servicesÐ ° Ðâ âavailable€to€many€victims€of€personal€injuries€would€often€notÐ œì Ðencourage€lawyers€to€accept€civil€rights€cases,€which€frequentlyÐ ˆØ Ðinvolve€substantial€expenditures€of€time€and€effort€but€produce€onlyÐ tÄ Ðsmall€monetary€recoveries.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ6WÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€rule€of€proportionality€would€make€it€difficult,€if€not€impossible,Ð  ` Ðfor€individuals€with€meritorious€civil€rights€claims€but€relativelyÐ ü L  Ðsmall€potential€damages€to€obtain€redress€from€the€courts.€€This€isÐ è 8  Ðtotally€inconsistent€with€Congressðð€purpose€in€enacting€ðð€1988.€Ð Ô$  ÐCongress€recognized€that€private„sector€fee€arrangements€wereÐ À  Ðinadequate€to€ensure€sufficiently€vigorous€enforcement€of€civil€rights.€Ð ¬ü  ÐIn€order€to€ensure€that€lawyers€would€be€willing€to€represent€personsÐ ˜è  Ðwith€legitimate€civil€rights€grievances,€Congress€determined€that€itÐ „Ô  Ðwould€be€necessary€to€compensate€lawyers€for€all€time€reasonablyÐ pÀ Ðexpended€on€a€case.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌò òòòCity€of€Riversideó óóó,€477€U.S.€at€576„78,€106€S.€Ct.€at€2695„96.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAffirming€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€in€ò òòòÔ_ÔAdkinsonÔ_Ôó óóó,€we€opined€ò òòòó óóóas€follows:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhile€the€instant€case€does€not€involve€a€civil€rights€action,€it€doesÐ ä4 Ðinvolve€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€...€and€we€are€of€theÐ Ð  Ðopinion€that€Ô_ÔthatÔ_Ô€reasoning€is€applicable....€€The€potential€award€ofÐ ¼  Ðattorneyððs€fees€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€isÐ ¨ø Ðintended€to€make€prosecution€of€such€claims€economically€viable€toÐ ”ä Ðplaintiff.€Ð€Ð` x` x ÐÌò òòòÔ_ÔAdkinsonÔ_Ôó óóó,€1991€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€114,€at€*24„*25.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€òòò òLowe€v.€Johnson€Countyó óóó,€C/A€No.€03A01„9309„CH„00321,€1995€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€320Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Ô_ÔE.S.Ô_Ô,€filed€May€19,€1995),€a€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€case,€the€jury€awardedÐ #l! Ðthe€plaintiff€$25,000€in€damages,€but€the€trial€court€awarded€only€$12,000€of€the€requested€$96,000Ð $X" Ðin€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*3.€€The€plaintiff€appealed€the€award€of€fees€and€costs,€arguingÐ ô$D # Ðthat€it€was€unreasonably€low.€€Ô#†¼ ¥»XXLÉ<;#ÔÔ‡XLÉX»¼ ¥Ôò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*1.€€Again€relying€on€the€guidance€of€ò òòòCity€of€Riversideó óóó,€weÐ à%0!$ Ðò òòòó óóófound€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]nÔ_Ô€view€of€the€relationship€between€the€Ô_ÔTHRAÔ_Ô€and€the€federal€civil€rights€acts,€weÐ Ì&"% Ðbelieve€the€comments€of€the€Supreme€Court€on€these€points€are€persuasive€support€for€our€fee€andÐ ¸'#& Ðexpense€award€in€this€case.ðð€€ò òòòLoweó óóó,€1995€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€320,€at€*25.€€Finding€that€the€trial€courtÐ ¤(ô#' Ðabused€its€discretion€in€awarding€only€$12,000€in€fees€and€costs,€this€court€awarded€attorneyððs€feesÐ )à$( Ðof€$59,017€and€paralegal€expenses€of€$1,918ò òòòó óóó,€and€stated€the€following:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWe€recognize€that€we€are€awarding,€as€fees€and€expenses,€more€thanÐ ° Ðtwice€the€amount€of€the€jury€award;€but€this€fact€does€not€deter€us.€Ð œì ÐWe€agree€with€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€that€a€rule€limitingÐ ˆØ Ðan€attorneyððs€fee€to€a€proportion€of€the€damages€awarded€wouldÐ tÄ Ðseriously€undermine€the€purpose€behind€civil€rights€enactments....€Ð `° ÐFee€awards€must€fully€and€reasonably€compensate€plaintiffððs€counselÐ L œ Ðif€the€purpose€and€intent€of€the€Ô_ÔTHRAÔ_Ô€is€to€be€fulfilled.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.€ó óóóat€*25„*26€(footnote€omitted).òòò ò€€ó óSee€also€ò òPatton€v.€Ô_ÔMcHoneÔ_Ôó óóó,€App.€No.€01„A„01„9207„CH„00286,Ð  ` Ð1993€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€212,€at€*18„*19€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€M.S.,€filed€March€24,€1993)€(holding€thatÐ ü L  Ðan€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€and€expenses,€in€a€claim€under€the€Ô_ÔMagnusonÔ_Ô„Moss€Act,€that€are€ð ðsomeÐ è 8  Ðfive€times€the€amount€of€compensatory€damages€does€not€affect€the€validity€of€plaintiffððs€claim€forÐ Ô$  Ðreasonable€attorneyððs€feesðð).òòò òóóó óÐ À  ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€before€us€to€indicate€that€the€trial€court€reliedÐ ˜è  Ðupon€the€factors€set€forth€in€DR€2„106€or€the€aforementioned€case€law€in€determining€theÐ „Ô  Ðreasonableness€of€the€requested€attorneyððs€fees€and€expenses.€€The€trial€courtððs€comments€on€theÐ pÀ Ðpurchasersðð€motion€to€alter€or€amend€reveal€that€the€court€considered€the€juryððs€award€of€$2,500€toÐ \¬ Ðbe€the€cash€equivalent€of€the€sellerððs€offer€of€repairs€and€an€extended€warranty.€€Based€upon€thisÐ H˜ Ðrationale,€the€trial€court€decided€that€an€award€of€the€full€amount€of€fees€and€expenses€requested€byÐ 4„ Ðthe€purchasers€in€this€case€would€be€unfair,€because,€according€to€the€trial€courtððs€reasoning,€theÐ  p Ðpurchasers€could€have€accepted€the€sellerððs€offer€and€saved€themselves€from€incurring€over€$11,000Ð  \ Ðin€fees€and€expenses.Ð øH ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ ¥»XXLÉa#ÔÔ‡XLÉX»¼ ¥Ôà  àWith€respect€to€the€award€of€damages€to€the€purchasers,€we€find€that€the€evidenceÐ Ð  Ðpreponderates€against€a€finding€that€the€juryððs€award€was€roughly€equivalent€to€the€offer€made€byÐ ¼  Ðthe€seller€prior€to€trial.€€In€this€case,€the€purchasers€sought€a€cash€settlement/award€for€the€diminutionÐ ¨ø Ðin€value€caused€by€the€damage€that€was€hidden€from€them.€€The€offer€made€pre„trial€was€not€a€cashÐ ”ä Ðoffer€for€diminution€in€value,€but€rather€one€of€repairs€and€an€extended€warranty.€€In€effect,€the€sellerÐ €Ð Ðoffered€a€mechanism€by€which€the€purchasers€could€obtain€free€repairs€while€what€they€really€wantedÐ l¼ Ðð!ð€and€rightfully€so€ð!ð€was€to€be€compensated€for€the€decrease€in€value€between€that€of€a€new€vehicleÐ X ¨ Ðand€one€that€had€been€damaged€and€repaired.€€Moreover,€it€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€seller€didÐ D!” Ðnot€advise€the€purchasers€of€the€cash€value€of€its€offer.€€The€first€time€the€purchasers€learned€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðalleged€value€of€the€extended€warranty€was€at€trial,€when€the€sellerððs€general€manager€testified€thatÐ #l! Ðthe€cost€of€the€warranty€to€a€customer€would€be€ð ðsomewhere€in€the€...€$2,000€neighborhood,€orÐ $X" Ðmaybe€slightly€under€that.ððÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€factual€predicate€upon€which€the€trial€court€made€its€determinationÐ Ì&"% Ðregarding€fees€and€expenses€was€in€error.€€We€therefore€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€aÐ ¸'#& Ðdetermination€of€whether€the€claimed€services€of€the€purchasersðð€counsel€were€actually€performed;Ð ¤(ô#' Ðwhether€the€work€was€necessary;€and€whether€the€claimed€rates€were€reasonable;€and€then€to€set€theÐ )à$( Ðfee€based€upon€those€determinations€under€the€guidance€of€the€factors€set€forth€in€DR€2„106Ô#†¼ ¥»XXLÉ›m#ÔÔ‡XLÉX»¼ ¥Ô.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  ÓV.Ð ° ÐÓÒuÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€vacated.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÐ ˆØ Ðproceedings.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellee,€Ted€Russell€Ford,€Inc.Ô#†¼ ¥»XXLɈu#ÔÔ€XLÉX»¼ ¥ÔÐ tÄ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________€Ð $ t Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE