OPINION
{1} Defendant appeals from a judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to Plaintiffs on their claims arising from the purchase of a mobile home, and from an order awarding attorney fees to Plaintiffs. Defendant challenges the trial court’s (1) award of compensatory damages to Plaintiffs for fraud, conversion, and violation of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), NMSA 1978, §§ 57-12-1 to -24 (1967, as amended through 2003); (2) award of punitive damages; (3) dismissal of Defendant’s counterclaim without prejudice; and (4) award of attorney fees to Plaintiffs under the UPA and the Insurance Code. On cross-appeal Plaintiffs challenge the trial court’s reduction of punitive damages and refusal to dismiss Defendant’s counterclaim with prejudice. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In light of our disposition, we need not address the cross-appeal.
BACKGROUND
{2} Plaintiffs purchased a mobile home from Defendant through its Las Cruces sales office. Devin Pike and Bob Lancaster were, respectively, the sales agent and the sales manager of the Las Cruces office who conducted the sale of a three-bedroom mobile home to Plaintiffs. Although GreenPoint Credit (Lender) initially qualified Plaintiffs for a loan to buy á four-bedroom mobile home, Defendant told Plaintiffs that their loan application had been declined by Lender. Defendant then negotiated the sale of a three-bedroom mobile home to Plaintiffs. Pike and Lancaster falsified Plaintiffs’ income and employment information in order to qualify them for a higher loan on the three-bedroom home, also forging Plaintiffs’ signatures on a credit application and another loan document. The amount of the loan for the three-bedroom mobile home was virtually the same as the amount of the loan for the four-bedroom mobile home. Pike and Lancaster inflated the value of Plaintiffs’ existing mobile home and agreed to accept the trade-in as a 10% down payment on the purchase. They included in the loan amount the cost of constructing a garage and decks that were never provided to Plaintiffs but were falsely certified to Lender as having been constructed. They misrepresented certain features to be included in the mobile home. The mobile home was delivered to Plaintiffs with numerous defects that were never remedied by Defendant.
{3} Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendant in district court, alleging fraud, conversion, violation of the UPA, breach of warranty, excessive charges on interim construction loans in violation of NMSA 1978, § 56-8-9 (1980), and unlicensed sale of insurance in violation of the Insurance Code. Defendant counterclaimed to collect on the promissory note executed by Plaintiffs. The case was tried to the court. Following a three-day trial, the trial court found in favor of Plaintiffs on their claims, dismissed Defendant’s counterclaim without prejudice, and entered a judgment awarding Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages and other relief. The trial court also awarded attorney fees of almost $80,000 to Plaintiffs. Defendant’s two appeals and Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal followed, and have been consolidated.
DISCUSSION
Finality of Judgment
{4} The trial court entered a judgment awarding damages to Plaintiffs under three alternative theories of liability: fraud, conversion, and violation of the UPA. The judgment states in pertinent part:
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED AND ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs are awarded $9,500.00 in actual damages for Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the garage and decks, under the New Mexico [UPA]. Plaintiffs are awarded $17,900.00 in actual damages for fraud, regarding the garage, decks and trade-in. Plaintiffs are awarded $17,000.00 in actual damages for conversion, regarding the garage, decks and trade-in. After passage of time for appeal, or when an appeal concludes, plaintiffs must elect a remedy and choose which one of these three damage awards to accept.
3. Plaintiffs are awarded $150,000.00 in punitive damages for Defendant’s fraud and $150,000.00 in punitive damages for Defendant’s conversion, and $31,440.00 additional damages for Defendant’s willful violations of the New Mexico [UPA]. After passage of time for appeal, or when an appeal concludes, Plaintiffs must elect a remedy and choose whether to accept the additional damages for unfair trade practices, or to accept the punitive damages for fraud or the punitive damages for conversion.
(Emphasis added.) The judgment therefore awards Plaintiffs alternative relief, subject to their election, following the conclusion of this appeal.
{5} On its face, the judgment does not appear final because as framed it leaves open the final remedy to be chosen by Plaintiffs. Generally, “an order or judgment is not considered final unless all issues of law and fact have been determined and the case disposed of by the trial court to the fullest extent possible.” Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison,
{6} We agree with the parties that this case does not present a typical election of remedies problem. “The essence of the doctrine of election of remedies is the conscious choice, with full knowledge of the facts, of one of two or more inconsistent remedies.” Naranjo v. Pauli,
{7} We further acknowledge that the judgment in this case is not one that adjudicates liability but leaves undecided the question of damages. Our courts have firmly held that such judgments are not final and appealable. See, e.g., Valley Improvement Ass’n v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.,
{8} The judgment, however, does impose an election upon Plaintiffs that has yet to be exercised, thus making the judgment seemingly inconclusive. Some courts have held that a judgment awarding alternative or conditional relief subject to an election by the prevailing party is not final until an election has been made. See, e.g., McKinney v. Gannett Co.,
{9} In this case, both parties argue that the judgment should be treated as final for purposes of appeal because doing so would promote the policies of avoiding piecemeal appeals and facilitating meaningful review of the appellate issues. See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc.,
{10} Defendant also points out that, aside from its elective nature, “the judgment in this case is not materially different from a judgment awarding relief to claimants who have prevailed on multiple, alternative theories allowing different amounts of monetary recovery.” Defendant explains that the trial court “would ordinarily award judgment for the largest amount recoverable based on the most favorable theory on which the claimants had succeeded.” The party appealing would then challenge the award under that theory, and the claimants would not only defend recovery on that basis but would argue that the award is affirmable under any theory of recovery considered below. See Manouchehri v. Heim,
{11} We appreciate the procedural complexities and the undue delay that remand for a formal election would likely cause in this case. Accepting the judgment as final would serve the purposes of preventing piecemeal appeals, promoting judicial economy, and facilitating meaningful review of the issues. See Executive Sports Club, Inc. v. First Plaza Trust,
Compensatory Damages for Fraud
{12} The trial court awarded to Plaintiffs compensatory damages of $17,900 for fraud. This award was based on the trial court’s findings that Defendant (1) fraudulently obtained the disbursement of $9,500 from Plaintiffs’ loan by falsely certifying the construction of nonexistent garage and decks, and (2) fraudulently induced Plaintiffs to trade in their existing mobile home for a credit of $8,400, for which they received no value.
{13} Defendant does not challenge the trial court’s finding that two of its employees committed fraud in the sale of the mobile home to Plaintiffs. Defendant, however, claims that Plaintiffs are not entitled to actual damages for fraud because they have made no payment on the promissory note held by Defendant, and thus have sustained no present financial injury. We disagree.
{14} As a result of Pike’s and Lancaster’s misrepresentations, Plaintiffs executed a promissory note in the principal amount of $82,688.75, covering the purchase price of the mobile home, the lot, the garage, the decks, and related expenses. Plaintiffs also signed a security agreement and mortgage to secure payment of the note. By signing the note, security agreement, and mortgage, Plaintiffs incurred a legal obligation in the amount of $82,688.75, plus interest. The note, security agreement, and mortgage were assigned by Lender to Defendant pursuant to a recourse agreement. Defendant has sought to enforce Plaintiffs’ financial obligation and filed a counterclaim in this action to collect on the note and foreclose the mortgage. Plaintiffs have been forced to defend the counterclaim, incurring legal expenses. By suing Defendant for fraud and seeking damages, Plaintiffs have opted to affirm, rather than rescind, the sale. See Everett v. Gilliland,
{15} Thus, even though Plaintiffs have not yet paid on the promissory note, by signing the note and affirming the sale, they incurred an enforceable legal obligation and thus have sustained actionable damage for fraud. See Anderson, Greenwood & Co. v. Martin,
{16} Defendant further contends that the award of compensatory damages for fraud is premature because Defendant’s counterclaim was- dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiffs’ liability on the note now remains unresolved in another proceeding. Defendant claims that Plaintiffs’ damages cannot be ascertained until their liability on the note is adjudicated. We note that Defendant has not informed us how this argument was preserved in the trial court. See Rule 12-216(A) NMRA; Young v. Van Duyne,
{17} Defendant additionally claims that the trial court erred in awarding compensatory damages of $8,400 for the loss of Plaintiffs’ trade-in. Defendant claims that Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages for the trade-in because they received a credit of $8,400 for the trade-in, which was accepted as a down payment on the purchase. Plaintiffs, however, contend that because Defendant inflated the purchase price of the mobile home to obtain additional financing from Lender, they did not receive any value for the trade-in because that amount was offset by the inflated and fraudulent charges to Plaintiffs. Defendant counters that, insofar as the purchase price was inflated, it was done so by $9,500, the cost of the nonexistent garage and decks, for which Plaintiffs have already been compensated, and therefore the award of $8,400 constitutes double recovery. We agree that the additional award for the trade-in is duplicative of the award for the fraudulent inclusion of the garage and decks. We therefore reverse the award of $8,400 for the loss of the trade-in. See generally Hale v. Basin Motor Co.,
{18} On appeal, we review the trial court’s findings of damages to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence. Moody v. Stribling,
{19} In arguing that substantial evidence supports the award of $8,400, Plaintiffs rely on three exhibits: a series of advance calculation sheets prepared by Defendant in the course of negotiating the sale of a mobile home to Plaintiffs. The first of the exhibits pertains to the four-bedroom mobile home Plaintiffs originally sought to buy, and the other two exhibits pertain to two different three-bedroom mobile homes, including the one that Plaintiffs ultimately bought. Plaintiffs point out that the loan amount for all three proposals was roughly the same, approximately $82,400, although the adjusted •invoice amount and the selling price on each one varied, thus establishing that Defendant sold Plaintiffs the three-bedroom home for essentially the same price as the four-bedroom home. Plaintiffs claim that Defendant should have charged Plaintiffs $18,000 less for the three-bedroom home they purchased, since the adjusted invoice amount of the three-bedroom home was $24,064, as compared to $42,090 for the four-bedroom home. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant “could not make up that $18,000 difference with the $7,500 garage alone; they had to pad the deal to make it look like they were giving the $8,[4]00 trade-in value they promised when, in truth, Plaintiffs did not receive any actual value for the trade-in.” They also argue that the fraud related to the trade-in was entirely independent of the fraud related to the garage.
{20} Plaintiffs, however, do not point to any testimony to support their view that Defendant inflated the price of the three-bedroom home by $18,000, and that the fraud related to the trade-in is distinct from the fraud related to the garage. Our review of the uncontradicted testimony at trial indicates that Defendant artificially inflated the trade-in allowance to induce Plaintiffs to purchase the home and then attempted to recoup the difference by fraudulently including in the amount of the loan the cost of the fictitious garage. In other words, the evidence establishes that the fraud related to the trade-in and the fraud related to the garage are part of a single interconnected scheme.
{21} Because Plaintiffs did not have the cash to make the 10% down payment, they were allowed to trade in their existing mobile home and received a credit of $8,400 which was accepted as a down payment. Defendant assigned the NADA book value of $11,349 to the trade-in and subtracted the almost $3,000 that Plaintiffs still owed on the mobile home to arrive at the net amount of $8,400. However, the value assigned to the trade-in was substantially inflated because Defendant subsequently resold the mobile home for only about $1,500. According to the uncontradieted testimony of the district manager, William Kasprzyk, there was a “[djirect correlation” between the allowance on the trade-in and the inclusion of the garage in the loan. He testified that to make up for the loss of profit on the trade-in, Defendant improperly generated additional funds by including in the amount of the loan the cost of constructing a fictitious garage on Plaintiffs’ property.
{22} The trial court’s findings of fact reflect that it accepted the evidence concerning the interrelationship between the trade-in and the garage. In particular, the trial court found that (1) Defendant inflated or misrepresented the value allocated to the trade-in; (2) Defendant “used the value and money from [the] non-existent, falsely-certified-as-completed garage to make up the difference between the value [Defendant] allocated to [Plaintiffs’] 1980 Melody trailer and the value [Defendant] reported to [Plaintiffs] and [Lender];” and (3) when Plaintiffs traded in their mobile home, Defendant intended to deprive them of $7,500 of the value of the mobile home, which was the same amount that the nonexistent garage cost. “Unless the district court makes findings of fact, or rejects specific uncontradicted testimony with reasons on the record, we presume the district court believed the uncontradicted evidence.” State v. Zamora,
Compensatory Damages for Conversion
{23} Defendant further claims that the trial court erred in awarding to Plaintiffs compensatory damages for conversion. Because Plaintiffs would be entitled to no more than $9,500 in compensatory damages for conversion, even assuming that the claim was established, we need not address Defendant’s conversion arguments. This is because the same double recovery limitation that was discussed in connection with fraud also applies to compensatory damages for conversion.
UPA Claims
{24} The trial court awarded $1,720 to Plaintiffs as actual damages for Defendant’s unlicensed sale of property damage insurance to Plaintiffs. The award was made pursuant to the UPA and therefore was also subject to trebling. Defendant acknowledges that Pike and Lancaster were not licensed to sell insurance to Plaintiffs, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 59A-12-6(D) (1984), but claims there was no evidence connecting the unlawful insurance practice to the damages awarded to Plaintiffs. We agree.
{25} Section 57-12-10(B) of the UPA provides that any claimant “who suffers any loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of any employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by the [UPA] may bring an action to recover actual damages or the sum of one hundred dollars ($100), whichever is greater.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, to obtain financial recovery under the UPA, Defendant’s deceptive trade practice must have caused Plaintiffs to suffer actual damages. See UJI 13-1707 NMRA (instructing that plaintiffs “may recover damages proximately caused by the deception”); see also Bogle v. Summit Inv. Co.,
{26} Defendant also challenges the award of damages under the UPA for additional utility charges, inconvenience, and aggravation arising from the defects in the mobile home. During trial, Plaintiffs stipulated, for purposes of resolving an evidentiary dispute, that their breach of warranty claim based on defects in the mobile home was separate from their UPA claim concerning the sales transaction itself. Moreover, when introducing testimony concerning the damages resulting from the defects in the mobile home, counsel for Plaintiffs argued that it was relevant to their breach of warranty claim. The trial court, however, awarded only equitable relief on Plaintiffs’ breach of warranty claim. In light of Plaintiffs’ stipulation during trial that their breach of warranty claim is in no way “subsumed into the [UPA],” we hold that the trial court erred in awarding damages under the UPA for the additional utility charges, inconvenience, and aggravation arising from the defects in the home. We, however, note that the award of UPA damages for Defendant’s failure to deliver a home with certain custom features ordered by Plaintiffs remains unaffected, as those damages appear to relate to promises made by Defendant during the sale itself and thus are properly awarded under the UPA. Thus, we reverse the award of actual and treble damages related to the sale of insurance, and the award of actual and treble damages related to the additional utility charges, inconvenience, and aggravation.
Punitive Damages
{27} The purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter wrongful conduct and thus requires evidence of a culpable mental state, combined with conduct that is willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, oppressive, or fraudulent. Enriquez v. Cochran,
{28} Defendant claims that the trial court erred in imposing punitive damages because the evidence was inadequate to prove corporate misconduct by Defendant. The trial court awarded punitive damages on the basis that Defendant ratified the actions of Pike and Lancaster. The trial court found that Defendant ratified their conduct by (1) paying Pike his full commission on the sale of the mobile home to Plaintiffs, (2) not immediately terminating Lancaster upon discovering his and Pike’s misconduct, (3) authorizing the construction of a fence in place of a garage on Plaintiffs’ property without Plaintiffs’ permission, and (4) advancing positions in the lawsuit that deny wrongdoing or responsibility-
{29} We conclude that the evidence upon which the trial court relied does not support ratification of Pike’s and Lancaster’s misconduct by Defendant. In urging us to affirm the trial court’s award, Plaintiffs point to evidence that the paperwork submitted by the local sales representative and manager contained discrepancies and irregularities that should have been detected and investigated by Defendant, but were not. However, as a matter of law, inaction alone is not sufficient to establish ratification of an agent’s conduct; ratification must be founded on knowledge of all facts material to the agent’s unauthorized action, and not on negligence in failing to discover them. See Albuquerque Concrete Coring Co.,
{30} In support of ratification, Plaintiffs also rely on evidence that Defendant was aware of the problem of falsification in the mobile home industry, but ignored warnings by the Albuquerque zone office that local sales offices should not be allowed to submit financing documents directly to lenders, but should be required to have them reviewed and verified by the zone office. Although Defendant did not adopt the recommendation of the Albuquerque zone office, it is undisputed that Defendant instituted an alternative method of verification of sales information through a central finance office in Portland. Moreover, in response to the problems in the mobile home industry, Defendant had adopted a corporate policy expressly prohibiting dishonest acts by sales personnel, and in 1999 convened a nationwide “Call to Integrity” meeting of managers to specifically address the problem of fraud in the industry. In light of this evidence in the record, which appears to be undisputed, we conclude that Defendant’s decision not to adopt the particular policy recommended by the Albuquerque zone office does not rise to the level of corporate indifference necessary to justify an award of punitive damages. See McNeill v. Rice Eng’g & Operating, Inc.,
{31} The trial court also based ratification on its finding that, when the fraud in the transaction was revealed to Defendant, the district manager directed the local sales manager to have a fence, instead of a garage, built on Plaintiffs’ property without their permission. However, we are unable to find support in the record for the trial court’s finding. Our review of the record indicates as follows. When Plaintiffs reported the defects in the home to Defendant, it sent district manager Kasprzyk to Las Cruces to investigate. Upon inspecting Plaintiffs’ home, Kasprzyk acknowledged the defects and poor condition of the home and arranged for repairs, which were apparently never done. Then when the falsification of Plaintiffs’ loan first came to light, Kasprzyk again went to Las Cruces and saw that, contrary to the loan documents, there was no garage on Plaintiffs’ property, which was too small to even fit a garage. After being apprised of the situation, the zone vice-president, Jim Gifford, asked Kasprzyk to find out what Plaintiffs wanted instead of the garage. Kasprzyk relied on Lancaster, as the local manager, to address the matter with Plaintiffs. During that meeting, Plaintiffs expressed a desire to use the money allocated to the garage to build a concrete slab, porch, and fence on the property instead. Without obtaining Plaintiffs’ permission, Lancaster arranged to have a fence, which was worth less than $1,000, built on Plaintiffs’ property. There is no evidence in the record, however, that this unauthorized act was done at Kasprzyk’s direction. Rather, Kasprzyk believed that an agreement had been reached with Plaintiffs to substitute the fence for the garage. Where the district manager and the zone vice-president had no knowledge of the unilateral actions of Lancaster, and sought only to settle the controversy with Plaintiffs, we cannot conclude that it was reasonable to find ratification. See Albuquerque Concrete Coring Co.,
{32} The trial court also found that Defendant’s failure to immediately terminate Pike and Lancaster amounted to ratification. However, it is undisputed that Pike was terminated by Defendant approximately two months later based upon similar misconduct in another sale, and that Gifford ordered that Lancaster be terminated after an investigation of his misconduct in this transaction, but Lancaster resigned before he could be fired. Thus, the cumulative conduct of employees in this case does not support a finding of ratification by Defendant. See Clay,
{33} In imposing punitive damages, the trial court also relied on Defendant’s litigation conduct or defense of this lawsuit. New Mexico case law, however, does not appear to recognize a principal’s litigation conduct as a basis for ratification for purposes of determining punitive damages. See Albuquerque Concrete Coring Co.,
{34} Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the award of punitive damages should be affirmed because Lancaster, as local sales manager, was employed in a managerial capacity. In New Mexico, punitive damages may be imposed upon a principal if “the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment.” Albuquerque Concrete Coring Co.,
{35} We reverse the trial court’s award of punitive damages against Defendant based on insufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of ratification by Defendant. Although an appellate court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment, Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque, N.A. v. Daskalos,
Dismissal of Defendant’s Counterclaim Without Prejudice
{36} Defendant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing, without prejudice, its counterclaim to collect on the promissory note signed by Plaintiffs. At the close of the evidence, Plaintiffs moved for judgment on the counterclaim on the ground that Defendant failed to produce the original note and thus did not satisfy its burden of proof on the counterclaim. See NMSA 1978, § 55-3-308(a) (1992). They argued that because Defendant was not the original holder of the note, it was required to prove possession of the original note in order to collect payment, relying on the Arkansas case of McKay v. Capital Resources Co.,
{37} Plaintiffs do not respond directly to Defendant’s claim of waiver, but argue only that Defendant failed to meet its evidentiary burden under the Uniform Commercial Code. However, in a collection action, the failure to produce the original note or instrument may be waived or excused by stipulation or admission of the parties. Recreation Servs., Inc. Defined Benefit Plan v. Utah Mortgage Co.,
{38} In this case, Plaintiffs admitted in their answer to the counterclaim that they signed the note. They admitted that the note was assigned to Defendant and that Defendant was the current owner of the note. The pretrial order does not indicate that Plaintiffs challenged Defendant’s status as the owner or holder of the note. Moreover, unlike the situation in McKay,
-{39} Because we reverse on the basis of waiver, we need not address Defendant’s remaining challenge to the dismissal of the counterclaim, which was admittedly not preserved below. We note that Defendant further argues that the trial court erred in ruling, following the dismissal of the counterclaim, that Defendant forfeited interest on the promissory note pursuant to NMSA1978, § 56-8-9(D) (1980). Defendant admits that this issue was not raised below, but argues that it is an issue of general public interest which may be excluded from the preservation requirement. We disagree. Defendant’s issue, which pertains to the particular terms of the financing in this case, is not likely to affect the public at large or a great number of cases and litigants in the near future. See Azar v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
Award of Attorney Fees
{40} Defendant argues that the trial court erred in determining the amount of attorney fees to award to Plaintiffs under the UPA and the Insurance Code. The trial court awarded fees of approximately $80,000 to Plaintiffs. Defendant claims that the trial court failed to adequately apportion counsel’s efforts between Plaintiffs’ UPA claim and their other, non-fee generating claims. Specifically, Defendant contends that the trial court improperly awarded Plaintiffs attorney fees for their claims related to (1) the unlicensed sale of insurance under the Insurance Code, (2) the violation of statutory limits on interim construction loan charges, and (3) punitive damages against Defendant. Defendant acknowledges that it did not raise below its argument that Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney fees under the Insurance Code. Because this issue was not preserved for review, we do not consider whether attorney fees were improperly awarded under the Insurance Code. See Rule 12-216(A); Wool-wine,
{41} “The trial court has broad discretion in setting attorney fees, and an award will not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion.” Robertson,
{42} In awarding attorney fees to Plaintiffs, the trial court entered, in part, the following findings:
5. The litigation of this entire ease centered around [Defendant’s] misrepresentations.
6. The same conduct which pertained to the fraud claims also was the conduct that violated the [UPA].
7. All of the time and work performed by Plaintiffs’ attorneys proving their fraud claim also was performed in proving the [UPA] claim.
8. The time and work performed by Plaintiffs’ attorneys, proving entitlement to punitive damages under the fraud claim, also was performed in proving the entitlement to treble damages for willful [UPA] claim.
9. The time and work Plaintiffs’ counsel spent litigating the arbitration issue pertained to all claims, including the [UPA] claim.
10. No additional time was spent on the arbitration issue that did not include the work spent on the [UPA] claim.
11. In their fee application, Plaintiffs’ counsel already deleted the time they spent working on the breach of warranty claim, which was not compensable.
12. The commission of unfair trade practices was an element of the usury claim that required presentation of evidence at trial. Plaintiffs’ success in proving the violations of the [UPA] was directly related to their success in prevailing under the New Mexico usury statute.
13. A portion of the work of Plaintiffs’ counsel on their usury claim, primarily their work on the legal issues, is not compensable.
14. The portion of the work of Plaintiffs’ counsel, on the Truth in Lending Act claim in the original complaint, is not compensable.
{43} When a plaintiff asserts a UPA claim along with a number of other distinct claims, the trial court must “separate the claims and determine the amount of time spent on each.” Jaramillo v. Gonzales,
when the attorney’s services are rendered in pursuit of multiple objectives, some of which permit an award of fees and some of which do not, the court must make a reasoned estimate, based either on evidence or on its familiarity with the case at trial, of the proportion or quantum of services that are compensable and award fees only for those services.
Economy Rentals, Inc. v. Garcia,
{44} We conclude that the trial court met its obligation of separating the claims and estimating with reason the proportion of services compensable under the UPA based on the evidence submitted and its familiarity with the case. Defendant claims that the trial court erred in awarding fees related to work done under the UPA that promoted the success of Plaintiffs’ usury claim, which is not compensable. The trial court, however, may properly award fees for UPA work that overlaps factually with another claim. See Jaramillo,
{45} Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in finding that the proof required for punitive damages under common law fraud is the same as the proof required for treble damages under the UPA. According to Defendant, because entitlement to punitive damages requires an additional showing of Defendant’s vicarious liability, the trial court’s award of fees under the UPA should be reduced accordingly. We, however, have difficulty discerning any appreciable difference in the levels of proof between the two claims in this case, particularly in light of our determination that the evidence of Defendant’s ratification is insufficient. Moreover, as this Court has pointed out in the past, “the same conduct that violates the UPA may also form the basis of another cause of action that permits an award of punitive damages.” McLelland v. United Wisconsin Life Ins. Co.,
{46} Nonetheless, because we reverse the award of certain damages under the UPA as discussed above, we remand to the trial court with instructions to redetermine the amount of attorney fees to be awarded Plaintiffs without counting any time and work required of counsel on the unsuccessful portions of the UPA claim. See Klinksiek v. Klinksiek,
CONCLUSION
{47} The judgment and orders of the trial court are affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with our opinion.
{48} IT IS SO ORDERED.