In another case, this court addressed the denial of a motion for costs and attorney fees in the context of a consumer-fraud law concerning odometers. Bachovchin v. Stingley, 504 N.W.2d 288, 290 (Minn.App. 1993). There, Minn.Stat. § 325E.16 (1992) provided that any person injured by a violation of the act "shall recover the actual damages sustained together with costs and disbursements, including a reasonable attorney's fee."

In re Gershcow's Will, 261 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Minn. 1977); Bachovchin v. Stingley, 504 N.W.2d 288, 290 (Minn.App. 1993); Kusniryk v. Arrowhead Reg'l Corrections Bd., 413 N.W.2d 182, 184 (Minn.App. 1987). This district court abuses its discretion when its decision is against logic and facts on the record.

Other jurisdictions, having interpreted the words "together with," have come to a similar conclusion. See Gilmore v. Mulvihill, 109 Mont. 601, 98 P.2d 335 (1940); Bachovchin v. Stingley, 504 N.W.2d 288 (Minn.App. 1993). Gilmore v. Mulvihill, supra, 336, involved "an action to recover $285 paid on an executory contract whereby plaintiff agreed to purchase 285 head of five-year-old ewes from the defendants, and for damages for breach of such contract by the defendants, with interest on the amounts demanded and costs of suit."

Use of the definite article "the" to modify "appointment" indicates that the drafters were referring to a specific appointment; here, the specific appointment is referenced in the first sentence of the section. See Rose v. SAIF Corp., 200 Or.App. 654, 116 P.3d 913, 918 (2005) (use of definite article makes clear that statutory reference to item is reference to same item that is mentioned earlier in the same statute); see also Bachovchin v. Stingley, 504 N.W.2d 288, 290 (Minn.App. 1993). The first sentence in Section 8 states: "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of judge the governor shall appoint . . . a qualified person to fill the vacancy until a successor is elected and qualified."

Indeed, this court rejected a similar argument in Luna v. Zeeb, 633 N.W.2d 540, 543-44 (Minn. App. 2001), in holding that a motor-vehicle accident victim who proved the defendant driver was negligent but recovered no damages because of the no-fault thresholds was not the prevailing party. See also Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760, 107 S. Ct. 2672, 2675 (1987) (stating that in order to prevail, "a plaintiff [must] receive at least some relief on the merits of his claim" (emphasis added)); Bachovchin v. Stingley, 504 N.W.2d 288, 290 (Minn. App. 1993) (holding that a motor-vehicle buyer was not "injured" for purposes of entitlement to statutory costs and disbursements for violation of a mileage disclosure statute, because the jury awarded no damages to the buyer). St. Jude contends in its supplemental brief that Carter's breach entitles it to recover attorney fees, which would make it the prevailing party.

Without actual damages, a person is not injured within the meaning of the statute. Bachovchin v. Stingley, 504 N.W.2d 288, 290 (Minn. App. 1993). Even if BB Motors' delay in the transfer of title violated section 325E.15, Tillman failed to identify any evidence of actual damages caused by BB Motors.

But liability under Minn. Stat. § 325E.15, requires a showing that the person has been "injured" and has "actual damages." Bachovchin v. Stingley, 504 N.W.2d 288, 290 (Minn.App. 1993) (concluding that plaintiff was not "injured" and not entitled to costs and attorney's fees because the jury found that he suffered no damages from defendant's violation of the Minnesota act). Here, appellant has failed to show actual damages.

Prevailing Party The district court's determination of who is the prevailing party in an action will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Bachovchin v. Stingley, 504 N.W.2d 288, 290 (Minn.App. 1993). The district court must consider the overall result and decide who, in the eyes of the law, has succeeded in the action.

Although a trial court may decline to find a plaintiff a prevailing party if no damages are awarded, the jury awarded Parker Supply $29,000 in damages. SeeBachovchin v. Stingley, 504 N.W.2d 288, 290-91 (Minn.App. 1993) (trial court did not abuse discretion in determining automobile buyer not prevailing party, even though jury found fraud, when jury also found buyer sustained no actual damages). Because Parker Supply was successful on one of its claims, the trial court abused its discretion by determining Parker Supply was not a prevailing party.