Former HOA Director Sues for Libel and Wins in Amador County Small Claims Court

March 03, 2006

By Dot James (View author info)

A former Homeowner Association board member, who has now moved out of the county, sued me for $5,000 for libel (she called it "slander") in Amador County's Small Claims Court;

She won a judgment of $200. Of course, I am appealing this decision as a rank disregard of my constitutional rights of free speech and free press.

The appeal date is set for March 7. I need any assistance you can provide regarding case law and California code, in the areas of "public officials," and "homeowner associations and freedom of expression."

I am already aware of Calif Civil Code 48a and U.S. Supreme Court decision N Y Times Co v Sullivan (1964).

Thank you.

Dot James
Ione, California

UPDATE From Author Dot James: March 10, 2006

My request for info about case law, etc., re First Amendment rights appeared too late for my 03/07/06 appeal hearing. So I spent a lot of time in Amador County's law lib and on the 'Net where U.S. Supreme Court cases and all Calif courts' cases are available for free. I will let you know what the judge says; if he doesn't reverse the decision for the plaintiff, viz., the former HOA director who sued me for libel in Small Claims Court, I will go forward to the Calif Court of Appeals. I don't want to lose the $200 the trail judge awarded the plaintiff; more important, I don't want to lose my First Amendment rights just because I am stuck in a living hell called a common interest development.

I want to comment on the several comments I have rec'd. Yes, it is true that this case should never have been heard in Small CLaims Court; there was no monetary loss. I asked that the suit be dismissed at the firsst trial for exactly that reason. The presiding judge, who was hearing the case, choose to pervert the point of small claims and hear it. She was hostile and didn't really care what the law was: she decided to slap my wrist with a $200 award because I was not ladylike and called the former director names, such as "duplicitious and untrustworthy, hyprocritical, stupid, a liar and fraud," etc. And, yes, that director was all those things and more. All my characterizations of her were accurate; however, I used examples for each, and one of those examples proved to be erroneous. At my appeal I introduced additional examples which proved that she was a "liar and fraud" even if the one I had first chosen was incorrect.

Some of you, like the plaintiff, apparently do not know the dif betw/ slander and libel. Slander is spoken; libel is written. I published 3 newsletters I called "The Oak Blight" (after the name of the official newsletter, "The Oak Leaf") telling of my dissatisfaction with the HOA Board at The Oaks and in particular 3 of its members.

Some of you don't think those of us who live in HOAs are protected by the First Amendment. You are wrong; I refer you to the Supreme Court decision of 1946, Marsh v State of Ala. 326 US 501.

And some of you think my little newsletters are not protected. You are wrong; I point you to the Supreme Court decision of 1938, Lovell v City of Griffin, GA., 303 US 444.

And, mostly, I point to the seminal Court decision, NY Times Co v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964), regarding alleged libel of a newspaper publisher vis-a-vis a public official. The Court set the standard for what is libel and what is not by stating there must be "actual malice," defined as a plaintiff's proving that the statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." A false utterance, honestly believed, is not libel of a public official and neither is "vehement, caustic, ... and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on ... public officials. The Supreme Court has confirmed this, time after time, in dozens of other cases of alleged libel since 1964.

So, fear not, brothers and sisters in homeowners' hell. You have a right to complain about the directors on your board without fear of "indeterminable financial liability." (Time, Inc v Pape 401 US 279).