Bextel v. Fork Rd. LLC.
| Decision Date | 19 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | S-19-0286 |
| Citation | 474 P.3d 625 |
| Parties | Rebecca BEXTEL and Jonathan Bextel, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. FORK ROAD LLC., a Wyoming limited liability company; Albert E. Hancock, III, and Susan A. Hancock, Appellees (Defendants). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Richard R. Thomas and Vonde M. Smith, Smith LC, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Thomas.
Representing Appellee Fork Road LLC: Mark D. Sullivan, Mark D. Sullivan, P.C., Wilson, Wyoming.
Representing Appellees Albert E. Hancock, III and Susan A. Hancock: Curtis B. Buchhammer, Buchhammer & Ward, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] Spouses Rebecca Bextel and Jonathan Bextel appeal the district court's dismissal of their first amended complaint (complaint) under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and (c). The complaint asserts defamation per se, tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage and business expectancy, and false light invasion of privacy claims against spouses Albert E. Hancock, III and Susan A. Hancock, and Fork Road, LLC (Fork Road).1 We affirm.
[¶2] We consolidate and restate the Bextels’ seven issues as:
[¶3] The standards of review for dismissal under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and (c) require we accept the facts stated in the complaint as true. See Dockter v. Lozano , 2020 WY 119, ¶ 6, 472 P.3d 362, 364 (Wyo. 2020) ; Four B Properties, LLC v. Nature Conservancy , 2020 WY 24, ¶ 65, 458 P.3d 832, 848 (Wyo. 2020). We draw the following facts from the complaint.
[¶4] The Bextels’ three claims stem from a lease dispute involving a commercial building in Jackson, Wyoming (the Building). In 2011, Knobloch Group B, LLC (Knobloch Group) owned the Building. Its principal, Carl Knobloch, formed MBC to sublease office suites and provide the public business services in the Building. Mr. Knobloch hired Ms. Bextel to manage MBC's day-to-day business. She did so until 2016, when the Bextels bought MBC and entered into a five-year lease with Knobloch Group for office space in the Building. MBC continued subleasing office space to subtenants.
[¶5] The Building changed ownership twice over the next two years. In April 2017, Knobloch Group sold the Building to JAMD, LLC (JAMD) and assigned JAMD the MBC lease. Around January 2018, JAMD agreed to sell the Building to the Hancocks. The Hancocks told the Bextels they had no desire to be landlords and there would be no changes. But the Hancocks actually believed the Bextels were making too much money through MBC. Accordingly, the Hancocks conspired with others to usurp MBC's business and destroy the Bextels’ prospective economic advantage in MBC. With JAMD's help, the Hancocks fabricated a lease breach and Fork Road filed a groundless claim for forcible entry and detainer in circuit court.
[¶6] Two events central to the lease dispute and this appeal occurred on April 23, 2018. First, the Hancocks entered the Building during business hours to deliver a letter to MBC's subtenants regarding the Building's change in ownership and how it would affect those subtenants. The letter stated:
Second, during a discussion in the main hallway of the Building Mr. Hancock became agitated and said to Ms. Bextel, "You're not being honest with me...You're lying to me, and you know it...Don't lie to me."2 MBC's subtenants heard these statements.
[¶7] The Bextels sued Mr. Hancock, Ms. Hancock, and Fork Road for defamation per se based on the verbal statements and letter, "tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and business expectancy" based on the Hancocks’ "wrongful conduct," and false light invasion of privacy based on the letter.3 They attached a copy of the letter to the complaint.
[¶8] The Hancocks moved to dismiss the Bextels’ claims for defamation per se and tortious interference under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), without addressing the false light invasion of privacy claim. The court granted this motion on grounds that the defamation per se claim failed as a matter of law and the "summarily crafted" tortious interference claim was inadequately pled.
[¶9] The Hancocks later moved to dismiss the Bextels’ false light invasion of privacy claim. Having been filed outside the pleading period, the court considered this motion under W.R.C.P. 12(c), and decided that even if false light invasion of privacy had been recognized in Wyoming, the claim was deficient.
[¶10] The Bextels timely appealed both dismissal orders.
[¶11] We review the district court's order dismissing the defamation per se claims under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) de novo, employing the same standards and examining the same materials as the district court. Dockter , ¶ 6, 472 P.3d at 364 (citing Craft v. State ex rel. Wyoming Dept. of Health , 2020 WY 70, ¶ 9, 465 P.3d 395, 399 (Wyo. 2020) ). We accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the Bextels, as the nonmoving parties. Id. (citing Craft , ¶ 9, 465 P.3d at 399 ). Dismissal is appropriate if it is certain from the face of the complaint that the Bextels cannot assert any fact that would entitle them to relief. Id. (citing Craft , ¶ 9, 465 P.3d at 399 ). Dismissal of the Bextels’ defamation per se claims is appropriate here.
[¶12] "A defamatory communication is one which tends to hold the plaintiff up to hatred, contempt, ridicule or scorn or which causes him to be shunned or avoided; one that tends to injure his reputation as to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which he is held." Hill v. Stubson , 2018 WY 70, ¶ 25, 420 P.3d 732, 741 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Hoblyn v. Johnson , 2002 WY 152, ¶ 41, 55 P.3d 1219, 1233 (Wyo. 2002) ). "Defamation per se means a statement which is defamatory on its face and, therefore, actionable without proof of special damages." Id. (quoting Thomas v. Sumner , 2015 WY 7, ¶ 49, 341 P.3d 390, 402 (Wyo. 2015) ). The "statements classified as defamatory per se or damaging on their face, and which therefore do not require proof of special harm, [include] those which impute ... a matter incompatible with business, trade, profession, or office[.]" Id. (quoting Thomas , ¶ 49, 341 P.3d at 402 ).
[¶13] Our defamation per se law derives from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Id. ¶ 28, 420 P.3d at 742 (citations omitted). Under the Restatement, statements alleged to impute a matter incompatible with business, trade, profession, or office "must affect the plaintiff in some way that is peculiarly harmful to one engaged in his trade or profession." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 573, cmt. e (1977). "Disparagement of a general character, equally discreditable to all persons, is not enough unless the particular quality disparaged is of such a character that it is peculiarly valuable in the plaintiff's business or profession." Id.
[¶14] The Bextels allege the verbal statements and the letter each imputed a matter incompatible with business, trade, profession, or office:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bird v. Lampert
...applies the same standards and examines the same materials as the district court. Bextel v. Fork Rd. LLC , 2020 WY 134, ¶ 11, 474 P.3d 625, 628–29 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Dockter v. Lozano , 2020 WY 119, ¶ 6, 472 P.3d 362, 364 (Wyo. 2020) ). "We accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true......