Gonzalez v. Anthony (In re Anthony)

• Decision Date: 17 September 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 8:13–bk–0922–KRM,Adv. Pro. No. 8:13–ap–0626–KRM
• Citation: 538 B.R. 145
• Parties: In re Casey Marie Anthony, Debtor. Zenaida Gonzalez, Plaintiff, v. Casey Marie Anthony, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Florida

538 B.R. 145

In re Casey Marie Anthony, Debtor.Zenaida Gonzalez, Plaintiff

v.Casey Marie Anthony, Defendant.

Case No. 8:13–bk–0922–KRM

Adv. Pro. No. 8:13–ap–0626–KRM

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division .

Signed September 17, 2015

John B. Dorris, Jason H. Klein, R. Scott Shuker, Latham Shuker Eden & Beaudine

LLP, Keith R. Mitnik, Morgan & Morgan, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff.

David L Schrader, David L. Schrader, Esquire, St. Petersburg, FL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DETERMINING PLAINTIFF'S DEFAMATION CLAIM TO BE DISCHARGEABLE

K. Rodney May, United States Bankruptcy Judge

INTRODUCTION

“And when they went and interviewed that girl down in Kissimmee, they never showed me a picture of her. ”¹

By itself, this remark by Casey Anthony (“Debtor”), made to her parents nine days after being arrested in connection with the disappearance of her two-year old daughter, would appear to harm no one. But, Zenadia Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) alleges in this adversary proceeding that she was the only person identifiable as the “girl down in Kissimmee,” and that, when considered with surrounding circumstances, Debtor's statement implicated Plaintiff as being involved in the child's disappearance. Plaintiff's defamation lawsuit was pending in Orange County Circuit Court (“State Court Case”) when Debtor filed her Chapter 7 petition.²

It would be pointless, however, for the Plaintiff to prosecute the defamation claim if it is dischargeable in bankruptcy. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding to obtain a determination that her claim arises from a willful and malicious injury and is therefore excepted from discharge, by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).³

Debtor has moved for summary judgment, asking the Court to find that the above quoted statement (the “Statement”) was not made with the intent or purpose to injure Plaintiff, as is required by § 523(a)(6). Debtor further asks the Court to find that subsequent statements to the media by Debtor's mother, Cindy Anthony, are neither attributable to Debtor for purposes of non-dischargeability, nor made with the intent or purpose to injure Plaintiff.

After reviewing the record⁴ and carefully considering arguments of counsel, the Court concludes that the content and context of the Statement do not support Plaintiff's allegation that the Statement was uttered with the intent or purpose to injure her. The Statement was made only to the Debtor's parents. It was not a false statement about Plaintiff's person, character or conduct. The Statement was not targeted at Plaintiff. It was a statement, either false or mistaken, about the Orange County Sheriff's Office investigators failing to pursue Debtor's story about a babysitter with whom Debtor claimed to have last seen her daughter. During the same conversation with her parents, Debtor gave a description of the babysitter, as a person having a hyphenated last name (“Fernandez–Gonzalez”), and physical features that did not match those of Plaintiff, whom she did not know. For these same reasons, the Statement is not malicious as to Plaintiff. The later public comments by Debtor's mother do not show an intent to injure Plaintiff and are not linked to any directive by Debtor to target or harm Plaintiff. Thus, there is no legal or factual basis to attribute the mother's statements to Debtor. Therefore, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge from Plaintiff's defamation claim.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In June 2008, Debtor's two-year old daughter, Caylee, went missing. Nearly six months later, the child's body was found and Debtor was charged with her murder. On July 5, 2011, Debtor was acquitted of the murder charge, but was convicted of, and served time in jail for, lying to law enforcement officials. One of the lies she told them was that she had last seen her daughter on June 9, 2008, at the Sawgrass Apartments in Orlando, Florida,⁵ when she had left her daughter with a babysitter named “Zenaida Fernandez–Gonzalez.”⁶

Debtor did not report her daughter's disappearance for more than a month. It was Debtor's mother, Cindy Anthony, who alerted authorities to Caylee's disappearance during a 911 call on July 15, 2008. Debtor participated in a second 911 call later that day, in which she said that a babysitter, “Zenaida Fernandez–Gonzalez,” had her daughter.⁷

On July 16, 2008, Orange County Sheriff's Office investigators questioned Debtor at her parents' home.⁸ The investigators again heard the “babysitter” story. Debtor provided the hyphenated name and a physical description of the babysitter.

Investigators determined that no person named “Zenaida Fernandez–Gonzalez” lived at the Sawgrass Apartments in June 2008.⁹ But, on their own initiative, investigators searched the Sawgrass Apartments records and discovered that a person with the similar name of “Zenaida Gonzalez” (Plaintiff) had visited the complex several months earlier, on April 17, 2008. As a prospective tenant, she had filled out a guest card, but had never lived there.¹⁰

Investigators interviewed Plaintiff a single time, in Kissimmee, on July 16, 2008.¹¹ In a sworn statement, Plaintiff denied knowing Debtor or Caylee. Plaintiff also denied having worked for Debtor as a babysitter.¹² It is undisputed that Debtor and Plaintiff did not know each other.

Later that day, investigators accompanied Debtor to Universal Studios in Orlando, where she reversed her earlier claim that she was employed there. Debtor continued to assert, however, that she had last seen Caylee with the babysitter, “Zenaida Fernandez–Gonzalez.”¹³ Investigators then presented Debtor with photographs of about 50 women from a database and a photo of Plaintiff taken by investigators earlier that day.¹⁴ Debtor did not identify Plaintiff as the babysitter.¹⁵

Investigators viewed surveillance video from the Sawgrass Apartments and concluded that Debtor had not been there on June 9, 2008.¹⁶ Later on July 16, 2008, Debtor was arrested and charged with child neglect, making a false official statement, and obstructing a criminal investigation.¹⁷

Nine days later, on July 25, 2008, Debtor's parents visited her at the Orange County Jail.¹⁸ The visit lasted about an hour and the conversation was recorded. About 51 minutes into the recording, Debtor's mother began to question Debtor about the babysitter. Debtor gave her mother a description of the babysitter's height, weight, skin color, and eye color. Her mother posed this rhetorical question: “I would think that if anybody around here knew her they would have come forward by now.” Debtor agreed.

Then, the following exchange took place:

“CINDY ANTHONY: Did anybody ask you to describe her and they did a composite drawing of her?

CASEY ANTHONY: Not once. And when they went and interviewed that girl down in Kissimmee, they never showed me a picture of her. They never searched—

CINDY ANTHONY: Well, they told us—they had told us that you couldn't pull her out of a line-up.

CASEY ANTHONY: They're full of shit. I had told them multiple times find a sketch artist, show me pictures, show me something. I could point her out to you.”¹⁹ (emphasis added).

Debtor also complained to her parents that the investigators were not searching for the babysitter by her full, hyphenated name “Fernandez–Gonzalez.”

Thereafter, Debtor's mother spoke to the media. In a deposition in the State Court Case in 2009, Plaintiff focused on one such public interview, conducted on July 28, 2008, where Cindy Anthony stated:

“Are they lying to us when they told us there's only one in Central Florida and she's in Kissimmee and because, you know, my daughter said that she didn't recognize her. My daughter said they never showed her picture. She said she didn't look at any line-ups.”²⁰

Plaintiff contends that this statement was a republication of the Statement and accomplished Debtor's purpose, through her mother acting as an agent, of implicating Plaintiff as a kidnapper or murderer.²¹

Later, in September, 2008, Plaintiff sued the Debtor for defamation in the Orange County Circuit Court.²² Eventually, both parties moved for summary judgment.²³ On April 12, 2012, Circuit Judge Munyon concluded:

“... The plaintiff argues that this [jailhouse] statement implicates the plaintiff in the disappearance of defendant's daughter because the plaintiff was the only Zenaida Gonzalez interviewed in Kissimmee. The plaintiff further argues that the statement implies that the plaintiff is the nanny in question and inferentially denies the previous exoneration. Conversely, the defendant argues that the entire context of the conversation clearly shows that the plaintiff is not implicated by the defendant but is instead exonerated. This statement is susceptible to two competing inferences, both of which are reasonable, thus this issue must be decided by a jury....²⁴

The State Court Case remains pending; but, because of the Debtor's bankruptcy filing, it is stayed by operation of Bankruptcy Code § 362(a).

In this adversary proceeding, Plaintiff seeks a determination, under § 523(a)(6), that her unliquidated defamation claim be excepted from discharge because the Statement was willful and malicious.²⁵ Plaintiff contends that “[w]ith a statement such as this, any reasonable person would know that a person's character and reputation would be harmed by being branded as a kidnapper.”²⁶ Among other things, Plaintiff argues that: (1) the parties are bound by the ruling in the State Court Case that the defamatory nature of the remark is to be decided by a jury; and (2) a “willful and malicious” injury, for purposes of the § 523(a)(6) exception to discharge, can result from the act of an “agent,” in this case, Debtor's mother.

Debtor's motion for summary judgment focuses on the many physical differences between Plaintiff and Debtor's description of the babysitter.²⁷ Debtor argues that Plaintiff cannot establish the elements of defamation because none of the statements about the babysitter were...