Huszar v. Gross, AZ-63
| Decision Date | 13 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. AZ-63,AZ-63 |
| Citation | 468 So.2d 512,10 Fla. L. Weekly 1186 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1186, 11 Media L. Rep. 2111 Arlene C. HUSZAR, Appellant, v. Michael A. GROSS, Martin R. Drummond, and the Gainesville Sun, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kenneth S. Davis, Gainesville, for appellant.
S. Craig Kiser and Walter W. Wood, Tallahassee, Dan Paul and Steven M. Kamp of Paul & Burt, Miami, for appellees.
Huszar appeals from an amended final judgment dismissing with prejudice her first amended complaint charging Gross, The Gainesville Sun and Drummond with libel. Huszar contends the trial court erred in dismissing Gross on the ground of absolute privilege and erred in dismissing The Sun and Drummond on the ground of privilege as accurate and neutral reporting and as accurate reporting of an official action. We disagree and affirm.
Gross was the Director of the Division of Securities in the Office of the Comptroller of the State of Florida. Drummond was the reporter with the Gainesville Sun who wrote the alleged libelous article. The article, "Squabble Over Legal Fees Stalls Rabbit Breeder Case," is an account of the legal proceedings between the Comptroller and one of Huszar's clients, John N. Adams, III. It is quoted in full:
Squabble Over Legal Fees
Stalls Rabbit Breeder Case
By Martin R. Drummond
High Springs--A Gainesville attorney has been accused of delaying settlement of a lengthy legal battle between the state Comptroller's office and her client, a High Springs rabbit breeder.
The attorney, Arlene Huszar, said her legal fees haven't been paid and she won't send a signed compromise agreement to Comptroller Gerald Lewis until the breeder, John N. Adams III, pays her.
That refusal has been labeled as "unethical" by comptroller's office legal adviser Michael Gross who said Huszar was "holding up the wheels of justice."
Mrs. Huszar told The Sun Adams owes her more than $1,000 for legal advice she's given him since Lewis filed suit in March. The suit charged Adams with attempting to defraud investors with claims that up to $28,000 could be earned every six weeks by persons who follow the Regency breeding plan.
The agreement, which is still not part of court records, allows Adams and his firm, Regency International Inc., to retain the marketing plan which offers an investment package of 14 breeding rabbits for $7,200 as long as he registers the plan with the state Division of Securities.
Prepared by the state, the compromise document was signed more than two months ago and has been held in Huszar's office since.
She said Adams has promised her payment in two to three weeks, though she admitted she had no guarantee of being paid.
Gross said his office is tired of being delayed by the problems between Huszar and Adams.
"She has to decide to represent him with or without a fee, or to withdraw from the case," he said.
Gross said if Huszar continues to withhold the document from state officials because of Adams' non-payment, she could face legal action herself from the comptroller's office to make her hand over the agreement.
"We are taking steps now to force her to take a position," he said.
Among the allegations listed in the March lawsuit against Adams and Regency were that investors were being misled about the value of a breeding package of which the lawsuit said worth only about $1,000, not the $7,200 Adams is charging.
The rabbits are still being sold at Regency's warehouse location in High Springs.
Part of Adams' marketing plan mentioned that negotiations were taking place with the owners of the old Copeland Sausage plant in Alachua to accommodate the meat and pelt processing required for the 30,000 rabbits he says local Rex breeders will produce next year.
Adams said the plant will manufacture about 1,000 rabbit fur coats a month.
"Of course, the plant will accommodate a much greater capacity; one which will have tremendous impact on the world fur market," he said.
A spokesman for Riviana Foods, the plant's owner, said, however, that Adams has not talked with the Texas firm about purchasing the meat-processing facility "for at least a couple of months."
"As far as we're concerned, the negotiations have been dropped," said Riviana spokesman Wayne Ray.
Adams was also charged with marketing an unregistered security because his firm would offer to buy back any rabbit or rabbit pelt, should the investor change his mind.
Part of the compromise agreement requires Adams to provide the comptroller's office with proof that each Rex rabbit investor has been given a chance to sell back to Regency each rabbit at the full purchase price.
Gross said Adams has not complied with that requirement.
As the article indicates, Huszar's client was sued by the comptroller for attempting to defraud investors in connection with a rabbit-breeding scheme. The article reported Huszar's position, based on an interview with her, as follows:
1. [H]er legal fees haven't been paid and she won't send a compromise agreement to Comptroller Gerald Lewis until the breeder, John N. Adams, III, pays her.
2. Adams owes her more than $1,000 for legal advice she's given him since Lewis filed suit in March.
3. Adams has promised her payment in two to three weeks, though she admitted she had no guarantee of being paid.
In the complaint, Huszar does not dispute the fact that these statements were correctly attributed to her, but rather claims she was libeled when The Gainesville Sun reported the following remarks made by Gross:
1. Huszar's refusal to send the signed compromise agreement to the comptroller until such time as her client agreed to pay her fees was "unethical" and holding up the wheels of justice.
2. Huszar's continued withholding of the signed compromise agreement could result in legal action against her by the comptroller's office.
3. The Comptroller's office is "taking steps now to force her to take a position."
Count I of Huszar's complaint alleges that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinerman v. Daily Gazette Co., Inc.
...News & World Report, Inc., 602 F.2d 850 (8th Cir.1979); Green Acres Trust v. London, 141 Ariz. 609, 688 P.2d 617 (1984); Huszar v. Gross, 468 So.2d 512 (Fla.App.1985); Newell v. Field Enters., Inc., 91 Ill.App.3d 735, 47 Ill.Dec. 429, 415 N.E.2d 434 (1980); Hoeflicker v. Higginsville Advanc......
-
Khawar v. Globe Internat., Inc.
...Inc. (8th Cir.1989) 881 F.2d 1426, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1036, 110 S.Ct. 757, 107 L.Ed.2d 774 (1990) and Florida , Huszar v. Gross (Fla.Ct.App.1985) 468 So.2d 512, adopt a neutral reporting privilege but are referring to one protecting neutral reporting of official proceedings rather than ......
-
Ortega Trujillo v. Banco Cent. Del Ecuador
...that it is the domain of this Court to resolve the question of whether or not such a privilege exists. See Huszar v. Gross, 468 So.2d 512, 515-16 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1985). However, neutral reporting privilege is only extended to "disinterested and neutral reporting" by members of the media. ......
-
Fuente Cigar, Ltd. v. Opus One, 96-2389-CIV-T-24 (E).
...that "the Act's reach is broader than merely the `classic advertising campaign.'" Id. at 1534. 5. Opus One relies on Huszar v. Gross, 468 So.2d 512 (Fla.App. 1st DCA 1985) for a broader application of the privilege (so as to allow parties to make reports on on-going litigation to newspapers......