Laughland v. Beckett

• Decision Date: 25 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014AP2393.,2014AP2393.
• Citation: 365 Wis.2d 148,870 N.W.2d 466
• Parties: Stephen LAUGHLAND, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. John BECKETT, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

365 Wis.2d 148

870 N.W.2d 466

Stephen LAUGHLAND, Plaintiff–Respondent

v.John BECKETT, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 2014AP2393.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs June 2, 2015.

Opinion Filed Aug. 25, 2015.

On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Basil M. Loeb of Schmidlkofer, Toth, Loeb & Drosen, LLC of Wauwatosa.

On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Thomas A. Ogorchock of Miller and Ogorchock, S.C. of Milwaukee.

Before CURLEY, P.J., KESSLER and BRENNAN, JJ.

Opinion

KESSLER, J.

¶ 1John Beckett appeals a judgment of the circuit court, following a bench trial.The circuit court found that Beckett defamed Stephen Laughland by creating a Facebook page in Laughland's name and posting numerous items that defamed Laughland and disparaged Laughland's character.The circuit court found Beckett did all this with malicious intent, and awarded both general and punitive damages.Beckett argues on appeal that his postings were beyond the applicable statute of limitations for defamation actions, his posts were not defamatory, and that the evidence does not support the damages awarded.We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 The relevant facts are not in dispute.On or about January 10, 2010, Beckett created a Facebook page under the name “Stephen Laughland II.”Beckett used the email address consumer.advocate.WI@gmail.com.At the time, Laughland was an adjunct lecturer at multiple Milwaukee-area schools, including Marquette University.On January 28, 2010, Beckett, using the “consumer.advocate.WI” email address, sent an email to Laughland's Marquette University email address, berating Laughland for his “total disregard for the financial freedoms that this country provides.”Then Beckett went on to accuse Laughland of “manipulating the system,” and threatened “[t]here comes a time when people such as yourself get exposed.I want you to know that your day has come....I can say that some day soon that you will pay the price for your financial recklessness and dishonesty.”

Laughland contacted Marquette University security and was referred to local law enforcement.At the time, Laughland did not know about the Facebook page in his name.

¶ 3 On April 10, 2010, Laughland received an email from an acquaintance saying: “I received a [Facebook] friend request from you however, it must be someone using your name.It says horrible things about you etc.Just a FYI, you may want to report it.”Laughland then “google searched” his name and discovered the Facebook account.

¶ 4 The Facebook account had a picture of Laughland and many negative comments, purporting to be by Laughland about himself.The comments began in January 2010 and continued through April 2010.It is undisputed that Beckett, as the creator and administrator of the page, posted the comments.The initial comment, posted in January 2010, stated, in part:

This is what I would like to consider a public service profile for anyone that is not aware of Mr. Laughland's total disregard for the financial freedoms we as consumers cherish.It is due to people like this that Banks are in trouble, we pay more to use our credit cards, and it is hard to trust people.

....

I was asked to see if I could help people avoid this preying swindler.

....

Since he knows so much about bank manipulation Marquette must have beleived [sic] that he was an excellent choice [sic] to teach Bank Management.

¶ 5 Multiple people became “friends” with the Facebook page at issue, allowing them to view comments and posts made on and from the Facebook page.In March 2010, Beckett made the following post, still purporting to be Laughland commenting on himself:

Manipulation, control and, deceipt [sic]!I would like to continue my useless life.I have no problem being a debt to society as long as I can continue [to] manipulate people, banks, and credit card companies.I wonder what my children think about having such a loser for a father.

¶ 6 Beckett persisted, and in April 2010 posted the following on the fictitious Laughland Facebook page:

It is nice being a loser and taking advantage of banks and credit card companies.I am not sure why more people have not caught onto the fact that I am a low life manipulative person.

¶ 7 On April 21, 2010, Peggy Hoppa Jones, an acquaintance of Laughland's, sent a message to the Facebook page stating that she was “looking to reconnect with Steve and came across this site.”Jones further messaged: “Who are you?I was not aware of any of this info?Where did you find it?”Beckett responded: “I do this in hopes that others may benefit from trusting avoiding corrupt individuals ... I see my self [sic] as offering a public service.”

¶ 8 When Laughland became aware of the Facebook page, Laughland suspected Jean Placke, the mother of his child, had created the page out of spite because the two were embroiled in a custody battle.Laughland hired an attorney to investigate whether Placke created the page.It was subsequently determined that Beckett, who was Placke's boyfriend at the time, was the actual creator of the fictitious Laughland Facebook page.¹Beckett admits he had never met Laughland.

¶ 9 In July 2012, Laughland filed the defamation action underlying this appeal against Beckett.Beckett moved for summary judgment to dismiss Laughland's claims.Beckett argued that Laughland's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations for defamation that existed at the time the Facebook page was created in January 2010.However, in February 2010, the statute of limitations for defamation was modified to extend the time for filing a claim to three years.Because Beckett's last post was in April 2012, the circuit court concluded that the three-year statute of limitations applied to Laughland's claims and denied the motion.

¶ 10 Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that Beckett created the Facebook page and wrote all of the posts about Laughland.At trial, Beckett maintained that the posts were not defamatory because (1) the statements were true based on facts in public records, or because (2) the statements were simply Beckett's opinions.

¶ 11 Beckett testified that as a result of “google” searches and searches on the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access system, he found records of Laughland's foreclosure and bankruptcy, and concluded that Laughland's financial struggles were the result of “irresponsible reckless[ness].”These records, Beckett claimed, inspired him to create the Facebook page chastising Laughland.Beckett admitted, however, that he had no documentation to support his contention that Laughland “manipulated the system.”Beckett copied a picture of Laughland from the Marquette University website to use as the profile picture on the fictitious Laughland Facebook page.Beckett also stated that he invited Laughland's friends to become Facebook “friends” with the page because he hoped to “try and inform people of Mr. Laughland's background so they wouldn't fall victim to any of his—what I saw in my opinion as ... manipulation, and deceit.And I invited his friends to be my friends.”

¶ 12The circuit court found that Beckett defamed Laughland.The court said:

[T]o say my opinion is, and there's a reasonable basis to believe that this man is a swindler, that [t]his man is a bank manipulator, et cetera; I don't think you can do that legally.I just don't think that you can enter and say that's just my opinion ... when you are publishing, et cetera.

The real corker in that one, I think, is motivation here....I didn't buy the explanation that I was doing this because I want to protect other people.

There was one and only one motivation for this.I guess you can break it down into two.It was the ever loveable Miss Placke in an attempt to impress her and an attempt to rundown in her eyes Mr. Laughland.You put all of that together and you've got the ill will, you've got the malice, you've got the defamatory statements, et cetera.

¶ 13The court also found that Laughland was entitled to $15,000 in general damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.

DISCUSSION

¶ 14 Beckett appeals, arguing that: (1)the circuit court erroneously denied summary judgment on his statute of limitations claim; (2) his statements were not defamatory; and (3)the circuit court“failed to justify” the damages awards.

I.Statute of Limitations.

¶ 15 Our review of a decision on summary judgment is de novo.SeeBehrendt v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co.,2009 WI 71, ¶ 11, 318 Wis.2d 622, 768 N.W.2d 568.Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Id.We view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.Seeid.Whether the statute of limitations has run on a claim is a question of law that we review de novo.Cianciola, LLP v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist.,2011 WI App 35, ¶ 19, 331 Wis.2d 740, 796 N.W.2d 806.

¶ 16 In January 2010, a two-year statute of limitations existed for defamation claims.²On February 25, 2010, the statute was amended by 2009 Wis. Act 120 to allow for a three-year statute of limitations.

¶ 17 Relying on our decision in Ladd v. Uecker,2010 WI App 28, 323 Wis.2d 798, 780 N.W.2d 216, Beckett argues that all of Laughland's claims are time-barred because they pertain to a “single publication”established in January 2010—before the statute of limitations extension.Beckett acknowledges that the publications he made in March and April 2010 fall within the February 2010 extension of the statute of limitations to three years.Uecker is not determinative of the outcome here.The facts in Uecker involved a single internet posting by the two defendants—Robert Uecker and the Milwaukee Brewers.Id.,¶ 1.Ann Ladd alleged that both defendants depicted her as a stalker when: (1) Uecker posted an affidavit filed in a court proceeding to obtain a harassment injunction against Ladd; and (2) the Milwaukee Brewers posted an online account of Ladd...