Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 February 2018
• Docket Number: A17-0998
• Citation: Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., 907 N.W.2d 665 (Minn. App. 2018)
• Parties: Kurt A. MAETHNER, Appellant, v. SOMEPLACE SAFE, INC., Respondent, Jacquelyn Jorud, f/k/a Jacquelyn Hanson Maethner, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

907 N.W.2d 665

Kurt A. MAETHNER, Appellant,

v.SOMEPLACE SAFE, INC., Respondent,Jacquelyn Jorud, f/k/a Jacquelyn Hanson Maethner, Respondent.

A17-0998

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed February 12, 2018

Review Granted April 25, 2018

Marshall Tanick, Edward E. Beckmann, Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Edina, Minnesota (for appellant)

Christian R. Shafer, Margaret A. Skelton, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondentSomeplace Safe, Inc.)

Michael J. Morley, Morley Law Firm, Ltd., Grand Forks, North Dakota (for respondentJacquelyn K. Maethner)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.

BRATVOLD, Judge

AppellantKurt Maethner challenges the district court’s summary-judgment dismissal of his defamation and negligence claims against respondentsSomeplace Safe Inc. and his ex-wife, Jacquelyn Jorud.Maethner’s claims arose four years after his divorce from Jorud and are based on Jorud’s and Someplace Safe’s statements about Jorud’s experience as a survivor of domestic abuse.While the alleged defamatory statements did not name Maethner, the district court determined that the evidence raised a question of fact whether the statements were about Maethner.On appeal, Maethner argues the district court erred in three ways: (1) by determining that the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by a qualified privilege; (2) by concluding Someplace Safe did not owe a duty to investigate before publishing Jorud’s statements; and (3) in dismissing his claims because he offered insufficient evidence of actual damages.

First, we conclude that the allegedly defamatory statements were not protected by a qualified privilege because they were made to raise funds for Someplace Safe and not to protect Jorud or to report a crime.Next, we decide Someplace Safe owed a duty to exercise reasonable care before publishing Jorud’s statements.Finally, Maethner produced sufficient evidence of damages to survive summary judgment.Maethner produced evidence of emotional distress, the statements alleged criminal activity, and damages are presumed for statements that are defamatory per se.While Someplace Safe claims to seek affirmance on the alternative ground that the allegedly defective statements were not about Maethner, it failed to file a notice of related appeal on this issue, which was decided adversely below.Thus, we do not consider this issue.For the reasons stated, we reverse and remand for the jury to determine Maethner’s defamation claims.

FACTS

Maethner and Jorud¹ were married in 1995, and their marriage was dissolved in October 2010.The dissolution decree contained no reference to domestic abuse, and Jorud never sought or obtained an order for protection against Maethner.Someplace Safe is a nonprofit organization that provides advocacy and other services for victims of violence and domestic abuse in a nine-county area in northwestern Minnesota.During their separation and divorce, Jorud contacted Someplace Safe on "at least three occasions for advice and assistance."Jorud met with an advocate, and, on one occasion, an advocate accompanied Jorud as she attended court proceedings related to the dissolution.

On May 9, 2014, Someplace Safe celebrated its 35th anniversary at a fundraising banquet and gave a "Survivor Award" to Jorud as a "survivor of domestic abuse."The certificate stated that the award was given to "Jacki Maethner Jorud for empowering yourself and inspiring others to stand against violence."Someplace Safe issued a press release about the banquet and the award recipients and posted statements about the award on its Facebook page, mentioning Jorud by name and including a photograph of her receiving the award as a survivor of domestic violence.Regional newspapers republished some of the information from the press release.

After the banquet, Someplace Safe asked Jorud to write about "surviving domestic violence" and "thriving through recovery" for an upcoming newsletter.The newsletter was seven pages; the last page was a donation request.Jorud’s article was titled, "Jacki’s Story" and approximately one page in length.In his submissions to the district court and on appeal, Maethner points to the following language from the article in support of his claims:

"I was asked to write a short article celebrating the fact of not just surviving domestic violence, but thriving through recovery."

"Getting out of an unhealthy, threatening and dangerous relationship is hard.It is scary."

"Just because you have left, or the divorce is final, ... doesn’t mean the slate is [ ]wiped clean and you can just start a new life."

"I don’t know if there will ever be a time when I can be certain I am no longer being stalked and watched."

"I didn’t want to live in a constant state of fear."

"I didn’t want daily conflict and fighting."

Jorud signed the article"Jacki Maethner Jorud."Jorud’s article does not mention Maethner by name, nor does it use the terms "ex-husband" or "former spouse."Maethner contends that his last name is unique, and Jorud admits that their marriage was well-known in the community.

As evidence of his claim against Someplace Safe, Maethner submitted a deposition by Someplace Safe’s Director of Operations, who testified that the organization did not investigate Jorud’s statements about domestic abuse because "[w]e take people at face value when they come and tell us."Someplace Safe stated in its brief to this court that it did not edit Jorud’s article, and it did not attempt to investigate the statements in the article.

Jorud also posted statements about the Survivor Award and about domestic abuse on the Facebook page for "Jacki Hansen Maethner."In 2014, Jorud changed her Facebook profile picture to a picture of her, holding the Survivor Award, with her current husband and her stepdaughter.On February 1, 2015, Jorud posted on Facebook that she would "continue to speak out and educate against domestic violence," and that she was "not just a survivor."

Maethner sued Jorud and Someplace Safe.Against Someplace Safe, Maethner claimed the organization defamed him through statements made in connection with the Survivor Award, press release, Facebook posts, and newsletter article because a reasonable person in the community would understand the statements to mean that Maethner had committed domestic violence and other crimes.Maethner also asserted that the statements "lowered the reputation of Maethner in the eyes of others."Maethner also brought a defamation claim against Jorud, making similar allegations, and pointed to her Facebook posts and the newsletter article.Maethner asserted that the allegedly defamatory statements by both respondents constituted "defamat[ion] per se."Finally, Maethner alleged that Someplace Safe was negligent in publishing the newsletter article and breached its duty to investigate the statements before publication.

Jorud and Someplace Safe filed motions for summary judgment, which the district court granted.The district court determined that there was a genuine issue of material fact about whether the defamatory statements were "about" Maethner, because the award, press release, newsletter article, and Facebook posts did not explicitly name him.The district court nonetheless granted summary judgment in favor of respondents for three reasons.First, the court concluded that the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by a "conditional or qualified" privilege.Because the court concluded that a qualified privilege applied, it ruled that Maethner was required to show that the allegedly defamatory statements were made with malice, but found that Maethner failed to establish that there was a genuine issue of material fact on malice.Regarding Maethner’s negligent investigation claim against Someplace Safe, the district court concluded that Someplace Safe had no duty to investigate Jorud’s article before publishing it in the newsletter.Finally, the district court concluded that Maethner had not shown proof of actual damages.Maethner appeals.

ISSUES

I.Did the district court err in granting summary judgment on Maethner’s defamation claims against Someplace Safe and Jorud because respondents’ statements were protected by a qualified privilege?

II.Did the district court err in granting summary judgment to Someplace Safe because it had no duty to investigate before publishing Jorud’s statements?

III.Did the district court err in granting summary judgment on Maethner’s defamation claims because Maethner failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding damages?

ANALYSIS

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03.This court reviews de novo the district court’s legal conclusions on summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.Commerce Bank v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. , 870 N.W.2d 770, 773(Minn.2015)."In doing so, we determine whether the district court properly applied the law and whether there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment."Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev. Grp., LLC , 790 N.W.2d 167, 170(Minn.2010).

"[A]plaintiff pursuing a defamation claim must prove that the defendant made: (a) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (b) in an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in the community."Weinberger v. Maplewood Review , 668 N.W.2d 667, 673(Minn.2003).The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing each element of defamation.Benson v. Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 561 N.W.2d 530, 537(Minn. App.1997), review denied(Minn. June 11, 1997).

Preliminarily, we address which issues are...