Rogers v. Luttrell
| Decision Date | 12 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2002-CA-002286-MR.,2002-CA-002286-MR. |
| Citation | 144 S.W.3d 841 |
| Parties | Wallace N. ROGERS, Appellant, v. Ronda L. LUTTRELL, Appellee. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Thomas J. Knopf, J Wallace N. Rogers, Louisville, pro se.
Edward H. Bartenstein, Louisville, KY, for appellee.
Before COMBS, DYCHE and JOHNSON, Judges.
Wallace N. Rogers, pro se, has appealed from an opinion and order of the Jefferson Circuit Court entered on October 15, 2002, which dismissed his defamation suit against Ronda L. Luttrell. Having concluded that the circuit court correctly determined that the alleged defamatory statement, which Luttrell included in a letter to the Jefferson Family Court, was absolutely privileged since the statement was related to a judicial proceeding and was relevant to a matter that was before the family court, we affirm.
Thomas Burnett, Sr. and Bonita Shain became embroiled in an extremely hostile divorce action that was before the Jefferson Family Court. The family court awarded Shain custody of the couple's two children but awarded Burnett supervised visitation. Shain vehemently resisted the visitation order insisting that Burnett had sexually abused the children; however, these allegations were never substantiated. After numerous difficulties arose, the family court appointed appellee Luttrell, a licensed clinical psychologist, to supervise the visitation. After being appointed, Luttrell began sending letters on a regular basis to the family court to report the status of the visitation.
On August 21, 2002, Shain brought a negligence suit against Luttrell on behalf of the children. Rogers was Shain's attorney in both the divorce and the negligence actions. In the complaint, Shain alleged that Luttrell injured both children when she used excessive force to coerce them to visit with Burnett. On the same day, Luttrell sent the following letter to the Jefferson Family Court:
RE: Burnett vs. Burnett (now
Shain)
No: 98 FC 01467
Dear Judge George
I am writing to inform you that a civil lawsuit has been filed against me by Ms. Bonita Shain alleging that I have physically abused her children during the course of their supervised visitation sessions with Mr. Burnett. Due to my need to obtain legal counsel to resolve this matter, it will be necessary to suspend sessions at my office until I have determined a course of action.
I am gravely concerned that Ms. Shain and her attorney are taking this course of action to prevent my continued work on this case, as well [as] attempting to discredit my work by making false allegations against me professionally.
I will continue to keep you informed of the status of this situation and will notify you once I have obtained legal counsel's advice on the matter.
Thank You,
Ronda L. Luttrell, Psy. D
On August 27, 2002, Rogers filed a defamation suit against Luttrell based on the sentence: "I am gravely concerned that Ms. Shain and her attorney are taking this course of action to prevent my continued work on this case, as well [as] attempting to discredit my work by making false allegations against me professionally." Rogers alleged that this sentence was slanderous and libelous and hurt his professional reputation since it showed Luttrell's belief that he and Shain had conspired to file the negligence suit in order to have her removed as supervisor of the visitation. On September 17, 2002, Luttrell filed a motion to dismiss Rogers's complaint. She argued that her statement in the August 21, 2002, letter was absolutely privileged since it was a communication made during a judicial proceeding and was directly related to Shain's continued efforts to defy and evade the family court's visitation order. The circuit court granted Luttrell's motion and dismissed Rogers's complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.
Rogers argues that the facts of the case sub judice are distinguishable from the facts in Schmitt v. Mann,1 which the circuit court relied upon in its application of the judicial proceedings privilege. Schmitt, an attorney, filed a libel suit against Mann alleging that Mann had executed and filed an affidavit that contained slanderous and libelous statements in a proceeding to which he was not a party.2 The former Court of Appeals held that a witness was absolutely privileged to publish defamatory statements, even if done maliciously, in communications made preliminary to or during a judicial proceeding if the statements had some relationship to the proceeding and were relevant to the matter before the court.3 In the case sub judice, Rogers argues that Luttrell's letter was clearly not relevant to a matter before the family court; thus, he claims her statement was not absolutely privileged.
Rogers cites Columbia Sussex Corp., Inc. v. Hay,4 for the proposition that as a matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pottinger v. Botts
...(Ky.App.2009). Furthermore, the question of whether a privilege applies is a matter of law for the court to decide. Rogers v. Luttrell, 144 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Ky.App.2004). Because it is determinative of the matter, we first address Appellants' claims that they are entitled to absolute immuni......
-
General Cable Corp. v. Highlander
...& Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119 (6th Cir.1990). The Court of Appeals of Kentucky subsequently confirmed such conclusion. Rogers v. Luttrell, 144 S.W.3d 841, 843-44 (Ky.Ct.App.2004). The framework under which a court must determine whether the privilege applies is a two-part inquiry into whether, 1) ......
-
Maggard v. Kinney
...that have "some relation to a proceeding that is contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration."Citing Rogers v. Luttrell, 144 S.W.3d 841, 843-44 (Ky. App. 2004) (quoting General Electric Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1127 (6th Cir. 1990) ).Admittedly the judicial stat......
-
White v. Ashland Park Neighborhood Association, Inc., No. 2008-CA-001303-MR (Ky. App. 7/10/2009)
...We finally note that the question of privilege is ultimately a matter of law for the circuit court's determination. Rogers v. Luttrell, 144 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Ky. App. 2004); Caslin v. GeneralElec. Co., 608 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Ky. App. 1980). Therefore, this opinion should not be considered determ......