Williams v. Blount, No. 87-36
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
| Writing for the Court | Before BROWN; URBIGKIT |
| Citation | 741 P.2d 595 |
| Parties | Earl L. WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Kerry C. BLOUNT and Albany County Pioneer Abstract Company, a Wyoming Corporation, Appellees (Defendants). |
| Docket Number | No. 87-36 |
| Decision Date | 21 August 1987 |
Page 595
v.
Kerry C. BLOUNT and Albany County Pioneer Abstract Company, a Wyoming Corporation, Appellees (Defendants).
Earl L. Williams, Jr., Laramie, pro se, and Barkley R. Bonine, San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.
C.M. Aron of Aron and Hennig, Laramie, for appellees.
Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.
URBIGKIT, Justice.
Appellant, an attorney appearing pro se, sued to recover damages resulting from an alleged defamatory statement made by appellee Blount, and here appeals from a summary judgment in favor of appellees. 1 We affirm.
Appellee Blount is an officer of a title insurance company from which appellant ordered a lender's insurance policy for the sale of appellant's real estate. Occasioned by the buyer seeking purchase financing, appellees and a bank officer engaged in a business conversation about the desired title policy. It was during this conversation that the alleged defamatory statement was made. Appellee Blount was alleged to have told the bank officer, "We will not do any work for Earl Williams unless you guarantee payment because he is having financial difficulty." Dispute as to the exact words exists, but the message was unquestioned that the title insurance company wanted insurance-premium payment protection.
Summary judgment was granted by the trial court under Rule 56(c), W.R.C.P., and appellant here presents the following issues:
"1. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on a finding that the defamatory utterance about financial difficulty of plaintiff was protected by a qualified privilege of mutual business interest, concluding therefore, as a matter of law defendant was entitled to summary judgment.
"2. Whether the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment in favor
Page 596
of defendants on a finding that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving the statement of defendant was false and failed to do so, concluding therefore, as a matter of law defendant was entitled to summary judgment."3. Whether the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment in favor of defendants on a finding that there was no showing of malice in the defendant's statement about the plaintiff's financial condition, concluding therefore, as a matter of law defendant was entitled to summary judgment."
Finding that the trial court correctly concluded that the utterance in question was immunized as conditionally privileged communication, we answer the first issue in the negative, thus disposing of the need to treat with the remaining issues, although appellant's third issue is dealt with automatically by the nature of the first issue. A separate issue raised by appellees about denial by the litigant of discovery of appellant's financial status, as well as a belated filing of appellant's brief, also will not be addressed.
" 'When a motion for summary judgment is before the supreme court, we have exactly the same duty as the district judge; and, if there is a complete record before us, we have exactly the same material as did he [or she]. We must follow the same standards.' " Tschirgi v. Lander Wyoming State Journal, Wyo., 706 P.2d 1116, 1117 (1985), quoting from Reno Livestock Corporation v. Sun Oil Company (Delaware), Wyo., 638 P.2d 147, 150 (1981).
The standards to be followed are established in the six-stage analysis of a summary judgment in Cordova v. Gosar, Wyo., 719 P.2d 625, 634 (1986). This case enters the Gosar analysis at stage five: legal-issue disposition.
"This stage resolution involves interpretation of unambiguous contracts, suits on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moe v. Wise, No. 20050-3-II
...of a horse club); Zinda v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 149 Wis.2d 913, 440 N.W.2d 548, 552-53 (1989) (employer-employee); Williams v. Blount, 741 P.2d 595, 596 (Wyo. 1987) (routine business transaction in which both parties have a pecuniary interest). These authorities suggest that the privilege ......
-
Dworkin v. L.F.P., Inc., Nos. 89-15
...Inc., 612 P.2d 14, 17 (Wyo.1980); MacGuire v. Harriscope Broadcasting Co., 612 P.2d 830, 831-33 (Wyo.1980); cf. Williams v. Blount, 741 P.2d 595 The actual malice standard prevents a public figure, such as Dworkin, from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to a matter of p......
-
Wessel v. Mapco, Inc., No. 87-146
...sufficiency of responsive affidavits." See also, Davenport v. Epperly, Wyo., 744 P.2d 1110, 1112 (1987); Williams v. Blount, Wyo., 741 P.2d 595, 596 In determining the propriety of any summary judgment, this court will examine the record in the light most favorable to the respondent, with a......
-
Moe v. Wise, Nos. 20050-3-I
...of a horse club); Zinda v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 149 Wis.2d 913, 440 N.W.2d 548, 552-53 (1989) (employer-employee); Williams v. Blount, 741 P.2d 595, 596 (Wyo.1987) (routine business transaction in which both parties have a pecuniary interest). These authorities suggest that the privilege a......
-
Moe v. Wise, No. 20050-3-II
...of a horse club); Zinda v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 149 Wis.2d 913, 440 N.W.2d 548, 552-53 (1989) (employer-employee); Williams v. Blount, 741 P.2d 595, 596 (Wyo. 1987) (routine business transaction in which both parties have a pecuniary interest). These authorities suggest that the privilege ......
-
Dworkin v. L.F.P., Inc., Nos. 89-15
...Inc., 612 P.2d 14, 17 (Wyo.1980); MacGuire v. Harriscope Broadcasting Co., 612 P.2d 830, 831-33 (Wyo.1980); cf. Williams v. Blount, 741 P.2d 595 The actual malice standard prevents a public figure, such as Dworkin, from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to a matter of p......
-
Wessel v. Mapco, Inc., No. 87-146
...sufficiency of responsive affidavits." See also, Davenport v. Epperly, Wyo., 744 P.2d 1110, 1112 (1987); Williams v. Blount, Wyo., 741 P.2d 595, 596 In determining the propriety of any summary judgment, this court will examine the record in the light most favorable to the respondent, with a......
-
Moe v. Wise, Nos. 20050-3-I
...of a horse club); Zinda v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 149 Wis.2d 913, 440 N.W.2d 548, 552-53 (1989) (employer-employee); Williams v. Blount, 741 P.2d 595, 596 (Wyo.1987) (routine business transaction in which both parties have a pecuniary interest). These authorities suggest that the privilege a......