Barnett v. Holt Builders, LLC
338 Ga. App. 291
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Vintage Communities developed Stonewater Creek and defaulted on loans; BNG acquired 62 lots which Holt purchased (65 total). Holt later assumed certain declarant rights and funded completion of amenities, loaning over $532,000 to the HOA.
- Residents (including Barnett) filed a derivative suit against Holt and HOA officers challenging Holt’s status/annexation authority; the trial court entered temporary injunctions and the parties litigated declaratory claims.
- HOA/management (HMS) circulated communications to homeowners about litigation status and legal fees; Barnett replied by “reply all,” criticizing Holt and asserting Holt used HOA funds for its own costs.
- Holt sued Barnett for defamation (libel/slander) based on Barnett’s email. Barnett moved to dismiss for failure to file the verification required by Georgia’s anti‑SLAPP statute (OCGA § 9‑11‑11.1).
- The trial court denied dismissal, holding the anti‑SLAPP statute did not apply because the underlying dispute was not an "issue of public interest or concern." Barnett appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Holt) | Defendant's Argument (Barnett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holt’s defamation claim is subject to OCGA § 9‑11‑11.1 verification requirement | Statute inapplicable because Residents’ lawsuit and related statements are not an issue of public interest or concern | Barnett’s email was made in connection with ongoing litigation and thus falls within the anti‑SLAPP statute, requiring verification | Court held the statute applies; Barnett’s statements were connected to a judicial proceeding and Holt’s complaint lacked required verification |
| Whether Barnett’s statements were made in connection with an official proceeding under § 9‑11‑11.1(c) | Statements were not sufficiently connected to an official proceeding | Statements responded to HOA/Holt communications about the pending litigation and thus were made in connection with a judicial matter | Court held statements fall within § 9‑11‑11.1(c)’s expansive definition of protected acts |
| Whether Holt’s subjective intent matters to trigger verification | Holt argued its suit was not filed to chill speech; good‑faith intent negates anti‑SLAPP application | Barnett argued application is objective: statute applies if act could reasonably be construed as protected | Court held subjective intent irrelevant; statute applies when act could reasonably be construed as furthering free speech/petition rights |
| Remedy for failure to file verification | Holt argued factual issues (good faith) preclude dismissal | Barnett sought dismissal with prejudice for failure to verify | Court reversed and dismissed Holt’s claim with prejudice for failure to comply with OCGA § 9‑11‑11.1(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Emory Univ. v. Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, Inc., 320 Ga. App. 442 (review of anti‑SLAPP applicability)
- Atlanta Humane Soc. v. Harkins, 278 Ga. 451 (purpose and crucial verification provision of OCGA § 9‑11‑11.1)
- Berryhill v. Ga. Community Support & Solutions, Inc., 281 Ga. 439 (definition of acts protected under § 9‑11‑11.1)
- Metzler v. Rowell, 248 Ga. App. 596 (statements connected to pending litigation fall within anti‑SLAPP protection)
- Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 307 Ga. App. 356 (communications addressing issues under judicial consideration require verification)
- Lovett v. Capital Principles, LLC, 300 Ga. App. 799 (official proceedings and verification requirement can apply despite commercial context)
- Hawks v. Hinely, 252 Ga. App. 510 (failure to comply with verification prerequisite justifies dismissal with prejudice)
- Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, Inc. v. Ichthus Cmty. Trust, 298 Ga. 221 (distinguishable; involved merits/privilege inquiry rather than procedural verification issue)