693 S.W.3d 262
Tenn.2024Background
- Bill Charles served as president of the Durham Farms homeowners’ association and assisted in the development of the community in Hendersonville, Tennessee.
- Donna McQueen, a resident, posted a negative Google review about Charles, accusing him of misleading home buyers amid community development changes, including the addition of "rental only" units and reduced lot sizes.
- Charles filed suit for defamation and false light against McQueen, arguing her statements were false and damaging.
- McQueen moved to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), an anti-SLAPP statute, claiming Charles could not show "actual malice" as required for public figure plaintiffs.
- The trial court deemed Charles a limited-purpose public figure and dismissed the suit, but the Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding Charles was not a public figure as to the defamation claim.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed whether Charles was a public figure, if he showed actual malice, and the preservation of appellate attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Figure Status (Limited-purpose) | Charles was not a public figure; his role was too limited | Charles was a limited-purpose public figure in this setting | Charles is a limited-purpose public figure |
| Prima Facie Case of Actual Malice | McQueen’s statement was a fabrication, thus actual malice shown | No actual malice; McQueen believed statement true/justified | No actual malice; claim does not survive |
| Defamation: Legal Standard (Malice vs. Negligence) | Standard should be negligence, since not a public figure | Actual malice standard applies as Charles is a public figure | Actual malice required; applied to defamation claim |
| Attorney’s Fees on Appeal (Waiver) | McQueen waived request by not stating in issues section | Request adequately preserved in argument/conclusion sections | No waiver; fees may be sought if in body and conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (public figure doctrine; actual malice standard applies to limited-purpose public figures)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (actual malice standard for defamation claims involving public officials)
- Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (extends actual malice standard to public figures)
- Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1978) (distinguishes standards for public vs. private figures)
- Press, Inc. v. Verran, 569 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. 1978) (actual malice under Tennessee Constitution interpretation)