743 S.E.2d 93
S.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Frances Castine and David Castine were related as father‑in‑law and daughter‑in‑law; tensions arose after Frances’s husband died in 2007.
- Frances was employed by Lexington County for over three years; David questioned her county employment due to alleged criminal record, prior firing for misconduct, and drug use.
- David wrote April 1, 2009 and October 23, 2009 letters to county officials alleging Frances’s misconduct and asking for responses.
- David admitted he provided information at the county’s request but claimed the statements were true and privileged; Frances filed defamation and related claims in May 2009.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Frances on liability, finding the statements defamatory per se and that malice existed as a matter of law; no qualified privilege applied.
- This appeal follows, with issues focusing on truth, privilege, and malice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Truth defense viability | David contends substantial truth defeats defamation. | Frances argues only substantially true for all statements applies. | Not entitled; statement about improper credit card use was false; substantial truth for each statement not shown. |
| Privilege defense viability | David asserts conditional/qualified privilege as a citizen stating concerns. | Frances argues privilege does not apply given intent to harm. | Privilege not established; circumstances did not warrant protection. |
| Malice presumption | David challenges malice finding and damages analysis. | Frances relies on common law malice presumption for defamatory per se statements. | Affirmed; the statements were defamatory per se with a presumption of malice; damages appropriate absent privilege. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Columbia Newspapers, Inc., 266 S.C. 75 (1976) (substantial truth defense applicable in defamation context)
- Bell v. Bank of Abbeville, 208 S.C. 490 (1946) (qualified privilege depends on occasion and relationship)
- Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit, ACA, 334 S.C. 469 (1999) (definition and limits of conditional/qualified privilege)
- Erickson v. Jones St. Publishers, L.L.C., 368 S.C. 444 (2006) (definitional framework for per se defamation and malice)
- Holtzscheiter v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., 332 S.C. 502 (1998) (malice concepts; presumption and actual malice distinction)
- Murray v. Holnam, Inc., 344 S.C. 129 (2002) (presumption of malice and limitation by privilege)
- Jones v. Garner, 250 S.C. 479 (1968) (malice definitions and damages framework)