Forinash v. Weber
2017 Ohio 1076
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant Brett Forinash sued Angela Weber for defamation based on Facebook posts (including a November 8, 2012 post accusing him of watching porn with teenage girls) and attached copies of the posts to his complaint.
- He later amended to add a spoliation claim, alleging Weber removed the Facebook posts after receiving the complaint.
- Weber moved to dismiss the spoliation claim, arguing Forinash sought their removal and did not seek a protective order, and generally denied the defamation allegations.
- Forinash moved for summary judgment on defamation and spoliation; Weber did not respond. The trial court granted summary judgment for Forinash and held a hearing on damages.
- The trial court awarded $100 nominal damages, $500 punitive damages, $2,000 in attorney fees, and court costs; Forinash appealed, challenging the damages calculation and the failure to award damages for spoliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in calculating damages for defamation (nominal and punitive) | Forinash: court used incorrect standard and undervalued damages (internet posting not geographically limited) | Weber: (implicit) nominal award appropriate based on court’s finding posts mainly viewed in Sandusky County; punitive award supported by malice finding | Court: trial court applied correct legal standards but erred in awarding only nominal damages because there was no competent evidence the posts’ reach was geographically limited; remanded to reexamine damages |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to award damages for spoliation of evidence after posts were removed | Forinash: removal harmed his case and warranted damages | Weber: removal was expected given complaint sought removal and Forinash failed to seek a protective order; posts were preserved in complaint attachments | Court: Forinash suffered no spoliation damages—he preserved the posts in his complaint and obtained summary judgment on defamation; trial court’s failure to award spoliation damages was supported by the record |
| Whether trial court’s $2,000 attorney-fee award was unreasonable | Forinash: fee award did not reflect actual hours/costs and was inadequate | Weber: (implicit) court’s fee award within discretion | Court: appellate standard is abuse of discretion; record did not show the award so low as to shock the conscience, so fee award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 162 Ohio App.3d 596 (Ohio App. 2005) (damages are presumed in defamation per se cases)
- Whitt Sturtevant, LLP v. NC Plaza LLC, 43 N.E.3d 19 (Ohio App. 2015) (appellate standard for sustaining damages awards where competent, credible evidence exists)
- Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Ohio St.3d 27 (Ohio 1989) (abuse of discretion standard for attorney-fee awards)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1985) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Pons v. State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (appellate court should not substitute its judgment for trial court on discretionary matters)
- Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (fee awards should not be so high or low as to shock the conscience)
- Brooks v. Hurst Buick-Pontiac-Olds-GMC, Inc., 23 Ohio App.3d 85 (Ohio App. 1985) (standard for reviewing fee awards)