Hope-Jackson v. Washington
311 Mich. App. 602
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Doris Hope-Jackson (claimant), former superintendent of Willow Run Community Schools, sued board member Sheri Washington and the school district; among many claims, she alleged defamation based on posts to willowrunwatchdogs.com.
- An arbitrator initially dismissed the defamation claim as time-barred (posts dated June 18, 2008–June 15, 2009; complaint filed June 22, 2010) but found Washington had concealed her role as the website administrator and held her in contempt, awarding $12,500 in sanctions.
- Claimant sought relief in circuit court; the court vacated the arbitrator’s statute-of-limitations dismissal and remanded the defamation claim for further arbitration.
- On remand the arbitrator found Washington authored numerous posts, concluded some statements were defamation per se (accusations of criminal or unlawful conduct), found actual malice, awarded $360,000 in presumed damages and $140,000 in exemplary damages, and denied attorney fees.
- The circuit court confirmed the post-remand award; Washington appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part but vacated the exemplary damages portion of the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fraudulent concealment of defendant’s identity tolled the one-year defamation statute of limitations under MCL 600.5855 | Hope-Jackson argued Washington’s concealment of her administrator role tolled the limitations period so the defamation claim was timely | Washington argued claimant knew of the cause of action when posts were published so concealment of identity could not toll under prior case law | Court held MCL 600.5855 (as amended) tolls when either the claim or the defendant’s identity is fraudulently concealed; remand dismissal on SOL grounds properly vacated |
| Whether the circuit court properly reviewed and vacated parts of the arbitrator’s pre-remand order | Hope-Jackson argued the arbitrator’s SOL dismissal was legal error on its face given findings of concealment | Washington argued the arbitrator correctly applied law and circuit court exceeded limited review power | Court held circuit court did not exceed limited authority because the arbitrator’s legal error (misreading MCL 600.5855) was evident from the award |
| Whether statements on the blog were actionable defamation per se and whether actual malice was shown | Hope-Jackson argued blog statements accused her of crimes/misconduct in office and were made with actual malice (she is a public official) | Washington argued posts were hyperbole, opinion, or political speech and not provable factual accusations; she contested actual malice findings | Court upheld arbitrator’s findings that some statements could be read as accusations of criminal misconduct and that factual findings supporting actual malice were not reviewable on appeal (no legal error on the face of the award) |
| Whether exemplary (punitive) damages could be awarded absent a pre-suit retraction request under MCL 600.2911(2) | Hope-Jackson argued statutory retraction was not required in all circumstances (citing Cousino) and that a request would have been futile | Washington argued statute mandatorily requires plaintiff to request retraction before exemplary damages; claimant did not do so | Court held MCL 600.2911(2) requires a pre-suit retraction request; arbitrator’s reliance on Cousino was legal error on the face of the award, so exemplary damages were vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- DAIIE v. Gavin, 416 Mich. 407 (1982) (limits appellate review of arbitration awards to legal errors apparent on the face of the award)
- Gordon Sel–Way, Inc. v. Spence Bros., Inc., 438 Mich. 488 (1991) (reinforces narrow scope of judicial review of arbitration awards)
- Ghanam v. Does, 303 Mich. App. 522 (2014) (internet message-board speech often constitutes opinion/rhetorical hyperbole; context matters for defamatory meaning)
- Hodgins v. Times Herald Co., 169 Mich. App. 245 (1988) (distinguishes strongly worded opinion from accusations of criminal conduct that can be defamation per se)
- Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enterprise, 487 Mich. 102 (2010) (public-official plaintiffs must prove actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth)
- Burden v. Elias Bros. Big Boy Restaurants, 240 Mich. App. 723 (2000) (history and nature of presumed/general damages for defamation per se)
- Ross v. Fisher, 352 Mich. 555 (1958) (pre-amendment law limiting tolling to concealment of cause of action; discussed in statutory-history analysis)
- Int’l Union, United Auto Workers v. Wood, 337 Mich. 8 (1953) (historic treatment of fraudulent-concealment tolling issue)