John M. Zuccarelli, III v. Marilyn Barfield, 165 So. 3d 830

Fourth District Court of Appeal, No. 4D13-3031, between John M. Zuccarelli III and Marilyn Barfield, arising from defamation claims following Barfield’s affidavit in a motion for temporary injunction.
Zuccarelli alleged Barfield’s affidavit stated he and others attacked Barfield’s husband and brother, and that the statements were false, not related to the pending electric-disruption litigation, and made with actual malice.
Barfield asserted an affirmative defense of absolute privilege because the statements were contained in an affidavit filed in a pending judicial proceeding.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Barfield, concluding the counts relied on affidavits tied to pending litigation and were privileged as a matter of law.
Zuccarelli challenged the ruling, citing DelMonico v. Traynor and its procedural history, and the matter proceeded on appeal on de novo review of the privilege issue.
The court ultimately affirmed, holding the affiant statements in the court-filed affidavit were protected by absolute privilege as they related to pending litigation; the award of attorney’s fees was also affirmed due to lack of transcript.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an affidavit filed in pending litigation is absolutely privileged.	Zuccarelli contends no absolute privilege applies to statements made in Barfield’s affidavit.	Barfield argues the affidavit was filed in a judicial proceeding and bears direct relation to the subject under inquiry, warranting absolute privilege.	Yes; statements in a court-filed affidavit related to pending litigation are absolutely privileged.
Whether the affidavit’s statements were connected to the pending litigation sufficiently to qualify for privilege.	Zuccarelli asserts the statements were extraneous to the injury and not pertinent to the litigation.	Barfield asserts the statements were made in the course of judicial proceedings and connected to the subject of inquiry.	Yes; the statements were connected to the pending litigation and thus privileged.
Whether the trial court’s attorney’s fees award was proper.	Zuccarelli argues the fee award should be reversed for lack of a complete transcript on appeal.	Barfield contends the fee award stands, supported by the evidentiary hearing and applicable standards.	Affirmed; the fee award upheld (transcript issue not dispositive on appeal).

DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) (absolute privilege for statements in judicial proceedings; distinguishing ex parte investigations)
DelMonico v. Traynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (earlier appellate decision regarding privilege limitations)
Myers v. Hodges, 44 So. 357 (Fla. 1907) (absolute privilege requires statements be connected with the cause in hand)
Hope v. Nat’l Alliance of Postal & Fed. Emps., Jacksonville Local No. 320, 649 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (flexible relevancy standard for statements in judicial process to qualify for immunity)