John P. Alphonso v. Bishop John Douglas Deshotel and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14193
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Alphonso, a former priest and St. Jude Chapel administrator, was accused by the Diocese of diverting chapel donations to personal and related accounts; St. Jude sued and obtained a TRO.
- The parties settled: Alphonso agreed to pay $300,000, dissolve a corporation he formed, and the suit was dismissed; the settlement included a clause disclaiming any admission of liability.
- Bishop Deshotel publicly announced to parishioners that Alphonso had made restitution for misappropriated funds and dissolved the Diocese of Ahmedabad, prompting Alphonso to sue the Bishop and the Diocese for defamation, IIED, and breach of contract.
- Appellees moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA); the trial court granted dismissal and awarded appellees $56,472.90 in attorney’s fees and costs without admitting the fee affidavit into evidence.
- On appeal Alphonso challenged (1) the TCPA dismissal (arguing he proved falsity by clear and specific evidence), (2) the constitutionality of the TCPA under the Texas open-courts provision (not raised at trial), and (3) the attorney-fee award (arguing lack of evidentiary support).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alphonso established by clear and specific evidence a prima facie defamation claim under the TCPA | Alphonso argued the Bishop’s statement that he "misappropriated" funds was false, relying on the settlement’s no-admission clause and his affidavit denying the statements were true | Appellees relied on TCPA protection for speech and argued plaintiff failed to produce clear, specific evidence proving falsity | Held: Dismissal affirmed — Alphonso failed to present clear-and-specific prima facie evidence of falsity; settlement’s no-admission clause and his affidavit were insufficient to overcome TCPA presumption in favor of the speaker |
| Whether the TCPA violates the Texas Constitution (open courts) | Alphonso contended Chapter 27 abridges the open-courts guarantee | Appellees argued constitutional challenge was not preserved because it was not raised below | Held: Issue waived — appellate review declined because Alphonso did not raise the constitutional challenge in the trial court |
| Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees and costs to Appellees | Alphonso argued there was no competent evidence before the trial court to support the fee award | Appellees relied on counsel’s affidavit offered at the TCPA hearing to prove fees and costs | Held: Fee award reversed and remanded — trial court erred by awarding fees without admitting the affidavit or other competent evidence; remand for new trial on fees |
| Scope of appellate review for TCPA dismissal standard | Alphonso contended the trial court could not consider controverting evidence in determining his burden | Appellees argued TCPA procedures and standards permit dismissal unless plaintiff produces clear-and-specific prima facie evidence | Held: Court applied de novo review and evaluated whether the record contained clear-and-specific evidence establishing each element; because Alphonso failed that test, dismissal stands (court did not need to resolve the controverting-evidence argument) |
Key Cases Cited
- Huckabee v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. 2000) (defines defamation elements for public officials and actual malice standard)
- WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (defamation standards and public-figure considerations)
- Rehak Creative Servs., Inc. v. Witt, 404 S.W.3d 716 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (TCPA de novo review and burden-shifting framework)
- McDonald v. Clemens, 464 S.W.2d 450 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1971) (definition of "clear and specific evidence")
- Brownhawk, L.P. v. Monterrey Homes, Inc., 327 S.W.3d 342 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2010) (party seeking fees must present evidence of entitlement and reasonableness)
- Gilbert v. City of El Paso, 327 S.W.3d 332 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2010) (no evidence supports fee award when supporting affidavits not admitted at trial)
- Grant v. Southwestern Elec. Power Co., 73 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2002) (open-courts preservation rule)
- Ramsey v. Dunlop, 205 S.W.2d 979 (Tex. 1947) (discusses narrow fundamental-error exceptions for appellate consideration of unpreserved constitutional claims)