957 N.W.2d 357
Mich. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Martha Redmond, Arthur McNabb, and Redmond Funeral Home sued Theresa Heller, Dennis Wolf, and others for repeated Internet and social-media posts accusing McNabb (a licensed funeral director with a prior criminal sexual-conduct conviction) of current predatory sexual conduct and accusing the funeral home and owner of facilitating or covering up that conduct.
- McNabb had a decades‑old conviction for criminal sexual conduct, his mortuary license was revoked in 2007 and reinstated in October 2015, and he was later appointed as a branch funeral director at Redmond Funeral Home.
- Theresa posted multiple statements (Facebook and other internet posts) asserting present criminal behavior by McNabb (e.g., that he “hunts” teenage boys at videogame stores and funeral homes, that children at the decedent’s funeral were exposed/sodomized), and alleged the funeral home and Redmond were covering it up.
- Plaintiffs obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, then moved for partial summary disposition on defamation; the trial court granted summary disposition as to defamatory liability and entered permanent injunctions broadly restraining Theresa and Dennis from publishing information about McNabb’s sex‑offender status, address, or employment and from harassing plaintiffs.
- On consolidated appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part: it held that four specific social‑media statements were defamatory as a matter of law but vacated the permanent injunctions as overbroad and inconsistent with the First Amendment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for defamation | Heller’s publications included several discrete postings within one year; each publication is independently actionable. | Heller argued the defamation campaign began >1 year before suit, so claims are time‑barred. | Each publication accrues separately; trial court properly allowed claims based on publications within one‑year period. |
| SORA (MCL 28.730) claim | Plaintiffs: Heller republished SORA/public records plus nonpublic allegations and contextual false assertions, so MCL 28.730(6) exemption (public website) does not bar liability. | Heller: she only used public SORA website material, so the statute exempts her from liability. | Denial of dismissal affirmed: plaintiffs alleged publication of nonpublic information and additional defamatory content beyond the public registry. |
| Defamation / truth vs. opinion | Plaintiffs: several posts asserted present criminal acts (defamation per se) and were not mere opinion or hyperbole. | Heller: statements were true or protected opinion—based on public records, past conviction, and SORA; some statements were hyperbolic. | Four identified statements (alleging present predatory conduct and exposure/sodomy at the funeral) were defamatory as a matter of law; other statements could be opinion/hyperbole and raise factual questions. |
| Injunctive relief & First Amendment | Plaintiffs: injunctive relief necessary to prevent ongoing reputational harm from continued posts. | Defendants: permanent injunction is an unconstitutional prior restraint and is overbroad, chilling protected speech. | Injunctions vacated: as written they were facially overbroad and restrained protected speech; court declined to adopt or reject the narrower modern exception for post‑trial injunctions but applied general First Amendment limits. |
| Completeness of discovery | Plaintiffs: discovery rulings limiting inquiry into decade‑old misconduct were proper; further discovery unlikely to change core issues. | Heller: summary disposition premature because McNabb refused to answer deposition questions and adverse inferences should preclude judgment. | Trial court did not err: the court properly limited irrelevant discovery and summary disposition was not premature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonard v. Pope, 27 Mich 145 (Mich. 1873) (each separate publication of a defamatory statement is independently actionable)
- Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich 21 (Mich. 2005) (republication by a third party does not revive limitations period when original speaker expected republication)
- Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enterprise, 487 Mich 102 (Mich. 2010) (elements and constitutional standards for defamation claims)
- Lakin v. Rund, 318 Mich App 127 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (accusation of serious sexual crimes can constitute defamation per se)
- TM v. MZ, 326 Mich App 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018) (discussion of First Amendment constraints on injunctions restraining online speech)
- Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich App 644 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (injunctions are equitable remedies and require an underlying cognizable claim)