228 Conn.App. 781
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Plaintiff Daniel Mulvihill, a licensed real estate broker, alleged defamation against defendant Kara Spinnato (aka Kara Callahan) after she posted a critical review about him on Zillow following her choice not to hire him to sell her uncle’s home.
- The Zillow review stated, among other things, that Mulvihill recommended listing the property for $100,000 less than it ultimately sold for, and implied he acted unprofessionally and possibly dishonestly.
- In response, Mulvihill claimed the statements were false and intended to damage his profession and reputation, seeking injunctive and monetary relief.
- Spinnato moved to dismiss under Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing her speech was protected as commentary on a matter of public concern relevant to the real estate community.
- The trial court denied the special motion to dismiss, finding (i) the post was not on a matter of public concern and (ii) Mulvihill had established probable cause under the statute that his claim could succeed.
- The defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in concluding Mulvihill met his burden under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mulvihill established probable cause under §52-196a to support his defamation claim | Mulvihill contested the truth of Spinnato's factual statements and alleged actual reputational harm. | Spinnato contended her statements were either true or protected opinion, and that Mulvihill did not rebut their accuracy. | Court held that Mulvihill met the minimal probable cause burden—material factual disputes existed, and the matter should proceed. |
| Whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies (public concern) | Argued the post involved a private business dispute, not a matter of public concern as defined by statute. | Claimed her Zillow review regarding a real estate professional was protected as concerning "community well-being." | Court sidestepped this issue, choosing to decide based on probable cause grounds. |
| Whether the statement was actionable fact vs. opinion | Asserted the post’s assertions (e.g., pricing advice) were objective, factual, and false. | Claimed her post was protected opinion or, alternatively, was factually accurate. | Court found the post contained disputed factual assertions, not just opinion, fit for jury resolution. |
| Appropriateness of anti-SLAPP dismissal standard | Claimed disputed issues should be resolved at trial, not summarily dismissed. | Argued the statute’s structure warranted dismissal and immediate end to non-meritorious claims. | Held that summary disposition is improper when material facts are in dispute—plaintiff's evidence viewed favorably. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafferty v. Jones, 336 Conn. 332 (Conn. 2020) (explains the purpose and procedure of special motions to dismiss under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute)
- Priore v. Haig, 344 Conn. 636 (Conn. 2022) (discusses anti-SLAPP procedure and the summary nature of special dismissals)
- Elder v. Kauffman, 204 Conn. App. 818 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021) (likens anti-SLAPP special motions to summary judgment processes and clarifies standards)
- Ferri v. Powell-Ferri, 213 Conn. App. 841 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022) (applies plenary review to probable cause determinations in similar procedural contexts)
- Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chemical Co., 267 Conn. 210 (Conn. 2004) (reiterates factual falsity as a requirement for defamation claims)
- Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107 (Conn. 1982) (explains the distinction between fact and opinion for defamation claims)