RAND HOCH v. BRUCE E. LOREN
273 So. 3d 56
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Rand Hoch, a condominium unit owner, received a cease-and-desist letter from attorneys retained by the condo board and sued them for defamation based on the letter's contents.
- The attorneys also sent a copy of the cease-and-desist letter to their client, the condo association board.
- The circuit court dismissed Hoch’s complaint for failure to allege publication to a third party and granted dismissal with prejudice.
- The central legal question was whether sending the letter to the attorneys’ client constituted a "publication" sufficient for a defamation claim.
- The Fourth District considered prior Florida authority treating communications to an agent (e.g., managerial employees or attorneys) as not being publication to a third party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sending the cease-and-desist letter to the attorneys’ client constitutes "publication" for defamation | Hoch: forwarding the letter to the board (a third party) was publication and supports a defamation claim | Attorneys: sending the letter to their client is not publication because agent/principal unity means it is not communication to a third party | Sending the letter to the client did not constitute publication as a matter of law; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (defamation requires unprivileged publication of false statement causing injury)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Geddes, 960 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (communications among corporate managerial employees are effectively the corporation talking to itself—no publication)
- Maine v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (statements to a plaintiff’s attorney do not constitute publication to a third party)
- Advantage Pers. Agency, Inc. v. Hicks & Grayson, Inc., 447 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (statements to a corporate executive/manager are treated as statements to the corporation itself)
- Cruise v. Graham, 622 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (attorney acts as agent for the client; representations to the attorney are representations to the client)