Ronald G. Hole v. William L. Hubbard
13-14-00617-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 30, 2015Background
- Ronald G. Hole sued William L. Hubbard for defamation (claiming a March 7, 2013 letter stating Hole “has no aversion to filing suit without merit” was libel per se) and alleged a Chapter 12 violation for filing allegedly fraudulent judgment liens; Hole later nonsuited the remaining Chapter 12 claim.
- Hubbard moved for partial summary judgment asserting absolute privilege for the challenged communication; Hole moved for partial summary judgment arguing no affirmative-defense evidence and that the statement was libel per se.
- Facts: Hubbard had filed abstracts of judgment on behalf of his client Michael Wansey after the Texas Supreme Court ordered Cheryl Hole (Ronald’s wife) to pay appellate costs in the Wansey case; Hole threatened a Chapter 12 suit and demanded removal of the liens.
- Hubbard sent the March 7, 2013 letter to opposing counsel (and copied Cheryl’s trial counsel), offering settlement of Wansey’s appellate-cost claim and stating Hole had no aversion to filing suit without merit; Hubbard also attached lien releases and referenced settlement/Rule 408.
- The trial court denied Hole’s motion and granted Hubbard’s motion; Hole appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absolute privilege bars Hole's defamation claim | Hole: No evidence the March 7 letter related to an ongoing or contemplated judicial proceeding or was made on behalf of a client | Hubbard: Letter was made in contemplation of litigation and to further representation of his client (Wansey); thus absolutely privileged | Court: Absolute privilege applies as a matter of law; summary judgment for Hubbard affirmed |
| Whether trial court erred by denying Hole's motion for partial summary judgment | Hole: No genuine issue of material fact; statement was libel per se, so he was entitled to judgment | Hubbard: Absolute privilege defeats defamation claim so Hole cannot prevail | Court: Denial proper because privilege bars the claim; Hole's motion appropriately denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
- Krishnan v. Law Offices of Preston Henrichson, P.C., 83 S.W.3d 295 (absolute privilege covers communications in contemplation of judicial proceedings)
- James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914 (doubt resolved in favor of relevancy; privilege extends to statements preliminary to litigation)
- Randolph v. Walker, 29 S.W.3d 271 (communications subject to absolute privilege cannot form basis of civil action)