Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb.
289 Neb. 927
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Matthew M. Steinhausen, sole member of Steinhausen Home Inspections LLC (SHI), performed a 2008 home inspection that drew criticism from real estate agent Shelly J. Nitz.
- In January 2011, Nitz posted to HomeServices’ internal group email (the Hotsheets) that Steinhausen was a “Total idiot” and she would never let him near her listings again; other agents had posted critical opinions about his inspections on the same thread.
- An anonymous copy of the email reached Steinhausen; he sought a retraction and filed a complaint with the State Real Estate Commission, which resulted in a consent order finding Nitz violated a commission provision and requiring ethics training.
- Steinhausen, proceeding pro se and naming himself d/b/a SHI, sued Nitz and HomeServices for libel, false light invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with business relationships/expectancies; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding Nitz’s email was privileged (not abused), false light subsumed by defamation, and Steinhausen lacked a personal business relationship/expectancy with the defendants; Steinhausen appealed pro se.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court held Steinhausen could not represent SHI (an LLC) pro se, dismissed the appeal as to SHI, affirmed summary judgment as to Steinhausen personally (email was nonactionable opinion/hyperbole; false light subsumed; no tortious interference), and vacated the judgment only as to claims purporting to be brought on behalf of SHI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Steinhausen could prosecute/appeal on behalf of SHI (an LLC) pro se | Steinhausen claimed he was the sole appellant and used the business name only as an identifier | Defendants argued an LLC must be represented by a licensed attorney and a layperson cannot represent an entity; thus appeal for SHI is a nullity | An LLC must be represented by a licensed Nebraska attorney; appeal/prosecution for SHI by Steinhausen pro se is a nullity and dismissed as to the LLC; Steinhausen may proceed only in his individual capacity |
| Whether Nitz’s email was defamatory (libel) | Steinhausen argued “idiot” is verifiable and could be proven false | Nitz argued the context (internal agent listserv, prior opinion posts, hyperbolic tone) shows it was non‑actionable opinion/rhetorical hyperbole | The court held the statement was opinion/hyperbole in context and not capable of defamatory meaning; no libel |
| Whether false light invasion of privacy claim was separately actionable | Steinhausen asserted a separate false light claim | Defendants argued false light based on same statement is subsumed by defamation | Court held false light claim is subsumed by defamation and not separately actionable here |
| Whether Steinhausen proved tortious interference with business relationships/expectancies | Steinhausen claimed Nitz and other agents discouraged clients from using him, causing economic loss | Defendants argued any relationships were those of SHI, not Steinhausen personally, and plaintiff produced no evidence of a personal relationship/expectancy | Court held plaintiff failed to show he personally had a valid business relationship or expectancy; claim failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Moats v. Republican Party of Neb., 281 Neb. 411, 796 N.W.2d 584 (threshold elements and standard for defamation)
- K Corporation v. Stewart, 247 Neb. 290, 526 N.W.2d 429 (distinguishing opinion from verifiable fact)
- Niklaus v. Abel Construction Co., 164 Neb. 842, 83 N.W.2d 904 (entities must be represented by counsel)
- Anderzhon/Architects v. 57 Oxbow II Partnership, 250 Neb. 768, 553 N.W.2d 157 (layperson cannot represent business entity on appeal)