Stilger v. Flint
391 S.W.3d 751
Ky.2013Background
- Flint, condo owner and HOA member, sought access to Coach House records 2005–2007.
- Stilger, attorney for the Board, told Flint the request was unreasonable.
- Flint wrote to the Kentucky Attorney General requesting prosecution over the records issue.
- Stilger sent a letter to the AG detailing reasons and including unflattering statements about Flint.
- Flint sued Stilger for defamation; the trial court granted summary judgment, treating the letter as part of a judicial proceeding.
- Court of Appeals reversed; Kentucky Supreme Court held the AG communications are not part of a judicial proceeding and are entitled to only a qualified privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Privilege issue for AG letter | Flint argues the AG letter is not part of a judicial proceeding and thus not absolutely privileged. | Stilger contends the letter was in preparation for or within a judicial proceeding and should be absolutely privileged. | Not part of a judicial proceeding; privilege is not absolute. |
| Absolute vs. qualified privilege | Flint contends the communications are entitled to an absolute privilege as part of judicial proceedings. | Stilger argues the communications are to a state attorney general and thus qualified, not absolute. | Communications to the AG are entitled only to a qualified privilege. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmitt v. Mann, 291 Ky. 80, 163 S.W.2d 281 ((Ky. 1942)) (statements in pleadings during proceedings are absolutely privileged)
- General Electric Co. v. Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119 ((6th Cir. 1990)) (absolute privilege for communications during preliminary to judicial proceedings)
- Cumberland Valley Contractors, Inc. v. Bell County Coal Carp., 238 S.W.3d 644 ((Ky. 2007)) (de novo review for construction/meaning of written instruments)