Van Liew v. Eliopoulos / Hands on Technology Transfer, Inc.
AC 16-P-567
| Mass. App. Ct. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- Van Liew, a Chelmsford resident, led a multi-year, multi-platform campaign accusing former selectman Philip Eliopoulos of ethics violations, conflicts of interest, and illicit conduct related to a 9 North Street property development; Van Liew spent substantial funds and repeated allegations widely.
- Philip served as town selectman until April 2009 and later acted as legal counsel for his father's purchase/development (Epsilon Group, LLC); multiple town boards approved the project after public hearings.
- State agencies (State Ethics Commission, Board of Bar Overseers, Attorney General) investigated or reviewed complaints and took no enforcement action against Philip; Land Court decisions also rejected challenges to the project.
- Philip brought a defamation counterclaim; after a jury trial the jury found Van Liew liable on 29 statements and awarded $2.9 million (reputational, emotional distress, and compensatory damages); the judge denied Van Liew’s posttrial motions.
- On appeal Van Liew challenged evidentiary rulings, the sufficiency of proof (including actual malice as to a public official), and argued damages were excessive or punitive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Van Liew) | Defendant's Argument (Eliopoulos) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether challenged statements are actionable defamatory statements of fact vs. nonactionable opinion | Statements were opinion or rhetorical and thus protected | Statements conveyed provable false facts (lies, illegal acts, cover-ups) harming reputation | Court: Most statements were provable falsehoods and actionable; three identified as nonactionable opinion but immaterial to outcome |
| Whether evidence supports actual malice (public-official standard) | Van Liew relied on counsel and sources; no actual malice | Van Liew acted with reckless disregard or knowledge of falsity given prior investigations, minutes, depositions, and legal decisions | Court: Independent review supports jury’s finding of actual malice for the 26+ actionable statements |
| Admissibility of certain prejudicial evidence (dog poisoning, attorney McClure investigation, anti‑Vatican views) | Such evidence was unduly prejudicial and irrelevant | Evidence probative to credibility, state of mind, and alternative causes of distress; defendant opened door in part | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence admissible or objections not preserved; limiting instructions given |
| Whether damages awarded ($2.9M) were excessive or punitive | Award was inflated, product of an inflamed jury | Extensive evidence of long-term reputational harm and emotional distress supported award; punitive damages barred but jury instructed accordingly | Court: Awards supported by evidence and not clearly excessive; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (establishes actual malice standard for public officials in defamation law)
- Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc., 449 Mass. 42 (2007) (discusses proof of actual malice and appellate independent review of jury findings)
- King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 Mass. 705 (1987) (applies First Amendment constraints to defamation claims involving public officials)
- White v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 442 Mass. 64 (2004) (defamation elements overview)
- Downey v. Chutehall Constr. Co., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 660 (2014) (test for fact versus opinion in defamation)
- Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., 443 Mass. 367 (2005) (guidance on damages in defamation cases and appellate review)