Wells v. Bernitt
936 N.E.2d 1242
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Wells, a Monroe County official, sued the Bernitts for defamation and other torts; the Bernitts reported to police about Wells' alleged intoxicated conduct on Sept. 27, 2002.
- Wells was charged with OWI and disorderly conduct following the Bernitts’ report; he was convicted and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Wells filed suit on Sept. 27, 2004 alleging defamation and other rights violations; Bernitts counterclaimed for abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Bernitts on Wells’ defamation and §1983 claims, and granted Wells’ summary judgment on Bernitts’ counterclaim.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, applying issue preclusion to bar Wells’ use of certain Herald Times postings and upholding summary judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation summary judgment: whether Bernitts’ statements were actionable | Wells argues statements were false and malicious | Bernitts contend statements were substantially true and privileged | Summary judgment for Bernitts affirmed |
| §1983 excessive force: whether officers used reasonable force | Wells asserts excessive force during OWI arrest | State Defendants argue force was objective reasonable | Summary judgment in favor of Brown and Coryea proper |
| Bernitts’ counterclaim: abuse of process and malicious prosecution | Bernitts contend Wells lacked probable cause and acted with improper motive | Wells lacked malice and acted with probable cause; no abuse of process | Wells granted summary judgment on counterclaims; no abuse of process or malicious prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for public officials and figures)
- Journal-Gazette Co. v. Bandido's, Inc., 712 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. 1999) (substantial truth suffices for defamation; true statements not actionable)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1968) (actual malice standard requires serious doubts about truth)
- Wong v. Tabor, 422 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (probable cause determination in abuse of process context)
- Holcomb v. Walter's Dimmick Petroleum, Inc., 858 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. 2006) (common interest privilege applied to statements in good faith)
- Bals v. Verduzco, 600 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind. 1992) (communications made in good faith with privilege)
- Wells v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (defamation related to OWI conviction; appellate affirmation)