The Fifth District Court of Appeal has reversed a trial court's dismissal of a defamation lawsuit arising from statements made at an HOA meeting, holding that disputed facts must go to a jury.
In Gregory Lattimer v. Eric Babcock, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant. The case involves allegations that Babcock made false and defamatory statements about Lattimer during an HOA meeting.
Key holdings: The court emphasized that credibility determinations and weighing of evidence are jury functions, not judicial ones. The defendant claimed he relied on information from unnamed law enforcement officers, but could not identify them, admitted he had no personal knowledge of the underlying allegations, and gave inconsistent accounts of his information sources. The court held these circumstances create genuine disputes of material fact about whether the defendant acted negligently in publishing the statements.
The decision underscores that a defendant's failure to make reasonable attempts to verify hearsay information can support a finding of negligence in defamation cases. Summary judgment is inappropriate when credibility and the reasonableness of a defendant's verification efforts remain contested.
Relevance to CAM professionals: Board members and others who speak at HOA meetings should understand that statements presented as fact—particularly allegations involving criminal conduct—may face heightened scrutiny if the speaker cannot demonstrate reasonable verification efforts or identify reliable sources.
The case has been remanded for trial.