Texas Supreme Court Dismisses Libel Claim Filed Against Citizen for Facebook Posting

In 2011, the Texas legislature passed a bill that provides an expedited dismissal remedy to citizens who are wrongfully sued for speaking out about matters of public concern regarding the government or a business.  Testimony in support of the bill showed that SLAPP suits — strategic lawsuits against public participation — were often filed against these citizens to chill public debate.  Apparently, this was becoming more pervasive in the age of the internet. The bill that was passed is now Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 27, known as the Texas Citizens Participation Act.  Defendants who are successful under the Act are not only entitled to a dismissal of the claim for defamation but they are also entitled to recover costs and attorney fees.

On June 9, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court, in Bedford v. Darin Spassoff and 6 Tool, LLC, No. 16-0229, rendered an opinion interpreting this statute. In this case, the Defendant posted the following to Facebook, regarding one of the coaches of a baseball-instructional organization:

“ ***Be very careful. One of the coaches put my son on the team an (sic) then started calling and texting my wife. This coach is a home wrecker and the club stands behind him. I guess that’s the kind of lessons they plan on teaching the kids. Very unethical and from talking to the executives they don’t plan on changing. Please stay away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

The owner, Spaasoff, and the baseball instructional organization, formerly known as the Dallas Dodgers, filed a lawsuit against  the Defendant alleging, amongst other things, that by posting the information on Facebook, the Defendant had committed libel and business disparagement.   The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the libel claim, under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, arguing that the Plaintiffs brought the claims to prevent him from “engaging in constitutionally protected activities.” The Texas Supreme Court found, “Even if the Facebook posts here were defamatory, the statement is not defamation per se and Spassoff and the Dodgers failed to establish damages by clear and specific evidence.” The court went on to hold that the libel claim should be dismissed under the Act. The Texas Supreme Court  remanded the claim to the trial court for dismissal and the determination of attorney fees to which the Plaintiffs would be entitled under the Act. 

TX Supreme Court Holds No Tortious Interference with Inheritance Cause of Action

On May 26, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court refused to recognize the existence of a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights.  Kinsel v Lindsey, 15-0403, 2017 WL 2324392 (Tex. May 26, 2017).  Many  Texas courts have long considered this to be a viable cause of action since the 1987 decision of King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ).   In that case, the decedent's widow forged a power of attorney to transfer stock from decedent to her while the decedent was still alive and in a coma. After the death of decedent, a temporary administrator was appointed to recover the stock for the benefit of decedent's estate.  This caused the estate to incur additional expenses.  The decedent's children and mother who were beneficiaries of the estate sued the decedent's widow for tortious interference with their inheritance rights. The King court upheld the jury's verdict for actual and punitive damages based upon the widow's tortious interference with the inheritance rights of decedent's children and mother.

Now, 30 years later, the Texas Supreme Court in Kinsel v. Lindsey, supra, determined that there is no cause of action in Texas for tortious interference with inheritance rights.  Does this mean that heirs who have been wrongfully cheated out of their inheritance no longer have a remedy? No, it just means that they will have to resort to more traditional causes of action like a will contest asking a court to set aside a will that has been procured by undue influence or fraud. However, even the Kinsel court seems to accept that, absent a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance, there may be times when the heirs will not have a remedy to recover all the damages caused by someone who wrongfully interferes with inheritance rights.