From at the moment’s choice by the Texas Court docket of Appeals (First District) in Zoanni v. Hogan, written by Justice Veronica Rivas-Molloy and joined by Chief Justice Terry Adams and Justice Julie Countiss; the opinion is 81 pages lengthy, so I excerpt simply the fast abstract of the info and the decision:
Appellee Lemuel David Hogan is an govt pastor on the Spring First Church in Spring, Texas (“Church”). He and Appellant Stephanie Montagne Zoanni met on the Church they usually married in January 2004. In 2011, they divorced…. This enchantment stems from the events’ post-divorce go well with to switch custody of their daughter.
In March 2014, Hogan filed a petition to switch the parent-child relationship. As a part of his petition, Hogan asserted claims in opposition to Zoanni for defamation, invasion of privateness, malicious prosecution, abuse of course of, and intentional infliction of emotional misery. Hogan additionally requested injunctive reduction within the type of a everlasting injunction enjoining Zoanni from speaking with third events about him. He alleged that starting in July 2013, Zoanni began making false statements about him, claiming he’s “a toddler molester, [a] pervert, [and a] pedophile.”
He alleged that Zoanni falsely represented to 3rd events, together with Little one Protecting Companies (“CPS”) and legislation enforcement officers, that he was “abusing” their daughter Mary, and that he “is a toddler molester, concerned with youngster pornography, and in any other case is of poor character and mistreats girls and youngsters.” Hogan alleged that Zoanni made these and different related statements on-line, to CPS, and in written communications to Hogan’s church management….
The case proceeded to trial on Hogan’s defamation declare primarily based on 13 alleged defamatory statements. The jury discovered that each one 13 statements had been false when made by Zoanni. The jury discovered that six of the statements had been defamatory, and for the remaining, it discovered that Zoanni knew or ought to have identified, within the train of peculiar care, that the statements had been false and had the potential to be defamatory.
The 13 statements had been separated and offered to the jury in two separate elements within the damages portion of the jury cost. Query 10 Half A listed eight statements and Query 10 Half B listed the remaining 5 statements. The jury awarded Hogan $900,000 in compensatory damages for the statements in Query 10 Half A consisting of (1) $600,000 for previous and future harm to his repute, and (2) $300,000 for previous and future psychological anguish. And it awarded Hogan $1,200,000 in compensatory damages for the statements in Query 10 Half B consisting of (1) $850,000 for previous and future harm to his repute, and (2) $350,000 for previous and future psychological anguish. The jury additionally discovered that the statements had been made with malice however awarded no exemplary damages.
The trial court docket rendered judgment primarily based on the jury’s verdict awarding Hogan $2,100,000 in compensatory damages….
