#post_titleEx-Husband’s Claims of Bigamy In Dismissed Lawsuit Are Still Privileged
Statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding, as long as they are pertinent or relevant, are absolutely privileged.
Tennessee case summary on defamation claim.
Christie Lee (Upchurch) Vanwinkle v. Robert Martin Thompson
The woman in this Putnam County, Tennessee, case was first married in 1995 and obtained a final decree of divorce in 2017, and that case was ultimately affirmed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling. In 2018, the wife remarried. Apparently dissatisfied by that turn of events, the first husband filed a lawsuit against her, alleging that the divorce was not final. He wanted to invalidate the second marriage on the grounds of bigamy. That case was eventually tossed out.
The wife and her new husband were the next ones to file a lawsuit. They sued the first husband for defamation, for his false claim that their marriage was bigamous. The first husband moved to dismiss on the grounds that the allegedly defamatory statement was made during litigation, and thus absolutely privileged. A Zoom hearing was held at which the court dismissed the case. The wife and her new husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
After discussing some procedural matters, the appeals court turned to the question of the extent of that privilege.
Citing earlier cases, the appeals court noted that statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding, as long as they are pertinent or relevant, are absolutely privileged. It noted that this rule applied even if they are known to be false or malicious.
After reviewing the alleged defamatory statements, the appeals court agreed with the first husband that the absolute litigation privilege applied. The statement was made in his complaint and therefore privileged.
The first husband also asked for attorney’s fees for what he called a frivolous appeal. The appeals court pointed out that since his own lawsuit had been quickly tossed out, it was hard to say that the defamation case was totally devoid of merit. Therefore, it denied his request for attorney’s fees.
No. M2020–01291-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 2, 2022).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
