Nashville, Tenn- The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that a defamation and false light suit filed by Bill Charles against Donna McQueen must be dismissed under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”).
The litigation began in 2020 after Durham Farms, a planned community in Hendersonville, announced plans to add a “rental-only” unit section to the community. Residents of Durham Farms and surrounding communities were upset by this announcement, as well as earlier changes to the Durham Farms development plan. They tried to stop the proposal by petitioning local officials and posting comments on the internet. Several Durham Farms residents, including Donna McQueen, wrote negative Google reviews on the Nashville regional office webpage for Freehold Communities, the company that developed Durham Farms. McQueen’s review claimed that Bill Charles, the president of the Durhan Farms homeowners’ association and a consultant for Freehold, used misleading tactics to deceive Durham Farms homebuyers. Charles sued McQueen over the review, asserting claims for defamation and false light.
McQueen filed a petition under the TPPA to dismiss Charles’s lawsuit. The TPPA, Tennessee’s version of an anti-SLAPP statute, allows the defendant in a lawsuit that is based on the defendant’s speech to petition for dismissal of the suit. To avoid dismissal, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for each element of his claims.
The trial court granted McQueen’s TPPA petition and dismissed Charles’s lawsuit. The trial court determined that Charles is a limited-purpose public figure—a person who voluntarily and prominently participates in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome. Therefore, Charles had to prove that McQueen’s statement was made with actual malice to prevail on his defamation and false light claims. The court held that Charles had failed to establish a prima facie case of actual malice.
Charles appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment in part. The Court of Appeals held that Charles is not a limited-purpose public figure and need not prove actual malice to prevail on his defamation claim. It therefore reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Charles’s defamation claim but affirmed the dismissal of his false light claim. The Court of Appeals also held that McQueen waived her request for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.
After granting McQueen’s application for review, the Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that Charles is a limited-purpose public figure based on Charles’s role in facilitating meetings between Freehold and Hendersonville officials, his communications with residents about changes to the Durham Farms development plan, and his position as the primary contact for Durham Farms residents.
The Court further concluded that Charles had failed to establish a prima facie case that McQueen’s statement was made with actual malice. The Court explained that, at best for Charles, the record showed that McQueen failed to dutifully investigate her claim before posting the review. But a failure to investigate amounts only to negligence, not actual malice. Because Charles failed to establish a prima facie case of actual malice, the Court held that his defamation and false light claims must be dismissed.
Finally, the Court held that McQueen had not waived her request for attorney’s fees on appeal. The Court explained that McQueen was not required to list her request for attorneys’ fees as a separate issue in her Court of Appeals brief because she was the appellee rather than the appellant. McQueen had adequately presented her request by including it in the argument and conclusion sections of her brief.
Based on these conclusions, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
To read the Court’s unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Sarah K. Campbell, visit the opinions section of TNCourts.gov.
