ILNews

Suit based on church-member letter may go on

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A letter written by a church member and circulated through another member's work e-mail address contains some allegedly defamatory statements that can be considered secular, so a suit for defamation and invasion of privacy could continue on those statements, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Rosalyn West v. Betty Wadlington, et al., No. 49A02-0809-CV-849, Rosalyn West filed a suit against fellow church members Betty Wadlington and Jeanette Larkins, and against the City of Indianapolis, which employed Larkins in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. West claimed an e-mail Wadlington wrote and sent to Larkins with a letter attached written by Wadlington to the church's boards of deacons and trustees about West and her behavior contained defamatory statements and was an invasion of privacy. Larkins, who received the e-mail at her work address, forwarded it to nearly 90 other people affiliated with the church.

The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(1).

The Court of Appeals used the cases Brazauskas v. Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), and Brazauskas v. Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, Inc. 796 N.E.2d 286 (Ind. 2003), - Brazauskas I and Brazauskas II - to determine summary judgment is the appropriate standard of review for this type of case and to conclude the trial court in the instant case had subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court has the general authority to hear matters such as West's claims for defamation and invasion of privacy, and the defendants' "religious defense" doesn't relieve the trial court of its subject matter jurisdiction, wrote Judge Paul Mathias. The defendants' affirmative defense based on the First Amendment may be grounds for granting a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion or if appropriate, a Trial Rule 56(C) motion, he wrote.

Wadlington and the other defendants argued West's claims can't be addressed by civil courts because to address her claims would require the courts to determine questions of religious doctrine; West argued not all of the statements were made in strictly ecclesiastical terms, so she should be able to proceed on those statements.

The appellate court agreed with West that some of the statements, such as saying she "attacked" a former pastor's family could be meant to be a physical attack, which is a crime, Judge Mathias wrote. In addition, describing West as a "one-woman wrecking crew" and having an "evil spirit" can be considered in a secular sense. The Court of Appeals even looked up the words "evil" and "spirit" in the dictionary to determine it could be considered defamatory in a secular sense.

"Wadlington's email, although it may have originally been intended to be viewed by Church officials, was sent to a much broader audience of eighty-nine recipients. This email clearly contains some religious accusations which cannot properly be analyzed by a civil court in a defamation suit. However, the email also contains several accusations which could be considered defamatory even in a purely secular context," wrote the judge.

The appellate court reversed the trial court dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the case for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT