Porter v. Joy Realty

1 In this appeal, we must determine whether the ""publication"" element of a defamation cause of action may be proven using only circumstantial evidence when the quantity and quality of such evidence is substantial. In this case, Appellant, Lee Porter (""Porter""), claims that the circumstantial evidence which he presented in support of his defamation claim should have been deemed to be sufficient to avoid summary judgment. After careful review of the relevant law and the evidence presented in this particular case, we conclude that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove ""publication"" in the context of defamation and indeed, in this case, the quantity and quality of the evidence presented was substantial enough to allow Appellant's cause of action to survive a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Joyce Overdorff's and Joy Realty, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. 2 The relevant facts and procedural history1 are as follows. This case stems from a home inspection performed by Porter on October 28, 1999, for Ms. Jamie Dailey (""Dailey inspection""). Prior to the Dailey inspection, Porter had performed approximately eighty-five (85) inspections, all of which resulted in the ultimate sale of the home being inspected. (Deposition Testimony (""D.T."") of Porter, at 53; R.R. at 112). Most of these inspections were the result of referrals from Putt Real Estate (Putt) and Moreau Real Estate (Moreau). The Dailey inspection was the first Porter had performed on a property connected with Appellee Joy Realty. During the Dailey inspection, Porter discovered a defect in the basement of the home which he felt could potentially present a threat to the structural integrity of the residence. As a result of Porter's finding, the potential buyer, Ms. Dailey, decided against purchasing the property. Apparently, this result angered the realtor involved, Appellee Joyce Overdorff (""Overdorff"")2 of Joy Realty, because the next day Overdorff sent a scathing fax to Porter accusing him, inter alia, of performing his job in an unprofessional manner.3 In addition, Overdorff made very unfavorable comments about Porter directly to Ms. Dailey when she returned to Overdorff's office to retrieve her deposit money. (D.T. of Ms. Dailey, at 33- 43; R. 135-139).