Wow. This is an unpublished (not to be cited as precedent) appellate court opinion from Arizona. There was an HOA election, with the Tarters on the winning side and the Bendts on the losing side. According to the opinion, the Bendts then began attacking the Tarters online and in other ways, making the claims about the Tarters that are described below. The Tarters sued the Bendts for defamation. The eye-watering verdict against the Bendts: over $1.5 million, including $1 million in punitive damages. In this opinion, the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, affirms the verdict, meaning that the Bendts will have to pay, unless they appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court and win.
The opinion has a number of interesting aspects. First is affirming a huge verdict against people who engaged in online verbal attacks against their HOA leadership, which is something that happens often. This verdict suggests that HOA dissidents need to think about the consequences of their rhetoric, stick to facts and issues, and avoid defamatory language. Second, the court found that as HOA leaders, the plaintiffs were "limited public figures," which raises the bar for them and requires them to prove "actual malice," i.e., that the defendants either knew their statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. But, third, the plaintiffs DID prove actual malice on these facts, which should be a sobering thought for people who are tempted to claim that they are just expressing personal opinions when they say things like this (see below) about their HOA leaders. My final thought: In my experience, HOA and condo association disputes have a tendency to become nasty and personal. I have been involved in a number of disputes as an attorney or expert witness where that has happened, and I've heard or read about others. I'm not sure what to do about that, except to say that I continue to believe in the value of open but civil discourse in condo and HOA affairs.
------------------
From the opinion:
"The Tarters' complaint identified many disparaging statements made by Mrs. Bendt in her July newsletter. The Tarters alleged that Mrs. Bendt's assertions were defamatory and caused her readers to falsely believe that: (1) Mr. Tarter lacked ethics and/or behaved unethically or illegally; (2) Mr. Tarter concealed material financial information from the HOA members; (3) Mr. Tarter misled HOA members and acted unlawfully; (4) Mr. Tarter conducted and facilitated "secret" Board meetings; and (5) Mr. Tarter wrongfully over-spent HOA funds which would cause an increase in monthly HOA fees. Based on our review, at trial the parties focused on: (1) whether Mr. Tarter was asked to resign from the Board; (2) an $8,000 payment to an exterminator; (3) a tree removal; (4) the Board's executive sessions; (5) $40,000 in alleged overspending; and (6) the monthly HOA fees. The Tarters introduced evidence that Mrs. Bendt called Mr. Tarter "idiot," "fool," "spineless," "disgusting," "chicken shit," "lowlife," "low-class sneak," "unethical," "lazy," "weak," and "a complete fake" in front of fellow HOA members. Additionally, Mrs. Bendt wrote emails calling Mrs. Tarter, whom she had never met, "a bitch" and a "drinking dog walker." Mrs. Bendt also disparaged Mr. Tarter's legal education, insulted his alma matter, referred to him as a habitual liar, and unethical. Mrs. Bendt accused Mr. Tarter of violating his attorney ethical obligations, and wrote that he could be disciplined by the Arizona State Bar and investigated by the Attorney General ("AG"). After an eight-day trial, the jury awarded the Tarters $150,000 for reputational harm, $350,000 for emotional harm, and $1 million for punitive damages. The superior court awarded a further $20,120.42 in taxable costs."
