Court Upholds $2.1M Libel Verdict Against Ex-Wife Who Accused Husband (a Minister) of Being a Pedophile

From today's decision by the Texas Court of Appeals (First District) in Zoanni v. Hogan, written by Justice Veronica Rivas-Molloy and joined by Chief Justice Terry Adams and Justice Julie Countiss; the opinion is 81 pages long, so I excerpt just the quick summary of the facts and the verdict:

Appellee Lemuel David Hogan is an executive pastor at the Spring First Church in Spring, Texas ("Church"). He and Appellant Stephanie Montagne Zoanni met at the Church and they married in January 2004. In 2011, they divorced…. This appeal stems from the parties' post-divorce suit to modify custody of their daughter.

In March 2014, Hogan filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship. As part of his petition, Hogan asserted claims against Zoanni for defamation, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hogan also requested injunctive relief in the form of a permanent injunction enjoining Zoanni from communicating with third parties about him. He alleged that beginning in July 2013, Zoanni started making false statements about him, claiming he is "a child molester, [a] pervert, [and a] pedophile."

He alleged that Zoanni falsely represented to third parties, including Child Protective Services ("CPS") and law enforcement officers, that he was "abusing" their daughter Mary, and that he "is a child molester, involved with child pornography, and otherwise is of poor character and mistreats women and children." Hogan alleged that Zoanni made these and other similar statements online, to CPS, and in written communications to Hogan's church leadership….

The case proceeded to trial on Hogan's defamation claim based on thirteen alleged defamatory statements. The jury found that all thirteen statements were false when made by Zoanni. The jury found that six of the statements were defamatory, and for the rest, it found that Zoanni knew or should have known, in the exercise of ordinary care, that the statements were false and had the potential to be defamatory.

The thirteen statements were separated and presented to the jury in two separate parts in the damages portion of the jury charge. Question 10 Part A listed eight statements and Question 10 Part B listed the remaining five statements. The jury awarded Hogan $900,000 in compensatory damages for the statements in Question 10 Part A consisting of (1) $600,000 for past and future damage to his reputation, and (2) $300,000 for past and future mental anguish. And it awarded Hogan $1,200,000 in compensatory damages for the statements in Question 10 Part B consisting of (1) $850,000 for past and future damage to his reputation, and (2) $350,000 for past and future mental anguish. The jury also found that the statements were made with malice but awarded no exemplary damages.

The trial court rendered judgment based on the jury's verdict awarding Hogan $2,100,000 in compensatory damages….