$3.5M Damages in Defamation Case Related to Property Dispute

From the decision by Warren County (Ohio) Judge Robert Peeler in Goebel v. Hopkins; it was handed down Dec. 16 but the motion for a new trial was just denied yesterday:

Plaintiffs were the owners of two property lots …. Plaintiffs built a residence on one lot and, in 2007, sold the second lot to a developer (the "Lot"), who subsequently sold the Lot to Defendant. The Lot was allegedly conveyed subject to certain permanent restrictive covenants running with the land, including that no improvement could be constructed on the lot without Plaintiffs' approval.

In May 2020, Defendant began the process of building a detached garage on the Lot without first obtaining approval from Plaintiffs. Based upon this conduct, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant on May 25, 2020 (the "2020 Lawsuit") raising causes of action in an amended complaint for violations of the restrictive covenants, nuisance, defamation, assault, trespass, and tortious interference. Defendant counterclaimed in the 2020 Lawsuit for defamation, assault/menacing, trespass, and tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs subsequently filed for a civil stalking protection order against Defendant on October 6, 2020 (the "CPO Lawsuit").

Both the 2020 Lawsuit and CPO Lawsuit were settled in January 2021, with a final settlement agreement executed on March 19, 2021. Plaintiffs moved to enforce the Settlement Agreement in the 2020 Lawsuit on August 2, 2021 and, the next day, filed another lawsuit ("2021 Lawsuit"). Within the 2021 Lawsuit, Plaintiffs raised causes of action for (1) declaratory judgment; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (3) defamation; (4) breach of the Settlement Agreement; (5) nuisance; and (6) abuse of process. Id. Defendant counterclaimed for (A) abuse of process; (B) malicious prosecution; (C) fraud; (D) defamation; (E) civil conspiracy; (F) injury by criminal conduct; and (G) breach of contract.

On March 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit—their fourth against Defendant (the "2023 Lawsuit"). In this suit, Plaintiffs raised identical IIED and defamation causes of action as were raised in the 2021 Lawsuit. Thus, on August 19, 2025, Plaintiffs dismissed their [IIED] and defamation claims in the 2021 Lawsuit to proceed on those matters solely in this 2023 Lawsuit. This matter proceeded to a five-day jury trial on October 6, 2025. At trial, Plaintiffs argued Defendant published defamatory statements about them on a website titled "freepurplelambo.com," on a Facebook account under the name of Defendant's son, and in an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer. Plaintiffs claimed Defendant's statements painted Plaintiffs as criminal extortionists.

At the close of evidence at trial, the Court founds (1) Plaintiffs are private figures; (2) the controversy between the parties is a matter of public concern; (3) the allegations involve defamation per se; (4) no absolute or qualified privilege applies to the statements at issue in this case; and (5) the statements made by the Defendant on the freepurplelambo.com website and republished on Facebook are statements of fact and not opinion. However, pursuant to … American Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc. (Ohio 2012), the statements made by Defendant in the Cincinnati Enquirer article are not defamatory, as the article contained a "balanced report of both parties' arguments and defenses." Furthermore, the statements in the article were statements of opinion and not of fact. Accordingly, the Court directed a verdict on the statements made in the Cincinnati Enquirer article in favor of Defendant and that issue was not submitted to the jury.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on their causes of action for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $1,500,000 [capped under Ohio law at $1M], punitive damages in the amount of $2,500,000, and reasonable attorney fees. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs' cause of action for loss of consortium…. [T]he Court [also] finds Plaintiffs are entitled to … attorney fees and costs totaling $148,454.43.

And a few more details about the factual allegations from Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (again, recall that these are just allegations):

Defendant has defamed Plaintiffs including by making false and malicious claims that they have engaged in criminal conduct against Defendant; violated Ohio law regarding Defendant; illegally rigged a deed intentionally to defraud Defendant; engaged in fraudulent conduct to harm Defendant; forced Defendant out of his home; illegally violated Heritage Club covenants or rules to harm Defendant; illegally conspired to frame Defendant of criminal conduct; defamed Defendant by claiming he was a "drug dealer"; tried to extort Defendant contrary to Ohio law; illegally conspired with Mason police, prosecutors, staff and/or other public officials to extort and/or to prosecute Defendant, get him arrested or incarcerated and/or to cause his house to be raided by law enforcement; were informants of false information to the police and/or the Warren County Drug Task Force against Defendant; conspired with Warren County Judges and/or Magistrates, or other public officials including their counsel, to frame, sue and/or falsely prosecute or to continue or pursue proceedings against Defendant.

Todd V. McMurtry, Robert H. Lyons, and Patrick N. Grote represent plaintiffs.