November 28, 2014 at 4:15 p.m.
Libel suit against O.C. supervisor dismissed
Libel suit against O.C. supervisor dismissed
On Tuesday, Oneida County Circuit Judge Michael Bloom granted a request by the supervisor, Bob Mott, to dismiss the case.
James Kroeger, the plaintiff, filed the suit in March claiming Mott wrote a defamatory email.
Some background:
The lawsuit was tied to a long-running dispute between Kroeger and his neighbors over his woodcutting business. Neighbors have complained since at least 2010 of chainsaw noise and vehicle traffic on Kroeger's property, near Pelican Lake, according to public records.
In 2011, the county's planning and zoning department issued a conditional use permit to Kroeger limiting the hours he could continuously operate woodcutting equipment.
Nearly a year later, in July 2012, Mott sent an email to county officials and a concerned citizen claiming Kroeger was not following the conditions of the permit, and that he had been cutting wood on weekends and holidays for private use. The email also claimed that Kroeger was "violating the spirit of the CUP in that he is cutting and disturbing the neighborhood."
Kroeger has said his business has not violated any rules and that noise levels have not been excessive.
In the lawsuit, Kroeger claimed portions of Mott's email were false and that his actions were actually legal. (A county appeals panel upheld Kroeger's conditional use permit, but the panel noted the permit was not actually required for a part-time woodcutting business.)
Kroeger alleged he "suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification and injury to his feelings" as a result of the email, and sought unspecified damages and court costs.
The court, however, disagreed. In throwing out the case, Bloom ruled that Kroeger is a limited-purpose public figure, meaning he voluntarily thrust himself into the woodcutting controversy underlying the lawsuit. Consequently, Bloom found, Kroeger could have recovered damages only if he could show Mott knew the allegedly defamatory email was false or acted with reckless disregard as to the veracity of the email.
But that could not happen, Bloom said.
"There is nothing to indicate that (Mott) had any basis to disbelieve everything that he said," Bloom said
While Bloom could have technically found all of the relevant portions of Mott's email were substantially true, he said he was uncomfortable doing so. That's because of apparent disagreement over whether the conditional use permit restricts woodcutting for all purposes or just for business purposes. The permit does not specify such a distinction, and Bloom pointed to the permit as a source of "substantial ambiguity."
"The legal ambiguity of the conditional use permit language puts both parties in a difficult position," Bloom said. "It puts the court in a somewhat difficult position."
As such, the terms of the conditional use permit could be reasonably interpreted either way, Bloom found. He cited a transcript from a public hearing several years ago in which Oneida County Zoning Director Karl Jennrich interpreted the permit as restricting woodcutting for all purposes. Mott's email was consistent with that interpretation and the language of the conditional use permit, according to Bloom.
Bloom also found that a portion of the email claiming Kroeger sought to aggravate his neighbors was substantially true. That portion states: "Mr. Kr[o]eger could have been a good neighbor and cut his personal wood at the times in the CUP and avoided further aggravating his neighbors. He chose to aggravate."
The credibility of that statement was bolstered by a voice mail which indicated woodcutting was occurring during early morning hours. Kroeger might have believed what he was doing was technically legal, Bloom said, but even so, such action would undoubtedly cause friction.
"How can it be said that making the decision to engage in woodcutting activity outside the hours indicated on the conditional use permit would not aggravate his neighbors?" Bloom asked. "Frankly, if someone were to suggest that someone in those circumstances was that dense and obtuse to not recognize that, that would be defamatory."
He continued: "I cannot accept the fact that (Kroeger) would not have realized that engaging in woodcutting activities outside the hours of the conditional use permit would not aggravate his neighbors. I cannot accept that assertion."
In an interview after the hearing, Mott said he was happy with the ruling.
Kroeger did not respond to a request for comment.
Mott was represented by an attorney paid through Oneida County's liability insurer, and Kroeger also had a lawyer.
The lawsuit against Mott is one of multiple legal actions Kroeger has filed. In 2012, he and his wife sued several neighbors for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bloom dismissed nearly all of the defendants in that case late last month.
Jonathan Anderson may be reached at [email protected]
Comments:
You must login to comment.