By Kelly Caplan
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT—Dismissal as a sanction for failure to pay a security bond was unwarranted, a Michigan Court of Appeals panel has ruled in a revenge porn case.
In Martin v. Smith, defendant Harry John Smith sent intimate photographs and videos of plaintiff Zachary Michael Martin to Martin’s family friends as a form of retaliation after their relationship soured, the court said.
Martin got a personal protection order, or PPO, against Smith and later filed suit to recover damages for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil stalking under MCL 600.2954, and sought injunctive relief. He ultimately filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
The Wayne County Circuit Court ruled that genuine issues of material fact existed for trial and denied the motion, ordering Martin to post a $25,000 security bond. When Martin failed to timely post the bond, the court dismissed the action.
Martin said the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his claim as a sanction.
A Court of Appeals panel agreed, saying that, under MCR 2.109(A), security “should not be required” unless a substantial reason exists — for example, a tenuous legal theory of liability, or where there’s good reason to believe a party’s allegations are “groundless and unwarranted.”
And that, the panel pointed out, was not the case here.
“When the trial court entered the order requiring Martin to post a security bond of $25,000, the court did not make any findings of fact as to whether Martin was pursuing a tenuous legal theory of liability or whether Martin’s allegations were groundless and unwarranted,” the panel said. “Rather, the trial court only noted that ‘[t]his is a PPO matter.’ In doing so, the trial court incorrectly characterized Martin’s claims.”
The panel noted that Martin was not merely looking to enforce the terms of the existing PPO against Smith; rather, he sought to recover damages from Smith for invasion of privacy for publicly disclosing private material, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil stalking — and he presented evidence to support those claims.
While questions of fact remain, the panel said the trial court had no substantial reason to order Martin to post the $25,000 security bond.
“Because the trial court abused its discretion when it entered the order requiring Martin to post a security bond, it necessarily follows that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Martin’s claims for his failure to do so,” the panel concluded.
Judges Anica Letica, Michael J. Riordan, and Thomas C. Cameron sat on the panel that issued the unpublished per curiam opinion.
The case will now go back to Wayne County.
Kyle Bristow of Bristow Law PLLC in Mount Clemens and Derek Jacques of The Mitten Law Firm PLC in Southgate represented the plaintiff in the appellate case and will continue to represent him in the trial court.
Bristow said the decision was a “crushing and decisive victory” for revenge pornography victims.
“Stalkers who harass former lovers by disseminating their victims’ sext messages are better off playing Russian Roulette now that the Michigan Court of Appeals has addressed the issue of liability that can be imposed for such tort claims,” he said.
The appellate judges “succinctly articulated how tort claims for common law invasion of privacy, common law intentional infliction of emotional distress and statutory civil stalking can be brought against people who engage in revenge pornography so as to harass their former lovers,” Bristow added. “The detailed appellate decision sets forth a clear litigation roadmap for bringing purveyors of revenge pornography to justice.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
