His purchase of the property and attempts to redevelop it generated substantial public interest and controversy. Hoyt placed himself at the forefront of that controversy, and the statements made by Spangenberg related to that controversy. All three elements exist and the district court did not err. As a public figure, Hoyt can recover only if he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Spangenberg made defamatory statements with actual malice. Elstrom v. Independent Sch.
Reckless disregard means the declarant had seriously doubted the truth of the statement.
Id. Errors in judgment and failure to investigate do not constitute actual malice. We find no evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Spangenberg knew his statements were false or that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Hoyt failed to establish the existence of any genuine issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. Next, Hoyt argues that chapter 554 is unconstitutional because it violates his procedural due process rights, his equal protection rights, and his right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the United States and Minnesota Constitution. However, these issues are not properly before this court.