Opinion ID: 1229818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Per se Libel.

Text: Harold's petition alleged eleven statements contained in Lyle's letters of September 19, October 22, and October 29, 1988, were defamatory. In response to Harold's motion for adjudication of law points, the court determined that eight of the statements were libelous per se. The court instructed the jury that portions of the letters were libel per se: Letter of September 19, 1988 Harold Spencer has a long history of hard work and many fine accomplishments. Unfortunately, this history is paved with greed, abuse & deceit. Letter of October 22, 1988 You know that the above first two demands in Harold's latest petition are lies. You know Harold cheated me as his hired man, cheated his landlady, skipped out on the sheriff, & efforts to stricken his brothers from the land. Letter of October 29, 1988 Harold not only objected to me not paying cash rent, but also objected to me not storing beans at the farm and charging the trust for chemical application: both of which were lies. I have yet to see any retraction concerning these lies. Remember who we're dealing with, a man who tries to steal from his brother, a man who did steal from his landlady, hides from the sheriff, tries to stricken his brothers from their birth place forever; the list is endless. I never did plan to ask the trust for any re-payments until Harold started his last round of attacks on my farming operation; untruthful attacks. For the sake of argument, let's say he stands behind his withdrawal of cash rent, what about the lies filed in court against me? My first order of business will be to file a petition against Harold for damages when he filed false court documents against my farming operation and for causing unrest in the family trust. Libel in Iowa includes malicious publications, expressed in writing, tending to injure the reputation of another. Vinson, 360 N.W.2d at 115. Libel per se means the statements are actionable in and of themselves without proof of malice, falsity or damage. Id. Words are libelous per se if they are of such a nature, whether true or not, that the court can presume as a matter of law that their publication will have libelous effect. Id. at 116. It is libel per se to make published statements accusing a person of being a liar, a cheater, or thief. W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 111. Lyle's accusations are libelous as a matter of law and the district court did not err in its ruling upon the motion for adjudication of law points or in its instruction to the jury. The court instructed the jury as to other alleged libelous statements which did not rise to the level of libel per se. The instructions to the jury defined libel and explained the affirmative defenses of truth and of the qualified privilege claim made by Lyle. In answer to interrogatories the jury found Harold did not prove that Lyle abused his qualified privilege as to the September 19 letter but that Lyle had abused his qualified privilege as to the October 22, and October 29 letters. The jury also found Lyle had not proven his affirmative defense of truth.