Opinion ID: 1852099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: False-Light Claim

Text: Regarding the elements of a false-light claim, this Court has held: `One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if `(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and `(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.' Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So.2d at 12 (quoting Schifano v. Greene County Greyhound Park, Inc., 624 So.2d 178, 180 (Ala.1993), quoting in turn Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977)). A false-light claim does not require that the information made public be private, but it does require that the information ... be false.  871 So.2d at 12. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E, cmt. a. (1977). Thus, falsity is the sine qua non of a false-light claim. Moreover, unlike defamation, truth is not an affirmative defense to a false-light claim; rather, falsity is an element of the plaintiff's claim, on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Ray, Let There be False Light, 84 Minn. L.Rev. at 736 (false light plaintiffs therefore bear [a] heavier burden [than defamation plaintiffs] because they must make an affirmative showing of falsity rather than leaving it to defendants to justify the offensive statement). Regions argues here, as it did in the trial court, that it did not give publicity to any false information regarding the Plotts. More specifically, Regions contends that it did nothing but return the forged checks to the presenting banks, stamped (1) refer to maker, (2) account not found, (3) account closed, or (4) insufficient funds. Regions insists that the checks returned (1) refer to maker, (2) account not found, and (3) account closed simply did not contain any false information. Regions' brief, at 44. We agree.
The stamp refer to maker is not a statement in any conventional sense. Statement is ordinarily understood as an allegation, or a declaration of matters of fact.  Black's Law Dictionary 1408 (6th ed.1990) (emphasis added). In some contexts, a statement may be (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.  Ala. R. Evid. 801(a) (emphasis added). Refer to maker on the face of an instrument does not purport to assert any fact or contain any information. Therefore, it is insusceptible of truth or falsity.
The stamp account not found on the returned forged checks was a true statement. Regions used that stamp only on those of the Plotts' checks on which the account number had been altered by the thieves. [2] Consequently, the account numbers on those returned checks did not, in fact, match the number of the frozen account or any other account at Regions.
Similarly, the stamp account closed was a true statement. Regions closed the Plotts' account on November 16, 1998. By that date, all the bona fide checks had been presented for payment. The forged checks stamped account closed were returned after the Plotts' account had, in fact, been closed. Thus, as to the stamps (1) refer to maker, (2) account not found, and (3) account closed on the forged checks returned to the presenting banks, the Plotts failed to demonstrate the element of falsity necessary to support a false-light claim.
It is undisputed that only two of the forged checks were returned to the presenting bank stamped insufficient funds. Those checks were the first two checks returned after the account was frozen on November 5, 1998, and were returned on that date. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this stamp provided false information regarding the Plotts' account to two presenting banks and two merchants, the giving publicity element of the false-light claim is not satisfied. In the context of a false-light claim, giving publicity is making a `matter ... public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge. ' Ex parte Birmingham News, Inc., 778 So.2d 814, 818 (Ala.2000) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, cmt. a (1977) (emphasis added)). Publicity is a concept more difficult to prove than [mere] publication, which is an element of a defamation claim. Gary v. Crouch, 867 So.2d 310, 318 n. 6 (Ala.2003). The publicity element is not satisfied by the `communicat[ion of] a fact ... to a single person or even to a small group of persons.' Birmingham News, 778 So.2d at 818 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, cmt. a (1977) (emphasis added in Birmingham News; some emphasis omitted)). We hold that the return by a payor bank of one check stamped insufficient funds to two presenting banks and two merchants does not giv[e] publicity to a matter concerning another within the meaning of the publicity element of a false-light claim. To be sure, the Plotts argue: [E]very time Regions Bank returned one of the forged checks stamped [with one of the four stamps discussed above], they were placing the plaintiffs in the false light of being bad check writers who were writing checks with insufficient funds or on closed accounts, neither of which was true. They were placed in the false light of committing criminal offenses of writing bad checks pursuant to Alabama's Bad Check Act. Plotts' brief, at 33. In their complaint, the Plotts aver that Regions failed to report to the entities who submitted checks on [their] previous account and which were returned... that the checks were not written by the [Plotts], and that Regions failed to take the necessary steps and procedures to correct the credit record. Regions, however, correctly points out that the Plotts have offered no evidence that the return of the checks was wrongful or that Regions did anything contrary to the provisions of Alabama's Uniform Commercial Code  Bank Deposits and Collections, Ala.Code § 7-4-101, et seq. (1975), Federal Reserve regulations, operating circulars, clearing house rules, [or] circulars, Regions' brief, at 28, or that it performed any operation that it was not legally entitled to perform. Indeed, the Plotts fail to cite us to a source for the duty it alleges Regions had to report to the entities who submitted checks on [their frozen] account that the checks had not been written by the Plotts. The account was frozen at the instigation of the Plotts. It is undisputed that the Plotts never intended to honor, or for Regions to pay, any of the forged checks. The Plotts knew that the checks would be returned to the presenting banks and merchants. They authorized Regions to return the checks, and, for all that appears in the record, never suggested to Regions how to stamp the checks, or what, in particular, it should do to correct the [Plotts'] credit record. The Plotts also criticize Regions for failing to give Mrs. Plott an affidavit of forgery, after she begged for one. However, they do not explain how an affidavit supplied by Regions would have produced a result different from the affidavit they procured from another source and subsequently sent to every holder of a forged check. In short, the Plotts have failed to produce substantial evidence in support of their false-light claim against Regions. The trial court erred, therefore, in refusing to enter a JML in favor of Regions on that claim.