Court Opinion

ID: 9535471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:49:55.781892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:15.844376
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I am of the opinion that there should be no cause of action against one who publicizes a debt in the hope that publicity or the fear of publicity will secure collection. If the debt is not owed, the traditional remedy of defamation is available to the defamed. Hinkle v. Alexander, 244 Or 267, 411 P2d 829, 417 P2d 586 (1966).
I concur in the decision, however, because the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants publicized the debt for the purpose of “harrassing, vexing and annoying the plaintiffs.” Under this allegation the plaintiffs could prove a purpose other than or in addition to securing collection of the debt.
Perry, C. J., and McAllister, J., join in this concurring opinion.