Court Opinion

ID: 9409791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 15:05:21.571345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.446968
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

                  CODY CIOFFI and CYNTHIA CIOFFI,
                            Appellants,

                                      v.

                          MICHAEL MIKOWITZ,
                               Appellee.

                              No. 4D22-2735

                              [July 19, 2023]

   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
Indian River County; Janet Carney Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No.
312020CA000764.

  Alan D. Sackrin of Sackrin & Tolchinsky, P.A., Hallandale Beach, for
appellants.

   Geoffrey Pfeiffer of the Lopez Law Group, Saint Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

    We affirm the final summary judgment on appellants’ complaint for
defamation for a report appellee made regarding appellants to the sheriff’s
office. Although the trial court appears to have considered appellee’s
report to the sheriff’s office of allegedly suspicious behavior on the part of
appellants to be absolutely privileged, appellee has only a qualified
privilege against any defamation he may have made in the report. See
Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65, 69 (Fla. 1992). To overcome the
qualified report privilege, a defamation plaintiff must show that the
statements are false and made with express malice, i.e., “that the
defendant’s primary motive in making the statements was the intent to
injure the reputation of the plaintiff.” Id. We have examined the summary
judgment evidence and conclude that none of the evidence submitted
shows that appellee’s “primary motive” was to injure the reputation of
appellants. “[I]ncidental gratification of personal feelings of indignation is
not sufficient to defeat the privilege where the primary motivation is within
the scope of the privilege.” Pomfret v. Atkinson, 137 So. 3d. 1161, 1164
(Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So. 2d 803, 812 (Fla.
1984)). The hostility between these neighbors is insufficient to show
express malice. See Nodar, 462 So. 2d at 811–12.

  Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

                         *        *          *

  Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                 2