Campbell v. Campbell

234 N.E.3d 254

Mark CAMPBELL, Appellant-Plaintiff/Counter Defendant

v.Andrew CAMPBELL and Campbell Research & Consulting, LLC, Appellees-Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs

Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-CT-2178

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed May 8, 2024

Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court, The Honorable Robert W. Freese, Judge, Trial Court Cause No. 32D01-2301-CT-25

Attorney for Appellant: Guy S. DiMartino, Guy S. DiMartino, PC, Michigan City, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellees: William O. Harrington, Bradley L. Riley, Harrington Law, P.C., Danville, Indiana

Vaidik, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Mark Campbell sued his son, Andrew Campbell, for defamation and false light invasion of privacy after Andrew alleged in a book and on social media that Mark committed domestic violence against Andrew’s mother decades earlier when he was growing up. Andrew moved to dismiss Mark’s complaint under Indiana’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. Under this statute, defendants may invoke the anti-SLAPP defense when faced with a civil action for acts or omissions in furtherance of their right of petition or free speech under the federal and state constitutions "in connection with a public issue." The trial court dismissed Mark’s complaint, and he now appeals.

[2] While domestic violence is of general public interest, that does not make every allegation of domestic violence a newsworthy event, particularly when, as here, the allegations concern private conduct by private individuals and attract no public interest on their own. Because Andrew has failed to prove that his statements were made in connection with a public issue, the anti-SLAPP defense does not apply. The trial court erred in dismissing Mark’s complaint. We therefore reverse and remand. Facts and Procedural History

[3] Mark was married to Andrew’s mother, Patsy, from 1983 until 2004. Andrew was born in 1984. Andrew was nineteen years old when Mark filed for divorce and twenty when the divorce was finalized. After the divorce, there were periods of estrangement between Mark and Andrew. In 2012, Andrew, who was in his late twenties, sent a handwritten letter to Mark in which he explained that he felt abandoned by Mark’s separation from Patsy and that Mark had chosen his parents over him. See Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 31. Andrew wrote, "When you left our home I lost not only the presence of my father but the feeling of safety and security which only a father can provide" and "I have often wondered if things would have been different had you not moved back in with your parents but stayed closer to us." Id. at 31-32. Andrew also emailed Mark, reiterating that he felt "abandoned" when Mark moved in with his parents and explaining that the intent of his communications was not to "hurt" Mark but to be "honest" with him. Id. at 30.

[4] After obtaining bachelor’s and master’s degrees, Andrew sought to build a career in domestic-violence research. In 2018, he founded Campbell Research and Consulting. Soon after, IndyStar published an article about domestic violence that featured Andrew. The article explained that Andrew witnessed an incident in 2013 that "change[d] the course of his life and his work." Id. at 37. According to the article, "A woman, bruised and bleeding, was on her back on the ground. A man stood over her threatening further abuse." Id. Andrew called 911 and stayed with the woman until police arrived.

[5] In 2021, Mark became aware that Andrew had begun describing himself "as a survivor of family violence and [Mark] as the perpetrator of that family violence" in a book he had written and on social media. Id. at 27. In September 2021, Andrew published a book titled Not Without My Pet: Understanding the Relationship Between Victims of Domestic Violence and Their Pets (Freiling Publishing, 1st paperback ed.). The preface to the book is called "My Own Victimization and the Origins of my Passion for this Work" and provides, in part:

I have decided to share a brief history of my own experiences in this area to help the reader understand the origins of my passion for this work.

I remember, at the age of fourteen, waking up to my mother distraught and crying on the floor in the doorway of my bedroom. I would not wish seeing someone you love harmed, as deeply as she had been for so long, on anyone. My father stood over me as I started out of bed and simply said, "Take care of your sister, I’m leaving." He forcefully stepped over my mom and walked out the door. He had pulled this stunt several times before, most likely intended to further assert control.

* * * *

I slept little for the next ten years. It was common for me to be continuously checking doors and windows throughout my house in the middle of the night and early morning hours, I knew not what my dad was capable of, and feared harm would come if I fell asleep.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 79-80, 81. Andrew also made the following posts on social media (Twitter and LinkedIn):

"In youth I feared every night that my dad would break into my home to kill my mom …. "

"I didn’t want ‘no contact’ with my dad, not because it was what was best for me, but because the ‘system’ failed us and it was my only way to keep ‘tabs’ and ascertain current risk level for harm to my mom at his hands."

"Many nights from ages 14 to 23 I would be sitting outside until 3 in the morning afraid this might be the night my father would ‘snap’ & come for my Mom. [My dog] sat out there with me every single time, licking the tears from my eyes." "I told my mom at 14, please don’t let my dad back in this house. I wanted separation from the obvious harm. Court order was used to ensure we had to keep seeing him anyway. Now that contact has FINALLY stopped I get the chance to start to heal at 38 that I should have gotten at 14."

Appellant’s App. Vol. III pp. 41, 43, 44. Andrew also gave presentations during which he made similar allegations. Id. at 27.

[6] In January 2023, Mark filed a complaint against Andrew and Campbell Research and Consulting (collectively, "Andrew") for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Andrew counterclaimed for abuse of process. Andrew later moved to dismiss Mark’s complaint under Indiana’s anti-SLAPP statute, Indiana Code chapter 34-7-7. The parties then conducted discovery for purposes of Andrew’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss.

[7] In support of his motion to dismiss, Andrew designated the complaint and answer, his book, and his affidavit. According to Andrew’s affidavit:

6. Throughout periods of my childhood, I observed and became aware of acts of domestic violence by Mark against my mother.

7. Throughout periods of my childhood and adulthood, I have suffered substantive emotional distress and trauma as a result of Mark’s acts of domestic violence against my mother ….

Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 66-67.

[8] Mark opposed the motion to dismiss and designated his affidavit, portions of Andrew’s deposition, Andrew’s letter and email, the IndyStar article, Andrew's social-media posts, and Andrew’s book. In his affidavit, Mark averred that although there was "disagreement, argument, and conflict" toward the end of his marriage to Patsy, he was "never physically, sexually, emotionally, or verbally abusive toward Patsy or [his children] at any time, before, during, or after [his] divorce from Patsy." Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 26. Mark also averred that, contrary to one of Andrew’s social-media posts, "[n]o court order was ever requested or entered requiring my children to spend time with me" (as Andrew was an adult when Mark filed for divorce). Id. As for the incident Andrew described in the preface to his book, Mark claimed that it "never happened":

There was never an incident where Patsy was screaming and crying on the floor of Andrew’s room and I did not ever step over her in such a state, violently or otherwise.

Id. at 28.

[9] In the designated portions of Andrew’s deposition, Andrew acknowledged that Mark had never physically abused his mother. Rather, he claimed that Marx did so "emotionally and psychologically." id. at 76; see also id. at 142 (reiterating that he has no memory of Mark threatening to harm his mother). When asked about the incident he described in the preface to his book, Andrew explained his memory as follows:

Again, this is based on my memory of what I remember of where it starts was my dad standing over me saying -- the message was take care of your sister. I believe that was the exact words, take care of your younger sister. Take care of your sister. My mom was crying. She was laying on the floor in my bedroom there in front of the door. My dad walked over to her, and I described it as a violent step over because if she had raised up, he would have tracked right through her. Again, I’m not saying that was his intent, but it certainly would have happened.

Id. at 77. Andrew stated that before this incident, he recalled Mark being "mean" to his mother:

Prior to that I had already witnessed in terms of hearing his abuse of her at night. That had been for quite some period of time. I remember thinking of it as bullying, being mean.

Id. at 80. When Andrew was asked if he could recall any specific statements that Mark had made to his mother, he could not. Id. at 83.

[10] The trial court granted Andrew’s motion to dismiss Mark’s complaint, and Mark now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[1] [11] Mark appeals the trial court’s grant of Andrew’s motion to dismiss his complaint under Indiana’s anti-SLAPP statute. Our review of such a dismissal is de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court and considering only the evidence designated in the trial court. 401 Pub. Safety & Lifeline Data Ctrs., LLC v. Ray, 80 N.E.3d 895, 899 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9(c).

[12] "Public participation is fundamental to self-government, and thus protected by the Indiana and United States Constitutions." Gresk far Est. of VanWinkle v. Demetris, 96 N.E.3d 564, 566 (...