• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Falsely Accused of Stealing & False Statements

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

frankday

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? WI. I am a property manager of a apt. complex.Tenants lease was not renewed ,We had problems of unsanitary factors in there apt. we made several contacts with them about cleaning it up.We did previous give them a 5 Day Eviction Notice.
The owners now received a complaint from Consumer Protection ,stating I stole $700.00 a month from them ,also they said $700.00 also was stolen from there car. I should be fired ,the owner was not coperative. There Apt. was so FILTHY Health Hazzord to other tenants,There;s No way I could even enter the unit so How can they get away with accusing me of stealing and lieing on the form he made out. ??????
They lied more then once on the report ,They answered NO to if they ever recieved a eviction notice,and the owner sent the copy back with the reply form to to the Consumer Protection.
I could go on of issue's we had with them.
I cannot stand the thought of being accused /
I am very upset and cannot concentarte like normal because of there LING AKUSATIONS>
WHat can I doWhat is the name of your state?
I need some leagal advice how I will not tolerate there falseness.
Thank you
 


jdmba

Member
If you really wanted to push the envelope, you could sue for defamation. If you won, however, the judgment would probably not be for much, and collecting may be difficult. An attorney in your area can give you a better idea of your chances for success.

Here's some basic info on defamation...

In Wisconsin, a statement is defamatory if it "tends to harm one's reputation so as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him or her." Stoll v. Adriansen, 122 Wis. 2d 503, 517, 362 N.W.2d 182 (Ct. App. 1984).

There are three elements to a defamation claim: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) made in an unprivileged publication or broadcast to a third party; and (3) with fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the speaker. Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel Inc., 210 Wis. 2d 524, 534, 563 N.W.2d 472 (1997).

In some jurisdictions, falsely accusing somebody of criminal behavior is considered defamation per se (which basically means you don't need to prove that your reputation was harmed...it is assumed), although I don't know if Wisconsin has such a rule (it probably does, but I won't say for sure without seeing a source).

Whatever you decide to do (sue, or just blow it off), good luck. Being falsely accused of committing a crime is not fun, especially when such allegations are made to your boss.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? WI. I am a property manager of a apt. complex.Tenants lease was not renewed ,We had problems of unsanitary factors in there apt. we made several contacts with them about cleaning it up.We did previous give them a 5 Day Eviction Notice.
The owners now received a complaint from Consumer Protection ,stating I stole $700.00 a month from them ,also they said $700.00 also was stolen from there car. I should be fired ,the owner was not coperative. There Apt. was so FILTHY Health Hazzord to other tenants,There;s No way I could even enter the unit so How can they get away with accusing me of stealing and lieing on the form he made out. ??????
They lied more then once on the report ,They answered NO to if they ever recieved a eviction notice,and the owner sent the copy back with the reply form to to the Consumer Protection.
I could go on of issue's we had with them.
I cannot stand the thought of being accused /
I am very upset and cannot concentarte like normal because of there LING AKUSATIONS>
WHat can I doWhat is the name of your state?
I need some leagal advice how I will not tolerate there falseness.
Thank you
Please list here your damages
 

jdmba

Member
Damages are generally not required in cases of defamation per se. Damages are assumed. A quick Google search has confirmed that Wisconsin is a defamation per se state.
 

Rexlan

Senior Member
Damages are generally not required in cases of defamation per se. Damages are assumed. A quick Google search has confirmed that Wisconsin is a defamation per se state.
Almost every state recognizes this, surprise. Per Se only assumes damages are proved; however, there still will need to be damages of some sort such as the parties trade or business to obtain an award. This one can barely write and use a complete sustenance so it is not likely to go far there.

Obviously OP is "distressed" but this may be normal and probably won’t fly ... who knows.

So, do you know why BB ask the question yet? :D
 

jdmba

Member
Almost every state recognizes this, surprise. Per Se only assumes damages are proved; however, there still will need to be damages of some sort such as the parties trade or business to obtain an award. This one can barely write and use a complete sustenance so it is not likely to go far there.

Obviously OP is "distressed" but this may be normal and probably won’t fly ... who knows.

So, do you know why BB ask the question yet? :D
I see where you guys are going, but I'm not sure I agree with you. You may find this case interesting: Freer v. M&I Marshall & Ilsley Corporation (http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2004/03-3175.htm)

In Freer, there is a noticeable (deliberate?) lack of discussion by the majority about the issue that you brought up. The case was not dismissed for that reason, although it would have been a quick death for the suit if you are correct. It is mentioned in the dissent, however, as a reason to dismiss the suit, so I doubt that the court just forgot about it.

From the dissent: ...I question the legal merit of this particular lawsuit, though not for the reason contained in the majority decision. As the majority points out, the record before us indicates that Freer, through an attorney, hired the person to whom the allegedly defamatory statements were made. Defamation per se is an exception to the general rule that a party alleging defamation must also allege special damages. The justification for defamation per se is that some false statements are so likely to cause pecuniary loss that "`proof of the defamation itself is sufficient to establish the existence of some damages so that the jury may, without other evidence, estimate the amount of damages.'" Bauer v. Murphy, 191Wis. 2d 517, 525-26, 530 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1995) (quoting Starobin v. Northridge Lakes Dev. Co., 94 Wis. 2d 1, 13, 287 N.W.2d 747 (1980)). That being the justification, it seems odd to permit a defamation per se claim in a case where it appears undisputed that the statements neither caused, nor could cause, pecuniary loss.

In Wisconsin, I'm not so sure that damages are required in per se defamation cases. Maybe the OP can sue and the issue will be bluntly settled. :)
 
Last edited:

jdmba

Member
As a side note, the OP does mention that "I am very upset and cannot concentarte like normal."

As you suggested, who knows what that means (we'd all be guessing). But if he truly has mental anguish, that should be injury enough for a defamation suit.
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
As a side note, the OP does mention that "I am very upset and cannot concentarte like normal."

As you suggested, who knows what that means (we'd all be guessing). But if he truly has mental anguish, that should be injury enough for a defamation suit.
I didn't pull the case you cited, but in the prior "no damage per se" cases I've come across, the usual response is merely an award of nominal damages. I imagine that nominal is not what the OP is looking for here.
 

jdmba

Member
I didn't pull the case you cited, but in the prior "no damage per se" cases I've come across, the usual response is merely an award of nominal damages. I imagine that nominal is not what the OP is looking for here.
I agree with you 100% (and stated as such in my first post in the thread: "If you won, however, the judgment would probably not be for much....").

Don't bother looking at the case I cited to see the size of the judgment...the plaintiff lost, though not for the reason Rexlan suggested. I merely pointed to the case because the plaintiff apparently did not need to show any damages (to the irritation of the dissenting judge).
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
I agree with you 100% (and stated as such in my first post in the thread: "If you won, however, the judgment would probably not be for much....").

Don't bother looking at the case I cited to see the size of the judgment...the plaintiff lost, though not for the reason Rexlan suggested. I merely pointed to the case because the plaintiff apparently did not need to show any damages (to the irritation of the dissenting judge).
One major reason the plaintiff lost, and why this poster, absent additional facts stands a good chance of losing, is the following found in the analysis of the above....

"The following statements.....are not slanderous per se because they need context outside of the words themselves to be perceived as defamatory"
 

jdmba

Member
One major reason the plaintiff lost, and why this poster, absent additional facts stands a good chance of losing, is the following found in the analysis of the above....

"The following statements.....are not slanderous per se because they need context outside of the words themselves to be perceived as defamatory"
I completely disagree that the OP would likely lose for the same reason as the plaintiff in the case I cited. In the latter case, the defendant lied about the plaintiff's professional position. Those words themselves are not slanderous outside the context. However, falsely accusing somebody of criminal behavior is slanderous outside of the context...
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
I completely disagree that the OP would likely lose for the same reason as the plaintiff in the case I cited. In the latter case, the defendant lied about the plaintiff's professional position. Those words themselves are not slanderous outside the context. However, falsely accusing somebody of criminal behavior is slanderous outside of the context...
The only facts we have are that the tenant filed a claim with the state consumer protection agency stating that the poster stole $700 from them monthly (no basis as to how or why) and that another $700 was stolen from their car.

The ONLY relevant statement the poster can lay a claim on is the specific claim that the poster stole $700 from them monthly. HOWEVER, even under wisconsin's Trade Libel principal, there is likely little chance for recovery.

Let's remember that the context-oriented standard of express advocacy requires the statements be examined in the context of their original creation. Also, when and where speech takes place can determine its legal significance. In the current example, the speach was created through a legitimate forum of statutory regress (i.e., WCPA complaint) and must be considered in that light.

Whether the allegations enjoy the same protection afforded to legal proceedings, is a matter of fact for the court.
 

jdmba

Member
...when and where speech takes place can determine its legal significance. In the current example, the speach was created through a legitimate forum of statutory regress (i.e., WCPA complaint) and must be considered in that light.

Whether the allegations enjoy the same protection afforded to legal proceedings, is a matter of fact for the court.
Very nice, "counselor." You may actually be correct about that. It's a good argument.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top