Defamation per se; MCL 600.2911(1); Defenses; Johnson v Michigan Minority Purchasing Council; Rosenboom v Vanek; Qualified privilege; Actual malice; Prysak v R L Polk Co; Abuse of process; Dalley v Dykema Gossett, PLLC; Sanctions for a frivolous complaint; Attorney fees & costs; Pirgu v United Servs Auto Ass’n; Attempt to file an amended complaint; Futility

The court held that the trial court did not err in granting defendant summary disposition of plaintiff’s defamation per se and abuse of process claims. It also did not err in concluding that plaintiff filed a frivolous complaint and in its calculation of attorney fees and costs awarded to defendant as a result. In addition, it did not abuse its discretion in denying amendment of plaintiff’s complaint. The parties were previously married. As to the defamation per se claim, the court noted that plaintiff’s associate (V) “contacted defendant and alerted her to death threats that plaintiff made against her and her husband as well as a threat to kidnap the” parties’ children. Due to V’s communications, defendant contacted the children’s school to notify the school administrators “of the potential threat, that she hoped that she was worrying for nothing, and that she was seeking court intervention. Defendant’s representations were consistent with the information provided by [V]. Additionally, defendant alleged that plaintiff was abusive to her during and after their marriage, and she obtained PPOs against him in 2016 and 2018.” The court noted that plaintiff “did not address these allegations.” While he “alleged that defendant had an obligation to take reasonable action and investigate the claims of [V] first, such as by contacting the police, there is no such requirement imposed in defamation law on defendant in this case.” As to the abuse of process claim, the court was “unable to conclude that defendant caused plaintiff to enter into a stipulation and order agreeing to supervised parenting time when he was represented by counsel. Moreover, defendant alleged that plaintiff had a history of disturbing behavior that resulted in the issuance of PPOs in 2016 and 2018, claims that plaintiff did not dispute.” The court also found that, given the “facts and circumstances, the trial court did not clearly err in its determination that plaintiff’s complaint was frivolous.” In addition, in “light of the trial court’s analysis of the Pirgu factors,” the court could not conclude that its “factual findings were clearly erroneous, or that the amount of the sanction award constituted an abuse of discretion.” Affirmed.