Peterfish v. Frantz

424 N.W.2d 25 · Michigan Court of Appeals · 1988

Facts

Plaintiff, a city contract compliance officer, sued defendant, a union business manager, for libel after he sent a letter to her and city officials accusing her of being derelict in her duties regarding monitoring a construction project. The plaintiff believed she lacked authority to monitor the project, while the defendant believed she did. The trial court granted summary disposition for the defendant, finding the plaintiff was a public official and failed to show actual malice.

Issue

Did the trial court err in determining that the plaintiff was a 'public official' for purposes of libel law, and did it err in concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of actual malice?

Holding

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary dismissal, holding that the plaintiff was indeed a public official and that she failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding actual malice. The court found that her deposition testimony contradicted her affidavit, undermining her claim of actual malice.

Rule

To recover for defamation, a public official must prove the statement was made with 'actual malice,' defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. A 'public official' is an employee with substantial responsibility for or control over governmental affairs, whose position invites public scrutiny. General allegations of malice are insufficient, and a party cannot create a factual issue by contradicting prior deposition testimony with an affidavit.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-02-06. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.