GARY MORALES V KENNETH E STAWASZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GARY MORALES,
UNPUBLISHED
July 13, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 221048
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-822489-NZ
KENNETH E. STAWASZ,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Murphy, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition in this defamation action. We affirm.
After a confrontation at defendant’s home, defendant filed a police report asserting that
plaintiff had thrown a brick through his window, entered defendant’s home and physically
assaulted him. Plaintiff was charged with malicious destruction of a building, breaking and
entering and assault and battery. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to trespassing, and the felony charges
were dismissed.
Plaintiff brought this defamation action, alleging that defendant made defamatory
statements to the police and in court. The trial court granted summary disposition to defendant,
finding that plaintiff failed to establish the actual malice necessary to overcome qualified
immunity.
The determination whether a qualified privilege exists is a question of law for the court.
Stablein v Schuster, 183 Mich App 477; 455 NW2d 315. The elements of a qualified privilege
are (1) good faith, (2) an interest to be upheld, (3) a statement limited in its scope to this purpose,
(4) a proper occasion, and (5) publication in a proper manner and to proper parties only. Prysak
v R L Polk Co, 193 Mich App 1, 15; 483 NW2d 629 (1992). A plaintiff may overcome a
qualified privilege only by showing that the statement was made with actual malice, i.e., with
knowledge of its falsity. Id. General allegations of malice are insufficient to establish a genuine
issue of material fact. Gonyea v Motor Parts Federal Credit Union, 192 Mich App 74; 480
NW2d 297 (1991).
-1-
Plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to defendant’s malice sufficient to
defeat the motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff did not contest that a crime was committed.
Defendant’s front picture window was broken when a brick was thrown through it. Plaintiff
admitted being present at the time of the incident, and pleaded guilty to trespassing. There is no
showing of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth sufficient to defeat the defense of qualified
immunity.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ William B. Murphy
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.