Miami blog postings spark $25 million lawsuit

[thelakelander]

A Miami real estate agent lost his job Monday after postings on his blog sparked a $25 million defamation lawsuit by developer Tibor Hollo.

BY PATRICK DANNER
Developer Tibor Hollo has filed a $25 million defamation lawsuit against a Miami real estate agent who blogged that the octogenarian went bankrupt in the 1980s and is headed for a fall with the upheaval in the condo market.
Hollo last week sued agent Lucas Lechuga and the Coral Gables brokerage Esslinger-Wooten-Maxwell alleging they have engaged in a smear campaign against him and his Opera Tower condo development on Lechuga's Miami Condo Investments blog.

On Monday, the postings cost Lechuga his job.

''We just don't condone making statements, especially negative statements, about anyone, so we have terminated our relationship with our associate,'' said EWM President Ron Shuffield. Its agents are independent contractors, not employees.

Lechuga, 29, predicted on the blog that at least half of the buyers in the 635-unit Opera Tower at 1750 Bayshore Dr. would default and the units would be taken over by the project's lender.

''My opinion is that this development is doomed,'' he wrote on Jan. 10.

FALSE CLAIMS

That followed this Nov. 25 post: ``This developer went bankrupt in the 1980s and I think we'll see a repeat performance within the next 6 months. What do I know, though? I'm no real estate oracle.''

An angry Hollo said neither he nor any of his companies ever filed for bankruptcy.

''I guess when you're running a blog [you] think [you] can say anything about anybody, and that's just not true,'' Hollo said. He called the postings ``plain, unadulterated lies.''

The suit was filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. Hollo declined to say how he arrived at the $25 million damage claim.

Lechuga said he was exercising his constitutional rights in musing about Opera Tower.

''Like any other blog out there, it's a collection of my unbiased opinions and thoughts,'' he said. ``I have buyers all over the world who go to my blog. They know I'm not going to sugarcoat the market.''

Lechuga removed the Nov. 25 post after learning of the lawsuit, but later reposted it without the reference to Hollo going ''bankrupt.'' He said he would have removed it sooner had he known it was wrong. He said a few people who told him about it may not have meant Hollo literally filed for bankruptcy, rather that Hollo had financial troubles of some kind.

Hollo lost some properties to lenders in the early 1990s, The Miami Herald reported at the time.

''In those days, I lost lots of money of mine, tens of millions of dollars,'' Hollo said. ``I didn't lose anybody else's money. That's all I can tell you about it.''

SUCCESS OR FLOP?

Hollo deemed Opera Tower a success, with the entire project sold out. Closings began this month, with about 40 units deeded to buyers so far, he said. At least 11 lawsuits have been filed in Miami federal court by buyers seeking to rescind their purchase contracts, however.

Robert Jarvis, a constitutional law and ethics professor at Nova Southeastern University, who isn't involved in the case, said he doubts Lechuga will be held liable.

''Courts understand [blogs] are written in unedited, unvetted fashion,'' Jarvis said. ``There's a lot of hyperbole. That's why it's so difficult to win defamation lawsuits.''

Plus, Jarvis said Lechuga could argue Hollo is a ''limited public figure'' -- making it harder for Hollo to claim he was defamed.

None of the legal arguments make any difference to EWM's Shuffield.

''I viewed these statements to be more negative in tone than just providing information,'' Shuffield said, adding the firm wouldn't have hired Lechuga had it known had known about the blog.

Shuffield said he feels like he's been caught in a dispute he has nothing to do with. He said he expects there will be discussion with the company's 800 associates about what they can post to blogs.

''We want to encourage associates to be a positive source of information,'' Shuffield said.

http://www.miamiherald.com/884/story/397182.html

[Ocklawaha]

Well isn't this cute, the Constitution says we have a right to free speech which appears to have it's limits... and frankly perhaps it should... but to express your opinion about a company you have worked with? Well fella you might be over-stepping the invisible line. As I see it, we can write ANYTHING we want about certain Politically Correct Subjects:

20,000 Baptists that attend church downtown
Christ or Christians in General
Any President
Some Governors
A few Mayors
The Bible
The 10 Commandments
Police Brutality (as long as you don't do this in Colombia, or China... which could shorten your life span)
Rail Transit
Family
Officials on Drugs

A few things to avoid at all costs...

Moon Worship
Flat Earth Society
The Weekly World News
JTA
Alternate Lifestyles
Marriage between Humans and Horses
Old Hippies, (Oh we're in control now, can't you tell?)
Karma Sutra
Officials that Should be on Drugs


Things that seem to be making the transition from fine to poke fun at to forbidden fruit...

Big Foot
UFO's
Ghosts
Bus Rapid Transit
People with a family tree that only contains one root, straight down!
People that can't remember if they ARE on Drugs?

Okay, y'all are up to bat... go for it...

Ocklawaha

[Lunican]

Just because the lawsuit is filed does not mean it will be successful.

''My opinion is that this development is doomed,'' he wrote on Jan. 10.

Clearly, that is an opinion.

[second_pancake]

Isn't that crazy?  Well, I do know this, in order to prove defamation, the person filing suit would have to prove that 1) the accusations made are not true, and 2)  that the comments, whether opinion or not, caused him/her to be cast in bad light among others

If this person said that the guy filed bankruptcy than he obviously read it somewhere and should be able to produce the source of the information so he is off the hook on that one, and to the "bad light" thing, he did say it was his opinion, and as long as you say something as an opinion and not as a factual statement, there's no defamation.

I always thought it was funny how people are comfortable with freedom of speech until the subject of the speech is them, lol