THOMAS VAN HORN, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT MCNABB, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE NATURAL AND LEGAL GUARDIAN OF DIANE MCNABB, AND DANIEL MCNABB, MINOR CHILDREN, AND LINDA DEBAUCH, EDGAR STUNTZ, JUDITH STUNTZ, NAN CISLER, CHRIS FERMANICH, VINCENT GRASER, IRENE TIBBETTS, RICHARD TIBBETTS, DAN KRECH, LAKESIDE CLINIC, LTD., A DISSOLVED WISCONSIN CORPORATION, AND MANITOWOCK/TWO RIVERS COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT CENTER, AND LAKESHORE MENTAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER AND LAKESHORE MENTAL HEALTH, INC., A WISCONSIN CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Thomas Van Horn, a Wisconsin attorney, appealed a trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a defamation and interference with custody case brought by Scott McNabb in Florida. The court reversed, holding that Van Horn was entitled to absolute immunity for statements made in the course of Wisconsin judicial proceedings and that the mere act of faxing a letter to a Florida guardian ad litem was insufficient to establish jurisdiction over him.
The court held that Van Horn was entitled to absolute immunity from defamation and other tortious acts committed in the course of the prior judicial proceeding in Wisconsin. Additionally, the faxing of the letter to the Florida guardian ad litem was the sole alleged Florida contact, which was insufficient to establish jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute.
[1] Attorneys are entitled to absolute immunity for tortious acts committed in the course of a prior judicial proceeding.
[2] A single act of faxing a letter to a Florida guardian ad litem, without other Florida contacts, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over a Wisconsin attorn…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is clear, from the face of the complaint, that Van Horn enjoys absolute immunity from any alleged defamation or other tortious act done in the course of the prior judicial proceeding.”
Establishes that absolute immunity applies to Van Horn's statements made during Wisconsin custody proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas Van Horn, a Wisconsin attorney, represented the McNabb children in custody proceedings in Wisconsin. He wrote a letter to another Wisconsin att…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interference With Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Van Horn appeals a trial court order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse. Scott McNabb sued Thomas Van Horn, a Wisconsin attorney, and numerous other Wisconsin residents, alleging their tortious conduct in interfering with his custody and visitation rights to his children while they were living in Wisconsin with appellee’s former wife. Van Horn represented the McNabb children in custody proceedings there. Appellee’s amended complaint alleged that Van Horn wrote a letter to another Wisconsin attorney, in the course of custody litigation in Wisconsin, explaining that he had advised the children’s mother not to take them to attend a hearing in Florida, and making other statements which appellee alleged were defamatory. Van Horn faxed this letter to the children’s Florida guardian ad litem, who was appointed in connection with the Florida custody litigation. Appel-lee sued Van Horn, alleging a private cause of action against him for interference with custody, civil conspiracy to interfere with custody, and defamation. The sole Florida contact alleged against Van Horn in the amended complaint was the act of faxing the letter to the Florida guardian ad litem.
It is clear, from the face of the complaint, that Van Horn enjoys absolute immunity from any alleged defamation or other tortious act done in the course of the prior judicial proceeding. Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla.1994); Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla.1992). Compare Silver v. Levinson, 648 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (finding absolute immunity not applicable to defendant’s actions, which did not occur in course of or as necessary preliminary act to judicial proceeding). No other act was alleged so as to bring Van Horn within the long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the trial court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over him and should have granted his motion to dismiss.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Echevarria v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007)…merous traditional defamation claims, courts in Florida have applied Levin to uphold the use of the privilege in such diverse actions as civil conspiracy and tortious conduct in interfering with custody and visitation rights. See Van Horn v. McNabb, 715 So. 2d 380, 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("It is clear, from the face of the complaint, that Van Horn enjoys absolute immunity from any alleged defamation or other tortious act done in the course of the prior judicial proceeding.”); Rushing v. Bosse, 652 So. 2d 869…
Authorities Cited
- Levin v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994)
- Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1992)
- Silver v. Levinson, 648 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)