As soon as I share that thought with one person, defamation has occurred. Therefore the number of people who read the comment is irrelevant to the question of whether defamation occurred, so long as one person read it.

Apparently, Horizon Group Management knows nothing about public relationtions, spin and how to PROPERLY manage a dispute. They have just turned a small Tweet that would have been unnoticed by 99.9% of the public into a national news story and made sure Horizon is known by tens of thousand for moldy apartments!

GOOD WORK!

It would have been a whole lot easier and less expensive if Horizon Group Management FIXED the problem, then sent out their own tweet saying, the issues was solved.

Tweeter beware! Nothing is private anymore. Would it have made any difference if she told the landlords she couldn't live in a filthy, moldy-ass apartment? I'm sure she already has and they didn't listen or, like mine did, gave me the option to break my lease and pay their fines. Now they want to go crying to the courts as if THEY have been wronged.

It's amazing what some of these slum-lords get away with now days. I had my own run-in with one at my last residence. They didnt get squat from me after I took them to court for wrongful eviction. I ended up getting all of my money back except for a few attorneys fee's but I still came out ahead of the battle. What a nightmare!

Do you know how many of my own tenants complain about mold when the problem is actually just mildew?

All of them.

In terms of heath risks, there's a big difference, but they're aware that mold is hazardous. So every time they get the sniffles or a headache, "It must be the mold", and they act like I should call in a hazmat team.

"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization"(from one of the owners of Horizon via therealestateblogger.com)

I think that statement is more likely to make me not want to do business with them than a statement about mold in a single apartment.

@hungryhomer: SHe would have a countersuit if she filed complaints about the mold and the complex management did not lift a finger to do anything about it.

That's all I can say, as IANAILL, but Eyebrows McGee is...

Shafting someone on their cable install, computer warranty, or other unnecessary item sucks (I know, I know, our computers ARE necessary, right?). But shafting someone out of either their place to live or a bunch of money because they can't (for whatever reason) move is downright wrong.

Fun thing about defamation lawsuits is that one of the defenses is "it's the truth". Now, the way she's phrased it could be construed as defamatory as she has no idea whether or not Horizon actualy thinks sleeping in a moldy apartment is okay. But if the case isn't thrown out outright, I doubt very much the court would find in favour of Horizon, much less to the tune of $50,000.

The ones protesting don't understand that problems anywhere in the building affect their resale value, their insurance rates, etc. They also seem to think that caulk would fix the problem. They don't understand architecture or construction. The building is old! Renovations are inevitable.

Again, it just comes down to condo ownership being a nightmare. Some people have no problems, but I know so many with other horror stories. I don't want to go through this again. Once the renovations are complete and our condo is in resale condition - and hopefully the housing market perks back up - we are out of here.

[w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com]

Press release from Horizon! [www.horizonrealtygroup.com]
Click link in lower right box on page. You'll get a pop-up of a scanned document.

Basically, the tenant actually sued over the mold problem. Horizon claims it stems from a leak which affected several apartments, that they dealt with the problem and never saw any mold. Apparently the tenant thinks otherwise. Regardless, Horizon is still going to be the big loser in this.

@Skaperen: Interesting. Seems to come at it from a very middle of the road perspective, which I like. The author is correct in one respect. The rules concerning libel on the internet are still being written, so to speak, by our courts. Personally, I don't think that Tweet rose to the level of libel, but he's right to point out that with very little caselaw to fall back on, anything could happen in court. However even if Horizon were to win some level of damages (obviously, far less than $50K), they've lost far more than that in the long run with no one else to blame but themselves. Way to kick yourself in the ass, Horizon.

[bit.ly]

@nightshade74: Wall Street Journal? Whoops! Talk about an epic fail. Hee, hee.

And if you look up #horizon on Twitter, there are actually a lot of people trying to figure out how to contact the defendant and offer money for her legal fees. She's become the cause celeb over there. Wake the Twitter at your peril, corporate America.

As stated above, though: consent is a defense to rape. Boy, this is getting way off-topic.

Amanda's post, however, did not really cause any significant damage to Horizon. If she had not been sued, it would never have been retweeted around by thousands, or blogged by hundreds, or threaded by scores of forums. It would have just been 20 people wondering what she's fussing about, and maybe one person double checking to be sure their new apartment doesn't have mold.

But, Mr. Jeffrey E. Michael, a lawyer and owner of Horizon Realty Group, engaged his (quoted from the SunTimes article) "sue first, ask question later" organizational policy and just sued Amanda Bonnen without trying to settle the issue in advance. The combination of merely suing, and the statement he stupidly made (more stupid that the "stupidly" statement Mr. Obama made the other day), is likely going to cause his organization many millions of dollars in damage.

He might win the suit. He won't collect the money even if he does. Ms. Bonnen and might have to file bankruptcy. Horizon Realty Group might, as well. And all that because someone is a jerk.

[bit.ly]

You can't consent to being raped. ;)

Anyway, IANAL, but I think if the signs are completely visible and if there is no question that a person entering a store consents to being beaten, then the store is legally off the hook.

It's a different story In situations like a valet sign saying "We are not responsible for lost or damaged items or vehicles." Especially if negligence can be proven or if a valet driver damages the car or steals an ipod from it. Of course, this has to be proven, but simply having a blanket sign absolving them of any wrongdoing is not an adequate legal get out of jail free card.

This is going to cost them much more than $50K

[blogs.wsj.com]
[www.foxnews.com]

[bit.ly]

@nightshade74:

yup...about 15 posts ago. :)

@seejanerun: It would be more hilarious if court personnel tipped them off. "You guys wouldn't believe the dumbass lawsuit which was just filed, here."

Excellent! The national press is running with it, now!
[blogs.usatoday.com]

@billy: While that may be OK in those particular professions, it still doesn't mean anyone can just say, "By entering this store you consent to being beaten and raped by our managers and their families". I don't think there are jobs that would require that statement....

For reference: [w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com]

It would have had less effect if there hadn't been any mold.

"Horizon Realty" has become a Trending Topic on Twitter (which only gets more people to ask what's going on). Way to squash that bug, Horizon.

In every battery or robbery case I've ever seen in court, the prosecutor ALWAYS has to establish that permission was not given.

I hope her defense attorney digs up and shows how much money they lost from not fixing the mold.

This company really missed an oppertunity to make something good out of their mistake. 99% of the time when i use twitter it's to contact a company that i've had a customer service issue with, and so far it has been to great result.

Horizon has a near 0% chance of winning in court. As a company they must not only must they prove that Bonnen's statement is untrue, they must also prove it was made with malice.

Horizon has a near 0% chance of winning in court. As a company they must not only must they prove that Bonnen's statement is untrue, they must also prove it was made with malice.

The good thing about the Internet is that information is free. The bad thing about the Internet... is that information is free.

@starzshine: Many corporations are still trying to figure out how to deal with social media/blogs etc. Just think back 5-7 years ago where the only way to file a public complaint against a company was to TRY to get in contact with your local TV station's consumer reporter, and hope that your story was compelling enough to be included in their weekly "Action Team" report. In this situation, the story would air, the company would sue (or settle), and that would be the end of the story. To recover, the corporation would need to take out an advertisement to bring exposure to the company name, or donate to a charity and everyone would forget about the bad situation that 1 consumer had.

Now with social media and websites, the corporations are trying to react in a similar fashion, the problem being that it almost always backfires on them as when they file a lawsuit (justified or not), it gets picked up by blogs (like Consumerist), Social Media sites like Digg and Twitter, and goes "Viral" in a matter of hours. The corporation has just been drop kicked across the country, and nothing they say in their "traditional distribution channels" (press releases or commercials) will matter. The only way to respond is to create a sincere message usingthe same social media sites that burned them in the beginning to tell their side of the story (ala Domino's reaction to the spitting in the sandwich escapade). Most corporations still don't know how to effectively do this.

Hey look -- instead of staging their model units they ask current renters to volunteer their apartments for shoots - and compensate them with a measley $25

[www.horizonrealtygroup.com]

I don't follow the logic of Horizon Management here... so a private citizen has so much clout that a statement about her living conditions has caused them thousands in damages... yet the logical move for them was to blow the whole thing out of proportion and bring the law into it? I would figure that they wouldn't want another sentence involving their "Good Name" and mold floating around out there!

I don't know if any of you ever read The Week, but they have a section called "Only in America" and I'm always facinated by the number of times lawsuits come up. We really have gone crazy with this whole suing people business.

Does anyone remember the DC judge (or lawyer, something I can't remember) who sued his local Korean owned dry cleaners for over a million dollars for losing his pants? Those poor people were going to move back oversea's because they couldn't afford to fight the guy, and becasue they had a sign outside that said "Your satisfaction is guaranteed!"

@Skankingmike: Really?!? Is that true? I've seen those signs in every supermarket/big store.

@squinko: yeah, as far as i know (and the laws in canada are easier to deal with in this case anyways) libel, slander and defamation have to do with say9ing something damaging that isn't true - if there is in fact mold and she makes a comments about it, it's not against the law. and what about personal opinion - if you're using personal opinion - not an attack, then you can say what you want.

I fought with my landlord over a mold issue in my apartment, he was a slumlord, always there the first of the month for the money, but never did anything.He claimed that I was making this up just to get out of paying rent. Then we had a sewer leak, that was the final straw. I now live in a beautiful old house, 3 times the size, no flooding, no mold, no plumbing issues (for only $200 mor per month). And it's incredible that I no longer get constant sinus headaches, stomach problems, colds and fatigue since I moved out almost a year ago. I hope she takes them to the cleaners, you go girl!

@BrandonOBrien: Good luck with that. I've been begging my condo board for 5 years to stop the leaks. I get over 20 gallons of water in my condo every time it rains. Not kidding, it fills up a 5 gallon bucket at least four times a day when it rains. My wall is so filled with mold and wetness, if you touch it your finger goes through. It looks like bleu cheese dressing the mold I scrape off and bleach. I have a child in the house and I'm scared for his health. I run HEPA air filters (3 of them) on full blast 24/7 and keep my child away from that damaged area. All these years we tried to sell and get out, but no one in their right mind would buy the condo with bad leaks and mold damage, even at a hefty discount.

Finally, after 5 years and two completely new condo boards, construction is finally started to repair the building (not just patches which never fixed the problems, actual renovations.) I am so happy they are finally getting it started.

I'm still holding my breath, however, as the workers have not gotten to my unit yet and a woman is gathering forces to overthrow the current condo board to stop all the repairs, because she has no leaks and doesn't agree that she and others on the side of the building without leaks should have to pay for the renovations of those on the side with leaks. If she wins I think I am going to jump off the roof.

We are NEVER living in a condo again. I'd rather rent or buy a single family house with no homeowners association. If we were renting, we'd have been easily able to move if we had problems when a lease was up. If we owned a single family house, we'd have just had leaks repaired right the first time. Having a condo has been a nightmare.

A word of advice, if I may, keep all your communication with the board in writing - very detailed accounts. Every bit of communication. Never by phone - only use email, fax (with confirmation sheet) or certified mail. Keep a big file on it. You may need it in the future.

I just love stories of digging your own grave...

@JohnQPublic: Shouldn't that say "So i herd u liek moldy aprtmentz"?

@chocolate1234: There is the potential for everyone on Twitter to see the post. Say, for example, you were going to do research on potential living situations in Chicago. You could do a search on "Horizon Realty" on Twitter to see if anyone had posted information about them. A post like that one might make me think twice about renting from them.

I agree that it would be hard to prove the damages. How many people DID search on their name? How many based rental decisions on that information? You are also, under most circumstances, required to mitigate your damages. By not asking her to remove the comment first, they've hardly shown the best of faith.

A false statement that injures someone's reputation and exposes him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, or condemnation. If the false statement is published in print or through broadcast media, such as radio or TV, it is called libel. If it is only spoken, it is called slander.

If the statement is not false, then per se it is not defamation

@pjorg:

From the linked CBS Article...

"Because Bonnen's Twitter account is set to 'public,' everyone following on Twitter can view the defamatory statement, the suit said. "

One problem is she had moved out between the tweet and the suit. The apartment probably did get cleaned at some point, even if it might not have otherwise. So at this point the difficulty is it will be hard to prove one way or the other. Her statement will then be "it did have mold on the day I made the tweet but since the plaintiff failed to preserve the situation for examination, the plaintiff is just wasting the court's time". Their statement will be "please come take a look at the apartment and see that it is nice and clean".

Even if they win, they lose, because their own action has already hurt them more to the tune of a million dollars or more, now.

The number of people who hear the comments is irrelevant.

@humphrmi: I can't imagine that it would be libel in that case, but rather it speaks to me as being a breech of contract, for lack of a better descriptor. Even then it would be down to how the terms of that expectation were laid out.

See, you can ask me not to tell someone your deepest, darkest secrets, but you can't sue me for libel if I go ahead and do it anyway, as long as I stick to the truth when I expose you. Now if I had signed a legally binding document agreeing to keep it between the two of us, then you might have a case for breech of contract. However in order to make the libel claim stick, I think you'd have to prove that the statements are false. Something I believe might be difficult to do, given the existing breech of contract claim, but I digress. I really do think that what you're suggesting represents two different beasts.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer either, so what do I know? And hell, I'm more of a student of common-sense than someone who follows stuff like this, and we all know how little our legal system has to do with common-sense. I could be way off the mark according to the logic of the law. Still, I have to wonder. Something about that doesn't seem right to me at all.

@humphrmi: Just seems odd, given they've seemingly pleaded everything else with such specificity, that they don't also mention the lease (if applicable). I'm absolutely not saying you're wrong (haven't seen libel since my law school days!), just that I would have expected to see it there. You obviously are on more solid ground than I am in knowing it doesn't have to be there to begin with.

I am not blaming the OP, just presenting a scenerio here:
The question comes in, might Horizon have a leg to stand on in a suit (although weak based on the number of followers she had) because of the choice of words in the tweet. "Horizon realty thinks it's okay." How does she know what they are thinking. One could probably assume what they are thinking based on their actions (or inactions), but she really has no proof that this is what they think.

Had she said something like "5 days after notifying Horizon about mold, and they still have not shown up to attempt a repair" she would be stating verifiable facts, or had she clarified that it was HER OPINION: "Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? I Believe that Horizon realty thinks it's okay." she would be 100% ok, but her choice of words may come back to bite her.

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: They don't have to mention privacy in the suit, it's part of libel law, they've filed a libel suit, thus they've declared that they want restitution under any part of the law. They only have to arrive in court with a lease that dictates tenants behavior as far as privacy.

And, I'm not saying that's what they're going to do, I'm just pointing out that simply declaring "It's a factual statement" doesn't automatically get you out of a libel suit.

@Red_Flag: Does it still apply if she's already moved out?

@humphrmi: The lawsuit doesn't mention any privacy clauses in a lease. And if she's moved out, the lease couldn't still be binding on her silence, anyway. Regardless, they don't mention such a clause in the papers filed. They're relying on libel per se and claiming that the damages are presumed. Somehow I don't see the statement rising to the level of libel per se.

The Chicago Way is when Horizon actually follows through to trial, the honorable judge gives a summary judgement in the plaintiff's favor, and the owner of Horizon takes the judge (his second cousin) out fishing on Lake Michigan the following weekend while they come up with creative shell companies to provide "contracting" services for no-bid contracts from City Hall. Part of the money from these contracts will then be funneled back into the reelection campaign of Mayor Daley and his hand-picked aldermen.

That's the Chicago Way.

@Skaperen: Oh, I really love that. "Because the statement damaged the Plaintiff's reputation in its business, the statement is libel per se. Damages are presumed." I really don't think this reaches the level of libel per se. Which, of course, it really wouldn't if it were a basically true statement.

They're asking for damages "in excess of $50K" plus costs. Um, THOSE damages are not presumed. $50K plus costs?! Since filing the lawsuit is going to cost them tons of money in bad publicity, seriously, how much of the damage can be laid at the feet of the Tweeter. All the folks yelling "Streisand Effect" are absolutely right.

If they were really worried about their reputation why didn't they consider this possibility? Or do they not care if people know that they're sue-happy as long as they convince people that there isn't any mold?

Here is where the application of libel vs. slander differ. We of course know that libel is written words that give a company a negative image, and slander is spoken words.

However, slander (spoken negative words) generally need to be proven false, whereas libel is a little different. If the complainant can prove that even though the written negative statement is true, it was expected to be kept private (e.g. under a lease contract provision) then libel can still apply. In other words, it's still libel - even if it's true - if there was an expectation of privacy.

IANAL, just a fairly long-time student of such things.

[www.horizonrealtygroup.com]
Buena Terrace
4242 N. Sheridan Rd., Chicago, IL 60613

The Municipal Code of Chicago as applying to Landlord-Tenant issues would be applicable in this situation. (Municipal Code, Section 5-12-010)

"This chapter applies to, regulates and determines rights, obligations and remedies under every rental agreement for a dwelling unit located within the City of Chicago, regardless of where the agreement is made, subject only to the limitations contained in Section 5-12-020."

Assuming the Municipal Code applies, I urge the ex-tenant-turned-tweeter to lawyer up, specifically exercising her rights under Section 5-12-150 ("Prohibition on Retaliatory Conduct by Landlord"), particularly clause (b).

"5-12-150 Prohibition on retaliatory conduct by landlord.

It is declared to be against public policy of the City of Chicago for a landlord to take retaliatory action against a tenant, except for violation of a rental agreement or violation of a law or ordinance. A landlord may not knowingly terminate a tenancy, increase rent, decrease services, bring or threaten to bring a lawsuit against a tenant for possession or refuse to renew a lease or tenancy because the tenant has in good faith:

(a) Complained of code violations applicable to the premises to a competent governmental agency, elected representative or public official charged with responsibility for enforcement of a building, housing, health or similar code; or

(b) Complained of a building, housing, health or similar code violation or an illegal landlord practice to a community organization or the news media; or

(c) Sought the assistance of a community organization or the news media to remedy a code violation or illegal landlord practice; or

(d) Requested the landlord to make repairs to the premises as required by a building code, health ordinance, other regulation, or the residential rental agreement; or

(e) Becomes a member of a tenant's union or similar organization; or

(f) Testified in any court or administrative proceeding concerning the condition of the premises; or

(g) Exercised any right or remedy provided by law.

If the landlord acts in violation of this section, the tenant has a defense in any retaliatory action against him for possession and is entitled to the following remedies: he shall recover possession or terminate the rental agreement and, in either case, recover an amount equal to and not more than two months' rent or twice the damages sustained by him, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorneys' fees. If the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall return all security and interest recoverable under Section 5-12-080 and all prepaid rent. In an action by or against the tenant, if there is evidence of tenant conduct protected herein within one year prior to the alleged act of retaliation, that evidence shall create a rebuttable presumption that the landlord's conduct was retaliatory. The presumption shall not arise if the protected tenant activity was initiated after the alleged act of retaliation."

[www.chicagonow.com]

Nice work, Horizon! I think we've all learned a valuable lesson about social media, haven't we?

@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient: Good move. It's always hard enough to wring a security deposit out of a landlord when you leave. No sense risking a lawsuit besides.

BTW, I stumbled on this site in Chicago where residents were discussing the problem. Note the post from John Hoppes. He apparently lives in the same building as the Tweeter and complains of mold and pest problems. So not only are they total jerks, they really might have a mold problem.
[www.chicagobreakingnews.com]

@futuresuperbowlMVPJayCutler: Can I sue Skeletor in the process?

@EdnaLegume: Most rental contracts have terms that release the landlord or management company from actually being responsible for anything for which they don't want to be responsible.

I'd be counter suing for court costs and punitive damages. After I have someone come in to test air quality/mold presence, etc.

We'll be canceling that.

@almightytora: As other posters mentioned, this suit itself probably makes it worse for the company- (1) this barely-seen post is now plastered all over the internet with their name on it, and (2) most people will complain and argue but won't go so far as to get a lawyer to defend their rights in court. With this lawsuit, they've effectively forced her to get a lawyer, and without a doubt the enterprising lawyer will suggest a countersuit that should be easy to win.

In the end it will cost them much more in legal fees and settlement/judgement costs. Another example of how being the bully will come back to bite you in the ass.

@Skellbasher: legally fine, made me think of somebody so fine that even the law says they are fine.

do people still say fine as in hot?

Ha! There's a hashtag for Horizon where people are quoting and requoting what has been in the news. Hilarous. Check out #horizon on Twitter. If they thought they had Twitter problems before, they have no idea what they're in for now.

The lawsuit is just stupid though.

I don't know about the elements of truth thing. She didn't just tweet that her apartment has mold. She tweeted that "Horizon Realty thinks it's OK" for her to sleep in a moldy apartment.

If they didn't say that and/or she can't prove they said that, then the facts are on Horizon's side. This is assuming that the lawsuit isn't about her stating that she has mold but rather about her accusations about the realty company's response.

That said, what damages did they really incur prior to a public lawsuit?

There's a better article in the Chicago Sun Times: [www.suntimes.com]

Jeffrey Michael, whose family has run Horizon for more than 25 years, said: "The statements are obviously false, and it's our intention to prove that."

He said that while she moved out recently, the company never had a conversation about the post and never asked her to take it down.

"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization," he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.

What unbelievable assholes.

Let them know what you think, hopefully they wont sue you.

Just for fun, a link to Horizon's Contact Us page
[www.horizonrealtygroup.com]

It's also generally accepted that an intent to defame must be proven. It should be obvious that a Twitter post seen by 15 people was not intended to defame, and as such blows their claim right out of the water.

I'd say Ms. Bonnen is legally fine, but shouldn't have to deal with this nonsense.

Mold is not bad for you until mushrooms start growing in your butt.

I swear I only use it for work.

If on the other hand the tenant has never contacted management about this before, she probably wants to be apartment hunting under an assumed name right about now.

@Dooley: Well, and truth is the ultimate defense. If the apartment was moldy, the landlord knew it and they didn't do anything about it, there you go.

this is just stupid. They know they have no case, and are just trying to shut the person up, because there's really nothing else they can do (outside of fixing the problem).

A statement of fact is protected speech. Logic would dictate that the whole statement is correct, given

1) The apartment is moldy
2) The landlords made no earnest attempt to remedy the problem or relocate the renter

The landlord must fix things that present a health risk; therefore, if they do not fix something, it is implying it must not present a health risk, or simply stated, "it is okay".

Assuming the tweeter in question really asked the company to fix the problem, and they really did nothing, The judge needs to throw this case out of court, and slap a fine on Horizon, end of story.

Does anyone hear the words "COUNTER-SUIT" echoing through the hallways of some hungry law firm?

She didn't just say that her apartment is moldy (in fact, she didn't say that at all). Just that her landlord thought living in a moldy apartment was okay. If they gave her that impression with their actions (or inaction), then she's all set.

Still, even if she can't, I'm pretty sure you have to actually prove damages to win a defamation suit.

Is there any story before this? Has Ms. Bonnen complained to Horizon Realty in the past about this and hasn't received a reply?

What an idiotic move for the realty company. Like the tenant has $50k to pay if she does lose the case, which I doubt. Does the realtor have proof (statistically) that they have lost that much reputation due to a single Tweet on a message board? Greedy bastards.

Otherwise, I still think Amanda has a leg to stand on in her defense. Considering she apparently has only 15 followers (according to Twitter), I highly doubt her tweet was capable of degrading "its reputation as a landlord in Chicago".

Amanda Bonnen has closed her Twitter account and the post is gone, which probably is all Horizon wanted, but now that the suit is public, the post will continue to live

[www.therealestatebloggers.com]