Steve Rebeil is the father of an eight year old son. The boy’s mother, Jennifer Young, believes Rebeil has cheated her of child support payments and used her anger as inspiration to start a website to track parents who are failing to pay child support, mostwanteddeadbeats.com. When interviewed about the venture, she has repeatedly called Rebeil a deadbeat and said other disparaging remarks about him. Now Rebeil is taking action by filing a slander and libel lawsuit against Young.
After many hearings, a 2001 court decision ordered Rebeil to pay $8,500 a month in child support and $205,000 in back child support. According to Rebeil, he has been making monthly payments and has paid over $800,000 in child support since 2001. Young disagrees and has hired her attorneys to have the lawsuit dismissed. She claims he has failed to make a number of payments and failed to pay anything between January and July of this year. The motion to dismiss places the burden of proof on Rebeil’s Orange County personal injury attorney.
It seems the case will rest upon proof of Rebeil’s payments to Young, which may not be difficult if the payments were easily traceable by check payments.
To learn more about the issue, read the full article in the OC Register. Image courtesy of Jennifer Young.
Tags: child support, deadbeat, family law, libel, slander
The lawsuit was dismissed and Rebeil could not prove his claim that the allegations were false or libel. Ms. Young was awarded her attorney fees.
#30-09-125557
Rebeil VS Young
Special Motion to Strike Complaint – Grant.
To fall within the “SLAPP” statute pursuant to CCP 425.16, the complaint must allege an act in furtherance of the Def. right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue as follows:
Oral or written statements made before and “official” (e.g., legislative, executive or judicial) proceeding [(e)(1)] or in connection with an issue under consideration by an “official” body [(e)(2)];
Oral or written statements made in a public forum or other public place in connection with an issue of public interest [(e)(3)]; and
Any other conduct in furtherance of constitutional rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest [(e)(4)].
In this matter at the time of the publications and thereafter, there was a pending judicial proceeding regarding child support arrearages [MP Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 1-4; RP’s Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. J]. The statements made in the publications are all related to collection of child support; even though some of the statements were peripheral background, such as the circumstances of how MP and RP met. The statements made in the publication fall within CCP 425.16(e)(2).
The statements were made in a newspaper and on a radio show in 2009; both could be considered public forum because the statements were in regard to the issue of collection of child support, an issue of public interest. See, Harris v. Sup. Court, 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 664; In re Marriage of Shore, 71 Cal.App.3d 290, 295; Annette F. v. Sharon S., 119 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1161; Nygard v. Uusi Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1038. The statements made in the publication fall within CCP 425.16(e)(3) and CCP 425.16(d)(4).
In order to meet its burden of proof, Def. must make a prima facie showing that Pl. lawsuit arises from Def. exercise of speech rights in connection with a public issue. Wilcox v. Sup. Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 820. If Def. makes such a showing, the burden shifts to Pl. to establish a “probability” that it will prevail on whatever claims are asserted against the Def. CCP 425.16(b).
In this instance, Pl. does not meet his burden to show that he will probably prevail. Pl. admits that he did not always pay the child support in full. A wealth of documentation each side has presented about the ongoing battle in this regard further reflects this result. Pl. even submitted documentation for a period of time after the publication indicating that the accounting is still in dispute. Pl. claims that because no order of Contempt has issued against him there is no willful default to bring him within the label of “deadbeat dad.” Regardless, Pl. in no way asserts that the failure to pay the full monthly amounts owing was inadvertent or due to an economic inability to pay.
In addition to failing to show that the publication of failure to pay child support was false, Pl. has not shown any damage to his particular occupation or in general. CC 46. Pl. speculates that being labeled as a “deadbeat dad” could have an impact on how lenders deal with him in his real estate development occupation. However, it has been established by both parties that Pl. is a man of great wealth and that the monthly support payment is a rather small portion of Pl. monthly income. There is no indication that the label has affected Pl. business relationship with lenders.
Def. may file a motion to fix fees per CCP 425.16(c).