APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this defamation action, Robert Evans (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Amcash Mortgage Company, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Franklin American Life Insurance Company1 for an alleged defamatory statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees. In granting the Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court dismissed Franklin American Corporation from the suit, dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant under a theory of “slander by action,” and held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees regarding the reason for Plaintiff’s employment termination is subject to a qualified privilege. Defendant appeals the judgment of the court below arguing that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding the statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees concerningthe reason for Plaintiff’s employment termination because the statement is subject to a qualified privilege and is not defamatory in nature. For the reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and hold that the statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees regarding the reason for Plaintiff’s employment termination is subject to a qualified privilege and is not defamatory.

The husband sued for absolute divorce, claiming cruel and inhuman treatment and irreconcilable differences. The wife denied that her husband was entitled to a divorce, and she counterclaimed for a divorce from bed and board. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the husband’s complaint and awarded the wife a divorce from bed and board and custody of the four minor children. The husband was ordered to pay alimony in futuro, child support and attorney fees.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Allen D. Curtis and his wife, Carolyn June Curtis, from a decision of the chancery court which dissolved the partnership formed between Curtis and
defendant/appellee, William M. Rice, and which distributed the partnership's assets.1 The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows.