Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

 

Page 1

 

Disclosure of Husband’s Secret to P.I. Was Privileged—C.A.

Opinion Says Anti-SLAPP Motion Lies Because Investigation Was Related to Forthcoming Divorce Action

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held in an opinion that was certified for publication yesterday that an anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted as to tort claims alleged by a man whose sensitive secret, disclosed in confidence to his wife concerning his premarital conduct, was told by her to a private detective she had hired, and was spread to five others.

“[I]nvestigation is an essential part of litigation, and therefore, the act of hiring a private investigator in connection with potential or actual litigation falls within the protections of the anti-SLAPP statute,” Acting Presiding Justice Eileen Moore said in an opinion filed Oct. 26 and initially designated, “not to be published in official reports.”

In addition to 10 causes of action ordered stricken by Orange Superior Court Judge Gregory H. Lewis, Moore declared, the two remaining causes of action—for breach by the wife, Julie A. Woodall, of an alleged oral contract and for specific performance of her purported promise of unending nondisclosure—must also be excised.

All of the claims, she said, “directly arose from the dissolution case and that all of the claims are barred by the litigation privilege.”

Husband’s Declaration

According to a declaration by the husband, Timothy J. Woodall, he told his wife his “innermost confidential, privileged, devastating and shocking secret, provided that she promised to never, for the rest of her life, repeat or disclose this confidential information to any other person no matter what the reason or circumstance.”

In an order on June 23, Div. Three forewarned:

“This court has a constitutional obligation to decide cases ‘in writing with reasons stated.’ (Cal. Const., Art. VI, § 14.) It is possible the court will not be able to issue an opinion—open to public scrutiny of its reasoning—without disclosure of the sensitive information.”

However, a footnote in the opinion says:

“Because it is not necessary to decide the case, we do not include the sensitive information in the opinion.”

FBI Probe

The opinion does relate that Julie Woodall hired the private detective, Ronnie Dean Echavarria Sr. (who does business as Allegiant, PI) “in part, to find out why the FBI had visited their home in 2009 with respect to the financial wrongdoing related to the sensitive information” and because she suspected he was concealing community assets. She also told him of her husband’s gambling, including illegal betting, and his temper.

Echavarria, a co-defendant in the trial court and a respondent in the appeal, disclosed the sensitive information to Chris Kennefick whose estranged wife, Ashley Kennefick, had become romantically involved with Timothy J. Woodall. The information he imparted to Kennefick then spread to three others, and Julie Woodall told the secret to her attorney.

In her opinion affirming the partial granting of the special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, Moore said:

“…Timothy claims the issues Echavarria was hired to investigate are only “incidental” and irrelevant to his complaint, but this statement misses the boat entirely. According to Julie, the entire reason for her disclosure of the sensitive information to Echavarria was due to the financial investigation she wanted Echavarria to undertake. Because that investigation included a financial misdeed directly related to the sensitive information, disclosing it was necessary for Echavarria to do his job.”

She explained that Echavarria “spoke to Chris because Chris’s estranged wife was now in a relationship with Timothy and might have information relevant to the dissolution proceedings.”

Contract Action

In a cross-appeal, Julie Woodall sought a reversal of Lewis’s order denying the anti-SLAPP motion as to the two contract causes of action. One of those causes of action, for breach of an oral contract, was against her and Echavarria, while specific performance was sought against her, alone.

Moore noted that Echavarria was not a party to any oral contract with the husband and therefore cannot be bound by it and that specific performance cannot be ordered as to the wife because a “remedy must have a cause of action to support it” and there is none.

While not ruling out application of the anti-SLAPP statute to a conttract cause of action, the jurist said the cause of actyion would be barred by Family Code §1620 which says:

“Except as otherwise provided by law, spouses cannot, by a contract with each other, alter their legal relations, except as to property.”

It defines “property” as “an interest, present or future, legal or equitable, vested or contingent, in real or personal property, including income and earnings.”

Moore wrote:

“A contract purporting to hold one spouse liable for revealing the secret of another would, indeed, ‘alter their legal relations.’ It would create a separate agreement that, according to Timothy, would last beyond the marriage itself. Because it does not deal with ‘property,’ as defined by Family Code section 1620, the alleged oral agreement is void as a matter of law.”

The case is Timothy W. v. Julie W., 2022 S.O.S. 5761.

‘Anonymizing’ Explained

Use of initials is explained in Div. Three’s June 23 order:

“On the court’s own motion, it is ORDERED that all future filings in this case, including this court’s opinion, shall: (1) use the caption set forth above; and (2) shall refer to the parties without the use of surnames as designated in the caption (with the exception of Ronnie Dean Echavarria, Sr.). (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(10) [first name and last initial of parties may be used in court filings to protect ‘[p]ersons in other circumstances in which personal privacy interests support not using the person’s name’].) Anonymizing the opinion balances the interest between appellant’s privacy as a civil plaintiff and conducting the business of the public in the view of the public. It also reduces the likelihood that an internet search of appellant’s name will result in the discovery of this opinion.”

The court issued a separate opinion on Oct. 26, which remains unpublished, affirming Lewis’s award of attorney fees to Julie Woodall amounting to $88,561.25 (after deducting $3,216 for work done by a person who is not licensed to practice law in California) and to Echavarria in the sum of $115,060.

That case is Timothy W. v. Julie W., G059837.

 

Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company