THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, August 27, 1995 TAG: 9508270071
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY KAREN WEINTRAUB, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: VIRGINIA BEACH LENGTH: Long : 102 lines
It started out like many neighborhood struggles against unwanted growth: A group of homeowners, determined to preserve their community and their property values, leafletted the area to drum up support.
They wanted other residents to go with them to the City Council to protest the proposed construction of four houses on a nearby lot.
But a single word used in their flyer turned this typical situation into a million dollar nightmare.
The would-be developer felt maligned by their leaflet's offhand reference to him as ``unscrupulous.'' He filed a $1.25 million libel suit against the two residents he thought were responsible.
Now, the two women are afraid of losing their West Sparrow Point homes, but are still committed to civic involvement. Though neither would speak publicly, both attended last week's City Council meeting to watch the council reject the plan.
The would-be developer, James C. Archbell III, did not attend the meeting. Through his lawyer, Archbell said he sold the 1.2 acres after the Planning Commission recommended that the council turn down his proposal.
He is continuing the suit, however, lawyer J. Roger Griffin Jr. said, because he feels the flyer significantly damaged his reputation.
The suit, filed against Marilyn Derring and Lynn Flory on Aug. 10 and not yet scheduled for trial, argues that Archbell is due $250,000 to compensate for his losses, and $1 million in punitive damages.
The one-page flyer, Exhibit A in court documents, is headlined ``What will happen to our community?'' It goes on to read: ``We urgently need your support to protect our neighborhood from unscrupulous developers like James Archbell III.''
West Sparrow Point is a small neighborhood that juts into the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River, a few feet from the Chesapeake line.
The neighborhood has one main road and is filled with stunning, tall pines. The lots are large, almost rural-feeling, and sidewalks are unnecessary.
The property in question sits along a one-lane, dead-end road.
``This is kind of a very special neighborhood because it still possesses a country atmosphere here,'' Flory said. ``This is probably one of the only streets in Virginia Beach where you can come home at night and wave to two or three neighbors.''
The 15 residents who attended last week's council meeting - who all declined to give their names for fear of being added to the suit - said they worried that Archbell's proposed houses would open the floodgates of development.
``I think the entire neighborhood was very afraid that this would be approved,'' said a seven-year resident of the area. ``We felt the urgency to oppose this.''
Griffin, Archbell's lawyer, said his client was just pursuing what he thought would be a good business deal. He had no evil intent for the property and the comments in the flyer ``came to him out of the blue.''
Archbell is an officer with A&W Contractors, Inc., a utilities contracting firm, and depends on his reputation to maintain his business, Griffin said. Residents had no grounds for calling Archbell names, Griffin said, because none of them knew him personally.
Griffin said Archbell has not lost any jobs because of the leaflet. But, according to the lawsuit, he has been asked about the flyer at work, ``thereby causing him difficulty in the routine practice of his business.''
Flory, who has lived in the neighborhood since 1988, said through her lawyer that she did not write the flyer and has no animosity toward Archbell. Derring declined to comment on the case.
According to legal precedent, for a statement to be libelous, it has to be ``sufficiently factual'' to be shown true or false. Calling someone a made-up word is not libelous, for instance, but calling him or her a liar might be.
The context of the statement and the publication on which the statement appeared are also important in proving a legal case, several libel lawyers said Friday.
Alice Neff Lucan, who is unfamiliar with the details of the case, said the flyer sounded to her like ``rhetorical hyperbole.'' The Supreme Court has held that colorful language, clearly used to state an opinion, is not libelous.
But insulting people is always dangerous, other lawyers said.
``Any sort of inflammatory word like that is an invitation to a potential suit,'' Richmond lawyer Alexander Wellford said Friday. ``You can call a man a crook - if he is a crook, it's not an actionable defamation, if he isn't a crook, it is. But even if he's not a crook it doesn't mean he's not going to sue you.''
Lawyers said they could not recall a similar case in Hampton Roads.
City Council member Louisa M. Strayhorn, who represents the Kempsville Borough which includes West Sparrow Point, said she hoped the suit would encourage residents to control their emotions, but not would not affect their commitment to their community.
``I hope it doesn't dampen that, because I think it's extremely important for people to voice their concerns about any changes in the quality of life in their neighborhood,'' Strayhorn said.
West Sparrow Point neighbors said last week that they hope their experiences won't scare others into silence. Their advice to residents of other areas faced with unwanted development?
``Stand up and fight it,'' one man said. ILLUSTRATION: Map
STAFF
KEYWORDS: LAWSUITS LIBEL by CNB