## Facts

- Harold R. Olinger, an Air Force officer, and his former wife owned a Maryland residence secured by a deed of trust held by American Savings and Loan Association.
- After their divorce, Olinger was ordered to pay monthly support and alimony; by oral arrangement, his former wife remained in the home and was to make the deed-of-trust payments.
- Olinger was transferred overseas; support and alimony were paid, but the mortgage payments became delinquent, and foreclosure proceedings were initiated.
- Olinger, through counsel, proposed a cooperative (“friendly”) sale of the property; the lender’s representative allegedly responded with accusations about Olinger’s family responsibilities and personal conduct and threatened to contact Olinger’s commanding officer.
- The lender’s representative sent a letter to Olinger’s commanding officer describing the loan, the default, and Olinger’s conduct in strongly condemnatory terms.
- Olinger alleged the letter caused professional humiliation and discipline and aggravated a nervous condition requiring hospitalization.
- Olinger sued for libel, invasion of privacy, and malicious interference with peace of mind; the district court granted summary judgment for the lender on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a letter from a lender to a borrower’s military commanding officer was protected by a qualified privilege and, if so, whether the record presented a triable issue that the privilege was abused through malice, excess, or unnecessarily defamatory content.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on the libel claim where the circumstances and tone of the communication permitted competing inferences regarding privilege and malice.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was reversed as to the libel claim and the case was remanded for further proceedings on that theory.
- The court assumed a qualified privilege might apply but held a jury could find the communication exceeded what was reasonably necessary to protect the lender’s interest.
- The court held the record could support a finding of malice or bad faith, making summary judgment inappropriate.
- The remand was limited to libel; dismissal of the other claims was left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A communication that might otherwise be privileged may lose protection if made with malice, if it exceeds the scope of the occasion, or if it uses unnecessarily defamatory or excessive language.
- Where privilege and malice turn on disputed inferences from content and context, the question of abuse of privilege is ordinarily for the jury.
- Summary judgment is improper if the evidence permits reasonable jurors to differ on whether a defendant acted within the scope of a qualified privilege or abused it.

## Conclusion

The court held that, even if a creditor’s report to a military superior could be conditionally privileged, the letter’s content and surrounding circumstances created a jury question on abuse of privilege and malice, requiring reversal of summary judgment on the libel claim and remand for trial.


Olinger v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 409 F.2d 142 (D.C. Cir. 1969)