## Facts

- In 1998, a nephew sued his uncle alleging childhood sexual abuse; the uncle denied the allegations and asserted a statute-of-limitations defense.
- The abuse complaint was dismissed as untimely after a hearing addressing delayed discovery/limitations issues.
- The uncle counterclaimed for defamation and related claims; a jury found the nephew’s abuse allegations false and defamatory, awarding damages, and the uncle also recovered on a frivolous-litigation claim.
- The nephew later filed bankruptcy to discharge judgment-related debts; the judgment was found nondischargeable, and a contempt order issued for failure to comply with post-judgment discovery.
- While contesting contempt, the nephew created a website repeating the sexual-abuse accusations and adding allegations such as perjury and witness intimidation, including quotations from prior trial materials.
- After receiving a demand letter threatening a defamation suit, the nephew removed the website several days later.
- In 2007, the uncle filed a new defamation action based on the website’s content; the nephew initially defaulted, later had default vacated, and unsuccessfully challenged jurisdiction.
- The trial court held the website statements were defamatory per se because they accused the uncle of serious crimes, but effectively ended the case at summary judgment due to a lack of evidence of actual reputational damages.
- The appellate court reversed, concluding the uncle did not need to prove actual damages to proceed.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey retains the common-law doctrine of presumed damages for defamation claims brought by private plaintiffs about matters not of public concern.
2. Whether a plaintiff alleging defamation per se may survive summary judgment and obtain at least nominal damages without evidence of actual reputational injury.
3. Whether compensatory damages may be awarded without proof of actual damage to reputation in such cases.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed as modified and remanded.
- The court held presumed damages remain available in private-plaintiff defamation cases that do not involve matters of public concern.
- The court ruled that, even without proof of actual reputational injury, presumed damages allow the plaintiff to survive summary judgment and pursue nominal damages to vindicate reputation.
- The court required proof of actual damage to reputation as a prerequisite to compensatory damages beyond nominal amounts.

## Legal Principles

- In private-plaintiff, private-concern defamation cases, the law may presume some injury to reputation from defamatory per se statements.
- Presumed damages in that setting support submitting the case to a factfinder and permit an award of nominal damages absent proof of actual reputational harm.
- Compensatory damages (beyond nominal) require evidence of actual damage to reputation.
- Treating the absence of proven reputational harm as dispositive at summary judgment improperly eliminates presumed damages in cases where the doctrine remains recognized.

## Conclusion

The court preserved presumed damages in New Jersey for defamation claims by private plaintiffs involving private matters, allowing nominal damages without proof of actual reputational injury, while maintaining a proof requirement for any compensatory damages beyond nominal amounts.


W.J.A. v. D.A., 43 A.3d 1148 (N.J. 2012)