Tough stuff
By Alan Cooper
Published: September 8, 2008
Bribery, bankruptcy, failure to pay debts and taking money from children.
Tough stuff for a general election, much less a Republican nomination contest.
Too tough for Paul C. Jost, the challenger for the seat held by Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr., R-Williamsburg. After he lost the 2003 race, Jost, a real estate investor, filed a $10 million defamation suit against Norment.
Neither side has pushed to have the case resolved, but trial is set for November, and Norment’s attorney, David P. Corrigan, filed a demurrer contending that Jost had admitted the truth of the allegations and that Norment’s statements could not be the basis for a defamation case because they were opinion or the type of rhetorical hyperbole that is permitted in election contests.
Richmond Circuit Judge Melvin R. Hughes Jr. ruled last month that the case could go to trial on the allegations of bankruptcy and taking money from children but dismissed the claims related to bribery and failure to pay a debt.
The bribery allegation got the most attention during the campaign, and Jost admitted that he offered a third candidate in the race $50,000 if she would move to Virginia Beach and challenge Norment’s Republican colleague and law partner, Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, there.
Jost contended that the allegation suggested criminal wrong doing while Norment published a flyer with two dictionary definitions of bribe, one of which described it as “something that serves to induce or influence.”
The allegation of failing to pay a debt stemmed from a $325,000 judgment against Jost and a corporation he controlled in 1986. Jost acknowledged the debt and that it went unpaid for 10 years.
Viewed in the context of Norment’s statements, both allegations were true, Hughes concluded. Norment alleged only that the money was offered to influence the third candidate and did not contend that the offer was criminal, Hughes wrote in Borgenicht v. Jost (VLW 008-8-182). The judgment order made the allegation that Jost had failed to pay the debt truthful as well, Hughes said.
On the other hand, Jost’s pleadings stated enough facts that he should be allowed to attempt to convince a jury that the allegations about bankruptcy and taking money from children were false.
The bankruptcy allegation stemmed from a proceeding against Southern Oaks Condominium Partners Ltd. in Texas. Jost was listed as the service agent for the company, but he contends that he was only an investor in the company, with a 10 percent stake in it, and filed the petition so that he and others would get the money they were owed.
The allegation that Jost took money from children was based on a lawsuit the parents of two children filed on their behalf over money invested in a real estate partnership in Dallas.
A flyer issued by Norment’s campaign contained the front page of a lawsuit filed by the children and alleged that “[h]e and a few other wealthy partners secretly took a vote and decided to take $385,000 in case from the partnership and divide it among themselves.” The children got nothing, even though they owned more than 30 percent of the partnership, Norment alleged.
Jost contended that Norment knew the allegation was false and held a personal hatred toward him, which was enough to overcome Norment’s qualified privilege to comment on the qualifications of a candidate for elective office, Hughes said.
Hughes also refused to dismiss the claim of the estate of Jack Borgenicht, whose name appeared as a defendant in the lawsuit depicted on the flyer about the action by the children. The “few other wealthy partners” reference in the flyer could only be read to mean that Borgenicht had a hand in taking the money, Hughes said.
The judge ruled that Borgenicht and Jost had violated Virginia Code § 8.01-5 by filing one lawsuit against Norment because they were separate individuals alleging separate causes of action. He directed the plaintiffs to decide which one should proceed. The other plaintiff could file a separate suit, he ruled.
© Copyright 2010 Virginia Lawyers Media. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
-
John Betts says:Posted on 09/11/08 at 2:15 pm
POST A COMMENT
GET THE VLW DAILY ALERT
The Daily Alert from Virginia Lawyers Weekly brings you the latest legal news every morning in your e-mail. You’ll get headline news, a link to the day’s Top Opinion and more!
Click here for more info.
![[Print]](http://valawyersweekly.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://valawyersweekly.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/email_2.png)
![[RSS Feed]](http://valawyersweekly.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/rssfeed.png)
![[del.icio.us]](http://valawyersweekly.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/delicious.png)
![[Facebook]](http://valawyersweekly.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/facebook.png)
Paul,
I believe that you may find this article interesting.
John Betts