Slander suit has no merit

Habeck

The Chesterfield Circuit Court has ruled against a Chesterfield businessman who alleged last year that he had been defamed while trying to get a sewer district approved along Route 10. Judge Herbert Gill sided with the seven defendants and didn't compel discovery, which would have allowed attorneys for the plaintiff and defendants to ask questions of the other parties prior to trial.

Roger Habeck, who owns a business that aids other businesses in zoning matters, sued for $1.35 million, objecting to allegations that he was being "paid by the developers" and that he didn't "give a rat's tail" about the affected residential property owners. The judge's order effectively stops Habeck's suit unless he appeals. Contacted last week, Habeck said he hadn't made up his mind yet about an appeal.

The ruling blocked Habeck's request for records and/or depositions from the Kingsland Road defendants - Sandee and David Cosby, G.B. and Sandra Spencer, and Diane Barber. Keith and Shannon Andrew of Bluespruce Drive were also named as defendants. The defendants urged citizens to oppose the sewer assessment district and contact their supervisors. A letter to the editor from Sandee Cosby was also published in the Village News newspaper.

The proposed sewer district of about 300 acres runs along Route 10 from the county airport to Kingsland Road. Habeck said owners of 31 of the 41 parcels of land there endorsed the district. Usually, homeowners propose a sewer district because their septic systems are failing, but this proposal includes both residential and commercial properties. Paying for the sewer system would cost about $8,500 per acre, and the residents believe that would favor business interests near the airport and hurt some homeowners who have large parcels.

In their arguments, attorneys for the defendants wrote reasonable persons would consider what the defendants wrote as personal opinion and not facts.

In a strong response for Habeck, attorney Darren Hart wrote that the intent of the defendants should be decided by a jury and not the judge. "…The defendants coldly and calculatingly chose to communicate false facts and relied upon their language," Hart wrote. "The defendants and the court are not able to substitute their judgment as to the meaning of the words that defamed Habeck…"