Martin answers lawsuit

By GINA KINSLOW

HORSE CAVE — Horse Cave’s mayor has answered a defamation of character lawsuit filed against him both in his official capacity as mayor and individually by his predecessor.

Odell Martin, who has been mayor since January 2007, admits to a portion of the allegations made in the lawsuit by former Horse Cave Mayor JoAnne Smith, who was mayor from January 1999 to December 2006, but denies other allegations made by Smith.

In her lawsuit, Smith said since Martin took office “he has made statements during city council meetings implying the former mayor and her administration had mismanaged funds during her term in office.”

Smith also alleges that Martin has refused to sign documents and letters that would officially close a Community Development Block Grant received by the city in 2003, implying she and her administration had improperly managed the grant.

She also pointed out that Martin has refused to sign off on the 2006-07 city audit based on his belief there were financial problems with the grant, as well as other grants received by the city during the former administration.

In his answer, Martin said “any statements made during city council meetings regarding the Community Development Block Grant received by the city of Horse Cave in 2003 or the 2006-07 audit prepared by David Gilbert, CPA, will be reflected in the minutes of the meetings in question.”

In her lawsuit, Smith made reference to a July 31 special city council meeting, during which council members discussed the cutting down of several trees in the Main Street Cemetery. Smith alleges that Martin accused her of being responsible for $30,000 worth of equipment that was missing. She also alleges the conversation was repeated in a newsletter mailed to her home address and addressed to “occupant.”

Smith says the alleged exchange with Martin during the July 31 meeting injured her “honesty, integrity, morality and reputation” and exposed her to “public contempt, ridicule and injury.” She also says Martin “contributed to the maliciousness of the slander when, at his direction, a newsletter was produced and circulated throughout the city of Horse Cave.”

Martin admits he spoke at a public meeting on July 31 and has submitted the minutes of that meeting, which he says, “will speak for themselves.”

As for the newsletter, which Smith claims made reference to the verbal exchange between Smith and Martin during the July 31 meeting, Martin admitted the city of Horse Cave does distribute a newsletter “to keep the public informed about meetings that have occurred and other public events.”

Smith is asking for punitive damages because she believes Martin’s conduct to be with actual malice. She is also asking for compensation for past and future mental and emotional distress, suffering, embarrassment, mortification, humiliation and harm to her reputation, as well as payment for attorney fees. She is asking for a trial by jury.

In his answer, Martin said “if the plaintiff was damaged as alleged in her complaint, then same was caused or brought about by the act or acts of one or ones other than the defendant and for whom the defendant has no legal liability and/or responsibility.”

He also stated in his answer that Smith has failed to state a cause of action against him upon which relief can be granted and that Smith’s complaint is barred by the doctrine of official immunity and municipal immunity.