Flanagan v. Flanagan

Rule of Law:

A conversation is a "confidential communication" under California Penal Code § 632 if any party to the conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded, regardless of whether the party expects the content of the conversation will later be divulged to third parties.

Facts:

• John Flanagan, a wealthy businessman diagnosed with cancer, was married to Honorine Flanagan. John had two children, Michael and Carol, from a prior marriage.
• In 1995, Honorine told her manicurist, Dale Denels, that she was injecting John with water instead of his prescribed cancer medication and offered money to have him killed.
• Denels began secretly recording her telephone conversations with Honorine.
• Denels informed Michael of the situation and played a recording for him, which Michael then played for his father, John.
• John moved out, received proper medical care which improved his health, and changed his estate plan to exclude Honorine.
• John and Honorine later reconciled in 1996, and John moved back in with her, executing a new estate plan that largely favored Honorine.
• After their reconciliation, Honorine installed a voice-activated recorder and secretly taped numerous telephone conversations between John and his son, Michael.
• John died in 1997 of causes unrelated to his cancer.

Procedural Posture:

• Honorine Flanagan sued Michael Flanagan and Dale Denels in trial court for invasion of privacy, among other claims.
• Michael filed a cross-complaint against Honorine, alleging she violated Penal Code § 632 by secretly recording telephone conversations between him and his father, John.
• At trial, the jury found for Michael on his cross-complaint, ruling that 24 calls were confidential and awarded him $120,000 in statutory damages plus punitive damages.
• The trial court, on Honorine's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, reduced the statutory damages to a single award of $5,000 and struck the punitive damages.
• Michael, as appellant, appealed the trial court's reduction of damages.
• The Court of Appeal, as the intermediate appellate court, applied a narrow definition of 'confidential communication' and found that only two calls were proven to be confidential, modifying the judgment to $10,000.
• Michael, as petitioner, sought and was granted review by the California Supreme Court solely on the issue of the correct legal standard for a 'confidential communication'.