‘Wow, he is a loser.’ LR5 board member who sued constituents faces attacks on reputation
When Lexington-Richland 5 school board member Ken Loveless filed libel lawsuits earlier this year against two constituents who criticized him on Facebook, he “opened his reputation up for scrutiny and debate,” a document filed last week in a Richland County court says.
The filing by attorney Tucker Player, who represents three people subpoenaed to give depositions in one of the lawsuits, spells out what that scrutiny might look like in court.
“The public record is replete with records and documents that demonstrate Loveless’ reputation is not something that needs to be protected,” the filing reads. “It is something he wishes people would forget. Unfortunately, that’s not how a defamation claim works. When Loveless filed this lawsuit, he opened his reputation up for scrutiny and debate.”
In March, Loveless sued Kevin Scully, the husband of a teacher in the school district, for allegedly defamatory statements made on Facebook about Loveless’ performance on the Lexington-Richland 5 school board, including comments such as “Crooked Ken is an unethical hypocrite and a liar,” and “Wow, he is a loser.” Loveless’ lawsuit claims the comments were damaging to his reputation.
Player’s filing, titled a motion for fees and costs, takes square aim at that issue, reviewing claims made about Loveless over 35 years in legal filings around the state. Player is seeking to recoup the costs his clients incurred to give depositions in the case. The attorney also asks that Loveless be sanctioned for bringing a “frivolous action.”
Loveless attorney Desa Ballard declined to respond to the claims made in Player’s filing when asked by The State, saying she would “file appropriate responses with the court.”
Loveless also has sued Leslie Stiles, who administered the Facebook group “Deep Dive Into D5.” Stiles is being sued both for comments she made about Loveless and the school board, as well as comments made in the group by Scully and others. Posting and commenting on the page has been frozen since Stiles was sued.
Last week’s filing goes over several accusations against Loveless made in previous court filings, including details of Loveless’ divorce and accusations about his business practices. “The pleadings in these lawsuits contain many allegations that bring Loveless’ reputation into a bad light,” the filing says.
Loveless filed suit in 1993 against a man Loveless claimed “intentionally, maliciously, unlawfully, and wantonly commenced an active effort to gain the affection of (Loveless’) wife,” leading to the breakdown of their marriage. Loveless sued for being “wrongfully deprived of the love, comfort, advice, company, society and support” of his then-spouse. A divorce court had previously ruled in favor of Loveless’ wife, finding that Loveless had been unfaithful, Player’s motion says.
The defendant responded that “throughout a majority of (Loveless)’s marriage or at least a substantial portion of (Loveless)’s marriage, (Loveless) engaged in abusive conduct towards his wife, which resulted in there being no mutual respect, affection or commitment between (Loveless) and his wife for several years prior to the Defendant meeting (Loveless)’s wife.” The defendant went on to claim “if anyone alienated (Loveless)‘s wife’s affections it was (Loveless) through his abusive and irrational behavior, and any mental distress or other damages that he may have suffered were occasioned by his own behavior.”
Court filings show the dispute was later settled out of court.
A search of S.C. court records show that Loveless and his company, Loveless Commercial Contracting, have been involved as either the plaintiff or the defendant in 70 lawsuits across 13 counties, nearly 60 of them in Lexington and Richland counties, the filing claims.
In another lawsuit filed in 1988, Loveless’ business, Loveless Commercial Contracting, was sued by another firm, Weeks Painting and Construction, for alleged fraud, Player’s filing said. Weeks claimed that in a bid for a contract with the state Transportation Department, Loveless’ company “submitted the Plaintiff’s name, signed notarized statements that it had received a bid quote from the Plaintiff ... that it had negotiated with Plaintiff as a subcontractor when in fact it had not done so.”
Weeks’ company was classed as a “disadvantaged business entity,” according to court filings in the suit, which would have benefited any bid for a public contract to which it was a party. But Weeks claimed he had never entered into a contract with Loveless, who subsequently won the contract and used a different, non-disadvantaged subcontractor to complete the work, Weeks’ filing says.
Loveless denied Weeks’ claims in his own filing at the time.
Other companies Loveless contracted with have filed their own claims against him. In 1999, Coleman Cutting Systems filed suit for $90,000 it claimed it was owed for 14 different jobs it had done for Loveless Commercial Contracting. Coleman was eventually awarded the full amount in a jury trial, while Loveless’ counterclaims were dismissed, Player’s filing states.
In a footnote to his legal filing, referencing one of the allegedly libelous statements about Loveless made online, Player notes that “In legal terms, Loveless ‘lost’ that trial in toto, and is therefore, by definition, ‘a loser.’”
Another contractor who worked with Loveless’ firm, the Millwork Company, sued in 1996 arguing Millwork had been cheated out of $21,715 it was owed by Loveless on two jobs that Millwork worked for Loveless’ company.
“Loveless attempted to intimidate the Plaintiff into accepting unwarranted and meritless back charges, because Loveless believed the Plaintiff to be in a weak financial situation,” the Millwork lawsuit reads. “Loveless intended for the Plaintiff to leave both jobs, having performed its contracts with Loveless, while Loveless retained the total benefit of Plaintiff’s work and the sums due to the Plaintiff.”
In a counterclaim, Loveless says the company failed to complete its work in a timely manner and without deficiencies, breaching its contract and requiring Loveless Contracting to complete the work itself, the counterclaim states. This caused Loveless “a loss of customer good will, construction delays and loss of profits, past and future.”
The case was later settled out of court.
Loveless himself claimed in a 1986 lawsuit that his former employer, the Macco Company, owed him almost $35,000 in an unreturned investment, an unpaid bonus and unused vacation time.
In reply, Macco argued that not only was Loveless not owed the money, but that prior to leaving the company, Loveless had maneuvered projects to himself that should have gone to his employer, including work on Dreher High School.
“Even though this was the type of project he handled for Macco, he did not advise anyone at Macco of the project,” the company wrote in response. “Instead, he bid on and was awarded a subcontract on the project. The $50,000.00 profit he is going to receive from the project should have gone to Macco.”
Documents filed last week do not indicate how the suits of Macco and Weeks were ultimately resolved. Nor did court records for Richland County available online.
Player’s filing also includes several other claims against Loveless, including a previous lawsuit against Sprint after an altercation in one of their stores that ended with Loveless charged with assault, accusations of unethical conduct by Loveless on the school board, and his conduct toward a former superintendent in Lexington-Richland 5, all of which was previously covered by The State. The assault charge was later dropped.
This story was originally published June 28, 2022 at 9:03 AM.
.jpg)