SALT LAKE CITY --The Utah Supreme Court ruled last week that a Bountiful couple is entitled to a hearing in 2nd District Court, after they claimed they were defamed in a 2003 civil lawsuit naming them as part of a polygamous group.

In its decision the court ruled that Nevin and Denise Pratt can sue Mary Ann Kingston (now known as Nelson) and two attorneys for statements they made to members of the press, when they announced a $110 million lawsuit against individuals and businesses allegedly belonging to the Davis County Cooperative Society.

Attempts to contact the Pratts on Monday for comment were unsuccessful.

In her suit, Nelson alleges that members of the Kingston family, in which she grew up, knew about and did nothing to prevent physical and sexual abuse inflicted on her by her father and uncle.

The suit said that when Nelson was 16, she was beaten with a belt to the point of unconsciousness by her father, John Daniel Kingston, for trying to escape a forced marriage to her uncle, Daniel Kingston. He was later imprisoned on charges of incest. John Daniel Kingston served time for physical abuse of a child.

She filed the suit against members of "the Order," listing 242 individuals and 96 businesses as defendants. Among those defendants listed in the suit were the Pratts, although they weren't mentioned by name during the press conference.

While not mentioned at the press conference, the Pratts filed a defamation lawsuit against Nelson and her lawyers, claiming their reputation had been damaged. They also claim they had been made to appear connected to the abuse and other allegations.

A 2nd District judge ruled that the Pratts were barred from pursuing the defamation suit because Nelson's claims were protected against libel under judicial privilege and that the Pratts had not been singled out.

The Pratts then appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, which affirmed the 2nd District Court decision, adding it could not take the case because the couple was late in filing a specific court document.

But in its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said that Nelson's claims lost their privileged status when she held the press conference.

The court said that statements made by parties in a lawsuit to the press are not protected because the media "at most" are acting as concerned citizens and have no standing in the proceedings.

The court also said that the state's defamation rule does not prevent the Pratts from pursuing a defamation claim.

Even though they were not named at the news conference, they were identified twice in a complaint distributed to the media. And, the court ruled, the late filing of an appellate document does not prevent the Court of Appeals from reviewing the case,

Mary Ann Nelson's case is still pending in 3rd District Court.

mwilliams@davisclipper.com