Durkin v. Davis, 2D01-2520.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D01-2520.,2D01-2520. |
| Citation | 814 So.2d 1246 |
| Parties | William H. DURKIN, Appellant, v. Margaret DAVIS, Violet C. Beasley, Noel K. Evans, and Evans & Donica, P.A., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
R. Patrick Mirk of R. Patrick Mirk, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Maria A. Borland and Brett J. Preston of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees Noel K. Evans and Evans & Donica, P.A.
Joseph M. Davis, Tampa, for Appellees Margaret Davis and Violet C. Beasley.
William H. Durkin appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his complaint alleging entitlement to damages as the result of malicious prosecution. Although the complaint lacks clarity and requires amendment, we conclude it was error to dismiss with prejudice as to defendants Margaret Davis and Violet Beasley and thus reverse.
Mr. Durkin, a certified public accountant, based his claim of malicious prosecution on his successful defense of an action against him by Davis and Beasley, prosecuted by their attorneys, Evans & Donica and Noel K. Evans. In the prior action, Davis and Beasley claimed damages allegedly caused by a faulty financial statement prepared by Durkin upon which they relied in purchasing a business. Durkin alleges in this case that the claim was defeated because the financial statement, allegedly relied on by Davis and Beasley, was not prepared by him until after Davis and Beasley had entered into a binding contract to purchase the business. Thus they could not have acted in reliance on the statement prepared by Durkin, obviously a fact that Davis and Beasley had to know when they filed suit against him.
Durkin's amended complaint contained five counts: four for malicious prosecution against Margaret Davis, Violet Beasley, Noel Evans (attorney for Davis and Beasley in the earlier litigation), and Evans & Donica, P.A. The fifth count alleged conspiracy among the four named defendants.
In order to prevail in a malicious prosecution action, the plaintiff must establish each of six elements: (1) an original judicial proceeding against the present plaintiff was commenced or continued; (2) the present defendant was the legal cause of the original proceeding; (3) the termination of the original proceeding constituted a bona fide termination of that proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff; (4) there was an absence of probable cause for the original proceeding; (5) there was malice on the part of the present defendant; and (6) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the original proceeding. See Burns v. GCC Beverages, Inc., 502 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1986)
. Each element must be established to support a claim of malicious prosecution; only two are at issue here: whether there was an absence of probable cause for the original proceeding (the complaint against the accountant), and whether there was malice on the part of the defendants.
The question of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact. Cold v. Clark, 180 So.2d 347, 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). From our review it appears that Durkin is alleging...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rebalko v. City of Coral Springs
...as a result of the original proceeding.Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Kingsland , 382 F.3d at 1234 ); see also Durkin v. Davis , 814 So. 2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (setting out the elements).13 Florida courts have generally viewed false-arrest and false-imprisonment claims as equivalen......
-
Abella v. Simon
...and (6) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the original proceeding.Kingsland, 382 F.3d at 1234 (citing Durkin v. Davis, 814 So.2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). Construing Abella's Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to hi m, the Court finds Abella's allegations suffic......
-
DeRosa v. Rambosk
...980 So.2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). To support a claim for malicious prosecution each element must be present. Durkin v. Davis, 814 So.2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). A state law claim of malicious prosecution can be based upon an arrest without further prosecution. Levine v. Hunt, ......
-
Spadaro v. City of Miramar
...part of the defendants; and (6) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the original proceeding. Id. (citing Durkin v. Davis, 814 So.2d 1246, 1248 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002)). Here, the allegations contained within the Amended Complaint do not support that Defendants were acting within th......
-
Procedural torts
...428, 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). See Also 1. MacAlister v. Bevis Const., Inc. , 164 So.3d 773, 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). 2. Durkin v. Davis , 814 So.2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). 3. Cuccia v. Westberry , 506 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). 4. Maybin v. Thompson , 606 So.2d 1240, 1241 (Fl......