Pallares v. Seinar

• Decision Date: 12 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 27364.,27364.
• Citation: Pallares v. Seinar, 407 S.C. 359, 756 S.E.2d 128 (S.C. 2014)
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Ursula R. PALLARES, Appellant, v. Sharon R. SEINAR and Lisa A. Maseng, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2011–201026.

407 S.C. 359

756 S.E.2d 128

Ursula R. PALLARES, Appellant,

v.Sharon R. SEINAR and Lisa A. Maseng, Respondents.Appellate Case No. 2011–201026.

No. 27364.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Sept. 18, 2013.

Decided March 12, 2014.

John D. Elliott, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Tobias Gavin Ward, Jr., James Derrick Jackson, Evans T. Barnette, of Johnson & Barnette, LLP, and Robert A. McKenzie, of McDonald, McKenzie, Rubin, Miller and Lybrand, LLP, all of Columbia, for Respondents.

Justice BEATTY.

Ursula R. Pallares(“Pallares”) brought this civil suit alleging five claims against two of her neighbors, Sharon R. Seinar and Lisa A. Maseng(“Respondents”).The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Respondents on Pallares's claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy.Pallares appealed, and this Court certified the case for review pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR.We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

I.FACTS

As one party aptly describes the situation, “Appellant and the Respondents are neighbors who obviously do not get along.”The three parties live in separate residences in the Shandon/Rosewood area of Columbia.Pallares filed an amended complaint on March 7, 2008 asserting Respondents had “mounted a campaign to harass and humiliate” her and to “drive her from her home.”Pallares outlined four areas of conduct by one or both Respondents involving (1) code violations at Pallares's home, (2) nuisance animals, (3) a petition for a mental evaluation, and (4) requests for restraining orders, which Pallares averred gave rise to civil tort liability.

Pallares first contended Respondents had “filed baseless complaints against her with the City of Columbia for various housing and building code violations, only to have those complaints dismissed by the authorities, on or about April 27th, 2006.”Pallares also “allege[d] that on August 4th, 2006defendant Seinar instigated criminal charges against [her] alleging that [her] pet dogs were a nuisance, in violation of the City's criminal ordinances.”Pallares contended “that on October 30th, 2006 these charges were dismissed as groundless.”

Pallares next asserted “that on May 18, 2007, defendant Seinar filed a petition with the Richland County Probate Court alleging [Pallares] was mentally ill, and in need of a mandatory mental evaluation.”¹Pallares contended “the evaluation was normal, and the petition was dismissed.”Pallares lastly alleged Respondents filed actions in the Richland County Magistrate's Court seeking restraining orders against her, but the requests were denied.²Pallares contended all of the above complaints were made by Respondents with malice and without probable cause for the ulterior purpose of harassing her and subjecting her to ridicule.Pallares stated Respondents acted in concert to harm her, with a conscious indifference to her rights, and that their ultimate intent was to run her out of the neighborhood.

Based on the foregoing, Pallares asserted claims for (1) malicious prosecution, (2) abuse of process, (3) invasion of privacy, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (5) civil conspiracy.Respondents filed answers denying the allegations.Respondent Maseng also counterclaimed, seeking an order requiring the abatement of a nuisance and damages based on Pallares's alleged failure to properly maintain her property.

Respondents moved for summary judgment as to all claims.The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Respondents on the claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy, and denied summary judgment on the remaining claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.Pallares appealed to the Court of Appeals, and this Court certified the case for review pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 56(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides a motion for summary judgment shall be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

In determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the trial court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.Brockbank v. Best Capital Corp.,341 S.C. 372, 534 S.E.2d 688(2000).“An appellate court reviews the granting of summary judgment under the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56, SCRCP.”Id. at 379, 534 S.E.2d at 692.

III.LAW/ANALYSIS

On appeal, Pallares challenges the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to Respondents on her claims for (1) malicious prosecution and (2) abuse of process.³

A.Malicious Prosecution

Pallares first contends the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to Respondents on her claim for malicious prosecution.We disagree.

“[T]o maintain an action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish: (1) the institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings; ⁴(2) by or at the instance of the defendant; (3) termination of such proceedings in [the]plaintiff's favor; (4) malice in instituting such proceedings; (5) lack of probable cause; and (6) resulting injury or damage.”Law v. S.C. Dep't of Corr.,368 S.C. 424, 435, 629 S.E.2d 642, 648(2006)(first alteration in original)(citations omitted).“An action for malicious prosecution fails if the plaintiff cannot prove each of the required elements by a preponderance of the evidence, including malice and lack of probable cause.”Id.

“Malice is defined as ‘the deliberate[,] intentional doing of an act without just cause or excuse.’ ”Id. at 437, 629 S.E.2d at 649(quotingEaves v. Broad River Elec. Coop., Inc.,277 S.C. 475, 479, 289 S.E.2d 414, 416(1982)).“Malice does not necessarily mean a defendant acted out of spite, revenge, or with a malignant disposition, although such an attitude certainly may indicate malice.”Id.“In an action for malicious prosecution, malice may be inferred from a lack of probable cause to institute the prosecution.”Id.

“Probable cause in this context does not turn upon the plaintiff's guilt or innocence, but rather upon whether the facts within the prosecutor's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe the plaintiff was guilty of the crimes charged.”Kinton v. Mobile Home Indus., Inc.,274 S.C. 179, 181, 262 S.E.2d 727, 728(1980).

Where a plaintiff bases the claim on an opponent's institution of civil causes of action, probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances would lead a person of ordinary intelligence to believe that the plaintiff committed one or more of the acts alleged in the opponent's complaint.Broyhill v. Resolution Mgmt. Consultants, Inc.,401 S.C. 466, 475, 736 S.E.2d 867, 871–72(Ct.App.2012).The issue is not what the actual facts were, but what the prosecuting party honestly believed them to be.Eaves,277 S.C. at 478, 289 S.E.2d at 416(citation omitted).

A party must show the opponent lacked probable cause as to each cause of action asserted to prevail on a claim of malicious prosecution; thus, the existence of probable cause as to any one is sufficient to defeat a malicious prosecution claim.Broyhill,401 S.C. at 475, 736 S.E.2d at 871–72.Whether probable cause exists is ordinarily a jury question, but it may be decided as a matter of law when the evidence yields only one conclusion.Law,368 S.C. at 436, 629 S.E.2d at 649(citingParrott v. Plowden Motor Co.,246 S.C. 318, 323, 143 S.E.2d 607, 609(1965)).

In granting summary judgment, the circuit court focused on the element of probable cause, stating Pallares “has failed to allege any material facts that would suggest that Seinar and Maseng did not honestly believe they had probable cause to lodge their complaints.”The court stated the record showed that Seinar complained to Animal Control/Columbia Police on three separate occasions that Pallares's dogs were barking excessively, and the incident reports from those complaints set forth information detailing the existence of probable cause on each complaint.The court noted that the Municipal Code of the City of Columbia, SC§ 4–70 provides an animal constitutes a nuisance if it is allowed to bark in an excessive, continuous, or untimely manner that results in a serious annoyance or an interference with the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring premises.

The court further stated it was undisputed that Respondents had made complaints with the City of Columbia for housing and code violations occurring on Pallares's property.The court found the City first served Pallares with warning notices of these violations, and the violations were thereafter remedied by Pallares.The court determined the service of warnings to Pallares affirmed the fact that Respondents had probable cause to initiate their complaints.Furthermore, the decision whether to enforce the code violations was made by the City, not by Respondents.The court concluded summary judgment in favor of Respondents was appropriate on the claim for malicious prosecution“because Seinar and Maseng had probable cause” to make their complaints against Pallares.

We find the record supports the circuit court's decision to grant summary judgment to Respondents on Pallares's claim for malicious prosecution because the only evidence in the record demonstrates there was probable cause to support one or more of the complaints lodged by Respondents, which defeats Pallares's claim for malicious prosecution as a matter of law.

The record contains an incident report on or about January 4, 2005 documenting a complaint by Seinar about dogs barking at Pallares's residence: “Complainant reports that a[n] animal (dog) was continuously barking at the rear of the above Incident...