Sarvold v. Dodson
Decision Date | 21 January 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 2--57067,2--57067 |
Citation | 237 N.W.2d 447 |
Parties | Lyle SARVOLD, Appellant, v. Terry Lee DODSON, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Shaw, Shaw & Beneke by Donald G. Beneke, Laurens, for appellant.
Fitzgibbons Brothers, Estherville, for appellee.
Heard by MOORE, C.J., and LeGRAND, REES, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals dismissal of Count (Division) I of his petition for failure to state a cause of action for abuse of process. We find the trial court applied the wrong rule of law in sustaining defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Count I and accordingly reverse and remand.
I. Count I of plaintiff's three Count petition alleges a cause of action for abuse of process, Count II alleges a cause of action for malicious prosecution and Count III alleges a cause of action for a civil rights violation. Defendant's motion to dismiss each Count for failure to plead a cause of action was sustained. Plaintiff has appealed only from dismissal of Count I. On issues raised at the pleading stage we consider all well plead allegations as true. Aalfs v. Aalfs, 246 Iowa 158, 160, 66 N.W.2d 121, 122.
Count I of plaintiff's petition alleges that prior to September 1, 1971, plaintiff was in possession of information which he felt would be grounds for discharge of defendant from his job as a police officer in Spencer, Iowa. He alleges further that plaintiff acted upon this information by conveying same to certain public officials for the purpose of obtaining defendant's discharge. It is then alleged defendant filed an information and caused plaintiff to be confined at the State Mental Health Institute at Cherokee, Iowa and later committed to the Veteran's Hospital in Knoxville, Iowa for evaluation and treatment of mental illness. Plaintiff then pleads:
The court dismissed both Count I and Count II on the grounds plaintiff's petition failed to allege absence of probable cause and termination of the commitment proceedings favorably to plaintiff.
II. Our first problem is to determine the elements of and distinctions between actions for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Specifically we must determine if plaintiff must allege absence of probable cause or favorable termination to support an abuse of process action. Although both actions include common elements of malice and improper application of process, actions for abuse of process and actions for malicious prosecution are fundamentally different in focus.
The elements of a malicious prosecution action are: (1) a previous prosecution, (2) instigation or procurement thereof by defendant, (3) termination of the prosecution by an acquittal or discharge of plaintiff, (4) want of probable cause, (5) malice in bringing the prosecution on the part of the defendant and (6) damage to plaintiff. Vander Linden v. Crews, Iowa, 231 N.W.2d 904, 905; Liberty Loan Corp. of Des Moines v. Williams, Iowa, 201 N.W.2d 462, 466.
The basis of an action for malicious prosecution consists of the wrongful initiation of an unsuccessful civil or criminal proceeding with malice and without probable cause. Hyde Construction Co., Inc. v. Koehring Company, 387 F.Supp. 702, 713 (S.D.Miss.1974); Liberty Loan Corp. of Des Moines v. Williams, supra, 201 N.W.2d 462, 466; 72 C.J.S. Process § 119, p. 1189.
The requisites of an action for abuse of process have not been consistently defined by our case law. As we point out infra two of our older cases indicate absence of probable cause must be alleged to support an abuse of process action. However, in Ashland v. Lapiner Motor Co., 247 Iowa 596, 75 N.W.2d 357, we indicated we would follow the Restatement view on the subject; and recently in Jones v. Iowa State Highway Commission, Iowa, 207 N.W.2d 1, 4, we cite and quote Restatement, Torts, (1938). Section 682 thereof at page 464 on the subject of abuse of process states the general principle as: 'One who uses a legal process, whether criminal or civil, against another to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed is liable to the other for the pecuniary loss caused thereby.'
The tentative redraft of section 682 would add only 'primarily' after the word 'another.' It is not pertinent to the pleading problem here presented.
The formulation of the rule is supported by the weight of recent authority and is fundamentally sound. Of importance is comment 'a' to the Restatement of Torts section 682 (1938) which reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Comidas Exquisitos, Inc. v. CARLOS McGEE'S MEX. CAFE, INC.
...defendant's counterclaim must be treated as a claim of malicious prosecution or abuse of process. See generally, Sarvold v. Dodson, 237 N.W.2d 447 (Iowa 1976); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 674, 682 The Court can exercise ancillary jurisdiction over defendant's counterclaim only if it is......
-
Venckus v. City of Iowa City
...are not entitled to absolute immunity. Pointing to Paige v. City of Chariton , 252 N.W.2d 433, 438 (Iowa 1977), and Sarvold v. Dodson , 237 N.W.2d 447, 448 (Iowa 1976), the Moser court highlighted "our cases that recognize peace officers who instigate or procure a prosecution may be held li......
-
Van Stelton v. Jerry Van Stelton, Donna Van Stelton, Eugene Van Stelton, Gary Christians, Doug Weber, Scott Gries, Nate Krikke, Robert E. Hansen, Daniel Dekoter, Osceola Cnty., Iowa, & Dekoter, Thole & Dawson, P.C.
...on other grounds by Barreca v. Nickolas, 652 N.W.2d 453 (Iowa 2004); Royce v. Henning, 423 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Iowa 1998); Sarvold v. Dodson, 237 N.W.2d 447, 448 (Iowa 1976); see also Craig v. City of Cedar Rapids, 826 N.W.2d 516, 2012 WL 6193862, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2012) (unpublish......
-
Van Stelton v. Van Stelton
...on other grounds by Barreca v. Nickolas, 652 N.W.2d 453 (Iowa 2004); Royce v. Henning, 423 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Iowa 1998); Sarvold v. Dodson, 237 N.W.2d 447, 448 (Iowa 1976); see also Craig v. City of Cedar Rapids, 826 N.W.2d 516, 2012 WL 6193862, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2012) (unpublish......