Sebright v. Mann

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge
• Citation: Sebright v. Mann, 607 S.W.3d 258 (Mo. App. 2020)
• Decision Date: 25 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. ED 108613,ED 108613
• Parties: Michael O. SEBRIGHT, Appellant, v. Shannon MANN, Respondent.

607 S.W.3d 258

Michael O. SEBRIGHT, Appellant,

v.Shannon MANN, Respondent.

No. ED 108613

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

FILED: August 25, 2020

For Appellant: David C. Knieriem, 13321 N. Outer Forty Rd., Ste. 100, Town and Country, MO 63017.

For Respondent: Stephen A. Martin, 330 Jefferson St., St. Charles, MO 63301.

KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge

Introduction

Michael O. Sebright ("Sebright") appeals from the circuit court's dismissal of his claim for malicious prosecution against Shannon Mann ("Mann"). In his sole point on appeal, Sebright contends his petition adequately pleads the elements of malicious prosecution to state a cause of action. Because the petition adequately pleads malicious prosecution by alleging that Mann's prior action was filed without probable cause and with malicious intent to force Sebright to incur additional attorneys’ fees in an unnecessary proceeding, the circuit court erred in dismissing Sebright's claim. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Factual and Procedural History

Sebright and Mann are brother and sister. This appeal involves but one of several disputes being litigated between them. This particular case stems from a small-claims action filed pro se by Mann contesting ownership of their deceased father's camper and utility trailer.

In the matter on appeal, Sebright filed a petition in the circuit court alleging two counts against Mann: "malicious prosecution/abuse of process" and "abuse of process/fraud." Mann moved for dismissal and for a more definite statement, maintaining that both counts improperly mingled separate legal theories with distinct elements, failed to sufficiently state the elements for any of the claims, and were unclear on which claims Sebright was proceeding. The circuit court granted Mann's motion for a more definite statement and allowed Sebright to amend and refile his petition.

Subsequently, Sebright filed his first amended petition (the "Petition") in which he pleaded the following claim for malicious prosecution:

2. On June 25, 2018, [Mann] filed an action pro se against [Sebright], Shannon Mann v. Michael Sebright, 1811-SC00173 ("the lawsuit"). [Mann] lost this action, filed a trial de novo, and lost again. This lawsuit was dismissed by the Court on April 3, 2019.

3. [Mann's] lawsuit was filed for an improper purpose and with malicious intent; namely, to force [Sebright] to unnecessarily incur attorneys’ fees, as retaliation for perceived slights to [Mann], and for statements made by [Sebright] that had nothing to do with the lawsuit filed by [Mann].

4. [Mann] had no reasonable expectation of winning the lawsuit, or that the cause was valid, and therefore had no probable cause in filing the suit, because

a. [Mann] [sic]¹ did not hold a reasonable belief that the titles at issue in that case were not signed at the direction of Richard Sebright[.]

b. Even if she did, and the titles were voided, the items would have gone to Dorothy Sebright, Richard's wife, and not [Mann], and Dorothy Sebright could have done anything with them she pleased.

c. There was no cause of action [Mann] could have brought that was within the statute of limitations[.]

d. In order to support this claim, [Mann] made two statements of fact in an affidavit that were false in attempting to support this claim by summary judgment:

(1). [Sebright] was the Personal Representative of the estate of Richard A. Sebright [and]

(2). That titles were backdated[.]

5. [Sebright] was damaged in that he had to incur attorneys’ fees defending the action, and sustained the burden in time and stress of having to defend the lawsuit.

Mann moved to dismiss the Petition on the grounds that the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that a separate action remained pending between the same parties for a related cause, and that the malicious-prosecution claim improperly joined and conflated the elements for abuse of process.² Mann specifically argued that Sebright did not allege facts sufficient to establish that Mann had initiated her small-claims action with malicious intent.

In response to Mann's motion to dismiss, Sebright noted that he again would amend the Petition if needed, that he was pursuing only the sole count of malicious prosecution, and that the separate action pending between the two parties was unrelated to the present case as that action involved a trust, and that said action was on appeal. Following a hearing, the circuit court, without explanation, granted Mann's motion to dismiss the Petition.

Sebright moved to amend the circuit court's judgment and order dismissing the Petition. Mann opposed Sebright's motion and argued that Sebright's case was de minimis and failed to state facts required to adequately plead the elements for malicious prosecution, particularly that Sebright lacked probable cause for the underlying action. The circuit court held a hearing on Sebright's motion to amend, and then ruled to deny the motion. Sebright now appeals the circuit court's judgment and order dismissing the Petition.

Points on Appeal

In his sole point on appeal, Sebright argues the circuit court erred in dismissing the Petition because the Petition adequately states a cause of action for malicious prosecution by alleging each of the required elements.

Standard of Review

When the circuit court fails to specify its reasons for dismissing a petition, we presume that the circuit court's judgment is based on one of the reasons stated in the motion to dismiss. Palisades Collection, LLC v. Watson, 375 S.W.3d 857, 860 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (internal citation omitted). "A judgment of dismissal will be affirmed if it is supported by any ground raised in the motion to dismiss." Avery Contracting, LLC v. Niehaus, 492 S.W.3d 159, 162 (Mo. banc 2016) (citing Dujakovich v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 574, 577 (Mo. banc 2012) ).

We conduct de novo review of a judgment sustaining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hobbs v. Consol. Grain & Barge Co., 517 S.W.3d 7, 9 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (citing City of Lake St. Louis v. City of O'Fallon, 324 S.W.3d 756, 759 (Mo. banc 2010) ).³ "A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is solely a test of the adequacy of the plaintiff's petition." Id. (quoting City of Lake St. Louis, 324 S.W.3d at 759 ); see also Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C. v. Mason, 316 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) ("In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court can only consider the pleadings, and appellate review is also limited to the pleadings."). We do not weigh the credibility or persuasiveness of the alleged facts. Hobbs, 517 S.W.3d at 9. Thus, in determining whether the alleged facts meet the elements of the claimed cause of action, we take the petitioner's averments as true and liberally grant the petitioner all reasonable inferences. Id.

Discussion

To state a claim for malicious prosecution, a petitioner must plead the following elements:

(1) commencement of an earlier suit against the party; (2) instigation of that suit by the adverse party; (3) termination of the suit in the party's favor; (4) lack of probable cause for filing the suit; (5) malice by the adverse party in initiating the suit; and (6) damage sustained by the party as a result of the suit.

Id. at 10 (quoting Copeland v. Wicks, 468 S.W.3d 886, 889 (Mo. banc 2015) ). Here, the motion to dismiss asserted that the Petition failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution, specifically that the Petition fails to adequately plead the element of malicious intent with respect to Mann's filing of the small-claims action. See Edwards v. Gerstein, 237 S.W.3d 580, 583 (Mo. banc 2007) (finding the petitioner failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution where the petitioner failed to allege that the defendant had initiated the action with malicious intent). Thus, we are tasked with determining whether, taking the Petition's facts as true and liberally granting all reasonable inferences, the Petition adequately pleads the elements of malicious prosecution. See Hobbs, 517 S.W.3d at 9.

Regarding the first three elements of malicious prosecution, the Petition states: "[o]n June 25, 2018, [Mann] filed an action pro se against [Sebright], Shannon Mann v. Michael Sebright, 1811-SC00173 ("the lawsuit"). [Mann] lost this action, filed a trial de novo, and lost again. This lawsuit was dismissed by the Court on April 3, 2019." The Petition therefore adequately pleads that Mann initiated the earlier small-claims action against Sebright and that the action terminated in Sebright's favor. See id. at 9, 11 (affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim for malicious prosecution where the petition admitted that the earlier action terminated in the defendant's favor rather than the petitioner's). Additionally, the Petition alleges the final element that Sebright suffered damages through incurred attorneys’ fees in defending the small-claims action. See id. at 9.

For the element of malicious intent, the Petition pleads: "[Mann's] lawsuit was filed for an improper purpose and with malicious intent; namely, to force [Sebright] to unnecessarily incur attorneys’ fees, as retaliation for perceived slights to [Mann], and for statements made by [Sebright] that had nothing to do with the lawsuit filed by [Mann]."

Rule 55.05⁴ requires a pleading contain "a short and a plain statement of the facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" Rule 55.15 specifies that unlike fraud or mistake, which must be pleaded with particularity, "[m]alice, intent, knowledge and any other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally." Thus, although malicious prosecution is disfavored by courts and requires strict proof on its elements to secure a favorable judgment, at the pleading stage the element of malicious intent need not be pleaded with...