Fappani v. Bratton
1 CA-CV 15-0527
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Fappani bought 20 acres adjacent to the Brattons and built a private dirt motorbike track used by his children.
- Courtney Bratton repeatedly complained to the Maricopa County Sheriff (at least eight times) that the track violated county Noise Ordinance P-23; deputies ultimately issued two citations to Fappani.
- Bratton also contacted the county planning office and allegedly encouraged neighbors to complain; she received a victim-information form after filing complaints.
- The county attorney prosecuted the consolidated citations in justice court; Fappani was found not guilty.
- Fappani sued in superior court for abuse of process, alleging Bratton used the criminal justice system to coerce removal of the track and to harass him; the superior court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
- On appeal, the court considered whether complaining to police or urging prosecution qualifies as use of judicial process and whether Fappani adequately pleaded an improper ulterior purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reporting alleged noise violations to police or urging prosecution constitutes "use of judicial process" for abuse-of-process purposes | Fappani: Bratton's repeated complaints and demands to prosecute amounted to use of judicial process that she then abused | Bratton: Complaints to law enforcement and urging prosecution are not a judicial process; deputies and prosecutor exercised independent discretion | Court: Reporting to police and urging prosecution are not use of judicial process for abuse-of-process claims absent involvement in a court-authorized process |
| Whether Bratton acted for an improper ulterior purpose (element of abuse of process) | Fappani: Bratton's motive was to force removal of the track, devalue property, and coerce a collateral advantage (extortion/coercion) | Bratton: Even if spiteful, seeking enforcement of the noise ordinance is a legitimate use of the system; mere spite or desire to protect property value is insufficient | Court: Allegations show pursuit of enforcement, not coercion or extortion; motive alone (spite, ill will) without misuse of process does not state abuse of process |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 (court reviews Rule 12(b)(6) de novo)
- Nienstedt v. Wetzel, 133 Ariz. 348 (elements of abuse of process; misuse of judicial process for ulterior purpose)
- Rondelli v. Pima County, 120 Ariz. 483 (abuse of process as perversion of judicial process)
- Crackel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 208 Ariz. 252 (abuse-of-process requires abuse of specific judicially sanctioned processes)
- Ledvina v. Cerasani, 213 Ariz. 569 (pre-prosecution statements to police entitled to absolute immunity in defamation context; distinguishes immunity from abuse-of-process)
- Fuller v. Local Union No. 106, 567 N.W.2d 419 (Iowa) (report to police is not "use of process" for abuse-of-process claim)
- Morn v. City of Phoenix, 152 Ariz. 164 (using litigation as a coercive tool for collateral advantage supports abuse of process)
- Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Ariz.) (example of abuse of process where process was used in an objectively abusive way, e.g., dangerous or coercive service tactics)