828 S.E.2d 73
S.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- River City (homebuilder) sued Coosaw (developer/HOA) in 2011; Coosaw counterclaimed and filed a notice of lis pendens affecting Lot 16.
- The master-in-equity struck the lis pendens, then denied reconsideration after balancing equities (allowing River City’s lender to resume draws); Coosaw later withdrew an appeal as Lot 16 was sold.
- River City then sued Coosaw (2014) for malicious prosecution and abuse of process based on the lis pendens; River City alleged the lis pendens proceedings had been terminated in its favor.
- Coosaw moved for summary judgment on malicious prosecution, arguing no favorable termination on the merits occurred.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Coosaw, finding the master’s removal of the lis pendens was equitable/procedural rather than a merits-based favorable termination. River City appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether favorable termination of a lis pendens can support malicious prosecution | River City: striking the lis pendens by the master was a favorable termination supporting malicious prosecution | Coosaw: removal was equitable/procedural and not a merits-based favorable termination | A lis pendens removal alone is not a favorable termination for malicious prosecution unless it reflects the merits of the underlying action |
| Whether a favorable termination of the underlying cause is required before suing for malicious prosecution based on lis pendens | River City: argues the lis pendens removal suffices | Coosaw: plaintiff must obtain a merits-based favorable termination of the underlying claim first | Court: plaintiff must obtain a favorable termination reflecting merits of the underlying action before malicious prosecution claim based on lis pendens is ripe |
| Whether the master’s order here was a merits-based favorable termination | River City: master applied law and thus decided on the merits | Coosaw: master balanced equities and decided on equitable grounds | Court: master acted on equitable grounds; no merits-based termination occurred |
| Whether summary judgment was improper because legal questions were novel and facts needed further development | River City: issues were novel, so summary judgment premature | Coosaw: facts were developed and termination element was legal | Court: no additional facts would change favorable-termination analysis; summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Law v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 368 S.C. 424 (affirming Rule 56 standard and elements of malicious prosecution) (explains malicious prosecution elements and summary judgment standard)
- Cisson v. Pickens Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 258 S.C. 37 (recognizes malicious prosecution may be founded on ordinary civil proceedings and compares to criminal proceedings)
- Pond Place Partners, Inc. v. Poole, 351 S.C. 1 (holds lis pendens is a pleading-like notice with no independent existence apart from underlying litigation)
- Jennings v. Clearwater Mfg. Co., 171 S.C. 498 (criminal dismissal as favorable termination)
- Elletson v. Dixie Home Stores, 231 S.C. 565 (criminal exoneration as favorable termination)
- McKenney v. Jack Eckerd Co., 304 S.C. 21 (criminal nolle prosequi consistent with innocence can be a favorable termination)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (policy against conflicting resolutions; favors requiring terminations that reflect merits)