994 N.E.2d 740
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Chalfant and Lods divorced after a marriage with two children; custody disputes followed.
- On Aug. 14, 2007, an altercation occurred after Chalfant bought toys for the children; Lods later told various people different versions (she initially described being grabbed/choked and threatened; elsewhere admitted she threw his papers and kicked him).
- Lods reported the incident to police Aug. 15 and sought a protective order; officers’ report relied on Lods’ statements (officer did not note observed injuries).
- The State charged Chalfant with strangulation, intimidation, and two counts of domestic battery; a jury acquitted him of all charges in June 2008.
- Chalfant sued Lods for malicious prosecution; the trial court granted Lods summary judgment concluding there was probable cause for the criminal case.
- On appeal, the court considered whether Chalfant’s designated evidence (his affidavit and Lods’s deposition showing omissions/contradictions) created a genuine factual dispute about probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on malicious prosecution was proper because there was probable cause for the criminal charges | Chalfant: Lods gave false statements and omitted material facts to police; his affidavit and Lods’s deposition create a factual dispute about lack of probable cause | Lods: The parties’ physical altercation alone established probable cause; specifics are immaterial | Reversed — disputed material facts (false statements/omissions and conduct inconsistent with an assault) rebut the prima facie judicial finding of probable cause and preclude summary judgment |
| Whether trial court erred by denying Chalfant’s motions to strike portions of affidavits designated by Lods | Chalfant: Certain affidavit portions should be stricken and were relied on by trial court | Lods: (did not press objection on appeal); trial court’s ruling not dependent on striking issues | Court did not decide this claim as unnecessary to resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment standard).
- Naugle v. Beech Grove City Sch., 864 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. 2007) (construing facts and inferences for nonmoving party on summary judgment).
- Ziobron v. Crawford, 667 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. 1996) (elements and essence of malicious prosecution).
- Waldrip v. Waldrip, 976 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (elements of malicious prosecution restated).
- Exec. Builders, Inc. v. Trisler, 741 N.E.2d 351 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (probable cause usually a fact question for the jury).
- Lazarus Dep’t Store v. Sutherlin, 544 N.E.2d 513 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (judicial determination of probable cause creates prima facie evidence in subsequent malicious prosecution suit).
- Kroger Food Stores, Inc. v. Clark, 598 N.E.2d 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (prima facie probable cause may be rebutted by showing the judicial finding was induced by false testimony, fraud, or withholding material facts).