Kleveland V.Siegel & Wolensky LLP
215 Cal. App. 4th 534
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- This is the third appeal in a probate matter about Scott Leach challenging Kendall Kleveland’s handling of the family trust.
- Kendall’s trustee actions and Scott’s petitions for breach of trust and removal were resolved in Kendall’s favor in the prior trial, with the court finding Scott acted in bad faith and for an improper purpose.
- Scott’s malicious prosecution suit was brought against Kendall and his attorneys after the petitions; the superior court denied anti-SLAPP motion and awarded Kendall sanctions and attorney fees.
- The trial court’s judgment required Kendall to prepare an accounting and permitted sale of the Rodney Property to equalize distributions, with Kendall to receive the Liquid Assets.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the anti-SLAPP denial and sanctions, concluding Kendall demonstrated a probability of success and that the appeal was frivolous.
- The probate court later approved final trust distributions; this was affirmed on appeal, reinforcing Kendall’s favorable termination and supporting the malicious prosecution finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kendall showed a probability of success on malicious prosecution | Kendall—Scott filed in bad faith to force an unequal division | Attorney Defendants—no final merits determination; probable cause existed | Yes; Kendall showed probability of success despite pending distributions |
| Whether the prior trust petition was brought without probable cause | Kendall lacked credible evidence supporting Scott’s claims | Scott had possible grounds given accounting disputes | No; court found lack of probable cause to pursue petition |
| Whether malice was shown in initiating the prior action | Scott acted with improper purpose to leverage property | Petition had arguable merit | Yes; petition filed to force settlement unrelated to merits |
| Whether the anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied and sanctions warranted | Kendall demonstrated protected activity and likelihood of success | Motion should have been granted; no merit | Denied anti-SLAPP; sanctions upheld against Attorney Defendants |
| Whether sanctions on appeal were warranted for frivolous appeal | N/A | Appeal lacked merit and was frivolous | Sanctions awarded to Kendall and to the clerk of the court for frivolous appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (1994) (malicious prosecution requires final termination in plaintiff's favor and lack of probable cause)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) (probability of prevailing standard for anti-SLAPP motions)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002) (two-step analysis for anti-SLAPP motions; scope and probability of success)
- Sierra Club Foundation v. Graham, 72 Cal.App.4th 1135 (1999) (malice includes improper purpose in initiating proceedings)
- Ray v. First Federal Bank, 61 Cal.App.4th 315 (1998) (final termination where appellate affirmance marks favorable termination for purposes of malicious prosecution)