20 Cal. App. 5th 61
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- John and Denise Lane (the Lanes) and Joan Bell co-owned rural property and entered a Joint Venture Agreement; disputes arose over lot split, improvements, and buy-out negotiations.
- The Lanes sued Bell in 2011 (property action); Bell cross-complained seeking, among other things, declaratory relief and partition; claims included elder abuse and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- At trial, the Lanes prevailed on most of Bell’s cross-complaint claims (including elder abuse and IIED), but the court granted Bell declaratory relief/partition, valued her share, and ordered the Lanes could buy out her interest for a fixed net amount.
- The Lanes then filed a malicious prosecution action alleging Bell maliciously pursued the elder abuse and IIED claims against them.
- Bell moved for summary judgment arguing the Lanes could not show the required "favorable termination" because Bell prevailed on at least one claim in the property action; the trial court granted summary judgment and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lanes) | Defendant's Argument (Bell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a malicious prosecution plaintiff can satisfy the "favorable termination" element when the underlying defendant prevailed only on some claims but the underlying plaintiff prevailed on at least one claim | A favorable termination can be shown by victory on discrete/severable claims; Albertson permits severability so partial success can suffice | The entire underlying action must terminate in the malicious-prosecution plaintiff’s favor; partial recovery by the underlying plaintiff defeats the favorable-termination element | Court held the entire underlying action must terminate in the plaintiff’s favor; Lanes cannot show favorable termination because Bell prevailed on partition/declaratory relief |
| Whether Crowley’s statement that favorable termination and lack of probable cause are distinct should control over Albertson’s severability language | Albertson’s severability rule should control; it allows malicious prosecution after partial successful resolution on separable parts | Crowley’s analysis (and subsequent Court of Appeal decisions) properly distinguishes probable-cause and favorable-termination elements and requires favorable termination of the whole action | Court followed Crowley and StaffPro, concluding Crowley governs and Albertson’s severability (to the extent it suggests partial favorable termination) is inapplicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (California Supreme Court) (distinguishes probable cause from favorable termination; favorable termination requires the entire action to terminate for defendant)
- Albertson v. Raboff, 46 Cal.2d 375 (California Supreme Court) (discusses severability where part of judgment was final and unappealed; precatory language suggesting partial favorable termination in limited contexts)
- Bertero v. National General Corp., 13 Cal.3d 43 (California Supreme Court) (holds that lack of probable cause may be shown as to one of multiple theories)
- Murdock v. Gerth, 65 Cal.App.2d 170 (California Court of Appeal) (favorable termination must be assessed by looking at the judgment as a whole)
- Freidberg v. Cox, 197 Cal.App.3d 381 (California Court of Appeal) (partial recovery by plaintiff in prior action precludes favorable termination)
- StaffPro, Inc. v. Elite Show Services, Inc., 136 Cal.App.4th 1392 (California Court of Appeal) (applies Crowley to require favorable termination of entire action; rejects severability approach)
- Dalany v. American Pacific Holding Corp., 42 Cal.App.4th 822 (California Court of Appeal) (applies Crowley to deny favorable termination when unresolved claims or settlements leave whole-action outcome ambiguous)
- Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun, 32 Cal.4th 336 (California Supreme Court) (instructs that favorable termination is determined by looking at the prior judgment as a whole)