Porubsky v. Long, 120727

Bernard and Adam Long owned joint farmland and equipment; after estate-planning changes and a 2009 accident, attorney Bonebrake prepared deeds in June 2010 conveying fee simple title to their great-nephew Steven Porubsky.
Bernard later asserted he never intended to convey the property, claimed lack of capacity and undue influence by Steven, and retained counsel (Hickert) who investigated before filing suit to set aside the conveyances in March 2012.
The underlying trial focused on capacity and undue influence; the jury returned a verdict for Steven (the Porubskys) after the district court denied the Porubskys’ dispositive motions at summary judgment and JMOL stages.
The Porubskys then sued Bernard, the joint trust, and the attorneys for malicious prosecution and abuse of process; defendants moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding probable cause to initiate/maintain the underlying suit and no evidence of improper process or ulterior motive; the Porubskys appealed.
The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding probable cause existed as a matter of law and alternatively adopting the view that denial of dispositive motions creates a presumption of probable cause; the abuse-of-process claim was rejected as inadequately briefed and unsupported.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Malicious prosecution — probable cause	Porubsky: defendants lacked probable cause to sue (no valid basis; Bernard lacked capacity; undue influence not established)	Longs/attorneys: reasonable grounds existed based on Bernard's assertions, medical/history evidence, and prefiling investigation	Held: summary judgment for defendants — probable cause existed as a matter of law; malicious prosecution fails
Effect of denial of dispositive motions	Porubsky: denial of motions does not automatically establish probable cause	Defendants: denial of summary-judgment/JMOL creates a presumption of probable cause (court relied on analogous authority)	Held: appellate court adopted that presumption as alternative ground; Porubskys failed to rebut it
Abuse of process	Porubsky: suit was used to harass/intimidate (letters, locked gates, interference with access)	Defendants: action was a legitimate suit to set aside transfers based on capacity/undue influence	Held: claim inadequately briefed and lacked evidence of improper use/ulterior motive; summary judgment affirmed

Nelson v. Miller, 227 Kan. 271 (1980) (elements and standards for malicious prosecution)
Patterson v. Cowley County, 307 Kan. 616 (2018) (summary judgment standard; resolve inferences for nonmoving party)
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906 (2013) (materiality requirement for genuine factual disputes on summary judgment)
Kincaid v. Dess, 48 Kan. App. 2d 640 (2013) (mere speculation insufficient to avoid summary judgment)
Havilah Real Property Servs., LLC v. Early, 216 Md. App. 613 (2014) (denial of dispositive motions is strong indicator/presumption of probable cause)
Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 1999) (denial of motion for judgment as a matter of law undermines malicious-prosecution claim)