Spoja v. White
317 P.3d 153
Mont.2014Background
- In 2005 public defender Robert Spoja represented Duste White at a probation revocation/sentencing hearing; the court sentenced White to five years but the clerk’s minute entry noted a concurrent sentence with Cascade County.
- Prison records calculated a June 1, 2010 discharge; White later obtained an amended resentencing order (Dec. 18, 2008) making the sentence concurrent and producing an earlier discharge date; White was released Dec. 24, 2008.
- Bryan Tipp (Tipp & Buley, P.C.) represented White and filed a civil suit against Spoja (and others) for malpractice, breach of contract, and negligence based on the clerk’s minutes; Tipp later obtained sentencing transcripts showing no concurrent order and moved to dismiss the case (but did not tell Spoja he had dismissed it).
- Spoja sued White, Tipp & Buley, and Tipp individually for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and attorney deceit; District Court granted summary judgment on deceit and abuse-of-process and, after trial, JMOL for Tipp on malicious prosecution; the court also awarded Tipp costs (including expert fees).
- Montana Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of malicious prosecution and abuse of process, reversed summary judgment on attorney deceit, and vacated the costs award pending disposition of deceit claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution: whether Spoja produced evidence of lack of probable cause and malice | Tipp filed the underlying suit without probable cause (statute of limitations barred the claim) and acted with malice (failed to notify of dismissal, sued without basis) | At filing Tipp reasonably relied on clerk’s minutes and other circumstances; statute of limitations was debatable; evidence showed probable cause | Affirmed for defendant — no prima facie malicious prosecution (probable cause existed) |
| Abuse of process: whether suit was used for an improper ulterior purpose | Tipp used process willfully for an ulterior purpose (to coerce payment) | The suit had a legitimate purpose (to obtain damages); probable cause supported filing | Affirmed dismissal — no improper ulterior purpose shown |
| Attorney deceit: whether Tipp acted deceitfully with intent to deceive Spoja causing damages | Tipp intentionally deceived Spoja (dismissed suit without notice; sued Spoja’s father to pressure settlement; inconsistent sworn positions) | Tipp’s conduct was not deceitful as a matter of law; dismissal was appropriate | Reversed summary judgment — deceit claim survives for trial |
| Costs award: whether Spoja must pay Tipp’s costs including expert fees | Award was improper given pending reversal of deceit claim | Costs were properly awarded after Spoja’s claims failed | Reversed costs award (not appropriate while deceit claim remains) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 152 P.3d 727 (standard for judgment as a matter of law and review is de novo)
- Hughes v. Lynch, 164 P.3d 913 (elements and probable cause standard for malicious prosecution)
- Seltzer v. Morton, 154 P.3d 561 (probable cause measured by facts known to the suing party)
- Plouffe v. Mont. Dept. of Pub. Health & Human Servs., 45 P.3d 10 (civil-action probable cause standard)
- Ereth v. Cascade County, 81 P.3d 463 (statute-of-limitations rule central to dispute)
- Judd v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry., 186 P.3d 214 (abuse-of-process requires ulterior purpose; legitimate litigation purpose defeats claim)
- LaFountaine v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 698 P.2d 410 (elements of attorney deceit claim)
- Orser v. State, 582 P.2d 1227 (failure to prove one element of malicious prosecution warrants JMOL)