Szczesniak v. CJC Auto Parts, Inc.
2014 IL App (2d) 130636
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Donald Szczesniak regularly bought auto parts from CJC Auto Parts (owner: Gregory Verzal). In 2008 he gave CJC three postdated checks that were later returned for insufficient funds and had an existing credit account for other purchases.
- Plaintiff paid on the credit account but not on the returned-check debts; after missed payments and unanswered calls, Verzal contacted police and gave a statement about nonpayment of the returned checks.
- Police (Officer Klecka, then Officer Thiede) conducted independent investigations over ~6 months; Officer Thiede concluded there was sufficient evidence and a criminal complaint for knowingly issuing bad checks was filed. At the 2011 bench trial, plaintiff received a directed finding of acquittal.
- Plaintiff sued CJC and Verzal for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues on key elements (commencement and absence of probable cause).
- On appeal, the court affirmed: it held defendants did not commence the prosecution (police conducted independent investigations), plaintiff produced no evidence Officer Thiede lacked probable cause, and plaintiff therefore could not show malice imputable to the initiating officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants commenced the criminal proceeding | Verzal lied/withheld that payments or a payment plan existed, so defendants caused prosecution | Defendants only reported facts; police independently investigated and initiated charges | Held for defendants — giving info to police did not commence prosecution; police developed independent basis for complaint |
| Whether there was absence of probable cause | No probable cause because defendants knew plaintiff lacked intent to defraud (he was trying to make payments) | Probable cause is judged by the person who commenced prosecution (Officer Thiede), and plaintiff produced no evidence Thiede lacked it | Held for defendants — no evidence Officer Thiede lacked probable cause |
| Whether defendants continued prosecution (encouraged it despite no probable cause) | Verzal failed to disclose payment plan or payments, thereby continuing the matter | No evidence defendants actively urged prosecution after learning lack of probable cause; silence ≠ continuing prosecution | Held for defendants — plaintiff failed to show active encouragement or evidence of continuation |
| Whether defendants acted with malice | Verzal sought criminal process to collect debt, showing improper motive | Even if motive ambiguous, malice must be shown as to the officer who initiated prosecution; no proof Thiede acted maliciously | Held for defendants — no malice established because prosecutors/officers had independent probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Campbell, 224 Ill. 2d 80 (admonition that appellate briefing rules have force of law)
- Randall v. Lemke, 311 Ill. App. 3d 848 (private citizen commences prosecution only by knowingly giving false info that leads officer to swear complaint)
- Denton v. Allstate Insurance Co., 152 Ill. App. 3d 578 (to continue prosecution, defendant must actively encourage despite knowing no probable cause)
- Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills, 336 Ill. App. 3d 635 (definition and timing of probable cause inquiry in malicious-prosecution cases)
- Pratt v. Kilborn Motors, Inc., 48 Ill. App. 3d 932 (dictum that withholding crucial info can, in some circumstances, render complainant liable)
- Robinson v. Econ-O-Corporation, Inc., 62 Ill. App. 3d 958 (using criminal process principally to collect a debt can demonstrate improper motive)