Ralph Cantafio, David Feeder, Lilly Lentz, Mike Lazar, Cantafio & Song PLLC, Mark Fischer, and Patricia Ann Scott, Petitioners: v. Kaylee Schnelle. Respondent:
2025 CO 39
| Colo. | 2025|
Check Treatment<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header" data-refglobal="case:cantafiovschnelleno24sc2042025co39june16,2025"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">2025 CO 39
</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Ralph Cantafio</span></span>, <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">David Feeder</span></span>, <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Lilly Lentz</span></span>, <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Mike Lazar, Cantafio & Song PLLC</span></span>, <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Mark Fischer</span></span>, and <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Patricia Ann Scott</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioners</span></span>: </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Kaylee Schnelle</span>. <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>: </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 24SC204</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 16, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="245" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="245" data-sentence-id="258" class="ldml-sentence">Certiorari to the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-prop-ids="sentence_258"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA1333</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="337" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"> <span data-paragraph-id="337" data-sentence-id="350" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioners</span></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Ralph Cantafio</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">David Feeder</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Lilly Lentz</span></span>, Mike</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="425" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"> <span data-paragraph-id="425" data-sentence-id="437" class="ldml-sentence">Lazar, <span class="ldml-entity">Cantafio &<span class="ldml-lawfirm">Song PLLC</span></span>, and <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Mark Fischer</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP</span> <span class="ldml-entity">John M. Palmeri</span> <span class="ldml-entity">John R. Mann</span> <span class="ldml-entity">William G. Dewey Denver</span>, Colorado Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Patricia Ann Scott</span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Coan, Payton &Payne, LLC</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Brett Payton Greeley</span>, Colorado</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_685" data-val="2"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="685" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"> <span data-paragraph-id="685" data-sentence-id="698" class="ldml-sentence">Attorney for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Clark L. Davidson</span></span> Steamboat Springs, Colorado</span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="770" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="770" data-sentence-id="783" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BERKENKOTTER</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span>, in which CHIEF JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">MARQUEZ</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BOATRIGHT</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HOOD</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">GABRIEL</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HART</span></span>, and JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">SAMOUR</span></span> joined</span>.</span></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_965" data-val="3"></span></p><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (BERKENKOTTER, MARQUEZ, BOATRIGHT, HOOD, GABRIEL, HART, SAMOUR, BERKENKOTTER)"><span data-paragraph-id="965" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="965" data-sentence-id="978" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">OPINION</b></span> </span></h2><p data-paragraph-id="986" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"> <span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="986" data-sentence-id="999" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BERKENKOTTER</span></span>, JUSTICE.</span></span> </span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1022" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="1022" data-sentence-id="1033" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_1033"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">This case</span> arises from a dispute over the sale of real property.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1022" data-sentence-id="1101" class="ldml-sentence">In a prior case, <span class="ldml-entity">Patricia Ann Scott</span>, the seller of a tract of land, sued real estate agent <span class="ldml-entity">Kaylee Schnelle</span> for professional negligence over her alleged mishandling of the sale.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1022" data-sentence-id="1281" class="ldml-sentence">Schnelle moved for summary judgment before trial, arguing that Scott could not prove the necessary elements of breach of the professional duty of care, damages, or causation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1022" data-sentence-id="1459" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> denied the motion, finding that there were genuine disputes regarding material facts.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1022" data-sentence-id="1565" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The case</span> then proceeded to a jury trial.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1022" data-sentence-id="1607" class="ldml-sentence">At the close of Scott's case, Schnelle moved for a directed verdict, which <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> denied.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1022" data-sentence-id="1702" class="ldml-sentence">The jury returned a verdict in Schnelle's favor on the professional negligence claim.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="1789" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="1789" data-sentence-id="1800" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_1800"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> Schnelle then brought <span class="ldml-entity">the present case</span> asserting, among other things, a claim for malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> against Scott, the attorneys who represented Scott in the prior case, their law firm, and members of the law firm <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>"</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1789" data-sentence-id="2046" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">She</span> alleges that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span> lacked probable cause to believe that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was professionally negligent and that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"conspired to cheat and take advantage of an elderly widowed client with no family."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="1789" data-sentence-id="2250" class="ldml-sentence">Schnelle contends that by pursuing baseless litigation, <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span> tarnished her reputation in the community.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1789" data-sentence-id="2365" class="ldml-sentence">In response, <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span> filed <span class="ldml-entity">a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="unspecified"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 12<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span></span></a></span> motion</span> to dismiss, arguing that the denial of Schnelle's summary judgment and <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motions</span> in the <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_2534" data-val="4"></span> previous case established that there was probable cause to bring the original action against her and should therefore bar her malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> claim.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="2693" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2693" data-sentence-id="2704" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_2704"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> disagreed, concluding that the previous denial was a factor it could consider in analyzing probable cause but that it did not conclusively establish probable cause.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2693" data-sentence-id="2894" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> ultimately determined that Schnelle had alleged sufficient factual evidence which, if taken as true, would support her assertion that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span> lacked probable cause to bring the original professional negligence claim against her, so it denied the <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2693" data-sentence-id="3180" class="ldml-sentence">After <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> granted <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">petition for interlocutory appeal</span> pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="unspecified"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4.2</span></a></span>, a division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> affirmed <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s order denying the <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2693" data-sentence-id="3395" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:schnellevcantafiono23ca1333548p3d1171,2024coa17february15,2024" data-prop-ids="sentence_3180"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Schnelle v. Cantafio</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2024 COA 17
, ¶ 1</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">548 P.3d 1171
, 1174</span></a></span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="3457" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="3457" data-sentence-id="3468" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_3468"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted certiorari to answer whether <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span>'s denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motion</span> in a prior civil case raises a rebuttable presumption that there was probable cause to bring the original claim.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="3693" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="3693" data-sentence-id="3704" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_3704"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that, while the denial of either motion in a prior civil case is a <em class="ldml-emphasis">factor</em> that <span class="ldml-entity">a district court</span> may consider in ruling on a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span> in a subsequent malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> case, the prior denial of a summary judgment or <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motion</span> does not create a rebuttable presumption of probable cause.</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_4036" data-val="5"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4036" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4036" data-sentence-id="4047" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_4047"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> Because <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s orders denying Schnelle's <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motions</span> in the professional negligence case do not create a rebuttable presumption that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span> had probable cause to bring the original claim against her, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm the judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>.</span> </p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_4350" data-content-heading-label=" I. Facts and Procedural History " data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-types="background" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_4350" data-specifier="I"><span data-paragraph-id="4350" class="ldml-paragraph "> <b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="4350" data-sentence-id="4361" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4350" data-sentence-id="4364" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b> </span></section><p data-paragraph-id="4393" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4393" data-sentence-id="4404" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_4404"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> In denying <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> noted that there was no decision from <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> that was directly on point, but that <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> decision in <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:healthgrades,incvboyer,2012coa196m,369p3d613coloapp2010" data-prop-ids="sentence_4404"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Health Grades, Inc. v. Boyer</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2012 COA 196M
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">369 P.3d 613
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-cert"><em class="ldml-emphasis">rev'd on other grounds</em></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893764660" data-vids="893764660" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4404" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">2015 CO 40
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">359 P.3d 25
</span></a></span></span></span>, was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"persuasive."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4393" data-sentence-id="4741" class="ldml-sentence">There, a division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"decline<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[d]</span> to adopt an allencompassing rule that the denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span>, or the denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for directed verdict</span>, necessarily bars a claim for abuse of process based on a sham litigation theory."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4393" data-sentence-id="5013" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="citeless" data-refglobal="case:healthgrades,incvboyer,2012coa196m,369p3d613coloapp2010" data-prop-ids="sentence_4741"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Health Grades</em></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_4741"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 31</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:healthgrades,incvboyer,2012coa196m,369p3d613coloapp2010"><span class="ldml-cite">369 P.3d at 620
</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4393" data-sentence-id="5052" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, the division held that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a more careful analysis, as opposed to application of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span> bright-line rule,"</span> was necessary.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4393" data-sentence-id="5179" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="ibid" data-refglobal="case:healthgrades,incvboyer,2012coa196m,369p3d613coloapp2010" data-prop-ids="sentence_5179"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_5179"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 34</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:healthgrades,incvboyer,2012coa196m,369p3d613coloapp2010" data-prop-ids="sentence_5179"><span class="ldml-cite">369 P.3d at 620
</span></a></span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="5210" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5210" data-sentence-id="5221" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_5221"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> Similarly, here, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> declined to adopt a bright-line rule, instead concluding that a previous denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motion</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is a factor in the probable cause analysis."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5210" data-sentence-id="5439" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> went on to find that Schnelle had alleged sufficient factual evidence which, if taken as true, would support her assertion that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span> lacked probable cause to bring <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_5637" data-val="6"></span> the professional negligence claim against her.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5210" data-sentence-id="5686" class="ldml-sentence">It therefore denied <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span> as to the malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> claim.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="5781" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5781" data-sentence-id="5792" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_5792"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The defendants</span> then petitioned <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="unspecified"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4.2</span></a></span> on the grounds that <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s ruling</span> on the <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span> addressed an unresolved and controlling question of law and that immediate review could establish a final disposition of the litigation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5781" data-sentence-id="6084" class="ldml-sentence">A division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> granted the petition.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5781" data-sentence-id="6142" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The defendants</span> argued to the division that <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span>'s denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motion</span> should be considered an absolute bar to a subsequent malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> cause of action as a matter of law or, in the alternative, that it should establish a rebuttable presumption that there was probable cause to bring the prior case.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5781" data-sentence-id="6503" class="ldml-sentence">In a unanimous, published opinion, the division affirmed <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s denial of <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss the malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> claim</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5781" data-sentence-id="6661" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="citeless" data-refglobal="case:schnellevcantafiono23ca1333548p3d1171,2024coa17february15,2024" data-prop-ids="sentence_6503"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Schnelle</em></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_6503"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 1</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:schnellevcantafiono23ca1333548p3d1171,2024coa17february15,2024"><span class="ldml-cite">548 P.3d at 1174</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5781" data-sentence-id="6694" class="ldml-sentence">Among other things, the division reasoned that the individual circumstances relating to how a particular <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motion</span> was resolved would make any categorical rule applying a presumption hard to maintain.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5781" data-sentence-id="6933" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="ibid" data-refglobal="case:schnellevcantafiono23ca1333548p3d1171,2024coa17february15,2024" data-prop-ids="sentence_6933"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_6933"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 32</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:schnellevcantafiono23ca1333548p3d1171,2024coa17february15,2024" data-prop-ids="sentence_6933"><span class="ldml-cite">548 P.3d at 1179</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5781" data-sentence-id="6964" class="ldml-sentence">The denial of either or both such motions, the division concluded, should instead be a factor that may be considered in determining the existence of probable cause.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5781" data-sentence-id="7132" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="ibid" data-refglobal="case:schnellevcantafiono23ca1333548p3d1171,2024coa17february15,2024" data-prop-ids="sentence_7132"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_7132"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 33</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:schnellevcantafiono23ca1333548p3d1171,2024coa17february15,2024" data-prop-ids="sentence_7132"><span class="ldml-cite">548 P.3d at 1179</span></a></span>.</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_7164" data-val="7"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7164" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="7164" data-sentence-id="7175" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_7175"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The defendants</span> then petitioned <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> for certiorari review, which <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted.</span><span data-paragraph-id="7164" data-sentence-id="7262" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical"><sup class="ldml-superscript">[<a href="#note-ftn.FN1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-ftn.FN1">1</a>]</sup></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_7265" data-content-heading-label=" II. Analysis " data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="II. Analysis" data-types="analysis" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_7265" data-specifier="II"><span data-paragraph-id="7265" class="ldml-paragraph "> <b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="7265" data-sentence-id="7276" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7265" data-sentence-id="7280" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b> </span></section><p data-paragraph-id="7289" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="7289" data-sentence-id="7300" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_7300"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by outlining the relevant standard of review before briefly describing the tort of malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> and the standards that guide <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span>' consideration of <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motions</span>.</span> </p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-id="heading_7522" data-content-heading-label=" A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law " data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law" data-types="backgroundlaw,standardofreview" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" data-confidences="very_high,very_high" id="heading_7522" data-specifier="A"><span data-paragraph-id="7522" class="ldml-paragraph "> <b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="7522" data-sentence-id="7533" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7522" data-sentence-id="7536" class="ldml-sentence">Standard of Review and Applicable Law</span></b> </span></section><p data-paragraph-id="7574" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="7574" data-sentence-id="7585" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_7585"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> review de novo an order denying a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim</span> under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="unspecified"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 12<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7574" data-sentence-id="7699" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890643713" data-vids="890643713" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7585" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Melat, Pressman &Higbie, L.L.P. v. Hannon L. Firm, L.L.C.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO 61
, ¶ 16</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">287 P.3d 842
, 846</span></a></span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="7797" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="7797" data-sentence-id="7808" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_7808"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> The tort of malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> provides a remedy when a person <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"knowingly initiates baseless litigation."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7797" data-sentence-id="7923" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889014039" data-vids="889014039" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7808" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Mintz v. Accident &Inj. Med. Specialists, PC</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">284 P.3d 62
, 66</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7797" data-sentence-id="8004" class="ldml-sentence">To prevail on a civil claim for malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">a plaintiff</span> must establish: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s contribution to bringing a prior case against <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span>; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> the ending of the previous action in favor of <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_8223" data-val="8"></span> <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span>; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> lack of probable cause; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span> malice; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span> damages.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7797" data-sentence-id="8297" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886503650" data-vids="886503650" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8004" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Hewitt v. Rice</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">154 P.3d 408
, 411</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="8345" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="8345" data-sentence-id="8356" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_8356"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> In a civil malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> action, probable cause means that <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> in the prior case <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"in good faith had a reasonable belief that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> in the prior case]</span> was liable for the claim that was made."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8345" data-sentence-id="8582" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891152175" data-vids="891152175" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8356" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Walford v. Blinder, Robinson &Co.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">793 P.2d 620
, 624</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1990</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8345" data-sentence-id="8654" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"The existence of probable cause is alone sufficient to relieve <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> of a charge of malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8345" data-sentence-id="8771" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888195006" data-vids="888195006" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8654" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Montgomery Ward &Co. v. Pherson</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">272 P.2d 643
, 645</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1954</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="8837" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="8837" data-sentence-id="8848" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_8848"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Motions for summary judgment</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8837" data-sentence-id="9169" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="unspecified" data-prop-ids="sentence_8848"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 56<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8837" data-sentence-id="9185" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"In determining the propriety of summary judgment, the non-moving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> is entitled to all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the undisputed facts."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8837" data-sentence-id="9357" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889107724" data-vids="889107724" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9185" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Bayou Land Co. v. Talley</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">924 P.2d 136
, 151</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="9415" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9415" data-sentence-id="9426" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_9426"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"A <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> may move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent or at the close of all the evidence."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9415" data-sentence-id="9563" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="unspecified" data-prop-ids="sentence_9426"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 50</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9415" data-sentence-id="9576" class="ldml-sentence">A <span class="ldml-entity">motion for a directed verdict</span> should be granted <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">'compels the conclusion that reasonable <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_9756" data-val="9"></span> persons could not disagree and that no evidence, or legitimate inference therefrom, has been presented upon which a jury's verdict against the moving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> could be sustained.'</span>"</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9415" data-sentence-id="9939" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:mid-centuryinsurancecompanyvhiveconstruction,incno23sc2672025co17april21,2025" data-prop-ids="sentence_9576"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. HIVE Constr., Inc.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2025 CO 17
, ¶ 20</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">567 P.3d 153
, 157-58</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887154237" data-vids="887154237" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9576" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Burgess v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">841 P.2d 325
, 328</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1992</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> </p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-id="heading_10104" data-content-heading-label=" B. Denial of a Summary Judgment or Directed Verdict Motion Is a Factor in the Probable Cause Analysis " data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="B. Denial of a Summary Judgment or Directed Verdict Motion Is a Factor in the Probable Cause Analysis" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" id="heading_10104" data-specifier="B"><span data-paragraph-id="10104" class="ldml-paragraph "> <b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="10104" data-sentence-id="10115" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10104" data-sentence-id="10118" class="ldml-sentence">Denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">Summary Judgment</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">Directed Verdict Motion</span> Is a Factor in the Probable Cause Analysis</span></b> </span></section><p data-paragraph-id="10218" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10218" data-sentence-id="10229" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_10229"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> With the above principles in mind, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> address <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' arguments.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="10305" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10305" data-sentence-id="10316" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_10316"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The defendants</span> contend that <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span>'s denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motion</span> in a prior case should constitute <em class="ldml-emphasis">presumptive proof</em> that <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">that case</span> had probable cause to bring the action.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10305" data-sentence-id="10548" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, if <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> in a subsequent malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> action filed a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span> and provided evidence of such a denial, the burden would shift and the malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiff</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> in the original action)</span> would have to offer evidence rebutting that presumption to defeat the <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss the malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> claim</span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="10915" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10915" data-sentence-id="10926" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_10926"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> The rebuttable presumption approach has support in states like Maryland, where an intermediate <span class="ldml-entity">appellate court</span> reasoned:</span> </p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_11054" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="11055" class="ldml-sentence">Given that under Maryland common law, suits for malicious use of process are disfavored, it is more sensible to treat the denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for judgment</span> as a presumption in favor of probable cause, rather than treating it as just a factor in the probable cause evaluation.</span> <span data-sentence-id="11333" class="ldml-sentence">Malicious use of process <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> cannot bear the burden of <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_11398" data-val="10"></span> proving that the prior action had probable cause.</span> <span data-sentence-id="11450" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiffs</span> must prove that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> complained of was <em class="ldml-emphasis">without</em> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">'probable cause,'</span> and unless that burden be met there can be no recovery."</span></span> </blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="11606" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11606" data-sentence-id="11607" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:havilahrealpropertyservices,llcvearlyno0051216mdapp613,88a3d875,216mdapp613,88a3d875march27,2014"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Havilah Real Prop. Servs., LLC v. Early</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">88 A.3d 875
, 886</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Md. Ct. Spec. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2014</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/930410620" data-vids="930410620" class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">N. Point Constr. Co. v. Sagner</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">44 A.2d 441
, 444</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Md.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1945</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11606" data-sentence-id="11764" class="ldml-sentence">A Kansas intermediate <span class="ldml-entity">appellate court</span> later found <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="citeless" data-refglobal="case:havilahrealpropertyservices,llcvearlyno0051216mdapp613,88a3d875,216mdapp613,88a3d875march27,2014" data-prop-ids="sentence_11764"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Havilah</em></span></a></span> persuasive in its own holding that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the denial of the dispositive motions in the underlying lawsuit established a presumptive bar to a subsequent lawsuit for malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11606" data-sentence-id="12009" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893407407" data-vids="893407407" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11764" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Porubsky v. Long</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">487 P.3d 768
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Kan.Ct.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(unpublished table decision)</span></a></span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="12090" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12090" data-sentence-id="12101" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_12101"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> Schnelle counters that <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span>'s denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment motion</span> is an inadequate proxy for later evaluating whether <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> lacked probable cause.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12090" data-sentence-id="12260" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">She</span> argues that there are multiple reasons that <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> might deny such a motion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12090" data-sentence-id="12343" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">She</span> further contends that <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> ruling</span> on a <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment motion</span> cannot assess the credibility of competing facts and that judges often have no way of knowing if false or misleading facts have been included in the motion.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="12573" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12573" data-sentence-id="12584" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_12584"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree that there are many reasons why <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> might deny a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span>, not the least of which is that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"summary judgment is a drastic remedy reserved for those situations in which it is clear that the applicable legal standard has been satisfied."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12573" data-sentence-id="12859" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888828588" data-vids="888828588" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12584" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Dep't of Nat. Res. v. 5 Star Feedlot, Inc.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 27
, ¶ 19</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">486 P.3d 250
, 255</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12573" data-sentence-id="12942" class="ldml-sentence">Additionally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> question the fairness of applying a rebuttable presumption since it can be difficult, in some instances, to know just <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_13081" data-val="11"></span> how much to read into <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span>'s denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment motion</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12573" data-sentence-id="13153" class="ldml-sentence">One judge might deny voluminous <span class="ldml-entity">cross-motions for summary judgment</span> with a detailed, thoughtful order while another judge might deny similar motions with a three-line ruling stating that there are disputed issues of material fact.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12573" data-sentence-id="13387" class="ldml-sentence">Both orders may, in fact, be the result of long hours of review and analysis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12573" data-sentence-id="13466" class="ldml-sentence">It is possible that the second judge simply didn't have time to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"show their work."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12573" data-sentence-id="13551" class="ldml-sentence">Or it may be that the first judge's order was the result of a great deal more time, thought, and effort.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12573" data-sentence-id="13658" class="ldml-sentence">In any event, it would be imprudent to adopt a categorical rule that would foreclose more careful analysis of such vastly different summary judgment rulings.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="13818" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13818" data-sentence-id="13829" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_13829"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> Drawing presumptive inferences from a ruling on a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for a directed verdict</span> is even more troubling because such verdicts are <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"disfavored."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13818" data-sentence-id="13979" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:peopleinintofls,2023co3m,13,524p3d847,851" data-prop-ids="sentence_13829"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">People in Int. of L.S.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2023 CO 3M
, ¶ 13</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">524 P.3d 847
, 851</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13818" data-sentence-id="14041" class="ldml-sentence">A <span class="ldml-entity">motion for a directed verdict</span> should be granted <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[o]</span>nly in the clearest of <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, where reasonable minds can draw but one inference from the evidence."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13818" data-sentence-id="14198" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:garciavcoloradocabcompany,llccaseno21sc895538p3d328november14,2023" data-prop-ids="sentence_14041"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Garcia v. Colo. Cab Co.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2023 CO 56
, ¶ 19</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">538 P.3d 328
, 332</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13818" data-sentence-id="14261" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">A trial court</span> may appropriately deny a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for a directed verdict</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">allow</span> the jury to fulfill its role as the finder of fact because <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> can, if necessary, grant a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13818" data-sentence-id="14489" class="ldml-sentence"><em class="ldml-emphasis">See Health Grades</em>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_14489"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 33</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:healthgrades,incvboyer,2012coa196m,369p3d613coloapp2010" data-prop-ids="sentence_14489"><span class="ldml-cite">369 P.3d at 620
</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13818" data-sentence-id="14532" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> additionally observe that, just as with summary judgment rulings, some <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span> provide detailed explanations of their directed verdict rulings and some do not.</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_14703" data-val="12"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14703" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14703" data-sentence-id="14714" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_14714"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23 A</span></a></span> rebuttable presumption would, moreover, shift the burden of persuasion, potentially requiring <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> opposing a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span> to prove why something did not occur, why evidence does not exist, or to divine what <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> judge was thinking.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14703" data-sentence-id="14975" class="ldml-sentence">Because of the difficulties associated with proving a negative, a rebuttable presumption of probable cause could become, in some instances, an insurmountable presumption of probable cause.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="15167" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="15167" data-sentence-id="15178" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_15178"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> also have significant concerns about adopting a presumption based on a decision that is not generally subject to appellate review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15167" data-sentence-id="15318" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894649711" data-vids="894649711" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15178" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Goddard</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2021 COA 15
, ¶ 54</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">484 P.3d 765
, 776</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">We</span> do not review a denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span> because it is not a final order."</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888835953" data-vids="888835953" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_15568,sentence_15178" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Potter v. Thieman</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">770 P.2d 1348
, 1350</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1989</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[S]</span>ince <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiffs</span> were not aggrieved by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s judgment, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have no standing to appeal from it."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="15684" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="15684" data-sentence-id="15695" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_15695"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> For all these reasons, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> adopt the rationale of both <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> and the division below and conclude that, while the denial of <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motions</span> in a prior civil case is a <em class="ldml-emphasis">factor</em> that <span class="ldml-entity">a district court</span> may consider in its probable cause analysis, the prior denials do not presumptively establish probable cause.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15684" data-sentence-id="16052" class="ldml-sentence">This approach allows for a more considered analysis of such rulings.</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_16122" data-val="13"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="16122" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="16122" data-sentence-id="16133" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_16133"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> This conclusion mirrors that of other states like Arizona and Vermont.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16122" data-sentence-id="16210" class="ldml-sentence">In Arizona, for example, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> held that the denial of summary judgment <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is a <em class="ldml-emphasis">factor</em> that <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> should consider in determining whether there is or is not an objectively reasonable basis for a claim or defense; the denial is not, standing alone, <em class="ldml-emphasis">dispositive</em> of the issue as a matter of law."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16122" data-sentence-id="16514" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:wolfingervcheche,206ariz504,509,25,80p3d783,788app2003" data-prop-ids="sentence_16210"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-refname">Wolfinger v. Cheche</span>,</em> <span class="ldml-cite">80 P.3d 783
, 791-92</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Ariz.Ct.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16122" data-sentence-id="16576" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity">Arizona court of appeals</span> observed that this approach is more appropriate because <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"the prospect of false or misleading evidence is, unfortunately, real.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Under such circumstances, judgment as a matter of law based on surviving a <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment motion</span> may not only be inappropriate but directly contrary to the purpose of a <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[wrongful institution of civil proceedings]</span> claim."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16122" data-sentence-id="16961" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="ibid" data-refglobal="case:wolfingervcheche,206ariz504,509,25,80p3d783,788app2003" data-prop-ids="sentence_16576"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at 791</span></a></span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="16973" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="16973" data-sentence-id="16984" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_16984"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> Likewise in Vermont, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> determined that, while <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span> <em class="ldml-emphasis">may</em> provide persuasive evidence that <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> had sufficient merit to establish the element of probable cause and thereby defeat a subsequent suit for malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span>,"</span> the summary judgment order at issue fell short of the type of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"qualitative merits determination necessary to establish probable cause as a matter of law and bar any subsequent claim for malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16973" data-sentence-id="17480" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:baconvreimerbraunstein,llp,paulsamsonno05-289182vt553,929a2d723,2007vt57june20,2007" data-prop-ids="sentence_16984"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Bacon v. Reimer &Braunstein, LLP</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">929 A.2d 723
, 726-27</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Vt.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16973" data-sentence-id="17548" class="ldml-sentence">This was particularly true, the <span class="ldml-entity">Vermont court</span> said, in <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> like the one before it where there were complex legal issues being determined, and <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_17715" data-val="14"></span> attention to relatively minor claims may be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"perfunctory and confined to the marginal evidence available at that stage of the proceedings."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16973" data-sentence-id="17859" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="ibid" data-refglobal="case:baconvreimerbraunstein,llp,paulsamsonno05-289182vt553,929a2d723,2007vt57june20,2007" data-prop-ids="sentence_17548"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at 727</span></a></span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="17871" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="17871" data-sentence-id="17882" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_17882"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> Our reasoning here is similar to that of <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> in Arizona and Vermont.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17871" data-sentence-id="17964" class="ldml-sentence">While the denial of a <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motion</span> may be highly persuasive, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> see no prudent reason to establish an inflexible, bright-line rule or to shift the burden of persuasion based on a decision that is not typically subject to appellate review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17871" data-sentence-id="18238" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that the denial of such a motion is a factor that <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> may consider in determining if there was probable cause to bring the original claim.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="18401" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18401" data-sentence-id="18412" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_18412"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> There is also no bright-line rule for <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> to follow in deciding how much weight to give orders denying <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motions</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18401" data-sentence-id="18571" class="ldml-sentence">There is, however, some guidance to be gleaned from the division's <span class="ldml-entity">opinion in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="citeless" data-refglobal="case:healthgrades,incvboyer,2012coa196m,369p3d613coloapp2010" data-prop-ids="sentence_18571"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Health Grades</em></span></a></span></span> and from decisions in other jurisdictions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18401" data-sentence-id="18709" class="ldml-sentence">Circumstances deemed relevant to this determination by <span class="ldml-entity">these courts</span> include, but are not limited to:</span> </p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_18812" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="18813" class="ldml-sentence">• The type of order <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., whether it is a denial of a summary judgment or a <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motion</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-sentence-id="18917" class="ldml-sentence"><em class="ldml-emphasis">See Health Grades,</em> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_18917"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 32-33</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:healthgrades,incvboyer,2012coa196m,369p3d613coloapp2010" data-prop-ids="sentence_18917"><span class="ldml-cite">369 P.3d at 620
</span></a></span>.</span> </blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_18964" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="18965" class="ldml-sentence">• If the order included many details.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19003" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:baconvreimerbraunstein,llp,paulsamsonno05-289182vt553,929a2d723,2007vt57june20,2007" data-prop-ids="sentence_18965"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Bacon</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">929 A.2d at 727
</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19031" class="ldml-sentence">• Whether the order addressed all the elements of all the claims.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19098" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="ibid" data-refglobal="case:baconvreimerbraunstein,llp,paulsamsonno05-289182vt553,929a2d723,2007vt57june20,2007" data-prop-ids="sentence_19031"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></em></span></span> </blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_19106" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="19107" class="ldml-sentence">• At what point in the litigation the order was issued.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19163" class="ldml-sentence"><em class="ldml-emphasis">See Health Grades</em>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_19163"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 32-33</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:healthgrades,incvboyer,2012coa196m,369p3d613coloapp2010" data-prop-ids="sentence_19163"><span class="ldml-cite">369 P.3d at 620
</span></a></span>.</span> </blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_19210" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="19211" class="ldml-sentence">• Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> commented on the strength of the evidence.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19281" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:baconvreimerbraunstein,llp,paulsamsonno05-289182vt553,929a2d723,2007vt57june20,2007" data-prop-ids="sentence_19211"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Bacon</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">929 A.2d at 727
</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bare_number" data-id="pagenumber_19309" data-val="15"></span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_19309" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="19310" class="ldml-sentence">• Whether there are claims that false or misleading evidence was involved in defeating the motion.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19410" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:wolfingervcheche,206ariz504,509,25,80p3d783,788app2003" data-prop-ids="sentence_19310"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Wolfinger</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">80 P.3d at 791
</span></a></span></span>.</span> </blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_19441" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="19442" class="ldml-sentence">• Whether any relevant testimony was later determined to be materially false.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19521" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892947309" data-vids="892947309" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19442" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Roberts v. Sentry Life Ins.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">90 Cal.Rptr.2d 408
, 414</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Cal.Ct.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> </blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_19599" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="19600" class="ldml-sentence">• Whether perjury or fraud was alleged to have occurred or actually did occur.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19680" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-refglobal="case:baconvreimerbraunstein,llp,paulsamsonno05-289182vt553,929a2d723,2007vt57june20,2007" data-prop-ids="sentence_19600"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Bacon</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">929 A.2d at 726
</span></a></span></span>.</span> </blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="19708" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19708" data-sentence-id="19719" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_19719"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> An additional circumstance specific to an order denying a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for summary judgment</span> may include whether <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> have completed discovery.</span> </p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_19870" data-content-heading-label=" III. Conclusion " data-ordinal_end="3" data-value="III. Conclusion" data-types="conclusion" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-ordinal_start="3" data-parsed="true" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_19870" data-specifier="III"><span data-paragraph-id="19870" class="ldml-paragraph "> <b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="19870" data-sentence-id="19881" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19870" data-sentence-id="19886" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b> </span></section><p data-paragraph-id="19897" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19897" data-sentence-id="19908" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="section" data-prop-ids="sentence_19908"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> Because <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s orders denying Schnelle's <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">directed verdict motions</span> in the professional negligence case do not create a rebuttable presumption that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span> had probable cause to bring the original claim against her, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm the judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="20212" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20212" data-sentence-id="20213" class="ldml-sentence">---------</span> </p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="20223" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20223" data-sentence-id="20224" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical"><sup class="ldml-superscript">[<a href="#note-ref-ftn.FN1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-ftn.FN1">1</a>]</sup></span> Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted certiorari on the following issue:</span> </p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_20288" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="20289" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-sentence-id="20292" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred in holding that denial of summary judgment or directed verdict in a prior civil case does not raise a rebuttable presumption of probable cause in a subsequent malicious <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> action.</span> </blockquote></div></div><p data-paragraph-id="20520" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20520" data-sentence-id="20521" class="ldml-sentence">---------</span> </p> </div></div> </div> </div>