Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitappealverdictcivil rights

tortjurisdictiondamageswillcivil rightscompensatory damagescommon law

Related Cases

Palmer v. Zaklama, 109 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 116, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5491, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6884

Facts

Jerry Palmer and Mark Yarber purchased a house at a sheriff's sale to satisfy a $9,000 judgment against the previous owners, Esmat and Selvia Zaklama. After the sale, the Zaklamas recorded a lis pendens while appealing the judgment and filed multiple lawsuits against Palmer and Yarber, which prevented them from selling or refinancing the house. The lis pendens were eventually expunged, but not before Palmer and Yarber incurred significant costs and lost potential profits from the sale of the house.

Palmer and Yarber had planned to repair and resell the house, but were not able to given the cloud on their title created by the three lis pendens.

Issue

Did the prior owners have probable cause to file the civil rights action against the purchasers, and were the actions of the prior owners sufficient to support claims of malicious prosecution, slander of title, and abuse of process?

The essential premise of Palmer and Yarber's complaint was that the three actions underlying the lis pendens were brought for an improper purpose and/or were not the type of proceedings for which it was appropriate to record a notice of lis pendens.

Rule

A claim for malicious prosecution requires a showing that the prior action was commenced without probable cause and with malice. The recordation of a lis pendens is not a valid basis for a cause of action for abuse of process, and the privilege of recording a lis pendens does not apply if the underlying action does not allege a real property claim.

The common law tort of malicious prosecution originated as a remedy for an individual who had been subjected to a maliciously instituted criminal charge, but in California, as in most common law jurisdictions, the tort was long ago extended to afford a remedy for the malicious prosecution of a civil action.

Analysis

The court found that the Zaklamas lacked probable cause to file the civil rights action against Palmer and Yarber, as the claims made were not legally or factually tenable. The court also ruled that the recordation of the lis pendens was not justified because the underlying actions did not properly allege a real property claim, thus allowing the purchasers to prevail on their claims for slander of title and malicious prosecution.

The court found that the Zaklamas lacked probable cause to file the civil rights action against Palmer and Yarber, as the claims made were not legally or factually tenable.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Palmer and Yarber, concluding that the Zaklamas acted without probable cause and with malice in their attempts to regain the property.

We will affirm the judgment.

Who won?

Palmer and Yarber prevailed in the case because the court found that the Zaklamas lacked probable cause for their actions and that their use of lis pendens was improper.

The jury found Esmat Zaklama liable under all three causes of action, and awarded Palmer and Yarber $235,463 in compensatory damages.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Friedman v. Dozorc, 412 Mich. 1, 312 N.W.2d 585

Fitzpatrick v. Natter, 599 Pa. 465, 961 A.2d 1229

Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44, 26 Media L. Rep. 1717, 12 Communications Reg. (P&F) 367

Powell v. Langford, 58 Ariz. 281, 119 P.2d 230

Ascuitto v. Farricielli, 244 Conn. 692, 711 A.2d 708