Case Title: Allen v. Molton, Allen & Williams Realty Co.

Citation: 495 So. 2d 27

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1986-08-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
495 So. 2d 27 (1986)
Bobbie Davis ALLEN
v.
MOLTON, ALLEN & WILLIAMS REALTY COMPANY, INC., a corporation.
84-1136.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 1, 1986.
Rehearing Denied September 19, 1986.
Robert L. Austin, Birmingham, for appellant.
F. Hilton-Green Tomlinson, of Pritchard, McCall, Jones, Spencer & O'Kelley, Birmingham, for appellee.
BEATTY, Justice.
This is an appeal by plaintiff Bobbie Davis Allen from a summary judgment granted in favor of Molton, Allen & Williams Realty Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Molton"), on plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution. We reverse and remand.
Plaintiff's husband, W.D. Allen, allegedly gave D.O. Harden, vice president of commercial sales for Molton, an open listing to sell a building that Allen and his wife owned. There is a dispute as to what, if any, agreement was reached regarding the commission. Bill Gunn, a Molton employee, allegedly introduced the Allens to Howard Holt, who eventually bought the building.
*28 When Harden heard that the Allens had entered into an agreement with Holt, Harden told Mr. Allen that Molton was due a sales commission. Upon Mr. Allen's refusal to pay the commission, Harden, on behalf of Molton, sought the advice of legal counsel. On November 7, 1979, after failing to reach an agreement with Mr. Allen regarding the commission, Molton's attorney filed suit against Mr. and Mrs. Allen for $30,000 in damages on behalf of Molton.
Mrs. Allen's motion for summary judgment was denied. At the end of Molton's case, the Allens moved for a directed verdict, which was denied. At the close of all of the evidence, the Allens again moved for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the motion as to Mrs. Allen but denied it with respect to Mr. Allen. The jury then returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Allen.
On May 13, 1982, Mrs. Allen filed a malicious prosecution action against Molton, alleging that the previous action was commenced and prosecuted by Molton maliciously and without probable cause, that the action was terminated in her favor, and that, as a result of that action, she suffered damages. Molton answered, denying the allegations contained in Mrs. Allen's complaint and asserting that Mrs. Allen had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
On March 8, 1985, Molton filed a motion for summary judgment and submitted the affidavits of Harden and William S. Pritchard, Jr. Harden stated the following in his affidavit:
Pritchard's affidavit provided the following:
The Allens filed counter affidavits. Mr. Allen's affidavit provided:
Mrs. Allen stated the following in her affidavit:
In addition to their affidavits, the Allens submitted the deposition of Pritchard.
On March 28, 1985, the trial court granted Molton's motion for summary judgment, on the basis that the facts as set out showed that Molton had probable cause to bring the previous action against Mrs. Allen as well as against her husband.
Summary judgment is authorized only when the moving party clearly shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If there is a scintilla of evidence supporting the party against whom the motion is made, summary judgment may not be granted. Henderson v. Winkler, 454 So. 2d 1358 (Ala.1984); Savage v. Wright, 439 So. 2d 120 (Ala.1983). Accordingly, we must review the trial court's granting of Molton's motion for summary judgment in light of the scintilla rule.
The essential elements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution are (1) a judicial proceeding initiated by the defendant, (2) the lack of probable cause; (3) malice on the part of the defendant; (4) termination of the judicial proceeding favorably to plaintiff; and (5) damages. In order for the plaintiff to prevail, every element must be proved. Kitchens v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 456 So. 2d 45 (Ala.1984); Gulf States Paper Corp. v. Hawkins, 444 So. 2d 381 (Ala.1983); Birwood Paper Co. v. Damsky, 285 Ala. 127, 229 So. 2d 514 (1969).
The element of lack of probable cause is the focus of this appeal. Probable cause in malicious prosecution cases is that state of facts which would lead a person of reasonable prudence to honestly believe that the claims put forth in the prior suit would prevail. Birwood Paper Co., supra; First Shelby National Bank v. Mitchell, 406 So. 2d 959 (Ala.Civ.App.1981).
Molton argues that probable cause can be found to exist in the present action based on the trial court's denial, in the first action, of Mrs. Allen's motion for summary judgment and its initial denial of her motion for directed verdict, citing Boothby Realty Co. v. Haywood, 269 Ala. 549, 114 So. 2d 555 (1959). Boothby is distinguishable from the present case, however. In Boothby, this Court held that the entry of a favorable judgment in a landlord's civil action against a former tenant for nonpayment of rent was conclusive of the existence *31 of probable cause, notwithstanding the subsequent reversal of the judgment on appeal, since there was no evidence of fraud, perjury, or use of improper means in procuring the first judgment. In the present case, however, there was never a judgment favorable to Molton. While the trial court ruled favorably to Molton when it denied Mrs. Allen's motion for summary judgment and her first motion for directed verdict, these rulings made before and during the trial were not judgments, because they did not terminate the proceedings. Cf. Jewell v. Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co., 331 So. 2d 623 (Ala.1976). When the trial court granted Mrs. Allen's second motion for directed verdict, however, the proceeding against Mrs. Allen was terminated by the entry of a judgment in her favor.
Mrs. Allen contends, and the record supports her contention, that Molton was attempting to use advice of counsel as an absolute defense. The advice of counsel may, under certain circumstances, supply the element of probable cause:
Broussard v. Brown, 353 So. 2d 804, 805 (Ala.Civ.App.1978). Mrs. Allen argues that the trial court erred in finding probable cause because, she says, Molton did not fully and fairly disclose the facts to Pritchard before Pritchard recommended commencing suit. Pritchard's deposition, in fact, calls into question whether there was a full and fair disclosure:
The above excerpts from Pritchard's deposition raise questions as to what Pritchard knew (and was told) regarding Mrs. Allen's role in the listing agreement and what he was told regarding the terms of the listing agreement. Pritchard indicated that he needed to check his files to discover some of the information requested; however, there is no evidence in the record that any additional information was supplied. Moreover, all of the depositions indicate that any listing agreement was between Harden (and, therefore, possibly Molton) and Mr. Allen.
In light of Pritchard's deposition, which calls into question whether there was a full and fair disclosure, and in light of the affidavits, which support Mrs. Allen's contention that she was not a party to the listing agreement, we must find that the trial court erred in granting Molton's summary judgment.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.