### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ary 26, 200 4

PHI L MI TCHE LL v . JO HN VAN Z YLL, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Roane County No. 12741 Russell E. S im m ons, Jr., Jud ge

F ILED MARCH 31, 2004

No. E2003-01594-COA- R3-CV

Phil M itc h el l (“ P l aint iff”) sued his next-door neig hbors, J ohn Van Z y ll (“Va n Z y ll”) and A nn Fur long ( “F urlong ”), for m alicious prosec ution. Plaintiff alleg ed that Van Z y ll and Fur long “ cause d to b e iss ue d a g a ins t [him ] a c ri min a l wa rr a nt fo r his arr e st, a lle g ing a g g ra vate d a ssa ult a ndre c kle ss endang erme nt.” The c riminal char g es ag ainst Plainti ff we re dismi ssed. Defenda nts filed a motion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, w hi ch th e Trial Cou rt g rante d a s to F ur lon g bu t de nie d a s to Van Z y ll. Pla int if f a pp e a ls the Cou rt ’s ru lin g in f a vo r o f Fur lon g . We a ff

ir m.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circuit Court

Aff irm ed; Case R em anded

D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., delivere d t h e opini on of the c ourt, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , and C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R , J J ., joined.

Phil M itchell, pro s e Appellant.

L i s a A

. T em p l e, Kn o x v i l l e, T en n es s ee , fo r t h e A p p el l ee An n Fu rl o n g.-2- OP IN ION

Bac kgr ound

The e vents that initiated this lawsuit began on J anuary 16, 2002, when Plaintiff fire d a g un out a window in his house, appar ently in an attempt to quie t some dog s which we re in a pen on De fe nd a nts ’ pr op e rty

. Th e se ne ig hb or s app are ntl y ha ve a tr ou ble d his tory

. Pla int if f’ s a ff ida vit alleg es that the following occur red a fter he discharg ed the g un:
John Van Z y ll en te re d my pr op e rty wi tho ut p e rm iss ion . Sa id John Van Z y ll wa s a c tin g in a n ir ratio na l a ndho sti le ma nn e r b y bo th his actions and his voice.
[W]hile ho ldi ng a

ha nd g un by

my sid e , I a sk e d Joh n V a n Z y ll to leave my

property on numerous occa sions, but he r efuse d to leave. By his words and a ctions, J ohn Van Z y ll caused meto rea sonably fea r for my safe ty

.
T h a t o n ly a f te r I th r e a te n e d to c a ll th e p o li c e d idJo h n V an Z y ll leave my

property . . .[A] t no time did Ipoint a g un in the direc tion of J ohn Van Z y ll.

That I have ne ver fired a g un in the di rec tion of the home of J ohn Van Zy ll.

***

That the fa cts alleg ed bythe said John Van Z y ll in a criminal
war rant whic h was take n ag ainst me are false.
That at the time the events g iving rise to this complaint were
occur ring , the Def

endant Ann Furlong was ne arby

. . . Fu rl ong knew that the fa cts alleg ed ag ainst me by J ohn Va n Zy l l wer e fa lse. The said Ann Fur long called the Roane County 911 Emerg ency

dispatch and fa lsely

reported that I pointed a gun at J ohn Van Zyll. . .That the said Ann Fur long appea

red in Court with J ohn Van Z y ll as a potential witness rea dy

and willing to testify

. That the said Ann Furlong had eve ry opportunity

to speak with the Roane Count y District Attorney ’s Office with re spect to the false a lleg ations being made in the criminal war rant by said J ohn Van Z y ll.T h e T ria l C o u rt fo u n d a n d r u le d in its o rd e r th a t “p u rs u a n t t o ru le 5 4 .0 2 o f t h e T e n n e sse e R u le s o f C ivil 1
P roce d ure, t hat t he C o urt hereby di rect s t he ent ry o f t hi s judgm ent as a f i nal judgm ent ba sed up o n t he f i nd i ng t hat t here i s no jus t reason fo r d el ay no t wi t hst and i ng t he p end i ng cl ai m s b ei ng ass ert ed b y t he P l ai nt i f f agai nst t he D efend ant Jo hn V a n Z yll. ” C o n se q u e n tly, the C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t i n fav o r o f F u rlo n g is f ina l an d a p p e a la b le

. -3- I t is undisput ed that F urlong called 911 to report the i ncident. The rec ord conta ins
a “ Roane Cou nty

E- 91 1 in c ide nt l ist ing ” wh ic h d oc ume nts the “ dis patc he r c omm e nts ” a s f oll ow s: “F ired a g un out t h e window, pointed a g un at J ohn Van Z y ll. Neig hbor is Phil M itchell.” Acc ording to Plaintiff’s brief, the police went to Def endants’ house, “but never came t o my house.”

Van Z y ll testified by

aff idavit the following as re g ards his initiation of criminal char g es ag ainst Plainti ff:

That in J anuary , 2002, I

trave led to the R oane County District Attorney Gene ral’s of

fice in Kingston, Tenne ssee. Whil e ac ting out of fe ar f or my safe ty and the sa fety

of others, I

asked the advice of an attorney in the Roane County

District Attor n ey General’s of fice be fo re sta

rt ing or c aus ing to be is sueda g a ins t th e Pla int if f, Phi l Mit c he ll, a ny

c ri min a l w arr a nt, c ha

rg e s, or pr oc e e din g s.

***

That I then ac ted upon the advic e of an attorney for the Roa ne CountyDistrict Attorney Gene ral’s of

fice and ca

used cr i m inal
wa rr a nts to be iss ue d ag a ins t the Pla int if f, Phi l Mi tc he ll, re su lti ng in his arr e st.

Th a t I c au s e d to b e is s u e d a g a in s t th e Pl a in ti f f a c r im inal
war rant for his arre st based upon the Plaintiff Phil Mit chell’s firing
o f a g u n i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f

m y h o m e o n n u m e r o u s d a t e s i n J a n u ar y, 20 02

. . .T hat I fu rthe r caus e d a crimi nal warr a nt t o b e iss ue d a g a ins t the Pla in ti f

f, Ph il M it c h e ll , b a s e d u p o n th e f a c t th a t o n Ja n u ary16, 20 02 , th e Pla int if

f, Phi l Mitc he ll, po int e d a g un in the dir e c tio n o f m y chest a nd stated that he w ould shoot me.

Fur long’ s aff

idavit states that “I

have ne ver started or c aused someoneels e to start or i ssue a criminal warr ant, cha rg es, or other

proce eding s ag ainst the Plaintiff, Phil Mitchell.” The criminal cha

rg es ag ains t P l aint iff we re dismissed. Plaintiff filed his complaint alleg ing ma licious p ro s ec u t i o n o n J an u ar y

1 3 , 2 0 0 3

. Bo t h De fe n d an t s m o v ed fo r s u m m ar y j u d gm en t

. Af t era h ea ri n g, the Tria l Co urt g rante d F ur lon g su mma ry jud g me nt andde nie d Van Zy ll summ ary jud g me nt. P l ai n t i ff ap p ea l s th e T ri al C o u rt ’s ru l i n g i n fa v o r o f F u rl o n g. 1-4- Discussion

The standard for revie w of a motion for summary judgme nt is set forth in Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc

. , 15 S.W .3d 83 (Tenn. 2000) :

The standa

rds g overning an appe llate court’s revie w of a motion for summary

judgme nt are we l l settled. Since our inquiry inv olv e s p ur e ly

a qu e stion of

la w, no pr e su mpt ionof c or re c tne ss a tta c he s to the low e r c ou rt ’s jud g me nt, a ndou r t a sk is c on fi ne d to revie wing the re cord to de termine whether the r equire ments of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have bee n met. Se e Hu nte r v . B ro wn , 955 S.W .2d 49, 50 -5 1 ( Te nn. 1 99 7) ; Cow de n v . S ov ra n B an k /Ce ntr al S ou th , 816 S.W .2d 741, 744 (Tenn. 1991) . Tenne s see Rule of Civil Procedur e 56.04 provi d e s th at summary judgme nt is appropriate wher e: (1) the re is no gen u ine issue with reg ard to the material fa cts rele vant to the claim or de fense contained in the motion, se e By rd v . H all , 847 S.W .2d 2 0 8 , 2 1 0 (Tenn. 1993) ; and (2) the moving pa rty is entitled to a ju d g me n t a s a matt e r o f la w o n th e u n d is p u te d fac ts. See Anderson v. Standard Re gister Co. , 857 S.W .2d 555, 559 (Tenn. 1993). The moving party has th e burden of proving that its mot ion satisfies these r eq u i re m ents. See D ownen v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 811 S.W .2d 523, 524 (Tenn. 1991) . When th e p ar t y seeking summary judgme nt makes a pr operly supported motion, the burden shifts to the nonmoving pa

rty to se t f orth specific fac ts e stablishing the exist ence of dis pu te d, ma te ri a l f

a c ts w hic h mu st b e re so lve d b y the tr ie r of fa c t. Se e By rd v . H all , 847 S.W .2d at 215.
To properly

support its mot ion, the moving pa rty must either aff irmatively

neg ate a n essential ele ment of t he non-moving party ’s claim or conclusively

establish an af

firmative de fense

. See M

cCarley v. W est Quality Food Serv

. , 960 S.W .2d 585, 588 (Tenn. 1998) ; Robinson v. Ome r , 952 S.W .2d 423, 426 (Tenn. 1997). I f the moving party fails to neg ate a

claimed ba sis for the su i t , the non-moving party ’s burde n to produce evidence esta blishing the e x istence of

a g enuine issue f

or trial is not trigg ere d and the motion for summ ary judgme nt must fail. See M cCarley v . W

est Quality Food Serv

. , 960 S.W. 2da t 58 8; Robinson v. Ome r , 952 S.W .2d at 426. I f the moving party succe ssf u l ly neg ates a

claimed ba sis for the ac tion, the nonmoving party may not simply rest upon the pleading s, but must offer pr oo f t o e sta

bli sh the e xiste nc e of the e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c la im.-5- The standa

rds g overning the assessment of ev i d ence in the
su mma ry jud g me nt c on te xt ar e als o w e ll e sta bli sh e d. Cou rt s mu st vie w the e vid e nc e in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the no nmo vin g pa

rty and must also draw all rea sonable infe renc es in the no n m o v ing p ar t y ’s fa vor. See R obinson v. Ome r , 9 52 S.W. 2da t 42 6; B y r d v. Ha ll , 847 S.W .2d at 210-11. Courts should g rant a s u mmary judgme nt only

when both the f

acts a nd the i n fe re n ces to be draw n from the fa ct s permit a re asonable person to re ach only one conclusion. See M

cCall v. W

ilder , 913 S.W .2d 150, 153 (Tenn. 19 95 ); Carvell v. Bottoms , 900 S.W .2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995)

. Staples , 15 S.W .3d at 88-89 (f ootnote omitted).

I n order to preva il on a claim of m alicious prosec ution, a plaintiff at trial must prove that (1) a prior suit or judicial proce eding was instituted ag ainst the plaintiff without probable c ause; (2 ) the de fe nd a nt b ro ug ht s uc h p ri or a c tio n with ma lic e ; a nd(3 ) the prior a c tio n w a s te rm inate d in the plaintiff’s f

avor. Roberts v. Fe deral Expre ss Corp., 842 S.W .2d 246, 247-48 (Te nn.1992).

We a re of the op ini on that, a c c e pti ng e ve ry fa c tua l a lle g a tio n in Pla int if f’ s a ff ida vit reg arding Fur long’ s conduct a s true, such c onduct is insufficient to suppor t a claim ag ainst Furlong fo r m a lic iou s pro se c uti on

. Th e re is no e vid e nc e in the re c or d th a t F ur lon g dida nythi ng to i ns titute the prior judicial pr ocee ding a g ainst Plainti ff, and, the evidenc e in fa ct, shows she did not do so. The Restatement (Sec ond) of Torts, §654 (1977) provides the following g uidance on this iss ue:

(1 ) T he te rm

“ c ri min a l pr oc e e din g s” i ncl ud e s a ny pr oc e e din g in wh ic h a g ov e rn me nt s e e ks to p ro se c ute a pe rs on fo r a n of

fe ns e a ndto impose upon him a penalty of a c riminal char acte r. (2) Criminal proc eeding s are instit uted when (a) proce ss is issued for the pu rpo se of

bring ing the pe rs on a c c us e d o f a c ri min a l of

fe ns e befor e an of

ficial or tribunal whose function is to determine whe ther he is g uiltyof the off

ense c harg ed, or w hether he shall be he ld for later de terminati o n of his g uilt or innocence ; or (b) w ithout the issuance of proce ss an indi ctment i s returne d or an information filed ag ainst him; or (c) he is lawfully arr ested on a

criminal cha

rg e. Although Furlong place d the 911 ca ll which resulted in the initial p o l i ce response, it i s u nd isp ute d th a t Plaint if f n e ith e r w a s a

rr e sted nor h a d a

jud ic ia l pr oc e e din g ins titute d a g a ins t him a s a re su lt o f this c a ll. As no te d ab ov e , Plai nti ff ’s brie f state s tha t the po lic e ne ve r came to h is house at that time, but that they rema ined at Def endants’ residenc e while investig ating . Copies of the criminal warrants which Van Z y ll admits causing to be issued ag ainst Plaintiff are not included in the rec ord. It is undisput ed, howe ver, that only Van Z y ll’s name appea

rs on the war

rants, and not that of F ur lon g . We agr e e wi th the Tria l Co urt th a t th e e vid e nc e , w he n ta ke n ina lig ht m os t-6-

fa vo ra ble to P la int if

f, c a n p e rm it a re a so na

ble pe rs on to r e a c h o nly

thec on c lus ionthat F ur lon g did not insti tute or bring the criminal procee dings a g ainst P l aint iff, and thus Plaintiff’s malicious prosec ution claim ag ainst Furlong must fail a s she has neg ated this e ssential element of Plaintiff’s claim ag ainst her.

Conclusion

The judg ment of the Trial Court is aff irmed, and this cause is remande d to the Trial Cou rt fo r c oll e c tio n o f the c os ts be low

. Th e c os ts on ap pe a l area sse sse d a g a ins t th e Ap pe llant, Phi l M i t c h e l l , a n d h i s s u r e t y, i f a n y.

___________________________________________ D. MI CHAEL SW INEY, JUDGE