Opinion ID: 2639239
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural Impropriety.

Text: {20} A procedural impropriety under the tort of malicious abuse of process might arise if there was an improper use of criminal or civil process in a manner not contemplated by law. DeVaney, 1998-NMSC-001, ¶ 28, 124 N.M. 512, 953 P.2d 277. There is no liability when the defendant in an abuse of process claim has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even if done with bad intentions. Id. ¶ 20 (Nevertheless, the filing of a proper complaint with probable cause, and without any overt misuse of process, will not subject a litigant to liability for malicious abuse of process, even if it is the result of a malicious motive.). {21} The Weststar majority found that the telephone call made by Detective Boutelle to Jackson's first attorney during the detective's first meeting with a Weststar employee constituted a misuse of process. Weststar, 2002-NMCA-009, ¶ 41, 131 N.M. 493, 39 P.3d 710. The Court characterized the telephone call as a procedural impropriety, because it was a form of extortion intended to compel Jackson to return the money owed to Weststar. Id. Moreover, the Weststar majority found, the telephone call was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to have concluded that the detective was acting on behalf of Weststar and therefore Weststar should be charged with Boutelle's action. Id. However, as stated above, a report to the authorities of possible criminal activity is not legal process and neither are the pre-trial investigative actions of the police. As a matter of law, this would not be sufficient to constitute the legal process required for a claim of abuse of process. At trial, Jackson did not allege or offer any evidence to prove that Weststar performed any wrongful act during the course of the criminal proceeding. No testimony was offered to show an involvement by Weststar in the criminal proceedings after their initial involvement in reporting to the police about Jackson's retention of their funds; rather the uncontradicted testimony by the investigating detective and the Weststar employees was to the contrary. We conclude that Weststar did not maliciously misuse the legal process. {22} Generally, one can only be charged with the actions of another if that individual is acting as one's agent under a principal-agent relationship or an employer-employee relationship. See Madsen v. Scott, 1999-NMSC-042, ¶¶ 8-9, 128 N.M. 255, 992 P.2d 268. At trial, Jackson did not claim that the detective was acting as Weststar's agent, and no evidence was presented that would support such a claim. Although Ms. Lynch was present when the detective called Jackson's lawyer to tell him about the possible criminal investigation, Detective Boutelle did not testify that he had done so at her request. Ms. Lynch testified that the detective had initiated the telephone call on his own and that she had not asked him to call anyone. There was no basis in law or in fact for the Weststar majority to have charged Weststar with the actions of Detective Boutelle.