Opinion ID: 2512331
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: respecting the defendant's rights

Text: Deriving the tort of malicious defense from the tort of malicious prosecution would plainly ignore a defendant's legal position and rights. A successful defendant, involuntarily haled into court without probable cause and with malice, seeks to recover compensation for defending itself against malicious and meritless claims. On the other hand, a plaintiff that prevailed in the initial lawsuit seeks damages for malicious defenses that were raised merely to resist the claim of a plaintiff already before the court. Aranson, 671 A.2d at 1032 (Thayer, J., dissenting). Ritter v. Ritter, 381 Ill. 549, 46 N.E.2d 41 (1943), which held that a successful plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorneys fees and expenses against the unsuccessful defendant in a second action without statutory authorization, illustrated why permitting a plaintiff to bring a second lawsuit against an unsuccessful defendant is problematic. When a plaintiff's claim succeeds, that usually means that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct: If the plaintiff is successful in the suit, the probability is that the conduct of the defendant causing the suit was wrongful. When a defendant breaches a lease, violates the terms of a contract, commits a tort, misrepresents goods sold, unlawfully retains the personal property of the plaintiff, or remains in possession of real estate after the expiration of his tenancy, necessitating proceedings, his conduct is wrongful and may require a suit against him by the plaintiff. Id. at 555, 46 N.E.2d at 44. Yet, [t]he defendant ha[s] the right to resist [a plaintiff's] claim and if [the] plaintiff[] wished to establish [its] right it was necessary for [it] to resort to litigation. Id. at 554, 46 N.E.2d at 44. Based on the nature of the tort and the circumstances that often give rise to a claim for malicious defense, we cannot agree that it is appropriate to recognize this tort. Furthermore, by initiating the lawsuit, the plaintiff must be held to accept, to some degree, the costs and risks of litigation. Aranson, 671 A.2d at 1032 (Thayer, J., dissenting); see also Eastin v. Bank of Stockton, 66 Cal. 123, 127, 4 P. 1106, 1109-10 (1884) (The plaintiff sets the law in motion; if he does so groundlessly and maliciously, he is the cause of the defendant's damage. But the defendant stands only on his legal rights,ÔÇöthe plaintiff having taken his case to court, the defendant has the privilege of calling upon him to prove it to the satisfaction of the judge or jury, and he is guilty of no wrong in exercising this privilege. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). In rejecting the tort of malicious defense, Justice Thayer pointed out that in the tort of malicious prosecution, the defendant seeks damages for harms suffered directly because of the plaintiff's initiation of the lawsuit. Aranson, 671 A.2d at 1032 (Thayer, J., dissenting). On the other hand, [t]he plaintiff who encounters a malicious defense voluntarily entered the judicial system. Id. When this plaintiff ultimately prevails in the action, at best only a portion of the plaintiff's litigation costs and damages can be attributed to the malicious defense. Id. (Emphasis added.) Unfortunately, litigation has a profound effect upon the quality of one's life that goes beyond the mere entitlement to counsel fees. Aranson, 671 A.2d at 1028; see also dissenting opinion at ___, 198 P.3d at 695-96. Nevertheless, remedying the plaintiff's harm suffered solely from the lawsuit in a subsequent lawsuit is outweighed by the chilling effect that the tort of malicious defense would have on legitimate defenses, particularly where the plaintiff's harms are compensated by existing rules and statutes.