Opinion ID: 689968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Judgment as a matter of law on the abuse of process counterclaim

Text: 15 We review the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law de novo, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Mazur and Raben. White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776, 779 (8th Cir.1992). Missouri law governs this diversity case. Missouri law on abuse of process is well established: 16 'A pleading alleging abuse of process must set forth ultimate facts establishing the following elements: (1) the present defendant [the Krakovers] made an illegal, improper, perverted use of process, a use neither warranted nor authorized by the process; (2) the defendant had an improper purpose in exercising such illegal, perverted or improper use of process; and (3) damage resulted.' 17 Ritterbusch v. Holt, 789 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Mo.1990) (en banc) (quoting Stafford v. Muster, 582 S.W.2d 670, 678 (Mo.1979) (en banc)). These elements are frequently summarized as (1) a willful act of using process (2) for a collateral purpose. See, e.g., Wells v. Orthwein, 670 S.W.2d 529, 532-33 (Mo.Ct.App.1984). As long as a plaintiff is seeking the remedy requested, his bad motives for pursuing the suit are irrelevant. Kopp v. Franks, 792 S.W.2d 413, 424 (Mo.Ct.App.1990). 18 The evidence introduced at trial establishes that the Krakovers initiated their lawsuit in part to obtain redress for losses incurred in various real estate deals, including the DeBaliviere Place deal. J.A. at 96A, 102; Trial Tr. at 145-46. However, the original complaint included three claims relating to the DeBaliviere Place deal (Counts 2, 3, and 4). The Krakovers did not bring the suit for a collateral purpose. Rather, their purpose (to obtain redress for the DeBaliviere Place losses and other losses) was discernible from the face of the original pleadings, which requested precisely this relief. Thus, because the Krakovers' initial complaint contained claims for relief from the DeBaliviere Place losses, we agree with the district court that the true purpose of their suit was contained in the pleading, and their desire for relief relating to DeBaliviere Place is not a collateral purpose. Guirl v. Guirl, 708 S.W.2d 239 (Mo.Ct.App.1986) (abuse of process where the true purpose of [the] petition is not contained within the pleading). 19 The fact that the Krakovers dropped the claims relating to DeBaliviere Place from their amended complaint does not transform their original purpose for bringing the dropped counts into a collateral purpose. Rather, the decision to drop some counts was nothing more than institut[ing] a lawsuit and pursu[ing] it to its authorized conclusion. Wells, 670 S.W.2d at 534. Because the evidence produced by Mazur and Raben indicates only that the Krakovers had several claims that they pursued to completion, no rational trier of fact could have found the requisite improper purpose. Thus, judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Krakovers was appropriate. 20 Mazur and Raben rely upon Guirl v. Guirl, 708 S.W.2d 239 (Mo.Ct.App.1986). In Guirl, the original defendant bought stock in a family business on credit, secured by a collateral security agreement. The original plaintiff sought to foreclose her security interest, alleging breach of the security agreement. The original defendant tendered full payment, but the tender was refused and foreclosure pursued. The Guirl court found that the continued prosecution of the foreclosure action was an abuse of process because the tender of full payment was a tender of all potential relief that the plaintiff could have obtained. Guirl is distinguishable. In Guirl, the plaintiff had no possible legitimate reason for maintaining the suit, since she had already refused all requested relief. The facts in Guirl reveal that a battle for control of the family business was the sole reason for the suit. Id. at 245. In this case, unlike Guirl, there is no single illegitimate purpose that is the sole purpose of the action. 2 Moreover, there is no indication in Guirl that any colorable claim for control of the business was presented. The Guirl court observed that neither [original] plaintiff ... offered evidence of any ground on which the court could have removed [original] defendant ... as a trustee. Guirl, 708 S.W.2d at 246. 21