Opinion ID: 1689923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was summary judgment dismissing the abuse of process claim proper?

Text: ¶ 11. The Williamsons claim that Keith's requesting of a subpoena to obtain Kelli's medical records without sending their attorneys at P & A a copy of the request resulted in an abuse of process. The Williamsons assert that there existed genuine issues of material fact which should have precluded the trial court from granting summary judgment in favor of Keith. ¶ 12. This Court, in State ex. rel . Foster v. Turner, 319 So.2d 233 (Miss.1975), defined the action of abuse of process: The action of abuse of process consists in the misuse or misapplication of a legal process to accomplish some purpose not warranted or commanded by the writ. It is the malicious perversion of a regularly issued civil or criminal process, for a purpose and to obtain a result not lawfully warranted or properly attainable thereby, and for which perversion an action will lie to recover the pecuniary loss sustained.... Id. at 236 (footnote omitted). This Court has outlined the elements that must be proven in order to sustain an action of abuse of process: (1) that the defendant made an illegal and improper perverted use of the process, a use neither warranted nor authorized by the process; (2) that the defendant had an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising such illegal, perverted or improper use of process; and (3) that damage resulted to the plaintiff from the irregularity. Id. ¶ 13. This Court has stated that summary judgment must be entered against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Galloway v. Travelers Ins. Co., 515 So.2d 678, 683 (Miss.1987) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 273 (1986)). In order to succeed in challenging the trial court's granting of summary judgment, the Williamsons must show the existence of each element of abuse of process, otherwise summary judgment will stand. ¶ 14. Taking each of the three elements required to make a showing of abuse of process and examining all the evidentiary matters in the light most favorable to the Williamsons, it is this Court's determination that summary judgment was properly granted regarding the alleged abuse of process by Keith. ¶ 15. The first element that must be shown in an abuse of process claim is that the defendant made an illegal and improper perverted use of the process, a use neither warranted nor authorized by the process. Turner, 319 So.2d at 236. Keith acknowledges in his affidavit that he mistakenly failed to serve a copy of the subpoena on Kelli's legal representatives when he requested Kelli's medical records from the Shea Clinic. Because there is no dispute regarding whether the Williamsons make a successful showing of this first element, further analysis of it is unnecessary. ¶ 16. The second element that must be shown in an abuse of process claim is that the defendant had an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising such illegal, perverted or improper use of process. Id. at 236. The Williamsons assert that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Keith had ulterior motive when he requested Kelli's medical records. The Williamsons point to statements contained in three affidavits to support this notion. ¶ 17. The first affidavit was made by Rebecca Floyd, the attorney who represented the Williamsons regarding the due process hearing that was to occur. In it she states that [a]t no time did I receive any notification that a request for a subpoena had been sent to the hearing officer or served on the Shea Clinic. The second affidavit was made by Cynthia Williamson, Kelli's mother. In it Cynthia states, I do not believe that Mr. Keith's failure to notify my attorney concerning this subpoena was inadvertent but believe that he intentionally did not notify her because he knew I would have objected to him receiving Kelli's privileged and confidential medical records which were in no way relevant to the due process hearing. Finally, the Williamsons refer to the affidavit of Amanda Rogers who stated that she and her husband, the Williamsons attorney, sued Keith in the Chancery Court of Hinds County for requesting that the hearing officer issue subpoenas for privileged and confidential medical records relating to her son without notice to her, her husband or her attorney. Attached to Rogers's affidavit was a copy of the complaint naming Keith as one of the defendants. The Williamsons assert that Keith's conduct in dealing with the medical records of Rogers's son, which is similar to what allegedly occurred in the present case, raises doubt as to Keith's motive. ¶ 18. The affidavits presented by the Williamsons fail to show that Keith acted with ulterior motive when he neglected to provide the Williamsons and their attorney with a copy of the subpoena and request for subpoena for Kelli's medical records. ¶ 19. This Court has stated: The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to establish that there is no genuine issue of disputed material fact. The benefit of doubt as to whether there is a genuine issue of fact is given to the non-moving party. Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 362 (Miss.1983). However, the party opposing the motion is required to provide significant probative evidence demonstrating the existence of the triable issue of fact. Id. at 364 (citing Union Planters National Leasing, Inc. v. Woods, 687 F.2d 117, 119 (5th Cir. 1982)). Mere allegations which do not reveal detailed and precise facts will not prevent the award of summary judgment. Brown, 444 So.2d at 364 (quoting Liberty Leasing Co. v. Hillsum Sales Corporation, 380 F.2d 1013, 1015 (5th Cir.1967)). Ellis v. Powe, 645 So.2d 947, 952 (Miss. 1994). The statements offered by Cynthia Williamson and Amanda Rogers amount to nothing more than statements of belief that Keith intentionally failed to provide the copies to the appropriate parties, but do not provide any significant probative evidence to show the existence of a triable issue of fact. The statement given by Rebecca Floyd simply offers what Keith has already admitted, but does not give any support as to the existence of ulterior motive. Ulterior motive by Keith should not be found simply because he did not follow proper procedure. The existence of improper procedure does not, by itself, give rise to an abuse of process claim. Simon v. Perret, 619 So.2d 155, 157 (La.Ct. App.1993). The Williamsons fail to provide any evidence that Keith had an ulterior motive. ¶ 20. The final element that must be shown in an abuse of process claim is that damage resulted to the plaintiff from the irregularity. Turner, 319 So.2d at 236. The Williamsons fail to present any evidence of damage in this case. Damages were not addressed in the Williamsons' initial brief to this Court. The only discussion of damages by the Williamson occurs in the reply brief where they assert that damages are to be implied by the affidavits submitted and Keith's act of making an unlawful request for the subpoena to get Kelli's medical records. ¶ 21. Summary judgment was proper for the Williamsons' abuse of process claim because the Williamsons failed to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of two elements essential to the case on which they bear the burden of proof at trial. Galloway, 515 So.2d at 683. ¶ 22. This issue is without merit.