Opinion ID: 2566866
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: tobias and feld's abuse of process counterclaim

Text: ¶ 62 The district court granted ADC's motion for summary judgment on Tobias and Feld's abuse of process counterclaim, ruling, in part, that their failure to succeed on either their motion to dismiss or their motions for summary judgment was fatal to their claim for abuse of process. When reviewing a district court's grant of summary judgment, we give no deference to the district court's legal decisions and review them for correctness. Fericks v. Lucy Ann Soffe Trust, 2004 UT 85, ¶ 10, 100 P.3d 1200. ¶ 63 Confusion surrounding the term abuse of process is not uncommon inasmuch as it is often employ[ed] . . . as a catch-all description of any private misuse of judicial resources. Gilbert v. Ince, 1999 UT 65, ¶ 17, 981 P.2d 841. [5] To resolve this confusion, we previously outlined the distinctions between a claim for abuse of process and a claim for wrongful civil proceedings, declaring that abuse of process applies to `one who uses a legal process . . . against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed.' Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682 (1965) (omission in original)). In contrast, a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings consists in instituting or maintaining civil proceedings for an improper purpose and without a justifiable basis. Id. at ¶ 19. ¶ 64 On the basis of this distinction, we reiterate today that a party asserting a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings must demonstrate that (1) the actor initiating the prior proceeding acted `without probable cause, and primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper adjudication of the claim'; and (2) `except when they are ex parte, the [prior] proceedings ... terminated in favor of the person against whom they [were] brought.' Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 674). ¶ 65 In contrast, to establish a claim for abuse of process, a claimant must demonstrate `[f]irst, an ulterior purpose; [and] second, an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.' Hatch v. Davis, 2004 UT App 378, ¶ 34, 102 P.3d 774 (quoting Kool v. Lee, 43 Utah 394, 134 P. 906, 909 (1913) (further internal quotations omitted)). Unlike a plaintiff asserting a claim for wrongful civil proceedings, a plaintiff in an abuse of process claim is not required to establish that the prior proceeding terminated in his favor or that the proceeding lacked probable cause. Id. ¶ 66 In this case, the district court dismissed Tobias and Feld's abuse of process counterclaim at least in part on the ground that they had yet to prevail in the lawsuit filed by ADC. In so doing, the district court erred, applying the standard for a wrongful civil proceeding claim to the abuse of process counterclaim. We therefore remand this issue to the district court to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate in light of the legal principles articulated above.