Opinion ID: 2975460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution

Text: As noted above, under Kentucky law, there is “no liability” for abuse of process “where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion even though 7 We understand the state-law claim for official misconduct to be against Sohm only, as Correll is not a “public servant,” and therefore the official misconduct law does not apply to him. Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 522.010(1), 522.020. - 15 - No. 06-6131 J.P. Silverton Indus. L.P. v. Sohm with bad intentions.” Simpson, 962 S.W.2d at 394-95. The complaint clearly states that Correll filed his garnishment action “seeking to garnish the funds of Plaintiffs paid into the Court,” Complaint ¶ 26, which is in fact the “authorized conclusion” of a garnishment action.8 Thus, the abuse of process claim must fail. Similarly, the Kentucky-law claim for malicious prosecution requires proof that there is a “want of probable cause for the proceeding.” Raine v. Drasin, 621 S.W.2d 895, 899 (Ky. 1981). Appellants do not allege that Correll instituted the garnishment action in the want of probable cause, and it is undisputed that Stetler owed an outstanding debt to Correll; it was to satisfy that unpaid debt that the state court ordered the foreclosure sale from which all of appellants’ claims spring. Thus, the malicious prosecution claim must also fail.