Opinion ID: 2639239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Primary Motive to Accomplish an Illegitimate End.

Text: {23} A plaintiff claiming malicious abuse of process must also prove that the defendant initiated the legal proceedings primarily to accomplish an illegitimate end, that is, to accomplish a purpose for which [the legal process] is not designed. DeVaney, 1998-NMSC-001, ¶ 29, 124 N.M. 512, 953 P.2d 277. To prove this element, a plaintiff must show that the defendant did more than act with ill will or spite. Id. In DeVaney, this Court stated that neither lack of probable cause nor an improper purpose created an illegitimate end for a legal proceeding, although they could be used to support an inference of an improper purpose. Id. ¶ 30. [T]he burden of proving the overt act by independent evidence remains upon the plaintiff. Id. {24} On appeal, Jackson relies upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 668 comment d, which describes the principal situations in which criminal proceedings are initiated for an improper purpose as being, (1) when the accuser does not believe in the guilt of the accused, (2) when the proceedings are initiated primarily because of hostility or ill will toward the accused, (3) when the proceedings are initiated for the purpose of obtaining a private advantage even though the advantage might legitimately have been obtained in civil proceedings. (citation omitted) He relies in particular upon comment g to Section 668 for the following language, [O]ne who initiates the proceedings to force the accused to pay money ... does not act for a proper purpose. This is true although the money is lawfully owed to the accuser... so that relief, might have been secured in appropriate civil proceedings. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 668 cmt. g. The Weststar majority also relied on this language in finding that Weststar acted with an improper motive. Weststar, 2002-NMCA-009, ¶¶ 42-43, 131 N.M. 493, 39 P.3d 710. {25} However, we note that comment g also states, Nevertheless, if the accuser's belief in the criminal character of the accused's conduct is reasonable, the proceedings and the existence of an improper purpose is not enough to make [the accuser] liable. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 668 cmt. g. No evidence was presented that Weststar initiated an unfounded criminal prosecution because of ill will or hostility toward Jackson. At trial, evidence was presented that Weststar provided the authorities with relevant information concerning someone who had received approximately $13,000 belonging to Weststar and who, they believed, did not intend to return the money. Additionally, Weststar's belief in the criminal character of Jackson's actions was vindicated by the investigation of the detective, the approval of the criminal complaint by a district attorney, and the finding of probable cause after a preliminary hearing. As a matter of law, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Weststar acted to accomplish an illegitimate end.