Opinion ID: 1625752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Abuse-of-Process Claim.

Text: Pundzak asserts error in the trial court's submission of the issue of abuse of process. He complains that there was no substantial evidence that harming Bob Cook was the primary purpose of the action, as our cases require. We have adopted section 682 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), which provides: One who uses a legal process, whether criminal or civil, against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed, is subject to liability to the other for harm caused by the abuse of process. (Emphasis added.) Comment b to section 682 provides this explanation: Primarily. The significance of this word is that there is no action for abuse of process when the process is used for the purpose for which it is intended, but there is an incidental motive of spite or an ulterior purpose of benefit to the defendant. Thus the entirely justified prosecution of another on a criminal charge, does not become abuse of process merely because the instigator dislikes the accused and enjoys doing him harm; nor does the instigation of justified bankruptcy proceedings become abuse of process merely because the instigator hopes to derive benefit from the closing down of the business of a competitor. For abuse of process to occur there must be use of the process for an immediate purpose other than that for which it was designed and intended. The usual case of abuse of process is one of some form of extortion, using the process to put pressure upon the other to compel him to pay a different debt or to take some other action or refrain from it. Cook and Webster produced evidence that Pundzak had told witnesses that Pundzak was going to nickel and dime Bob Cook to death and bleed Bob Cook. There is also evidence that Pundzak stood to benefit from media coverage of the litigation involving Willard & Rafert. The court instructed the jury that a party has a privilege to use a legal process for a legitimate purpose (Instruction No. 21) and that a party must commit some act in the use of the process that was not proper in the regular prosecution of a legitimate lawsuit (Instruction No. 22). The jury was also instructed on the definition of abuse of process (Instruction 19), which requires that the legal process be used against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed. The jury was also instructed as to the meaning of primarily under our cases and the court's instructions. The jury found that Pundzak was guilty of abuse of process and awarded Cook and Webster damages of $1. We believe that the jury was properly instructed on the abuse-of-process theory. Despite the claim by Pundzak that harming Bob Cook was not shown to be a primary purpose of Pundzak's actions, the jury apparently concluded otherwise.