Opinion ID: 1299842
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count 2 (Malicious Use and Abuse of Process)

Text: 2. The principal distinction between `malicious abuse of process' and `malicious use of process' is that malicious abuse lies for `wrongfully and unlawfully using legally and properly issued process for a purpose the law never intended it to effect, while the latter action lies for maliciously suing out civil process without probable cause.' [Cits.] Wilkinson v. Davis, 148 Ga. App. 696, 701 (2) (252 SE2d 201) (1979). (a) `Two elements are necessary to an action for the malicious abuse of legal process: first, the existence of an ulterior purpose; and, second, an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding. Regular and legitimate use of process, though with a bad intention, is not a malicious abuse of process.' Davison-Paxon Co. v. Walker, 174 Ga. 532, 536 (163 SE 212) (1932). A counterclaim by a defendant for damages for malicious abuse of process is groundless where, regardless of whether the plaintiff had probable cause to bring the suit, its purpose was an appropriate and lawful purpose for use of a civil complaint. Ramsey Winch Co. v. Trust Co. Bank, 153 Ga. App. 500 (5) (265 SE2d 848) (1980). Although Ferguson's institution of litigation against Atlantic may have been lacking in probable cause, see Div. 2 (b), infra, there are no facts in the record to support any finding other than that the litigation was instituted for a proper and lawful purpose, i.e., to quiet title to the subject property. Cf. Goodwin Agency, Inc. v. Chesser, 131 Ga. App. 686 (206 SE2d 568) (1974); Hodge v. Savannah Office Supply &c. Co., 114 Ga. App. 307 (151 SE2d 193) (1966). And the filing of a notice of lis pendens cannot be said to be improper when such notice is filed in the regular course of a proceeding involving the real property to which the notice refers. See Code Ann. § 67-2801; Hill v. L/A Management Corp., 234 Ga. 341 (216 SE2d 97) (1975); Kenner v. Fields, 217 Ga. 745 (125 SE2d 44) (1962). See also Div. 3, infra. Therefore, we hold that Ferguson's motion for summary judgment should have been granted on Count 2 of Atlantic's counterclaim, insofar as Count 2 seeks a recovery for malicious abuse of process. (b) [I]n an action for damages for the malicious use of civil process three essential elements must appear, to wit: (1) Malice. (2) Want of probable cause. (3) The proceeding complained of has terminated in favor of the defendants before an action for damages is instituted. [Cits.] Ga. Veneer &c. Co. v. Fla. Nat. Bank, 198 Ga. 591, 609 (32 SE2d 465) (1944). Want of probable cause is a question for the jury. Code § 105-802; Wilson v. Dunaway, 112 Ga. App. 241 (7) (144 SE2d 542) (1965). In a case such as this, it would also be within the province of the jury to determine the question of malice. See Kviten v. Nash, 150 Ga. App. 589 (5) (258 SE2d 271) (1979). Therefore, we hold that jury issues are presented on the question of whether Ferguson is liable to Atlantic for malicious use of process. Consequently, both Atlantic's and Ferguson's motions for summary judgment should have been denied on Count 2 of Atlantic's counterclaim, insofar as Count 2 seeks a recovery for malicious use of process.