Court Opinion

ID: 9541960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:30:05.814694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:29.159186
License: Public Domain

*224LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Under traditional principles of the common law, malicious use of the civil process had to do with the wrongful initiation of that process by the filing of an underlying action. In this case the underlying action was a suit in assumpsit and trespass initiated on March 5,1979 by the appellant, Maurice A. Nernberg, Jr. (Nernberg) against the appellee, Mario Ludmer (Ludmer). On September 14, 1983, more than four years after commencement, the underlying suit was terminated in favor of Ludmer when this court denied Nernberg’s petition for allocatur.
At the time the underlying suit was commenced, the essential elements of an action for malicious use of civil process, as established by the common law, were: (a) that the process was initiated without probable cause and with malice; (b) that there was a seizure or interference with the claimant or claimant’s property; and (c) that the underlying suit was terminated in favor of the claimant. Publix Drug Co. v. Breyer Ice Cream Co., 347 Pa. 346, 32 A.2d 413 (1943). Under the common law an action for malicious use of civil process did not arise unless there was an arrest of the person or a seizure of property. Id.
After Nernberg filed the underlying lawsuit against Ludmer, and while it was pending, the legislature codified the law pertaining to an action for malicious use of civil process by the enactment of the wrongful use of process statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351, effective February 17,1981. In codifying the law, the legislature specifically eliminated arrest or seizure of the person or property of the claimant as a necessary element of the cause of action. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351(b) Henceforth, an action for wrongful use of civil proceedings may be maintained if the claimant establishes: (a) that the underlying suit was brought in a grossly negligent manner and without probable cause; and (b) the proceedings terminated in favor of the person against whom they were commenced. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351(a)(1) & (2).
There is no dispute that Ludmer’s complaint for malicious or wrongful use of the civil process avers a cause of action under the statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351. He alleges that the *225underlying suit was brought by Nernberg in a grossly negligent manner and without probable cause; and it was terminated in his favor. On the other hand, Ludmer’s complaint does not allege an arrest of his person or a seizure of his property, and therefore fails to state a cause of action under the common law.
The majority holds that the statute (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351) applies to the facts of this case and that Nernberg’s demurrer should be overruled. I disagree and would hold that the common law is controlling, and that the lower court’s action in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing Ludmer’s complaint was proper.
The majority concludes that since a cause of action for wrongful use of the civil process does not accrue until all of the requirements have been met, the cause of action in this case did not arise until September 14, 1983 when we denied allocatur in the underlying suit. It was then that the underlying suit was terminated in favor of Ludmer. The majority thus, rejects the cogent argument that by applying the requirements of the statute (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351) rather than the common law to Ludmer’s complaint, an impermissible retroactive application of that statute is being sanctioned. The majority instead holds that the statute is actually being applied prospectively to events occurring in September of 1983. (P. 926). I disagree.
There is no question that we have held: “That a statute does not operate retrospectively merely because some of the facts or conditions upon which its application depends came into existence prior to its enactment.” Gehris v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 471 Pa. 210, 369 A.2d 1271, 1273 (1977). This principle, however, does not apply to the facts of the present case. This is simply not a situation where the statute is being applied prospectively even though some of the facts or conditions came into existence before its effective date. Here, prior to the enactment of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351, an essential fact or condition to a cause of action for malicious use of process, namely, an arrest of the person or a seizure of property did not exist as, a part of *226Nernberg’s underlying lawsuit. Thus, no cause of action for malicious use of process could be maintained against Nernberg as a result of his filing the underlying action even though it may eventually terminate in favor of Ludmer.
The statute, (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351) in effect, created a new and somewhat different cause of action by eliminating the arrest or seizure requirement as an element of the offense. Thus, a suit initiated in March of 1979 that could not become actionable regardless of an outcome in favor of the defendant, became potentially actionable in February of 1981 and the majority now applies the new standard to past, irreversible conduct which occurred almost two years before the statute became law. That amounts to improper retroactive application of the statute.
The majority is impressed with the fact that the underlying lawsuit was finally terminated on September 14, 1983, more than two years after the effective date of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351. This emphasis on the time of termination is misplaced. Under both the common law and the relevant statute, it is not the event of termination in favor of the person against whom the suit was brought that gives rise to a cause of action. If that were so, then anytime a defendant prevailed in a lawsuit, he would, as a result of the favorable termination, have an action for wrongful use of civil proceedings against the person who sued him. The termination of the lawsuit must be related back to the facts and circumstances existing at the time it was initiated. Thus, if A, as claimant, files suit against B, as defendant, and four years later the case is finally terminated in favor of B, this favorable termination in and of itself does not give rise to a cause of action for malicious or wrongful use of civil process in favor of B. It is necessary, in such a situation, to refer back to the circumstances of the initiation of the suit to determine if a cause of action exists. If at the time the suit was commenced the common law was the prevailing law, as it was in March of 1979, then it is to the requirements of the common law that we must look. Under the common law, if the initiation of a lawsuit involved the lack of probable cause and malice, and an arrest of the *227person or a seizure of property, it was those circumstances coupled with termination in favor of the person against whom the suit was brought that gave rise to a cause of action for malicious use of civil process.
When Nernberg filed the underlying lawsuit against Ludmer, the actions he took at that time could not make him subject to a suit for malicious use of civil process even though his suit may terminate in favor of Ludmer. This was true even if he brought the suit with malice.
“[A] mere suit, however malicious or unfounded, cannot be made the ground of an action for damages. If a person be not arrested or his property seized, it is unimportant how futile and unfounded the action may be; as the plaintiff, in consideration of law, is punished by the payment of costs.”
Mayer v. Walter, 64 Pa. 283 (1870).
Although I believe that the statute (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351) eliminating the arrest or seizure requirement as an essential elemént of the cause of action was wise and long overdue, it, nonetheless, does not apply to the underlying suit in this case which was initiated prior to its enactment.
I would reverse the Order of the Superior Court and reinstate the Order of the lower court sustaining Nernberg’s preliminary objections.