Court Opinion

ID: 9548151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:58:23.985773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:32.425542
License: Public Domain

Lockett, J.,
concurring and dissenting: I would dissent from the part of the majority decision which finds that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury to consider whether certain acts were actionable under various theories of tort liability. Based on all the facts presented to the jury, it is possible that the jury could *208have found that Suburban had a cause of action for malicious prosecution against Ford Credit.
We have stated in Nelson v. Miller, 227 Kan. 271, 276, 607 P.2d 438 (1980), that the elements of a civil action for malicious prosecution are:
“(a) That the defendant initiated, continued, or procured civil procedures against the plaintiff.
(b) That the defendant in so doing acted without probable cause.
(c) That the defendant acted with malice, that is he acted primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper adjudication of the claim upon which the proceedings are based.
(d) That the proceeding terminated in favor of the plaintiff.
(e) That the plaintiff sustained damages.”
The following facts, which the majority did not include in its decision, could establish an action for malicious prosecution.
On March 11, 1981, Suburban contacted its attorney who arranged for $500,000 in financing from a local bank and informed Ford Credit that arrangements were being made for payment, that funds were available up to $500,000, and that all negotiations should be conducted through him as Suburban’s attorney.
During the afternoon of March 11, 1981, Ford Credit took possession of approximately 200 models of Suburban’s new car inventory and four retail contracts totaling $27,198.64.
On March 12, 1981, Ford Credit took possession of all of Suburban’s new vehicle inventory and posted its employees to secure the new vehicle inventory. On the same day, Ford Credit also notified the other Ford dealers in the Wichita area to acquire any stock available from Suburban’s parts department.
The result of all these actions by Ford Credit was that Suburban could not open for business on March 13. Ford Credit had control of all of Suburban’s new inventory and its parts. Due to the first restraining order, Suburban did not have access to the proceeds of the sale of its used inventory. Suburban could not carry on business when all of its cars, parts, and funds were under Ford Credit’s control.
Suburban established that Ford Credit had initiated civil procedures against it even though there was not probable cause to do such. Suburban could not have sold the new cars or any parts since they were in Ford Credit’s possession as of March 12. While Ford Credit had a contract claim against Suburban, the *209second restraining order was not necessary for proper adjudication of that claim. The evidence, which shows that Suburban had funds available to make payment on its contract with Ford Credit, would indicate that Ford Credit was more interested, in shutting Suburban down than allowing it to continue business. Because of Ford Credit’s actions, Suburban suffered damages. The jury considered this evidence and found for Suburban. The trial court was correct in allowing an action and damages for malicious prosecution.