Court Opinion

ID: 9527404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:30:24.044318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:46.942977
License: Public Domain

SHIELDS, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in result in part.
I concur fully in Part I of the majority opinion.
I concur in result in Part II. As stated by the majority Churchman acknowledges the "mere fact that [Bank] was ultimately proven wrong in its interpretation of law does not, in and of itself, lead the conclusion that there was no probable cause to file suit." _ Appeliee/Cross-Appellant's Brief at 17. Nevertheless, argues Church man, he offered evidence which, for purposes of a T.R. 50 motion and without regard to the defensiveness of Bank's position on the survival statute, supports the determination the Bank acted maliciously in initiating the action because it had no basis for believing Churchman was liable on the promissory note. The evidence upon which Churchman relies is that the promissory note upon which Bank sued him had been paid as early as December 29, 1986 and yet Bank, without justification or excuse, filed suited against him on September 3, 1987.
*346I agree with Churchman's argument and so does the majority. However, in agreeing with Churchman's argument, the majority makes statements which I feel are inappropriate comments on the relevancy of certain evidence and accordingly, I concur in result.