Pl
Vittands
Df
Sudduth
What happened?
o
Sudduth purchased a six-lot subdivision containing lot 4A in 1985.
o
Sudduth sought to develop the subdivision for rental use.
o
The Neighbors felt that lot 4A was their private park where their
children played.
o
Through administrative proceedings and litigation the neighbors
actively opposed the development for 9 years.
On-Site Sewage
Permit Discovered
o
On November 1993, Brian Cassidy discovered for the first time that the
city board of health (board) had granted Sudduth an on-site
sewage disposal permit in December, 1992.
Sent Letter to
the Board
o
Cassidy sent a letter to the board on December 3, 1993, alleging that
the sewage disposal system was in violation of board regulations
and requesting a review of the situation.
o
The board never responded to this letter.
May 1994
Great Pond Builders
o
Sudduth entered into purchase and sale agreement for July 18, 1994.
Sudduth
Contends Trespass
o
Great Pond alleged told Sudduth that neighbors were harassing them.
Neighbors spot
Sewage Guy
o
Filed suit against Sudduth in Superior Court.
o
Requesting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction to prevent construction of sewage system.
o
Declaratory judgment that Sudduth needed various from the board and DEP
before the plans for the system could be approved.
Neighbors
Affidavits
o
Vittand is an environmental engineer.
o
Showed numerous environment violations with State and Local
governments.
Hearing
Sudduth did not appear
o
Superior Court Judge granted Motion for injunctive relief ex parte.
Sudduth
subsequent motion
o
Same Judge vacated preliminary injunction.
Sudduth 4
Counterclaims
o
1) Abuse of process and 2) intentional infliction of emotional
distress, 3) costs, and 4) requesting sanctions against Cassidy.
Judge (Favor of
Sudduth)
o
Summary Judgment in favor of Sudduth on the neighbors lawsuit.
Great Ponds
Builders
o
Opted not to complete, b/c the neighbors claims were outstanding.
Sudduth
Marketability Problems
o
No potential buyers were interested b/c of neighbors actions.
Neighbors
Special Motion
o
Special motion to dismiss counterclaims.
Superior Court
o
Allowed special motion.
o
Awarded attorney fees to Neighbors.
Sudduth
Bankruptcy
o
Lot 4A was sold to pay accumulated taxes on the land. |
Court
Ruling on Special Motion To Dismiss
o
Denied neighbors motion, because Sudduth met statutory burden and
neighbors claim was devoid of facts and merit.
o
Allowed motion for summary judgment on ALL of Sudduths counterclaims.
o
Both Parties appealed.
Court -
Sudduths Counterclaims
o
Granted in favor of the neighbors on all of Sudduth's counterclaims,
namely abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, costs, and rule 11 sanctions.
Civil Procedure Rules
o
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is
no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law."
o
We review the granting of summary judgment on each of Sudduth's
counterclaims.
Court
Abuse of Process
Abuse of Process
The essential
elements of the tort of abuse of process are
(1) "process"
was used;
(2) for an
ulterior or illegitimate purpose;
(3) resulting
in damage.
o
More specifically, abuse of process has been described as a
form of coercion to obtain a
collateral advantage, not properly involved in the
proceeding itself, such as the surrender of property or the
payment of money.
o
It is immaterial that the process was
properly issued, or that it was obtained in the course of
proceedings that were brought with probable cause and for a
proper purpose.
o
The subsequent misuse of the process, though properly obtained,
constitutes the misconduct for which the
liability is imposed.
o
Further, the ulterior motive may be shown by showing a
direct demand for collateral
advantage, or it may be inferred from what is said or
done about the process.
Court
Superior Ct. Judge (Granting Summary Judge to Neighbors on Abuse
Claim)
o
The record is insufficient to
warrant a fact-finder in concluding that the original complaint
was brought for an 'ulterior purpose,'"
o
It was the only element of Sudduth's claim that was challenged
by the neighbors.
o
We think the affidavits supplied by Sudduth present a genuine issue
of material fact whether the neighbors had an
ulterior purpose in bringing
suit against Sudduth.
Court
Light Most Favorable to Sudduth
o
A jury could reasonably infer that the neighbors served their complaint
for an ulterior, illegitimate motive, namely to maintain their
access to Sudduth's private property by involving the property
in protracted litigation before the sale could be finalized.
Courts
Conclusion
o
Where state of mind is an essential element
of the cause of action, summary judgment is
disfavored.
o
Because summary judgment should not
have entered on Sudduth's abuse of process and emotional
distress claims, those claims are
remanded for trial.
o
We affirm the dismissal of all other claims and motions in this action |