How To Prove A Florida Malicious Prosecution Claim

 

How To Prove A Florida Malicious Prosecution Claim

 

In Florida, a claim of Malicious Prosecution is defined as:

An action for damages brought by one against whom a civil suit or criminal proceeding has been unsuccessfully commenced without Probable Cause and for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice.

It simply means:

A lawsuit brought for purposes other than bringing the defendant to justice.

There are 6 elements of the claim:

  • Element 1. The defendant commenced or continued a judicial proceeding. The defendant started or kept a legal case going against someone, which is a key part of proving that they wrongfully pursued that person in court without a good reason.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff in the local court, initiating a judicial proceeding.
    * The defendant continued to pursue the case despite knowing that the claims were baseless and lacked merit.
    * The defendant actively participated in court hearings and submitted motions related to the ongoing litigation.
    * The defendant sought to enforce a judgment against the plaintiff, further demonstrating the continuation of the judicial proceeding.
    * The defendant appealed the trial court’s decision, prolonging the legal battle and maintaining the judicial proceeding.

  • Element 2. The defendant was the legal cause of the proceeding against the plaintiff in the prior proceeding. The defendant’s actions directly led to the legal case against the plaintiff in the earlier lawsuit, meaning they were responsible for starting that legal trouble.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant initiated the prior legal proceeding by filing a complaint against the plaintiff.
    * The defendant provided false information to law enforcement, leading to the plaintiff’s arrest.
    * The defendant actively encouraged witnesses to testify against the plaintiff, influencing the outcome of the prior case.
    * The defendant had a personal motive to harm the plaintiff, which prompted the initiation of the prior proceeding.
    * The defendant failed to present any legitimate evidence to support the claims made in the prior proceeding.

  • Element 3. The prior proceeding ended in favor of the present plaintiff. In a malicious prosecution claim, this element means that the earlier legal case was decided in favor of the person bringing the current lawsuit, showing that the previous accusations were unfounded or unjust.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The prior proceeding concluded with a judgment in favor of the present plaintiff, establishing their claims as valid.
    * The court dismissed the defendant’s claims in the prior proceeding, indicating a lack of merit.
    * The jury in the prior case returned a verdict that favored the present plaintiff, affirming their position.
    * The judge ruled in favor of the present plaintiff during the summary judgment phase of the prior proceeding.
    * The present plaintiff was awarded damages in the prior proceeding, confirming the legitimacy of their claims.

  • Element 4. There was no probable cause for the prior proceeding. In a malicious prosecution claim, “no probable cause for the prior proceeding” means that the original legal action was started without a reasonable basis or evidence to support it, suggesting that it was unjustly initiated.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff was never formally charged with a crime, indicating a lack of probable cause for the prior proceeding.
    * The evidence presented in the prior proceeding was solely based on hearsay and lacked any corroborating witnesses.
    * The defendant failed to provide any tangible evidence linking the plaintiff to the alleged wrongdoing.
    * Law enforcement officials determined that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges against the plaintiff.
    * The defendant’s claims were contradicted by multiple eyewitness accounts that exonerated the plaintiff.

  • Element 5. The defendant started the prior proceeding with malice. In a malicious prosecution claim, this element means that the person who originally filed the lawsuit did so with bad intentions, wanting to harm or harass the other party rather than seeking a fair resolution.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant made false statements to law enforcement, knowing they were untrue, to instigate the prior proceeding.
    * The defendant had a history of personal animosity towards the plaintiff, which motivated their actions in initiating the prior proceeding.
    * The defendant sought to harm the plaintiff’s reputation by filing the prior proceeding despite lacking any credible evidence.
    * The defendant expressed a desire to retaliate against the plaintiff in communications prior to initiating the prior proceeding.
    * The defendant continued to pursue the prior proceeding even after being informed that the allegations were baseless.

  • Element 6. The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the prior proceeding. The plaintiff experienced harm, such as financial loss or emotional distress, because of a previous legal case that was brought against them without proper grounds, which is a key requirement for claiming malicious prosecution.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff incurred significant legal fees while defending against the baseless claims in the prior proceeding.
    * The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety due to the wrongful prosecution, impacting their daily life.
    * The plaintiff lost business opportunities as a direct result of the negative publicity from the prior proceeding.
    * The plaintiff’s reputation was damaged, leading to a loss of clients and income in their professional field.
    * The plaintiff was forced to take time off work to address the legal issues stemming from the prior proceeding.

(See Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352 – Fla: Supreme Court 1994. Della-Donna v. Nova University, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 1987.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Malicious Prosecution, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to navigate this complex legal process effectively.

Prove Your FL Malicious Prosecution Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.