Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)

Citation: Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)
Parent Document: Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2012-11-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5811531/oviedo-v-windsor-twelve-properties-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,216 chars

“The malice element of the malicious prosecution tort goes to [respondents’] subjective intent in initiating the prior action. [Citation.] For purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, malice ‘is not limited to actual hostility or ill will toward [appellant]. Rather, malice is present when proceedings are instituted primarily for an improper purpose.’ [Citation.] ‘Suits with the hallmark of an improper purpose’ include, but are not necessarily limited to, ‘those in which: “ ‘. . . (1) the person initiating them does not believe that his claim may be held valid; (2) the proceedings are begun primarily because of hostility or ill will; (3) the proceedings are initiated solely for the purpose of depriving the person against whom they are initiated of a beneficial use of his property; (4) the proceedings are initiated for the purpose of forcing a settlement which has no relation to the merits of the claim.’ ” ’ [Citation.] [f] Evidence tending to show that the defendants did not subjectively believe that the action was tenable is relevant *114to whether an action was instituted or maintained with malice. [Citation.]” (Sycamore Ridge Apartments LLC v. Naumann, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1407-1408.)

Other Sections in This Document (59)

Full Text