abuse of process claim in Tennessee

2013Generally, “the lawful use of a court’s process does not give rise to an abuse of process claim, and no claim of abuse will be heard if process is used for its lawful purpose, even though it is accompanied with an incidental spiteful motive.” Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682 cmt. b (1977)).

2000This lawsuit was filed solely for the purpose [of] seeking compensation for the harm occasioned on Mr. Sharp's professional reputation by his inclusion in the original malpractice suit." Therefore, Mr. Gratigny asserts that the malicious prosecution suit against the Ashleys by Mr. Snapp was not "commenced for a wrongful purpose." For an abuse of process claim in Tennessee, two elements must be alleged: "(1) the existence of an ulterior motive, and (2) an act in the use of process other than such as would be proper in the regular prosecution of the charge." Priest v. Union Agency, 174 Tenn. 304

2016Lastly, Goetz appeared to concede that the claim for malicious prosecution was precluded by the Tennessee Supreme Court‘s decision in Himmelfarb v. Allain, 380 S.W.3d 35, 40 (Tenn. 2012), which held that a voluntary nonsuit without prejudice is not a favorable termination for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim.2 Notably, Goetz did not assert that the amended complaint establishes any causes of action other than the four cited by the Autins in their motion to dismiss, nor did he request permission to file a second amended complaint at that time.

2000A malicious prosecution claim is closely analogous to an abuse of process claim because both claims constitute tort actions that “may be brought to obtain redress for the alleged misuse of legal process by another.” McGee, 1996 WL 11208 , at *1 (quoting Donaldson v. Donaldson, 557 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1977)).