abuse of process claim in Ohio

2025To establish an abuse of process claim, the plaintiff must show: “(1) a legal proceeding has been set in motion in proper form and with probable cause; (2) the proceeding has been perverted to attempt to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which it was not designed; and (3) direct damage has resulted from the wrongful use of process.” Yaklevich, 68 Ohio St.3d at 294 (1994). {¶37} The Ohio Supreme Court in Yaklevich acknowledged the significant differences between malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims.

2025As set forth in our discussion of Bender’s third, fourth, and ninth assigned errors, “A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence requires an appellate court to review the evidence presented ‘including the reasonable inferences and the credibility of the witnesses, to determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the decision must be reversed.’” Straight, 2020-Ohio-4692, at ¶ 24 (11th Dist.), quoting Chandler, 2017-Ohio-710, at ¶ 13 (11th Dist.), citing Eastley 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 20 . {¶57} “‘To succeed on an abuse of

2021Montgomery No. 16646, 1998 WL 310742 , *4 (May 22, 1998). {¶18} Moreover, “[i]n order to establish the second element of abuse of process, ‘a claimant must show that one used process with an “ulterior motive,” as the gist of [the] offense is found in the manner in which process is used.’” -10- Case No. 20 MA 0043 Thomason at ¶ 31 , quoting Clermont Environmental Reclamation Co. v. Hancock, 16 Ohio App.3d 9, 11 (12th Dist.1984). “‘“[T]he ulterior motive contemplated by an abuse-of-process claim generally involves an attempt to gain an advantage outside the proceeding, using the process itself a

2014Therefore, as Klan failed to even allege these basic requirements of an abuse of process claim, we find no error in the trial court's decision -6- Warren CA2014-01-007 granting both appellees' respective motions to dismiss.4 Compare Clermont Environmental Reclamation Co. v. Hancock, 16 Ohio App.3d 9, 12-13 (12th Dist.1984) (finding trial court erred by granting motion to dismiss where plaintiff properly alleged abuse of process claim); Fallang v. Hickey, 12th Dist.

2025As set forth in our discussion of Bender’s third, fourth, and ninth assigned errors, “A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence requires an appellate court to review the evidence presented ‘including the reasonable inferences and the credibility of the witnesses, to determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the decision must be reversed.’” Straight, 2020-Ohio-4692, at ¶ 24 (11th Dist.), quoting Chandler, 2017-Ohio-710, at ¶ 13 (11th Dist.), citing Eastley 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 20 . {¶57} “‘To succeed on an abuse of

2020The ulterior motive or “improper purpose” of an abuse of process claim typically “takes the 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, by the use of the process as a threat or a club.” Robb, 75 Ohio St.3d at 271 , quoting Prosser & Keeton on Torts, Section 121, at 898 (5th Ed.1984). {¶29} This Court’s review of the record shows that Mr. Husa rested his abuse of process claim upon the bald assumption that Mr. Knapp must have intended to harm him because he published legal notice in

2025As set forth in our discussion of Bender’s third, fourth, and ninth assigned errors, “A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence requires an appellate court to review the evidence presented ‘including the reasonable inferences and the credibility of the witnesses, to determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the decision must be reversed.’” Straight, 2020-Ohio-4692, at ¶ 24 (11th Dist.), quoting Chandler, 2017-Ohio-710, at ¶ 13 (11th Dist.), citing Eastley 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 20 . {¶57} “‘To succeed on an abuse of

2015Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A., 68 Ohio St.3d 294, 298 , * * * (1994). ‘Abuse of process occurs where someone attempts to achieve through use of the court that which the court is itself powerless to order.’ Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club, Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 264, 271 , * * * (1996).” (Parallel citations omitted.) Hrivnak v. NCO Portfolio Mgt., 994 F.Supp.2d 889, 902 (N.D.Ohio 2014). {¶69} Ms. Henry claims the perversion of process herein was filing of the action on July 6, 2009, in order to coerce quick payment, as evidenced by a letter sent to her dated July 18, 2009.

2025The Court held that the key consideration in a malicious prosecution claim was whether probable cause existed to bring the criminal action, while the key consideration in an abuse of process claim was whether “an improper purpose was sought to be achieved by the use of a lawfully brought previous action.” Id. {¶42} In Tablack v. Wellman, 2006-Ohio-4688, ¶ 141 (7th Dist.), this court noted that a malicious prosecution claim is incompatible with an abuse of process claim because the former requires a plaintiff to show a lack of probable cause while the latter requires the plaintiff to show that

2021Mahoning No. 04-MA-218, 2006-Ohio-4688, ¶ 141 (“One of the elements a plaintiff must prove for an abuse of process claim is that a legal proceeding has been set in motion in proper form and with probable cause.”). {¶15} In contrast, the elements of the tort of malicious civil prosecution are: (1) malicious institution of prior proceedings against the plaintiff by defendant; (2) lack of probable cause for filing the prior proceedings; (3) termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiff’s favor; and (4) seizure of plaintiff’s person or property during the course of the prior proceedings.

1994See, e.g., Yost v. Torok (1986), 256 Ga. 92 , 344 S.E.2d 414 .

1994See, e.g., Yost v. Torok (1986), 256 Ga. 92 , 344 S.E.2d 414 .

2025Case No. 24 JE 0024 – 11 – To establish a malicious prosecution claim, the plaintiff must be able to prove: “(1) malice in initiating or continuing the prosecution, (2) lack of probable cause, and (3) termination of the prosecution in favor of the accused.” Trussell, 53 Ohio St.3d at 146 (1990).

2001Id. at 300 , 626 N.E.2d 115 .

2025Accordingly, “unlike malicious prosecution, ‘termination of the prosecution in favor of the accused’ is not a necessary element to establish an abuse-of-process claim.” (Emphasis in original.) Read v. Fairview Park, 146 Ohio App.3d 15, 18 (8th Dist. 2001).

2025An abuse-of-process claim “accrues on the date of the allegedly tortious conduct.” Id. at 19 .

2022Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A., 68 Ohio St.3d 294 , 1994-Ohio-503 , 626 N.E.2d 115 . {¶14} “Probable cause” means “a reasonable belief, supported by trustworthy information and circumstances, that the defendant’s [proceeding] was legally just and proper.” Huber v. O’Neill, 66 Ohio St.2d 28 , 419 N.E.2d 10 (1981). {¶15} This Court has addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff can allege both an abuse of process claim and a malicious prosecution claim in the same complaint, since once requires probable cause (abuse of process) and one requires the absence of probable cause (mal

2022Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A., 68 Ohio St.3d 294 , 1994-Ohio-503 , 626 N.E.2d 115 . {¶14} “Probable cause” means “a reasonable belief, supported by trustworthy information and circumstances, that the defendant’s [proceeding] was legally just and proper.” Huber v. O’Neill, 66 Ohio St.2d 28 , 419 N.E.2d 10 (1981). {¶15} This Court has addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff can allege both an abuse of process claim and a malicious prosecution claim in the same complaint, since once requires probable cause (abuse of process) and one requires the absence of probable cause (mal

2021Compare Kremer v. Cox, 114 Ohio App.3d 41, 53 (9th Dist.1996) (noting that “[t]he essence of Kremer’s claim is that the suit against him was brought without probable cause, for an “ulterior” malicious purpose; he does not contend, and presented no evidence to show, that the suit was initially brought with probable cause and later ‘perverted’ by Cox to aggravate Kremer”). {¶25} Likewise, in response to Gentile’s motion for summary judgment, the Turkolys disputed Gentile’s assertion that his tortious-interference case “was properly instituted for [an] appropriate purpose.” (Doc.

2008Kremer v. Cox (1996), *Page 15 114 Ohio App.3d 41 , 51 (concluding that an abuse of process claim is not established when the conduct of which the plaintiff complains is the act of filing the complaint itself.) Because the conduct of which Mr. Vetovitz complained is the Wochnas' action in filing this litigation itself, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to them on his claim for abuse of process. {¶ 28} Mr. Vetovitz's second assignment of error is overruled.

2025As set forth in our discussion of Bender’s third, fourth, and ninth assigned errors, “A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence requires an appellate court to review the evidence presented ‘including the reasonable inferences and the credibility of the witnesses, to determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the decision must be reversed.’” Straight, 2020-Ohio-4692, at ¶ 24 (11th Dist.), quoting Chandler, 2017-Ohio-710, at ¶ 13 (11th Dist.), citing Eastley 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 20 . {¶57} “‘To succeed on an abuse of

2025Gauthier v. Gauthier, 2019-Ohio-4397, ¶ 67 (12th Dist.). {¶ 57} To prevail on an abuse-of-process claim, the claimant must establish that (1) a legal proceeding has been set in motion in proper form and with probable cause, (2) the proceeding has been perverted to attempt to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which it was not designed, and (3) direct damage has resulted from the wrongful use of process.

2025Id. "[T]he key consideration in an abuse of process action is whether an improper purpose - 20 - Warren CA2024-11-081 was sought to be achieved by the use of a lawfully brought previous action." Yaklevich at ¶ 19 .

2025As set forth in our discussion of Bender’s third, fourth, and ninth assigned errors, “A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence requires an appellate court to review the evidence presented ‘including the reasonable inferences and the credibility of the witnesses, to determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the decision must be reversed.’” Straight, 2020-Ohio-4692, at ¶ 24 (11th Dist.), quoting Chandler, 2017-Ohio-710, at ¶ 13 (11th Dist.), citing Eastley 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 20 . {¶57} “‘To succeed on an abuse of

2025It held that the key consideration in a malicious prosecution claim was whether probable cause existed to bring the criminal action, while the key consideration in an abuse of process claim was whether “an improper purpose was sought to be achieved by the use of a lawfully brought previous action.” Id. {¶38} In Daher, 2021-Ohio-2103, at ¶ 2 (8th Dist.), the plaintiff filed a civil complaint against the college and campus security officers after he was fired from his part-time job as a police dispatcher.

2025As set forth in our discussion of Bender’s third, fourth, and ninth assigned errors, “A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence requires an appellate court to review the evidence presented ‘including the reasonable inferences and the credibility of the witnesses, to determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the decision must be reversed.’” Straight, 2020-Ohio-4692, at ¶ 24 (11th Dist.), quoting Chandler, 2017-Ohio-710, at ¶ 13 (11th Dist.), citing Eastley 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 20 . {¶57} “‘To succeed on an abuse of

2022See Tibbs, 93 Ohio App.3d at 42-45 , 637 N.E.2d 397 (affirming the trial court’s judgment granting appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1).). suspension, we find the abuse-of-process claim necessary requires inquiry into ecclesiastical matters, including whether the Diocese’s internal procedures permitted it to suspend Fr.

2022See Tibbs, 93 Ohio App.3d at 42-45 , 637 N.E.2d 397 (affirming the trial court’s judgment granting appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1).). suspension, we find the abuse-of-process claim necessary requires inquiry into ecclesiastical matters, including whether the Diocese’s internal procedures permitted it to suspend Fr.

2021Feb. 16, 2013), citing Huber v. O’Neill, 66 Ohio St.2d 28, 29-30 (1981), Baryak v. Kirkland, 137 Ohio App.3d 704, 710-711 (11th Dist.2000), and Evans v. Smith, 97 Ohio App.3d 59, 68 (1st Dist. 1994).

2017Adams cites Reenan v. Klein, 3 Ohio App.3d 142, 144 (1st Dist.1981), arguing that where a party has fully and fairly informed legal counsel, then reliance upon the advice of that counsel is a complete defense to a claim for abuse of process. {¶ 18} Advice of counsel is not a defense to false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, or negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress.