[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Defendant commenced or continued an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding;
2. Defendant was the legal cause of the original proceeding against the Plaintiff;
3. The bona fide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the Plaintiff;
4. Absence of probable cause in the original proceeding;
5. Defendant acted with malice; and
6. Plaintiff suffered damages

See Inlet Beach Capital Inv., LLC v. Enclave at Inlet Beach Owners Ass’n, Inc., 236 So.3d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); see also Loper v. Valencia, No. 1:24CV51-MW-MAF, 2025 WL 1484712, at *5-6 (N.D. Fla. May 9, 2025)(explaining the differences between malicious prosecution claims under Section 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law).

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Defendant commenced or continued an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding;
2. Defendant was the legal cause of the original proceeding against the Plaintiff;
3. The bona fide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the Plaintiff;
4. Absence of probable cause in the original proceeding;
5. Defendant acted with malice; and
6. Plaintiff suffered damages

See Inlet Beach Capital Inv., LLC v. Enclave at Inlet Beach Owners Ass’n, Inc., 236 So.3d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Debrincat v. Fischer, 217 So.3d 68, 70 (Fla. 2017); Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So.2d 1352, 1355 (Fla. 1994).


First District: Inlet Beach Capital Inv., LLC v. Enclave at Inlet Beach Owners Ass’n, Inc., 236 So.3d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018);  McCraney v. Barberi, 677 So.2d 355, 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).


Second District: Abou Sharaka v. E & A, Inc., 135 So.3d 428, 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).


Third District: Alvarez-Mena v. Miami-Dade Cty., 305 So. 3d 63, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).


Fourth District: Jallali v. Christiana Tr., 297 So.3d 580, 584-85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Rivernider v. Meyer, 174 So.3d 602, 604 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So.3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).


Fifth District: Verdon v. Song, 251 So. 3d 256, 259 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); Hardick v. Homol, 795 So.2d 1107, 1111, n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Scott v. City of Miami, No. 23-11280, 2025 WL 1647025, at *9 (11th Cir. June 11, 2025); Floyd v. Stoumbos, 2023 WL 2592297, *2 (11th Cir. Mar. 22, 2023); DeMartini v. Town of Gulf Stream, 942 F.3d 1277, 1309 (11th Cir. 2019); EMI Sun Vill., Inc. v. Catledge, 779 F. App’x 627, 636 (11th Cir. 2019).


Southern District: Purcell v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 753 F. Supp. 3d 1308, 1340-41 (S.D. Fla. 2024); Crayton v. Opa-Locka Police Dep’t, 2023 WL 3353927, *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2023); Trump v. Clinton, 2022 WL 4119433, *24 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2022); Fausten v. Lantana Police Dep’t, 2022 WL 1443060, *2 (S.D. Fla. May 6, 2022).


Middle District: Chingarev v. Rambosk, No. 2:22-CV-494-JLB-NPM, 2024 WL 4201608, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2024); Butler v. Francis, 2023 WL 3931841, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2023); Kaplan v. Regions Bank, 2023 WL 2610155, *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2023); Newcome v. Hernando Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 2022 WL 17608783, *6 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2022).

Northern District: Loper v. Valencia, No. 1:24CV51-MW-MAF, 2025 WL 1484712, at *6 (N.D. Fla. May 9, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:24CV51-MW/MAF, 2025 WL 1605030 (N.D. Fla. June 6, 2025); Brown v. Brown, No. 1:21-CV-75-AW-GRJ, 2021 WL 2144250, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2021); Jibrin v. Univ. of Fla. Police Dep’t, No. 1:19-CV-155-MW-GRJ, 2019 WL 6330650, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2019), aff’d sub nom. Jibrin v. Abubakar, 814 Fed.Appx. 480 (11th Cir. 2020).

REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts ‘ 653 (1977 Amendment)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Malicious Prosecution

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) Defendant brought original proceeding on advice of counsel and made full disclosure in seeking such advice. See Wright v. Yurko, 446 So.2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Mee Indus. v. Dow Chemical Co., 608 F.3d 1202, 1218 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that “[a]cting  on the advice of counsel is a complete defense to an action for malicious prosecution…however, that advice must be sought in good faith, with the sole purpose of being advised as to the law”); Gause v. First Bank of MN, 457 So.2d 582, 584 (Fla. 1^st DCA 1984) (“Advice of counsel is a complete defense to a malicious prosecution action by negating the required elements of probable cause and malice, neither of which are elements of a cause of action in abuse of process.”).

(4) Defendant had probable cause to initiate a prior judicial proceeding. See Bell v. Anderson, 414 So.2d 550, 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 424 So.2d 760 (Fla. 1982); Anderson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 12–61047–CIV, 2013 WL 773473, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2013); Scott v. City of Miami, No. 23-11280, 2025 WL 1647025, at *9 (11th Cir. June 11, 2025).

(5) Probable cause defense extends to reporting of a crime when there is a belief that a crime reported has been committed. See Hudson v. Dykes, 402 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

(6) Public entities and employees may assert sovereign immunity as a defense to malicious prosecution claims. See Hansen v. State, 503 So.2d 1324, 1325-1326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (state prosecutor); Herring v. Mahoney, 2016 WL 7743043, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2016); Cottam v. Pelton, No. 5:16–cv–413–Oc–30PRL, 2017 WL 8751732, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2017); see also § 768.28, Fla. Stat. (sovereign immunity).

(7) Malicious prosecution claims cannot be brought as a counterclaim in the original proceeding. This is because one of the elements of malicious prosecution is the bona fide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the party asserting it was malicious. Pace v. Bank of New York Mellon Tr. Co. Nat’l Ass’n, 224 So. 3d 342, 344 n.3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

[/MM_Access_Decision]