[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Defendant willfully or intentionally made illegal, improper, or perverted use of process;
2. Defendant had ulterior motive or purpose in exercising the process; and
3. Defendant’s actions caused injury to plaintiff.

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 willfully or intentionally made illegal, improper, or perverted use of process;
2. Defendant had ulterior motive or purpose in exercising the process; and
3. Defendant’s actions caused injury to plaintiff.

The torts of abuse of process and malicious prosecution share the common element of an improper purpose in the use of legal process, and may sometimes both apply in the same case.  However, the torts are distinct in that “[t]he tort of malicious prosecution is concerned with maliciously causing process to issue, whereas the tort of abuse of process is concerned with the improper use of process after it issues.” Verdon v. Song, 251 So.3d 256, 258 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2018) [citing Yoder v. Adriatico, 459 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)].

---

Eleventh Circuit: White v. Lemma, 947 F.3d 1373, 1380 (11th Cir. 2020); Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Ctr. Church, Inc., 826 F. App’x 766, 773 (11th Cir. 2020).

Southern District: Svistina v. Elbadramany, 2023 WL 34642, *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2023); Klein v. Oved, 2022 WL 4772399, *6 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2022).

Middle District: Am. Products Prod. Co. of Pinellas Cnty., Inc. v. Armstrong, 2023 WL 3728407, *4 (M.D. Fla. May 30, 2023); Sanchez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2023 WL 2584450, *12 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2023); Saito v. Collier Cnty. Mun. Corp., 2023 WL 2528867, *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2023).

Northern District: Blais v. Williston Crossing E., LLC, No. 1:20-CV-21-AW-GRJ, 2021 WL 1608832, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2021); Gulley v. Escambia County, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29334, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2008).

FLORIDA RULES

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070

Fla. R. Prof. Conduct 4-3.1

FLORIDA STATUTES

§ 48.011 et seq., § 49.011 et seq., Fla. Stat.

REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682 (1965)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Abuse of Process

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1. A party must set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, waiver, and any other matter constituting avoidance or an affirmative defense. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat. (four years); Blue v. Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

(3) Threats of judicial action, even if without basis, are not actionable as abuse of process; a claim requires the issuances of some form of process by a court. See Kodsi v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., No. 15-CV-81053-MARRA, 2018 WL 830117, at *4 (S.D. Fla. February 12, 2018); Steinhilber v. Lamoree, 825 F. Supp. 1003, 1005, 1006 (S.D. Fla. 1992).

(4) Judges enjoy absolute immunity from claims for abuse of process when the judge has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter forming the basis for liability. See Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942, 943 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 983 (1985); Maps v. Miami Dade State Attorney, 693 Fed.Appx. 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2017); Norkin v. The Florida Bar, 311 F.Supp.3d 1299, 1305 (S.D. Fla. 2018).

(5) Plaintiff cannot bring claim for abuse of process when defendant’s action was authorized by a court order. See Laird v. Vogel, 334 So. 2d 650, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1977).

(6) “There is no abuse of process . . . when the process is used to accomplish the result for which it was created, regardless of an incidental or concurrent motive of spite or ulterior purpose.” Bothmann v. Harrington, 458 So. 2d 1163, 1169 (M.D. Fla. 1984);Borneisen v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 490 Fed.Appx. 206, 214 (11th Cir. 2012); FR Tax Group, LLC v. Kassover, 723 Fed.Appx 977, 978 (11^th Cir. 2018).

(7) The mere initiation of judicial process does not give rise to abuse of process claim unless defendant misuses process “after” it was issued by pursuing the improper claim. See Della-Donna v. Nova University, 512 So. 2d 1051, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Verdon v. Song, 251 So. 3d 256, 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

(8) Advice of counsel. Natural Solutions v. Terrabind, 840 So.2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

[/MM_Access_Decision]