Preview:

Supreme Court
No. 98-556-Appeal.
(PC 95-4499)
Patrick B. Clyne                                                                                              :
v.                                                                                                            :
William J. Doyle et al.                                                                                       :
Present:  Weisberger, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ.
O P I N I O N
PER CURIAM.  In this malicious-prosecution and abuse-of-process case, the plaintiff, Patrick
B. Clyne, appeals from the entry of judgment for the defendants, William J. Doyle (Doyle) and AAA
Mobile Warehousing Company, Inc. (AAA).   Following a conference before a single justice of this
Court in accordance with Article I, Rule  12A(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate
Procedure, this case was assigned to the full Court for a session in conference for a potential disposition
without oral argument. After a careful review of the record and arguments raised by the plaintiff, we
affirm.
This case arose out of the disappearance of a construction trailer leased by plaintiff from
defendants in the fall of 1992.  The defendant AAA is in the business of leasing mobile office trailers and
mobile storage trailers.   The defendant Doyle is the principal shareholder and president of AAA.   The
plaintiff is an electrical contractor who was awarded a contract to perform some work at the LaSalette
Shrine in Attleboro, Massachusetts.  In September 1992, when Doyle went to pick up the trailer at the
- 1 -




end of the lease period, he discovered that the trailer was missing.   After repeatedly calling and writing
to plaintiff to inquire about the missing trailer, Doyle warned plaintiff that if he did not hear from him, he
would file a police report that the trailer was stolen.   After receiving no satisfactory response, Doyle
reported the missing trailer to the police as a stolen vehicle and indicated that plaintiff, as the person he
last knew to be in possession of the trailer, was the most likely suspect.
In 1993 plaintiff was arrested, charged, and tried for larceny.   After the trial he was acquitted.
Two years later he filed this suit for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Following a nonjury
trial in July 1998, the trial justice rendered a decision in favor of defendants.1   She determined that
plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proving all elements of malicious prosecution and abuse of
process.  We agree.
Malicious prosecution is defined “as a suit for damages resulting from a prior criminal or civil
legal proceeding that was instituted maliciously and without probable cause, and that terminated
unsuccessfully for the plaintiff therein.”  Hillside Associates v. Stravato, 642 A.2d 664, 667 (R.I. 1994).
Such actions are traditionally viewed with disfavor because “they tend to deter the prosecution of crimes
and/or  to  chill  free  access  to  the  courts.”    Brough  v.  Foley,                                         572  A.2d  63,  66  (R.I.  1990).
Consequently the burden of proof we have required for a plaintiff to prevail on this claim is clear proof;
that is, a plaintiff must “establish the existence of malice and want of probable cause by clear proof.”  Id.
“[M]alice may be established by showing that the person initiating the original action was
primarily motivated by ill will or hostility or [regardless of such motivation] did not believe that he or she
1
The defendants also filed a counterclaim for damages for the loss of the trailer and past-due
rent.  The trial justice found for defendants on this claim after concluding that the unambiguous terms of
the lease required plaintiff to indemnify defendants for the fair-market value of the trailer.   Judgment
entered for defendants in the amount of $4,418.75.  The plaintiff did not appeal from this judgment.
- 2 -




would succeed in that action.”  Brough, 572 A.2d at 66.  In this case there was no evidence of ill will or
hostility on the part of Doyle.   At trial Doyle testified that he only contacted the police after he had
repeatedly called and left messages for plaintiff and after he had written several notes to him.  He asked
plaintiff to call him, to pay past-due rent on the trailer, and to have plaintiff’s insurance company contact
him.   When plaintiff failed to respond over a period of approximately eight months, he felt he had no
alternative but to file a stolen-vehicle report.
We have previously explained that “probable cause exists when facts and circumstances would
lead an ordinarily prudent and careful person to conclude that the accused is guilty.                            [I]t is
sufficient that the facts known to the accuser provide reasonable grounds for a belief that criminal
activity at the hands of the accused has occurred.”   Solitro v. Moffatt, 523 A.2d 858, 862 (R.I. 1987).
After reporting the loss to the police, Doyle was asked to appear before a magistrate to verify the
information in the complaint.   Doyle testified at trial that he told the magistrate that he had no idea who
had stolen the trailer but that plaintiff was the last person in possession of it.  This evidence supports the
trial justice's conclusion that Doyle had probable cause to initiate proceedings.
Abuse of process, as distinguished from malicious prosecution, “arises when a legal proceeding,
although set in motion in proper form, becomes perverted to accomplish an ulterior or a wrongful
purpose for which it was not designed.”   Hillside Associates, 642 A.2d at 667.   The findings of a trial
justice sitting without a jury are entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed by this Court unless
it is shown that the trial justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence or was otherwise clearly
wrong.  Burke-Tarr Co. v. Ferland Corp., 724 A.2d 1014, 1018 (R.I. 1999).   Here, the trial justice’s
findings that Doyle “genuinely sought justice” and “possessed a good faith belief that the plaintiff had
stolen the trailer” were not clearly wrong.
- 3 -




For the reasons stated, we deny and dismiss plaintiff’s appeal and affirm the judgment of the
Superior Court.
- 4 -




COVER SHEET
TITLE OF CASE:                              Patrick B. Clyne v. William J. Doyle et al.
DOCKET NO.:                                 98-556 - A.
COURT:                                      Supreme Court
DATE OPINION FILED:     November 10, 1999
Appeal from                                                                               County:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:                           Superior                                      Providence
JUDGE FROM OTHER
COURT:                                      Gibney, J.
JUSTICES:                                   Weisberger, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier         Concurring
                                            Flanders, Goldberg, JJ.
WRITTEN BY:                                 PER CURIAM
ATTORNEYS:                                  David P. DeStefano
For Plaintiff
ATTORNEYS:                                  Armando O Monaco
For Defendant

Download 98-556.pdf

Rhode Island Law