Filter Results CategoriesCart
Highlight Updates

17.5.5.2 Malicious Prosecution

Malicious prosecution occurs under the following circumstances:

  • • A proceeding is instituted;
  • • The proceeding is without probable cause or possible valid claim;
  • • The proceeding was instituted either maliciously or for an improper purpose; and
  • • The proceeding is terminated in favor of the defendant.192

Lack of probable cause can be found when an attorney would have found the action not tenable based upon the facts known by the collector at the time the action was instigated.193 On the other hand, mere dismissal without prejudice may not be enough to show lack of probable cause,194 and, when the collector prevails in the collection suit, there cannot be a malicious-prosecution claim.195

Malice can be found when the collector is bringing an action to collect money even though the collector has no knowledge of the facts of the case.196 Some states impose an additional requirement of “special injury” such as seizure of property.197 A proceeding has been held to be terminated in favor of the defendant when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim after realizing the consumer will put up a strong defense.198

A recent case presents extraordinary facts and resulted in a malicious prosecution claim against the debt buyer, Portfolio Recovery Associates. The court approved the jury finding of $250,000 compensatory damages and over $82 million in punitive damages and then awarded over $300,000 in attorney fees and other expenses.199 Despite clear and extensive evidence before and during the litigation that the debt buyer was suing the wrong person, the debt buyer continued with the litigation, took advantage of the consumer’s lack of a Social Security number, admitted it was continuing to press its claim because of the consumer’s counterclaim, admitted its business model did not include independent investigation even when concerns were raised, argued it was the consumer’s burden to prove she was the wrong debtor, demonstrated a general disrespect for the law, and engaged in a pattern of similar practices in other cases.200

Footnotes

  • 192 See National Consumer Law Center, Fair Debt Collection § 15.6.2 (9th ed. 2018), updated at www.nclc.org/library. See also Motes v. Midland Funding, L.L.C., 233 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (N.D. Ala. 2017).

  • 193 Turner v. Debt Buyers Inc., 2011 WL 287901 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2011). See also Motes v. Midland Funding, L.L.C., 233 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (N.D. Ala. 2017).

  • 194 Carr v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C., 2011 WL 3568338 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011).

  • 195 Watson v. Auto Advisors, Inc., 822 N.E.2d 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

  • 196 Turner v. Debt Buyers Inc., 2011 WL 287901 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2011).

  • 197 See National Consumer Law Center, Fair Debt Collection § 15.6.2 (9th ed. 2018), updated at www.nclc.org/library.

  • 198 Pasternak v. Trans Union, 2008 WL 928840 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2008); Turner v. Debt Buyers Inc., 2011 WL 287901 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2011). But see Carr v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C., 2011 WL 3568338 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011).

  • 199 Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mejia, No. 1216-CV-34184 (Mo. Cir. Ct. Nov. 4, 2015), available at www.nclc.org/unreported.

  • 200 Id.