KILPATRICK HOLTON, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD HANDLEY AND GYPSY HANDLEY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Holton appealed a summary judgment dismissing his malicious prosecution suit against the Handleys, who had complained to the State Attorney resulting in stalking charges. The court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Handleys withheld evidence of Gypsy's encouraging communications with Holton and whether they acted with malice.
Summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether probable cause existed for the charges and whether the Handleys intentionally withheld Gypsy's encouraging communications from the State Attorney when making their complaint.
[1] A claim for malicious prosecution requires proof that the defendants acted with malice and that no probable cause for the charge existed.
[2] Summary judgment is inappropriate in a malicious prosecution case when there is an unresolved issue of whether the defendants intentionally withheld information from the…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The only two elements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution not established in this case are that the defendants acted with malice (not before us because it was not the basis of the court's ruling) and that no probable cause for the charge existed.”
Identifies the two disputed elements of malicious prosecution that should have gone to trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolton and Gypsy Handley had a romantic relationship that became strained. Gypsy and her father Donald complained to the State Attorney's Office, resu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Malice cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
The ill-fated romance between Holton and Gypsy Handley cooled and their relationship became strained. It is the vagueness of time at which Holton’s efforts at reconciliation became unwelcome that brings us to this point. Gypsy and her father, Donald, made complaints to the State Attorney’s Office which resulted in Holton being charged with stalking Gypsy. After Holton was arrested and while awaiting trial, the State Attorney reviewed letters from Gypsy to Holton and determined that the charges should be nol prossed. Holton sued Gypsy and her father for malicious prosecution. The court granted a summary judgment, apparently on the basis that since the State Attorney filed the charges, there must have been a determination of probable cause for the charges.
The only two elements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution not established in this case are that the defendants acted with malice (not before us because it was not the basis of the court’s ruling) and that no probable cause for the charge existed.
It appears in the record that although Gypsy’s parents had decided to terminate their daughter’s relationship with Holton, Gypsy had not. Her letters and other communications with Holton during the relevant period appear to show that she was encouraging his continued contact. It is the unresolved issue of whether the Handleys intentionally withheld this and related information from the State Attorney’s Office when the Handleys made their complaint to the State Attorney and when the filing decision was made that renders summary judgment inappropriate in this case. Whether they acted with malice, of course, continues to be an issue.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.