ARISON SHIPPING COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, TED ARISON, HARVEY LEVINSON, MR. BRAIN, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND GEORGIAN BAY LINES, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
MILTON H. HATFIELD, INDIVIDUALLY AND MILTON H. HATFIELD, AND JAMES W. KINDELAN AND OTHERS D/B/A COOPERS AND LYBRAND, A PARTNERSHIP F/K/A LYBRAND, ROSS BROTHERS & COMPANY, 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.
Appellants sued for malicious prosecution based on a prior civil lawsuit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not constitute a 'bona fide termination' required for a malicious prosecution claim, affirming the dismissal of the complaint.
A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits and therefore does not constitute a bona fide termination of a prior civil suit. Accordingly, such a dismissal cannot serve as the basis for a malicious prosecution claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of the appellants' complaint.
[1] A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a prior civil lawsuit is not a bona fide termination sufficient to state a cause of action for malicious prosecutio…
[2] To sustain a cause of action for malicious prosecution, the prior proceeding must have been bona fide terminated in favor of the plaintiff, which requires an adjudication…
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“There are six elements needed to be established by a plaintiff to sustain a cause of action based upon malicious prosecution: first, the commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding; second, its legal causation by the present defendant against the present plaintiff; third, its bona fide termination in favor of the present plaintiff; fourth, absence of probable cause; fifth, presence of malice; and sixth, damage conforming to the legal standards resulting to the plaintiff.”
Establishes the six-element test for malicious prosecution claims under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed suit for malicious prosecution against the appellees based on a prior civil lawsuit that had been filed against the appellants. The p…
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 Adjudication On The Merits cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Chief Judge.
Appellants/plaintiffs appeal from an order dismissing their amended complaint for malicious prosecution.
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether a dismissal “for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter” in a prior civil lawsuit filed against the present plaintiffs is a bona fide termination of the lawsuit sufficient to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution. We hold that it is not.
There are six elements needed to be established by a plaintiff to sustain a cause of action based upon malicious prosecution: first, the commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding; second, its legal causation by the present defendant against the present plaintiff; third, its bona fide termination in favor of the present plaintiff; fourth, absence of probable cause; fifth, presence of malice; and sixth, damage conforming to the legal standards resulting to the plaintiff. Applestein v. Preston, 335 So. 2d 604 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Such a “bona fide termination” of the prior civil suit must be an adjudication on the merits in a judicial proceeding. Jackson v. Biscayne Medical Center, Inc., 347 So. 2d 721 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). It is our opinion that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits and thus, not a bona fide termination of the prior civil suit. See Weber v. Johnston Fuel Liners, Inc., 540 P. 2d 535 (Wyo.1975); Heaney v. Purdy, 29 N.Y.2d 157, 324 N.Y.S.2d 47, 272 N.E. 2d 550 (1971); Roy v. Landers, 467 S.W. 2d 924 (Mo.1971); Siegel v. City of Chicago, 127 Ill.App.2d 84, 261 N.E. 2d 802 (1970).
Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Union OIL OF Cal. v. Watson, 468 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…57 Cal.Rptr. 11 (1967) (a dismissal resulting from negotiation, settlement, or consent is generally not deemed a favorable termination of the proceedings because it reflects ambiguously on the merits of the action); Arison Shipping Co. v. Hatfield, 352 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (dismissal of a civil action, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not considered an adjudication on the merits and thus not a bona fide termination of the prior suit). Cf. Burchell v. Bechert, 356 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1…
-
Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…onstitutes a decision on the merits, the decision is confined to that unique factual setting. But see Keller v. Butler, 246 N.Y. 249, 158 N.E. 510 (1927). Lastly, the defendants call our attention to the statement in Arison Shipping Co. v. Hatfield, 352 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), that a bona fide termination of a prior civil suit “must be an adjudication on the merits.” In Arison, the termination was a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The holding in Arison, that to constitute a bona fide…
-
Rowen v. Holiday Pines Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 759 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…of subject matter jurisdiction is not such a bona fide termination, because “there must first be jurisdiction in the court in which the proceeding terminates.” Gatto, 387 So. 2d at 382; Union Oil, 468 So. 2d at 353; Arison Shipping Co. v. Hatfield, 352 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Dismissal of a class action suit for lack of standing does not qualify as a “bona fide termination” in the defendant’s favor. See Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). This is because the law…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson v. Biscayne Med. Ctr., Inc., 347 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Applestein v. Preston, 335 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)