## Facts

- Arthur J. Crowley was the attorney, neighbor, and close friend of Beldon Katleman.
- Beldon married Carole Katleman, later divorced her, and Crowley represented Beldon in the divorce; Carole allegedly became hostile toward Crowley.
- Beldon later executed a will naming Crowley as executor and a principal beneficiary of the residuary estate (subject to a life interest for Beldon’s mother); Crowley did not draft the will.
- After Beldon’s death, Carole Katleman and others pursued probate litigation challenging Crowley’s role and interests under the will, asserting multiple causes of action and liability theories (including claims such as undue influence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty).
- Crowley alleged that some of the probate claims were pursued without probable cause and with malice, and that those claims terminated in his favor.
- Crowley sued Carole and her attorneys for malicious prosecution based on the allegedly baseless claims within the prior probate litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether a malicious prosecution action may proceed when only some causes of action or theories in the prior suit lacked probable cause and were malicious, or whether the plaintiff must show the entire prior action lacked probable cause.
2. Whether California should depart from the rule permitting malicious prosecution liability for individual unsupported claims asserted within a broader action containing at least one supported claim.
3. How favorable termination, lack of probable cause, and malice apply when the prior litigation involved multiple claims with potentially different support and dispositions.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule allowing malicious prosecution liability for individual causes of action or theories asserted without probable cause and with malice, even if other claims in the same suit were supported.
- The Court held Crowley’s pleading stated a viable malicious prosecution claim to the extent it alleged specific probate claims were baseless, malicious, and favorably terminated.
- The Court affirmed the appellate reversal of the trial court’s dismissal after demurrer and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Malicious prosecution may be based on one or more distinct causes of action or liability theories in prior litigation that were asserted without probable cause and with malice, notwithstanding the presence of other tenable claims.
- Probable cause is evaluated separately for each challenged claim or theory, not only for the lawsuit viewed as a single unit.
- Favorable termination may be assessed claim by claim when different causes of action terminate differently; the disposition must reflect on the merits of the challenged claim.
- Malice must be pleaded and proved as to each challenged claim, requiring an improper purpose in initiating or maintaining that claim.
- On demurrer review, courts accept properly pleaded factual allegations as true and determine whether the complaint states (or can be amended to state) a cause of action.

## Conclusion

California permits malicious prosecution actions targeting specific baseless claims within a larger lawsuit, applying favorable termination, probable cause, and malice to the particular claims challenged rather than requiring the entire prior action to be groundless.


Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal. 4th 666 (Cal. 1994)