## Facts

- Paul E. Poulsen operated a drink-mix distribution business supplied by Bar None, Inc., a California bottling company owned by John Underwood.
- William and Mary Grell worked in Poulsen’s drink-mix ventures; after a failed venture in Las Vegas, William Grell continued working in the business in Iowa.
- The Grells claimed Poulsen orally promised them a partnership interest and alleged Underwood later took over their expected position in the business relationship.
- The Grells sued Poulsen (later his estate) and added Underwood, seeking compensation primarily under quantum meruit for services allegedly provided in reliance on the promised partnership.
- Poulsen’s estate and Underwood counterclaimed for abuse of process; the estate also counterclaimed for defamation, asserting the Grells sued to gain a competitive business advantage and to benefit a competing business connected to William Grell’s brother.
- After trial, the jury rejected the Grells’ quantum meruit claim and rejected the estate’s defamation claim, but awarded damages to the estate and Underwood on their abuse-of-process counterclaims.
- The Grells moved for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on abuse of process, arguing insufficient evidence of an essential element; the trial court denied the motions and entered judgment on the verdicts.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the abuse-of-process element requiring an act in the use of process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding, beyond merely filing and pursuing the lawsuit.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the judgments for the estate and Underwood on their abuse-of-process counterclaims.
- Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the counterclaimants, the record showed at most an allegedly improper purpose in bringing the suit, not an improper act in using legal process.
- The Grells were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the abuse-of-process counterclaims (directed verdict/JNOV should have been granted).

## Legal Principles

- Abuse of process under Iowa law requires: (1) use of legal process, (2) for an improper or collateral purpose, and (3) an act in the use of process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding.
- An ulterior motive for filing or maintaining a civil action, standing alone, does not establish abuse of process.
- The tort requires misuse of process after it issues; conventional litigation steps (pleading, joining parties, pursuing claims through trial) do not satisfy the “improper act” element without a distinct perversion of a specific procedure.

## Conclusion

Because the counterclaimants proved only an alleged competitive motive for the Grells’ lawsuit and identified no specific misuse of legal process beyond ordinary prosecution of the case, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support abuse of process, and the abuse-of-process verdicts were reversed.


Grell v. Poulsen, 389 N.W.2d 661 (Iowa 1986)