## Facts

- Christina McCraney gave James A. Barberi (Barberi Radio & TV) a $293.56 check that was returned for insufficient funds.
- McCraney later delivered a money order for $296.56 (covering the check amount plus a $3 bank charge) to Barberi.
- Barberi had contracted with a check-recovery service, Safe-Check Services, which pursued collection activity on the returned check.
- Barberi sought a $20 statutory service charge related to collection efforts; the parties disputed whether McCraney was notified she still owed that amount.
- Barberi submitted (with Safe-Check’s involvement) a worthless-check affidavit to the state attorney’s office stating McCraney issued a worthless check for $293.56, without disclosing on the face of the affidavit that McCraney had already paid via money order.
- Barberi asserted he attached a copy of the money order and told the prosecutor he sought only the $20 service charge, but the affidavit in the record did not include the money order as an attachment.
- An assistant state attorney stated he decided to prosecute based on the affidavit; the statement did not indicate the prosecutor knew the full check amount had been paid.
- McCraney was prosecuted for a felony worthless-check charge; after the state learned she had paid the full amount, the charge was nolle prossed.
- McCraney sued Barberi for malicious prosecution; the trial court entered final summary judgment for Barberi.

## Issues

1. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Barberi knowingly provided false or materially incomplete information to the state attorney.
2. Whether there was a triable issue that Barberi’s information unduly influenced or procured the decision to prosecute, defeating summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the final summary judgment for Barberi and remanded.
- The record supported disputed factual questions about whether Barberi disclosed McCraney’s payment to the prosecutor.
- The prosecutor’s reliance on the affidavit, coupled with the absence of payment disclosure in the affidavit record, permitted an inference that incomplete information influenced the prosecution.
- Because these disputes went to whether Barberi procured the prosecution, the claim could not be resolved as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- In a malicious prosecution action, a private complainant may be liable if he initiates or procures a criminal proceeding by knowingly providing false or materially incomplete information that substantially contributes to the prosecution decision.
- Summary judgment is improper where the record presents genuine disputes of material fact, including disputes about what information was provided to prosecutors and whether it affected the prosecution decision.
- A complaining witness’s omission of material exculpatory information, including subsequent payment of an underlying debt, may support a finding that the witness procured the prosecution.

## Conclusion

The court held that contested evidence regarding omission of McCraney’s payment and prosecutorial reliance created material fact disputes on procurement and causation, requiring reversal of summary judgment and further proceedings on the malicious prosecution claim.


McCraney v. Barberi, 677 So. 2d 355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1996)