## Facts

- A homeowner alleged two neighbors engaged in a sustained effort to harass and humiliate her and force her to leave the neighborhood.
- The homeowner claimed the neighbors filed housing and building code complaints with city authorities; the homeowner alleged the complaints were baseless and were dismissed.
- One neighbor allegedly instigated criminal nuisance-animal charges regarding the homeowner’s dogs; the charges were later dismissed.
- One neighbor filed a probate court petition seeking a mandatory mental evaluation; the evaluation was normal and the petition was dismissed.
- The neighbors sought restraining orders in magistrate’s court; the requests were denied.
- The homeowner alleged the proceedings were initiated with malice, without probable cause, and for the ulterior purpose of harassment and ridicule.
- The homeowner sued for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.
- The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to the neighbors on malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy; other claims remained pending.
- The homeowner appealed the partial summary judgment order.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on malicious prosecution where the homeowner failed to show a lack of probable cause for the prior proceedings.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on abuse of process where evidence could support a finding that legal process was used for an ulterior, collateral purpose after issuance.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on civil conspiracy where the claim lacked distinct wrongful acts and special damages independent of other tort theories.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed summary judgment for the neighbors on the malicious-prosecution claim.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the abuse-of-process claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the neighbors on the civil-conspiracy claim.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Malicious prosecution requires proof of: (1) institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings; (2) by or at the instance of the defendant; (3) termination in the plaintiff’s favor; (4) malice; (5) lack of probable cause; and (6) resulting injury.
- Probable cause is a limiting element for malicious prosecution; if probable cause existed for initiating a proceeding, the claim fails even if the plaintiff alleges malice and even if the proceeding terminates favorably.
- Abuse of process concerns misuse of process after issuance for an ulterior purpose not intended by the process; it is distinct from wrongful initiation.
- For abuse of process, the key inquiry is whether legal process was used to accomplish a collateral objective (e.g., coercion or harassment) rather than its lawful purpose; the claim may proceed even if probable cause existed to invoke the process.
- Civil conspiracy requires a combination of persons formed to injure the plaintiff and resulting special damages; the claim fails where it merely restates other tort allegations without distinct acts and special damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that the homeowner’s malicious-prosecution claim failed because the record did not support the required showing that the neighbors lacked probable cause, but it allowed the abuse-of-process claim to proceed because evidence of repeated proceedings and an alleged collateral aim of driving the homeowner away could permit a jury to find misuse of legal process; the civil-conspiracy claim was rejected for lack of an independent basis and special damages.


Pallares v. Seinar, 756 S.E.2d 128 (S.C. 2014)