e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 31901
Opinion Date : 05/25/2006
e-Journal Date : 06/01/2006
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : McIntosh v. City of Dearborn
Practice Area(s) : Municipal, Personal Protection Orders
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Cavanagh, Fort Hood, and Servitto
Full Text Opinion

Malicious prosecution; Matthews v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan; Abuse of process; Employment discrimination claim


The trial court erred by denying the defendants’ motion for summary disposition on plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim. Defendants argued the trial court should have dismissed plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim against defendant-Wisniewski arising from her attempt to secure a PPO against plaintiff. The evidence was insufficient to establish at least one of the malicious prosecution requirements because Wisniewski arguably had probable cause to try to secure the PPO against plaintiff. The evidence showed plaintiff and Wisniewski had an acrimonious history. It was undisputed Wisniewski’s personal property (her home and car) were vandalized numerous times, she had received derogatory and threatening anonymous letters, and she had received numerous unsolicited and antagonistic mailings. There was also evidence of plaintiff making comments to or about Wisniewski at their workplace and the internal affairs investigators led her to believe plaintiff may have been the person responsible for the reprehensible conduct. It was also undisputed plaintiff resided in the same neighborhood and close to Wisniewski’s residence, and he secretly videotaped illegal fireworks at her home. Based on these facts, plaintiff could not show Wisniewski lacked a “reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant” her belief plaintiff was the person who committed the acts against her. The evidence also did not show Wisniewski sought a PPO against plaintiff “with malice” or for an illegitimate purpose, or plaintiff suffered the requisite injury. Reversed and remanded for the entry of an order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition as to these claims.

Full Text Opinion