Full question:
I filed a small claims case against my old landlord for unlawfully holding a portion of my security deposit. I had him served by a licensed process server, based off information provided to me by a licensed private investigator. The court date came, and my old landlord did not show. I presented my case and won. I filed for a bank levy to collect my winnings. Soon after, I learned from the court that my old landlord's attorney had blocked the bank levy. They stated he had not been properly served. They presented evidence showing he no longer owned the property at which he was served. Now, they have threatened to sue me for "malicious prosecution" and "abuse of process." To my knowledge, all information provided to me was correct. Do they actually have a leg to stand on?
- Category: Landlord Tenant
- Subcategory: Security Deposit
- Date:
- State: California
Answer:
In California, a claim for malicious prosecution requires the plaintiff to prove that the previous lawsuit was initiated without probable cause and with malice. Since you filed your small claims case based on information from a licensed process server and a private investigator, it appears you acted reasonably. If you genuinely believed your landlord was liable for unlawfully withholding your security deposit, this supports your defense against their claim.
Regarding abuse of process, this claim involves using legal procedures for an improper purpose. If you followed proper legal channels and believed you were entitled to your security deposit, this defense may also apply to your situation.
Ultimately, while your landlord's attorney may threaten legal action, their success in a malicious prosecution or abuse of process claim seems unlikely given your reasonable basis for filing the original claim.
This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Legal statutes mentioned reflect the law at the time the content was written and may no longer be current. Always verify the latest version of the law before relying on it.