Malicious Prosecution Evidence of Favorable Verdict Award of Counsel Fees

Finder v. Crawford, PICS Case No. 17-1137 (Pa. Super. July 6, 2017) Panella, J. (11 pages).

Summary judgment was appropriate where opposing party's "certification" failed to constitute a supporting affidavit because it did not include correct citation to perjury statute, and strict compliance was necessary to avoid possibility of affiant claiming ignorance of applicable criminal penalties for false statements. Order of the trial court affirmed.

Charles Finder appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees Todd and Jennifer Crawford, dismissing appellant's malicious prosecution complaint. Appellees cross-appealed from the denial of their request for counsel fees. Appellant and appellees were neighbors, whose properties were separated by a thin strip of lawn. Appellees filed several complaints with police regarding appellant's behavior. Ultimately, appellees filed a private criminal complaint alleging that appellant was guilty of the summary offense of harassment.

The complaint proceeded to trial; the magisterial judge urged the parties to settle the differences, but the parties disputed what occurred next in the municipal court. Appellees asserted that the judge presided over the attempt to amicably settle the parties' dispute, resulting in a compromise involving conditional dismissal of the harassment charge based upon appellant's behavior. In contrast, appellant asserted that no conditional compromise was reached, and denied that there was an adjournment of the trial in contemplation of dismissal. However, the parties agreed that, shortly before the date of the rescheduled trial, appellees had the trial cancelled and their private criminal complaint dismissed. No judgment of acquittal was entered.

Appellant then filed the present suit. Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing that appellant had not presented evidence of a favorable verdict in the underlying criminal complaint to support his claim for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted summary judgment, dismissed appellant's complaint, and denied appellees' request for counsel fees. The parties cross-appealed from the trial court's order.

On appeal the court affirmed. As to appellant's appeal, the court agreed that he had failed to present evidence to support his malicious prosecution claim. The court ruled that appellant's "certification" did not qualify as an affidavit that could be considered on summary judgment. Although the court rejected the trial court's conclusion that it was not signed, since it bore an electronic signature, the court ruled that the "certification" failed to include an assertion that it was made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.S.C.A. 4904, instead citing 4909. The court dismissed the error as merely typographical, holding that it could be cited by the affiant as proof that he was unaware of the applicable criminal penalties for false statements.