2023-a164867 (1)

Summary

**Key Legal Topics & Holdings:** Anti-SLAPP motion; malicious prosecution; probable cause standard; easement vs. license; contract interpretation ambiguity; forged document effect on probable cause. **Holding:** The California Court of Appeal reversed the denial of anti-SLAPP motions in a malicious prosecution action, finding that the underlying lawsuit—which sought to extinguish a driveway easement based on a recorded Declaration of Restrictions—was not totally and completely without merit. The court held that a genuine ambiguity between two mutually executed documents (the Rider and the Declaration of Restrictions) provided a minimally sufficient factual basis for the breach of contract claim, satisfying the low probable cause standard under *Sheldon Appel*. The use of a potentially forged addendum did not undermine probable cause because it was not essential to the pleaded claims.

Holdings

1. McArthur failed to show lack of probable cause because the conflict between the Rider (providing the easement would remain) and the Declaration of Restrictions (providing it would expire) created an ambiguity, and Crawford had an arguable legal basis to seek judicial resolution. The breach of contract claim and Civil Code section 3306a demand were not so lacking in merit as to be without probable cause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the anti-SLAPP motions because McArthur failed to show a probability of prevailing on the malicious prosecution claim, specifically on the element of probable cause for the underlying action.

Disposition

reversed