United Professional Planning, Inc. v. Superior Court

In United Professional Planning, Inc. v. Superior Court (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 377, after observing "that the meaning of the terms "improper purpose' and 'not in good faith' from the former version of 409.1 are overlapping and that the existence of one may tend to establish the other" (at p. 387), the court borrowed from the Supreme Court's definition of improper purpose in Albertson v. Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375, 382-383. Albertson was an action for malicious prosecution for slander of title arising out of the recordation of a lis pendens. Quoting from the Supreme Court, the United Professional Planning court said: "'It has been pointed out that the "principal situations in which the civil proceedings are initiated for an improper purpose are those in which (1) the person initating them does not believe that his claim may be held valid; (2) the proceedings are begun primarily because of hostility or ill will; (3) the proceedings are initiated solely for the purpose of depriving the person against whom they are initiated of a beneficial use of his property; (4) the proceedings are initiated for the purpose of forcing a steelement which has no relation to the merits of the claim." (Rest., Torts, 676, com. b; see also 668, com. e.)" " ( United Professional Planning, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.App.3d at p. 388.) The United Professional Planning court continued with the observation that: "We are persuaded that these four situations are those that the Legislature intended primarily to reach by using the terms 'improper purpose' and 'not in good faith' and that 'not in good faith' refers to situation numbered (1), while 'improper purpose' refers to situations numbered (2), (3) and (4). We, therefore, adopt these definitions by illustration for purposes of section 409.1, subdivision (b). It follows that to be successful in a motion for expungement on the grounds of 'improper purpose' and 'not in good faith,' the moving party must show that the other party commenced or prosecuted his action without believing in its validity ('not in good faith') and the existence of one of the other enumerated situations ('improper purpose'). As noted above, however, logically the existence of the one may tend to prove the existence of the other." ( Id ., at pp. 388-389.) United Professional Planning was a case wherein the lower court granted a motion to expunge a lis pendens after the buyer of real property had lost his suit for specific performance of a contract to buy real property. The adverse judgment was pending on appeal. The court held that the trial court erred in granting the motion to expunge upon the ground that the trial judge had determined the merits of the action against the buyer. Notwithstanding such adverse determination on the merits, the court further held that, as a matter of law, the facts in the expungement motion demonstrated that the action was not brought in bad faith and for an improper purpose.