DETERS (ERIC C.) VS. TALIAFERRO (PHILIP), ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-001344-MR
ERIC C. DETERS
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA M. SUMME, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 08-CI-02406
PHILIP TALIAFERRO; ROBERT
W. CARRAN; ALICE G. KEYS;
TALIAFERRO, SHIROONI, CARRAN,
& KEYS, PLLC; ROBERT E.
SANDERS; JAMES WEST; MARTIN
& WEST, PLLC; BRETT BENTON;
MARK HAMPTON; AND MATT
HICKS
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: DIXON AND VANMETER, JUDGES; LAMBERT,1 SENIOR
JUDGE.
1
Senior Judge Joseph E. Lambert sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 21.580.
VANMETER, JUDGE: Eric C. Deters, pro se, appeals from the judgment and
order of the Kenton Circuit Court dismissing his complaint for abuse of process
against Philip Taliaferro, et al.2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as Taliaferro)
with prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Deters is an attorney who represented Lacy Burden following her
arrest for a drug-related offense. On Burden’s behalf, Deters filed a civil lawsuit
against the arresting police officers, the city of Independence, Kentucky, and
Kenton County. Prior to filing the lawsuit, Deters circulated a letter to his brother,
Jed Deters, who serves as the city attorney for Independence, Garry Edmondson,
the attorney for Kenton County, Peter Lefeave, an employee of the Kenton County
School District, and Michael Lutes, an attorney who previously represented
Burden. The letter set forth Deters’ view of the facts and circumstances that
supported Burden’s civil suit against the police officers and their employers, as
well as his theory that the arrest of Burden stemmed from the police officers’
desire for Burden and their jealousy of Burden’s boyfriend, who they suspected of
drug use. Deters maintained the officers conspired against Burden by planting
marijuana seeds in her car and by falsifying police reports.
Upon reading the letter, the police officers filed civil lawsuits against
Deters seeking to recover damages for defamation of character and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Deters then filed a lawsuit against Taliaferro, three
2
Robert W. Carran, Alice G. Keys, Taliaferro, Shirooni, Carran & Keys, PLLC, Robert E.
Sanders, James West, Martin & West, PLLC, Mark Hampton, and Matt Hicks, and unknown
defendants. Brett Benton was dismissed from this case.
-2-
police officers, as well as the law firms and attorneys representing the officers,
alleging the complaint filed against him was a malicious retaliation for filing the
suit against the police officers on behalf of Burden. Taliaferro moved to dismiss
Deters’ complaint under CR3 12.02(f) contending that Deters had failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court dismissed with prejudice
Deters’ complaint for abuse of process. This appeal followed.
Deters contends the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint
against Taliaferro because the complaint detailed specific wrongful and malicious
retaliation and intimidation tactics by Taliaferro. We disagree.
The trial court should not grant a motion to dismiss for the failure to
state a claim “unless it appears the pleading party would not be entitled to relief
under any set of facts which could be proved in support of his claim.” Pari-Mut.
Clerks’ Union of Ky., Local 541, SEIU, AFL-CIO v. Ky. Jockey Club, 551 S.W.2d
801, 803 (Ky. 1977) (citation omitted). Additionally, “the pleadings should be
liberally construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and all allegations taken
in the complaint to be true.” Gall v. Scroggy, 725 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Ky.App.
1987) (citing Ewell v. Cent. City, 340 S.W.2d 479 (Ky. 1960)).
The Kentucky Supreme Court has defined an action for an abuse of
process as follows:
An action for abuse of process is “the irregular or
wrongful employment of a judicial proceeding.”
3
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-3-
Abuse of process differs from malicious
prosecution in that malicious prosecution consists of
commencing an action or causing process to issue
maliciously or without justification. Abuse of process,
however, consists of “the employment of legal process
for some other purpose than that which it was intended
by the law to effect.”
....
The essential elements of an action for abuse of
process are (1) an ulterior purpose and (2) a willful act in
the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of
the proceeding. Some definite act or threat not
authorized by the process, or aimed at an objective not
legitimate in the use of the process is required and there
is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more
than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion
even though with bad intentions.
...
Such conduct “usually takes the form of coercion
to obtain a collateral advantage, not properly involved in
the proceeding itself, such as the surrender of property on
the payment of money, by the use of the process as a
threat or a club. There is, in other words, a form of
extortion, and it is what is done in the course of
negotiation, rather than the issuance or any formal use of
the process itself, which constitutes the tort.”
Simpson v. Laytart, 962 S.W.2d 392, 394-95 (Ky. 1998) (citations omitted).
Here, Deters’ complaint fails to allege any actions by Taliaferro that
exhibit a willful act in the use of the judicial process not proper in the regular
conduct of the proceeding. Despite Deters’ allegation that Taliaferro filed lawsuits
against him without any legal basis and for the purpose of retaliation, Deters fails
to allege facts that Taliaferro did anything other than carry out the judicial process
-4-
to its authorized conclusion. The complaint is devoid of actions on behalf of
Taliaferro that take the form of coercion to obtain an advantage not proper in the
proceeding itself. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s decision to
dismiss Deters’ complaint alleging abuse of process against Taliaferro.
The judgment and order of the Kenton Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
JOINT BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
Eric C. Deters, Pro se
Independence, Kentucky
Jeffrey C. Mando
Covington, Kentucky
Garry L. Edmondson
Covington, Kentucky
Gary J. Sergent
Covington, Kentucky
Wm. T. Robinson
Florence, Kentucky
Donald Stepner
Covington, Kentucky
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
