What is the test for abuse of process in the context of a fraudulent conveyance action?

Appellant asserted a claim for abuse of process against respondents. As the appellate court in Booker v. Rountree (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1366 (Booker) observed, "The gravamen of [an abuse of process] claim is misconduct in the underlying litigation. Indeed, that is the essence of the tort of abuse of process -- some misuse of process in a prior action -- and it is hard to imagine an abuse of process claim that would not fall under the protection of the statute." (Id. at p. 1370, italics omitted.) The instant claim confirms the court's observation. In his cause of action for abuse of process, appellant alleged that respondents engaged in misconduct in the underlying fraudulent conveyance action. The alleged misconduct consisted of affirmative acts of misrepresentations in court filings, and acts of omission in failing to advise the court about certain facts. Respondents' alleged acts, however, were written or oral statements made in a judicial proceeding or made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a court. Thus, the acts qualify for protection under section 425.16, as acts "in furtherance of [a] person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue" ( 425.16, subd. (b)(1)). (See 425.16, subd. (e) [an "'act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue' includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or

Page 8