not frivolous? To file a lawsuit with only he-said, she-said as grounds is the kind of thing I expect to hear in the sandbox at the playground, not out in the “real” world, where we deal in facts, or at least legal findings of fact. Go back to school…
so your rights are more important than other people’s “rights”, huh?…and I quote: “They broke the contract in our opinion, and therefore we no longer had a contract to break, and moved out. The local magistrate who makes his money off business taxes saw it differently”…the problem again is opinion, and it took a magistrate to rule that your opinion was just that, an opinion, not a fact. sorry you lost, I know I don’t like smokers either but I also know that it is not against the law to smoke, even if it bothers others.
you know, i was thinking. would this not be like stepping into a bar that allows smoking (although, many state now have a ban on smoking or you have to create a separate space and ventilation system for them) and then sue the bar for allowing the smokers in? — or we even continue to sue the cigarette makers for the second hand smoke?
Rex:
We don’t know that the broker lied. First it is not documented that he said it and secondly perhaps the previous owners were smokers and he assumed that the smell would fade in time. I don’t see where he guaranteed her that nobody in the building were smokers.
Baxter:
Moving into a 55 and older is a different situation because generally there are bylaws documenting the age restrictions and if they were going to change it to a family condo the association would have to vote to change the bylaws. I believe that kind of thing has happened in some communities. Totally different scenario.
This is an interest forum discussion.
In order for her to appeal she would have to bring new info.
Yes, the law should be changed and the loser should pay the victors court cost. That would help to keep the frivolous law suits to a minimum. Right now they have nothing to lose and may get a decent nuisance settlement. Frustrating!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
not frivolous? To file a lawsuit with only he-said, she-said as grounds is the kind of thing I expect to hear in the sandbox at the playground, not out in the “real” world, where we deal in facts, or at least legal findings of fact. Go back to school…
so your rights are more important than other people’s “rights”, huh?…and I quote: “They broke the contract in our opinion, and therefore we no longer had a contract to break, and moved out. The local magistrate who makes his money off business taxes saw it differently”…the problem again is opinion, and it took a magistrate to rule that your opinion was just that, an opinion, not a fact. sorry you lost, I know I don’t like smokers either but I also know that it is not against the law to smoke, even if it bothers others.
you know, i was thinking. would this not be like stepping into a bar that allows smoking (although, many state now have a ban on smoking or you have to create a separate space and ventilation system for them) and then sue the bar for allowing the smokers in? — or we even continue to sue the cigarette makers for the second hand smoke?
this is why it’s ridiculous…
Rex:
We don’t know that the broker lied. First it is not documented that he said it and secondly perhaps the previous owners were smokers and he assumed that the smell would fade in time. I don’t see where he guaranteed her that nobody in the building were smokers.
Baxter:
Moving into a 55 and older is a different situation because generally there are bylaws documenting the age restrictions and if they were going to change it to a family condo the association would have to vote to change the bylaws. I believe that kind of thing has happened in some communities. Totally different scenario.
This is an interest forum discussion.
Why isn’t she appealing this decision?
And why aren’t the losers forced to pay? A law change is in order.
In order for her to appeal she would have to bring new info.
Yes, the law should be changed and the loser should pay the victors court cost. That would help to keep the frivolous law suits to a minimum. Right now they have nothing to lose and may get a decent nuisance settlement. Frustrating!