Landlord tenant dispute -Breaking a local ordinance.

[RJolly]

Hello, I currently have a trial date set for a small claims case.
Very briefly, I filed a complaint when my landlord would not repay an overpayment of rent. He filed a counterclaim saying that my pets caused damage to his property.
It turns out that I had one more pet than I was allowed to have as far as local ordinances are concerned. At the time I did not realize that. I told the realtor how many pets would be living in the house -it was written into the contract and both the realtor and landlord signed the contract.
Now it seems I have broken an ordinance -how will that affect my case?
Thanks in advance for any replies.

 

[army judge]

That won't help your case.

If you fail to understand why, you need a lawyer.

The ordinance violation, however, is not part of your small claims civil case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RJolly]

Army Judge, thank you very much for your reply.
The very reason I am consulting this forum is because I cannot afford to hire a lawyer. Unfortunately, neither do I qualify for legal aid.
Would you be so kind as to clarify what you said. Is this violation irrelevant to my case? I am representing myself against the landlords attorney. Though he is perfectly courteous I am aware that at the same time he is trying to intimidate me into accepting a settlement which would leave me out of pocket.
I have spent many many hours reading and trying to understand the law so I would be grateful for a further explanation.

 

[army judge]

An ordinance violation is not part and parcel of a civil suit.
That would be addressed in another forum (court).
It might be better to settle.
What are you being offered?
What is it worth to have this over?
You need to weigh the costs, not just in money, but in aggravation to you.

If the law allowed you to possess two pets and you had three, you'll lose.
There is no defense that you can assert against that, except temporary necessity.
There might be others, but that is all I can recall.
Temporary necessity isn't really a defense, however.
It is more of a mitigating circumstance.

Let's say you found a dog that had been struck by car.
You would not be that dog's owner.
You kept the dog until you could render it aid, or turn it over to animal control.
That would be temporary necessity.


If you owned three dogs, or owned two dogs and kept one for a friend on vacation; you'll lose.
The ordinance makes your defense of the lease breech difficult, perhaps impossible.
From what you reveal, I don't think a lwyer could even help you.

It might be better to settle.
Actually, it is rarely to anyone's detriment to settle a dispute.
Think about what you've been offered and what you'd like to have as a desired outcome.
Things can rarely be 100%, and sometimes a 50/50 split isn't even possible.
You often have to give 60%, to avoid losing 100%!