What are the limits on a person's right to sue? I know that we can all sue for waking up and finding it's raining, but I'm talking about realistically, in terms of defending against a suit?
And not just "what are the limits" but what are the words for the legal concepts? For instance:
A and B co-own a piece of property in California. A and B get property appraised, they agree that the appraisal price is fair. A wants to buy B out.
A calculates what they would each normally receive in a sale for the appraised price, after costs and commissions. Offers B that amount.
B says, no, I don't want you to calculate commissions and costs, because you are still living there. I want you to pay me $30,000 MORE than I would get if we sold it.
A says "Why is that fair?"
B says "Because I say so. And if you don't pay me that extra $30,000, I'll sue you for partition and make you end up selling it, just to be mean. (because B won't realize more money by this act, he will actually end up wiping out everyone's equity because of the legal costs, and B knows that perfectly well. It's extortion that morphs into a vindictive act.)
Aside from Unclean Hands, what else can be said or argued about this kind of lawsuit?
Or one to manipulate the law to accomplish something the law doesn't really permit, like a forced buyout?
It's essentially using the law to blackmail someone, and undertaking actions which you do not undertake in genuine good faith, you don't beleive what you are saying, you are just saying it to get what you want.
Anyone?
And not just "what are the limits" but what are the words for the legal concepts? For instance:
A and B co-own a piece of property in California. A and B get property appraised, they agree that the appraisal price is fair. A wants to buy B out.
A calculates what they would each normally receive in a sale for the appraised price, after costs and commissions. Offers B that amount.
B says, no, I don't want you to calculate commissions and costs, because you are still living there. I want you to pay me $30,000 MORE than I would get if we sold it.
A says "Why is that fair?"
B says "Because I say so. And if you don't pay me that extra $30,000, I'll sue you for partition and make you end up selling it, just to be mean. (because B won't realize more money by this act, he will actually end up wiping out everyone's equity because of the legal costs, and B knows that perfectly well. It's extortion that morphs into a vindictive act.)
Aside from Unclean Hands, what else can be said or argued about this kind of lawsuit?
Or one to manipulate the law to accomplish something the law doesn't really permit, like a forced buyout?
It's essentially using the law to blackmail someone, and undertaking actions which you do not undertake in genuine good faith, you don't beleive what you are saying, you are just saying it to get what you want.
Anyone?
