Jurisdiction:
Area of Law:
Question:
Selected Answer:
Submitted by DakotaLegal on
All Comments
Submitted by DakotaLegal on
You have several reasons to countersue the landlord, from breach of contract to a possible invasion of your privacy. All of these claims should be in a single court except for an invasion of privacy suit. So we can move away from one issue you raised, pretty quickly, and that’s whether they could sue for a second cause in another court. It’s technically legal for the landlord to sue the way they did (in two separate actions)…but it’s also unusual, and very inefficient, since the same issues (claims, facts, defenses, counter-claims) are going to come into play in both cases. The trick is for you to ask for dismissal of the second suit on the grounds of duplication. It’s going to be much simpler for the landlord/owner to be forced to consolidate these claims if they were both filed in the same court.
Because dismissals and court procedures are where many cases are won and lost, I strongly suggest you try to get affordable legal help. You can ask for “sliding scale” legal help in at least two places: first, try here: http://www.sclegal.org/.You should get legal help to ask the second claim be dismissed. A second place to try for affordable legal help is through the South Carolina Bar’s pro Bono program… http://www.scbar.org/Member Resources /ProBonoProgram.aspx.
Among the ways to avoid the second suit is for you to plead collateral estoppel. This is a legal doctrine, and it backs up exactly what your instincts told you about having two law suits on the same basic issues. Courts don’t want to have one case cut up into small pieces any more than you do. Here’s a link, explaining where collateral estoppel or res judicata limits “duplicate” types of claims or suits… http://legal-dictionary.the freedictionary.com/Collateral+Estoppel.
There are always some problems with “addenda” to a contact. Most contracts, for example, exclude other agreements. Courts often have reason, however, to apply the addendum. If here was separate consideration, for example…here, you said rent could be withheld until the conditions were fixed. Also, there are separate protections that could have made the premises unfit to rent at the start of the lease (making the addendum irrelevant). This is called a breach of the “warranty of habitability.” Here’s a place to find South Carolina’s rules on rental habitability: http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/ residential %20landlord%20and%20tenant/urlta_memo_warrantyofhabitability_ 021212.pdf. Mold remediation can be one such possible condition of un-habitability. If you can get an expert or your own doctor to describe the danger to your health, good: here’s a case where mold remediation led to a variety of legal claims in addition to the landlord’s breach of contract: http://law.justia.com/cases /south-carolina/court-of-appeals/2007/4204.html. The other causes of action include Negligence, which is called a tort, since the mold may have harmed you physically.
Another Tort: Invasion Of Privacy
It’s highly unusual for someone to videotape a commercial transaction. South Carolina has a State Constitutional right to “privacy” (since 1971) and in 2010 also passed rules restricting non-consensual taping or recording. South Carolina Law 17-30-20, http://www.sc statehouse.gov/code/t17c030.php. Most of South Carolina’s rules have had to do with criminal conduct, such as using tapes for prurient interests: http://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/martin-l-a-os-9212-3-11-11-sc-voyeurism-statute1.pdf. When you say “without your consent,” there’s a question of how you learned of the taping and what it’s possible use could be. Can your consent be implied by later conduct, and what did you do when you do when you learned of the taping?
You have several reasons to countersue the landlord, from breach of contract to a possible invasion of your privacy. All of these claims should be in a single court except for an invasion of privacy suit. So we can move away from one issue you raised, pretty quickly, and that’s whether they could sue for a second cause in another court. It’s technically legal for the landlord to sue the way they did (in two separate actions)…but it’s also unusual, and very inefficient, since the same issues (claims, facts, defenses, counter-claims) are going to come into play in both cases. The trick is for you to ask for dismissal of the second suit on the grounds of duplication. It’s going to be much simpler for the landlord/owner to be forced to consolidate these claims if they were both filed in the same court.
Because dismissals and court procedures are where many cases are won and lost, I strongly suggest you try to get affordable legal help. You can ask for “sliding scale” legal help in at least two places: first, try here: http://www.sclegal.org/.You should get legal help to ask the second claim be dismissed. A second place to try for affordable legal help is through the South Carolina Bar’s pro Bono program… http://www.scbar.org/Member Resources /ProBonoProgram.aspx.
Among the ways to avoid the second suit is for you to plead collateral estoppel. This is a legal doctrine, and it backs up exactly what your instincts told you about having two law suits on the same basic issues. Courts don’t want to have one case cut up into small pieces any more than you do. Here’s a link, explaining where collateral estoppel or res judicata limits “duplicate” types of claims or suits… http://legal-dictionary.the freedictionary.com/Collateral+Estoppel.
There are always some problems with “addenda” to a contact. Most contracts, for example, exclude other agreements. Courts often have reason, however, to apply the addendum. If here was separate consideration, for example…here, you said rent could be withheld until the conditions were fixed. Also, there are separate protections that could have made the premises unfit to rent at the start of the lease (making the addendum irrelevant). This is called a breach of the “warranty of habitability.” Here’s a place to find South Carolina’s rules on rental habitability: http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/ residential %20landlord%20and%20tenant/urlta_memo_warrantyofhabitability_ 021212.pdf. Mold remediation can be one such possible condition of un-habitability. If you can get an expert or your own doctor to describe the danger to your health, good: here’s a case where mold remediation led to a variety of legal claims in addition to the landlord’s breach of contract: http://law.justia.com/cases /south-carolina/court-of-appeals/2007/4204.html. The other causes of action include Negligence, which is called a tort, since the mold may have harmed you physically.
Another Tort: Invasion Of Privacy
It’s highly unusual for someone to videotape a commercial transaction. South Carolina has a State Constitutional right to “privacy” (since 1971) and in 2010 also passed rules restricting non-consensual taping or recording. South Carolina Law 17-30-20, http://www.sc statehouse.gov/code/t17c030.php. Most of South Carolina’s rules have had to do with criminal conduct, such as using tapes for prurient interests: http://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/martin-l-a-os-9212-3-11-11-sc-voyeurism-statute1.pdf. When you say “without your consent,” there’s a question of how you learned of the taping and what it’s possible use could be. Can your consent be implied by later conduct, and what did you do when you do when you learned of the taping?