How to see off a nuisance lawyer?
April 26, 2009 10:30 PM Subscribe
What to do about nuisance letter from the neighbour's lawyer, point and laugh? Ignore it? Something else?
My friend lives in a townhouse development straddling a creek in NSW Australia. Here is their question.
Recently, a bungalow on a large block next to us was sold. The new owner wants to subdivide, but wants our cooperation for a drainage easement through our land to the creek. First, he lied to us (he said he needed to drain because of damp in the house), then sent a lawyer’s letter asking for an easement but offering no money. My Owners’ Corporation have seen him off, and won’t back down until we get a reasonable offer. The house is now on the market, with the proposed subdivision written into the sale (i.e. the buyer gets the house and half the block of land).
A few weeks ago I was walking home and saw a couple of people leaving the house. I asked what he was asking for it, and what they thought, and told them about the easement, and the fact that there was no development application approved for the subdivision. Today I got another lawyer’s letter, putting me “on notice” and threatening to hold me responsible should the neighbour “suffer damage or loss as a result of my comments”. Thing is, I genuinely doubt he will manage to get the (unrealistic) price he is asking.
My question is, do they legally have a leg to stand on here or should I laugh at them? The neighbour looks like a greedy guy who thought he could take advantage of us and make a profit on subdividing; and has been caught out by the economic downturn. Could I really end up as a scapegoat for his lack of judgement because I spoke to some people on a public street?
My friend lives in a townhouse development straddling a creek in NSW Australia. Here is their question.
Recently, a bungalow on a large block next to us was sold. The new owner wants to subdivide, but wants our cooperation for a drainage easement through our land to the creek. First, he lied to us (he said he needed to drain because of damp in the house), then sent a lawyer’s letter asking for an easement but offering no money. My Owners’ Corporation have seen him off, and won’t back down until we get a reasonable offer. The house is now on the market, with the proposed subdivision written into the sale (i.e. the buyer gets the house and half the block of land).
A few weeks ago I was walking home and saw a couple of people leaving the house. I asked what he was asking for it, and what they thought, and told them about the easement, and the fact that there was no development application approved for the subdivision. Today I got another lawyer’s letter, putting me “on notice” and threatening to hold me responsible should the neighbour “suffer damage or loss as a result of my comments”. Thing is, I genuinely doubt he will manage to get the (unrealistic) price he is asking.
My question is, do they legally have a leg to stand on here or should I laugh at them? The neighbour looks like a greedy guy who thought he could take advantage of us and make a profit on subdividing; and has been caught out by the economic downturn. Could I really end up as a scapegoat for his lack of judgement because I spoke to some people on a public street?
Can you,as a precaution, find out more about the slander laws in Australia? Off the cuff, I'd say, consider the letter a joke, as the above commentators have suggested. :-)
posted by ragtimepiano at 11:27 PM on April 26, 2009
posted by ragtimepiano at 11:27 PM on April 26, 2009
Response by poster: My suggestion was a letter or email by return of post saying "Thank you for your letter of dated XXX. I hope that you were paid appropriately for such a frivolous use of your time". But I suspect ignoring it completely would be a better idea.
What does strike me as really unusual though is that he wants to sell the property off before having an approved subdivision, and his asking price is basically what he paid for the whole block 18 months ago (in a declining market no less)
posted by singingfish at 11:34 PM on April 26, 2009
What does strike me as really unusual though is that he wants to sell the property off before having an approved subdivision, and his asking price is basically what he paid for the whole block 18 months ago (in a declining market no less)
posted by singingfish at 11:34 PM on April 26, 2009
Here's a lawyer's primer for bloggers on Australian defamation (short story: you have nothing to worry about in the deffo department). Presumably if there were law about suffering loss from their lack of a DA, they'd have more beef with the Council rather than some person who talked to someone else on the street?
I'm another Australian, not a lawyer, and I find this extremely amusing. +1 vote for chuckles.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 11:35 PM on April 26, 2009
I'm another Australian, not a lawyer, and I find this extremely amusing. +1 vote for chuckles.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 11:35 PM on April 26, 2009
I'm buying a house right now and have made a point of chatting with the neighbors every time I go to look at a property. You learn all kinds of interesting stuff that way and I can't imagine it's illegal. Besides he can hardly sell the property without disclosing all that kind of info. I'd laugh away. Of course I am not a lawyer so I'd probably talk to the Owners Corp lawyer.
posted by fshgrl at 11:35 PM on April 26, 2009
posted by fshgrl at 11:35 PM on April 26, 2009
Here's the only question: In your jurisdiction, is truth a sufficient positive defense against defamation?
If so, laugh. If not, take it seriously.
But I can't imagine it wouldn't be.
posted by Picklegnome at 11:36 PM on April 26, 2009
If so, laugh. If not, take it seriously.
But I can't imagine it wouldn't be.
posted by Picklegnome at 11:36 PM on April 26, 2009
I can't see how drawing the attention of random passersby to matters of public record pertaining to a property they're considering buying could possibly be construed as defamatory, provided of course that you're not actually nudge-nudge-wink-winking that the bloke next door is a total shonk.
posted by flabdablet at 11:39 PM on April 26, 2009
posted by flabdablet at 11:39 PM on April 26, 2009
In NSW the Community Justice Centres offer free mediation services for disputes like this.
posted by ginky at 11:52 PM on April 26, 2009
posted by ginky at 11:52 PM on April 26, 2009
Aren't attorneys paid by the hour when they work on a case? Maybe you should write back asking for clarification, citations of law, etc, make some phone calls, you know, just to make sure you clearly understand what they're saying. Then laugh.
After all, every time that attorney talks to you on his behalf, it's going on the timesheet and costing the guy money.
That would be petty, though.
posted by ctmf at 12:23 AM on April 27, 2009 [11 favorites]
After all, every time that attorney talks to you on his behalf, it's going on the timesheet and costing the guy money.
That would be petty, though.
posted by ctmf at 12:23 AM on April 27, 2009 [11 favorites]
Well, I can't imagine Australian defamation law is that loose, but you never know.
The thing is, of course, you can bring civil suits for almost anything. Your neighbour may be laying the groundwork for a suit he (and his lawyer) know damn well is bullshit, but will cost you enough that they can blackmail you out of a settlement; one of my wife's uncles has a neighbour who is notorious for this sort of crap, but his victims generally can't afford a legal battle.
posted by rodgerd at 12:25 AM on April 27, 2009
The thing is, of course, you can bring civil suits for almost anything. Your neighbour may be laying the groundwork for a suit he (and his lawyer) know damn well is bullshit, but will cost you enough that they can blackmail you out of a settlement; one of my wife's uncles has a neighbour who is notorious for this sort of crap, but his victims generally can't afford a legal battle.
posted by rodgerd at 12:25 AM on April 27, 2009
Best answer: The missus is a property lawyer, my dad was a barrister, I deal in government and admin law almost daily (all Australian). Without offering legal advice, I'd say laugh uproariously.
Or write back to them, provoke them even more. Okay, don't do that. Ignore it.
Keep the letter of course.
by the way, if he needs the easement for his subdivision and doesn't have this, and hasn't disclosed that to a potential purchaser, he's the one in deep poo.
posted by wilful at 12:35 AM on April 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
Or write back to them, provoke them even more. Okay, don't do that. Ignore it.
Keep the letter of course.
by the way, if he needs the easement for his subdivision and doesn't have this, and hasn't disclosed that to a potential purchaser, he's the one in deep poo.
posted by wilful at 12:35 AM on April 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
if there truely is "fact that there was no development application approved for the subdivision." then I can't imagine you are in the wrong.
I have always thought that under Australian law as long as the statement is demonstrably true then you have not commited libel, slander or any form of defamation. (if its a false statement then technically you could be in trouble).
posted by mary8nne at 12:49 AM on April 27, 2009
I have always thought that under Australian law as long as the statement is demonstrably true then you have not commited libel, slander or any form of defamation. (if its a false statement then technically you could be in trouble).
posted by mary8nne at 12:49 AM on April 27, 2009
ignoring it will make them angry, and doing something about it will cost you money. Go the cheap option.
posted by mattoxic at 1:32 AM on April 27, 2009
posted by mattoxic at 1:32 AM on April 27, 2009
The lawyer got paid to write you a letter, so he wrote you a letter. If he gets paid to write another letter he'll write you another letter. I suppose that it's possible that someone with a real axe to grind might try to push it further, but unless you were defaming him personally ("The man's a crook!" as opposed to "The block is damp and it hasn't been subdivided!") it would be enormously unlikely to reach court - you'd have had to have been making false statements, perhaps even maliciously false statements, and he'd have to prove that your statements probably caused his loss.
I think it's probably safe to ignore the letter, but you could always write back and say that you did not describe his client's property in those terms, although such a description would have been a fair description of his client's property and it would not have caused any financial or other harm to his client. In other words, you didn't do it; you were justified in doing it, and he shouldn't be such a sook about it anyway. IANAL.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:00 AM on April 27, 2009
I think it's probably safe to ignore the letter, but you could always write back and say that you did not describe his client's property in those terms, although such a description would have been a fair description of his client's property and it would not have caused any financial or other harm to his client. In other words, you didn't do it; you were justified in doing it, and he shouldn't be such a sook about it anyway. IANAL.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:00 AM on April 27, 2009
I would not communicate in any way- not to disagree with Joe, but if you must write, keep a copy of your correspondence, and head the letter with "WITHOUT PREJUDICE". That way it cannot really be used as by them. Don't speak to the person.
Was the letter to you registered mail?
posted by mattoxic at 5:05 AM on April 27, 2009
Was the letter to you registered mail?
posted by mattoxic at 5:05 AM on April 27, 2009
You could of course try and enter a long, and pointless conversation with the lawyer. Youre not paying the bill of course...
posted by daveyt at 5:43 AM on April 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by daveyt at 5:43 AM on April 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
If this guy is greedy and unscrupulous it's not a stretch for him to make false claims about what the OP said if he's backed into a corner. I wonder if carrying a hidden recorder (like an iPod type device) as a CYA might help for these conversations.
posted by crapmatic at 6:44 AM on April 27, 2009
posted by crapmatic at 6:44 AM on April 27, 2009
I wonder if carrying a hidden recorder (like an iPod type device) as a CYA might help for these conversations.
This is illegal in some jurisdictions (eg mine). Don't know about yours.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 8:05 AM on April 27, 2009
This is illegal in some jurisdictions (eg mine). Don't know about yours.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 8:05 AM on April 27, 2009
Mattoxic is righter than I am; it's always tempting to play games but I was wrong to suggest that you should actually commit yourself to anything for the sake of having some fun. Just a small point: the words "without prejudice" aren't a magic formula: they mean "the offer I am now making does not mean that I concede that I am in the wrong and I will not necessarily agree to the same offer if we go to trial."
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:47 PM on April 27, 2009
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:47 PM on April 27, 2009
It's probably worth speaking to your local council representative about it. On the one hand, your neighbour's a jerk, but on the other hand, if a drainage easement and installation of underground pipes etc is actually needed for his house, it really should be done (at his cost, with minimal disruption to your use of the land, and you compensated for any such disruption).
It's possible that the approval for the drainage easement is still before the council, and it's not impossible that the council might direct that it be done regardless of your feelings on the matter (because houses having proper sewerage is a health issue). The councillor will be able to speak to the people who approve drainage easements and install the actual pipes, the councillor will be able to speak to your neighbor from a position of authority, and if your neighbor is trying to sell the house on the basis that the easement has been approved when it in fact has not, the councillor can speak to the local real estate agents. In summary, make it council's problem, not yours.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:07 PM on April 27, 2009
It's possible that the approval for the drainage easement is still before the council, and it's not impossible that the council might direct that it be done regardless of your feelings on the matter (because houses having proper sewerage is a health issue). The councillor will be able to speak to the people who approve drainage easements and install the actual pipes, the councillor will be able to speak to your neighbor from a position of authority, and if your neighbor is trying to sell the house on the basis that the easement has been approved when it in fact has not, the councillor can speak to the local real estate agents. In summary, make it council's problem, not yours.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:07 PM on April 27, 2009
Response by poster: aeschenkarnos: There's a set procedure for the drainage easement and that procedure is structured in such a way that the developer shoulders all of the cost, and pays appropriate compensation. If the strata plan decide not to copperate with him, and he truly has no other options, he'll be taking them to the supreme court, which will obviously cost him a lot of money :) All of this makes the laywer's letter even more amusing IMO.
posted by singingfish at 10:10 PM on April 27, 2009
posted by singingfish at 10:10 PM on April 27, 2009
« Older What's the best way to organise and maintain my... | What is this PAD feature's name? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by LOLAttorney2009 at 10:39 PM on April 26, 2009 [1 favorite]