Is morning. Right?

Here, is afternoon. But was morning. Or so they claimed.

Maybe because he's a wanker?

This was my guess. But I'm not a lawyer.

Much healthma to Jeff.

Timelies and birthdays! Has it really been a year, Susan?

Amazing, isn't it? When I think about where we were last year compared to now, how exhausted and overwhelmed and just plain wrecked I was, and now here I am, doing just fine, with Annabel, who's just as beautiful, smart, and happy a baby as anyone could wish for...amazing is the only word for it.

Thanks for all the birthday wishes! I was just coming here to post that it was her birthday, and y'all were already there.

Maybe because he's a wanker?

Ah, the old Wank Offensive maneuver.

You say there was no personal service in the eviction lawsuit. Does that mean that your client didn't have the opportunity to defend the action?

No, he had the opportunity. Knew all about it in fact. Just felt no reason to litigate a matter that he agreed with the landlord on, specifically, there was no existing lease. Now they're trying to say he should have litigated when the lease actually terminated, and the judgment makes it res judicata that the lease existed until the judgment. I can't put my finger on it, but it doesn't sound right.

(BTW, res judicata is now often called "issue preclusion." So you might want to look for that phrase in your research.)

Thanks. I thought issue preclusion was collateral estoppel, and claim preclusion was res judicata. But I may have the two confused.

Another thought is, if landlord could have raised the damages issues in the first lawsuit and didn't, there may be a claim preclusion defense there.

You mean, the landlord shouldn't be able to seek further damages on the breach claim for which they got possession. That's brilliant.

mmmm... Spicy legal braaaaaiiiiinnnnns

I am stuck in black hole of work been off allergy meds for almost two weeks need to go to the doctor to renew prescription don't have time head hurts ear hurts worse and want to cry.

Okay. Now I have to get back to work.

No, he had the opportunity. Knew all about it in fact. Just felt no reason to litigate a matter that he agreed with the landlord on, specifically, there was no existing lease.

It just seems like that if they were litigating something he felt they had an agreement on, he had an incentive to litigate it.

How could the landlord raise the damages issue in an in rem action?

Just felt no reason to litigate a matter that he agreed with the landlord on, specifically, there was no existing lease

If the client can argue/win on this, then the res judicata shouldn't apply. I'm leaving school now, but I can look it up in my notes when I get home. I'm pretty sure we read cases establishing this. At least it will give you a palce to start.

What is the landlord upset about? He knew when your clients left, and he's been getting paid rent. Presumably, he could increase the rent with the new owners of the business should he so desire. Why is he suing?

Great question. It involves a complicated relationship between the landlord, the new owners and my client. The new owners owe my client money, in the form of a promissory note, on their purchase that they're supposed to pay monthly. The landlord wants to move the new owners to a smaller space and sign a lease with them. The landlord offered to lean on my client to forgive the balance of the note (which is substantial) to induce the new owners to keep their business on his premises and sign a new lease. Now the landlord is suing my client for alleged dry cleaning damages, and offering to dismiss the case with prejudice if my client waives the balance of the note.

Yes, he's a wanker.