Have you ever seen the movie Pacific Heights? It is a decent thriller starring Michael Keaton as a tenant in a converted house in the Pacific Heights district of San Francisco. Keaton tears up the apartment, introduces a huge quantity of pests into the place, and constantly drives the landlords and other tenants crazy with noise. Utilizing the liberal, renter-friendly laws of the city, he hopes to drive the building vacant or win a civil settlement for unlawful eviction. I’m having this problem right now with my place in San Francisco.
This whole issue started when I acquired my second home in San Fransisco on Sunday night. On Sunday night the Chicago Bears gave a good thumping to the New York Giants. Two days prior to that, the following e-mail had been delivered to my work address:
From: Rich Bosveld [rbosveld@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:37 AM
To: Drummonds, Scott B
Subject: WHO YA GOT???Bears or Giants? FINALLY the Vaginas, I mean the Bears, face a real opponent. I bet my house, your house, and the Armstrong’s house on the Giants. The Bears are the same BS pretender team they have been for the last 3 years. I don’t care if Amani “It is not a tumor” Toomer is out, the Bears are BULLSHIT. Let’s see – they beat the Packers, Lions, Vikings, Seahawks, Bills, Cardinals, and 49ers before they LOST to the Dolphins. Shit, caucasian, I think Auburn would have the same record against the doormats these “Bears” have played. They are now and forever renamed the Chicago Douchebags.
It’ll also be fun to watch the Bengals lose. I can’t believe that Baltimore is going to win that division. I have to say I love every weekend’s wrap-up watching Chad “Ocho Cinco” cry like the little bitch that he is.
Balls,
R
I did some web investigation to determine if e-mails could be considered legally binding documents. As it turns out, there exists precedent that they are. At this point I expect that we’ll have to go through some long litigation to see if this particular e-mail is considering binding, but it is certainly worth my while to prove it.
(Rich may have dodged a bullet by not typing his full name on the bottom, but I’ll argue with my three years’ worth of mail archives that ‘R’ was used enough to qualify as his official signature. I see this as analogous to an illiterate’s use of ‘X’ when signing documents.)
To this end, I used electronic communication to evict my tenants:
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:08 PM
To: ‘Rich Bosveld’
Cc: ‘Shana Lesch’
Subject: RE: WHO YA GOT???Please note that the message below was not post-processed in any way. It contains the original, in its entirety, for which there is precedent to prove that its contents are legally binding.
Please vacate the premises within seven days. Because you have been such a good friend, I will let you (and your lovely girlfriend) stay in the “Military Manholes” guest room on Saturday nights. I’ll leave condoms for you. You may knock on my door on Sunday morning with the normal greeting (“Football!”)
Luna may stay.
Scott
[Reproduction of the quoted version of Rich’s message excised for this blog. — SBD]
I received no response to this message, so I’m assuming that I now have a problem with squatters. I don’t want to end up in a Pacific Heights-like battle of attrition and property destruction so I’m looking for suggestions as to how I can smoke them out, perhaps literally. I’ve also contacted our IT department to have them archive the message logs as I’ll want them to bolster my case that the messages are undoctored and were delivered as reported.
Anyway, if anyone knows of a good lawyer please forward to me. San Francisco property is expensive and this is worth fighting. Also, if you know of a way that we can prove Rich’s offer of the Armstrong place is potentially valid, let me know that, too. I could use a place on that side of the Bay.
You ain’t gettin’ my place – No way, no how.
However, can I crash at your new pad in the city? I’ll help you finish the painting upstairs.
This little bitch says no you can’t have my house. I had no idea Rich was against vaginas. I think he has a case to countersue you for damage to his reputation by publicly disclosing a private document. Private since it was addressed solely “To: Drummonds, Scott B”.
As I am a lawyer in training, and I can tell you the following (based on what I have learned so far):
1. Depending on California’s statute regarding invasions of privacy, it is very possible that Rich will NOT have a valid claim with you sharing thise email. I just wrote an entire paper on a situation regarding the forwarding of an email. I argued my client had no case, mainly cause email = public domain = people should not expect privacy. I know of case law that can support this argument.
2. Can what Rich sent you to be considered a contract? First of all, contracts do not have to be written. Also they don’t have to be signed. If one can argue that Rich’s behavior and words established intent to be bound by the contract he presented to you, then a jury can find there is a contract and that Rich owes you those homes. As far as damages go, you cannot get specific performance of the contract – the giving up of the homes (courts never do that regarding goods, property, etc., only in rare occasions) – BUT you could get reliance damages. If you did something like sold your house in Mountain View relying on Rich’s promise, he owes you for that.
Just some thoughts from an esquire in training. Hope all is well. Good luck with the squatters.
NPH
Hey, when those freaks eventually get the hell out, can I get the couch?