pro se
Sun 1.26.20
I believe that citizens should be able to bring most real matters to court without counsel. They are able to, but that’s not saying much since they are not cognizant of how the court system works, what the procedures are, a basic understanding of applicable laws.
Asserting one’s legal rights should be taught in school, starting at the primary level and building on it as one progresses through the educational system. People are starting to take it on more and more. A lot of couples now file their own divorces, and there is also Small Claims, but that has been fashioned by the judiciary and is not stringent enough. One is led to believe that one has only to go to court, show the judge what is patently an unfair rip-off, and it will be settled. It’s more complicated than that. Again rules, procedures govern what happens in court that the little booklet handed to you, A Guide to Small Claims Proceedings is a sort of Going To Court for Dummies.
I initiated a court proceeding myself this summer and I thought I might share it with you. I placed a gazebo in the yard of my apartment, got written permission to put it there, and then the management company that handles the property for landlord after giving permission rescinded it. And more, they were rude and threatening –- You have 24 hours to take it down or we will! Whoa!
I furiously wrote three things to get me into the court system as quick as possible to stop the dismantling of the gazebo. The quickest way is through an Order to Show Cause, an OSC. Along with that I added a preliminary injunction motion to stop the dismantling. And then there’s the affidavit. Thankfully the court accepted my crude paperwork which was written under the gun, DON’T TAKE MY GAZEBO! All three documents are essentially saying the same thing. The motion is the most important. A lot of this is repetitive and boring but that’s what the court, at minimum requires, and I wanted to show you exactly how it works:
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTLAND
Cumberland County
----------------------------------------------x
Lorraine Saint Pierre
Petitioner,
Against Index # CD 19-386
Verified Petition in Support
Management Company X Of an Order to Show Cause
Respondent.
----------------------------------------------x
State of Maine
Lorraine Saint Pierre being duly sworn deposes and says:
1. Petitioner Lorraine Saint Pierre, is an individual over the age of eighteen and a tenant at______________ (see lease on exhibit D on attached preliminary injunction motion.)
2. Respondent is the management company of the subject premises named above.
3 Respondent seeks to remove gazebo placed by Petitioner in yard, and (see exhibit A, on attached preliminary injunction motion,) as stated will do so on 7/12/19 unless Petitioner’s motion is granted.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
4. On 2/9/19 Petitioner signed lease with Management X and moved into stated apartment, depositing outdoor furnishings in the yard and plainly visible to all.
5. On 5/15/19, Petitioner received written permission from Management’s Resident Services Coordinator, ______________ to place gazebo in yard.
6. On the afternoon of 7/10/19 – Respondent seeks to vacate written permission and informs Petitioner that she must take down gazebo or management will remove it on 7/12/19, stating that residents were notified on 5/30/19 that any type of structure is not permitted per the lease.
7. Petitioner never received such a notice.
ARGUMENTS
8. Management X was aware of work Petitioner executed to establish a viable area for garden and gazebo yet at no time was she approached to cease and desist her work.
9. Management X granted Petitioner permission, in writing, to place a gazebo in the yard, and now claims that 15 days later tenants were told they could not place furnishings in the yard. Such a notice was never received, and to withdraw permission on the reason that it is not allowed per lease. The lease was drawn up on 2/9/19 and permission to place gazebo in yard was granted on 5/15/19 thus negating lease’s directive.
10. That other tenants are not similarly placed on deadline to remove their furnishings casts ulterior motivation on management’s actions to have gazebo removed.
11. The very same gazebo existed at Management X’s other site for 2 years with no problems. It was seen by management and ownership and considered an asset to the property.
CONCLUSION
12. Petitioner has been given a day and a half to respond to management’s order. She seeks an order to show cause and a preliminary injunction for the necessary time to either acquire legal services or prepare a defense pro se.
Wherefore, it is respectfully requested in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and evidence proffered, that Plaintiff’s order to show cause be granted along with a motion seeking a preliminary injunction until the order to show cause hearing is resolved, and that together with such other and further relief to which this Court deems just, proper and equitable
July 10, 2019
Portland Maine
Lorraine Saint Pierre, Pro Se
Verification [by notary]
State of Maine, Cumberland County:
Lorraine Saint Pierre being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That I am the petitioner named above, that I have read the Petition and know the truth of the contents thereof, except in those matters alleged to be on information and belief, and as to those matters petitioner believes them to be true.
Sworn to before me this _____ day of ___________, 2019
_______________________________
Petitioner
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTLAND
Cumberland County
----------------------------------------------x
Lorraine Saint Pierre
Petitioner,
Against Index # CD 19-386
NOTICE OF MOTION
Management X Preliminary Injunction
Respondent.
----------------------------------------------x
State of Maine
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit Lorraine Saint Pierre sworn to on July 11, 2019 and the exhibits annexed thereto Petitioner will move this court located at 205 Newbury Street in Portland Maine, 04106, on July 11, 2019, of that day or as soon thereafter as can be heard for an order pursuant to Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 65 imposing preliminary injunction on Respondent Management X from dismantling, removing gazebo as asserted by Respondent, exhibit A.
a) Petitioner was given written permission to place gazebo in yard (exhibit B.)
b) The gazebo has been up since May 2019 and much work was completed before then to prepare the ground done in plain sight of management with no complaint. See before and after pictures exhibit C.
c) Since other tenants have not similarly been given a day to remove furnishings, chairs, tables, fence enclosures on the property, and which have been up for years, a reasonable person may conclude that management is acting to harass and maliciously injure Petitioner.
d) Immediate, irreparable damage will be done to the gazebo, the vegetable garden which supplements tenant’s food budget for the coming year and to the work accomplished on the grounds to support gazebo and plantings.
e) Efforts to give notice to management/Respondent are not possible given the day and a half notice Petitioner received before action is taken to remove gazebo, et al.
July 11, 2019,
Portland Maine
__________________________________
Lorraine Saint Pierre, Pro Se
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTLAND
Cumberland County
----------------------------------------------x
Lorraine Saint. Pierre
Petitioner,
Against Index #
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
Management X of
Respondent Preliminary Injunction
----------------------------------------------x
State of Maine
Lorraine Saint Pierre, Pro se being duly sworn deposes and states:
1. Petitioner Saint Pierre is a tenant at ______________ , (see attached lease, exhibit D.)
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
2. On 2/9/19 Petitioner Saint Pierre signed lease with Management X and moved into stated apartment, depositing outdoor furnishings in the yard and plainly visible to all.
3. On 5/15/19, Petitioner received written permission from Management to place gazebo in yard.
4. On the afternoon of 7/10/19 – Respondent seeks to vacate written permission and informs Petitioner that she must take down gazebo or management would remove it on 7/12/19, stating that residents were notified on 5/30/19 that any type of structure is not permitted per the lease.
5. Petitioner never received such a notice.
ARGUMENTS
6. Management X was aware of work Petitioner executed to establish a viable area for garden and gazebo yet at no time was she approached to cease and desist her work.
7. Management X granted Petitioner permission, in writing, to place a gazebo in the yard, and now claims that 15 days later tenants were told they could not place furnishings in the yard. Such a notice was never received, and to withdraw permission on the reason that it is not allowed per lease. The lease was drawn up on 2/9/19 and permission to place gazebo in yard was granted on 5/15/19 thus negating lease’s directive.
8. That other tenants are not similarly placed on deadline to remove their furnishings casts ulterior motivation on management’s actions to have gazebo removed.
9. The very same gazebo existed at Management X’s other site for 2 years with no problems. It was seen by management and ownership and considered an asset to the property.
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, it is respectfully requested in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and evidence proffered, that Plaintiff’s motion seeking a preliminary injunction until the order to show cause hearing is resolved, and that together with such other and further relief to which this Court deems just, proper and equitable
July 10, 2019
Portland Maine
__________________________________
Lorraine Saint Pierre, Pro Se
Verification
State of Maine, Cumberland County:
Lorraine Saint Pierre being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That I am the petitioner named above, that I have read the Petition and know the truth of the contents thereof, except in those matters alleged to be on information and belief, and as to those matters petitioner believes them to be true.
Sworn to before me this _____ day of ___________, 2019
_______________________________
Petitioner
The door is now open. I send management a certified, return receipt copy of what I’ve handed to the court. Unh unh! That’s not how it’s done in Maine. The sheriff has to serve them. Before things get resolved I end up serving management 3 times. Below is management’s response, not by a lawyer, they are not taking this seriously yet. An official at the management company chooses to respond not in an appropriate court manner, but still valid:
The Complainant is a resident at _______________. Management X is the management agent for this property.
The Complainant is prohibited by the terms of her lease from making any alterations, additions or improvements in or to the premises without the prior consent of the landlord in writing.
After receiving complaints from residents about a structure that the Complainant was building in the yard behind her apartment unit, the Resident Services Coordinator investigated and determined that the Complainant had erected a small garden trellis in the yard (see Attachment A). Although the Complainant had not obtained prior authorization for this, as required by her lease, the property manager decided to approve it and this approval was communicated to the Complainant by letter from ___________ dated May 15, 2019. This letter specifically noted that the approval was being granted because the trellis “is not attached to the property, preventing egress or obstructing another resident’s view”. Further, the letter reminded the Complainant that she must seek prior approval before making any additional structural changes.
Subsequently, the Complainant erected a large gazebo-type structure in the yard behind her unit (see Attachment B). No approval was requested or granted for this structure, which is large and intrusive. The Complainant has therefore been notified that she is in violation of her lease and must remove the gazebo.
The Respondents will provide further information upon request.
Complainant, namely me, responded:
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTLAND
Cumberland County
----------------------------------------------x
Lorraine Saint Pierre
Petitioner,
Against Index # CD 19-386
PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
Management X RESPONDENT’S ANSWER
Respondent. AND COUNTERCLAIM
----------------------------------------------x
State of Maine
TO:____________ A REPRESENTATIVE FOR RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT X:
The Petitioner Saint Pierre, responding to the Answer and Counterclaim of Respondent Management X (hereinafter Respondent) respectfully alleges as follows:
1. Respondent did not respond sufficiently to the allegations of the complaint in the manner required.
2. To the extent that the Respondent’s Answer states a counterclaim, Petitioner denies all of the allegations stated and requests that the counterclaim be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, having responded to the allegations contained in Respondent’s Answer and Counterclaim, Plaintiff prays for the following:
(a) That Respondent’s Answer and Counterclaim be dismissed as insufficient;
(b) That Petitioner be granted the relief requested in the Complaint;
(c) For such other and further relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.
July 30, 2019
Portland Maine
__________________________________
Lorraine Saint Pierre, Pro Se
Verification
State of Maine, Cumberland County:
Lorraine Saint Pierre being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That I am the petitioner named above, that I have read the Petition and know the truth of the contents thereof, except in those matters alleged to be on information and belief, and as to those matters petitioner believes them to be true.
Sworn to before me this _____ day of ___________, 2019
_____________________________
Petitioner
There has now been a Complaint and a Response. There will be a hearing on the preliminary injunction to prevent them from taking down the gazebo and later a trial. Management has already taken down the gazebo; I have submitted a Request For Production of Documents to opposing party thus initiating the discovery phase. Since then management has acquired an attorney who seeks to have the preliminary injunction dismissed since the gazebo is already dismantled. I have also made a motion to be allowed to file an amended petition with more information. We are going to court on Tuesday for the hearing.
To be continued . . .
The favorite essay this month has been, André Gide
