If she's trying to sell the property, see if you can put a lien on the property for the damages.
If you can, she'll have difficulty selling without paying you first, or putting up a bond for the damage amount to get the lien off the property.
This is a ridiculous suggestion, and in incredible bad faith. Also not legally possible without a judgement in most states.
Really? Check to see if it is possible is a ridiculous suggestion? I didn't say "Just do it, don't bother to check the law first." I said check. And since you, yourself, say it's not legally possible without a judgement in most states I'll take that as an admission on your part that it's possible in SOME states. So, again, they should check.
Even if they have to get a small claims court judgment to get a lien on the property, if that $500 is worth it to them, then they should go for it. There was a time in my life that $500 was 10 times more than we had available to spend on our wedding, it would have been a huge improvement in our finances. Whether it's worth that bother or not is for the OP to decide, not us.
My next question:
How is that in incredibly bad faith?
The OP has repeatedly tried to discuss the matter with the other person and the other person is avoiding them. The other person is acting in incredibly bad faith. If the other person just came out and said, "Nope, not my problem, not my fault. I won't pay," then I wouldn't say they were acting in bad faith. I might disagree with them, but it would at least be an honest exchange of positions.
So, when the other person is clearly attempting to sell the property and may well move away without paying for the damages (and without leaving a forwarding address), how is securing the OP's interest in incredible bad faith? Liens exist for a reason, and that reason is to force someone to pay what they ought to pay at some point in time. That's a good thing.
Just because a lien exists doesn't mean it has to be paid. It can be disputed and discarded by a court. But since the other person wants to sell the property, it's certainly one way to force them to pay up or talk it thru.
It's been a week and a half. Even if it is a legal option (which it's not in any state I am aware of, but I'm not going to exclude the possibility), there are numerous other options available. The person does not cease to exist if they sell the condo, they can still be sued in small claims court, which is the proper venue for this type of dispute. And there is the subrogation process, which is literally designed to sort out this type of issue.
Correct. They will still exist "somewhere". Where, exactly, would that be? How will you serve court papers to someone if you can't find them to do so? Remember, at the point in time I made this suggestion, the other person had refused (by avoidance) to supply her insurance information, and she was actively attempting to move somewhere else.
If it was hard to get her to supply necessary information and to do the right thing when she lives one floor upstairs, how on earth would it be easier to get her to do so after she moves ??where??. Another state? Another country? How will you find them without spending even more time and money to do so?
So we can argue semantics on bad faith or not, but your suggestion is a huge overreaction, and also not particularly helpful. You are suggesting that someone try to block the sale of a property over $500 to which he may or may not be legally entitled. Of course the amount of money matters, at the very least from a karmic perspective, but also from a very real "is this worth it" perspective.
The upstairs neighbor was clearly exhibiting bad faith, and further info from the original poster confirmed that. It's up to the OP to decide whether they believe the upstairs neighbor is legally liable for damages and thus pursue redress of those damages. They appear convinced of the fault on the part of their neighbor and I have no evidence to the contrary, so I accept it as a given parameter for the advice I gave.
If it's quick and affordable in one's jurisdiction to get a lien on the property for the damages, then the person won't be able to sell without clearing the lien. If the other party is acting in bad faith, that *might* be an easy way to force them to pony up with the cash. Based on the reaction from the escrow company, it appears that the existence of a possibility of such a lien may be enough to force it to be cleared up fairly.
I do know that if a workman does work for the seller, the seller buys the property, and the workman *then* places a lien against the property, the buyer (or their title insurance company) is on the hook for the lien. The buyer would then have to go to court to get their money back from the seller. Much better to get the money up front before an irresponsible seller can spend it elsewhere!
It's not my place, nor is it your place, to decide for the OP how much money is too little to bother with.
And sometimes, it's not about the money. It's about justice. It would be better for all the people in that upstairs neighbor's lifetime to come if they learn to act responsibly and fairly from the get go. Finding out that being fair and reasonable would have made their life easier and the problem cost less to them would be a good lesson for them to learn - for everyone's sake. That's true karma at work.
I suspect you'll disagree and that's just fine.
