Farmer Threatened By Nuisance Lawsuit Sues Back

[Larry Caldwell]

I hope you can see this article. I subscribe to Capital Press, so get the online version as a part of my subscription. In short, this is an export hay compression operation that was sued by his neighbors. He prevailed under the "right to farm" laws, and promptly sued to recover $50,911 in attorney fees.

'The neighbors and conservation groups were motivated by substantial animus toward Gilmour's—´ farming operation and the associated truck traffic, noise, and straw debris.

Suzi Maresh, a neighbor who opposed the facility because she believes it causes traffic hazards, said she was taken aback by the request for attorney fees.

"The lawsuit concerned the interpretation of state land use laws, not nuisance and trespass claims over common farming practices," she said.

"We were certainly surprised because we were under the impression that would not be the case," Maresh said.

"The $50,911 in attorney fees would impose a steep financial burden," she said. "We can't afford that kind of money."'

Life is tough, Suzi.

Farmer seeks $50,000 in Oregon land use dispute - Oregon - Capital Press

 

[MossRoad]

Read the comments in that article..... sounds like the guy started a 24/7 operation well after the people filing the lawsuit lived there. He doesn't even live in that county. Anywho, always gotta be careful when filing a lawsuit. You loses, you payses.

 

[4570Man]

Anywho, always gotta be careful when filing a lawsuit. You loses, you payses.

That's how it should be, but unfortunately it's not. I have been involved in a lawsuit and won. It still cost me and mostly my insurance a bunch of money.

 

[blb078]

That's how it should be, but unfortunately it's not. I have been involved in a lawsuit and won. It still cost me and mostly my insurance a bunch of money.

Yep, I was sued earlier this year for my business. It was such a bogus suit my attorney laughed and couldn't believe it. The person sueing me son was their attorney so they got it cheap. Anyway as soon as my attorney filed a response wanting to question them they dropped the suit. That was it and I was stuck with a 9k attorney bill that didn't even go to trial. This country is very sue happy and it's very easy to sue someone for anything. Unfortunately most if not all states the loser doesn't have to pay the winner's attorney fees. If that where the case we would see a lot less lawsuits and even less bogus suits. You have to sue to get your fees back or it has to be part of the initial suit I believe but even then it's up to the judge to award them.

 

[NorTracNY]

It's a delicate balance. If you sue, how do you control the cost associated with the defense of who you're suing. No one would sue a big company if they knew they might have to pay the attorney fees. The big company would always make sure they had expensive attorney fees just to ward off potential suits.

 

[k0ua]

It's a delicate balance. If you sue, how do you control the cost associated with the defense of who you're suing. No one would sue a big company if they knew they might have to pay the attorney fees. The big company would always make sure they had expensive attorney fees just to ward off potential suits.

Exactly, and the vast majority of lawsuits should NEVER happen. Lawsuits should be so rare as to make the national news. There should be about 2 lawyers in the nation that deal with civil suits. If I was king of the world, you can bet your last dollar there would be some real tort reform in my little perfect world. I would make it not only that you must pay the other sides attorney fees, but you should also get hit with an automatic judgement against you for what ever the amount you attempted to collect from the other side for their trouble. You would think, long and hard before you sued someone in my world.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Exactly, and the vast majority of lawsuits should NEVER happen. Lawsuits should be so rare as to make the national news. There should be about 2 lawyers in the nation that deal with civil suits. If I was king of the world, you can bet your last dollar there would be some real tort reform in my little perfect world. I would make it not only that you must pay the other sides attorney fees, but you should also get hit with an automatic judgement against you for what ever the amount you attempted to collect from the other side for their trouble. You would think, long and hard before you sued someone in my world.

Oh the unemployment!

 

[gsganzer]

I read the comments and saw where someone says that Suzi lived there first so people were siding with her. Whether she was there first or not, the guy was performing an agricultural operation in an area zoned for agriculture. The real basis of her suit was that the operation didn't conform to the "agricultural" zoning. I guess she learned that there are other operations in agriculture that aren't frolicking new born sheep and blossoming meadows. Good thing her neighbor didn't start a pig farm.

 

[blb078]

It's a delicate balance. If you sue, how do you control the cost associated with the defense of who you're suing. No one would sue a big company if they knew they might have to pay the attorney fees. The big company would always make sure they had expensive attorney fees just to ward off potential suits.

Not really an issue, big, even medium, and small companies always are going to have expensive attorneys regardless of what the who pay law is. But even big companies lose quite often with their expensive attorneys. However most settle out of court anyway and usually paying an attorney is part of the settlement. A big company can just keep a suit hung up in court if they wanted, raking up your own attorney fees, so most of time times when sueing a big company the sueing attorney will collect part of the fee as payment anyway. The UK has a loser pay law and a lot of what our judicial system is based off theirs(or was at one time). The entire point of it, is to avoid frivolous lawsuits and here we have way to many of them because people can get away with.

 

[wawoodwa]

We actually have a rule named after us in the USA. It is called the American Rule and it states that each party is responsible for paying their own attorney fees. It is what allows the little man in our Country to go up against big corporations. This is in contrast to English Rule, where the loser pays for both parties attorneys.

This is in general. There are laws that will set who will pay attorneys' fees based on the outcome of the case, and land law cases are typically one of them. I was involved in something very similar myself.

Also, you can sign an agreement (HOA, etc) that may define who pays attorneys fees if the agreement in question goes to court.

If a law or contract says you can get attorneys fees, then they can be requested. If not, a request for attorneys' fees will not be granted to the prevailing party.