Eviction Judgment Service Issues

I. Improper Service of Process Invalidates the Eviction Judgment Lackey v. Wilson, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Hobbs v. Chapman, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Stewart v. Barefoot, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Capps v. Roush, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Greenup v. Register, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Baldwin v. Hale, * U.S. * (*) II. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability and Failure to Repair Pugh v. Holmes, * Pa. *, * A.2d * (*) Surratt v. Newton, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Miller v. C.W. Myers Trading Post Inc., * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) III. Violations of Security Deposit Notification Requirements Stanley v. Moore, * N.C. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Lee v. Walker, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) IV. Excessive Late Fee Charges and Unfair Debt Collection Practices Friday v. United Dominion Realty Trust, * N.C. App. * (*) Cotton v. Stanley, * N.C. App. * (*) In re Investigation of All Storage Centers, LLC, * N.C. PUC LEXIS * Fisher v. Communication Workers of America, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Brooks v. Giesey, * S.E.2d * (N.C. Ct. App. *) V. Violations of Privacy and Unreasonable Publication of Debt Information Brooks v. Giesey, * S.E.2d * (N.C. Ct. App. *) Fisher v. Communication Workers of America, * S.E.2d * (*) VI. Emotional Distress and Impact on Family Marshall v. Miller, * N.C. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Godfrey v. Res-Care, Inc., * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*)

Verify case laws in the text as it has come to my attention that some are not real, cited incorrectly or not applicable in my case

I. Improper Service of Process Invalidates the Eviction Judgment Lackey v. Wilson, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Hobbs v. Chapman, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Stewart v. Barefoot, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Capps v. Roush, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Greenup v. Register, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Baldwin v. Hale, * U.S. * (*) II. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability and Failure to Repair Pugh v. Holmes, * Pa. *, * A.2d * (*) Surratt v. Newton, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Miller v. C.W. Myers Trading Post Inc., * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) III. Violations of Security Deposit Notification Requirements Stanley v. Moore, * N.C. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Lee v. Walker, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) IV. Excessive Late Fee Charges and Unfair Debt Collection Practices Friday v. United Dominion Realty Trust, * N.C. App. * (*) Cotton v. Stanley, * N.C. App. * (*) In re Investigation of All Storage Centers, LLC, * N.C. PUC LEXIS * Fisher v. Communication Workers of America, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Brooks v. Giesey, * S.E.2d * (N.C. Ct. App. *) V. Violations of Privacy and Unreasonable Publication of Debt Information Brooks v. Giesey, * S.E.2d * (N.C. Ct. App. *) Fisher v. Communication Workers of America, * S.E.2d * (*) VI. Emotional Distress and Impact on Family Marshall v. Miller, * N.C. *, * S.E.2d * (*) Godfrey v. Res-Care, Inc., * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*)

Legal Argument I. Improper Service of Process Invalidates the Eviction Judgment Mr. Rountree failed to comply with the statutory requirements for proper service of process in the eviction case against us, as mandated by N.C. General Statute § *-*. The statute outlines specific methods for serving summonses and complaints, including personal service, substitute service, or posting. However, Mr. Rountree attempted to serve the eviction documents solely through regular mail, which does not satisfy the statutory requirements. Numerous precedents, such as Lackey v. Wilson, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*), Hobbs v. Chapman, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*), and Stewart v. Barefoot, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*), have consistently held that tenants' voluntary appearance in court does not waive their right to challenge improper service of process. Furthermore, cases like Capps v. Roush, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*), and Greenup v. Register, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*), have established that failure to strictly comply with statutory service requirements renders eviction judgments void, as it violates tenants' due process rights. Therefore, we assert that the eviction judgment against us is legally deficient and should be deemed void due to Mr. Rountree's failure to properly serve the summons and complaint in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-*. This argument is further supported by the long-standing precedent in Baldwin v. Hale, * U.S. * (*), which affirms that a defendant's voluntary appearance does not waive their right to challenge jurisdictional defects or procedural errors, including improper service of process. II. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability and Failure to Repair Mr. Rountree has breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing to address and repair the malfunctioning septic system, creating unsafe and unsanitary living conditions for our family. This breach directly violates the landlord's obligations established in Pugh v. Holmes, * Pa. *, * A.2d * (*) which recognized the implied warranty of habitability and the landlord's duty to maintain rental premises in a safe and habitable condition. The North Carolina Court of Appeals' decision in Surratt v. Newton, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) specifically addressed a landlord's failure to repair a leaking septic system, holding that such inaction constitutes a breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Furthermore, Miller v. C.W. Myers Trading Post Inc., * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) reinforced the landlord's duty to promptly make necessary repairs, including those related to plumbing and septic issues, to maintain habitable premises. Despite our initial notification at the lease signing in April * and subsequent complaints, Mr. Rountree has failed to take adequate action to repair the broken septic system bleed line, resulting in raw sewage pooling in our front yard for months. This persistent issue has created a severe health hazard and rendered our yard unusable, significantly impairing our health, safety, and enjoyment of the property. Consequently, we assert that Mr. Rountree has breached the implied warranty of habitability by neglecting to repair the malfunctioning septic system, in direct violation of his legal obligations as established by the aforementioned case law. This breach entitles us to pursue remedies, including potential rent abatement until the habitability issue is resolved, as affirmed in Miller v. C.W. Myers Trading Post Inc., * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*) III. Violations of Security Deposit Notification Requirements Mr. Rountree has violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-*, which mandates that landlords inform tenants in writing within 30 days of the location of their security deposit. The failure to provide this written notification has caused financial uncertainty and additional stress for our family. The North Carolina Supreme Court's ruling in Stanley v. Moore, * N.C. *, * S.E.2d * (*), and Lee v. Walker, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*), reaffirm the landlord's obligation to comply with security deposit notification requirements. Mr. Rountree's noncompliance has deprived us of the information necessary to ensure the proper handling of our security deposit, creating undue financial uncertainty. Therefore, we seek relief for Mr. Rountree's violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-*, including the return of our security deposit and any applicable penalties for his failure to comply with statutory requirements. IV. Excessive Late Fee Charges and Unfair Debt Collection Practices Mr. Rountree has engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by charging excessive late fees that violate North Carolina law. Despite our monthly rent being $*,*, he has consistently imposed a $* late fee for each of the * late payments, totaling $*,*. However, N.C. General Statute § *-* explicitly limits late fees to *% of the monthly rent or $*, whichever is greater. In our case, the maximum permissible late fee per occurrence would be $*.*. This practice of charging excessive late fees constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice under Chapter * of the North Carolina General Statutes, as established by cases such as Friday v. United Dominion Realty Trust, * N.C. App. * (*), and Cotton v. Stanley, * N.C. App. * (*). Furthermore, the case In re Investigation of All Storage Centers, LLC, * N.C. PUC LEXIS * underscores that exceeding statutory limits on fees is illegal and reinforces the assertion that Mr. Rountree's actions are unlawful. Additionally, Mr. Rountree's conduct potentially violates provisions of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA). By falsely representing the amount of debt owed in the summary ejectment filing, claiming $*,* when our receipt shows a balance of $*,*, he has engaged in deceptive representation in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-*. This practice is further supported as unlawful by cases such as Fisher v. Communication Workers of America, * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*), and Brooks v. Giesey, * S.E.2d * (N.C. Ct. App. *). Moreover, Mr. Rountree's actions may constitute unconscionable means of debt collection under N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-*. By attempting to collect excessive fees and charges not legally entitled to, he has engaged in practices deemed unconscionable by cases like Marshall v. Miller, * N.C. *, * S.E.2d * (*), and Godfrey v. Res-Care, Inc., * N.C. App. *, * S.E.2d * (*). These violations of consumer protection laws and debt collection practices not only support our claims for restitution and damages but also potentially subject Mr. Rountree to civil penalties under N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-*.* and treble damages under N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-*. V. Violations of Privacy and Unreasonable Publication of Debt Information Mr. Rountree's actions in discussing our financial situation and eviction with my husband's brother, without our consent, constitute violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act. Specifically, his conduct violates N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-*, which prohibits the unreasonable publication of information regarding a consumer's debt. The case Brooks v. Giesey, * S.E.2d * (N.C. Ct. App. *), established that landlords engaging in debt collection activities can be subject to the NCDCA, including provisions regarding privacy and reasonable debt collection practices. Furthermore, Fisher v. Communication Workers of America, * S.E.2d * (*), reinforces the protection of privacy in debt collection activities and highlights the significance of safeguarding a consumer's personal financial information. By disclosing sensitive information about our financial situation and eviction to an unauthorized third party, Mr. Rountree has violated our privacy rights and engaged in unreasonable publication of debt information, which is prohibited under the NCDCA. This conduct not only constitutes a statutory violation but also has caused significant emotional distress and reputational harm to our family. VI. Emotional Distress and Impact on Family The pervasive stress, financial strain, and legal battles resulting from Mr. Rountree's actions have taken a severe emotional and physical toll on our family. I have experienced persistent anxiety, frequent panic attacks, nausea, vomiting, chronic insomnia, and exacerbated asthma symptoms, significantly impacting my overall well-being and ability to function effectively. Moreover, the constant strain and uncertainty have profoundly affected my husband's mental health, causing emotional distress and straining our relationship dynamics. Most concerningly, our children, including our autistic child, have borne the brunt of this instability, leading to heightened anxiety, disrupted routines, and emotional distress. The financial implications have been equally devastating, as we have been forced to allocate scarce resources towards legal fees and disputed debts, depleting our savings and jeopardizing our financial stability. The potential damage to our credit due to Mr. Rountree's false debt claims threatens our long-term prospects, impacting our ability to secure housing and loans in the future. In conclusion, Mr. Rountree's actions have inflicted significant emotional, physical, and financial harm on our family, compounding the challenges we face and threatening our overall well-being and future opportunities. We urgently seek resolution and redress to mitigate these profound impacts and restore stability to our lives. VII. Prayer for Relief Based on the foregoing arguments and the substantial evidence presented, we respectfully request that the court grant the following relief: *. Declare the eviction judgment void due to Mr. Rountree's failure to comply with statutory service of process requirements, in accordance with precedents like Capps v. Roush and Greenup v. Register. *. Award damages for Mr. Rountree's breach of the implied warranty of habitability, including potential rent abatement until the septic system issue is resolved, as supported by cases like Miller v. C.W. Myers Trading Post Inc. *. Order Mr. Rountree to comply with the security deposit notification requirements under N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-* and award appropriate damages for his failure to do so, as established in Stanley v. Moore and Lee v. Walker. *. Provide restitution for the excessive late fees charged in violation of N.C. General Statute § *-* and award damages for unfair and deceptive trade practices under Chapter * of the North Carolina General Statutes, pursuant to cases like Friday v. United Dominion Realty Trust and Cotton v. Stanley. *. Award damages for Mr. Rountree's violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, including deceptive representations, unconscionable means of debt collection, and unreasonable publication of debt information, as supported by cases like Fisher v. Communication Workers of America, Brooks v. Giesey, and Marshall v. Miller. *. Impose civil penalties against Mr. Rountree under N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-*.* for his knowing violations of Chapter * provisions related to unfair and deceptive trade practices. *. Award treble damages under N.C. Gen. Stat. § *-* for the injuries caused by Mr. Rountree's actions in violation of Chapter *. *. Grant any other relief that the court deems just and proper to compensate our family for the emotional distress, financial strain, and profound impacts resulting from Mr. Rountree's unlawful conduct. We respectfully submit this legal argument and request the court's intervention to protect our rights, uphold the rule of law, and provide the necessary remedies to address the significant harm inflicted upon our family by Mr. Rountree's actions.