Brewer v. Erwin

Rule of Law:

The Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (RLTA) permits recovery for "actual damages" that include tangible psychological or emotional harm (e.g., physical illness, inability to sleep) caused by a landlord's deliberate, willful, retaliatory, or malicious acts that breach protected interests, but not for mere annoyance or frustration from non-culpable breaches. Additionally, a landlord's conduct can constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress if it is deliberately designed to cause severe distress and goes beyond socially tolerable limits, particularly in relationships with inherent power imbalances.

Facts:

• Plaintiff Suzan Brewer rented the upper apartment of an old, deteriorating building owned by defendant Marquam Investment Corporation.
• Marquam Investment Corporation decided to demolish the building and sent Brewer an eviction notice.
• Brewer, after receiving the notice, became involved with a group trying to prevent the demolition of old houses in the neighborhood and did not move out of her apartment.
• A series of confrontations ensued between Marquam's owners/officers (Warde Erwin, Lavelle Mullennex) and their law partners (Charles Erwin, Colin Lamb) on one side, and Brewer and other persons at the apartment on the other.
• After the date Marquam's notice told Brewer to leave, utility company employees arrived to disconnect natural gas service; defendant Mullennex allegedly told the workers to disregard statements that the house was occupied, and defendant Lamb reportedly kicked in an apartment door and threatened Brewer's friends.
• Defendants Lamb, Warde Erwin, and Charles Erwin later padlocked the kicked-open door, and when Brewer questioned them, they refused to respond to her but made abusive and threatening statements to her friends.
• Warde Erwin drove up, swerving as if to hit one of Brewer's friends, and threatened the group that if they did not leave his property, he "would do something... I don’t know what I’ll do but I’ll do something."
• Warde Erwin and Lamb later entered the basement, and when Brewer tried to follow them, Warde Erwin hit or pushed her in the face; subsequently, Warde Erwin and sometimes Lamb and Mullennex allegedly behaved in an alarming manner while driving past or parking near the house, including late at night.
• While Brewer was away on vacation, Warde Erwin partially demolished the downstairs apartment, breaking windows and interior walls, removing some siding and the back steps, tearing down parts of the fence, and leaving the yard littered with wood, glass, and other debris.

Procedural Posture:

• Plaintiff Suzan Brewer filed suit, originally asking for injunctive relief against allegedly wrongful efforts by defendants to evict her by force, and subsequently adding claims for damages.
• Brewer's ninth amended complaint went to trial, stating two causes of action: intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery.
• The trial court granted involuntary nonsuits on both counts in favor of defendants Lamb and Mullennex.
• The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Warde Erwin and Marquam Investment Corporation on the intentional infliction of emotional distress count.
• On the battery count, the jury returned a verdict against Warde Erwin and Marquam Investment Corporation for $650 general damages and no punitive damages.
• The trial court struck allegations supporting claims for punitive damages for violations of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (RLTA) from Brewer's second amended complaint.
• The trial court struck a claim for twice the amount of actual damages from Brewer's fourth amended complaint, which alleged retaliatory damage to the building by Warde Erwin.
• The trial court sustained a demurrer to Brewer’s claim, in her sixth amended complaint, for damages for emotional and psychological injuries caused by defendants’ intentional interruption of plaintiff’s natural gas service and destruction of portions of the building.
• The trial court refused to enjoin Marquam Investment Corporation from prosecuting a separate action for possession in district court.
• Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon, contending they were entitled to attorney fees.
• Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon, challenging the trial court’s rulings on her claims for damages under the RLTA and the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.