The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and D entered into contract for P to purchase D's home. D would have a right to retain possession of the property on a rental basis for a period not to exceed six weeks after the delivery of the deed. After closing, D informed P that he would be unable to move until the end of his children's school term, sometime in early June. P explained that her daughter-in-law desperately needed a place to stay. D became quite belligerent, and responded, 'Well, as far as that's concerned, you can move [her furniture] up in that shanty. When I get out, you can roll it down the hill.' D also told P at another encounter, 'I'm an attorney. I know my rights. I'll move when I'm damn well ready.' He also called P, who was visibly bandaged after recent cancer surgery, a 'sick old woman.' D also mailed a letter to P notifying her that he was considering legal action. The letter implied that D had some special influence with the court: 'I am sure the local court known personally to me over the years, will appreciate my problem . . . He may just break our contract, which would satisfy me and I will repay every cent of your money.' P found another home for her daughter-in-law. D vacated in early July. P found that the premises had been damaged. P sold the house in December. P sued D under intentional infliction of emotional distress. D moved for a directed verdict, but that was denied. P got the verdict and D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.