MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

XXX

XXX,

XXX

XXX

XXX

 

XXX

XXX,

XXX

[Insert Phone Number]

[Insert Email]

 

Plaintiffs in pro per

 

 

 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX

IN AND FOR XXX COUNTY

 

XXX

; and XXX

Plaintiff,

vs.

XXX; and XXX , LLC,

Defendant(s)

 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No.:

 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

 

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

The Plaintiffs, Don and Jacqueline, hereby give notice that they will move this Court on June 15, XXX, at 9:00 a.m., for a permanent injunction enjoining ALL Defendants from further interfering with Plaintiffs’ property rights.

The motion is based on the following grounds:

  1. The Defendants have engaged in financial exploitation and fraud against Plaintiff Don, causing him to lose the title to his home twice.
  2. The Defendants have failed to disclose the condition of Plaintiff Don’s home, which has a mold infestation and spores growing on the walls.
  3. The Defendants have no legitimate interest in continuing to interfere with Plaintiff’s property rights.
  4. The balance of hardships tips in favor of Plaintiff.
  5. The public interest will be served by granting the injunction.

Plaintiff requests that this Court enter a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from:

  1. Contacting Plaintiffs in any way.
  2. Interfering with Plaintiffs’ property rights.
  3. Selling or otherwise disposing of Plaintiff’s property.
  4. Otherwise violating Plaintiff’s rights.

 

 

Dated this ___ day of June, XXX.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

 

Don Richard Grant,

Plaintiff in pro per

 

 

 

 

________________________

Jacqueline Lilian Harrington,

Plaintiff in pro per

 

 

 

XXX

XXX Court,

XXX

XXX

XXX

 

XXX

XXX

XXX

[Insert Phone Number]

[Insert Email]

 

Plaintiffs in pro per

 

 

 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX

IN AND FOR XXX COUNTY

 

DON RICHARD GRANT; and JACQUELINE LILIAN HARRINGTON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

XXX and NEW WESTERN XXX

Defendant(s)

 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No.:

 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

 

MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs hereby moves this Court for a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from further interfering with Plaintiffs’ property rights.

 

FACTS

  1. On May 1,XXX, Defendants targeted Plaintiff for financial exploitation and fraud. They caused him to lose the title to his home twice.
  2. The first time, Defendants paid Plaintiff $40,000 less than the value of his home. They conducted the transaction without an attorney or a realtor, and there were no witnesses to the transaction.
  3. Defendants obtained Plaintiff’s property by undue influence, misrepresentation, and fraud. They coerced Plaintiff into signing over the title and the deed.
  4. The second time, Defendants stole Plaintiff’s property and sold it immediately to investors online. They failed to disclose the condition of the home, which had a mold infestation and spores growing on the walls.
  5. Defendant Tyler had targeted Plaintiff for the second time because he was aware of Plaintiff’s declining mental state and the condition of the home. Defendant Tyler coerced Plaintiff to take $40,000 less than the appraised value of the home.
  6. Defendant Tyler also violated regulations of the Texas Real Estate Commission by failing to list the property on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS).
  7. Plaintiff’s brokerage agreement is missing listing information, and the HUD settlement is missing Plaintiff’s last name.
  8. Defendants knew or should have known that the failure to list the property on the MLS caused the title company to overlook the existing automatic stay and contract between Plaintiff and another buyer. The automatic stay and contract came before the transaction conducted by Defendants.
  9. Defendants sold Plaintiff’s property only to Samous King, and Daniel Leonard built that asset for over $300,000. However, the property is currently subject to environmental regulations and other laws that will prevent the buyer from using the property as intended.
  10. Defendants failed to disclose the existence of mold on Plaintiff’s property and existing leaks on the walls.

 

ARGUMENT

Irreparable Harm

  1. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm as a result of Defendants’ actions. The financial exploitation and fraud by Defendants has caused Plaintiff to lose the title to his home twice.
  2. The mold infestation and spores growing on the walls have made the home uninhabitable.
  3. The loss of Plaintiff’s home has caused him significant financial hardship. He has been forced to file this action.
  4. The loss of Plaintiff’s home has also caused him emotional distress. He has been forced to deal with the probability of completely losing his home, which is his sanctuary and a place where he raised his family. He has also been forced to deal with the stress of having to file this action to try and recover the property.

 

Monetary Damages Are Inadequate

  1. Monetary damages are inadequate to compensate Plaintiff for the harm he has suffered. The value of Plaintiff’s home has been significantly diminished, and he has been forced to deal with the probability of completely losing his home.
  2. Plaintiff has also suffered emotional distress as a result of the Defendants’ actions.
  3. No amount of money can compensate Plaintiff for the loss of his home and the emotional distress he has suffered.

 

The Balance of Hardships Tips in Favor of Plaintiff

  1. Defendants have no legitimate interest in continuing to interfere with Plaintiff’s property rights. Defendants’ actions were motivated by greed and a desire to take advantage of Plaintiff.
  2. Plaintiff, on the other hand, has a strong interest in protecting his property rights and his home. Plaintiff has lived in his home for over 20 years, and it is the only home he has ever known.
  3. The balance of hardships clearly tips in favor of Plaintiff.

 

The Public Interest Will Be Served by Granting the Injunction

  1. The Defendants’ actions have undermined the public’s confidence in the real estate market.
  2. Granting the injunction will send a message that the Court will not tolerate such behavior.

 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant his motion for a permanent injunction.

 

 

Dated this ___ day of June, XXX.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

 

Don Richard Grant,

Plaintiff in pro per

 

 

 

 

________________________

XXX,

Plaintiff in pro per

 

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )