Also known as: self help · selfhelp · self-help remedy · self-help doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A method by which a party enforces its legal rights or remedies without resort to judicial process. The method is permitted only when accomplished without breach of the peace, physical harm, or damage to property and only when the controlling law preserves the right.
Sofia Stern's lease expired and she remained in the apartment after the term ended. The landlord changed the locks while Sofia was at work and removed her belongings to the curb. Because the jurisdiction provides a speedy judicial remedy for recovery of possession, the landlord's self-help action violated the rule and exposed the landlord to damages.
Sarah Sullivan discovered that a neighbor's construction repeatedly flooded her yard. She considered cutting a drainage ditch herself but instead sought an injunction. The court weighed the adequacy of damages against the effects of self-help measures and granted the injunction because self-help would have risked further harm and litigation.
Steven Silva's commercial lease contained a clause allowing the landlord to change locks upon any default. State law did not preserve self-help. When the landlord invoked the clause after a late rent payment, the court held the clause void as against public policy.
Sabrina Shah vacated her apartment two days after the lease ended. The landlord waited three weeks, then changed the locks at night without entering while anyone was present and stored her remaining items carefully. Because the actions occurred within a reasonable time, caused no harm, and used reasonable care, the self-help complied with the governing standards.
Stella Shapiro read a false newspaper article accusing her of professional misconduct. Rather than sue immediately, she issued a detailed public statement correcting the record. The availability of this self-help avenue influenced the court's later analysis of whether additional remedies were necessary.
In 1968, Chicago police officer Richard Nuccio shot and killed a youth named Nelson. State authorities prosecuted Nuccio and obtained a conviction for second-degree murder. The Nelson family retained petitioner Elmer Gertz, a Chicago attorney, to represent them in civil litigation against Nuccio. Respondent Robert Welch, Inc., publishes American Opinion, a monthly magazine expressing the views of the John Birch Society. In March 1969, the magazine published an article titled "FRAME-UP: Richard Nuccio And The War On Police." The article accused Gertz of participating in a Communist conspiracy to discredit local law enforcement, described him as a "Leninist" and "Communist-fronter," and claimed he had been an officer of the National Lawyers Guild, which it portrayed as a Communist organization involved in planning attacks on Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic Convention. The article contained numerous inaccuracies, including the false implication that Gertz had a criminal record. Gertz had served as an officer of the National Lawyers Guild approximately fifteen years earlier but had no involvement in planning the 1968 demonstrations. He had never been a member of the Marxist League for Industrial Democracy or the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. The managing editor of American Opinion made no effort to verify the charges against Gertz before publication and appended an editorial introduction stating that the author had conducted extensive research. Gertz filed a diversity action for libel in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court ruled that the statements constituted libel per se under Illinois law. After a trial, the jury awarded Gertz $50,000 in compensatory damages. The district court later entered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, applying the New York Times standard. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the application of constitutional standards to defamation of a private individual.
View caseStephen Shaw remained in his apartment after the lease terminated. The landlord attempted to remove him by force without a court order. The court ruled that the state's provision of a judicial remedy barred the landlord's self-help attempt and required use of the statutory eviction process instead.
In November 1969 the City Bureau of Buildings declared the single-family residence rented on a month-to-month basis for $100 per month by appellants Donald and Edna Lindsey and other tenants from appellee Normet unfit for habitation because of substandard conditions including rusted gutters, broken windows, broken plaster, missing rear steps, and improper sanitation. The tenants requested repairs which the landlord refused except for one minor item. After paying the November rent they withheld the December rent. On December 15 the landlord's attorney sent a letter threatening court action unless the accrued rent was paid immediately. On January 7, 1970, before any state eviction proceedings had begun, the tenants filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking a declaratory judgment that the Oregon Forcible Entry and Wrongful Detainer Statute, Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 105.105-105.160, was unconstitutional on its face and an injunction against its continued enforcement. A three-judge district court was convened. It issued a temporary restraining order and ordered the tenants to pay rent into an escrow account during the proceeding. The parties entered a lengthy stipulation of facts, submitted exhibits and depositions, and the district court granted the landlord's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Oregon statute established a summary procedure for resolving disputes over possession of real property. Service of the complaint on the tenant must be not less than two nor more than four days before the trial date. A tenant may obtain a two-day continuance, but grant of a longer continuance is conditioned on the tenant's posting security for the payment of any rent that may accrue if the plaintiff ultimately prevails. The suit may be tried to either a judge or a jury, and the only issue is whether the allegations of the complaint are true. A defendant who loses such a suit may appeal only if he obtains two sureties who will provide security for the payment to the plaintiff, if the defendant ultimately loses on appeal, of twice the rental value of the property from the time of commencement of the action to final judgment. The district court upheld the validity of the statutes under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The tenants appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseThe controlling law supplies a speedy judicial remedy for recovery of possession from a tenant improperly holding over. In that circumstance neither the landlord nor an incoming tenant may resort to self-help unless the controlling law expressly preserves the right.
Supporting sources
If the controlling law does not preserve the right of self-help, any agreement permitting the landlord to resort to self-help is against public policy and void.
Supporting sources
Recovery must occur within a reasonable time after termination, without causing physical harm or the reasonable expectation of harm to the tenant or permitted occupants, and with reasonable care to avoid damage to the tenant's property.
Supporting sources
The relative adequacy of damages versus an injunction takes into account the effects of resort to measures of self-help among other factors that bear on compensation.
Supporting sources
…but the impact on those who rely on the public authority for protection and who without it can only engage in violent self-help with guns, knives and the help of their neighbors similarly inclined. There is, of course, a saving factor: the next victims are uncertain, unnamed and unrepresented in this case. Nor can…