Lawsuit: Pending corstkiller00 v. DeltaruneTMRW [2025] DCR 79

B

BrownBerry

Citizen
Congressional Staff
BrownBerry
BrownBerry
Draftsman
Joined
Aug 11, 2025
Messages
17

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


corstkiller00 (represented by MZLD)
Plaintiff

v.

DeltaruneTMRW
Defendant


COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Earlier this month, Corstkiller00 rented two floors of plot c222 from DeltaruneTMRW. DeltaruneTMRW—presumably unhappy with the low rents they posted on the sign—arbitarily denied Corstkiller00 their property, and demanded further payments. DeltaruneTMRW removed lift access to the property and barred the windows. This is outrageous conduct that must be compensated by the Court.
Click to expand...


I. PARTIES​

  1. corstkiller00 (Plaintiff)
  2. DeltaruneTMRW (Defendant)


II. FACTS​

  1. On 4 October 2025, corstkiller00 rented the second floor in plot c222 (see exhibit P-001).
  2. On 6 October 2025, corstkiller00 rented another floor (the third floor) in plot c222 (see exhibit P-002).
  3. Corstkiller00 paid $250 for each rental, for a total of $500.
  4. Corstkiller00 paid for these plots using the in-game sign renting system.
  5. DeltaruneTMRW, the Defendant, is the owner of plot c222.
  6. Corstkiller00 therefore formed a contract with DeltaruneTMRW to rent the two floors.
  7. Corstkiller00 runs a casino in their rented property.
  8. On 12 October, DeltaruneTMRW:
    1. installed bars across the windows of the two rented floors (see exhibit P-003); and
    2. removed the lift access to the two floors.
  9. The effect and intent of DeltaruneTMRW's actions was to deprive Corstkiller00 of access to his lawfully-rented property.
  10. DeltaruneTMRW demanded additional payments in order to restore access to Corstkiller00's property, including a proportion of Corstkiller00’s profit (see exhibit P-004 and P-005).
  11. After interventions by counsel, DeltaruneTMRW eventually removed the bars and restored lift access.
  12. Corstkiller00 was not able to operate their casino business without access to their property.
  13. Corstkiller00 has not been compensated for harm caused while access to their property was blocked.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Breach of Contract (§7 of the Contracts Act)​

Plaintiff and Defendant formed a contract through the sign-rent plugin. Plaintiff paid $500. Defendant rented the two regions to Plaintiff for 30 days. This is a standard rental contract: the five elements of a contract clearly exist.

As with any rental contract, there is an implied term (§5(1) of the Contracts Act) that binds the landlord to ensure the tenant has access to their rented property. A rental contract where the landlord can arbitrarily deny the tenant access does not make sense.

Defendant breached this implied term by removing lift access and placing bars across the windows. Firstly, Plaintiff suffered harm since they were no longer able to operate their business. Customers could not access their premises and casino operations ceased. Secondly, Defendant's conduct is outrageous (§5 of the Legal Damages Act). Without any legal right, Defendant denied Plaintiff their business in order to arbitrarily demand higher rent. In other words, Defendant held Plaintiff to ransom.

2. Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (§14 of the Contracts Act)​

Further to the direct breach of contract alleged above, Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under §14 of the Contracts Act. Plainly, it is neither "good faith" or "fair dealing" to deliberately breach a contract for pecuniary gain.

Again, by holding Plaintiff to ransom for increased payments, Defendant’s conduct was outrageous.

3. Wrongful Eviction (§9 of Part VIII, Criminal Code Act)​

Defendant's actions amounted to wrongful eviction under the Criminal Code Act. Until Plaintiff's property rights were restored by counsel's intervention, Plaintiff was unable to access their property, and thus, was effectively evicted from their property. This constructive eviction should be recognised at law as a breach of Plaintiff's rights, and civil damages should be awarded.

4. Trespass (tort action)​

Plaintiff further alleges a novel tort action. As far as Plaintiff knows, Redmont law does not recognise a cause of action in tort for trespass. The Criminal Code Act recognises trespass as either (1) a breach of landlord notice requirements; or (2) "remain[ing] in a non-public or restricted area against instructions". See §9 of Part VII, Criminal Code Act. Neither of these particularly cover Defendant’s conduct. Plaintiff is not pursuing a breach of notice requirements claim, and Plaintiff cannot claim that Defendant remained in a non-public area. After all, Plaintiff's business was open to the public (including Defendant).

But Plaintiff must be compensated for the harm Defendant has caused by breaching their property rights. A right without a remedy is no right at all. So Plaintiff urges the Court to recognise a new cause of action in tort at the common law. The elements of the tort would be:
  1. That a person is in lawful possession of real property (whether by ownership, renting, or otherwise).
  2. That a third party trespasses onto that property and damages the property.
  3. Damages.
Applying this analysis to this case, Plaintiff would succeed on this cause of action. Plaintiff was in lawful possession of their property (having formed a legal rental contract with the Defendant), Defendant trespassed onto their property, and while trespassing, Defendant damaged Plaintiff's property by placing bars across the window and removing lift access. The Court should find such an action to vindicate Plaintiff’s rights.

If the Court finds a cause of action under this heading, then Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s tort constituted outrageous behaviour as it demonstrated a flagrant disregard for Plaintiff’s property rights.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
  1. Compensatory damages of $10,000 for loss of casino business.
  2. Consequential damages of $20,000 for loss of enjoyment in Redmont.
  3. Punitive damages of $40,000 for outrageous violations of Plaintiff's property rights.
  4. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from interfering with Plaintiff's legitimate property rights.
  5. Legal fees at the standard 30% rate (§9 of the Legal Damages Act).


V. EVIDENCE​

P-001.png

P-002.png

P-003.webp

P-004.png

P-005.png

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

Dated the 12th day of October 2025

 

Attachments

  • 25dcr79-POR.png
    25dcr79-POR.png
    10.6 KB · Views: 14

Writ of Summons

@DeltaruneTMRW , is required to appear before the district Court in the case of corstkiller00 v. DeltaruneTMRW [2025] DCR 79

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
Present, Your Honor. An answer to complaint should be sent swiftly.

`
IMG_5119.png
`
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


corstkiller00 (represented by MZLD)
Plaintiff

v.

DeltaruneTMRW (represented by pricelessAgrari)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

  1. AFFIRMS that on 4 October 2025, corstkiller00 rented the second floor in plot c222 (see exhibit P-001).
  2. AFFIRMS that on 6 October 2025, corstkiller00 rented another floor (the third floor) in plot c222 (see exhibit P-002).
  3. AFFIRMS that Corstkiller00 paid $250 for each rental, for a total of $500.
  4. AFFIRMS that Corstkiller00 paid for these plots using the in-game sign renting system.
  5. AFFIRMS that DeltaruneTMRW, the Defendant, is the owner of plot c222.
  6. AFFIRMS that Corstkiller00 therefore formed a contract with DeltaruneTMRW to rent the two floors.
  7. AFFIRMS that Corstkiller00 runs a casino in their rented property.
  8. AFFIRMS that On 12 October, DeltaruneTMRW:
    1. installed bars across the windows of the two rented floors (see exhibit P-003); and
    2. removed the lift access to the two floors.
  9. AFFIRMS that the effect and intent of DeltaruneTMRW's actions was to deprive Corstkiller00 of access to his lawfully-rented property.
  10. AFFIRMS that DeltaruneTMRW demanded additional payments in order to restore access to Corstkiller00's property, including a proportion of Corstkiller00’s profit (see exhibit P-004 and P-005).
  11. AFFIRMS that after interventions by counsel, DeltaruneTMRW eventually removed the bars and restored lift access.
  12. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that Corstkiller00 was not able to operate their casino business without access to their property.
13. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that Corstkiller00 has not been compensated for harm caused while access to their property was blocked.
​
II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiff claims that there was a Breach of Contract; however, the Defendant reached a deal with the Plaintiff, and it was broken (See p-001). The two players made a new agreement, but the Plaintiff didn't pay up. Hence, the Defendant decided to break off the contract per the Contracts Act §12(1)a, which states, "(a)The innocent party may terminate the contract in the case of a significant breach.". The Plaintiff's unwillingness to pay for the new deal constitutes a significant breach, something specifically listed in the act.

2. For the claim of Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, the Plaintiff agreed to a contract with full capacity to understand it. As previously mentioned, a new deal was agreed upon, and then it was terminated. The Defendant didn't break the contract; the Plaintiff did.

3. The Plaintiff was not evicted from their rented property; they were temporarily blocked because they refused to pay the new rent, which they agreed to.

4. The claim for Trespass is ridiculous, as, like they said, it is not covered in the CCA. It should be entirely disregarded as a Claim of Relief.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
DATED: This 12th day of October 2025

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed in its entirety, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff alleges a contract was broken between the two parties, causing harm to them; however, this isn't the case. The two parties made and agreed to new terms, and then the Plaintiff decided to perform a material breach, which, under the Contracts Act, is a reason to terminate a contract.

2. After being threatened with a lawsuit, the Defendant actually fixed the issue, but the Plaintiff then demanded compensation. After being denied, they created a false lawsuit to try and get way more money than reasonable.

3. The Prayer for Relief includes outrageous sums, with things like "Punitive damages of $40,000 for outrageous violations of Plaintiff's property rights." and "Consequential damages of $20,000 for loss of enjoyment in Redmont.". These claims are trying to scare the Defendant into giving up a large amount of money. This whole lawsuit is just a shakedown and nothing more.

 
We will know proceed with Discovery. This shall last until 10/18/25 @ 5pm EST. (It would be 1am on a Friday, just take the day. -Neither party is prejudiced by the Court's generosity.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top