Opinion ID: 2180190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Self-Help Doctrine

Text: Given our analysis of the privity issue and our conclusion that there was at least some sort of tenancy or landlord-tenant relationship between at least appellant Sarete and U Street, we hold that the prohibition on self-help, articulated in Mendes, supra, and Simpson, supra, was applicable to the circumstances of the case before us, and that U Street acted wrongfully in evicting Sarete without legal process, because statutory remedies [for reacquiring possession of property] are exclusive ... and an action will lie in tort against a landlord who evicts a tenant without legal process. Mendes, supra, 389 A.2d at 782. Here, U Street evicted appellants by changing the locks to the Cafe Tango on more than one occasion and precluded appellants' entry. Consequently, appellants were entitled to judgment on Count II (wrongful eviction) of their complaint.