Examples

The Center for Conflict Resolution provided the following case studies. Participants' names have been changed.

Property Owner vs. Developer
Marianne is a writer who works from home. Despite the extra effort it takes for a self-employed artist to obtain a mortgage, she bought a townhouse condo and was thrilled by her transformation from renter to owner. Her happiness ended abruptly, however, as floorboards popped up, cupboard doors refused to close, plumbing dripped, and her coveted balcony doors leaked cold air and rainwater.

For more than a year she complained to the developer and contractor, with no relief. She was put off, put down and ignored. She wrote a string of ineffective letters, each escalating in nastiness. She even had a lawyer write a letter, which was also ignored.

The disruptions to her home and writing space affected her work. Marianne was frustrated, and felt backed into a corner. She assumed that failure to get cooperation from the developer left her no other option but to force repairs through the legal system. Unfortunately, she knew she could not afford to pursue a lawsuit.

Marianne called CCR for help. Although living with the conditions was becoming physically and emotionally unbearable, she feared she would lose all her money if she sold and moved. CCR took Marianne’s request for help, extending to the contractor an invitation to meet with her and a mediator to discuss this situation.

At the meeting, she and the contractor came to a very detailed agreement that included a walk-through of her home and a list of what would be done and when. In just three hours, two people who earlier would not look each other in the eye were telling jokes and finished the mediation session shaking hands. Most importantly, Marianne was able to get back to work, because the problems with her condo were fixed.

Roommate vs. Roommate
Tom and Jerry were both friends and roommates. Although they were initially excited about living together, they quickly learned that their lifestyles clashed. They had different expectations about what it meant to share space. Tom ate any and everything in the refrigerator, even when it belonged to Jerry. Jerry left spoiled food in the refrigerator until it turned to mush. There was too much noise, not enough cleaning up, and talking on the phone at all hours. Unable to resolve these differences, their disagreements escalated until the pair was referred by the police to mediation following an “incident.”

It was hard to understand why these two wanted to remain roommates, but they did. During their mediation session, they sat down with a mediator, each with a laundry list of complaints – some minor, some major. They shouted, they cried, they accused. Eight hours later, they left with a three-page list of do’s and don’ts. A year later, Jerry contacted CCR and set up another meeting. This one was much shorter as the two adjusted the first agreement and amended new items to it.

Landlord vs. Tenant
Lou-Anne lived for three years in a one-bedroom apartment in a small building. She had her financial ups and downs, which happened to be mostly downs. She was quite conscientious in keeping her place neat and clean, and always, always paid the rent, but hardly ever on time. As a freelancer, her income became increasingly sporadic. Eventually, she could not keep up with her bills, and became overwhelmed.  When she became two months behind in rent, her landlady filed for an eviction.

Lou-Anne and her landlady were referred to mediation from eviction court. The landlady informed the mediator that she was upset at the prospect of evicting Lou-Anne, but felt she had no other choice as she was losing money on the property. Lou-Anne was terrified at facing a possible eviction, since she did not have any family in the area to assist her financially. Lou-Anne was in the middle of an emotionally charged financial crisis.

As the discussion continued, Lou-Anne described her finances, what she earned, how she earned it, when she was paid and how she spent it. The landlady figured out the main reason Lou-Anne was behind was because she received the bulk of her income in the middle of the month. Lou-Anne had gotten into a financial pretzel by using a credit card to cover day-to-day expenses until her funds came in. She then tried to catch up on her late bills when the money arrived.

The landlady concluded that Lou-Anne, an otherwise good tenant, needed to get her money situation stabilized. Because she wanted to keep Lou-Anne as a tenant, she took the time to find a solution to the situation. With both of them sweating over how to pull this off, they worked out a multi-faceted plan.

The landlady proposed that Lou-Anne’s rent not be due until after she received her biggest paycheck, around the 18th of each month. She also volunteered to help Lou-Anne create a monthly budget. While the mediator listened, the two of them came up with a budget and re-payment schedule.

As part of the budget, Lou-Anne and the landlady were able to set up a back-rent payment schedule. It took about two hours, and they went back to court with their written agreement. It provided that, as long as payments were made on time, the case would be dismissed. If there was a default, the landlady could obtain an immediate order for past due money and eviction. From CCR’s records, the future was satisfactory.