Aka “summary judgement”, where the judge assumes everything side A alleges is true, and evaluates if there is even a justiciable claim. If there isn’t, the judge grants summary judgement to side B.
The thing is, law is complex, overlapping, and often unintuitive. Especially property law. Although a non lawyer might think a claim is stupid or ridiculous, the law itself might not see it that way.
This is one of those times. I believe we have the right outcome here and it’s a great day, but usually when non lawyers think a case is legally obvious, they are wrong.
The case may be morally obvious—as here—but law and morality are different things. And just because the law ought to be obvious—again, as here—doesn’t mean it is obvious.
