> And my point is that the unlawful eviction of somebody, even with punitive damages, shouldn't rise to even the same order of magnitude of 400k
Why not?
> That's enough to buy a new house in much of the rest of the country.
So what? What does the rest of the country have to do with it? The rest of the country isn't where the wrongful deprivation occurred.
> The punitive damages should be something to do with the total lawyer fees in the case
Lawyers fees and court costs are often awarded in addition to any actual and/or punitive damages awards, and are, like actual damages, compensatory rather than punitive.
> as well as the expenses to move
Again, that's compensatory rather than punitive damages, and it's what's required when landlords comply with the notice and other restrictions applicable to OMI evictions.
> as well as a deterrent amount.
Actually, that's the only part that is punitive in nature.
You've basically identified the relocation payment they would have had to make if they complied with OMI rules, punitive damages, and fees and costs, but not any compensation for harms due to the failure to observe the procedural (notice/timing) requirements of Omi rules or for not paying when due.
Now on top of what all that would have been in the case of a trial, add in the value to the defendant of not admitting wrongdoing, and avoiding the costs (including time costs and stress) of litigation, and you've got a reasonable upper bound on a settlement.
> NOT the ability to buy an entire new house, or an amount which might reasonably requiring the person being sued to sell the house.
Well, it's clearly not enough to buy an entire new house in the area in question, so that's irrelevant. And I hardly see how the latter standard is justified, since that's dependent wholly on the defendants financial state. You certainly haven't established that the actual number here doesn't fit even your initial description of the elements that would make a reasonable amount.