Agreed. I like the "tomato tomato" comparison.
The real difference is in the proofs and the burden of proof. We will not deny that we did not pay nor are we in a position to. We will attempt to prove interference, which should be easy. But there is always a chance that we will fail - then we loose. If we prove that then Diac will most likely counter with a valid interest in property to which he holds a mortgage. Something similar to a bank arguing that stopping you from burning down your house (diminishing the material value of the property) is not really tortuous interference with your property. If he proves that, we are again, screwed. It really can go either way. The real question then comes down to our ability to cure, to pay what we owe. We will argue T-Mobile (again, why I want the state court to be the trustee for proceedings from the T-Mobile settlement if it happens, even if it is not going to happen in the next month). He will argue "too late, had your chance, you blew it".
I respect your opinion and I see its validity but my training tells me that there is always more than one side to an argument and you better be prepared to defend against foreseeable contingencies.
