People's Court: 7-24-12

Bedbugs Bit My Baby!

I think this case is about common decency. Albelitza and Raul are suing their landlord for $5000.00 for the items they had to throw away because of bedbugs. Unfortunately, they lost because they could not prove where the bedbugs came from (an impossible task!). The landlord is suing them for 2 months rent, because they broke their lease. They had every right to leave when they did because the landlords did not follow through to exterminate their apartment for bedbugs. The exterminator was there once. They were supposed to come back and never did. When Albelitza called the landlord and asked when the exterminator would be back, she expected action. She did not expect an "I don't care" attitude. She has pictures of her 2 month old baby with bedbug bites on his thighs and face. Oh my goodness, seeing this just breaks my heart. Imagine this little baby getting bit during his sleep. They have every right to move out, to protect themselves. to protect their baby. They did everything they were told to do. If the exterminator had come back for the second treatment, there would have been a different outcome. They threw away so many of their belongings because of the bedbugs. The landlords are not held legally responsible because there is no proof the bedbugs were their fault. On the same note, Albelitza and Raul are not held legally responsible to pay the last two months rent since their apartment was not habitable. The legalities are one thing, but common decency is another. These landlords showed a complete lack of decency towards this family. They should not have had to expose their baby to the bedbugs for such an extended time period. The exterminator did not show up until 6 days after Albelitza reported the problem. After the initial visit, the exterminator never came back. This family should have received better treatment than this. I agree with their decision to move out and I am so glad they did not have to pay the remaining rent. What do you think about this situation?

Who Is Going To Pay For My Windshield?

Tamara is suing Lakisha and Rick for damage to her car. When Lakisha, Rick's mom,  was away, Rick had a party. Things got out of hand and there was fighting in the street. 5 parked cars were damaged.  Windshields were broken, the cars were dented. The police were called and the damage was documented. The next morning, Tamara discovers the damage to her car. Her windshield was broken. A neighbor told her about the party and she holds Lakisha and Rick responsible since the party was at their house. Unfortunately, the police have not identified the responsible party during their investigation. Tamara has no proof who actually broke her windshield, just the information from the neighbor. The neighbor did not even come to court to testify. She wrote a letter and did not even get it notarized. Lakisha explains why she was not at home. She was in court adopting a baby. She made it an extended stay because of her health issues. This has nothing to do with the case, but it gives insight to the character of this family. I really believe that if they thought the people at this party caused the damage, they would have stepped up. The police were called during the party and told Rick to turn down the music. There was no mention of the vandalism to the cars during this police visit. I think that Rick did not know about the damage until the next day. Lakisha did nothing wrong, she is not held responsible for the cost of the damage. She left an adult in charge while she was away. Rick was not held responsible since his only "crime" was having the party. His mother describes his punishment. He actually has been sent to live somewhere else. He is in a different school,  away from his friends and also his immediate family. This seems rather harsh. In the hallway, Tamara expresses her frustration at the system. She leaves us with these parting words, "what comes around, goes around". Rick sums it up with, "bad things happen when you do not have permission". He has definitely learned his lesson. What are your thoughts about this?

Keep It On The Down Low!

Patrick signed a lease with Drew to rent a 4 car garage. Patrick was planning to use it for an auto repair shop. Drew says this is not a commercial zone. Drew knows what Patrick is planning and tells him to keep the noise down, the gate closed and not let the township in. What on earth! What are these two men planning? It probably is good that the deal fell apart when it did. Things could have gotten so much worse. Patrick was supposed to take possession of the space on May 15th. Unfortunately or fortunately, the electric service was not hooked up and there was no bathroom. The bathroom was promised verbally, why wasn't it in the signed written contract? Patrick sent Drew a letter asking for his money back. Another glitch occurs, Patrick only asks for half of his money. He asks for the security deposit and not the first month's rent. Drew sends him a check for the amount he requested, which was only half of the original deposit of $3200.00. Why not just return all of his money? Drew says he is giving him back what he asked for. I am reminded of children on a playground, listening to the two of them talk! Drew has to return the rest of the money, after all the court cannot be expected to enforce an illegal rental. It would be like enforcing the payment of a cocaine purchase. I love when the Judge uses this as an example! After all, we all know if we do not pay for our illegal drugs, we are not going to sue over it!  I think the best part of this entire case is when  Patrick's wife talks in the hallway. She says that she will take care of everything in the future! On a positive note, Drew is pursuing getting the zoning changed. Hopefully, he will be successful and rent his garage legally! What do you think?

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.

Stop thinking of what could go wrong and start thinking of what could go right.

-Unknown