You Kept Me Out Of Jail - But I Don't Want To Pay You Too Much!
Nicholas is suing John for $850.00. Nicholas was arrested for the possession of heroin and the intent to deliver. John is an attorney recommended to Nicholas by his girlfriend. Nicholas explains that John agreed to represent him for $500.00. John did not have Nicholas sign a retainer agreement. At this point, it is one person's word against the other. Nicholas signed over his bond to John as payment. When Nicholas received his bond back, he would turn it over to John, minus the fees. This would be $1350.00. Nicholas explains that John said he would give him money back from the bond, since he was only charging him $500.00. John denies this. John explains that he went to court with Nicholas 7 times.The first 2 times they went to court, Nicholas was stoned, so John rescheduled the case. He said he told Nicholas he was facing probation or up to 3-7 years in prison. He was going to try to get him in drug school, this did not happen. He would get him supervision, this did not happen. He would get him expungable probation, this did not happen. Nicholas was not happy with his representation. John did get the sentence reduced to probation after a series of court appearances. In order to receive this, Nicholas had to take a plea. John explains it was not an expungable probation because the arrest was an undercover operation. Nicholas seems very upset over the fact he did not receive expungable probation. He is lucky he did not go to prison for this. The problem with the question of the amount of the attorney's fee rests on the lack of a retainer agreement. The reason to have a retainer agreement is so both sides know exactly what to expect. Because John did not provide this to his client, Nicholas wins this case. An attorney cannot keep changing the fee as the case progresses. This is not fair to the client. John says he is too busy to provide the paperwork to his clients. Is he too busy to be taken to court because of payment issues? Was Nicholas unreasonable thinking an attorney would go to court for him 7 times for $500.00? Both parties would have been better off if they were in agreement regarding the payment. Why do people create problems for themselves? What do you think?
I Need My Transmission Rebuilt Every Year!
Susan is suing Vasile for $2300.00. Vasile owns an auto body shop. In 2009, Susan took her car to Vasile's shop and had the transmission rebuilt in her 1998 BMW 740i. Right before the one year warranty expired, she took the car back and had the transmission rebuilt again. Now, it is 2011 and Susan's car is having problems again with the transmission. The mechanic that usually works on her car does not work for Vasile anymore. Does Susan take her car to Vasile's shop where she has the warranty? No, she finds where the mechanic is working and takes her car to him. She wants this mechanic to honor the warranty from Vasile's shop. When Vasile does not provide information about the specifics of the warranty, Susan sues Vasile. This does not make any sense. If she took the car to Vasile, he would have fixed the car, since it was still under the warranty. Susan does not win her case because the warranty is valid only if she brought the car back to Vasile. Why didn't she take the car to Vasile? Why does Susan need to have the transmission rebuilt every year? Why did Susan think Vasile would have to pay for another rebuilt transmission? What is going on?
I Do Not Want To Pay The Rent!
Albert is suing Jim for $2701.00. This is for back rent. Jim is counterclaiming for $3000.00 because he claims mold in the apartment and the basement made him sick. Albert rented an apartment to Jim and his girlfriend. Jim did not pay rent for part of February, all of March and April. Jim says the reason he did not pay rent is because there was so much mold in the apartment, he suffered from health issues. The bathroom does not have a ventilation fan and this caused a very humid environment. Jim shows pictures of the bathroom and there is mold growth visible. Albert says that Jim made him aware of the problem and he tried to take care of it. Albert hired a mold remediation company. The company tried twice to evaluate the problem. Jim would not let them in. Jim explains that when Albert would call the night before and tell him the company would be there the next day, it was not enough time. If Jim was so worried about the mold he would have accommodated the mold remediation company. Also, why would Jim continue to live there? If the mold was making him sick, why not look for another place to live? Jim claims he could not find anywhere else to live. I am sure there are other apartments in the area if the conditions were so bad. The Judge finds that Jim does owe back rent. There is a discrepancy over $800.00, given as a security deposit. Albert cannot prove that it was not rolled over to the new lease. Becasuse of this, Albert is awarded $1726.00, instead of the $2701.00, he is asking for. Jim does not get anything on his counterclaim. He made no attempt to let Albert fix the mold problem. Why do some people think they deserve a free ride? Jim and his girlfriend rented an apartment, they were responsible to pay the rent. They were responsible to let Albert try to fix a problem. It is a waste of everyone's time when people do not abide by their commitment. What is gained by forcing a landlord to go to court to get the rent? What is gained by not letting the landlord fix a problem? What do you think?
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.
To the world, you are just one person. To your dog, you are the world.
-reader submission from a bumper sticker
No comments:
Post a Comment