Saturday, June 30, 2012

People's Court: 6-29-12: Resolutions

When we are spending our hard earned money, we expect to receive value for it. When the service or product is not satisfactory, we feel we should not have to pay for it. Sometimes, you need to pay for part of the service received and renegotiate the rest of the payment. When this is not a  possibility, court is available to resolve the issue.

A couple is being sued for the balance owed for the limo that was rented for their wedding day. The driver arrived late and upset the entire day's schedule.  The bride and her bridal party were almost 30 minutes late to the church and the rest of the day's events were not on schedule. They are not looking for a free ride (see what I did there!). They are willing to pay for the rental, but not give the driver a tip. They feel a tip is for good service and this was not received. When the driver was running late she did call a cell phone number for the bride but did not call the very prominent pick-up number on the contract. When she realized she was lost she should have done everything possible to minimize the problem. At the end of the day, when the balance was due, they did not want to give the driver the tip. The driver would not leave without the check and since the tip was part of the payment, they gave the entire amount. The next day, they called and tried to reason with the owner of the limo company. Getting nowhere, they cancelled payment on the check. The Judge finds they did not receive good service and should not have to pay the tip. What bothers me about this situation is the attitude of the owner of the company. This is the most important day of someone's life. So much planning is involved and his driver did not even know how to get to the bride's house or to the church. The owner did not seem to care, the driver was not available in court to answer questions. Even the most well planned events can have glitches. Sometimes, the mishaps define the day, other times they are just bumps along the way and the day is still enjoyed. For Maureen's wedding, the late limo was a glitch. Hopefully, the day itself will live on in everyone's memory without the late limo being the defining moment. 

Hector has a diningroom set that is very meaningful to him. He received it from his grandmother. It is very very old and he hires Barry to restore it. The work is substandard and Hector wants his money back. It does appear that this is not Barry's best work. There are actually two chairs to look at. It is obvious the chair restored by Barry is not done as well as the chair finished by Frankie. Having the chairs to compare was a great idea. The Judge is able to see details that may not be clear in a picture. Hector does not get all of the money back. Some of the work done did not have to be redone. He gets back part of the money. This is only right. When someone does work they should get paid for it. When you hire someone for a job, you should be satisfied with the work or services provided.

Would you drive two and a half hours one way with a coworker and work all day for free? This is what Domenic would like us to believe. He does not want to pay Michael for work done on his cabin. The problem here is that no one put anything in writing. Michael thought he was going to be paid and Domenic thought he was getting free labor. What did they talk about in the car on the way to the cabin? Why are we so hesitant to put agreements in writing when we are dealing with friends and co-workers? Why do situations escalate to cause a $5000.00 harassment countersuit? After both parties explain what occurred, Michael is awarded half of what he was suing for. Even though he calculated he was owed $1000.00 for his work, he will only get half. These two men work together and hopefully this resolution will make it less awkward for them.

Please let me know what you think.
 Thank you for joining me today!

Remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings!

There are no mistakes in life, only lessons. - a Teacher

Friday, June 29, 2012

People's Court: 6-28-12: Honesty is the Best Policy

Being truthful seems to be a lost art. Remember when our word was our bond, an agreement was sealed with a handshake? Those days are over. Embellishing, exaggerating or outright lying is so common today. Honesty is the best policy, especially in court.

A couple rents a luxury condo for $6000.00 a month. Soon after they move in, the windows leak whenever it rains. They let the landlord know and when the repairs are not done, they decide to pay less rent. The landlord is aware of the problem, she experienced it when she lived there and did contact the builder to say it was happening again. Why wasn't it fixed? This is not made clear. What is made clear is that for 4 months the tenants keep back rent each month. They explain they decided on the amount by calculating how much of the apartment was not habitable. They have a floor plan of the apartment, no pictures of the actual problem. There were pictures taken by the super of the building after the fact. The Judge decides they have exaggerated the situation and decides they do not get back the full security deposit. Also, it is not a good idea to withhold rent without documentation. Clearly stating a problem and proving it has occurred is the best idea when you have to prove it in court.

Best friends for 39 years. Alysa and Lisa have been friends since kindergarten. What a shame it has fallen apart over $1500.00. When Alysa is arrested for violating an order of protection, she calls her best friend to bail her out. She lets Lisa know where to find the money. She even tells her to take some extra for herself. For some reason, when the bail is returned to Lisa, she keeps it. Lisa is not straightforward with the court or with her former friend. First she denies receiving the money, then she says he mother signed and deposited the checks without her knowledge. Another story is that she was supposed to keep it. Why would Alyssa ask for it back if she had told her to keep it? It was not her money to keep. When the checks were sent to her, she should have called her friend. She needs to pay it back. Unfortunately, the damage is done and the friendship is over. Lisa's son has been involved and they are not going to forgive Alyssa for her bad behavior. In the hallway, Lisa's parting words are, "good riddance". So, so sad.

Justin and Brian thought is would be a good idea to trade vehicles without the proper paperwork. Both men had their vehicles posted on Craigslist to sell. They met and decided to make an even trade. Justin did not have a clear title to his vehicle and Brian could not find the title. This should have raised numerous red flags. But the two men forged ahead. Speaking of forging... Justin  provides a work order from his job for repairs needed. He works at this fine establishment and explains he is providing the labor. He has paid half of the $4475.04 and is making payments to his boss to pay off the rest. Brian explains that the car he received from Justin, cannot be put on the road since the title is not clear and it needs major repairs. The Judge calls a recess and when she returns she is very angry. The work order provided by Justin is fabricated and he has not paid any money to his boss. It is a blatant lie. She orders the vehicles switched back. The deal has now been undone! You get the feeling Brian does not want the truck back. He delivers pizzas and does not want a gas-guzzling truck. Justin admits being a liar and should be totally embarrassed and humiliated. Why would someone do this in court on national TV? Your guess is as good as mine.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.
-Unknown Source

Remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings!

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

People's Court: 6-27-12: Lucky

An announcement - There is something new to the blog! I am asking readers to submit their favorite quotes or sayings. I am looking forward to your submissions.  Check out the end of the blog for this fun addition. Thank you for participating!

The first case is 5 years old. I guess the economy is causing people to go after old debts. If they are credible that would be okay. This case seems very far-fetched. William, a landscaper is suing a couple for the balance due on work he did years ago. There is no written contract to back up any of his claims. He brought in free fill to their property, installed an irrigation system and graded the property. He created berms and feels he made major improvements to their property. The couple sees it differently. I am surprised they did not countersue. They talk about flooding in their basement caused by his irrigation pipe, unclean fill used on their property and the dirt left in piles. They had to pay to have work done to correct the mess he created. He does not win the case and claims he did not even get a chance to tell the entire story. Many people will say this in the hallway. I always wonder why they do not lead with the information they feel would have been essential. This contractor needs to stay on top of his business. He should follow-up in a more timely manner. He should also keep better records in case he needs to take someone to court.

Hurricane Irene strikes again. So many cases are in court because of the damage caused during this hurricane. In this particular case an ice cream freezer was damaged from the flooding in a pizza parlor. Ryan is suing for $500.00, the cost of the freezer. When he removed the damaged freezer he had the store owner sign a promissory note. This should have been enough to get his money. The store owner signed it because he thought his insurance company was going to cover the damages caused by the storm. When the insurance money did not come through, the store owner refused to pay. Is he responsible? In this situation there is a contract. The specifics of the contract state that the store owner is responsible for the cost of the freezer in case of fire, theft or vandalism. It does not mention flooding, acts of god or anything that would describe this occurrence. The store owner is not held responsible for the money, even though he signed the note.  It is a good idea to read and understand anything you are going to sign. In most cases, you will be held to what you sign. This is a very unique situation. The store owner is very lucky.

Two business women hire someone to design a website for them. They do not have a written contract. They are able to show e-mails detailing their progress or lack of. It is helpful for them that they have this information in writing. They discuss deadlines that are not met and specifics they want in the website. When they hired Benite to build the website, they did not know they were not going to own the domain name. They did not understand they were going to have to pay an annual fee to her for the website. Benite explains that this is how a web designer does business and it makes sense. Someone has to pay for the website. Since the two women did not have a clear understanding of the agreement, they were able to get their money back. They were also able to get back the money they spent on promotional materials. It is unfortunate that Benite does not offer a written contract with all of this information. She showed the website she designed for the business and it was really nice. She seems to be good at what she does and should not have to mislead people in order to get customers.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.
Submit your favorite quotes or sayings and I will include them at the end of the blog.


Nothing messes up your Saturday like realizing it is Wednesday.
- reader submission
Thanks to RedShoesRock





People's Court: 6-26-12: Protect Yourself

We should be able to count on the people in our lives. Whether they are friends, family or strangers we make agreements with, we should be able to feel secure. This is not always the case and we find ourselves going to court.

This is what happened with Gabby. She is a young woman suing her boyfriend, Keith. They were dating for a short time when Keith needed money to fix his car. Gabby lent him the money and they agreed upon a date for him to return the money to her. He tells the story a little differently. He does not remember that he had agreed to pay it back and says he was going to give her some money here and there to help her out. What does this even mean? It seems that he is making it up as he goes along. Did she give him the money by check and write loan on the memo line? No, that would make it way too easy. She did text him about the money, this could help her. Unfortunately, she does not have that cell phone anymore. Keith has the text messages and offers them to the Judge. They do not help him. The text messages reference the agreed upon date for returning the money. Also, Gabby has called his ex-girlfriend and Keith feels this is harassment. It is annoying, but is not harassment. He has countersued for harassment and cannot prove it. He gets nothing and is liable for the money he borrowed. A loan does not turn into a gift because a couple breaks up. Couples need to be careful when they lend each other money and put everything in writing to protect themselves.

Elyse has agreed to rent an apartment. She gives a security deposit, signs a lease agreement and is due to move in on December 15th. On December 13th she finds out the city inspection did not pass. There is a discrepancy regarding the reinspection date, is it going to be done in time for Elyse to move in?  Elyse leaves a message for the landlord and does not hear back. She believes she will not be able to move in on December 15th  and wants her money back. She sends a certified letter to the landlord explaining that she cannot move into an apartment that has failed inspection and wants her money back. The landlord still does not respond. Now they can communicate in court. The landlord failed to send Elyse a certified letter explaining why she was keeping her security deposit. Failure to communicate has become very expensive for the landlord. By law, she is responsible to pay back double the security deposit. People need to learn the law to protect themselves. 

Lula hires a contractor to fix a leaky roof. She just wants it patched. He explains to her that a patch job is not guaranteed. After he does the work, she continues to have leaks. Even though it is not guaranteed, he does go back a few times to try to fix it again. When snow and ice accumulate on the roof, Lula will not pay to have it removed. They explain to her this will be harmful to the roof. She does not change her mind. The contractor has also explained to her that the gutters are a problem. He is telling her a new roof and gutters are needed. She does not want to do anything more than the patch job. The problem is: none of this is in writing. The contractor does have a written agreement that states repair jobs are not guaranteed. He does not have Lula sign this. Why? He needs to have a contract for every job that he does. He needs to protect his contracting business. The good news is that without a written agreement he still wins the case. His business practices are logical and her story is not. In the hallway, Lula lets us know she has put a new roof on the house. The contractor will always make sure he has a signed contract, a very sound business practice! 

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.


All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.






Tuesday, June 26, 2012

People's Court: 6-25-12: Promises

Why do people agree to something and then back out afterwards? This seems to be very common. It is as if their word is not enough. There was a time a handshake was meaningful.

Families are very important. When two people get married it is so nice when the families mesh. This case is about a family torn apart. Traditionally, the bride's family pays for the wedding. The groom's mom paid for the rehearsal dinner and then agrees to pay for the invitations and their family's guests. She denies agreeing to these additional expenses, yet starts making payments after the wedding. After paying back $300.00 she stops making the payments. Her son does not want his new father-in-law to know this, so he continues the payments with his own money. At some point he comes clean and that is when his father-in-law decides to sue for the money. Mother and son do not have the best history. Instead of trying to repair this relationship, these actions are going to further the break. The shame of it is, they do not just make this case about the debt.  Information is brought up about the groom's childhood. This is not necessary to discuss on national TV. The mother is beside herself with emotion. This is so difficult for her. She feels she will never see her grandchildren since her and her son are not talking. She is found liable to pay the balance of what she owes. It is a shame that a family falls apart over $1600.00. I hope this family can get professional counseling and all get along. Do it for the sake of the grandchildren!

A woman lends her ex-boyfriend her car and he gets a parking ticket. Why would she lend her car to someone who has not talked to her for over a month? He calls her out of the blue and tells her a sob story. She falls for it and lends him her car. She has also given him a bus pass to sell. He claims this is a scam but can not prove it. He admits owing her the $20.00 for the bus pass, yet denies that he used her car. He is so unbelievable. He does have to pay her back for the parking ticket, the late fees associated with it and the money for the bus pass. More importantly, this woman needs to stop letting people take advantage of her. She did not hear from this man for over a month and then she lends him her car. He insults her by denying he was ever her boyfriend and describes their relationship as friends with benefits. She needs to protect herself from people like this. Never lend your car to anyone, the consequences can be so much more than parking tickets!

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.


Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.




Friday, June 22, 2012

People's Court: 6-22-12: True Colors

Everyday brings new experiences for us. When we pay attention, we learn. Being aware of what is around us and embracing this knowledge will keep us informed and safe. 

This case is really about the lack of good judgement. A contractor feels he is being challenged and he acts out. He could have taken the high road and taken his client to court. Instead, he got angry and removed the storm doors from the property. One door had already been installed. There was a physical altercation between the two men, the story of the fight  is not clear. Even though there are two different stories, we know there was a physical fight and the truth is somewhere in between. These two men completely lost all of the common sense they might have had. At the first sign of violence, the police should have been called. Instead, the homeowner was concerned with what the neighbors would think. Who cares? Our well-being is more important than what others would think. This man described a running drill being held to his head. He keeps saying how he needed the job done because he was going away on a trip in ten days. Why would he put his safety aside because of an upcoming trip? What motivates him? Finally, the homeowner calls the police, by the time they arrive, the contractor has left. He does get arrested and spends the night in jail. This might have been the best thing to have happened to him. He needed to know there were consequences to his behavior. In the hallway, he is not happy with the decision, but he does appear subdued. Hopefully, he will learn from this and in the future not take matters into his own hands.

A contract is signed to purchase a hot dog cart. The deposit is given and the balance will be paid upon delivery. The delivery of the cart is planned for December 25th. The cart is not ready by this date. The deposit should be returned. This sounds so straight forward. Why are we here? Well, the first thing I noticed was that the man selling the hot dog cart is treating this as a commercial for his business. He has even brought samples of the material used to build the carts. Is this the reason he let it get this far? Is the cart available now for delivery? Well, it would be, but it is not new anymore, he has been using it! This makes no sense, I am sure he has other carts he could have put into use. Another question: why does he bring his brother with him? He is not a witness and he acts out in court, is thrown out and is completely disrespectful to the Judge. In the hallway, the hot dog cart builder show his true colors, he insults the Judge. If he thought appearing on this show would bring him business, he should have acted much much more professional!

A woman signs a lease for an apartment. She gives the deposit and hopes to move in by a certain date. The landlord continues to delay saying the apartment is not ready. She seems to be very patient, waiting months. Finally, she has had enough and asks for her money back. At first the landlord agrees to give her back whatever she gave him. This is in a text the woman provides to the court. The landlord flounders and says he would give her something back but has not decided how much that would be. He can not come up with a good reason why he is holding onto her money. Of course she deserves her money back. She even is awarded pre-judgement interest! When the landlord leaves the courtroom, he says the outcome is crazy. It is not crazy, it is fair and just.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.


Happiness is not a goal; it is a by-product.
Eleanor Roosevelt

Thursday, June 21, 2012

People's Court: 6-21-12: Impressive

Documentation and evidence are so important.  For all situations we want to prove there needs to be evidence. Without paperwork, it is difficult to win a case. Being truthful and sincere is very much an asset when the evidence does not exist.

In this case a woman sues the cleaners. She is suing for a very large amount of money, $2,000.00. She values 5 bathmat sets, 22 pieces in all, at this price. No one is questioning what was brought in. Unfortunately, someone took the bag she dropped off. The representative for the store does not dispute they are at fault for the missing bag of laundry. what he does point out is the disclaimer on the back of the ticket. This limits the cleaner's responsibility to $75.00. If the woman waits for the Judge's decision she will receive $75.00. The cleaners offers her $250.00. She takes it, but is not happy. She says she will never go back to that cleaners. I was very impressed that the cleaners stepped up and gave her such a generous offer.

A former tenant is being sued for back rent. She has countersued for her security deposit and pain and suffering. She comes to court with proof that the landlord was cited by the city for housing violations. Since she has brought this to the attention of the court, the amount she owes is reduced and then reduced further since she should have gotten her security deposit back. She does not get any money for pain and suffering. This shows how important evidence is. Many people will not bring the proof with them. I was impressed with the tenants that they took the time to prepare for court.

This last case involves no evidence at all. A couple sells a car on Craigslist. The buyer and seller do not even agree on the amount of the sale. The buyer states he paid the full amount, the seller says he still owes $1,000.00. There is no bill of sale. The title is not signed over. Since the car remains in the name of the seller, they receive a call from the police that the car has been abandoned. They retrieve the car and resell it. The buyer wants his money back. He says he never used the car, it was parked on the road in front of his house for 2 months. This is very unbelievable. Since the sellers are sincere, even without paperwork they prove their case and are not responsible to return the money to the buyer. This is why it is important to tell the truth. I was impressed with the sellers, even though they lacked the needed paperwork they were able to win.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

 "If a man does his best, what else is there?"

- General George S. Patton (1885-1945)


People's Court: 6-20-12: Family, Friends, Strangers

Welcome to Summer 2012! 
Everyone has so much to deal with. The last thing we want to think about is being taken advantage of. Whether it is by family, friends or strangers. Why should we allow ourselves to treated poorly by others?

This landlord/tenant case is a good illustration of people treating each other poorly. These two women do not get along. The day to day problems are so toxic that they really need to separate from each other. The landlord needs to pursue an eviction of this particular tenant. She feels that illegal activity is occurring in the apartment. The reason for the suit is because of a flood. The landlord is accusing the tenant of leaving the water running in the tub in the middle of the night. She claims to have proof but does not have it with her. She is in court, this is the time to have the proof. The tenant is countersuing for harassment. Again, there is no proof on her part. If she is not happy with her living arrangements, she should move out. She has pictures of the mold in her apartment. It is a very unhealthy environment and she should not have to live there. She says she has called the city and there are violations that have been cited. She should have sued based on the conditions in the apartment. This environment is toxic on many levels. When the case is over neither party gets any money. The tenant needs to realize, it will not truly be over until she moves out.

This is a case about two friends. One lends the other her credit card to buy a camera. This is a very expensive camera she is going to use to venture into a new business.  She begins to make payments. Then, the camera is stolen. Does she still owe her the money? Of course she does. But, now she calls it an investment. She cannot change the agreement after the fact. She owes the money. Is it really that easy? It should be, but now we have another problem. No one kept track of the payments or paying off the credit card. The money situation is a mess. It is left to the Judge to do " a little rough justice". The friend gets back some of the money, not everything she is asking for. The more important question is: Are they still friends? It seems like the friendship is over. What a shame when her friend was there for her when she needed help.

This is a case about a family that has lost their way. A mother and daughter that have been very close are not talking and the daughter has publicly wished death on her mother. How do things get so bad? The daughter put her mother's car in her name. The mother got several parking tickets. The car gets towed. The mother does not pay the tickets. Why? She claims her daughter owed her money from a cell phone years before.  They must have been close for the daughter to help out her mother with the car. There does not seem to be a relationship at this point. The Judge recommends that they stay away from each other or get family counseling if they want to get back together. They do not seem receptive to the idea of repairing the relationship. The daughter says her mother has nothing to do with any of her grandchildren. Such a shame. I do not think families should sue each other. There should be a way to work things out. It is always a heartbreak to see a family divided.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Anything you're good at contributes to happiness.



Wednesday, June 20, 2012

People's Court: 6-19-12: Accountability

We all need to take responsibility for our own actions. When we do something or allow something to happen, we need to step up. Of course, if someone is refusing to take ownership of their actions, it is important to be able to address the situation. The person wronged needs to be able to prove what happened. Without proof, there is no way to hold someone accountable for their actions.

This case is so complicated you need a score card to keep track.
1, A woman asks her friend's girlfriend to help her out.
2. She has lived with her previously and asks to move in again.
3.The boyfriend and his girlfriend have violated existing restraining orders.
4. The girlfriend is sent to jail because she has also violated her probation.
5. She is on probation for stabbing the boyfriend.
6. She spends several months in jail.
7. While she is in jail many people have access to her apartment.
The actual case is about the theft of her 62 inch television. She thinks the woman living with her is responsible for the theft.(see #1 and #2) Unfortunately for her, she does not have any proof. Since   so may people have been in and out of the apartment, no one knows what really happened. There is no evidence to find this woman accountable for the theft of the television. 

A woman is walking her dog on a leash. All of a sudden a larger dog runs to them and attacks the small dog. The woman gets bit trying to keep the larger dog from hurting her small dog. A neighbor tries to help, getting the large dog to let go of the smaller dog. The owner of the dog is not home, but her mother realizes the dog has gotten out and goes to see what has happened. The woman who was bit is taken to the emergency room for medical treatment. The small dog was taken to the vet and was lucky to have only superficial wounds. The owner of the larger dog states the woman was bit by her own dog. She does not think she should be responsible for the bills. Also, since her dog is a pitbull mix, she thinks that is why she is being targeted. Since her dog caused the woman to get bit, no matter which dog did it, she would be responsible. The owner of the larger dog has made no effort to find out how her dog got out of their yard. This is not responsible behavior for a dog owner. She is held accountable for the medical and vet bills.

A tow truck driver damages a car while he is delivering it. He admits the accident is his fault, he went down a one way street. For some reason he does not feel he should have to pay for it. He says his employer could have gone through the insurance company. The employer agrees this was an option, but he would have had to fire him to satisfy the insurance company. The decision made is to let the employee keep his job and to have him pay off the damages. He denies this and says he agreed to pay  only the deductible. This does not make any sense. Why would his employer pay for these damages? Why would he think he was not accountable for his actions? And to make matters worse, he quit without notice. There is no question that the tow truck driver caused the damages and is held responsible. 

It is refreshing to watch these cases and see justice served. People should not make accusations without proof, refuse to pay when their own dog causes injuries and shirk their responsibility when they admit they caused an accident. It is time that people are held accountable for their actions.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.


Believe you can and you are halfway there.  -Theodore Roosevelt



Tuesday, June 19, 2012

People's Court 6-18-12: Honesty


Some of the situations on People's Court are very complicated. The facts of the case are essential. With different stories or no proof, it makes it so much harder to find the truth. Honesty is always the best policy. When it is one person's word against another, a tape recording can be very revealing.
  • A car accident occurs. Even though the police are called, the people involved have very different stories. The one driver does not even recall the impact. He claims he did not hear anything because of the rain. When one car hits another, you can feel it. He claims the other car must have hit him, he denies hitting the other car. He also denies what he said at the scene. Enter the tape recording - this was a very good idea! We get to hear part of the conversation. Everything he denied saying, was on the tape. This is so interesting. Why lie about what was said? Does he think it will make him look guilty or stupid or both? It proves he is a liar. How can you believe anything else he says? Since his testimony is so unbelievable, the Judge finds him liable for the damages to the other car. If he would have told the truth, he could have avoided this embarrassment.
  • In the next case, a tenant moves out and wants his security deposit back. He has sent the landlord a certified letter requesting the return of his security deposit. The landlord has not responded. When the tenant researches his rights, he find out he is able to receive double his security deposit back. The landlord has not sent him an itemized statement. The landlord does not seem to know his responsibilities. There is no excuse for this. He does not have any proof of the damages he is claiming, he can not keep the security deposit. Also, since he did not provide notification to the tenant, he is required to pay him double. It is so important to know what our rights and responsibilities are. The information is only a click away.
  • This situation is very interesting. A management company sends workers into an apartment to paint. There are two workers. The tenant stays home to monitor the activity. She notices one worker walks around the apartment and does not stay in the room where the work is being done. She knows she has put her jewelry on the top of her dresser, she says she took it off because it was too hot! Even though her bedroom door is closed, it is not locked. She did not see the worker go into her bedroom, yet her jewelry is missing. There are so many things she could have done differently.  She could have put the jewelry away or back on. She could have asked him to stop wandering. She could have watched him more closely. She could have asked him to leave. She can not prove he took the jewelry. She claims people have told her this particular worker was a problem. No one has put anything in writing for her. She has no proof. The management company is not found liable for her missing jewelry.
It is important to tell the truth. It is important to know your rights. It is important to protect yourself. If all of these things are in place, the above situations might have turned out differently. Hopefully, all of us, the people involved and the people watching can learn from these experiences.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me!

Remember:
The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters.


Saturday, June 16, 2012

People's Court: 6-15-12: Being Truthful

Life can become complicated very quickly. One of the ways to simplify a crazy situation is to be truthful.

This is illustrated in the case of a man who witnessed someone falling and getting hurt. She asks him to be a witness for her in a lawsuit. He made it quite clear he would do it for compensation. He was not going to get involved out of the goodness of his heart. The woman is not clear in her story and just keeps saying he lies about everything. She is very fortunate he did not lie about her fall. His testimony enabled her to receive a $62,000 settlement. He is hearing for the first time how much money she received. He cannot believe she would not honor their agreement, considering the amount of money she received. Not only was she refusing to pay him the money to be a witness, she never thanked him for helping her receive such a huge settlement. The Judge awards him the money. I find this so interesting since there is nothing in writing and it really is about who appears truthful. Even in the hallway, the woman is still carrying on about his lies. Because this man was honest about his actions, he was able to receive compensation for his testimony. We also find out this is not illegal as long as there is full disclosure. It seems no one ever asked him if he was receiving anything for his testimony. If they asked, his testimony might not have been held in such high regard or maybe that is why there was a settlement. We will never know.

Now we have a man purchasing a used car. He is given three days to have the car checked out by the dealer. He takes it to an authorized repair shop for the type of car he purchased. They do a visual check and put it on the computer for a diagnostic test. He is provided with a list of repairs needed. The dealer honors this and refunds some of his money. A month later he takes the car back to the repair shop. He keeps saying it was a week later, since that probably sounds better. If the car had problems a week later; why did he wait and why does he think the repair shop should have been able to diagnose it earlier?. Well, it was a month later not a week, according to the receipts. The repair shop cannot be expected to diagnose a problem that had not occurred. Why does this man want to make the repair shop responsible when they are not at fault? He should be going after the dealership if they truly misrepresented the condition of the car. If he had been truthful to himself about the events, he could have sued the dealership and not wasted his time suing the wrong party.

A woman moves into Section 8 housing with her children. She claims the landlord harassed her for back rent and caused her to lose her job. The landlord admits calling her job 2 times about the rent and the noise. The tenant admits she did not pay her portion of the rent for several months. The harassment she is trying to prove does not appear truthful. She does not have hard evidence. The Judge feels the evidence provided could have been manufactured by the tenant. The landlord is entitled to the rent and is not responsible for lost wages that cannot be proven. It would have been refreshing if the tenant would have been truthful about the circumstances. None of the facts back up her story. In the hallway, the landlord states that it was like having a racetrack above her. They must have been very noisy!

Please let me know what you think about these cases. Thank you for joining me today.

Remember:
“For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.” 


Friday, June 15, 2012

People's Court: 6-14-12: Lessons to Learn

People need to be able to use common sense in their interactions with others. When this fails, thank goodness for small claims court. We can learn from these experiences.


A father tries to help his son by letting him move back in. The son rents a storage unit for his belongings. He does not make his payments and the father pays the back fees. Now it is up to the son to maintain his payments. He does not. He is a 34 years old  and irresponsible. He does work but does not help with any of the bills. He ignores the e-mail notifications from the storage unit company. Unfortunately, they do not send him a certified notification. This is required by the rules of the industry. The items in the storage unit are thrown out. The owner of the company understands now that this was not a very responsible way to do business. The father also understands that he is enabling his son to be irresponsible. The Judge tries to explain to him that it is time to let his son stand on his own two feet. Let us hope that the money they won from the case goes into a bank account for the son to use when he finally moves out into his own place.

A woman rents an apartment. She finds out after 2 months she needs to move out due to a family emergency. She thinks this is reason not to give notice. It does not work this way. When the landlord lets her know she is not going to get her security deposit back, the tenant returns to the apartment, puts the heat on high and opens all of the windows. Now we find out it was an illegal apartment - who saw this coming? - the Judge cannot award rent money to the landlord. She can award the cost to fix the boiler and because these actions were seen as malicious, she awards punitive damages. The tenant does not get any money back.

A man wants to get his 1976 Buick restored. He takes it to a shop on the recommendation of his brother. The owner is a longtime friend of his. After taking the car and discussing what he wants, he leaves the car and after that no one seems to be on the same page. Their stories are so different, you wonder if they were even in the same room with each other. Written contracts are so important. Receipt for monies given are so important. A contract does not exist if there is not a meeting of the minds, written or verbal. At the end of the case the man does get his money back. His brother, who was in court with him, lets us know this incident is not going to ruin the friendship he has maintained for years. This is always good to hear.


These situations should be able to be resolved and not ruin years of friendship. Unfortunately, in so many cases it does not appear to end this way.


Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you for joining me today.


Remember:
 I believe that love and laughter can only happen when one person takes the time to think about what would cause the other person to feel good.



Thursday, June 14, 2012

People's Court: 6-13-12: Denial

People are very good at denial in the face of the truth. How is it that it is so easy to deny? Telling the truth is the right thing to do. 

The first case is about 2 friends. He is helping his friend fix her motorcycle. She does not let him know the tags are expired and the bike is not insured. He brings the bike from one location to another. After installing a new battery he takes it for a test ride. He said he is moving it around the house. Yet he is on the road when he crashes into the back of a car. He admits the accident is his fault, although he says the bike malfunctioned. He did pay for the damage to the car, but feels she is asking too much for the repairs. They were not able to negotiate the amount on their own, so they find themselves in court. I do not understand why she did not get a proper estimate for the repairs. She provides a receipt for replacement parts. She is awarded part of the money she is asking for. The bigger question is: are they going to remain friends? They have been friends since childhood and it would seem a shame for that to disappear over this incident. The hallway conversation does not give any specific insight into the friendship question. They both seem like they do not care about holding onto the friendship. How sad!

The second case is about a moving company that damages the pedestal to a table. Although they fix it, the owner does not feel it is fixed properly and it will be unsafe to use. After all, he has grandchildren! The owner of the company feels the signed contract absolves him of responsibility. He was being a "good guy" and repaired it, even though he says legally he did not have to. The Judge points out the incorrect and unclear language in the contract. Also, the clients are not signing in the correct places. He is responsible, although not the entire amount that is being asked for. The owner of the table needs to understand he does not receive replacement value, he receives the depreciated value. The Judge lets him know it is the amount the table would sell for at a garage sale. He is not happy at all!

The third case involves an illegal apartment. The owner of the house purchased the house with an existing tenant. He claims he had no idea that it was an illegal apartment. He then builds an additional apartment without permits. Now he would seem to be very aware that the apartments are not legal. One of the tenants starts a fire, fire department comes out, lets everyone know the illegal status of the apartments. What I find so interesting is that the landlord returned the security deposit to the tenant that started the fire and was not returning it to the other tenant. Well, she gets the money she is asking for.
The landlord now has to admit he knows the apartments are illegal and will go through the proper channels.

Please let me know what you think of these situations. Thank you for joining me today.

Remember: Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be.  
-Abraham Lincoln

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

People's Court:6-12-12: Telling the Truth

The situations we find ourselves in can be very challenging. Going to court to right a wrong is a good idea when you are telling the truth. Holding onto the lie can make you look, well...ridiculous.

Let us look at a rental situation. I wonder who is lying when both the landlord and the tenant claim that the other came onto them. It seems a little suspicious on the part of the landlord that he let the young woman move in without paying first and last month's rent and a security deposit. Any landlord is going to have to wonder where the future rent is coming from when the person has no money to put down. Or, was he looking for something else? The tenant claims the landlord walked in on her while she was sleeping. Did she call the police? No, she did not. Again, you have to wonder why? The underlying story is so full of inconsistencies. The legal issue is that she owes the rent. The moral issue is that this whole situation was far more involved than just business. When the lines get blurred, it it time to get help. 

A young woman graduates and goes out to celebrate with her family and friends. Her car gets towed. She is claiming the tow company damaged her brakes by not completely releasing the emergency brake. She has evidence to back this up and wins the case. The bigger issue here is how the tow companies operate. The spotter saw the young woman in her cap and gown and the Judge wonders why he didn't let her know her car was going to be towed. Do they have a moral obligation to let someone know their car is going to be towed? No, they have families to feed. They are doing a job and to give people a heads up is to take money out of their own pocket. The Judge says that the only people that are hated worse than lawyers are tow companies. She is glad to have them in her courtroom! I give the young woman credit for having the evidence to back up her claim. I give the tow personnel credit for being honest. He did say that they will not charge if they tow a car from a handicapped parking spot and the person is truly handicapped and just forgot to hang the placard. This is very nice to hear and does restore my faith in people.

And now a real shame... A 35 year friendship destroyed by $1500.00. Neither of them seem upset by this, so it makes you wonder how good was the friendship. A friend lends another money. It is to be paid back in one week. When he goes to collect, his friend does not answer his calls. Finally, he receives a check that has insufficient funds. The friend sending the check claims he is returning a finder's fee for a job and not paying back the loan, that it was never a loan. Once again, I stress the importance of getting agreements in writing. The initial loan should have been a check with the word loan written on the memo line. The Judge reminds everyone the memo line on the check is very important. 

Please let me know what you think of these situations. Thank you for joining me today.

Remember: Joy is what happens to us when we allow ourselves to recognize how good things really are.

- Marianne Williamson

Monday, June 11, 2012

People's Court: 6-11-12: Voodoo Curse

Another exciting day on People's Court. Three new cases today. Let's get started...

A woman wants a granite countertop in her kitchen. The store she goes to sends a subcontractor to her house to measure. She gives him a check and cash. Not only does she not get a receipt for the payment, she does not fill out the check. She leaves it blank instead of writing the name of the store. Of course, the subcontractor happens to be a thief. He deposits the check and takes the cash. The store owner thinks she is dealing directly with the sub and cutting him out of the picture. When she tries to get her money back, the store owner realizes what has happened and is able to get some of the money back from the sub. He is responsible to pay her the rest of the money. Now he can go after the sub if he chooses to. The woman does realize that she made a mistake, the way she wrote the check, giving the cash and not getting a receipt. She does not think threatening a voodoo curse was a mistake!

The second case involves family. A brother suing his brother. It is a shame to watch a family fall apart right in front of you. The Judge wonders whether the one brother is clueless or evil. She quickly finds out as the brother tells one lie after another. He let his brother sublet his rent controlled apartment when there was a balance due. He collected rent from his brother and pocketed it. He lied about receiving money even though he signed a receipt. He illegally locked his brother out of the apartment. The brother that was taken advantage of won the case and seemed like a really nice guy. There was mention of a sister. She was not in the courtroom. This seems to be common when family members do not want to be caught in the middle. The consensus is that the brother is evil!

The last case is a traffic accident. The young man that caused the accident admits it in court. On his written response to the complaint, he stated he was not at fault. The truth comes out, he admits he is responsible but feels the estimate is too high. He actually obtained two estimates from pictures of the damage to the other vehicle. This does benefit him, since the Judge takes this into consideration. It was very impressive for this young man to get the estimates. 

People do constantly amaze. Sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way. The important thing is to always think about what you are doing. Do not let people take advantage of you.

Please let me know what you think of these situations. Thank you for joining me today.

Remember:
They can't hurt you unless you let them. - Anonymous

Saturday, June 9, 2012

People's Court: 6-8-12: Contracts

More stories today that make you say - Really!!!!. A woman is buying a car from a family friend. He claims he tries to talk her out of it, yet he still sells it to her. They have a very detailed contract of sale. He retains possession of the car, while she is making payments. She wants to "borrow" it for the weekend, but has no intention of returning it in a timely manner. This does not go well and becomes the beginning of the end... Then she claims that he wanted to trade sexual favors for the car. He denies this also. The contract they have agreed to is binding. Why do they think they can change it now? 

Next there is a lawyer who does not provide a retainer agreement to a client. He tries to bill her for many hours of telephone calls. It seems she was picking his brains so she could file paperwork on her own. They both were wrong and seem to deserve each other. This man should know better since he is an attorney. Why would he do business this way?

The last case seems to be such a waste of everyone's time. A recently purchased used vehicle breaks down. It is still under the warranty. When the young man calls the dealer, he is told they do not pay for nor provide tow service. Why would be wrong in recommending a tow company? What has happened to common courtesy?

Please let me know what you think about these situations.
Thank you for joining me today.

Remember:
Laugh when you can,
apologize when you should,
and let go of what you can't change.
Life's too short to be anything... but happy.
- Anonymous

Friday, June 8, 2012

People's Court: 6-7-12: Consequences

People do not seem to realize their actions have consequences. A landlord moves around a tenant's belongings. Things are broken and missing. She is responsible since she had no right to touch anything. They have a contract and she does not abide by it. She does not seem to understand that she had no right to be so involved in her tenant's living situation. I felt terrible for the tenant, he was in school and was constantly having his life disrupted.

A man buys a car for the mother of his child. Several years later she takes him to court for child support. It is awarded along with back support. He takes the car back. He is angry that she took him to court and does not admit that is the reason he took back the car. It is very apparent from the timing that he was being spiteful. It is a shame that these people do not get along. They are raising a child together. 

A woman hires a contractor to replace the roof of her garage. She is very happy with the work. He returns some of the materials to Home Depot. For some reason, the store gives her the receipts. She has no right to the extra materials or to the money. The contract she signed was for a set amount, including materials and labor. He did the job and that should have been the end of it. She did not even pay him the full amount. He did not file a countersuit, why? His explanation is lack of time. I think he should still file a countersuit, he did the work and is entitled to the money.

When striking a deal with someone, a written contract is very important. People need to understand what they are getting and what they are providing. Please let me know what you think.

Remember: Today is the first day of the rest of your life!

Thursday, June 7, 2012

People's Court: 6-6-12: Why?

Are people ever going to take responsibility for their own actions?

A woman lends her boyfriend money over and over again. He promises to pay her back and does not. Yet, she still keeps lending him money. Does she deserve to get the money back?
When are people going to learn from their mistakes?
Also, why would he buy a car and put her name on it? None of this makes sense. When they break up, she takes the car because she has the legal right to do it. She trades it in. He does not get anything back, he wanted the deposit he put on the car, He does have to pay back some of the money he borrowed since he admitted to it. These situations get very messy in a relationship. People have to be very careful to understand whether it is a gift or a loan. Remember to also get it in writing.

Then we have a man riding motorcycles with friends through a free range town. A horse runs into him and injures him. The police reports appear to support this theory even though the horse owner says he was speeding and he hit and injured the horse. The horse did need to be seen by a vet. The owner of the horse admits the horse broke out. He has fixed the fence and the gate since the incident. It seems fairly straightforward. For some reason, the owner of the horse keeps saying they were riding Harleys and the injured man says it was a Honda. Why would the type of bike matter? 

A young man moves out of his apartment claiming it was uninhabitable. He did not give notice and does not want to pay what is due. He can not prove that he notified the landlord about any problems. It is very important that all communication with landlords are documented. They need to be given the chance to fix a problem. Why wouldn't he just send an e-mail?
These cases seem to raise even more questions about how people behave.
Please let me know what you think. Thank you.
Remember: Life is good.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

People's Court 6-5-12: Proof Positive

What have we learned today on People's Court? A few friends are out drinking. A young woman's purse disappears. She is very fortunate that the surveillance tapes show someone picking up the purse and putting it under his jacket. Even with photos with this evidence, the young man who has been identified, claims it was an innocent mistake. He was getting the purse for one of his friends. Why didn't she say it was not hers? Why, when he was arrested, he did not ask his friend for the purse back? He could not answer these questions. Also, he said he was guilty when he was arrested. An innocent person does not plead guilty. Much credit is to be given to the boyfriend. He did his research and found this person on Facebook. The young woman did not get her purse back, but did get reimbursed for the cost and everything in it since she had receipts. It is very important in court to have proof.

The second case is about a woman taking a job as a verification specialist. We learn this is to check properties to see if they are vacant. The pay is based on volume. She was not effective in the job according to the employer, so they stopped giving her work. They did owe her money, but not the amount she was asking for. She wanted them to pay for her car, cell phone, cell phone plan and a gps. She claimed she would not have made these purchases if she did not take the job. The employer never said they would reimburse her for these items. She did get paid for the work she completed. In the hallway, she says it was a good job, but did not pay enough. She knew the pay when she took the job!

The last case was sad. A dad suing his ex for overpaid child support. He found out his daughter was not going back to school and had moved into her own apartment. He checked if this was grounds to terminate support and found out it was. He went to court to have the child support order changed. It was granted and backdated to when the young woman moved out on her own. The interesting aspect of this is that the ex did not feel she had to pay the money back since she turned it over to her daughter. The daughter's parting words was that she should not have to pay it back since it was for her. Really!!! Maybe her dad would help her out if she asked him. She did not even talk to him. That is the sad part. There was no relationship between them. Maintaining a relationship with both parents is so important for a child of divorce. Once they are old enough, they can make their own decision regarding the level of the relationship with their parents. It is sad when the parents make that decision for the child.

Please comment on these situations. I would like to know what you think.

Remember: Everything you can imagine is real - Pablo Picasso

Monday, June 4, 2012

People's Court: 6-4-12: Responsibility

Watching People's Court is very educational on many levels. The legal aspect of it is very informative. What I find to be fascinating are the people. From all walks of life, the interactions are awesome. I learn so much every single day. I started this blog last week. I enjoy watching the show and I wanted to share my reactions with you. Please join me on this journey of discovery: learning about others and ourselves.


Today's cases all involve people needing to take responsibility for their actions. In the first case, friends move in together to help each other out. It is not a good situation and quickly falls apart. The arrangement explodes and the shenanigans start. The lack of maturity is embarrassing for all of the adults involved. No one has taken responsibility for their actions. 


In the second case a contract is not honored. The photographer does not get paid for his services. Now so much time has passed and the photo provided has been published. The photographer does not feel this was an agreed upon use and wants more money. The contract was not specific to the use of the photo provided. The contract needed to be more specific. Both parties need to take responsibility for the contract they agreed upon. 


The third case involves children. I do not like to see children in the courtroom. The judge makes it very clear that the 7 year old is not responsible for losing the nintendo game. Also, the mother is not responsible for her son's actions. It is unfortunate the parents did not take the responsibility as parents to keep their sons out of a courtroom. The more important issue here is that I hope the mothers put their feelings aside and let the boys remain friends.


Thank you so much for joining me. Please let me know your thoughts on these situations.


    
Remember:
Continue to smile and enjoy your life.

Saturday, June 2, 2012

12-12-12 People's Court Blog: Family Blues

What an amazing date - 12-12-12! Every time I wrote it today I felt like it was something special. Life is special and we need to treasure every day and every experience. I do not want to look back and have regrets. 
Since it is a week of repeat episodes, here is a blast from the past. On June 2nd of this year, I wrote this, but did not post it. I do not know why! 
Enjoy!

Thank you for joining me today.

Family members suing each other on People's Court can be so sad. A father buys a car and tells his daughter he will transfer the title after it is paid off. After several late payments, he gets the police involved and takes the license plates off the car. After that he will only talk to his son-in-law and not his daughter. She does not like this and stops talking to her father. She will not let him see his grandchildren. Why must the children suffer when the adults fight? This is a recurring theme and is so so sad. The father and the daughter also exchange vile text messages. He is so immature, even the Judge tells him to grow up and act like an adult.
They seem to reconcile in the hallway, telling each other that they love each other. Hopefully, this is sincere and they can be a family again. The grandchildren should not miss out on a relationship with their grandparents.

The next case is a rental situation. The tenant is renting retail space. He feels threatened by the landlord and does not renew his lease. There was a mix-up with one month's rent being paid twice and the landlord tried to claim this was an automatic renewal of the lease. The lease had some very specific clauses that the tenant followed to the letter. He got back his rent, did not have to renew the lease and even had his attorney's fee reimbursed. This is why it is very important to read the lease and understand it.

The last case was about a friend lending her car to another friend. What amazed me was how the young man who borrowed the car behaved. He totally dismissed his responsibility for the damages, even though he was at fault. The insurance covered the damages and he was being sued for the deductible and the rental car. He was very flippant and did not even care that his friend had laid out the money. His response was that she lent him the keys so she was responsible. He lost - no surprise. It was so sad, in the hallway interview it was so clear the girl had a crush on him and this incident did not seem to have any effect on her. I get the impression she would do this again under similar circumstances. We do need to learn from our mistakes. 

Please let me know what you think about these situations. 

Thought for the day:
We are responsible for our own happiness

Friday, June 1, 2012

Knowing Yourself

Thank you for joining me today...
Family situations on People's Court are so interesting. Such a sad case, a mother suing her daughter. The mother believes her daughter stole her jewelry when she moved out. The daughter says she was kicked out and denies stealing the jewelry. The daughter moved back in when she was pregnant. The family is so shattered, the daughter now lives with the maternal grandmother. No one is speaking to each other. The baby will never know her grandmother. The mother is so angry, she left a text message for her daughter's friend that she hates her daughter and would not even attend the funeral of her own mom when she passes.
How do things get this bad? This family needs counseling, not court.
A woman purchases a pellet stove. The installation is done incorrectly. A fire occurs. No one is hurt, thank goodness.The contractor will not admit there were mistakes, even though it is documented. He continually interrupts the judge and is kicked out of the courtroom. What has happened to respect? He did not like that he had to "just" answer questions and could not explain his case. That is what testifying is - the judge asks, you answer.
A dog in an apartment does damage. The damage is so obvious in the pictures. The tenant continually tries to minimize it. The landlord has pictures. It is so true that a picture is worth a thousand words. The tenant does not get back her security deposit. It is very important to show that you have left the apartment in the same condition you received it. Pictures before and after are essential.
I think the family situations are so sad when they leave the courtroom and it is obvious they are not going to patch things up. This is one of these cases where it would be so nice if there was a family counselor waiting outside. Many times the judge will discuss the future of the family, pushing people in the right direction. In this case, the damage is so deep and raw, she did not even attempt it. Sometimes, there is no possibility of patching things up, People can only take so much and when you are hurt by those that you have spent your life with, it is time to let go. That is a great lesson for today - recognize when it is time to walk away.
Thought for the day:
Be true to yourself.