People's Court Blog - 8 31 2012 - Friday

Good Luck, Erin!

Vicki is suing Erin for $1260.00. This is for rent, parts for her truck and stolen money. Erin is almost 20 years old and has been on her own since she was 18. When Erin turned 18, she told her parents she wanted to be an adult and live on her own. This is very commendable for Erin. When she had difficulties, her mother would not let her come home. (This is really sad. A parent should always let their child come home). Erin went to live with her aunt. For some reason, this did not work out and Erin wound up with her aunt's friend, Vicki. This sounds crazy, how can you just drop someone off on a doorstep? This is not what this case is about. This is about money that Erin owes Vicki. Erin was supposed to pay rent. Also, Erin borrowed Vicki's truck and had an accident. Vicki bought the parts for the truck and Erin did the repairs. Also, Vicki wants her money back that Erin stole from her. Erin admits stealing money for cigarettes.This is not commendable. Why is Erin stealing from Vicki? Erin needs to realize that other people are not responsible to take care of her. She needs to take responsibility for herself. Erin is hoping to get a job and go to school. She wants to be an auto and diesel technician. Part of getting her life together is to pay her debts. She is found responsible to pay Vicki back the money she owes her. Erin signed a promissory note for $1070.00. Even though Vicki claims she added wrong and the amount is higher, she cannot get more than the agreement. Erin claims she was forced to sign the note because she felt threatened by Vicki. Erin cannot prove that she was threatened and she did sign the agreement. Erin needs to pay Vicki back. This is the beginning to getting her life on track. I wish Erin all the luck in the world. I hope she gets the job she wants and she does well in school. Good luck, Erin!

You Cancelled The Reunion!

Khadija is suing Lisa for $30.00. This money is for 3 tickets to a neighborhood reunion. Every year the neighborhood that Khadija grew up in would hold a reunion. This year it was cancelled. Lisa and several others started a Facebook group to revive the reunion. Khadija wanted to go to the reunion and ordered 3 tickets. She sent a money order to Lisa for $30.00. Two days before the reunion, Lisa decided to cancel it because she did not have enough barbeque grills to cook the food. Lisa promised to return everyone's money. Khadija saw this notice and expected to get her money back. She sent a message to Lisa on the Facebook page regarding her refund. Lisa was upset because she did not inbox her or contact her personally. This is so ridiculous! Lisa cancelled the event and then the next day, messaged that it was back on again. Once the event was cancelled, why would Khadija check the Facebook page again? Lisa is positive she knew the event was back on. Why is she so sure? She says because she wrote to Khadija to reread the message. What? This is such a waste of everyone's time! If Khadija knew the reunion was going to happen, she would have gone. She was looking forward to going to the reunion with her two sons. All she wants is her money back.  This is not too much to ask for, is it? Why would Lisa make Khadija sue her to get back $30.00? According to Lisa, it was to teach her a lesson. Well, Lisa is the one who is learning a lesson. She is ordered to pay Khadija the $30.00 for the tickets. I think that forcing someone to sue you for $30.00 is very spiteful. What do you think?

 

You Rented The Studio - Pay Me!

Matthew is suing Marshaun for $2324.99. Matthew rented  recording studio space to Marshaun for $500.00 a month. One of the conditions to the rental was for the equipment to be upgraded. Matthew paid for the upgrade, now he wants Marshaun to cover that cost, as well as pay the rent for the rest of the contract. In the beginning, everything went well. Marshaun stopped paying rent after a few months and someone broke into the studio. Matthew changed the locks on the studio after the break-in. Matthew claims he tried to contact Marshaun to let him know and to give him new keys. (Really, you are going to give someone keys when they are not paying rent!). Marshaun says he was never notified about the changed locks. When he found himself locked out, he stopped paying rent. Who are we to believe? Matthew has no proof that he notified Marshaun. It would be very easy to verify notification. Text, e-mail, letter mailed return receipt, are all good ways to prove you have notified someone. The Judge explains to Matthew that the lockout was illegal. He has no right to change the locks when he has a tenant. The only money that Matthew is entitled to is the rent money for the month and a half that Marshaun could access the studio. He is not entitled to rent money for the time that Marshaun was locked out or the cost of upgrading the equipment. It is very important when you are a landlord to know your rights and responsibilities. Hopefully, Matthew learned a valuable lesson about being a landlord.

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

We are made strong by the difficulties we face not by those we evade.

-Unknown Source

People's Court - 8 30 2012 - Thurday

Who Is Telling The Truth?

Sheria is suing Clarence for $250.00. This is for the cost of a turn signal broken in her car. Sheria claims that Clarence broke it when he went to get her keys out of the ignition. How on earth could he have broken the turn signal? Sheria says when she asked Clarence how it happened, he put his head down and would not answer her. Clarence has a totally different story. Clarence says they were having sex in the front seat of Sheria's car and her leg hit the turn signal and it broke. Clarence describes their actions in graphic detail. Sheria said this did not happen. She has voicemail messages from Clarence that are supposed to prove her story. Sheria plays the messages and they do not help her case at all. If anything, they support Clarence's story. He professes his love for her over and over. Sheria has a receipt for $250.00 from her father, a mechanic. The receipt is from a store bought receipt book, it does not have a business name on it, it is not from the purchase of the turn signal. The Judge tells Sheria that this is something that anyone can make up. Sheria does not have any other proof for the replacement of the turn signal. At the very end of her testimony, Sheria admits that she had sex with Clarence in the back seat of her car. Too little, too late. Sheria's credibility is shot at this point. It is really important to tell the truth, no matter how embarassing it might be. Sheria cannot be believed. She loses her case. On the way out of the courtroom, Sheria continues to deny having sex in the front seat of her car. She really does protest too much! Clarence says he does not love her enough to pay for the turn signal. Why do people come to court over such trivial matters? Sheria had to know what Clarence would say. Why put yourself in this position on national television? What do you think?

 

Is This A Pitbull Witch Hunt?

Lunique is suing Joanne for $5000.00. This is to cover vet bills, medical bills and pain and suffering. Lunique explains how her and her family have been terrorized by Joanne's dogs. Joanne is her next door neighbor and has a Pitbull and a Rottweiller. Lunique has a Toy Poodle. On 7 occasions, Lunique has called the police because the two large dogs were running loose. On 3 of these occasions, the dogs were not there when the police arrived. On 4 occasions, the dogs were still out. Lunique describes when the dogs chased the police officer into her house. Also, one of the dogs bit a police officer. The Pitbull attacked Lunique's Toy Poodle. In her efforts to keep the Pitbull from killing her dog, Lunique was injured. Her dog was injured and she was injured. What else needs to happen before something is done? How are these dogs getting away with this? After this incident, Joanne was ordered to get rid of one of the dogs. Joanne admits this is true, and she chose to get rid of the Pitbull and keep the Rottweiller. Joannes gave the Pitbull to her daughter's boyfriend. Lunique says that he often visits with the Pitbull, so the dog is not really gone from the neighborhood. Lunique needs to pursue this. If Joanne is violating a court order, something needs to be done.

Joanne explains that this is a large dog friendly neighborhood. What does this mean? Does everyone let their large dogs run loose? Of course not! Joanne says that her dogs only get out when no one is home. Why are they outside when no one is home? It does not sound like the fence and gate keep the dogs in. Joanne says she would pay the vet bill, if it was given to her. She also explains that her insurance paid Lunique's medical bills. This is a very interesting turn of events. Lunique did not know a check for $1500.00 had been sent to her lawyer. The lawyer accepted this settlement check and put it into a trust account. Lunique found this out during a recess. I am sure she will have some choice words for her lawyer. Joanne does not seem concerned that her dogs continually got out of the yard. She did not seem concerned that the Pitbull  attacked Lunique's Toy Poodle or bit a police officer. What needs to happen to have Joanne care about the actions of her dogs? I do not know. I do know that Joanne is found responsible to pay the vet bill, $924.57. Hopefully, she will start to be more responsible for the sake of her neighbors! What do you think?

What Is Leaking?

Camille is suing Elizabeth for $180.00. This is for the damage caused by a water leak. Elizabeth lives in the apartment above Camille. One morning, Camille was awakened by the sound of water. She found water leaking from the ceiling onto her dresser. Camille went upstairs and knocked on the door. No one came to to the door. Camille got her dog and waited on the porch. In about one hour, Elizabeth came out. Camille confronted her and Elizabeth ignored her and walked away. Camille is convinced that the water leak is coming from Elizabeth's air conditioner. Elizabeth denies this and yet, shows pictures of her air conditioner with a bucket underneath it. Really! Where do you think the water goes? Camille shows a video of a water blister on the ceiling of her bedroom. She pokes it and the water comes streaming out! If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth a million! Brown water comes pouring from the ceiling, while we all watch in wonder! Good job, Camille! This is the best evidence. There is nothing more for Elizabeth to say. She tries and tries to deny the leak is from her air conditioner. Nothing doing! The water leaking through Camille's ceiling is from Elizabeth's air conditioner. Elizabeth is found responsible to pay Camille $180.00 for the damage to the ceiling. The next thing is for Elizabeth to change how the air conditioner is set up to prevent further damage. Good luck, Camille!

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

Truly great friends are hard to find, difficult to leave, and impossible to forget.

-Unknown Source



People's Court Blog - 8 29 2012 - Wednesday

Your Boat Damaged My Wall!

Nancy and Robert are suing Ambrose and Tami for $5000.00. This amount is actually much less than what they have spent when Ambrose and Tami's boat landed on their property. The area where these couples live was hit by Hurricane Irene. Both families had boats and needed to secure them before leaving due to a mandatory evacuation. Nancy and Robert secured their boat by lifting it out of the water and tying it down. When they were able to return home, they found a boat had damaged their retaining wall (bulkhead) and fence. This boat belonged to Ambrose and Tami. This couple explains that they also secured their boat before leaving the area. Ambrose explains that his mechanic helped him secure the boat. Ambrose has pictures of the boat to show the Judge. The pictures do not help his case. The chains and ropes he describes are not visible in the picture. Ambrose does not have the mechanic in court or an affadavit from him. Why doesn't he have any evidence to support his claim? His wife, Tami, does not feel they have to prove anything. After all, there was a hurricane and everyone's property was all over the place. When they got home, they found debris on their property and they are not suing anyone. This is not a defense. Nancy and Robert have a letter from another neighbor explaining that Ambrose and Tami's boat was not secured. There is also a Youtube video of their boat floating by a house. It seems this is a very famous boat! Nancy and Robert were denied by their insurance company, since the bulkhead and the fence were not able to be covered by insurance. They are able to prove that Ambrose and Tami did not secure their boat properly, due to the letter from the neighbor.  Because of this, Ambrose and Tami are found responsible to pay the $5000.00. If they had secured the boat and it still caused the damage, they would not have had to pay. This is the difference between neglect and an Act of God. On the way out of the courtroom, Ambrose admits that he should have brought evidence. Nancy says that it cost her $3000.00, just to have the boat removed. This is a good illustration of the need to do everything possible to prevent something from happening. During extreme weather, everything needs to be tied down or put away to protect it from blowing away.  This would have saved Ambrose and Tami so much money! What do you think?

 

Bring Evidence To Court!

Aisha is suing Laura for $4000.00. This amount is for double her security deposit and the cost of gas and electric. Aisha rented an apartment in a 2-bedroom house from Laura. Aisha believed that Laura lived in the other apartment. Laura says it was empty and she lived in another location. Aisha says there was one meter for electric and one meter for gas. Aisha believed she was paying the utilities for the entire house, not just her own use. Laura says there were meters for each portion of the house. Aisha has a picture of the meters. It shows the two meters, but since it is a close-up, there is no way to tell if there are other meters on the panel. Laura does not have any proof at all. Aisha shows a picture of dog feces on a snowbank. There are no footprints or pawprints in the snow. Aisha says the dog feces was thrown from the other part of the house, the part she believed Laura was living in. Aisha says this is why she moved out, because of the filth and the smell of the dog feces. Aisha sent Laura notice when she decided to move out. Laura claims she did not receive it. Laura only provided a PO Box number on the lease and since Aisha needed to send her notice certified return receipt, Aisha sent the mailing to the house she lived in. Laura says she did not live there, so she did not get the notice. This is not Aisha's fault.

Aisha should get her security deposit back. The question is how much money would that be? How much did she actually pay for the security deposit. According to the lease, she paid $800.00. According to proof of payment, she paid $323.00 towards the security deposit. An agency paid the difference, and Aisha does not get the money back paid by someone else. Since she can only prove payment of $323.00, that is the amount she is awarded. Aisha's pictures do not prove the number of meters on the house, so she is not able  to recover the utility money. Neither the tenant or the landlord came to court prepared with proper evidence. This is the time to bring all paperwork with you. Aisha kept saying that Section 8 was going to fax documents to the Judge. Since this rental was government subsidized, Aisha could have dealt with Section 8 regarding her problems before she moved out. Laura does not seem to be on top of the rights and responsibilities of being a landlord. I think Laura and Aisha should have been better prepared for this case. On their way out of the courtroom, Laura says she respects the decision and Aisha realizes she was not well prepared and is appreciative of what she is getting. What do you think?

A Counterfeit Postal Money Order!

Renna is suing Arnold for $965.00. This is for a counterfeit postal money order that Renna cashed for Arnold. After Renna deposited the check, she withdrew $723.00 from the ATM. She gave that money to Arnold with an additional $100.00. Arnold says he received the postal money order as payment through a sale he made on Ebay. He sold a computer to someone. Arnold says he usually is paid through Paypal, but he accepted the postal money order. Arnold explains that he does not have a local bank account, so he would have had to wait up to 2 weeks to cash it through his account. Arnold did not even wait until the money order cleared before mailing the computer. The bank took the money from Renna's account, when it was determined the postal money order was counterfeit. Arnold seemed not to believe this, since he did not want to return the money to Renna. I do not understand why Renna would cash the money order for Arnold. She did not even know him for very long, they had only met the month before. Why did she do this for him? The only answer Renna keeps giving, is that she did not know a postal money order could be counterfeit. Well, I guess we learn something new everyday! The money order was counterfeit, Arnold should not have involved Renna, and Renna gets back her money. She can prove that she gave Arnold $823.00, so that is the amount she gets back. Also, Arnold has in girlfriend in court with him, why didn't he ask her to cash the money order? Why ask Renna, when he only knew her for a month? What do you think?
 

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.

-Unknown source

People's Court Blog - 8 28 2012 - Tuesday

 

She Cut The Medals Off  My Uniform!

Jonathan is suing Paulette for $4707.68. This is for rent money and also for a broken television. They reconnected through Facebook, had an online relationship and moved in together. When Jonathan was honorably discharged from the military, he rented a 3-bedroom apartment. Paulette moved in with Jonathan with her two sons, ages 4 and 2. The apartment was $1600.00 a month. Jonathan says they were each paying half of the rent. Paulette denies that this was the agreement. Although, she does admit paying half of the rent while they lived together. After living together for 2 months, Paulette told Jonathan she was going to have a girls night sleepover. He left the apartment for the night, so she could have fun with her friends. In the morning, Paulette called Jonathan and asked him to call before he came home. He thought this was suspicious, so he went home unannounced. He found Paulette in bed with another man. When Jonathan asked what she was doing, she assaulted him. He called the police and Paulette was arrested. Jonathan did not let her stay in jail, he got her out and also dropped the charges.Sometimes, people need to learn from their mistakes. 

 

Soon after this incident, there was another one. When Jonathan gets home one day, Paulette is on the phone in the children's room. Paulette's uncle was visiting that day and he is in court to testify. Paulette and Jonathan have another fight. Paulette cuts the medals off of Jonathan's uniform. She also throws something at the television and breaks it. Paulette's uncle broke them apart and kept the fight from escalating. Paulette says that Jonathan broke her television first, she has no proof. Her uncle did not see this. Paulette also says that the television she broke was not Jonathan's, it belonged to the family. She admits that she cut the medals off of his uniform, how horrible! A new kind of low, according to the Judge. It is obvious that Paulette has anger management issues. She really needs to gain control over her anger. Jonathan moved out and Paulette continued to live in the apartment. Jonathan's name was on the lease. Neither of them paid the rent. Paulette lived there five months rent free until she was evicted. The judgement from eviction court for the back rent was against Jonathan. Paulette is found responsible to pay Jonathan the full amount he is asking for in court today. She cannot expect to live somewhere rent free and damage someone's property. She needs to continue to work on managing her anger issues. Cutting the medals off of Jonathan's military uniform is inexcusable. How did she have the audacity to do something so terrible? Jonathan served our country and Paulette should show respect for the uniform. This is definitely a toxic relationship and they are directed by the Judge to move on mentally. They are not together anymore and are both in new relationships. People should not move in with each other so quickly , especially when there are children involved. Why are women so willing to expose their children to these unhealthy relationships? What do you think?

I Do Not Want The Murphy Bed Anymore!

Claudia is suing Tom for $1607.60, the deposit (half of the purchase price), paid for a custom bed. She purchased a Murphy Bed from Tom's company. Tom explains that he is able to advertise the product as a Murphy Bed, since the hardware for the bed is purchased from the Murphy Company. This is a type of bed that folds up in the wall when not in use. Claudia purchased the bed in September 2009, and was going to pay the balance, when the bed was delivered and installed. When Claudia found out she might have to move out of her rent stabilized apartment, she contacted Tom. Claudia wanted to know what the cost would be to relocate the bed if she had to move. She was told the cost would be $1000.00. At that time, she decided to cancel the order. The cancellation fees are listed on the signed contract. Claudia wanted her entire deposit back. So much time had passed that she was not entitled to her deposit back. Tom tried to help her out and offered to try to sell the bed. He would give her the deposit back, if he sold the bed. It could not be this easy! It wasn't!

Hurricane Irene hit the area in New Jersey where the Murphy Bed was stored in Tom's warehouse. The bed was on a pallet on the floor and was water damaged and could not be sold. Claudia said the flyer about the bed lists it as in stock and ready for immediate delivery. Why would it be in a warehouse in New Jersey? It can be delivered from the warehouse when it was purchased. It did not have to be in the showroom to be available for immediate delivery. Keep in mind, this is now almost two years after the original purchase. I would think that Claudia should have had the bed by now or lost her deposit. Tom was being nice to a customer to try to help her after all this time had passed. Claudia is the one who changed her mind about the purchase. She could have had the bed delivered and installed and dealt with the other issue later. The case about her apartment is still pending. While the Judge is ruling on this case, Claudia is trying to interrupt her. This is very rude, Claudia keeps saying she wants to finish. The Judge is quite clear during her ruling, that Claudia is finished and does not get her deposit back. I give Tom so much credit as a businessman to have done everything in his power to help his customer. There were unforseen circumstances called Hurricane Irene. Claudia tries to continue the case in the hallway, this is not the time or the place. If there was some other information she wanted the Judge to know, then she should have said it in the courtroom. Tom describes Claudia as a ridiculous and unreasonable customer. Yet, he tried to help her out for almost 2 years!
Claudia did not want this case aired. She took it to the New York Supreme Court, there were three hearings, yet here we are. Interesting!

 

Who Broke The Window?

Elanna is suing Nancy for $970.00 ($550.00 for rent and $420.00 for moving fees). Nancy runs a trailer park for her parents. Elanna went to look at a trailer after seeing it on Craigslist. Elanna signed a 7 month rental agreement. She was moving in with her two children and a co-worker. Elanna explains that she asked Nancy about the environment in the park. Elanna wanted a drama free environment. She was worried about racial problems because she has 2 biracial children, ages 3 years old and 6 months. Elanna says that Nancy assured her they would be fine. Elanna was also concerned about a pile of trash that a neighbor had stockpiled and Nancy assured her it would be taken care of. Elanna says it never was taken care of and it is still there. Did Nancy have a chance to take care of it? And why would it matter, Elanna moved out after living there for one day.

The first night at the trailer, Elanna said she saw someone running from the trailer after they broke a window. She did not have a phone and was too scared to go ask the neighbors to call the police. In the morning, when her co-worker came home from working the night shift, he called the park office. He told Nancy the window was broken. Perry, Nancy's fiancee, went to fix it. He was not told about someone breaking it and running away. He went inside and found a large rocking recliner near the window. He believes this is the cause of the broken window, since the glass and the screen were on the outside of the trailer. There was no glass on the inside. Perry fixed the window. Elanna moved out this same day, her co-worker still lives there. If Elanna was so frightened why didn't she call the police the next morning? Why not tell Perry to call the police? Why not call the police when she got to work? Elanna does not have answers to these questions. She expects to get money back for changing her mind. The general belief is that she got back together with the father of one of her children. He is in court with her, standing right next to her. Her boyfriend is not there to testify, so why is he there? It appears as if they are back together, even though Elanna denies it. The Judge rules in favor of Nancy. Elanna does not get any money back. It seemed that she changed her mind about her living situation and there are consequences attached. If someone is that afraid for the safety of themselves and their children, they should call the police. What do you think?
 

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

Happiness often sneaks in a door you did not think was open.

- Anonymous

 

People's Court Blog - 8 27 2012 - Monday

He Lives In The Basement!

Alice is suing William for $3200.00. She says this is for rent that William owes her. William is countersuing for $3260; rent, criminal mischief and harassment. These two people know each other for several years. They met when Alice was a foster mother and William was a social worker. They dated briefly. After Alice married someone else and moved to a new home, she decided to rent out the rooms of her original home. She contacted William and asked him if he was interested to rent a bedroom in her house. He said yes. They agreed on the amount of rent and William moved in. There was a problem. Alice did not have the bedroom ready, so Willliam moved into the basement, a family room. This was not a legally permitted space for Alice to rent. That did not seem to bother William, he lived there for several months and paid rent. When Alice posted a "For Sale" sign in front of the house, William stopped paying rent. He claims that when a person is selling their house, they can not collect rent. These are not the facts and the Judge sets him straight. When William moved out, it was from the basement, he never moved upstairs to the bedroom. Since William never moved to the bedroom, Alice is not able to collect rent from him for the months he did not pay. William explains his counterclaim . After he moved out, Alice came to his new home. They got into an altercation in the street. William says she broke his goldchain and the zipper on his jacket. Alice admits to breaking these items, but not because she assaulted him, she was falling in the snow and she grabbed him. As Alice demonstrates these actions, the Judge tells her that it is an insult. How can she expect the Judge to believe such a story? Assaulting someone and grabbing them for support is very different. William gets $20.00 for the damage Alice did to his belongings. Nothing more, he has no case for criminal mischief and harassment. Alice needs to stop renting out her basement, the city  will not issue her a permit for this purpose. The Judge uses the cocaine example to illustrate why the court is not able to support an illegal position. I love this example! It is also a very good idea to know your rights before pursuing a court case. This entire issue came down to $20.00, an amount most people would not sue for. There are some people who would have stayed away from court when they have no proof or are doing something illegal. What do you think?

 

My Virgin Mary Statue Is Ruined!

Martha is suing George for $200.00. This is the value of a Virgin Mary statue, Martha shipped from New Jersey to Florida. George is the agent for the shipping company. Mary explains that her late husband won the statue in a raffle in the 1980's. He paid $20.00 for the raffle ticket. Before her husband passed away, he expressed to Martha, his desire for his son to have the statue. After 5 years, Martha decides to send the statue to her son. She takes it to George's business, he wraps it for free and she insures it for $200.00. The first $100.00 insurance was free and she paid an additional $2.00 for the next $100.00. When the delivery guy left it in Florida, he threw it over a 6 foot fence. Why on earth would he do this when the package was marked fragile? Why on earth would he do this at all? That is not the way to deliver a package. If he is not able to get through the gate, leave the slip, letting the people know they have a package. (This happens to us all the time! - the slip, not the thrown package!) The head of the Virgin Mary was completely cut off. This was very upsetting to the entire family. This statue has great sentimental value, it was even blessed by a priest. George says that no one is denying anything. He agrees the statue was broken because of the method of delivery. His needs proof of the value of the statue for the insurance claim. Martha said she does not have any proof of the value, since it is so old. She did insure it for $200.00 and on the receipt it says that is the declared value. The Judge explains the importance of declared value. When you have an item that has sentimental value, you cannot get more than the value. The exception to this, is when you cannot prove the value, then the declared value becomes very important. Since Martha insured the statue and the receipt says declared value, she gets the $200.00. I am glad that she gets her money. She deserves it, especially since she took the extra step to insure the delivery. What is the purpose of the insurance, if they are not going to pay out? What do you think? The good news: Martha's son fixed the statue and she is looking forward to visiting Florida to see it!

 

The Boat Is Paid For - I Need The Title!

Thomas bought a boat from Mark. After he gave Mark the check, he expected to receive the title. Thomas tells of countless e-mails and phone calls to try to get the title from Mark. When he does not get it, Thomas goes to court to get the title. He paid $375.83 in order to obtain the title. Mark explains that he was told by someone that since he did not have possession of the boat, he could not get the title. When he found out this was not true, he went to the Motor Vehicle to obtain the title, He claims that he scanned it to his computer and promptly mailed it to Thomas. He does not have proof of delivery and Thomas never received it. Thomas sent an e-mail to Mark, giving him a June 1st deadline for the paper title. Mark said he went to the Motor Vehicle again and received a duplicate title and sent that to Thomas. He shows the scanned copy of the title and the duplicate title to the Judge. The scanned copy shows a date of March 8, 2011 and an issue date of January 29, 2009. The duplicate title has a date of June 3, 2011. The boat was sold to Thomas on March 8, 2011. Didn't Mark realize the dates on the titles would prove that he was a liar? Also, Mark is counterclaiming for $415.49 for his time spent obtaining the titles. Really! Well, he does not get it. The good news is that Thomas does get everything he is suing for. He had to do so much extra work to obtain the title to a boat that he bought. Why did Mark have to make this so difficult for Thomas? Mark could have saved everyone so much time and effort, if he would have done the right thing. What do you think?

 



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

 

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

 

This is a wonderful country.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

If it will offend or insult, keep it to yourself.

- Unknown

 

 

People's Court Blog - 8 24 2012 - Friday

The Door Was Already Broken!

Anthony is suing Kyle for $1380.00 ($1200.00 for the door, $180.00 for his time). Kyle is Anthony's daughter's former boyfriend. Anthony wants Kyle to pay the replacement cost of a patio sliding door. After Anthony's daughter and Kyle broke up, Kyle decided to come back to the house. He did not have a key, so he broke the sliding patio door to break in. Kyle claims it was already broken. It seemed when he was living there with Anthony's daughter, he used that way to get in when he was locked out. Kyle explains that there used to be a lockbox with a key, but that is not available anymore. It seemed Kyle did not have a key most of the time. Why did Anthony come back to the house after he moved out? There never is a clear answer. His girlfriend said it was for the furniture and then he changed his mind. Kyle said he needed dog food and while he was there he took his cigars and some documents. He also says that all of the furniture belongs to him. Also, he paid his share of the rent for 2 months after he left. Wow, not many people do something like that. He admits to having feelings for his girlfriend, but denies wanting to get back together. She hesitates when the Judge asks if she wants to get back together with him. They broke up because he was cheating on her and those are difficult wounds to heal. There is no doubt that Kyle broke the door, whether it was while he was living there or after he moved out. The timing does not really matter. It seems so sad, these two young people really do act like they still care for each other. They are very young and maybe just need more time. Kyle is found responsible to pay for the door, but not the cost of a new one. He would be responsible for the depreciated value of the door. The Judge estimates this to be $300.00. He has already made a payment of $100.00 to Anthony. In total, Kyle will pay $400.00 for a 30 year old sliding patio door. This seems acceptable to him, although Anthony is not happy about it. On the way out of the courtroom, they both express the desire to stay away from each other. That is a shame, they showed such promise!

My Car Was Impounded!

Myra was on her way to get her car inspected when she was in a car accident. Her car was towed to Anthony's auto repair shop. Myra is suing Anthony for $1128.86. After Myra got her car back from Anthony's shop, it was towed for unpaid parking tickets. Where did all of the parking tickets come from?  Anthony had Myra's car for several months due to insurance issues.  Anthony fixed the car without an appraisal and it took months for the insurance to pay. Since Anthony has limited storage space, he would park Myra's car on the road. The car was ticketed many times. Anthony blames Myra because her inspection sticker was expired. Myra was not able to get the car inspected because it was in the shop. Why would Anthony feel Myra was responsible? Well, Anthony shows a picture of a manila folder used as a sign that says management is not responsible for "expire" stickers. Really, when did he make this sign? It is definitely not a professional sign. All of the other signs shown in the picture are professional signs. The Judge is insulted and offended when she views the evidence that Anthony provides. She actually rips up the pictures! Why would he think the Judge would accept this as proof that his customers are receiving the proper notification? In this case, even if he had provided Myra with proper notification, she would still not be held responsible for the tickets. How could Myra get the car inspected when it was in Anthony's shop. I feel bad that Myra had to deal with her car being towed and getting it out of  the impound yard. Myra is awarded the full amount she is suing for. Too bad she is not able to receive more for aggravation! She would deserve it! What do you think?

It Is All About The Paint!

Bertila and Jimmy are suing Emanuel for $2100.00. This is the security deposit they paid for their house rental several months before. Bertila and Jimmy moved out because of the damage done by Hurricane Irene. Bertila tells about their wedding the day the Hurricane started. They came home after the reception instead of staying at the hotel. The flooding was so bad, their refrigerator floated out of the kitchen. Bertila and Jimmy went back to the hotel. When they returned to their home, the flood waters had started to recede. Because of all of the damage, they decided to move out. The landlord understood and returned $1500.00 of their security deposit. Why are we in court? Is it because the landlord wrongly withheld $600.00 of their security deposit due to Hurricane damage. No, it was because Bertila painted 4 of the rooms with very bright colors. Emanuel, their landlord, explains that he did not give permission for these rooms to be painted. These rooms needed to be repainted and that is the reason for keeping part of the security deposit. He explained all of this in a letter to Bertila and Jimmy when he sent them the check for $1500.00. Bertila and Jimmy did not cash the check because they wanted the entire amount returned. So, here we are in court. After hearing about their wedding, the Hurricane, the flooding, the floating refrigerator, we find out none of this has anything to do with the security deposit money. It is because of the paint! The Judge awards them $1500.00, so we find out that their landlord was fair and just! A breath of fresh air in the landlord tenant business!

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

 

Subscribe to stay updated!

 

If you want to be happy, be.

- Leo Tolstoy

 

 

People's Court Blog - 8 23 2012 - Thursday

The Reception Was Ruined!

Jacqueline and James (J & J) are suing the venue that held their wedding reception. Juan represents the business. J & J want $5000.00 back from the $7000.00 spent on the reception. What were the problems they experienced?

 

1. The candy table was set up improperly.

2. Cotton candy was removed from the bag and was unsanitary.

2. Ketchup and steak sauce were on the cake table.

3. There were dead roses on the cake table.

4. The top of the cake was wrapped in aluminum foil instead of being put in a container.

5. The servers dropped several glasses onto the dance floor.

6. Leftover food was packaged in a box from glue board traps for rats.

7. Champagne bottle favors had James's last name as his first name.

    Written on the bottles are the names -  Jackie and Lee, not Jackie and James.

8. There was an ice sculpture that was in the corner of the room, not in a featured spot.

 

Are these problems really worth $5000.00?  I do not think so. Can these problems really have ruined the entire experience? According to J & J, these problems ruined the reception for them and they want to be compensated. Jacqueline explains that she was going to set up the candy table. Since she was 1/2 hour late to the reception, Juan thought he would be nice and set it up for her.  He was trying to do something kind for the bride. Juan also explains that the boxes used for the leftovers are brought in by the clients. These could be boxes used for favors and by the florist. Juan said they do not use rat glue board traps, so they would not have a box like that. J & J have brought the box to court with them. They left the food in the box and saved it for over two months. It was not even refrigerated or frozen, so when they took it out of the plastic bag, it smelled awful. This is evident by the reactions of the people in the front row of the gallery. They looked like they were going to throw up. Why would they bring it to court this way? That was terrible and totally unnecessary. Regarding the favors, Juan explains that James's name was written incorrectly on the contract. No one noticed this mistake. Jacqueline explains that someone called her and asked her to spell James's name. The favors were provided free by the venue because the reception hosted over one hundred people. Even though they were free, they should have been done correctly. It is a shame that these favors were printed with the wrong name. Unfortunately, mistakes happen. The Judge explains that there are little disappointments in everyday life. These disappointments are not grounds for a lawsuit. The Judge does not award J & J any money. Are any of these problems a reason for the entire experience to be ruined? I do not think so. I know this is a very special day and I hope these issues did not truly ruin the day for Jacqueline.

 

The Photo Shoot Was Unprofessional!

Keianna is suing Alicia for $500.00. This is for the cost of a photo shoot and additional money for bad faith. Keianna hired Alicia to take pictures of her for her resume and other uses. Keianna paid Alicia $205.00 for the photos. The photo shoot was held in Alicia's home. Keianna says this was unprofessional and made her feel uncomfortable when Alicia's friend came over. Keianna received the contact sheet within 1-2 days. She was very happy to get this. Even though the pictures were small, she had faith in Alicia to do a good job on them. When she did not receive the finished photos, she contacted Alicia. She noticed on Alicia's Facebook page, other photos being uploaded. Why were her pictures not there? Why wasn't she receiving her photos? Alicia said she was very busy and she did e-mail the photos to Keianna. Why won't she resend the photos? Finally after several phone calls, Facebook messages and e-mails, Alicia does resend the photos. Since Keianna received what she paid for, she does not win her case. Just because she was unhappy with Alicia's attitude and she did not get the photos right away, it does not mean she gets her service for free. Keianna is not happy with this outcome and storms out of the courtroom and does not stop for her hallway interview. Why do these issues have to escalate to the point of coming to court? Why can't people resolve these issues on their own?

 

I Want My Broker's Fee!

Terri is suing Karen for $962.00. This is for her broker's fee and the cost of a bounced check. Karen answered an ad to rent an apartment. Terri showed Karen the apartment. Karen loved it and signed a lease. Terri explained her broker fee and Karen wrote her a check. The apartment was to be available for the first of the month. Karen wanted to move in earlier and the landlord accommodated her. Terri thought it would be a good idea to cash the check right away, since Karen was moving in earlier. The bank could not cash the check because information on it was not legible. Terri called Karen and let her know what happened. Karen wrote another check. She told Terri she was charged $40.00 for a stop payment fee. The second check was for $910.00, instead of $950.00. Terri deposited this check and it bounced. Karen was charged a $12.00 fee from her bank for a bounced check. Why is Karen refusing to pay Terri the broker fee? Karen explains that the apartment was filthy when she looked at it. Did she move in? Yes, she did. Why stop payment on Terri's fee? Karen said that it is an illegal apartment. Does she have proof? No, she does not. Karen said she called the city and it will take a month to get proof. Since she does not have any proof, she cannot justify withholding the broker's fee. Terri wins the case and Karen has to pay the $962.00. I still do not understand why Karen wrote a second check if she had no intention of paying the fee. If she was honest about the reason, things would make more sense. What do you think?

 

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

Please Subscribe!

You must learn from the mistakes of others.

You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.

-Sam Levenson

People's Court - 8 22 2012 - Wednesday

The Dog Jumped On Me!

Daniel is suing his sister, Lizette, for $1000.00. This is to cover medical costs and pain and suffering caused by Lizette's dog when he scratched Michael, Daniel's son. Daniel's and Lizette's mother was visiting and she was staying with Lizette. One morning Daniel dropped off his two sons for his mom to babysit. About 15 minutes after he dropped off his sons, his mom called him to say the dog, a Boxer, had scratched Michael. Daniel told her to clean it and keep him posted. Lizette's boyfriend called Daniel and said the injury was really bad. Daniel said his wife would pick up Michael and take him to urgent care. Michael was treated for the dog scratch. He received several stitches in his eyelid. When the Judge looks closely at Michael's eyelid, she can clearly see a scar. This 7 year old boy is so cute. He tries to answer the questions and just gets cuter by the minute! After Michael received medical treatment, Daniel called Lizette with the amount of the bill and she said she would pay half. Daniel says that at first, Lizette refused to pay anything. She did not feel she was responsible because she did not know the kids would be at her house. Lizette explains that her mom set everything up without telling her. Even so, this is her dog that jumped on her nephew and hurt him. How does she not feel responsible to pay the bill? You would expect this from strangers, but not from family. She is lucky the injury was not worse. Legally, Lizette is found responsible to pay the bill and the additional pain and suffering. Morally, there should never have been a question. I do not understand what happens to people? Why not take responsibility for something your own dog does in your own home to your 7 year old nephew? What do you think?

There Are Roaches In The Apartment - I Cannot Live There!

Angie is suing Sylvia for $950.00. This is for an apartment that Angie rented from Sylvia. Before Angie moved in her belongings, she wanted to paint the apartment. While she was painting, she saw cockroaches. She notified Sylvia and Sylvia said she would take care of it. Sylvia went to Home Depot and purchased bug bombs. She set them off in the apartment. The next day, Angie continued painting and saw more cockroaches. She called Sylvia and told her she was not staying there. Angie wanted her money back. Sylvia offered her 1/2 the rent and the security deposit back. Angie wanted the entire amount back. Angie should have taken what Sylvia offered her. Legally, Angie is not entitled to any of the money back. The apartment is not unliveable, it was just "icky". A few cockroaches is not an infestation. The landlord was trying to fix the problem. With more time, Sylvia could have resolved the problem. I understand that Angie was not comfortable dealing with cockroaches in the apartment, but this is not a reason to move out and get her money back. It is reason for her to move out, but there is a cost to her decision. What would you have done? Would you have given your landlord time to solve the problem?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Daniel is suing the owners of the property next to his for $2162.13. This is for damage to Daniel's fence, car, flowerpot and his time. When Hurricane Irene hit, the tree next to Daniel's property fell and caused all of this damage. Jake is one of the owners of the property. Daniel has lived in his home for four years. The property next to him is a wooded lot that the owners want to build on. Some of the trees next to Daniel's property are not healthy. Daniel spoke to the owners and they said they are lawyers, not landscapers. That is a very healthy attitude! Maybe as lawyers, they can hire landscapers! Daniel called the town officials about the conditions of the trees. The town cited the owners of the property. There was numerous correspondence from the town to the owners prior to Hurricane Irene. They were sent letters, violations and citations. The only response from the owners was to send a landscaper to the property to take down a tree on the opposite side of the property. Daniel wanted the tree removed that was next to his property. The landscaper was not directed to remove that tree. Since the owners were put on notice about the condition of the tree, they could not use "The Act of God" defense. If they did not know about the condition of the tree, it would have been different. Knowing the tree was unhealthy made them responsible for the damage that was caused when the tree fell. Daniel is awarded $1912.13, the damages caused by the tree. He is not entitled to receive money for his time. All of this could have been avoided if the owners of the property would have removed the tree. I find it very interesting that they ignored the town notices, especially since they want to build a house on that property. They certainly do not seem to be very cooperative. What do you think?

 

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

 

There comes a point in your life when you realize who really matters,

who never did, and who always will.     

- Unknown

 

 

Peoples's Court - 8 21 2012 - Tuesday

Another Friendship Ruined Over Money!

Vincent is suing his friend, John, for $575.00. John is counterclaiming $3000.00 for pain and suffering. Vincent explains that they lend money back and forth to each other all the time. This is what friends do. In July of 2011, John  called Vincent and asked for help because his house was in foreclosure. Vincent helped his friend by lending him $875.00. John told Vincent he would pay him back in a few days. Vincent said that John  gave him $300.00 back, $100.00 a month for three months. Vincent wanted the rest of his money, so he went to John's house to ask for it. Vincent says that when he was face to face with John, he got closer to John and then John moved back and hit his head against a brick wall. Vincent went home and the police came to his house later that day. There are criminal charges pending against Vincent for the assault on John. When the Judge asks John to explain, he admits borrowing the money. He admits paying some of it back. He shows the Judge two checks that were given to him. One of the checks has "loan" written on the memo line, the other check does not. John explains that the one check was the loan and the other was a gift. John says that for the past two and a half years, he has helped out Vincent in so many ways. He says that Vincent gave him part of the money as a gift for all of his help. He said $400.00 of the $875.00 was a gift. The funny thing is when the Judge is looking at the checks, the word "loan" is written on the memo line of the check for $400.00. This would make the gift the check for $475.00. John did not realize this. Vincent does not remember writing on one memo line and not the other. My question is, why give him two checks? If he was lending him $875.00, why not give one check? John is counterclaiming for pain and suffering because Vincent shoved him and his head hit a brick wall. John did not go to the doctor for the injury. The police report documents a small visible abrasion on his head. The police report also documents that Vincent shoved John. Vincent may deny it now in court, but the police report is the evidence. John does not have any other evidence to support a claim for $3000.00. The Judge does not want Vincent to get away with vigilante justice. She awards him $475.00, the balance of the $875.00 loan after deducting the $300.00 John paid back and $100.00 for the attack on John. There is nothing awarded for the counterclaim. This is another example of friendship ruined over money. Why do people allow this to happen? When a friend asks for money, it is very important to consider this question: Is it worth it?
 

Clueless!

Kenneth and Ann are suing Lindsay for $2374.53. This is for repairs Kenneth did on Lindsay's car. Ann is caught in the middle because Kenneth is her cousin and Lindsay is her friend. Ann operates a yoga studio. Lindsay does work for her in exchange for yoga classes. Over the course of a year, they have become good friends. Lindsay's car was vandalized, sand was put in the gas tank and the side was keyed. The shop it was towed to was going to charge her $3000.00 to fix it. Ann told Lindsay that her cousin, Kenneth, was a mechanic and could fix it for less money. Lindsay had the car towed to Kenneth's house. In order to have her roadside assistance service pay for the tow, Kenneth's house was recorded as a sister shop. Oh what a tangled web we weave... Once someone admits to being less than honest, everything else they say is suspect. Lindsay claims the car was totally repaired and she just wanted Kenneth to look at the car and verify the repairs were done properly. Kenneth says the car still needed repair work. Why would Lindsay have the car towed if it was driveable? Why would Lindsay think Kenneth would look or work on the car for free? The receipt from the body shop shows that the work done on the car cost $1450.00. The car still needed a fuel injector replacement and service. This was the work Kenneth was going to do. He paid $1600.00 for parts and repaired the car. When Lindsay came over to get the car, she offered Kenneth $16.00 for the repair, not $1600.00. Lindsay denies this and says he was checking the car for free. I do not know what world Lindsay lives in, but rarely is anything done for free! Why would Kenneth spend that kind of money and time for someone he does not even know? Kenneth would not release the car to Lindsay without payment. Lindsay came back with her spare set of keys and took the car. Lindsay really does have nerve! Ann felt bad because Kenneth was out money, she claims that she paid him the $1600.00. She has no proof of the payment. Whether she paid him or not, the Judge finds she has no standing to sue Lindsay and dismisses Ann from the case. Kenneth is awarded the full amount that is being sued for. Lindsay needs to pay for the work that was done on the car. Ann and Lindsay are no longer friends. It seems that Ann tried to help someone that justs takes advantage of people. It is very important to know who your friends are. The Judge says it very clearly, if Ann wants to help out people, she should volunteer in a soup kitchen!
 

Splatters Of  Paint Everywhere!

Melissa hired Ron to do construction work at her house. She paid him $1350.00 and wants her money back. She is not happy with the job, feels it was not finished and it was not done properly. Melissa hired Ron to do some repair work and painting. Melissa shows pictures of the work. There was an open paint can with a brush left in the yard. There is wood showing through the paint job. There is paint splattered everywhere, on the porch, the trees, the driveway. The place really looks like Ron left it a mess. Ron denies this and says that Melissa sabotaged the area for the pictures. Why would someone do this? It does not make sense. Ron does not seem to care about the entire situation. It was like he was doing her a favor! He was paid to do a job, it was not charity. Ron comments that he has been in business for 26 years and works on million dollar houses. So what, who cares! Melissa paid him to do a job and he made a mess of it. She deserves to get her money back. She actually will get back part of her money. Ron did some work, so he does need to get paid something. Ron is ordered to return $750.00. Ron states that Melissa got more than her money's worth. Really? We all saw the pictures of the way Ron left Melissa's property. He should just admit that he could have done a better job. I give Melissa credit for bringing Ron to court. No one should have to pay for shoddy workmanship. What do you think?

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

The happiest people do not have the best of everything.

They just make the best of everything.

- Unknown

People's Court - 8 20 2012 - Monday

How Many Times Do I Have To Return To Your Store?

Valerie is suing her dry cleaners for $400.00 ($100.00 for her dress and the rest is for harassment). Valerie left 10 garments to be cleaned, when she picked them up, one was missing. She was asked to come back. When she returned, she met the owner, Emmanuel. He explained to her that the beads on the dress exploded during the cleaning process. He wanted more time to clean it. Valerie agreed and came back to the store a third time. The dress was still ruined., Valerie wanted $100.00 for the dress. This is what she paid for it, several years ago. Emmanuel offered her $50.00 due to depreciation of the dress. This money was to be used in store credit. Valerie did not want store credit, she wanted to be paid for her ruined dress. Emmanuel said he would think about it and she should come back. Valerie left and came back to the store a fourth time. When she got to the store this time, Emmanuel was waiting on a customer. Valerie waited and finally Emmanuel helped her. He asked her to wait, while he pressed the dress. When he brought the dress out, he hung it up and then asked her to wait again while he called his lawyer. Valerie was tired of waiting, she took the dress and left the store. An employee of the store saw this and told Emmanuel that she was leaving with the dress. Emmanuel ran after her, yelling and then tried to stop her from driving away. He leaned on the back of the car. When another car pulled in, he had the driver block Valerie from leaving. Emmanuel called the police. The police said it was a civil matter and Valerie should take him to court. And here we are....what a major ordeal to make over a dress. I really think the police have better things to do. Although, the way Emmanuel acted, something far worse could have happened. It is never a good idea to try to stop a moving car. Why did Emmanuel have to make Valerie return to the store four times? The first time she returned, he needed to explain to her how the dress was ruined in the dry cleaning process. Emmanuel explains that his staff is not trained to tell customers this type of information. Why didn't Emmanuel call Valerie to explain about the dress? Why make her come back to the store so many times? There is no excuse for this! Valerie is awarded $50.00 for the cost of the dress. She does not get harassment, even though she was very convincing that she almost had a heart attack when Emmanuel chased her when she was trying to drive away! Valerie is satisfied with the outcome, she just wanted Emmanuel to learn that he has to be fair to people. I hope Emmanuel did learn this. I also hopes he trains his staff to explain problems to his customers. This way they do not have to keep coming back to his store unless it is to drop off and pick up clothing. What do you think?

I Want Tony Montana Back!

Tracy is suing Cindy for $1216.70. This is for the value of her cat, rent and damages to window blinds. Tracy rented her second bedroom to Cindy for $170.00 a week, including utiities. Tracy had a dog and a cat. Her Maine Coon cat, Tony Montana, and her dog were the loves of her life. When Tracy went away for a week, she asked Cindy to take care of her pets in exchange for one week's rent. While Tracy was away, she asked her friend, Roger, to keep an eye on everything. Tracy did this because Cindy had recently moved in and she did not know her that well. Why didn't she ask Roger to care for her pets? It would have made sense since Roger was her good friend? During this week, Cindy decided to move out. Tracy said when she found this out she came home early. Cindy says she was gone from Saturday to Saturday, a whole week. When Tracy got home, she said she found a sticky note from Cindy asking Roger to walk the dog. She saw that Cindy was in the process of moving out. Then, Tracy realized that Tony Montana was missing. Where was her cat? Tracy is convinced that Cindy stole her cat. Cindy says she really liked Tony, but she has two cats of her own. Where did the cat go? Maybe through the window that Cindy leaves open in her bedroom. Why does she leave the window open? Cindy says she does not allow Tony in her bedroom. Really, a cat does not try to go where it is not allowed? That is what cats do! Is Cindy responsible for Tony? I believe so, but Tracy is not able to prove that Tony was stolen. Where is Roger, Tracy's good friend? He is not able to be in court, even though he lives locally. Tracy has a recording on her phone from Roger to the Judge. Tracy starts to play it and then the Judge tells her to stop. The Judge is not able to cross-examine a recording. It seems that Roger is making up a story after the fact. If he was so worried about the cat and the dog during the week, he should have done something about it. Does Tracy have any other evidence? She has a series of text messages from herself to Cindy's boyfriend and there is nothing to prove that she knew any of the information that is included in Roger's recording. If anything, the text messages prove that Tracy is a good liar. In her text messages, she says she has two eyewitnesses to Tony's theft. She does not have any witnesses. She is willing to say anything to get her cat back. I understand her frustration, but lying about it, does not help at all. Remember, honesty is always the best policy! Since Tracy has no proof that Cindy stole Tony, she is not awarded the value of the cat. Tracy does get some of the rent money back, since Cindy was not up to date on rent when she moved out.  Tracy is not able to prove that Cindy damaged the blinds, so she has to return the security deposit. This case is not about money. Tracy misses her cat and just wants him back. In the hallway, Cindy's boyfriend says that Tracy did not give the cat attention and he probably left to find a better home. Really, what does this mean? A cat does not leave to find a better home. Does anyone think that Cindy and her boyfriend helped Tony to find a "better" home?

What Happened To My Driveway?

Gary is suing Frank's paving company for $1935.00. Gary hired Frank to repave his asphalt driveway and to seal it. Frank was recommended by a neighbor. When Gary hired Frank, he also got him several more jobs in the neighborhood. Frank did those jobs before he did Gary's. Why? This is never answered. Gary is not happy with the outcome of the job. He shows pictures of the driveway. It is discolored, crumbling and deteriorating. There are even weeds growing through the asphalt. Frank explains this damage is from a snowplow. Gary says he never used a snowplow on the driveway. He only used a snow blower. Why is the driveway a gray color and bumpy looking? Franks says there is only one place in the county to buy asphalt. There is no way to be guaranteed to get the same quality material. The other driveways are perfect. Gary wants his driveway to look like those driveways. Why should he get inferior material? Frank says it is not inferior, it is just different. The weather has so much to do with it. When it is over 75 degrees outside, the asphalt gets soft and and the tires from the car can damage it. This is not the type of damage that is shown in the pictures. Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words. Should Gary have to live with an inferior job? No, he does not. The Judge awards him the $1935.00. In the hallway, Gary says he should have asked for more money. After all, it is going to cost him more to have the driveway removed before it is replaced. I think Gary should have had an estimate from a company for the removal of the driveway. I think he would have won. Whay do you think?

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

The most simple things can bring the most happiness.

- Izabella Scorupco

People's Court - 8 17 2012 - Friday

I Met Them In Church!

Lillian is suing Peter Gary (Lillian calls him Gary) and Theresa for $3000.00. This is for rent, a loan and damages from bedbugs. Lillian met Gary and Theresa in church. Lillian and her husband got a divorce and he moved out. Lillian wanted to help Gary and Theresa and she also needed help with her mortgage. She asked them to move in with her and her two children, ages 5 and 7. Lillian asked them to pay $400.00 a month rent. Initially, they gave her $200.00.  I do not think Lillian should have moved people into her home. It is not a good idea when you have young children. Her ex-husband did not like it either and he took the children away. He wanted Gary and Theresa to move out right away. Lillian's ex-husband did a background check on Gary and found out he had a warrant for his arrest. He did not want his children in the same house as Gary and Theresa. He felt they were a bad influence around the children. Lillian asked them to move out. They found a free house to move to. The house needed some work before they could move in. Lillian gave them back the $200.00, hoping this would get them to move out. Then, Gary and Theresa told Lillian the house needed more work, so she gave them $500.00. Lillian was paying them to move out. The next thing that happened was a bedbug infestation. Lillian had the house exterminated and it seemed the infestation originated form Gary and Theresa's room. Lillian and her present husband took the couple out to dinner and told them they needed to throw away the futon, since it was infested with bedbugs. They also told them they needed to move out. Gary and Theresa deny everything. They claim they were never asked to pay rent. They were going to help with the children and pay the utilities. They said the bedbugs did not come from their furniture. It was from used furniture Lillian brought home. Lillian said the used furniture she brought in was before Gary and Theresa moved in.  Lillian threw away their futon and then they finally moved out. They never paid her towards the utilities, they never helped with the children (the children were with their dad). So, what did they do? Well, Gary and Theresa took advantage of Lillian and had a free place to live. When they did move out, they moved into a fixer upper for free. How do people behave this way? The Judge finds that they owe Lillian 2 months rent and the $500.00 loan. They do not have to pay for the damages from the bedbugs since there is no way to prove they were responsible for the bedbugs. It is such a shame that Gary and Theresa took advantage of Lillian. Although, Lillian did allow this to happen. What was she thinking bringing strangers home to live with her and her children? What do you think?

We Were Friends For 30 Years - What Happened?

Arthur is suing his longtime friend, Kurt, for $5000.00. This is for medical bills, wages from lost work and a tree replacement. What causes two men who have been friends for 30 years part ways? We may never know because their stories are so different. Arthur claims that Kurt attacked him and broke his wrist. Kurt blocked the driveway with his camper all night. In the morning, Kurt left and Arthur was able to go to the hospital for treatment. After that incident, Arthur told Kurt to get his belongings off his property. Kurt keeps some of his belongings, machinery and equipment stored on Arthur's property. The second incident occurred when Arthur was staying at a campground. Arthur says that when Kurt removed his belongings, he cut the lock on the garage. Kurt did leave a new lock in its place. Arthur says that Kurt came to the campground to apologize to him. Kurt was intoxicated and very incoherent. When Arthur left the campground and returned to his mobile home, he heard a chainsaw. When he went to look he saw a tree cut and it was blocking the driveway. Arthur shows a picture of cut trees as evidence. Arthur explains there is more than one tree cut because he cuts trees also. Arthur says he contacted the police and tried to make several police reports but was not able to. He also was not able to get a restraining order. Why would Kurt attack Arthur? Why would he block the driveway? Arthur does not have answers to these questions. Now, it is Kurt's turn to talk. He explains that they are both on the lease for a campground property. When Kurt went to get his seasonal pass for the campground, he found out that Arthur took his name off the lease. This was corrected. Arthur told Kurt to remove his belongings from the property. Kurt removed everything and admits he had to cut the lock to get in the garage. He did leave a new lock with two keys. He denies attacking Arthur and breaking his wrist. Kurt says he heard through the grapevine that Arthur broke his wrist. Kurt denies cutting down the tree and blocking the driveway. Arthur cannot prove his case. He does not have any evidence. What a shame that a 30 year friendship ends over ...what? We really do not know what caused this to happen. Both men tell such different stories, we can only speculate about the answer. What do you think?

Please Don't Hurt Sebastian!

Sheila is suing Willie, her neighbor, for $5000.00. This is for vet bills and pain and suffering from a dog attack. Sheila explains that she and her cousin were getting ready to leave the house. While she was pulling the van out, her cousin, Vincent, had her little dog, Sebastian. Sebastian is a Maltese, a small breed of dog. Vincent explains that while he was walking Sebastian, a Rottweiller came running towards him. He pulled Sebastian up in his arms and the large dog jumped at him. Sebastian wriggled and jumped out of his arms. The Rottweiller grabbed Sebastian and was running away with him. Vincent was chasing him and then, Sheila saw what was happening. She started to chase after them to save her dog. Sheila said there were people watching, but they did not help. Finally, the Rottweiller dropped Sebastian. When Sheila picked up Sebastian, he nipped her on the finger because he was so scared. The Rottweiller started to come back and Vincent kicked him. Sheila took Sebastian to the vet for emergency care. Sheila shows pictures of Sebastian's wounds. He is lucky to have survived such a vicious attack. The neighbors told Sheila the Rottweiller was Junior's dog. Her neighbor Willie is known as Junior and he raises Rotteillers. Willie explains that he was out of state when this occurred. The police called him and told him his dog attacked another dog. Willie called his house and had them check if any of his dogs were missing. Willie says he has 4 Rottweillers, all females. 3 Rottweillers were in the kennel and one of them was not at home. Willie said the other female was not on the property. He takes his females to the male when they are ready to be bred. It does seem suspicious that one of his dogs was missing at the time of the attack. The police did catch a Rottweiller and the dog was taken to the shelter. Willie went to the shelter to identify the dog. Actually, the Animal Control Officer, wanted the dog to identify Willie. The Judge explains that a penned dog will react when they see their owner. Willie said when he stood at the pen, the dog stayed in the corner. Also, this was a male dog and his dogs are all females. Willie does admit that his dogs have gotten out of their kennel and the fenced in yard. He says this has happened several times. How do the dogs get out? Willie says his 9 year old daughter will go in the the kennel to play with the dogs and puppies and sometimes does not close the gates properly. Why would this have to happen several times before he corrects the problem? This particular incident occurred when his daughter was not home. Also, Willie is adamant that the dog was not his. Since there is no proof that the dog belonged to Willie, the Judge calls a recess to contact the Animal Control Officer. She is not able to reach the A.C.O. and makes an interim ruling. At this time, she rules in favor of Willie. The Judge is very clear that she will go to him personally and "slam" him if she finds out he owned the dog. Sheila cannot prove the dog that attacked Sebastian belonged to Willie. It is a shame that no one is held responsible for what happened to Sebastian and to Sheila. They went through a horrible experience. The story does not end there, no one claimed the Rottweiller and he was put to sleep. Someone owned this dog and this is inexcusable to have allowed this to happen. What do you think?

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

We all live with the objective of being happy; our lives are all different,  yet the same.

-Anne Frank

People's Court - 8 16 2012 - Thursday

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

People's Court - 8 15 2012 - Wednesday

I Want My Pay!

Michael is suing for $1500.00. This is for pay he earned as a general manager of a new restaurant and lounge. He is also suing for pain and suffering. Omera is the operations manager of the establishment. She represents the owner in court. Omera is the person who had the most contact with Michael at the restaurant. At first, Michael was hired as a bartender.  He went through a paid orientation for three days. Michael explains that the restaurant had not even opened. He received a call and was asked if he wanted to be the general manager instead of the bartender. Michael agreed because he was being offered $15.00 an hour. Michael worked 43 hours at regular time and 17.75 hours of overtime. During a meeting before the restaurant opened, they were discussing payroll. It was during this meeting that Michael found out he would be making $8.50 an hour, not $15.00. Michael and Omera disagreed, Michael walked out. He explains in court that he would not take the position for only pennies more than he was making as a bartender. Up to this point, Michael had not received any pay. He texted Omera that he was coming to get his check. She responded that the check was being sent certifed mail for legal reasons. Michael did not receive the check and he continued for 2 weeks to ask for his money. Finally, Omera has his check ready and Michael goes to the restaurant to pick it up. It was only for 40 hours,  not the hours he worked. He refused to sign for it and did not take the check. Omera explains that the receipt she has with his hours is not consistent with what he is asking for. She also explains that the receipt does not make sense. This receipt is printed out from the register when Michael would clock in and clock out. Omera also explains that Michael was not making $15.00 an hour. She said that she gave him the promotion and he was supposed to make $8.25 an hour. He was hired at $7.25 and was increased to $8.25. Omera says, she knows this, because she gave him the promotion and the raise. Also, why would Michael make more money than she does. Omera says that she does not even make $15.00 an hour. Omera keeps staring at  Michael when he insists on the amount of money he was supposed to get. At first the Judge laughs, since it is very comical. Omera is putting on quite a show. Everyone in the gallery is laughing. Then, it gets serious, because Omera will not stop. The courtroom is not the place for this type of behavior. It gets so bad, the Judge tells Omera if she does not stop, she will be thrown out. Finally, Omera stops staring at Michael and the courtroom calms down. Michael does not have any proof that he was supposed to receive $15.00 an hour. Also, he cannot receive pain and suffering. The Judge rules that Michael is to receive $500 in wages. When they leave the courtroom, Omera takes the opportunity to trash Michael. She says that no one should hire him, he is not worth $2.00 an hour. Michael says he would not take the position for that pay. This would be the perfect situation to have something in writing. Especially when you are receiving a promotion that doubles your pay. We all have to remember to protect ourselves by having everything in writing. Even a confirming e-mail would be great back-up. What do you think?

I Could Have Been Killed!

Elizabeth is suing for $1117.00. This is for the parts, labor and a new tire. Elizabeth explains she was driving, felt something funny and pulled into the nearest gas station. She had a flat tire and called her  roadside assistance service. Tony was dispatched to change the tire. Tony works for Alan, the owner of a franchise called Pop-A-Lock. Elizabeth explains that it took a very long time for Tony to change the tire. She then drove directly to a Goodyear shop and was surprised by what they found. The manager told her she was lucky to be alive. When the car was put up on the lift, they found that the lug nuts were smashed. Elizabeth has the lug nuts with her as evidence. Elizabeth also has a notarized statement from the manager at Goodyear. Elizabeth is very prepared for court. Now what does Tony have to say? He says when he arrived, Elizabeth's son was already trying to change the tire and having trouble. He said the tire was so shredded, she must have drove on it for awhile before she stopped. He jacked up the car properly, put on the spare donut and Elizabeth drove away. When the Judge shows Alan and Tony the damaged lug nuts, they say that Elizabeth's son must have caused the damage. If that is true, why would Tony use them for the spare donut?  Alan explains that they change 3,000-4,000 tires a year and never have a problem. The equipment they use would never do that type of damage. The way Tony put on the tire caused a condition that was very dangerous. In the statement that Elizabeth has from Goodyear, the manager states that the right rear well was not properly mounted onto the vehicle. The lug nuts were mushroomed and damaged the studs. The manager determined that the improper mounting of the tire caused the damage. Alan is still maintaining that he has no idea what would cause the damage and continues to say that it was because Elizabeth continued to drive on a flat tire. I would think Tony would have noticed the damage to the lug nuts and he would not be able to use them to put on the spare donut. Elizabeth has proven her case with the evidence she has brought to court. She does get $742.00 which does not include the cost of the new tire. Elizabeth explains she included that cost of the new tire because they aggravated her! Court does not compensate you for aggravation! In the hallway, Alan and Tony are still talking about the amount of tires they change every year. Elizabeth is happy with the decision and says she had no idea the tire was going to fall off. Elizabeth is very fortunate that she went directly to Goodyear, otherwise the outcome would have been very different. I wonder what really happened when Tony changed the tire. How could he not know something was wrong. We can only speculate. What do you think? 

Hurricane Irene Damaged My Apartment!

Cerline is suing for $334.10. This is the cost of an entertainment center and a vase. These items were damaged by workers that came to her apartment to do repairs after Hurricane Irene. Cerline is suing Anthony, the owner of the realty company. Anthony is countersuing Cerline for $2600.00 in back rent. After Hurricane Irene, Cerline had damage to her apartment. The ceiling fell in and everything was soaked. Anthony sent 2 men to repair the ceiling, fix part of the floor and paint. They did most of the work and were supposed to return to finish. When they did not come back, Cerline told Anthony. She requested the men come on a specific day, since she did  not want them there when she was away. Unfortunately, Anthony sent them to do the work when Cerline was not home. Cerline feels they entered her apartment without authorization. They damaged the entertainment center and broke a vase when they were working. Cerline is suing Anthony, since he is the one who sent them. The Judge rules that Cerline does not get any money on her lawsuit. She would need to sue the men that actually did the damage. Anthony is not responsible to pay for the damage done by the workers. Now, Anthony has a counterclaim. He says that Cerline owes him for 2 months rent. Cerline decided to move out, so she stopped paying rent. She lived there for an additional 2 months and then moved out. When Cerline moved in she gave Anthony $3900.00. According to Cerline, this covered the security deposit and the first and the last month's rent. Anthony said that it was the security deposit, first month's rent and a fee. What is this fee for? Anthony says it is because Cerline wanted to move in early. The lease does not reflect any of this information. Anthony cannot record the money one way, as rent and security deposit, and then distribute it another way. He did not tell Cerline she was paying him an additional fee. Cerline thought she was in the right, since a legal aid attorney told her she could live out her security deposit. The Judge tells her the legal aid attorney was wrong. That is not what the security deposit is meant for. Because she withheld rent, the Judge rules that Cerline needs to pay Anthony $1300.00, for one month's rent. When they leave the courtroom, Cerline reminds us that she will get her security deposit back. This case took a very interesting turn. Does Anthony always take a fee when he rents an apartment? Is this a common practice? Are the tenants aware they are paying towards a fee and not rent? So many questions and no answers. What do you think?

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

Fantasies are like sand castles. Fun to build, but you can't live in them.

-Ruth Ingrid 

People's Court - 8 14 2012 - Tuesday

I Stole From My Parents To Give To My Boyfriend!

Lindsay is suing Timothy for $1501.75. Lindsay is 19 years old and has been dating Timothy for a year. They are not together anymore. Lindsay explains they broke up when she kicked him and then he punched her. While they were together, Lindsay says that Timothy wanted a new bed. They went shopping together. When it was time to pay, Lindsay took a line of credit at the store. The purchase of the bed was put in her name. Why did she do this? If Timothy wanted a bed, he should pay for it himself. Lindsay's explanation is that she was in love. Next, Lindsay lends Timothy money for a softball team. She also lent him money to get his car fixed, to pay for his car insurance, to pay rent, to pay bills and for a trip to Florida. Where was Lindsay getting all of this money? She was stealing it from her parents savings account. This was an account that Lindsay's mom had many years ago and added Lindsay to the account. Lindsay stole $10,000 from the account. Why would she steal from her parents to give to her boyfriend? Why would her boyfriend allow this to happen? Timothy tries to explain that he thought it was Lindsay's child support money. Even if that was true, why would he be entitled to that money? When Lindsay's mom discovered the withdrawals from the account, she asked Lindsay to return the debit card. Timothy had the debit card. That is so ridiculous that Lindsay would trust him with the debit card. She really had no respect for her parents or even herself. Lindsay's mom explains that she has a $6500.00 lien against a personal injury suit of Timothy's. It seems Lindsay negotiated with Timothy to pay back $6500.00. Lindsay claims this money does not include the money spent on the bed. This is why she is suing him, to get back the money for the bed. Timothy says it does include the money spent on the bed. At first, they agreed on $5500.00. Then Lindsay brought up the payment for the bed. Timothy said he would give her another $1000.00. Lindsay agreed that he offered that amount and that is why the final amount is $6500.00. But, Lindsay says it was not for the bed. This does not make sense, since she brought up the bed, he offered additional money and she agreed. Lindsay also gave him a watch. Timothy has the watch with him and it is returned to Lindsay. What would possess this young woman to act this way? The Judge tells the mom that she is mortified since this is no way for a daughter to behave. Her daughter needs help. Lindsay is not awarded the the $1501.75 for the bed. This money is included in the lien and she cannot recover it twice. Lindsay needs to have more respect for herself. She should not be showering money on a man to keep his attention. This is a very important lesson to learn. Lindsay is young enough to move forward from this experience and not repeat this mistake. Lindsay is working and paying back her parents and I wish her luck in the future.

I Wanted To Go On The Bus Trip - Now Give Me My Money Back!

Amazetta is suing Denise for $105.00. This is for 3 tickets for a bus trip to the casino. Amazetta considers Denise like family. When they were both at a family reunion, Denise asked Amazetta if she wanted to go on a bus trip. Denise explained that she was working with the organizers. Amazetta wanted to go on the bus trip and also asked a friend to go. Amazetta laid out the money for her friend and  Denise's father. She paid Denise $105.00 for the three tickets for the trip that was scheduled for the 27th of the month. On the 27th, Amazetta called the phone number on the ticket, to find out where to meet the bus. The man on the phone would not give her an exact address, he gave her an intersection. He told her the bus leaves from the corner of Purdue and Agler. Amazetta had a friend call the number and found out the man's name was Cliff. Cliff also gave her an exact address. No one told Amazetta that the trip was cancelled. When she found out she wanted her money back. Denise said that Cliff and Juan are responsible to pay her back. Denise gave the money to Juan and he should give it back. The problem is that no one can find Juan or Cliff. Amazetta gave the money to Denise, she wants Denise to pay it back. Since Denise was helping to organize the trip and she admits she was going to travel for free, she is responsible to pay the money back. Denise can now sue Cliff and Juan to get the money from them. I think it is sad that Denise treated Amazetta this way. She let Amazetta pay for a trip and never bothered to let her know it was cancelled. And what about Denise's father? He never paid Amazetta for the ticket. She was nice enough to lay out the money for him. Why do people treat each other this way?

I Just Want The Title To The Car!

Dev is suing Artie for $3000.00. This is for the cost of a used car he bought from Artie. Dev does not want the money, he just wants the title to the car. Artie will not give him the title, since he claims that Dev owes him for the cost of having the car towed. Artie is also countersuing for $640.00, the cost of a lawyer and the cost of the tow. Dev bought a 2001 Kia Sportage from Artie's used car business. When he left the lot, he drove 8-10 miles, the car sputtered and died. He called Artie, was told the car ran out of gas. Artie informed him the gas gauge was broken and he was sending someone with gas for the car. In the meantime, a police officer stopped and called for a tow truck. It seemed Dev's car was blocking a snowplow. When Dev called Artie to tell him the car was being towed, Artie got upset. Artie told Dev to get the mileage on the tow truck. He did not know why Artie wanted this information. The cost of the tow was $140.00, Dev was not going to pay for the tow. He did not feel it was his responsibilty. The driver was going to leave with the car. Artie went inside and got money to pay for the tow. Artie claims that Dev was supposed to pay him back, Dev denies this. Artie put gas in the car and Dev drove away. Did Artie fix the gas gauge? No. Artie says he never said the gas gauge was broken. Did Dev ask him to fix it? No. Dev said he bought a used car and knows the rules. Dev is very calm about this whole situation.  He shows a video of his car, the gas gauge, putting gas in the tank and the gas gauge does not move. Dev says he knows when to put gas in the car. Why won't Artie give him the title to the car? Artie feels Dev should pay for the tow. Well, it does not work out this way. Dev wins his case and gets...the title to the car! I am so happy for him. Dev sounds like he really likes the car and is not bothered about the broken gas gauge. I really think Dev should have also sued for the cost of fixing the gas gauge. He did not know he was buying a car with a broken gas gauge. I admire Dev for the cool, calm, collected way he approaches life. Oh, and Artie loses on his counterclaim. Artie should be more upfront with his customers. Letting someone leave a used car lot with no gas in the tank is not responsible at all! What do you think?

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

Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart.

-Phil Jackson