Sunday, September 30, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 28 2012 - Friday

Frank And The Water Leak
Frank is suing Kevin for $5000.00. Frank is the superintendent of Kevin's building. His apartment is underneath Kevin's. Frank explains that he posted notices that the water in the building was going to be turned off due to plumbing repairs. Kevin and his girlfriend did not get the dates correct and when she went to take a shower, there was no water. Kevin called Frank and was reminded that this was the day the repairs were being done. When the repairs were finished and the water was turned back on, Frank noticed a leak in his apartment. He checked the apartments above him and found the water running in Kevin's apartment. Kevin and his girlfriend do not remember closing the drain to the tub and did not think they left the water running. 

Kevin asked Frank on two occasions to see the damage. Frank would not show him unless he was willing to take responsibility for the damages and pay $5000.00. Kevin wanted to see proof. He felt that Frank might be inflating the cost of the damages. In court, Frank does not have any proof for everything he is asking for. He claims the hardwood floor has to be replaced instead of repaired. He wants to be reimbursed for bedding that could be washed. He wants payment for a laptop, a playstation and DVDs and CDs, he claims were damaged. He has no proof, he did not even bring them to court. 

The Judge agrees there was clearly water damage due to the leak. There is no question the water came from Kevin's apartment. Since Frank has no proof of the damage to specific items, the Judge awards him $750.00. This is a major difference from the $5000.00 he was asking for. It is very important to have evidence of damages and the value of the items. Frank realizes this and admits he should have been better prepared for court. Maybe next time...

Delphena And Road Rage 
Delphena is suing Andrew for $2781.91. This is the cost of the damages to her car due to a traffic accident. The only problem with her lawsuit is that the accident was her fault. She tried to pass Andrew's van on the left side, squeezing between him and a parked car. Andrew has pictures for the court showing the position of the cars. Delphena tries to say that Andrew caused the accident, but the pictures tell a different story. Delphena admits that Andrew was driving slowly and she honked at him and passed him. Andrew shows there was one lane and there was not enough room for Delphena to fit. Delphena was very angry and after the accident told Andrew and his passenger to stay away from her or she was going to smack them. Really! This is no way to talk to someone. She also says the accident was not necessary. Well, this is absolutely true since she caused it! Andrew's van suffered minor damage that he was able to fix himself for $15.00. Since Delphena caused the accident, she is not entitled to any money. She continues to accuse Andrew of deliberately hitting her car even as she exits the courtroom. Delphena needs to realize that she caused this accident so she does not do this again in the future. Anger management might be beneficial for Delphena to curtail her road rage! What do you think?

Jamal And The Security Deposit
Jamal is suing Althea, his landlord, for $2500.00. This is for a security deposit and increased electric bills. Jamal has rented an apartment from Althea since 2006. He moved in after his mother moved out. The rent was partially covered by Section 8, a government assistance program. Althea explains that she constantly had to take Jamal to housing court for nonpayment of rent. Jamal says he has had many problems with the apartment and constantly reported them to the city. Althea and Jamal had a court settlement that instructed him to vacate the apartment by January 31, 2012. Jamal admits he did not move out until March 2, 2012. He blames this on Section 8. He claims he could not move out without their approval. He received their approval on February 15th, but did not move out until March 2. Since he did not pay the rent for March, the security deposit would cover that payment. Jamal also wants to be compensated for an increase in the electric bills since the landlord put in a dehumidifier. He is not entitled to this money. He does not get any money back. The landlord describes his behavior as arrogant and intimidating. She went through the proper channels to evict him and he took advantage by ignoring the court settlement. Hopefully he will pay his rent and get along with his new landlord. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
~Albert Einstein

People's Court Blog - 9 27 2012 - Thursday

Devon And The Third Floor Store
Devon is suing Gizelle for $800.00. Gizelle is countersuing for $3900.00. Devon rented a room in the building of Gizelle's beauty salon. He thought he would have customers to sell DVDs to. Unfortunately he was on the third floor of the building. The customers that came to the salon did not go past his store. Since he was not able to make enough income to justify the amount of the rent, he moved out. The $800.00 Devon is suing for is the security deposit. The money that Gizelle wants is from unpaid rent for months after Devon moved out and damage done to the room. Yes, you read that correctly. Devon had already moved out. There was no written agreement for this rental. Devon shows the receipts for the monies paid for rent and the security deposit. Gizelle shows pictures of shelves that were installed and glass display cases that were broken. Devon admits to installing the shelves and leaving them there. He claims the glass display cases were broken when he rented the room. He cannot prove they were broken. Also, since there was no written lease, Devon is not responsible to pay rent for months after he had moved out. A verbal agreement does not work in this type of situation. especially when both parties tell different stories. 

The Judge finds that Gizelle is entitled to the damages. Since Gizelle has no proof of value, the Judge assigns a value to these items. Also, after the Judge reviews the payments made to Gizelle, she finds there was $900.00 provided for the security deposit. Gizelle needs to pay Devon $450.00 back. This will satisfy her countersuit. Gizelle says she will never rent to anyone ever again. If she had a written agreement this would not have been so difficult. Also, it is very important to keep track of all payments for security deposit and rent. I do not understand why people make agreements without putting them in writing. Also, why give someone money without documenting the payment. People claim it is because they are too trusting, but is this really the reason? What do you think?

Tatiana And The Car Fire
Tatiana is suing Paul, owner of an auto center, for $4850.00. This is for the cost of a used car she bought from her fiancee and parts and labor for fixing it. After Tatiana purchased the 2000 Audi A6  from her fiancee, she took it to Paul to have work done. After having work done to the tune of $1850.00, she drove it for several days and then parked it in a garage for 2 weeks. The day she took the car out of the garage and drove it, the car caught on fire. Thank goodness, Tatiana pulled over as soon as she noticed the smoke. She got out of the car quickly. The car went up in flames. Tatiana is very lucky to have gotten out of the car quickly. She shows a video of the car on fire. It is really scary to watch. There were good Samaritans who tried to put the fire out. They were lucky not to have gotten hurt, The police and fire departments responded. The fire department put out the fire. Tatiana was told the cause of the fire was electrical. The reason she is suing Paul is because he was the last one to do work on the car. Paul explains that he did not do any electrical work on the car. Since Tatiana has no proof that the work done by Paul could have caused the fire, the Judge finds in favor of Paul.

It is very important to be have evidence to prove someone is responsible for a situation. Tatiana is very fortunate to have gotten out of the car and that no one was hurt by this major fire. Tatiana did suffer nightmares after this happened. She says that she would dream that she died in the car fire. This was such a traumatic event to go through. Sometimes people do need professional help to deal with the aftermath of a near death experience!

Lynn And The Disney Vacation
Lynn is suing Thomas for $491.60. Thomas is Lynn's daughter's, Chrissy,  ex-boyfriend. Lynn and her family were planning a vacation to Disney. Thomas was invited. He agreed to pay his share of the trip, the airline ticket and the hotel room. Lynn fronted the money with the agreement that Thomas would pay her back before the trip. Thomas and Chrissy broke up before the trip. For some reason, Thomas did not feel he needed to pay his share. The airline ticket could still be used by him, but the hotel room had a cancellation fee. Thomas said he was willing to pay for the airline ticket, but did not think he should have to pay the entire cancellation fee for the hotel room since he  was going to be sharing the room with Chrissy. Did Thomas pay for the airline ticket? No, he did not. Did he pay half of the hotel room cancellation? No, he did not. Now in court, he is found responsible to pay for the airline ticket and the entire cancellation fee for the hotel room. The reason he is responsible for paying the entire amount for the hotel room cancellation, is because he chose to cancel. The room was not needed since he was not going on the trip.

It seemed that Thomas was still welcome to go on the trip, even though they had split up. It is possible Chrissy and Thomas might have gotten back together. At this point they both say the breakup was mutual and have both moved on. Good luck in your future relationships!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

Inspiration and genius -- one and the same.
~Victor Hugo

People's Court Blog-9 26 2012-Wednesday

Naomi And The Caterer
Naomi is suing Paul the caterer for $2778.00. Naomi hired Paul to cater her daughter's Sweet Sixteen party. She signed a contract with him and estimated 160 people to attend. Naomi did let Paul know she might have 200 guests at the event. She describes a party where the food ran out early. There was no soda by 10:30 pm and her daughter's friends went out to get fast food. Paul admits he stopped serving food at 9:45 pm. He claims he had backup food. Where was it? Was it in the kitchen at the party? No, it was at his place of business. This does not help anyone. He also admits he cooked food for 145 people. This makes no sense at all. The paperwork he submits to the Judge shows in his writing 203 people. He keeps saying that Naomi only wanted to pay for 120 people not 200. This makes no sense at all. There is not too much that Paul says that makes sense. I find it hard to believe he is a successful caterer. 

Thank goodness the family made the best of it and Naomi's daughter had a fun night. A Sweet Sixteen party is a major event. The Judge finds in favor of Naomi for $1778.00. She is satisfied with the verdict and is glad it is over. Paul admits it was a bad idea to stop serving food to the guests. Hopefully he will learn from this and keep the backup food at the venue! What do you think?

Dennis And The Storage Fees
Dennis is suing Dominick for $5000.00. Dominick is countersuing for $3800. Dennis claims he is out over $15,000.00. He was desperate for storage for 14 cars. He made an agreement with Dominick to keep his cars on his property. They have conflicting stories regarding the fee and the time limit. This is why it is very important to have things in writing. After hearing from both parties the Judge sets a fee. Based on how much Dennis can prove in payments, the verdict is for Dominick for $2500.00. There is a time limit set for the removal of the cars. Dennis needs to remove the cars in this time period. In the hallway, Dennis claims he is going to report the cars stolen. I do not know how this will help him. Why don't people get agreements in writing? It is so easy to document an agreement. Send an e-mail or a text to confirm what has been discussed. This will help to prove what has been talked about. Also, always get a receipt when money changes hands!

Kevin And The Credit Card Charges
Kevin is suing Angela for $1400.00. Angela is his ex-girlfriend and the mother of their daughter. When Kevin was in the process of buying a house he found out about charges on his Macy's credit card. Kevin explains that he removed Angela from the account in 2008. She was an authorized user in 2006. The information that Kevin provides to the court is that Angela used the credit card to purchase $1400.00 in gift cards. Angela says that her mother and her have the same name so it must have been her mother. She completely denies that she used the credit card. This is so interesting since the cards were delivered and signed for by her. Also, Kevin had initiated a custody battle for his daughter before Angela ordered the gift cards. The timing is very suspect! The Judge also informs Angela that there is a warrant out for her arrest and she should consult a lawyer. She does not seem phased by this at all. The Judge finds in favor of Kevin and Angela needs to pay back the entire amount. I hope Angela finds a lawyer right away and takes care of this very important issue of the warrant for her arrest.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

To my readers, I am sorry for the lapse. Once again, life has thrown me a curveball! I am trying to meet the challenges of everyday life and stay on top of my daily blog. Hopefully, next week will be much easier and you will hear from me on a daily basis. Wish me luck!

Try not to become a man of success, but a man of value.
~Albert Einstein

Thursday, September 27, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 25 2012 - Tuesday

Tianne And The Irresponsible Landlord
Tianne is suing Frances for $2800. This is for her security deposit from an apartment she rented from Frances. Tianne lived there for 5 years and when she decided to move out gave Frances 2 months notice. At first Frances told her to live out her security deposit, which was 2 months rent. Then Frances changed her mind. Tianne did use the security deposit towards one month's rent. Why wouldn't Frances give her back the rest? Frances claims that Tianne left air conditioners and a TV set in the apartment and she could not rent it. A friend of Tianne's picked up these items within 45 days. Frances says she did not know what to do with the items and she needed to paint the apartment. Really Frances! You couldn't paint the apartment and show it working around window air conditioners units and a TV set? She also says that Tianne broke a window pane. Frances has a receipt for supplies and labor for $70.00. This is no excuse to keep all the money. The Judge is not going to permit Frances to keep it all. She has to return $1230.00 to Tianne. Frances is lucky she does not live in one of the states that has a penalty for landlords that withhold the security deposit without proper notification. She needs to learn her rights and responsibilities as a landlord. Tianne was a good tenant and did not deserve to be treated this way. What do you think?

Anabela And The Need For A Contract
Anabela is suing Mack for $2450.00. She hired Mack and his friend to do some handyman work in her office. Anabela says that Mack did electrical work and she was pleased with the job. Now she needed flooring done, paneling installed and a wall air conditioner covered. They did not have a written contract. This is never a good idea. Especially in this case, since Anabela has very specific ideas about what she wanted done. She is not happy about the work that was done. She says the floor tiles lift up when the floor is vacuumed, the floor is not level and the wind blows through the wall around the air conditioner. The checks for supplies and labor were written out to Mack. He claims he was the helper on the job. He is an electrician and not a carpenter. Mack feels that Anabela should sue his friend Johnny. 

The Judge rules in favor of Anabela since the checks were written out to Mack. He is not able to accept the money for the job and not have responsibility for the quality of the work. Anabela does not get all of the money she is suing for since she cannot prove the exact work she wanted done. Also, she wants $1000.00 to remove the tiles that are so loose they come up with the vacuum. She does get back $1200.00.

This is why it is so important to have a written contract. Showing notes about a transaction does not prove that the other person knew what you wanted done. We all need to learn from this experience. Whatever type of transaction is being conducted - get it in writing!

Andrea / Tylan And The Non-Existent Title
Andrea and Tylan are suing Adrian for $1091.86. This is for various expenses associated with the purchase of a used car. Adrian owns an auto sales business. The car they purchased was a 1990 Honda Accord. They paid $795.00. Unfortunately they never received the title for the vehicle. After several months, Andrea received a salvage title showing Progressive was the owner of the vehicle. She contacted Adrian and to this day has not received the title to the car. Adrian gives an excuse about the title being lost. When he finally received the title from the auction house he submitted it to the DMV. Why wouldn't the person who purchased the car receive the title? It does not seem like a very efficient way to do business. 

Since one of the only consistent warranties of purchasing a used car is to receive the title, Andrea wins the case. She will not get everything she is asking for because they did have the benefit of Tylan driving the car. She does get back $931.86. This is a significant portion of the money she is suing for. The Judge rules this way since Adrian is only able to come up with excuses and not results. 

It is so important to make sure all of the paperwork is in order for the sale of a used car. Adrian of all people should know this since this is his business. Hopefully he will learn from this and conduct business differently in the future! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

My success just evolved from working hard at the business at hand each day.
~Johnny Carson



Tuesday, September 25, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 24 2012 - Monday

Thomas And His Soulmate
Thomas is suing Kathleen for $10,000. The two of them met at a singles dance. Thomas loved to dance and he saw Kathleen and asked her to dance with him. They were on the road to becoming soulmates, even though Kathleen finds it difficult to explain what a soulmate is. The two of them had so much in common. They decided to buy homes, renovate them and resell them. Oh and when Thomas says they were going to buy houses, he means Kathleen pays for them and then they  split the profit 50 - 50. Kathleen does not remember it this way. She thought Thomas was helping her because he liked her. Thomas felt his time was worth $8.25. Kathleen never agreed to pay him by the hour. She never agreed to reimburse him for the money he spent on gas for all of the driving he did. After they broke up, Thomas decided he should be paid for all the work he did and all of the money he spent on gas. Since they did not have a contract or an agreement, they Judge decides in favor of Kathleen. 

The really sad thing is that Kathleen was not breaking up with Thomas. The day of the "altercation" as the two of them refer to the breakup day, Kathleen was moving Thomas's belongings from one mobile home to hers. She wanted to sell the mobile home he was staying in. When Thomas returned home from a doctor's appointment, he saw all of his belongings outside of the mobile home. He left and did not speak to her again. If Thomas was delayed that day, none of this would have happened or would it?

Nelson And His Mistress
Nelson is suing Pristine and Clean car wash for $1115.09. This is for the cost of an antennae and a mount for his mustang. He tells us that his friends and family refer to his car as his mistress. Really, is this necessary to tell us? Nelson noticed the mount and the antennae were missing after he returned home from the car wash. Why didn't he check his mistress right away? He went back to the car wash 2 days later. Why didn't he take his mistress back right away? Raul explains that there was video surveillance of the mustang and they did not save it. Why not? So many questions and very few answers! The clincher for this case is that Nelson did not check the car right away and then he waited 2 days to go back to the car wash. This is no way to treat a mistress! Oh well! The Judge finds in favor of the car wash. It is very important to deal with issues right way. Nelson would have had much more credibility if he checked his mistress before he left the car wash or at very least returned immediately after he noticed the antennae and mount were missing!

Leonardo And The Suspended License
Leonardo is suing Ramonita for $3368.81. Ramonita is Leonardo's insurance broker. At the end of December Leonardo went to her office and wrote a check to the insurance ompany for one year coverage on his car. In mid January he received a cancellation of service letter from the state of New York. When he showed the letter to Ramonita she said not to worry about it. Then Leonardo received a second notice and Ramonita gave him a temporary insurance identification card. Since he did not respond to the letters and did not make sure he had car insurance, his driver's license was suspended. He relied on Ramonita's expertise to ensure all was well. This backfired on him. Why would Ramonita lie to him? She says she called the insurance company and verified there was no problem. Getting the letters of cancellation was a very good indication there was a problem. The insurance company went out of business. Ramonita would have found this out when she called them. Leonardo's check was never cashed. He finally put a stop payment on it in April. Leonardo should have realized the check was not cashed and he did not have insurance coverage.

Leonardo wants Ramonita to be responsible for all the expenses he incurred as a result of his suspended license. He has to take some responsibility in this matter. The Judge finds in his favor for some of the expenses. and he receives $1221.81.

The real curious part of this story is why Ramonita did not explain to Leonardo what was happening. She would have known that the insurance company went out of business. She could have sold Leonardo insurance through another company. Someone needs to learn how to do their job. There must have been other clients that were affected by this insurance company going out of business. Hopefully Leonardo will learn from this experience and be more aware of the status of his finances. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Laughter is an instant vacation.
~Milton Berle

Sunday, September 23, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 21 2012 - Friday

James And The Twin Sister
This is one of the saddest cases I have seen. James is suing Elizabeth for $4650.00. James is dating  Veronica, Elizabeth's twin sister. The two girls had a major fight and Veronica moved out over a year ago. The sisters have not talked to each other in all this time. One evening James, Elizabeth, Veronica, and the girls' father all met up in the parking lot where Veronica worked. There was an argument and physical fighting. The father says he tried to break it up. Everyone's stories are different from each other. Something happened that night and James claims that Elizabeth broke his cell phone, ripped his shirt and caused him physical injury. He has also added pain and suffering to his damages. 

The truly sad thing here is that James should be trying to help Veronica make up with her sister. Instead he seems to be fueling the fire. These two girls are so upset, they both find it hard to talk. in court. This is such an emotional case, even the Judge has to hold back tears. James is not helping matters at all by bringing this case to court. What a shame he is not supportive of his girlfriend. Hopefully Veronica realizes this and stands up to him. She needs to have the support to work things out with her sister. Elizabeth describes James as rude, controlling and arrogant. He certainly seems this way when he demanded the dad pay him $900.00 for damages from that night or he would sue. And then when he does sue, the amount increases to over $4000.00. This is not someone trying to help his girlfriend repair the relationship with her twin sister.

Since James has no evidence for anything he is suing for, the Judge rules in favor of Elizabeth. This family needs time and support to be able to work things out. I hope they can get the help they need. Good luck Veronica and Elizabeth. I hope you can be close again!

Kim And The Custody Battle
Kim is suing David for $3000.00. This is for expenses and emotional distress when her son did not come home after a month long visit with his father. Kim and David have a 12 year old son together. Two days before young David was to come home, his dad called and told Kim he was not returning. Kim went to family court and received a court order for the return of her son. She drove from Alabama to Michigan to pick up her son. When she got there, she went to the school and was denied the return of her son. The principal of the school and the police supported this position. Kim drove home without her son. Then Kim filed in court for full custody. Since David did not show up for the hearing, she won. David was given supervised visitation. This is probably a difficult thing to do since they live so far away from each other. David should have showed up for the hearing. He claims he could not afford it, actually he couldn't afford not to go. The custody arrangement might have worked out much differently if he would have showed up. Also, it would have showed his son that he was fighting for him.

Kim has no grounds to sue David for her expenses in trying to retrieve her son. They did not have a custody agreement before this incident occurred. Kim does not get money from David for travel expenses and does not get any money for emotional distress. She has caused this situation by not having a legal custody agreement with her son's father. David had no legal obligation to return young David to his mother. Looking back, he probably would have done things differently. The only person getting hurt in this situation is young David. It is so unfair to a 12 year old to be fought over by his parents in this way. It seems that Kim does not let father and son talk. In court, the Judge asked for young David's cell phone number and gave it to David. David is so happy now that he will be able to call his son. It is important for a father and son to be able to have a relationship. Distance makes this difficult to begin with, but the mother should not stand in the way! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

I no doubt deserved my enemies, but I don't believe I deserved my friends.
~Walt Whitman

People's Court Blog - 9 20 2012 - Thursday

Matthew And 7 Long Years
Matthew is suing Aneta for $5000.00. This is for the cost of an engagement ring. Matthew and Aneta dated for 2 1/2 years and broke up 7 years ago. Wow! That is a really long time. Matthew does not have a good reason why he waited so long to sue Aneta. He says that for the first year he tried to get the ring back and then...what happened? He never tells the Judge why he waited so long. Aneta tells a different story. She says that she supported Matthew, financially and emotionally. Aneta always worked and there were periods of time when Matthew was unemployed.   Aneta says that when Matthew was addicted to prescription drugs, she was there for him.  They did not have an amicable break-up. Aneta describes an incident when Matthew kicked her out of the car on a deserted road in February. She said it took her 15 - 20 minutes to walk home. You do not do this to someone you love. When they broke up she told him he could pay her back the $6000.00 he owed her or she would keep the ring. He did not have any money, so she kept the ring. She thought that was the end of it. 

Aneta said she could not believe he was suing her for the ring so many years later. Even though  an engagement ring is typically returned when a couple breaks up, the Judge finds in favor of Aneta in this case. It might have been a different story if Matthew had not waited so long to sue. What do you think?

Giusto And The Craigslist Ad
Giusto is suing Amanda for $760.00. This is for the deposit given to Amanda to hold an apartment for rent. There is not too much of this case that makes sense. Amanda advertised on Craigslist for a female roommate with no pets, except maybe a goldfish. Giusto answered the ad, he is not female and he has a Pitbull. Why would Amanda even consider him for a roommate? She does because he is from her school and she knew his girlfriend from one of her classes. She shows him the apartment, explains the rent and living arrangements and takes a deposit. He was supposed to sign the lease when he moved in. Giusto contacts Amanda and says he needs to take some measurements. Then he contacts her and wants the complete spelling of her name and the exact address so he can send her a gift. She tells him to bring it with him when he moves in, he says no he wants to mail it. Amanda thinks this is very strange. Then he contacts her and wants to renegotiate the rent.  Instead of the utilities being included, he wants to split them. He wants to lower the rent. Amanda tells him it is not negotiable. He also makes comments about being more than roommates. He is looking for a friend and a partnership. Amanda just wants a roommate. When Amanda would not change the terms of the rental agreement, Giusto asked for his deposit back. Amanda said that she would not return it. The day before he was due to move in, Amanda texted him to verify he was not coming. He did not respond. Amanda did not hear from him until he sued her.

Giusto claims he should get his money back because Amanda told him the apartment was not available. Amanda told him the apartment was not available to rent to someone else because she was holding it for him. Giusto totally ignores this fact. The Judge rules in favor of Amanda. This worked out for the best for Amanda. If Giusto had moved in, I do not believe it would have lasted. Hopefully Amanda has learned that when she advertises for someone specific, she should stick to it. Amanda wanted a female roommate with a goldfish, not a male friend with a Pitbull!

Bryan And The Spilled Drink
Bryan is suing Kaycie for $755.00. This is for the cost to get his laptop repaired. Bryan and a few friends rented rooms at a hotel to celebrate New Year's Eve in a responsible way. They did not want to drive after a night of celebrating. Bryan put his laptop on top of a dresser to keep it out of the way and safe. He was playing music from it so it was open. When someone started taking pictures, Kaycie did not want to have a drink in her hand. She put the drink on top of the dresser. She says she did not see the laptop, even though it was open. This is so strange. When someone else saw the drink had spilled they tried to save the laptop. They wiped it off and even used a blow dryer to dry it quickly. Bryan said it worked for a few minutes and then stopped. 

Kaycie says she offered Bryan $500.00 after it happened. She said she could not pay him right away because she was not working. Bryan says the offers were always changing. He asked Kaycie to pay for the entire repair because she was responsible for the damage. Why doesn't Kaycie think she should have to pay for it? Kaycie says that Bryan knew the risk and it is ridiculous it went this far. Really? For someone who is responsible enough not to want a drink in her hand in a picture, she should be responsible to pay for the consequences of her actions. Yes, it was an accident. No one is claiming it wasn't. Bryan did the right thing to bring her to court. The Judge finds in favor of Bryan. Unfortunately he has lost a friend over this. Kaycie says she will never speak to him again. What a shame that friends could not have worked this out and the friendship is ruined over $755.00! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

A waffle is like a pancake with a syrup trap.
~Mitch Hedberg

Saturday, September 22, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 19 2012 - Wednesday

Thank you very much to Carly from WeShouldntSing for the special guest blog on Tuesday.
I hope you had as much fun writing as I did reading.
I look forward to future guest blogs!

Ashley And The Stolen Check
Ashley is suing Ryeisha for $950.00. The two girls go to high school together. They have been friends for about a year. Ryeisha asked Ashley to cash a check for her from her uncle. Why couldn't the uncle cash the check? Ashley did not ask. She deposited the check and took out the money from the ATM to pay Ryeisha. She could not take the money out all at one time due to withdrawal limits. It took her three days to take out the $950.00 to give the money to Ryeisha. Soon after this, Ryeisha gave Ashley another check to cash. Ryeisha found a blank signed check at school. She picked it up, put her name on it and gave it to Ashley to cash.

What were these two girls getting themselves involved in? The school called Ryeisha's mom and told her there was video surveillance of Ryeisha picking up the check. They called Ashley and told her not to deposit it. She had already deposited it, but had not withdrawn the money yet.

The money she is being sued for is from the first check. Ryeisha says they split the money, Ashley says she gave all of the money to Ryeisha. Neither girl is telling the truth. It is very difficult to figure out what the truth is. There are text messages between the two girls, but even these messages do not make it clear how they split the money. The  Judge rules in favor of Ashley. Neither girl was innocent and hopefully they both learned from this experience.

Crystal And Her Kenneth Cole Coat
Crystal is suing a nightclub for $299.00. This is for the cost of her Kenneth Cole coat. Crystal went out for a night of fun with her friends. She made it very clear in her written answer to the complaint that she does not "do" clubs. The club's policy is that everyone check their coats. When a commotion occurred in the club, Crystal decided to leave. Crystal does not "do" commotion! The line was very long for the coats, so she asked if she could get her coat the next day. This is because she obviously does not "do" lines! Even though the claim check clearly states the club is not responsible for items left on the premises, she believes it is okay to leave her coat. When she returns to the club six days later to get her coat, they do not have it. She also does not have her claim check, but they let her look at the two coats that were there. Neither coat is hers. Crystal leaves and comes back with her husband and the claim check. Did she think her coat was going to materialize? The club manager offers her a bottle and a table. Crystal wants the money for her coat. The bottle they are offering her cost $300.00. She should have taken them up on their offer. They have no legal obligation to pay her for the coat. The statement on the claim check is very clear. The Judge finds in favor of the club. Crystal is not happy and believes one of the employees is wearing her coat. Crystal should have waited in line for her coat, it is time to "do" lines!

Darren And The Custom Made Pool Cover
Darren is suing Brian for $1396.41. This is for the cost of a custom pool cover. Brian is the friend of a friend. Darren is nice enough to help Brian clean the pool and get it ready for use. Brian asked Darren to order a cover for his pool. After Darren measured the pool, he called Brian and gave him two choices for the cover. Brian called him back and told him he wanted the one with the warranty. He very clearly knew that Darren was ordering the cover. Brian decides to go online and order a cheaper cover. Why would he do this? He leaves a message for Darren that a friend of his gave him a cover for the pool. Why does he lie? Brian is very unclear about the entire situation. He says he had three days to change his mind and then he says he did not have a contract. Which is it? Well, the Judge clears it up for him. He has to pay for the pool cover. Now he will have a custom made pool cover when the cheap one rips! 

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

A day without sunshine, is like, night.
~Steve Martin

I would like to apologize for the delay in this blog. Life has given me a few unexpected twists and turns. I am back now. Thank you for being patient. Again I would like to thank Carly from WeShouldntSing for her guest blog. I hope everyone enjoyed it as much as I did!



Tuesday, September 18, 2012

GUEST WRITER! People's Court -- 9/18/2012 -- Tuesday

Hi all! My name is Carly and I'm from the YouTube Channel WeShouldntSing! I will be writing the People's Court Blog today and herrrreeeee we go!

                                             Here comes trouble, make it double!

Plaintiff- Daniel  ($5,000)
Defendants -- Darla and Anthony ($5,000)

               The Plaintiff (Daniel) is suing for his security deposit, moving fees, and rent he never paid. ($5,000) Already I'm like, what? If he never paid the rent.... this should get interesting.
                He moved to the place so he could be closer to his school. According to the Plaintiff there's 6 students living in the house and they're all renting individual rooms in the house. Daniel says Anthony asked him to move out because he wears too much cologne. Seriously? No sense was made in that argument haha.
                Anthony claims that Daniel would umm... how to put this lightly.... use the restroom at night multiple times and...well.... make the house have an unpleasant odor. The Defendants are also claiming he made the room his own personal storage unit and stacked his belongings to the point where the cleaning lady can't get in. Darla is saying they won't return the security deposit because there was also an unpleasant smell in Daniel's room that they can't get out. She also says they have to paint the room to get the smell out and that is why she is keeping half of the security deposit. The Judge informs the Defendants that they live in a state that requires them to send an itemized letter to the tenant about why they are keeping the security deposit or else they have to pay him back double. The Judge also asks Daniel if he really thinks he's entitled to the money he hasn't paid them. He kind of skirts around it so we can effectively say that part of the lawsuit is       d
  r
    o
      p
        p
          e
            d
   
        Now let's talk about the counterclaim for 5,000! Daniel wrote a statement saying Darla is from the ghetto. He wrote it in a letter to the court about the lawsuit so......... DISMISSED!
         The Defendants have to pay $1,100 DOUBLE his security deposit! BAM JUSTICE haha


                                                          #JusticeServed
Plaintiff--  Tequila ($3,227)
Defendant--  Sheila

     Tequila is suing because Sheila (her employee) was ringing up hair extensions and was using a fraudulent credit card so all the charges got reversed. I'm a little confused right now, so let's watch it and shed some light on this case.
      Tequila owns the salon where Sheila works. Sheila was ringing up extensions for a coworker (from another job) who was using a fraudulent credit card. Sheila says she matched the credit card to the person who was using it. Matched it with her ID and everything, but the magnetic strip was scratched so she had to punch in the credit card number manually. She was really reluctant to say it, and it's fair to say Tequila offered up that information. The second time a fraudulent card is used (December 12th) it is also for one of Sheila's coworkers (from another job). Again the number was typed in. It is really so, so sad that all of Sheila's coworkers have credit cards with the magnetic strips that are scratched off. Sheila has a suppressed smirk on her face like the whole time. Sheila admits she didn't really check the IDs OMG SURPRISE OF THE CENTURY RIGHT THERE! So there are 3 more fraudulent charges, 2 by her other friends and the last one by, HERSELF! She says she paid Tequila in cash for the purchase she made with the card.
     The Judge is getting serious now. She calls Sheila a scam artist and a thief, accuses her of actually stealing the credit card numbers from the salon and that there are no other coworkers, all of these transactions have been Sheila. The Judge used a 2 syllable "puh-leez" she is madddd now. Needless to say, the Plaintiff gets all her money. #JusticeServed.

                                              Sweet Carolyn and the Cougar

Plaintiff-- Carolyn ($2414.50)
Defendant-- Jeffrey
        Just to preface this case, Carolyn bought a lemon (car) from Jeffery. She wants her money back and Jeffrey is like AS IS and it was in fine shape when she bought it.
         The Plaintiff knew the Defendant and they have done business in the past. For this case they bought a 1999 Cougar and the car did not start at the dealership. Jeffery said they would have to pay half of the part he ordered. The Judge is like "he wouldn't give you a refund" and she's like nope and I have no idea why. Jeffery says he would have given her a refund, but she wanted the car. The Defendant states that she agreed to pay for half of the part he put in the car. ---I like the Plaintiff's shirt, by the way.----- According the the Plaintiff with the nice shirt, the car won't start AGAIN. She said the car is making a grinding and funky sound. She plays the video of the humming sounds. It sounds like someone blowing over an empty water jug. She had the car towed to his shop and when she went to get her car he told her he had her car delivered to her house and they keys were in the mailbox. He claims there was nothing wrong with the car when it was brought to his place. Since Carolyn doesn't have any proof that the car was unsafe at the time of sale, she does not get her money back. Oh sweet Carolyn, good times may have never felt so good, but those good times are not today.
 
             

In  lieu of a quote I will leave you with this! If you also enjoy the show General Hospital you will like my channel I do with my best friend. We do General Hospital reactions daily and also daily vlogs about our lives. Check it out here!
http://www.youtube.com/user/WeShouldntSing?feature=g-u-u

People's Court Blog - 9 17 2012 - Monday

What's Willow Watching Special Announcement: Tomorrow's blog will be written by a very special guest! 

Tia And The Wedding Cake
Tia is suing Joe and Stacie for $998.00. This is for the cost of a wedding cake and emotional distress. Tia hired Joe and Stacie to make her wedding cake after meeting them at a wedding show. She actually ordered three cakes, the decorated tiered wedding cake and two sheetcakes. On her wedding day, the most important day of her life, she was so unhappy with the cakes Joe and Stacie provided. The tiered wedding cake was messy, the scrollwork was terrible, the stand provided was shabby and the frosting was smeared. Joe actually tried to hide damage to the cake with flower petals. Tia shows pictures of the cake and it is sad looking, with flowers petals stuck on it haphazardly. Also, the sheetcakes were not delivered at the same time and dropped off later. All three cakes were difficult to cut and were inedible. Everyone thought the cakes had been frozen. Tia also provides a letter from the catering manager at the hall describing the cake. The letter completely confirms what Tia is complaining about. 

Joe denies everything. He loses his credibility when his story differs totally from the catering manager. He even accuses Tia of sabotaging her own cake. This is totally ridiculous. Why on earth would a bride ruin her own wedding? 

Tia shows a shows a video from her wedding of her apologizing to her guests for the lack of cake. She was humiliated in front of her 250 guests. Tia and her husband did not have the usual cake tradition of feeding each other the cake, she did not have cake to serve to her guests and she did not have the top of the cake to save for their first anniversary. Tia gets her money back from the cake and an additional $50.00 to purchase a cake for their first anniversary. Joe and Stacie are directed to pay Tia $643.86. It is a shame that they could not provide the service they were hired for. Tia's wedding day should not have been ruined because of their inability to do their job. Tia was a beautiful bride and should have amazing memories of her wedding day despite the lack of the wedding cake. I wish Tia and her husband much happiness!

Ralph And The Balance Of His Bill
Ralph is suing Amy for $379.97. This is the balance of a bill for work Ralph did for Amy. Ralph is a private detective. Amy's sons were falsely accused of raping a young girl at a party at their house. Amy's sons did have a party at their house when their parents were out of town, but they did not rape the young girl at the party.The lawyer that Amy hired, called Ralph to investigate. Amy and her husband agreed to pay Ralph directly. They initially paid him $500.00 to start his investigation. Ralph investigated and found evidence to support Amy sons' innocence. In total, Ralph was paid $1500.00 for his work. After Amy hired another lawyer, Ralph did additional work for the case. This is what he is suing for. Amy does not deny that she owes him the money. She describes falling on hard times after spending over $30,000 in attorney's fees. This case took 2 years and 6 months before her sons were found not guilty. Amy describes the complete and devastating toll this situation took on the family. Her one son is suffering with depression because of everything he went through. Amy is directed to pay the balance of the bill. This does not come as a surprise to her. Ralph says that her older son hugged him and thanked him for believing in him when he was found not guilty. I have so much empathy for Amy and her family for everything they went through because of this false accusation. I hope this family can get help with the emotional fallout from such a horrible ordeal!

Derek And The Tow Company
Derek is suing a tow company for $397.39. This is for damage done to his car when it was towed. Frankie is in court to represent the tow company. Derek explains that when he bought his new to him used car, he transferred the license plates from his old car. Unfortunately, Derek had accumulated 8 tickets while driving his other car. The tow company has a contract with the city to run license plates and tow cars with over $350 in tickets. Derek had over $600 in tickets! Within the first week of buying his car, it was towed while he was in work. When Derek went to the impound yard to pay the judgement and pick it up, he saw the bumper had scratches on it. Derek showed this damage to the person working at the impound yard and was told that they did not do it. Derek took pictures of the damage. The pictures very clearly show scratches all across the bumper. Frankie says that they did not do this damage. Derek has the best evidence to prove otherwise. Earlier that day, Derek had a photo inspection done by an insurance company!. He shows the pictures and there is no damage to the bumper! Derek was very fortunate to have had the insurance inspection done on the same day he was towed!. Derek wins the case and the tow company has to pay for the damage to his car. In the hallway, Frankie says that things happen and when they do they take care of it. Really! It does not seem this way, since Derek had to bring you to court! Having the insurance photo inspection done on the same day of the tow was the best timing for Derek. Now, we hope that Derek is more careful and pays his tickets on time or better yet, stop getting them! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

Remember: Check back tomorrow for a very special guest blog by a very special guest!

When you become senile, you won't know it.
~Bill Cosby

Sunday, September 16, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 14 2012 - Friday

Rest In Peace Polly
Jetta and Tanya are suing James for $1698.75, the cost of their dog, Polly. Tanya hired James to pet-sit their two dogs, Polly and Memar. Polly is a female Bichon Frise / Maltese. Memar is a male Shih Tzu. Tanya was planning a vacation and did not want to put her dogs in a kennel. James was recommended to her by someone at the school where she worked.  James worked at a pet shop and he would do educational programs at the school. While Tanya was away she called to check on the dogs. James told her they were okay. When she got back from vacation, she called James and he said he would bring the dogs to her. When she opened the door, he was holding Memar, the Shih Tzu. He told her Polly was dead. Tanya asked what happened. What James told her then and what he says in court are different stories. He was so sketchy about the facts when he was telling her, that her daughter, Jetta, believed he sold Polly. They did not believe that Polly had died. This is the story James tells in court: On the second night that he was caring for them, he took Memar out for a walk and when he opened the door to put Memar in the house, Polly ran outside and ran away. He chased her for about a mile and then lost her. He went back to the house and got his car to look for her. He found her lying dead against the curb. He threw her body away in the garbage. 

This man is horrible. He should not be allowed to have an animal, let alone work with them. When he is telling the story he refers to Polly as "it", multiple times. I think this is terrible. When he found Polly, he should have taken her to a vet clinic. He did not. He told Jetta that he had her cremated. Now he admits to throwing her away. Jetta and Tanya loved Polly. They do not understand why James behaved the way he did. James says he is a poor man. What is that supposed to mean? Being poor is not an excuse for being cold and heartless! I am sure Tanya would have reimbursed him for any money he spent on Polly. Listen James, her name was Polly, she is not an "it"! 

James is found responsible to pay Jetta and Tanya $1300.00. This is the amount Jetta paid for her as a puppy. Tanya and Jetta miss their dog and no amount of money is going to make the heartache go away. James does not even seem affected at all by the misery he has caused these women. It is such a shame that this tragedy occurred. It is a tremendous responsibility to watch someone's pets. Extra care must be exercised. Having the dogs run loose in the house and be able to run through the front door just shows that James had no idea what he was doing. I hope he does not continue to offer his services to people. I understand that accidents happen, but in this case it is more than that. What James did after Polly was killed is inexcusable! What do you think?

Priscilla And The Process Server
Priscilla is suing Joseph for $75.00. This is for the cost of the service she hired him for. Joseph was supposed to serve a subpoena to the mechanic that Priscilla was suing. Priscilla says he did not serve the paperwork and wants her money back. When the Judge is questioning Priscilla she gives several different stories. She actually seems confused as to the facts of her own case. Joseph says he did his job. He served the paperwork and shows proof of service. Priscilla hired someone else to serve the paperwork. She does not show proof in court as to what was served. Since Priscilla cannot seem to get her facts straight and Joseph proves he did his job, she does not get the money back.

In Priscilla's written complaint to the court, she comments on Joseph's long hair. Why would this even be an issue? I do not understand why Priscilla would sue Joseph for his fee when he obviously did his job. She seems to have wasted much time and resources to bring Joseph to court. It  does not seem to make sense. Sometimes cases like this create more questions than answers! What do you think?

Carlos And The Bounced Check!
Carlos is suing Eddie for $1100.00. This is the amount of a bounced check for the balance on a car sale. Carlos owns a used car dealership. Eddie bought a used car for $1800.00.  He gave a $300.00 deposit and then told Carlos he only had an additional $400.00. He gave Carlos a check for $1100.00. Carlos turned all of the paperwork over to Eddie, including the title. The check bounced.

Why didn't Eddie make good on the bounced check? He claims that he had problems with the car right away. He did not complain about the problems right away. Even so, he should have paid for the car. Why would he think he has the right to keep the car when he did not pay for it? Carlos tried to collect the money from Eddie, he even went to his workplace. Eddie's boss told Carlos to take Eddie to court to get the money. Eddie wants Carlos to make good on the warranty he received for the car. The warranty paper he provides to the court is not even filled out. Also, he has not paid for the car, so why would any warranty be valid? The Judge finds in favor of Carlos to receive the $1100.00.

It is surprising that Carlos gave Eddie the title to the car. Carlos has sold used cars for 22 years and seems very trusting. This is refreshing since we do not always think that used car dealers are honest. Thank you Carlos for restoring our faith in used car dealers! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

He has the most who is most content with the least.
~Diogenes

Saturday, September 15, 2012

People's Court - 9 13 2012 - Thursday


Diego And The Linked Computers
Diego  is suing Stephanie for $1830.70. This is for  rent, utility expenses, food expenses, a diamond ring, and the replacement cost of a refrigerator door. Diego and Stephanie dated for 4 1/2 years and moved in together. This lasted 8 months. Diego thinks the problems started when they linked their computers together. Diego says they did this to share movies. Whatever the reason, it is a very bad idea. Diego admits curiosity got the best of him. He read documents that were essentially Stephanie's journal. She wrote about being unhappy in her relationship with him and feeling sexual tension with someone else. Stephanie admits to reading Diego's journal. They were writing about the same topic, being unhappy in their relationship with each other. Diego said this started a huge fight. Stephanie threw a small Buddha statue at him and hit the refrigerator instead. She also threw his guitar. Both of them left the apartment in order to diffuse the fight. Diego came back that night, Stephanie did not. When Diego came back he put all of Stephanie's belongings in trash bags and changed the locks. He texted her the next day to pick up her stuff and asked for the money she owed. Diego said she owed him money for the rent, utilities, and food expenses. Now is is also suing for the cost to repair the refrigerator door. 

Stephanie came the next day to pick up her stuff. She called the police and had Diego arrested for harassing text messages. He also had done an illegal lockout. Diego had no right to lock Stephanie out of the apartment. Stephanie admits that she owes the money for the rent. She does not feel she should have to pay the utilities. She says she always paid for the food. She denies damaging the refrigerator door. The diamond ring was a gift, not an engagement ring.

The Judge finds that Stephanie is required to pay her share of the rent, the utilities and the repair to the refrigerator door. Her denial of the damage to the door is not believed. She does get to keep the diamond ring. Diego gets a total of $1192.62.

These two people really need to move on and find healthier relationships. Hopefully they will learn from the mistakes in this relationship. I would hope in future relationships they do not link personal computers together! What do you think?

Michael And The Lawyer Fee
Michael is suing Carie, a former client, for $604.64. Carie hired Michael to represent her in a very complicated case. She chose Michael because she has known him since she was in the first grade. Carie went to school with Michael's son. Carie says that Michael guaranteed he would win the case. There are no guarantees in life, Carie should know that! Michael's representation for Carie cost over $7,000.00. This seems very silly for a $5000.00 case. Carie withheld the balance of the bill because she dismissed Michael as her lawyer. After the case went to arbitration and Carie lost, she appealed the decision and won. Carie ignored the bill for the balance of her bill to Michael. Because she ignored it, Michael brought her to court. The Judge wants to know why he didn't just forget about it. He says because she ignored the bill and also had told him her father would pay the bill. This was a business transaction and Carie signed a retainer agreement. Michael did the work. Just because she was unhappy with the outcome is no reason to withhold payment. 

The Judge finds in favor of Michael and Carie has to pay him. This is only right since there was an agreement. The history they might have had should not factor in a business deal. Michael is very matter of fact in his presentation of the case - just the facts! There was nothing personal about the lawsuit, he did the work and should get paid for it. What do you think?

Tobias And The Lost Pair Of Pants
Tobias is suing Ken, his dry cleaner for $500.00. This is the cost of a pair of pants from a Hickey Freeman designer suit. Ken admits to losing the pants. The policy of the store is to reimburse a customer 10 times the cost of the dry cleaning when an item is lost. This would have come to $137.50. Ken also offered Tobias an additional $50.00 in store credit. Tobias refused this offer, he wanted $300-$350 for the pants. Ken was not going to pay this amount, he had a store policy in place. Ken is responsible to pay Ken the $137.50. Tobias is not happy with this because he still does not have pants for his suit. 

This is a very straight forward case. The store policy is very clearly stated on the back of the receipt. Since Tobias is a regular customer, he has been given the receipt on many occasions. What I do not understand is why dry clean only the pants of a suit. Wouldn't the pants and jacket wind up being different colors through time and not match? Please Tobias, if you read this, let me know why you did not take the complete suit to the cleaners? I would think you would want the suit to match! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A house is just a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get more stuff.
~George Carlin

Thursday, September 13, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 12 2012 - Wednesday


Michelle / Josue And The Haunted House
Michelle and Josue are suing their landlord for $3750.00. This is for rent and security deposit they want back. Their landlord is counterclaiming for $15,000. The landlord is represented in court by David. Michelle, and Josue rented a home and moved in on March 1st. Immediately they started experiencing paranormal activity. Items in their closet started falling off the shelves, they heard voices, and they were becoming afraid to be in the house. One evening they called a friend to come over and they conducted a cleansing ritual. It was after this that the friend experienced bruise marks on her legs. During the cleansing activity the cross she was wearing turned over. She could not figure out how this happened. Michelle and Josue were so afraid to be in the house, they moved to the local Holiday Inn. It seems this house was built in an area in New Jersey known as Devil's Woods and they believed it was haunted. They even contacted the media and they ran a story about the house on a local news station. During the filming, voices in the house were recorded. Michelle also has video of a communication picked up on the computer.

Michelle and Josue told the landlord they believed the house was haunted and they had moved out. They wanted their rent and security deposit back. At first, he agreed. He told them he understood. Then he changed his mind and he was holding them to the contract. They were not moving back, they were really afraid to be in the house. David explains the countersuit of $15,000 is for potential losses. Since the story about the house was on the news, the house has not been rented. He asked the Judge to reserve judgement until the actual damages could be determined. The Judge dismisses the case without prejudice, this way he can refile in the future. The Judge asks that if that happens that he and the owner spend a weekend in the house.

Michelle and Josue are not able to recover on their lawsuit. They actually have to pay the landlord additional money because of the terms of their contract. The Judge explains that to find in their favor would be to rule that the house is haunted and they had the right to breach the contract. They believe the house is haunted and the Judge respects their belief. Unfortunately, the proof they provided is not evidence of ghosts, it is evidence of their belief that there are ghosts.

This is such an interesting case. This family truly was frightened to be in this house. They felt that something supernatural was occurring. I can appreciate their fear and concern. They did the right thing to move out and protect themselves. There is a cost to their decision, they had to abide by the contract they signed.

Natasha And Her Aunt
Natasha is suing her Aunt Liz for $3,000.00. This is for the cost of items left in her aunt's apartment. When Natasha needed a place to live, her aunt's apartment was available. Aunt Liz was incarcerated for drug charges. Natasha and her daughter moved to the apartment. After 2 months, Liz was released from jail and Natasha moved out. When Natasha left she did not take her belongings with her. She says she was being nice because Liz did not have any furniture. Liz said the agreement was that Natasha was going take her belongings out and help transport Liz's furniture from another location.

Natasha did not do this and Liz refused to give her back any of the belongings. Then Natasha rented an apartment in Liz's complex. She was demanding her belongings back. Liz returned some of the items but not everything. Liz was holding the furniture hostage. Liz admits she would not return everything because Natasha would not help her move. This close relationship has been destroyed over the cost of a rental truck.

These two women live down the hall from each other and do not speak anymore. How sad that a close relationship can be ruined over something so trivial. On the lawsuit, Natasha is awarded $850.00, not $3,000.00. She did not have any receipts or proof as to the value of her belongings. Liz admitted she was not returning her belongings and even threw some of the things away. What a shame that they are not getting along, especially when they live so close to one another.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

There's no backward and no forward, no day other than this. You fill your cart as you go. 
And that's that.
~John Burnham Schwartz

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

People's Court - 9 11 2012 - Tuesday

Evette And The Essence Magazine
Evette is suing her neighbor, Cynthia, for $2000.00. This is for an unreturned magazine and for being threatened with bodily harm. Cynthia is counterclaiming for $2000.00 for aggravation and harassment. Evettte lent Cynthia an Essence magazine. Evette paid $3.99 plus tax for the magazine. She wants $1000.00 for it. Evette claims there were unique articles about men in love. Of course there were! Cynthia was unable to find the magazine when Evette asked for it to be returned months later. Evette claims that Cynthia threatened to hit her. This sounds like a very drama filled apartment building. They have even called the police when they have been fighting. The police officer told them that if he had to come back he would lock both of them up. This should have been enough for them to stop behaving like children. Unfortunately it was not. 2 days before this court case. Evette called Child Protective Services on Cynthia. Evette claimed that Cynthia's 2 year old baby  never stops crying. Evette's behavior is so malicious that the Judge awards Cynthia the $2000.00. Evette wasted city resources to hurt Cynthia. If Evette was so worried about the welfare of the child she should have called sooner. Instead she waits until right before the court case. This is very calculated. 

Evette does not get any money. Both women are told by the Judge that neither of them is innocent. Evette is crazy to behave this way. Cynthia needs to focus on her family and her miracle baby. In the hallway, Evette does not seem to have been affected by what the Judge told her. Cynthia tells us that she is 46 years old and her baby is a miracle. This is where she needs to spends her time and energy, not fighting with a neighbor. What do you think?

Samuel And The Totaled Truck
Samuel is suing Hilda for $2500.00. This is for the cost of a totaled vehicle. Samuel and Hilda dated on and off for a year. Samuel says that Hilda took his truck one day when he was very sick. He claims he did not give her permission to drive it. Hilda says she drove the truck all the time and Samuel was giving it to her. Hilda plays a voicemail that confirms this information. Hilda should not have been driving the truck because she did not have a driver's license. This did not stop Samuel from promising to give the truck to Hilda. After these two had a major breakup involving a fight and a broken television, Samuel wanted Hilda to pay for the totaled vehicle. Hilda says that Samuel is stalking her. She has a restraining order against him. Samuel was arrested and spent a month in Rikers Island prison. Hilda is afraid of him. She says she is living in a shelter for battered women. The Judge tells Samuel that he has an unhealthy obsession for Hilda. He needs to forget about her and move on. Samuel says he has moved on and is even engaged. The evidence that Hilda has presented is proof that Samuel wanted her to have the truck. He has no basis to ask her after the breakup for payment. Hilda does not have to pay Samuel for the truck. In the hallway, Hilda says she is glad it is over, wants to be left alone and has moved on. I hope she can find peace and happiness in her life. 

Shaniqua And The Parking Tickets
Shaniqua is suing Clarence for $337.04. This is for parking tickets that Clarence got while driving a car that was registered in Shaniqua's name. Clarence is counterclaiming for $1960.00 for the towed and missing car. Shaniqua and Clarence were friends for a very long time. When Clarence bought a car, he was not able to register it. He only had a driver's permit. Clarence asked Shaniqua to register the car in her name. She should have said no. Letting someone else, with only a driver's permit, drive a car in your name is a huge liability. Clarence started getting parking tickets and did not pay them. He did not even tell his very good friend about the tickets. Shaniqua found out when she received a notice in the mail. Shaniqua says it is 3 unpaid tickets, Clarence says it is 1 unpaid ticket. It does not really matter how many unpaid tickets there are. What matters is that there are unpaid tickets. Shaniqua takes the license plates off the car. After one week, Shaniqua had the car towed. During the week when the plates were removed, Clarence did not do anything to resolve the problem. It is Clarence's fault that the car was impounded. Clarence is not able to prove that he paid the tickets. He is found responsible to pay Shaniqua the $337.04 for the outstanding tickets. Since it is Clarence's fault that the car was impounded, he does not get any money on his counterclaim.

These two people were friends for over 19 years. What a shame that it ends over a situation like this. Shaniqua thought she was being a good friend by doing this favor. I hope she learned her lesson and never does this again. Clarence should not have asked Shaniqua to do this for him. It is a huge  responsibility to put yourself in this position. Clarence did not appreciate what Shaniqua was doing for him. If he did, he would have gotten up earlier and moved his car to avoid the parking tickets! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

September 11, 2001 - We will always remember  - We will never forget!

Monday, September 10, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 10 2012 - Monday

The Dog Bit My Penis
I apologize for not having the names for the plaintiff and defendant. Due to technical difficulties I missed the first few minutes of the show.
The plaintiff is suing for $6000.00. This is for the pain and suffering from a dog bite to his penis and his hand. When the plaintiff entered the defendant's home, he was attacked by their dog. The dog first grabbed his private area and latched on. The plaintiff was trying to protect himself and get the dog to let go and then the dog bit his hand. The plaintiff went to the emergency room for treatment. The plaintiff claimed he had puncture wounds in his penis. The Judge read the medical reports and this was not confirmed. The plaintiff claimed his girlfriend would not have sex with him. She was in court to testify and did not confirm this information. She said they had to wait a little bit but then if was okay. The plaintiff claimed he now had permanent injuries to his private area. The medical reports do not confirm this. 

Why did the dog bite him? It seems that the defendant's Labrador does not like unfamiliar people in the house. The adults of the house thought the dog was locked up . According to the defendant, the dog has not bit anyone in the past. The reason for locking up the dog is because he gets aggressive ever since they were robbed. It seems the dog was beaten during one of the robberies. This dog is just acting like a dog. It is up to the owners to keep everyone safe. The plaintiff did suffer bites to his hand, he had to get several stitches. The trauma to his penis was physical as well as emotional. He wants to receive the maximum amount of money he can because of the indignity he suffered. The Judge awards him $2,000.00 since he did experience some pain and suffering. The plaintiff does not feel this is enough for the misery and humiliation he has to suffer for the rest of his life.

I think it is terrible that the plaintiff was attacked. He is very fortunate his injuries were not much worse. The dog owner needs to take responsibility for the dog's actions. Having a dog that behaves in this way in a home with young children is asking for trouble. This dog is unpredictable and cannot be trusted. I would hope the family consults an animal behaviorist as long as they are intent on keeping the dog. There is always the chance this could happen again. What do you think?

I Am Here For My Money!
Brian is suing his cousin, Shawn, for $60.00. Yes, this case is about $60.00, It cost Brian $40.00 to file the lawsuit to get back the $60.00. Usually when this occurs it is about the principle. Someone is trying to prove a point. Not in this case! Brian makes it very clear, he just wants his money back. He is not here to teach anyone a lesson. He is here to entertain. Brian is a very engaging man! He is very good with the one-liners. He says he must be living in an Annie musical. The reason for this is that when he asks Shawn for the money back, he tells him tomorrow, tomorrow! Even the way Shawn got the money was entertaining. It seems that the day before Brian got paid he told his wife that money did not grow on trees. When he cashed his paycheck, he took the money and hung it on a ficus tree in their livingroom. I am sure this was very amusing. That same day Shawn came over and asked to borrow money. Brian could not tell him that he did not have any money since Shawn saw the money tree in the livingroom. Brian told Shawn to take some money off the tree. Shawn took $60.00. Shawn told Brian that his mother would pay him back very soon. 

The best part is that Shawn's mother, Carlene, is in court to testify for Brian. Shawn feels that since his mom is going to testify against him, he does not have a chance. A chance of what? He borrowed the money. Now pay it back. Shawn says he has been unemployed and could not pay Brian back. It is $60.00, pay your cousin back! The day that Shawn started a new job, Brian filed to get his money back. Brian waited a year and a half for his money. His wait is over. Shawn has to pay him back! What a shame that family winds up in court over $60.00. Why does it have to come to this? If someone is nice enough to help you out when you are in need, pay them back! What do you think?

"Happy" New Year!
Annette is suing Jon for $1500.00. Annette hired Jon's company to provide a DJ for her New Year's Eve Party. She paid $300.00 for the DJ. The day before the party, Annette received a call from Jon's company and was told that the DJ was in a car accident. They offered her a refund or she could go with another company for an additional $200.00. Annette told them she would take the refund. Annette also told them she would like an e-mail confirmation. That was the best idea! The e-mail confirmation sinks Jon's testimony. Jon  tells the Judge that Annette cancelled the DJ and this is why she could not get a refund. When he reads the e-mail from his own secretary, he claims that she made up the story. Really! It looks like Jon's company was cancelling the DJ either because they overbooked or they were looking for more money. Jon denies this and maintains that Annette cancelled her party. Maybe he should have brought his secretary to court to tell her side of the story.

It gets better! When Annette contacted her bank regarding this transaction, she was given provisional credit while the bank was investigating. Jon had the nerve to lie to the bank and the provisional credit was reversed. Annette was charged by the bank and she has included these fees in her lawsuit. She is also suing for pain and suffering and the cost of a replacement DJ. Annette has turned a $300.00 lawsuit into a $1500.00 lawsuit! Does she get everything she is asking for? No, but she does get the bank fees, her refund for the DJ and punitive damages. This adds up to $668.00. The punitive damages cover the cost of the replacement DJ since Jon's actions were malicious. I think Jon needs to look into his business practices and have more respect for his customers. Annette was very smart to have requested the confirmation e-mail. This won the case for her! Also, it sounds like the New Year's Eve Party was fun and everyone had a great time bringing in the New Year!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

What's life without whimsy?
- Dr. Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory




Saturday, September 8, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 7 2012 - Friday

Erika And The Car Accident
Erika is suing Glenda for $5000.00. Glenda is counterclaiming for $3500.00. Both women and Erika's boyfriend were in a terrible car accident. They are all fortunate to have survived this crash. A car hit Glenda's van and she lost control and landed on top of Erika's car. Both cars burst into flames minutes after everyone got out of the vehicles. Why are they both suing each other? Erika did not have collision for her vehicle. Glenda did not have car insurance at all. She had lapsed in her payments. This is a terrible situation for both of them. Both vehicles were totaled. This accident was not the fault of either driver. Neither of them will recover on their lawsuits against each other. 

These three people are very lucky to be alive. The lesson in this case is that life is short and we need to appreciate every moment. No one knows what the day will bring for them. Glenda says that she was thinking of her children when her car spun out of control and flew into Erika's car. She just wanted to see them again. Everyone involved in this accident is conscious of the fact they were lucky to walk away. With that in mind, it is also very important to keep insurance up to date. Keeping proper coverage on our vehicle will provide us with financial protection. The person that caused this accident fled the scene and is the one who is  responsible for all of the financial burdens. What do you think?

Claire / Ivan And The Dow Museum
Claire and Ivan are suing Bernard's hospitality business for $2749.62. This is the amount of the deposit they gave for their wedding reception. Bernard is the exclusive caterer for the Dow Museum. This is in St. Augustine, Florida. The Dow Museum encompasses a group of historic homes that are routinely used for catered events. Both Claire and Ivan had attended a wedding at the Dow Museum and fell in love with it. They wanted to be married there. When they called to inquire about the procedure, they were told to call Bernard. He has the exclusive catering contract for this venue. Claire and Ivan met with Bernard in June 2011, signed a contract, and gave him a deposit for half of the estimated cost. Their wedding date was set for October 20, 2012. In January of this year, Claire and Ivan visited the Dow Museum. They were told the museum was being sold and weddings were being cancelled. They immediately contacted Bernard to find out what was happening with their wedding. 

At first, Bernard said he would give the money back. Then, he changed his mind and wanted to cater the event at another venue. He felt they had a contract and they should not be able to cancel it and get their money back. Bernard is missing the point. Claire and Ivan wanted their wedding at the Dow Museum. They had to hire him as the caterer, since he was the exclusive caterer for the Dow Museum. Claire and Ivan will get back their entire deposit. This is only right. They are so happy and can now continue with their wedding plans. The lesson here is to realize what is right. Bernard had to have known the reason he was hired was because of their desire for the Dow Museum. It would have been the right thing to do to return their deposit when they asked. It would have been the right business decision. What do you think?

Anastasia And Her Cousin
Anastasia is suing her cousin, Donna, for $5000.00. $750.00 is the pay Anastasia was entitled for work. Anastasia worked for Donna at a daycare center for several years. After Donna's mother had an issue with Anastasia, Donna did not want to pay her. Donna's mother felt Anastasia had stolen medicine and money from her. It seemed Donna paid Anastasia cash to avoid paying taxes. Yet after Anastasia stopped working for her, Donna filed a 1099. This seems rather spiteful. Donna admits paying Anastasia $750.00 a pay period. Donna has no way to prove that she has paid Anastasia. She keeps a ledger of payments, but does not include cash payments she is hiding for tax purposes. Anastasia is entitled to her pay. What else is she asking for that adds up to $5000.00? Anastasia wants the money she now has to pay the IRS since Donna filed a 1099. Really! Also she wants pain and suffering. For what? Anastasia claims she is behind on her bills and this has caused her pain and suffering. She is not able to recover this money.

Anastasia does get her $750.00. She is not happy with this and does not feel that inflating the lawsuit was wrong. The lesson here is family and business do not mix well. Also, cheating the government is a really bad idea. Why do people find it so easy to cheat and lie?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Be miserable. Or motivate yourself. Whatever has to be done, it is always your choice.
~ Wayne Dyer

Friday, September 7, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 6 2012 - Thursday

Michelle And The Rented Room
Michelle is suing Ron for $2917.74. Ron rented a room in his house to Michelle that he advertised on Craigslist. She rented it sight unseen. When she arrived to move in, it was late and she was exhausted. She met Ron and a woman. The next night he had a different woman over. The next night another woman. This made Michelle feel very uncomfortable. Then she noticed Ron had moved her basket of dirty laundry from the laundry room to the kitchen. This really bothered her. Why was it such a big deal? Michelle says the thought of Ron touching her things made her feel uncomfortable. If she thinks that made her feel uncomfortable, now she finds out that Ron had surveillance cameras in the house. Wow, this is really surprising and strange. Ron explains that he had other roommates that he had to watch over. I wondered what Michelle would have done if she knew about the cameras when she lived there! Michelle decided to move out and told Ron. She moved out within the week that she told him. In doing this, she did not give him proper notice. Michelle is not entitled to get her rent money back. Part of the money she is suing for is the security deposit. After she moved out, Ron did not send her an itemized notification of why he was keeping the security deposit. It is a law for a landlord to notify the tenant about the security deposit. Because Ron did not do this, Michelle gets double the security deposit. That is the only money that Michelle can recover in this case. The home was not uninhabitable because Ron had different women sleep over and moved Michelle's dirty laundry. If Ron would have sent the proper notification, Michelle would not have recovered any of her money. Michelle needs to find her own apartment and not be a roommate to anyone. She does not seem flexible to someone else's lifestyle. What do you think?

Octavia And Free Storage
Octavia is suing Henry for $1971.98. This is for two television sets that were stolen from Henry's house. Octavia was going to rent a house from Henry. The first house she looked at would not fit her bedroom furniture. Henry had another house that would be available soon that would be work for Octavia. She agreed to this rental if the house passed a Section 8 inspection. There were corrections that Henry had to make and this was taking time. Octavia asked Henry if she could store her belongings in the house while she waited. She said she could not afford to put the furniture in storage. Henry agreed to let Octavia store her belongings at the house. He let her use one of the bedrooms and the garage. Henry had Robert staying at the house while the work was being done. Robert said he was there for several months and then his friend, Brian, stayed there. One night Brian called and said someone broke in the house. He did not know if anything was stolen. Henry was notified and the police were called.

When Henry found out about the break-in, he called Octavia. Henry had been asking Octavia to move her things out for months. Initially, he set a date of September 1st. Octavia was not able to get her things removed by that date. The break-in was on October 26th. If Octavia had removed everything when Henry had asked, her televisions would not have been stolen. Why would Henry be responsible for the cost of the television sets? There are numerous text messages between Henry and Octavia. Henry kept asking her to remove the items and Octavia kept stalling. The Judge rules that Henry is not responsible for the cost of the television sets. If Octavia had such expensive items, she should have sold something to pay for a storage unit. It is a shame that Octavia would want Henry to pay for the televisions sets. It is her fault that they were in the house at the time of the break-in. Henry was being nice letting her keep her things at the house. He offered her free storage. Henry says in the future, he will get a written agreement when he does something nice for someone. I am glad this incident did not cause Henry to become cynical. It seems like a genuinely nice guy. What do you think?

Allan And The Damaged Bumper
Allan is suing David for $2113.00. Allan's car was damaged when he was parked in front of the Veteran's Hospital. He saw a car parked behind him and compared the damage on both vehicles. The damage matched. Allan took pictures of the damage to his car and the damage to the other car. The other car belonged to David. Allan says he waited for the owner of the other car to come out. of the Veteran's Hospital. When David got in his car, Allan approached him and told him about the damage to his car. David denies hitting Allan's car. David is 89 years old and has been driving for a very long time. He tells the Judge that he drove a school bus for 3 years when they first came out. Wow! That is amazing! David admits he was in a small car accident several weeks earlier and that is why there is damage to his bumper. This damage is in a different area on his car from the damage caused by hitting Allan's car. The pictures show that these two cars definitely collided. David maintains that he did not hit Allan's car. He says there was no witnesses, and wonders how he can be held responsible. The Judge explains to David that the damage on his car matches up to the damage to Allan's car. David is found responsible to pay for the repairs to Allan's car. Hopefully, David will retake the driver's test to assure himself and everyone else that he is fit to drive. It is true that as we get older our reflexes get slower. The Judge tells a personal story about her own father and driving. Her dad is also 89 years old and she is very concerned about his driving. He recently took the driver's test again and passed! No one is going to question his driving ability! This is what David needs to do and all drivers as they get older. There does come a time when elderly drivers need to stop getting behind the wheel. What do yo think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Arriving at one goal is the starting point of another.
~ John Dewey