People's Court Blog - 10 23 2012 - Tuesday

Working For A Living

Deborah is suing Paola for $5000.00. This is for wages, a dinner, check fees, defamation of character and pain and suffering. Deborah worked for Paola taking care of her autistic sister. She also did some bookkeeping for her. When she joined Paola on a business trip, the two women had lunch together. Deborah paid for the dinner and expected Paola to pay her back. Then Deborah lent her $450.00 and the check Paola paid her back with was rubber. After the check bounced, Paola did make good on it but did not pay the bank fees. Then Paola did not pay Deborah for the work she had done. Paola admits she owes Deborah the money for the wages, but denies the money for the lunch. She starts to cry and and says she is going to be sick. Why is this? She starts talking about a friendship between the two of them. This does not make any sense. If they were friends, why wouldn't she pay Deborah. Paola also tried to get Deborah fired. She went to the restaurant where she worked and told her boss that Deborah was stalking her. She said that she waited this long to sue because she was asked to sign a statement at work that she would keep her job if she did not sue Paola. Deborah does not have any proof of this. The only aspects of the case Deborah could prove is the wages and the check fees. She recovers $567.00. Why do people treat each other this way? It seemed like there was a friendship between the two women, yet Paola did not treat Deborah with respect. Deborah did the right thing to sue for what was owed to her. I am sure she was hurt by this experience but cannot get money for that. 

Friends?

Anna is suing Nicole for $1394.50. These two young women were friends and Anna lent Nicole money over and over again. Why would she keep lending her money if it was not being paid back? Anna says she was being nice. It seems she was trying to be nice to a friend. Whenever Nicole needed help Anna was there for her. Wouldn't you value a friend like this? I would. Not only did Nicole not pay her back, but now she denies the loans. Facebook messages prove otherwise. Nicole has to pay Anna back $950.00. The reason Anna does not get all the money back is because she cannot prove all of the loans. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a friend sign a promissory note. If a friend is in need of a loan and they are truly going to pay it back, they will sign an I.O.U. If they do not want to sign, then do not lend the money! 

Permission To Park

Joshua is suing Edward for $1478.99. This is for the cost of repairs to his car and for a rental car. Joshua was visiting his grandfather in a senior retirement village. When he parked his car, he saw Edward outside. Joshua approached him and asked if it was okay to leave his car where he was parked. Edward said yes. Then Edward went to back out of his driveway, forgot Joshua was parked on the street and backed into him. It is refreshing that Edward is honest about this. He is not used to cars being there since it is a no parking zone. The problem occurs when Edward thinks the repair is too expensive. Joshua actually goes to Edward's mechanic. Unfortunately, the mechanic only replaces the taillight and leaves the rest of the repair undone. Joshua does recover the cost of the repair and the cost for a rental car for a total of $1037.18. I think it is unfortunate that Edward forgot the car was there, he still needs to look when he backs up.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

I can, therefore I am.

~Simone Weil

People's Court Blog - 10 22 2012 - Monday

Buying A Used Car

Ramona and Stephen are suing David for $10,000.00.

This is about a used car purchase, yet it seems to be about so much more. Ramona and Stephen purchased a used car from David for $4300.00. This was a 12 year old Monte Carlo. Like so many others they did not have a mechanic inspect the car before the purchase. The advertisement David put on Craigslist made certain claims. David has to honor these. When David wrote brand new tires, it is assumed it is all four tires. Ramona has proof that only one tire was new. Also, there were certain things discussed that both parties agree to. This includes fixing the windshield. The item in dispute is the transmission. Ramona claims that David and a mechanic tried to pull a fast one saying the only repair needed was a new cellinoid. After this work was done, the check engine light came on and further inspection found a new transmission was needed. Ramona cannot prove that David had prior knowledge about the condition of the transmission. After all, the car is 12 years old! Why didn't they have a mechanic inspect the car before buying it? The answer of course is money! This costs and no one seems to want to spend the extra money. Yet, the headaches it would avoid...

Ramona tries to make this case about David's character. She shows a YouTube video of David singing and dancing. David does not object to this video being shown in court. Ramona also introduces messages from David's Facebook page. They prove he has fun friends with a sense of humor, but do not prove defamation of character. Ramona and Stephen do recover $490.00, this is for the windshield and the tires. They do not prove their case regarding the transmission or defamation of character. The sale of a used car is as-is. If the owner promises certain things or provides a warranty that is definitely an extra. People need to take responsibility for their decisions. When you purchase a 12 year old car, you have to expect there are going to be repairs needed! Do you agree?

The Missing Coat

Joanne is suing Joseph for $652.89.

Joanne and her family eat at Joseph's restaurant 1-2 times a week. They obviously enjoy the food. On their last visit they were seated in a small booth. They hung their coats on a coat rack located in the center of the restaurant. When they were ready to leave Joanne's coat was missing. Her coat was practically brand new. She had received it as a Christmas present from her husband and only wore it 3 times. When she told the owner what happened, he threw up his arms and said he was not responsible. When she called a few days later to see if her coat had been found Joseph spoke with her. He told her the coat was still missing, but he felt bad about it. After all, she was a very good customer. He offered her gift certificates for the restaurant. Joanne refused and said she would rather have the cash. Joseph was not assuming responsibility for the missing coat. he was trying to do something to make his customer feel better. Joanne cannot prove it is the fault of the restaurant that her coat was stolen. They did not do anything wrong. She hung her coat in an area that other people had access to. Joanne says that there was not a sign regarding a policy on missing items. Why does the store need such a sign? They don't, although Joseph says they now have a sign. The Judge is very clear on personal responsibility. The coat was hanging in an area that anyone had access to. Joanne did not need to read a sign that said the store was not responsible for missing items. She is unable to prove that the restaurant did anything wrong and does not recover the money for her coat. In the hallway, Joseph is still offering the gift certificates. I think Joanne should take him up on the offer. After all, she was a good customer and he acknowledges that. Why should she deny herself and her family a nice time out and an enjoyable meal? What do you think?

The Crooked Contractor

Yvonne is suing Angel for $700.00.

Yvonne hired Angel to do work on her house. She wanted to have several windows boarded up because of drafts. She signed a contract and gave Angel a deposit for $700.00. After Yvonne did this she changed her mind. She contacted Angel and cancelled the work and asked for her money back. In the state of Connecticut, a person has three days to change their mind. She informed Angel of this and expected her deposit back. Angel offered her back $500.00 because he says he already bought some material for the job that he could not return. Why would he do this before the three days? Why wouldn't he return her money? More importantly, why is he working when he is no longer licensed and insured? The contract states that he is licensed and insured. Angel says this is an old contract, he closed his business 3 years ago. Okay, then don't work. Don't take people's money. This is very straightforward. Yvonne gets back her deposit money. Angel shows himself up to be a crooked contractor! Yvonne is very happy as she leaves the courtroom saying Justice is done!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.

~William Faulkner

People's Court Blog - 10 19 2012 - Friday

October Challenge Check-up: I seem to have set my goals too high. This week has not been a success for the challenge. This is okay. We have to allow ourselves a setback. It is not a failure if you are trying. The success is in the effort. I will continue to strive to meet my goal of posting the blog the day the show is aired. Continuing to reach for my goal is the challenge that I have set for myself. Hopefully you have met your goal that you set for this month or are getting close. If not, keep on trying!

Friends Fighting
Regina is suing Tamika for $5000.00.

Regina and Tamika were friends. Regina knew Tamika's mom for 25 years, When Tamika moved back home, Regina befriended her. These two women went out together, clubbing. They went out for Tamika's birthday, although it was a week early. Tamika celebrates a birthday week! When the club closed at 2:00 am, Tamika did not want to leave. Regina says that at the end of the evening Tamika drank two Long Island Iced Teas before they left. One of them was for Regina and she was the driver! Both of these women sounded unfit for driving. While Regina was driving home, Tamika tried to stop her. As Regina tried to pull over she thinks she hit something, a car? the guardrail? She does not know. Thank goodness it was not a person! Regina says she pulled over and Tamika pulled her hair and hit her head into the steering wheel. Tamika says Regina was upset because she was flirting with someone that Regina liked. She claims Regina ripped her pink leather jacket and hit her several times. Regina has pictures of her injuries and can prove that her hair weave was pulled out. The Judge finds in her favor for $1000.00, for her hair weave and personal injury. She cannot prove the damage to her car. What a shame that a friendship has to end this way! Tamika is not setting a very good example for her her children, ages 20, 17, 10 and 4. Regina should find someone closer to her own age to spend time with. Both women have to stop drinking and driving - so very dangerous! What do you think?

Dog Attack

Michael is suing Ilene for $1307.91.

Michael was walking his Jack Russell Terrier, Jake. When he walked past Ilene's house, two large dogs charged at him. He heard Ilene yell to pick up his dog. He picked up Jake and tried to shield him from the two dogs. One of the dogs bit him and Jake. Ilene ran over to him and tried to get the dogs away. She fell and hit her head on the curb. Ilene really got hurt, She even cracked a rib when she fell. She remembers Michael yelling at her to get up when she fell. Wow! I know he was dealing with a lot, but really have some mercy. Ilene offered to pay for the vet bills. She gave Michael a check but he did not want it. He wanted to be reimbursed for sunglasses that he lost in the confusion of the moment and lost wages. Michael says that even though he got a paid sick day from work he wants to be paid for it. Life does not work that way. He used the sick day and that is what they are for. Ilene is found responsible to pay the vet bill of $562.00. She is fine with this, but she also got a lecture about having too many dogs. It seemed that day the reason the two dogs were running down the street was because the dogs got away from her. As Ilene was putting 2 of the dogs in the house, the third one pushed out and ran down the street with one of the leashed dogs. It does sound like Ilene had a lot going on, but she did the right thing to offer to pay the vet bill. She did not count on Michael being greedy!

Collateral Damage
Mark is suing Michael for $7000.00.

Mark loaned Michael $2000.00. Michael admits that he borrowed the money and gave Mark his climbing equipment as collateral. When he did not get a job and could not pay him back, he told Mark to sell the equipment. Mark should not have to be responsible to sell the equipment. Michael should have sold it to pay off his loan. Even though he had not paid Mark back, Mark says he paid Michael to split firewood. It really is not believable that he would give Michael $400.00 when he is owed $2000.00. It is more believable that the money was deducted from the loan. Then there is the $200.00 that Mark had advanced to Michael for a job he did not have a chance to do. After doing all of the math, Michael owes Mark $1800.00. Why was Mark suing Michael for so much money? He says he wanted to get his attention. It really does not work that way. He should have only sued him for the amount he felt he was owed. I think if he sued Michael for $2200.00 he would have noticed! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.

~Plutarch

People's Court Blog - 10 18 2012 - Thursday

Lawn Maintenance

Steven is suing Bruce for $300. Bruce is counterclaimimg for $750.00. Steven has been providing lawn services to Bruce since 2006. His company landscaped the property and has been maintaining it ever since. This past year Steven notified Bruce of a price increase. Bruce did not want to pay the increase but he wanted to decrease the services and the cost. He continued paying Steven and finally in March stopped paying. Steven provided lawn care for March and wants to be paid. Bruce says he did not pay because he was not satisfied with the quality of work, yet he did  not complain. The only issue was about dollarweed that Steven did send an e-mail to Bruce describing the way he was dealing with it. The e-mail was very rude and very unprofessional. Steven needs to rethink his e-mail communications. He is entitled to to be paid for his services. The Judge finds in his favor. Bruce loses on his counterclaim, he does not get any money back. He should have complained about the service at the time and not continue to pay for something he was not happy with!

Parking Tickets

Doris is suing Roach for $838.35. This is for unpaid parking tickets. Doris let Roach register his car in her name. Why would she do this? Roach was her very good friend for over 20 years. Now, Doris goes to buy a new car and learns she cannot get financing because of unpaid parking tickets. Never ever let anyone, friend or family register a car in your name. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. So much could have happened. Doris is fortunate it was parking tickets and not a car accident. The car was impounded because of the numerous parking tickets. Roach wanted Doris to set up a payment plan. He is arrogant and unrepentant. He actually is yelling at the Judge during his testimony. How rude! Roach does not want to pay for the parking tickets because he says some of them are Doris's tickets. He has no proof of this. The Judge finds in Doris's favor. Doris needs to understand the position she could have been in if Roach had a car accident and someone was hurt. What I do not understand is that Roach has written off Doris as a friend yet, Doris says that Roach is still a good friend. What has to happen for her to realize what could have happened? It does not seem like a lesson was learned today! What do you think?

Hot Tub Cover

William is suing Lori for $425.93. This is for a hot tub cover. Lori had rented a room from William from May to August. When she moved out she did not give the proper amount of notice. William notified her about this and she paid the balance. Months later he contacts her about the hot tub cover. William claims she only opened the cover halfway and misused it and damaged it. He did not notice it was damaged until he reopened the hot tub. Lori denies the misuse. William has a notarized statement from his girlfriend describing the misuse. If William or his girlfriend witnessed the misuse of the cover they should have talked to Lori right away. William says he did talk to her because he was worried she would be trapped. Lori denies this. William should have checked the cover to make sure it was not damaged. William cannot prove his case and the Judge finds in favor of Lori. William is surprised by the outcome, he thought it was a slam dunk. Lori is glad it is over. It is very important to deal with issues in a timely manner. When someone is going to move out or has moved out, check everything right away. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The true adventurer goes forth aimless and uncalculating to meet and greet unknown fate.

~O. Henry

People's Court Blog-10 17 2012-Wednesday

An iPhone And Promise Rings

Tyanna is suing Jennifer for $713.00. This is for an iPhone and a promise ring she bought for Jennifer. Jennifer is counterclaiming for $520.00, the cost of the promise ring she gave to Tyanna. These two women were in an intimate relationship with each other. Tyanna says she loaned Jennifer an iPhone. Jennifer says it was a gift. She says that Tyanna gave her many gifts. She starts taking items out of her purse to show the gifts that Tyanna has given her. Tyanna seems to be a generous person or is she just trying to buy Jennifer's love? Either way, this seems like such a sad situation. Tyanna thought the relationship was serious, Jennifer did not return the sentiment. People do need to realize that to have a cell phone on someone else's account gives them a way to keep track of who you call. There are a series of text messages between the two women. There is nothing in the text messages to prove the iPhone was a loan. Jennifer gets to keep the phone. Neither women recover any money for the promise rings. The Judge tells them to go home and move on. 

Why do people need to be petty when they break up? It is over, move on. You give each other rings, gifts, etc., it is all part of being in a relationship. In any type of relationship there is give and take. It is not easy to separate all of this when there is a breakup. I hope both women can find happiness in their lives. 

Drag Racing Quilts

Patricia is suing Dave for $981.37. This is for the cost of several quilts that Patricia made for Dave.  These quilts are gorgeous. I am sure after this case Patricia will have no problem selling them. The Judge fell in love with them! I fell in love with them! Too bad Dave did not fall in love with them! These quilts were made out of T-shirts that Dave had saved from car racing events. When he met Patricia and found out she made quilts he asked her if she could make quilts from the T- shirts. They discussed it and Patricia made the quilts. Why doesn't Dave want to keep them? He did not like that Patricia put Indy cars on the quilt. His passion is drag racing and he did not like the Indy cars on the quilt. Patricia agreed to give him his money back and take back the quilts. Patricia feels she does not have the right to sell the quilts since they were made with Dave's property. The Judge rules in favor of Dave. Since they reached a settlement when Patricia returned the money to Dave and he returned the quilts, she has the right to sell the quilts. In the hallway, Patricia says she could probably get $500-$600 a piece for these quilts. Dave agrees they should have had a written contract. These quilts are so beautiful, I hope Patricia is able to sell them!

The Chimney Needs a Permit

Felix is suing Neranjohn for $4999.00. This is for costs associated with obtaining a permit for work done 4 years ago. Felix hired Neranjohn to install a chimney for him. Neither man obtained a permit from the city. Felix says he did not know he needed one, Neranjohn said he told him to get one. Even though there was no permit, Neranjohn completed the job. Now, years later Felix is contacted by the city for the lack of a permit. In order to get a permit Felix has to obtain architect's plans, pay the permit fees and pay the fines. He wants Neranjohn to pay for all of this. Why would he be responsible for these fees? Felix should know he would need a permit for this work. He would be responsible for all of the fees in the first place and the fine, well, that is his own fault for not calling the city. And why is the city contacting him years after the job was done? Well, Neranjohn tells the court that Felix called the city on his neighbor for work being done and brought this on himself. Remember - people in glass houses should not throw stones!!!! The Judge finds in favor of Neranjohn. Hopefully, Neranjohn will not compromise his contractor's license in the future doing work without a permit! 

Please share your thoughts in the comments. 

Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Life is half spent before we know what it is.

~George Herbert

People's Court Blog - 10 16 2012 - Tuesday

A 4 Year Old Driver

Linda is suing Andrew for $2554.89. This is for injuries she received as a result of Andrew's 4 year old driving into her with a motorized scooter. Yes, 4 years old! and Andrew is a proud father to say she has been riding since she was 3! Not only that, she is obviously so experienced she does not need adult supervision. Andrew seems fine with the fact his 6 year old was outside with the 4 year old. Linda describes the incident and it is very believable that a 4 year old lost control of a motorized scooter and injured her. Andrew says that his daughter told him that Linda walked out in front of her. Who would you believe? Linda shows the pictures of her injury and also show the scar on her ankle. Andrew does not seem to be concerned at all by Linda's injuries. He did not even check on her after the incident. After all, his kids did come home and tell him the neighbor had been injured. How does he rationalize letting his kids play outside unsupervised and on such dangerous vehicles for kids their age? Well, that is a very good question. We will not get the answer in this forum. The Judge finds in favor of Linda and tells Andrew that he needs to be a better parent. A 4 year old should not be playing unsupervised and should not be driving a motorized scooter! What do you think?

A Yankee Weekend

Andrew and Denis are suing Paul for $3109.40. Paul is counterclaiming for $5000.00, Andrew, Denis and 2 other friends traveled from Boston to New York City to spend the weekend. They wanted to see a Yankee game. They purchased tickets outside the stadium from a scalper for $50.00 each. They were stopped in the line and told the tickets were not valid. They were not counterfeit tickets. Andrew was able to find out where the tickets originated. Paul has a business in Connecticut and sends unsold tickets to the city to be sold. He claims he did not know these tickets had been sold online the Thursday before the game. Andrew contacted Paul and was offered the $200.00 he spent on the tickets. He asked for $600.00 and Paul turned him down. Andrew then called the Yankees to find out if this has happened before. Paul feels this was slander and could hurt his business and that is why he is counterclaiming. Why are they suing Paul for so much money? Well, they want Paul to pay for their entire weekend expenses. This is outrageous! I think they are lucky to have found Paul to begin with and to have the opportunity to get back the $200.00. When you buy tickets on the street, you are really taking a chance. This is exactly the ruling. The Judge finds in their favor for the $200.00. Paul does not recover anything on his counterclaim. He has not lost anything because of the phone call to the Yankees. This should be a wake-up call to Paul to change his business practices. Andrew and Denis should not have expected to get a bonanza of a free weekend in the city because they bought tickets on the street! What do you think?

A Cuban Gold Necklace

Jimmy is suing a pawnbroker for $2400.00. He says this is the value of a gold Cuban necklace the pawnbroker sold. When Jimmy pawned his gold Cuban necklace he received $450.00. He failed to pick it up within the allotted time and to pay the interest payments. The store tried to notify him but did not have the correct address. There is so much that went wrong here on Jimmy's part. He should have made sure he went back to the pawnbroker within the proper amount of time. He should have made sure they had his current address. Why would any of this be the store's responsibility? The store even waited longer than the allotted 4 months to sell the necklace. I feel bad for Jimmy because this necklace seems to mean so much to him, but he really dropped the ball.  Jimmy loses his case because he cannot show that the store did anything wrong. And what was the money for? Jimmy went to Atlantic City! Really! what a shame! Hopefully in the future, Jimmy will make sure information on an application is correct and he pays attention to the calender! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

~Bertrand Russell

People's Court Blog - 10 15 2012 - Monday

Snickers And Scorpio

Cindy is suing Mark for $3826.30. This is a combined total for lost wages and vet bills. Both of these dog owners are guilty of letting their dogs roam free in the neighborhood. There is a leash law in their town, neither of them care. They do  not care if their dogs get lost, stolen or hit by a car. Now they care because someone needs to be responsible for the vet bill. Scorpio, Mark's Chocolate Labrador attacked Snickers, Cindy's Dachshund. The vet bills are $2826.20. Mark offered to pay half because it was near Christmas and he wanted to help Cindy out. Actually Mark, you are going to pay the entire amount because of Florida law on strict liability. Even though both of them were wrong in leaving their dogs roam free, Mark is responsible for the bills. He does not have to pay for the week of work that Cindy chose to miss. She wanted to be home with Snickers while he was recovering. Please both of you put leashes on your dogs! The dogs deserve to be protected from harm. If you cannot be bothered to walk your dog on a leash, do not have dogs! What do you think?

The Harmonica Player 

Elliot is suing Michael for $200.00. He claims Michael hired him to play in a band on Labor Day in at a city sponsored picnic in 2010. Michael denies this. He says he does not even like harmonica players so why would he hire him. Are we to believe that Elliot just walked up to the band and started playing with them? Are we to believe that now Elliot is suing for a job he did not have? Well, it is hard to know what to believe since Elliot is claiming Michael owes him $200.00. Michael says he paid the men in the band $50.00 each. Elliot finally admits that he was hired for $50.00 and now wants more because he had to waste so much time trying to get paid. Elliot does have a letter from one of the men in the band stating that the were paid. Unfortunately, he does not mention the amount. After listening to both sides of the story, The Judge decides that Elliot was hired and he will get paid $50.00 and interest from the past two years! Why did Michael think is was believable that Elliot would sue him if he was not hired? Why did Elliot think that it was believable that he was hired for $200.00? If both men just told the truth it would have been a magical moment! What do you think?

The Pitter Patter Of Little Feet

Lisa is suing George for $5000.00. This is for damages to her apartment and for pain and suffering. Lisa has lived in her apartment for 40 years. In 2008, George moved in above her. She says there were leaks in her apartment caused by George. These problems were resolved. In 2011, he rented to a couple with a 7 year old, 45 lb child. Lisa claims that she has had damage to her ceiling fan light fixture, smoke detector, medicine cabinet and toilet because of the child. She said the child jumps up and down and creates problems. She complained to George on many occasions. He did ask the family to put down rugs and they did. Lisa said it did not help. One day George came in her apartment to see the damage she was complaining about. When Lisa asked him if he could hear the noise, he listened and heard the pitter patter of little feet. That is when he realized this was not going to to be easy to resolve. Lisa was super sensitive to the slightest noise. It does seem that George was trying to mediate the problem. The family was made aware of the complaints. They provided a letter to the court that described how they supervise their child and they even remove their shoes at the door. The family moved out because of this situation. That is really a shame! The child has a right to walk around in his own home. The Judge finds that Lisa cannot prove her case. What a shame that a family had to move out because of this unreasonable woman! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.

~James M. Barrie

People's Court Blog - 10 12 2012 - Friday

October Challenge Check-up: Here it is the end of the second week of the challenge. I hope you are doing much better than I am. Once again I have not met my goal. I will try next week to be successful. Trying is all anyone can ask for! I wish you success in meeting your October Challenge Goal! Wish me luck!

Kira And The Beast In The Basement

Kira and her two daughters, Gail and Marissa are suing Dawn for $5000.00. Kira rented her house to Dawn and a roommate for $2300.00 a month. After 4 months, Maureen, the roommate, moved out. Dawn wanted to continue to live there but needed help in paying the rent. Kira let her try to find a housemate. According to Kira after Dawn placed an ad for a housemate, she installed a kitchen, a woman, a dog and 3 cats in the basement. She actually created a separate apartment for someone. The woman who moved in the basement apartment was Kim, later to be known as the beast in the basement. Wow! What a name for someone and guess what -  it fits! Stay posted, you are going to be shocked! Kim contacted Kira and let her know that Dawn was interviewing for a roommate for upstairs. Kira looks into this and finds a an ad on Craigslist where Dawn is posing as the landlord. Dawn is asked to leave and her security deposit is returned to her. The sad part of this entire story is that Kira got rid of the wrong tenant. Now she had to contend with Kim or as she is now commonly known as "The Beast in the Basement!"

Kim had actually stopped paying rent. She called the police on Kira and her daughters. The police told the Kira and her daughters they were not allowed in the basement. Kim had squatters rights. Kira took Kim to court to evict her. The Judge gave Kim 10 days to leave. After Kim left and Kira went in the basement she was shocked! Kim had put fish on the radiator, turned the heat up to 80 degrees, took all of the switchplates, removed all the lightbulbs, removed the doorknobs and stuffed dirty diapers in the walls This is so disgusting! The Judge is outraged that the local police said this was a civil matter and would not press criminal charges. The Judge calls the Police Chief to inquire about the investigation. Hopefully we will find out that Kim was charged with criminal mischief.

The Judge finds in favor of Dawn for this case. Even though Dawn brought this woman on board as a tenant, Kira had the opportunity to get rid of her. Dawn claims that Kira's husband is the one to renovate the basement. He is not in court to dispute this. Kira does not have any evidence to prove that Dawn is responsible for this situation. She actually was the better tenant and should have not been kicked out. Kira needs to sue "The Beast in the Basement"! What do you think?

Michaele And The Lame Horse

Michaele is suing Bethany for $750.00. This is for the deposit and travel expenses for a horse she was attempting to purchase for her daughter. Michaele was looking for a horse for her daughter who has spina bifida. She needed a very calm horse that would allow her daughter to get on the horse with the use of blocks. Michaele provided a video of her daughter and horse to make sure the owner of the horses knew what she was looking for. After Michaele saw an ad on Craigslist for Bethany's horse, she sent the video. Bethany agreed that her horse would be a good candidate for Michaele's daughter. Michaele paid a deposit of $500.00 and spent $250.00 to transport the horse. When the horse arrived, Michaele contacted a veterinarian because she thought the horse was lame. The vet examined the horse and deemed it unfit for sale. There were specific instructions for Bethany to follow for the horse after she took the horse home. Bethany admits in court that she did not follow all of the vet's instructions. She says all the horse needed was some medicine and rest. After a few days the horse was fine and she she was able to sell it to someone else after Michaele did not want to continue with the purchase. Michaele wants her deposit back and the money spent to transport the horse. 

The Judge finds that Bethany breached the contract when she did not follow the vet's instructions. Michaele will get all of the money she is suing for. What I find so amazing is that someone would buy a horse sight unseen. Why didn't she contact a vet to look at the horse before she purchased him/her? Probably for the same reason that people do not pay to have a mechanic look at a used car! What do you think?

Wendy And The Leased Car

Wendy is suing Vincent for $1427.36. Vincent is the father of her two grandchildren. She leased her car to Vincent to use to be able to go to work in order to pay child support. When her daughter and Vincent had issues she took her car back. There was a signed agreement between Wendy and Vincent for the car. Wendy tells the Judge how she watches the show and loves her and knew to have a written agreement. The Judge is very proud of her for this. The agreement details what Vincent would be responsible for. He paid Wendy $60-$65 a week for the use of the car. Wendy even photocopied the cash he gave her! What Wendy did not take into account was that routine wear and tear on the car was not covered by the agreement. Keep in mind Vincent was paying for the use of the car on a weekly basis. After Wendy took the car back she took it to a mechanic. The mechanic did not refer to any repairs that were not a direct result of Vincent's mishandling of the car. He did not violate their agreement. The Judge finds in Vincent's favor.

What makes this so sad, is that Vincent is really trying to do the best for his children. It is a shame that he and the children's mother cannot get along. Hopefully he will find an affordable vehicle so he can continue to work and pay his bills. Good luck to all!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

~Thomas Edison

People's Court Blog - 10 11 2012 - Thursday

Gary And The Disrespectful Veteran

Gary is suing David for $1500.00. This is for rent and miscellaneous bills. Both of these men are veterans. Gary helped David in his time of need. David does not even seem appreciative for the help Gary gave him. He let him move in with him, no money up front. He did this for him because they are both veterans and David believes this is how a veteran should behave. David cries poverty, yet he is dressed to kill. The Judge actually inspects his clothing and details the designer names he is wearing. David is no pauper! Gary has a promissory note signed by David. He will get back the $1100.00 for rent. Unfortunately the money Gary spent renting a U-Haul and moving David's belongings will not be recouped. There was no agreement between the two men for these expenses. Gary did this on his own, out of the kindness of his heart! To add insult to injury, David has a countersuit against Gary for $1100.00. Is he kidding? Maybe if he would have paid his rent in the first place we would not be here! This money is for David's rent in his new apartment. The Judge throws this case out so quickly, if you blink you will miss it! Shame on you David! In the hallway, Gary plays a song called the Winner's Song! What a fun guy he is! It is a shame that David took advantage of him, he should be ashamed of himself! Thank you both for your service, and also thanks to you Gary for being such a honest and caring person!

Sue Ellen And The Dog Attack

Sue Ellen is suing Amy for $515.00. This is for the vet bills to treat her dog, Sonny, after he was attacked by Amy's dog. Sue Ellen was taking Sonny for a walk, a short walk, as she described it. Sonny had on his walking gear, he always dons it prior to leaving the house. It is very apparent that Sue Ellen is devoted to Sonny. While they were walking past Amy's house, a large dog ran towards them and attacked Sonny. Sue Ellen was horrified and could not separate the two large dogs. Amy tried to help and was not successful. Two teenage boys were able to separate the dogs. They should be commended for their bravery. In these type of situations, you never know what could happen. After all, dogs are animals and operate on instincts. One of the teenagers even wrote a letter for the court describing the incident. 

Amy's rendition of the story is so far-fetched. She claims she was sitting on her porch, her dog not on a leash but wearing a harness. When her dog saw Sue Ellen and Sonny, he ran off the porch and Amy held tight to his harness. She was dragged into the road and Sue Ellen let go of Sonny's leash and  her dog was attacked. And then what happened? Did she drop the harness and then try to separate the dogs? This makes no sense at all. Even if it did happen this way and that would be a major  s t  r  e  t  c  h...She still did not have control of her dog. Why on earth would Sue Ellen drop the leash? 

After the two dogs were separated and Sue Ellen got Sonny home, his injuries were not apparent. Within a couple of days, he was shaking his head and not acting right. Sonny had injuries to his ear, required stitches, a drain and the awful embarrassing cone around his neck! Amy is 100% responsible to pay the vet bills. Oh and the lattice panels Amy put up after the fact do not look strong enough to hold in her large dog! Hopefully Sue Ellen and Sonny have devised a new walking route!

Jessica And 44 Missing Items

Jessica is suing a Valet Parking Company for $3880.00. This is for the cost of items in her car that went missing when she had her car valet parked. Andres is representing the Valet Parking Company. Jessica and her family went to dinner at Ruth Chris Steakhouse. She valet parked her car. The next day she realized the bag with her laptop and books was not on the back seat. She reported it to the restaurant. After that she looked in the trunk of her car and it was empty. She had   many valuable items in the trunk, including 35 team softball shirts. She called to add the additional items to the report. In total, she reported 44 items missing from her car. Why would someone leave an expensive laptop in the car when they choose to valet park? It was on the back seat, in plain view. Anyone could have stolen it at anytime. After all, Jessica did not know it was gone until the next day. It could have been stolen from her car while it was parked in her driveway. Jessica did not have any evidence to prove the valet company was responsible for the loss. The valet parking receipt has a disclaimer regarding missing items; of course they are not responsible. Also, how do you not  notice this right away? Jessica loses her case. Hopefully, there are lessons learned here. Granted they are expensive ones, but we all have to learn somehow. Please make sure all valuables are secure when putting your car into the hands of someone else!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Be so good they can't ignore you.

~Steve Martin

People's Court Blog-10 10 2012-Wednesday

Valeria And The Order Of Protection

Valeria is suing Ralph and Kristine for $5000.00. This is for the cost of a car that was left on their property. Valeria and her husband Joe were tenants of Ralph and Kristine. Joe was arrested and is in jail. Valeria was 8 1/2 months pregnant. Valeria had to move out because Kristine got an order of protection against her. So far, none of this has anything to do with the case. Why are these people in court? Valeria did not take her car when she moved out. She left it in Ralph and Kristine's driveway. The car was getting ticketed for being unregistered and then...it was gone. Where did it go? Ralph says it was towed, stolen or taken. Kristine says it was towed but has no evidence of the tow. She does have a friend that works for the city that confirmed it was towed, but did not provide any evidence for Kristine to bring to court. Wow! Such complications! Valeria has no proof   where the car is. The Judge calls a recess, makes a phone call and finds out! The city towed the car  because it was unregistered. Mystery solved! Valeria could very easily have found out where the car was and got it back. She does not get any money. Even though this case was about the car, the saddest part is that Ralph and Kristine seemed to have found a way around a long drawn out eviction process. The order of protection was instrumental in having Valeria leave the property in a very timely manner. It is never made clear if Valeria is guilty of the violence against Kristine, since this case was about the car!

Bendal And The Impressive Weight Loss

Bendal is suing his sister, Cynthea, for $5000.00. This is for a $3500.00 loan and for slander. Bendal has no proof of the loan, Cynthea says it was a gift. This is a classis case of he said she said. Usually there is some hint of the truth when both sides tell their stories. In this case, not so much. What is very clear is that these two siblings do not get along. What a shame! Family is very important. What is clear is that at some point Bendal gave Cynthea money. The amount is not even agreed upon. Bendal says it was $3500.00, Cynthea says it was $3000.00. Unfortunately there is nothing, not a text, not an e-mail, nothing to tell us whether this was a loan or a gift. What is the slander about? Well, Bendal is very proud to show the jeans from last year that he wore when he weighed over 500 lbs. He had gastric bypass and lost over 300 lbs. Very impressive. He says that Cynthea is very mean and told people he had AIDS. She denies this and once again no proof. Just one person's word against the other. How sad that these this brother and sister are not there for each other. Bendal is unable to prove his case and does not recover any of the money he is asking for. If there is any way these two siblings can mend their problems, I would hope they do and get beyond these differences!

Sade And The Book Club

Sade is suing her cousin, Kerifa, for $240.00. This is for the cost of her share of a trip to Florida. Kerifa started a book club. Sade joined it. Everyone in the book club had planned a trip to Florida. Sade gave Kerifa her share of the money for the trip, $200.00. Everything was going fine and then something very strange happened. Sade received a phone call from Kerifa's sister. She asked Sade if she could take her place on the vacation. Sade thought she as joking and said yes. Sade did not know that Kerifa was with her sister when she made the phone call. Kerifa called Sade and told her that only book club members could go on the trip and she could not give away her part of the trip. Sade told her she was only joking and was not giving it away. Kerifa told her she would give her the money back if she did not want to go. Oh my, this is a real mess! Sade did not go on the trip, Kerifa's sister did not go on the trip. Why are we here? Well. after the trip, Kerifa did not return Sade's money. She told her it was nonrefundable. You can't tell someone you are going to give their money back and then not do it. The Judge rules in favor of Sade for $200.00. The additional $40.00 she was suing for was for the court costs, that she recovers since she won the case. Once again, family is pulled apart over money. Is it really worth $200.00 to lose a relationship with a cousin? I hope these two ladies can work out their differences and resume reading books together!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity;

An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

~Winston Churchill

People's Court Blog - 10 9 2012 - Tuesday

James And Road Rage

James is suing Danielle for $500.00. This is for damage to his car during a road rage incident. Both of these people were wrong wrong wrong for their actions. James and Danielle's stories are slightly different. The damage done to the car is not in dispute. Danielle admits to throwing a grape jelly jar at James's car. She broke the back window. James had 2 car seats in the back seat and they were covered with glass when the window shattered. Thank goodness the kids were not with him. James does admit he would have behaved differently if the kids were in the car. Danielle does not believe there were car seats except that the pictures shown were taken at the scene. What is wrong with these people? James does not get the replacement value for the car seats, so the ruling for him is $431.67. Danielle needs to control her temper, she has a baby on the way. James needs to grow up and be a better role model for his kids. Both of these people need to take stock of themselves and stop the road rage! This could have ended so much differently with two people who do not know how to walk away!

Shantel And The Lost Friendship

Shantel is suing Katisha for $2412.35. This is for the cost of a money order, a loan, bank fees, and pain and suffering. These two women have known each other for years. Shantel describes Katisha as her godsister. Her parents are godparents to Katisha's son. Shantel thought she was helping out Katisha when she cashed a money order for her for $1900.00. This was for work Katisha had done as a mystery shopper. Katisha did not know the company was going out of business and the money orders were fake. Shantel gave Katisha the money and deposited the money orders. They were no good!!! Did Katisha give Shantel the money back? No, she says that they were both victims. I do not know how Katisha was a victim. She has the money, Shantel does not. She also claims that she gave Shantel $600.00 for cashing the money order and then borrowed $100.00 from her. Shantel denies getting $600.00. I believe her. Why on earth would someone pay that kind of money to cash a money order! That does not make any sense! Of course, Katisha has to pay Shantel the money. In total, Shantel recovers $2012.35. She is not entitled to $400.00 for pain and suffering. The really sad part of this is that these two women are not talking to each other anymore. Does anyone know how Katisha can keep saying that Shantel is a victim also? Shantel is an innocent bystander that was trying to be nice and help out a really good friend in her time of need. What do you think?

Lorraine / Vashti And The House In Guyana

Lorraine and Vashti are suing Sugrim for $3487.00. This is for the deposit and fees associated with the purchase of a home. The house is in Guyana. The contract was completed in April of 2006. Sugrim told them it would take three months for the contract to be processed for approval. In Guyana, the government owns the land the house is on. Lorraine claims that she was never given proof of the approval. She tried to contact Sugrim and he did not return his calls. Lorraine sent Sugrim a certified letter. Soon after this  he let her know the contract had been approved. It was a little over three months later. Lorraine told Sugrim she did not want to go through with the sale and claims they had a verbal agreement that she could cancel if the process took over three months. There is nothing in the written contract that references a time limit. At the time Sugrim offered Lorraine half of her $2500.00 deposit back. She refused. Now 6 years later she is suing him. She does not recover any money on her lawsuit. She should have taken him up on his initial offer. AND  why on earth would she wait six years to file a lawsuit? I do not know, do you?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Start Where You Are.

Use What You Have.

Do What You Can.

~Arthur Ashe

People's Court Blog - 10 8 2012 - Monday

Atiya And The Adult Party

Atiya is suing Tangey for $1165.00. This is for the cost of pole dancing lessons and damages to her house. Atiya is a really fun person! For her 35th birthday, she had plans for the most amazing party. Atiya calls it an OPP party. This stands for overnight, passion, pole party. Wow, I would like to be one of her friends. Atiya invited 10 friends over to celebrate her 35th birthday. The party was all women and included sex toy demonstration and pole dancing lessons. Unfortunately, Tangey the pole dancer, did not follow through. Atiya hired her and paid $435.00 for her to give pole dancing lessons at the party. This really sounds like fun! Tangey got to the party late, could not set up the poles in a secure way and disappointed the birthday girl and her friends. Besides causing disappointment she also damaged the ceiling and the floor while she was trying to set up the pole. Not to the tune of $730.00, which is the amount Atiya is asking for. Atiya will get back the cost of the pole lessons and $300.00 for the damages. In total she gets back $735.00. I think Tangey should stick to having parties at the studio. It seems like a major liability to set up the pole in people's homes. What do you think?

Thomas And The Scratched Car

Thomas is suing Rick for $1192.50. This is for the damage to his car while it was parked in Rick's parking lot. This is a parking lot for an airport. Thomas left his car in the lot over Christmas week while he flew home to visit his family. When he returned and picked up his car he noticed scratches to the back door panel. Thomas showed it to someone right away and took pictures of it. This was the right thing to do. Never ever leave the lot before checking the car. If there are damages they need to be shown to someone before leaving. Thomas did this, but Rick still does not believe him. I do not understand this. How else would the damage have occurred? It was not there when Thomas left his car, it was there when he picked it up. Very straightforward. Rick should have done the right thing and paid for the damage when it was brought to his attention. Thomas definitely proves his case and is awarded the entire amount he is suing for. Why don't people do the right thing? Why do they need to be taken to court? I would hope in the future Rick treats his customers better! What do you think?

John And The Ungrateful Girlfriend

John is suing Joella for $487.52. This is for a loan to Joella to help her pay for furniture. These two people have dated on and off for ten years. Joella describes how John has helped her through the years giving her money when she needed it. He never asked for it back. Wow, what a nice guy! Unfortunately this will not be in his favor. He has given money to Joella throughout the years and did not expect it back. Now he wants his money back. Why is this time different? Well, they broke up and Joella moved on. She started dating someone and moved in with the guy, She dated John for ten years on and off and they never lived together. John wants Joella to pay him back. It is not going to happen. The Judge finds in favor of Joella. It does appear that she has taken advantage of this very nice man's generosity. She should pay him back because it is the right thing to do. She is not going to pay him back because legally she does not have to. What a shame!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

You can't start the next chapter of your life, if you keep re-reading the last one.

~Anonymous

People's Court Blog - 10 5 2012 - Friday

Challenge Check-Up: It has been one week of the October Challenge. I was hoping to be on my way to success. I was not able to post Friday's blog until today. I will try harder next week. It will give me something to work towards. How are you doing for your October Challenge? Please share your resolution and update in the comments. We can all try for success together!

Grant And The Unleashed Pitbull

Grant is suing Theodore for $1000.00. This is for vet bills and pain and suffering for a dog attack. Grant was walking his Yorkie on a leash when a Pitbull, not on a leash, attacked. Grant took his little dog to the vet. Thank goodness the little dog survived an attack from the Pitbull. It would seem rather straighforward that Theodore would be responsible for the vet bills. He claims that the dog does not belong to him. Who does the the Pitbull belong to? Theodore's roommate. Why isn't the roommate in court? She is in Rikers Island. Where is the Pitbull? He lives with Theodore. Remember if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck! I love when the Judge uses this reference! The Judge rules that the Pitbull belongs to Theodore, so he is responsible for the vet bills. Grant receives $797.01. Grant does not receive pain and suffering, although I am sure he experienced both! Why wasn't the Pitbull on a leash? Why does this seem like a common occurrence? Why are there so many dog attack cases that involve Pitbulls? Please help to answer these questions!

Tialonee And The Con Man

Tialonee is suing Adrian for $2000.00. This is a case of a con man taking advantage of a young, naive girl. Tialonee is 18 years old. She thought she was buying a car from Adrian. She gave him $2000.00 and he signed a contract with her. The contract was notarized. Adrian points out that in the state of Florida, a notarized contract contains certain elements that are missing from this one. Tialonee shows text messages between the two of them concerning the planned purchase of the car. Adrian points out that there are apps available for fake texting. Tialonee says they were friends, Adrian said they dated. Tialonee said they met on Facebook. Adrain says they met on an Internet chat site. Tialonee said she gave him $2000.00 for a car. Adrian says she was holding the money for him. There is so much that neither of them agree on, it is almost as if they were having two different realities, that is the essence of a con!

The car Tialonee was buying was a 2012 Impala that cost $18,000.  Why would Adrian sell it to her for $2000.00? Exactly! Think about it. Of course it is too good to be true. The entire situation was orchestrated to discredit Tialonee. I give Tialonee so much credit for bringing Adrian to court. The Judge sees right through this polished con man. Tialonee will get her money back. We all need to be constantly on guard to protect ourselves from situations that are too good to be true. Remember there is no free lunch!

Ferris And Progressive Glasses

Ferris is suing Larry for $654.00. This is for the cost of glasses that Ferris bought and cannot wear. Ferris went for an eye exam and had new glasses made. These glasses were different from his previous ones. He received progressive glasses and cannot see with them. He wants to return them and get his money back. Why would he leave the store with the glasses if he could not see? He did go back and demand his money back. The store policy is no refunds and a one year guarantee. This is stated on the receipt. Ferris is not entitled to his money back, he is entitled to have the glasses fixed. Larry agrees that he will do everything to fix the problem.

Why didn't Ferris give Larry a chance to fix the glasses before he brought Larry to court? This is something we will never know. People need to try to resolve their problems before rushing to court. Now, Ferris can return to Larry's store and get his glasses fixed so he will be able to see clearly.

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe

We have it in our power to start the world over again.
~Thomas Paine

People's Court Blog - 10 4 2012 - Thursday

Chris / Billiejo And The Not So Brand New Refrigerator

Chris and Billiejo are suing for $2694.94. This is for the cost of a refrigerator and various other costs associated with the purchase. Peggy Lee and Carlos were the contact for an ad on Craigslist. Peggy Lee's mother-in-law placed an ad to sell a refrigerator. The refrigerator was advertised as brand new. After Chris and Billiejo purchased the $3000.00 refrigerator for $950.00, they took it home, plugged it in and guess what? It did not work. Chris took the refrigerator to a repair shop and found out it had been repaired. The condenser had been replaced and other work had been done. The repair shop has documented the work done on the refrigerator. It is very obvious this was a scam to sell a used refrigerator as new. Peggy Lee shows that Chris damaged the refrigerator when he transported it on its side in a trailer. This does not matter since the information in the ad was false.

When Chris tries to reach Peggy Lee and Carlos, they do not return his calls. He meets with them using a fake name when he answers another Craigslist ad. The problem is he does not act responsibly and makes himself look like a loose cannon! Now he is doing the right thing to bring them to court. The Judge finds Peggy Lee and Carlos responsible to return the purchase price of the refrigerator, travel expenses and the cost of the repair shop diagnosis. In total, Chris and Billiejo get back $1177.49. Remember if something sounds too good too be true, it probably is! 

Lisa Lynn And Her Pottery Equipment

Lisa Lynn is suing Nicolle and Christopher for $3978.40. This is for pottery equipment that was stored with Nicolle and Christopher. When Lisa Lynn was pregnant in 2008, the father of her baby removed her items from storage and stored them with Nicolle and Chris. In 2010, she tried to get her property back and did not get it. In 2011, Nicolle donated the pottery equipment to a local school. She has a donation receipt to prove this. 

Why does Lisa Lynn wait so long to get her property back? The only answer she has is that she had so much going on in her life. This is not a good excuse. Years went by. She really could not expect for the items to be there forever. Lisa Lynn seems surprised to lose her case. She feels she did not get a chance to tell everything. I cannot imagine what else there could be. She had years to get back her property and she did not make the effort. It was not Nicolle and Chris's responsibility to return it to her. Maybe she is used to everyone doing for her, but not this time. The silver lining is that the pottery equipment went to a school and children are learning the art pf pottery. Lisa Lynn does not see this as a silver lining, she just wanted her belongings back!

Shannon And The Lost Friendship

Shannon is suing his friend for $1032.54. This is for the cost of parking tickets, impound fees, and various other costs. Shannon claims he put a car in his name for his friend, Richard. The reason he gives is that he wanted to help out his friend. Richard denies that Shannon helped him. This is very much a case of he said he said. It all comes down to the most credible person. The winner is Shannon. Richard continues to deny that anything was done for him, but he is so unbelievable. Shannon's story rings true. I am sure it will be a very long time before he lets someone else take advantage of him. Shannon gets back $784.21. The money he does not get back will be a lesson for him. The shame of this situation is that these two men have known each other for 29 years. This is a lifetime. It must be so difficult for Shannon to have been treated this way by a friend he has known for this long. Another question answered. What is the cost of a 29 year friendship? The answer: $1032.54. Good luck Shannon!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe 

Being entirely honest with oneself is a good exercise.

~Sigmund Freud

People's Court Blog-10 3 2012-Wednesday

Ashley And The Lost Friendship

Two friends move in together. Ashley and Christine have been friends for eleven years. Now the friendship is over for good. This is a real shame. What is the cost of an eleven year old friendship? Well, it turns out it is $532.58. This is the cost of the utility bills that Christine did not pay. When these two young women entered into a rental agreement together, they agreed to split the utility bill. Christine paid her half for a few months and then stopped. Why did she stop? Christine claims that she did not feel safe in the apartment so she stayed with her boyfriend. Her defense for not paying her half of the utility bill is that she was not there to use the utilities. Agreements do not work this way. The Judge explains that as long as she had the ability to live in the apartment she was responsible to pay her share. The more important issue here is that this longterm friendship has now ended, Ashley seems very happy to get the money for the utility bill and does not seem to mind that the friendship is over. What a shame! A friendship is something to be valued and not thrown away! Both of these young women will go on with their lives and will most definitely make new friends. Unfortunately you can never replace a friendship that started in the 9th grade. Don't you agree?

Sondra And Her Really Small Mouth

Sondra is suing Ronald, her dentist, for $1567.00. This is the cost of new dentures that Ronald made for her. Sondra explains that she has a very small mouth. She explained this to Ronald and he assured her he could make new dentures that would fit her. Ronald made the dentures for Sondra and she was not happy with the fit. She returned to him 5 times for adjustments. At the last visit, Ronald told her there was nothing more he could do for her. Sondra decided to chalk it up to experience and walked away. A year later she met the nurse from the dental office. The nurse asked Sondra if she was wearing the dentures. Sondra told her that she could not wear them. The nurse said she never liked the forms he used for the molds. This is the reason Sondra decided to sue a year after purchasing the dentures. Sondra should have pursued this sooner. Also, Sondra did not go to another dentist to get an opinion on the dentures. There is no proof that the forms might have been incorrect or the dentures were not fit properly.

Sondra does not recover her money for the dentures. At the end of the case, Ronald offers to continue to help her. Sondra says she will not return to him, she does not want to give him another chance. That is a shame. Ronald is offering, Sondra should take him up on it. What does she have to lose?

Brenda And The Cancelled Skit

Brenda is suing Vinel and Lois for $914.00. These women belong to a fraternal organization. They were participating in a fundraiser that helps kids with their college fees. Part of the fundraiser included a competition of skits. Brenda wrote the skit, organized the rehearsals and was looking forward to participating in the competition. On the night of the fundraiser, Brenda's guests were told the skit was cancelled. Vinel was in charge and decided to cancel the skit. Brenda wants to be compensated for her time and effort for writing and putting on the skit. Brenda needs to review the definition of a volunteer. There was no promise of payment, whether the skit went on or not. It is true that Brenda was embarassed by the last minute cancellation, but you do not get compensated for embarassment! Brenda needs to make sure everyone agrees on terms of payment before she gets involved in a project! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

Faith is taking the first step when you do not see the whole staircase.

~Martin Luther King Jr.

People's Court Blog - 10 2 2012 - Tuesday

Shannon And The Color Purple

Shannon wanted highlights in her hair. She did not like the colors that were put in her hair and is suing for $435.00. This is for the cost of the job and the repair. Shannon describes a process by which she chose colors out of a book for her hair. Kevin says she said she wanted purple. He told her purple would not look good with blonde hair. Shannon denies this. She says she wanted eggplant. Well, Shannon...purple and eggplant are the same color! When Shannon saw the colors of her hair when it was done, she was unhappy. So unhappy that she tipped the hair stylist. She did return to the shop three days later and wanted her money back. She says that Kevin told her to give it the weekend and come back. It is so hard to figure out who to believe. Thank goodness the Judge is really really good at this! The Judge decides in favor of Kevin and Shannon does not get any money. I think a major part of the decision involves Shannon using the word, eggplant. It means purple! Shannon's hair looks good now! She should continue going to her current stylist! The Judge shares that she once had purple hair, I would love to see that! 

Dan And His Beloved Guitar

Dan is suing for $1180.00. This is for the cost of the repair to his beloved guitar. Peter is in court to represent the bar that Dan and his band were playing in.  Dan's band is called "Below Average White Band". They play classic 70's rock. One night they were playing in a bar and Dan took a break and put his guitar on the stand. An intoxicated patron carrying a beer in his hand, stumbled on the stage and knocked over a speaker that hit the guitar and broke its neck. Dan describes his guitar as priceless. Thank goodness it was able to be repaired since the bar now has to pay for that. The Judge finds they are liable for the cost of the repair. Dan was able to prove his case. Peter, the manager is not happy about this. Peter was not there that fateful evening and has nothing to contribute to this case! Dan plays in the hallway for us...http://peoplescourt.warnerbros.com/

Robert And The Very Responsible Driver

Robert is suing Brandon for $189.99. This is for the cost of a lawnmower. Brandon was being a responsible driver. He swerved to avoid hitting a cat. He turned into Robert's driver and ran over his lawnmower and ruined part of his vegetable garden. What is Brandon's reward for not killing a cat? He worked for a half a day on Robert's farm and gave him a replacement lawnmower. Two weeks later Robert decided he did not like this particular lawnmower. He bought a new one. Of course he should not expect Brandon to have to pay for a new lawnmower. The Judge awards Robert $85.00. This is the legal answer. 

The moral answer would have been to reward Brandon's responsible driving with a free pass. I think saving a cat's life is way more important than a lawnmower. Please Brandon remember you did the right thing. It is Robert who needs to look at his behavior a little more closely. Also, no one mentioned who the cat belonged to. Since Robert owned a farm amd the cat was in front of Robert's house, what if? ... 

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.

~Carl Sagan

People's Court Blog - 10 1 2012 - Monday

Welcome October 1, 2012!

The first day of the month. A day to make a resolution, make a change! Resolutions do not have to wait until January 1st. I like to think the first day of each month can be a day for new beginnings. Just as each day can be the first day of the rest of your life, each month can be a time to take stock and set a new goal. My goal for October is to post my blog the same day as the show. Stay with me and keep me on track. I challenge you to set a goal for the month and share it in the comments. We will succeed together!

Latisha And The Hit And Run

Latisha is suing Antoinette and Amy for $2935.27. This is for damages to her car from a hit and run accident. Antoinette and Amy are countersuing for the same amount of money. One night Latisha heard a loud noise in the front of her house. There was a car driving away from her house after hitting her car that, he had to stop and return home. He was able to describe the car as a dark red impala with tinted windows and a  spoiler. He was not able to see the license plate number.

5 days after the accident, Latisha saw the car parked at a house near her home. She called the police. They investigated and determined this was the car that caused the accident. In court, Antoinette, the owner of the car, explains the damage to her car was from a previous accident. She  also has pictures of a car that looked like hers and has body damage. This car was parked at a house in the area. She did not turn this information over to the police since she just saw it the day before court. Hello "My Cousin Vinny"!

The Judge is not able to find in favor of Latisha because there is a chance Antoinette was not responsible. Oh and the countersuit for the exact amount Latisha is suing for...Antoinette claims she was falsely accused and wants to be compensated. She does not get any money. The police investigated and they concluded she was responsible for the accident. Latisha was using the expert opinion of the police to bring Antoinette and Amy to court.

Latisha was trying to find the person responsible for the damage to her car. It is possible it is the owner of the car that Antoinette found. Hopefully she follows up and finds out if that is true. The person responsible should be held accountable for the damage they caused. What do you think?

Thomas And Bella

Thomas is suing Sharon for $1600.00. He purchased a puppy from her and he wants to be compensated for the purchase price and various other expenses. Thomas has "the puppy" in court. She is full grown now and is gorgeous. She is an Old English Bulldog named Bella. I have to say, Bella stole the show. What an amazing face, what a gracious and sweet dog!

They are in court today because Bella has hip dysplasia. Thomas would like the breeder to assume financial responsibility for her condition. There is one big problem, he would have to exchange Bella in order to legally resolve the issue. Thomas is not about to do that. Bella is his constant companion. He is a truck driver and is very proud to tell the court that Bella has been to 27 states with him. He obviously loves Bella very much.

One day Bella may need surgery to correct her condition. When this day comes, Thomas is going to do everything he can for her. He will not get any financial help from the breeder. This is a shame, but it is what is legal for the state Bella is from. Maybe the breeder should step up and work  with him, but to her this is business. To Thomas, Bella is family and he would never give her up! I hope Bella and Thomas have many many long years of travelling the open road together!

Jack And The Concealed Weapon

Jack is suing Julia for $1250.00. This is for a security deposit and additional money for stress. Jack rented a mobile home from Julia for one year. After the year lease was over, Jack rented month to month. When he decided to move out, he let Julia know. He spent 40 hours cleaning the mobile home before the walkthrough. When Julia met him for the walkthrough, she had a gun with her. Why did she bring a gun? She has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Why does she carry a gun? She tells the court, because she can. That is a great answer! Did she think she would need it? She did not get a chance to find out. After she refused to give Jack the security deposit back, she called the police. When they arrived, they took the gun away from her.

Julia claims the mobile home was filthy. She has pictures that show there was some clean-up needed. Jack's pictures showed a clean mobile home. Julia also says that Jack was supposed to maintain the gardens around the mobile home. She is trying to keep $750.00 for cleaning and for weeding. The Judge reviews the pictures and the costs involved and awards her $150.00. Jack gets back $600.00. He does not get an additional $500.00 for stress. If he was that stressed out by the gun he should have left. Instead he stayed and did not leave until the police told him to.

Jack seems very intent to explain that he did not do a good job cleaning because he is a man. Really! I do not think it matters whether you are a man or a woman. Cleaning is cleaning! Jack needs to wake up and smell the coffee and then wipe it up when it spills!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

You may delay, but time will not.

~Benjamin Franklin