People's Court: 7-25-12

I Finally Found You After Six Years!

Peggy and Sharon are suing each other for $3,000.00. Peggy attempted to rent a house from Sharon 6 years ago. Peggy explains that so much time has gone by because she has not been able to find Sharon. She happened to be driving behind her one day and recognized her. She followed her, blocked her car in with her own car and called the police. Sharon was able to maneuver her car to get out and drive away. Peggy follows her again and thinks they are going to have a burger together! Sharon had pulled into a parking lot with a McDonald's. She does not want to eat with Peggy! She wants to get away from her. None of this has anything to do with the lawsuit. It does illustrate that Peggy is a very determined lady! Here is the story: Peggy was going to rent a house from Sharon. They met, did a walkthrough and signed a lease. Peggy handed over $1200.00, the security deposit and first month's rent. After this, Sharon tells Peggy that once a month someone is going to inspect the house. Peggy gets upset over this, she did not want someone checking on her, she said she wanted her money back. Peggy was not going to live under those conditions. Sharon offers to give her back half, Peggy wanted it all back. After all, only minutes had passed since signing the lease and giving Sharon the money. Sharon finally tells her that she will not return any of it and she can take her to court. Peggy could not find Sharon to serve papers for a lawsuit and then she sees her! So, here we are, 6 years later in court. The reason Peggy is suing for $3,000.00 and not $1200.00, is to include interest for the past 6 years. So much time has gone by, can Peggy still sue? She is very lucky, the statue of limitations has not run out! Now we hear the landlord's story. She claims that Peggy came to the meeting with her daughter, 3 children and a very big dog. She overheard them talking about fixing up the rooms for the children. She was worried about her property because she was not going to be living nearby. She says she told Peggy about the monthly inspections before the agreement was signed and the money paid. That really does not sound truthful. I do not think Peggy would have agreed to these terms. She said Peggy called her days later and said she found another place. Another statement that does not have the ring of truth. It does not seem to matter that the stories do not match. The monthly inspections do not seem to be unreasonable to the court. I would not want to live with those conditions. Would you want someone conducting monthly inspections of your home? The signed agreement limits Sharon to keep $600.00. She has to return $600.00 to Peggy, since she had no right to keep the entire amount. Her counterclaim for $3,000.00 is dismissed. I do not think the counterclaim makes any sense, she is suing Peggy for breaking the lease. She was already keeping her money, why would she be entitled to receive more money? Legally, she is not entitled. That is a good thing. It is curious that Peggy amended her lawsuit to match the amount of the counterclaim! A coincidence? Something to think about. These two women are like oil and water. Thank goodness Peggy never moved into Sharon's house. There was never anything good that would have come of that relationship. Some things happen for a reason! Let me know what you think.

What Are The Two Best Days Of A Boat Owner's Life?

(The answer to this question will be at the end of this case)

Fred wanted to buy John's boat. John sold his boat to someone else. Fred is suing John for survey costs, financing fees and the difference in the purchase of another boat. Why would he think that John would be responsible to pay these costs? Fred tells us that after he saw the boat, he offered John a deposit to hold it and John refused the check. Fred wanted to have some tests done, a survey and a sea trial, to make sure the boat was worth the $24,000 he was planning to pay for it. He met with John several times to see the boat, drive the boat and have professionals test the boat. On their last meeting, Fred makes up his mind, tells John he is definitely going to buy the boat and offers another deposit check. Fred prepares a written agreement that John signs, and still, no money changes hands. Fred claims that John told him he was a man of his word, he would not sell the boat out from under him. When it seems the deal is well underway, Fred contacts John again for an additional test. Fred says the surveyor e-mailed him regarding another test. John agrees that Fred called him, but said he was going to walk away from the deal because there might be a catastrophic failure. These two men seem to be having entirely two different conversations! Yet, they both appear so truthful. John contacts someone else that was interested in the boat. They meet and the person buys the boat immediately. Fred thinks he is still going to buy the boat and contacts John. Fred is told the boat is sold and he is upset because of all the time and money he has put into the anticipated purchase. Fred purchases another boat that is not as nice as this one and is more expensive. He wants to hold John responsible for these costs. He is not able to prove his case and leaves the court very disappointed. John is very satisfied with the verdict and is still convinced that Fred got cold feet and was not going to buy the boat. This is a good example of getting everything in writing from the beginning of a transaction. If this is not possible, communicate through e-mail so there is proof of intentions. I feel bad for Fred because he seemed so sincere about wanting this boat. He was trying to be a very careful buyer but seemed to be taking too long to make a final decision. What do you think?

(answer: the day he buys the boat and the day he sells it!)

You Ruined My Pants!

Patricia was walking past Ming's chinese restaurant when his employee was cleaning the sidewalk. When she got to work, she noticed her pants had been splattered with bleach. She called the store to let them know. After work, she went into the store and showed the manager the damage to her pants and asked for $78.00, the cost of the pants. Why is she suing for $379.00? She wants to be paid to replace the pants and for her costs of filing the claim. How much did she pay for the pants? $46.41. She received a discount since she opened a store account. This would not be an offer she would be able to get again. Patrica would only be entitled to receive the depreciated value of the pants, even though she wore them for the first time that day. Before she can get anything, we need to know if the store employee is responsible for the damage. The sidewalk is cleaned everyday. The employee puts out yellow markers to block half of the sidewalk. The employee pours a bleach solution and sprays the sidewalk with water. Patricia says she walked on the dry part of the sidewalk and noticed the bleach spots when she got to work. The employee told the owner, she walked on the wet part. He said he remembered her because of where she walked. That is why they were not going to pay for the damage. It does not seem believable that the employee remembered her with all of the people that must walk by in the morning. It does not seem believable that she would walk in the wet area in the direct line of the water spraying from the hose. Because this story is not believable and Patricia's story is believable, Patricia wins. She does not win $379.00, she is awarded $50.00, the depreciated value of the pants. In the hallway, Patricia says it was about the principle. The manager was rude to her and that is why she is here today. Also, she still has to walk in front of the store everyday and she crosses the street when the sidewalk is being cleaned. The owner says his employee is honorable and he continues to believe him. The owner needs to realize, if something does not make sense, it is probably not true. What do you think?

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

Of all the things you wear, your expression is the most important.

-Janet Lane

People's Court: 7-24-12

Bedbugs Bit My Baby!

I think this case is about common decency. Albelitza and Raul are suing their landlord for $5000.00 for the items they had to throw away because of bedbugs. Unfortunately, they lost because they could not prove where the bedbugs came from (an impossible task!). The landlord is suing them for 2 months rent, because they broke their lease. They had every right to leave when they did because the landlords did not follow through to exterminate their apartment for bedbugs. The exterminator was there once. They were supposed to come back and never did. When Albelitza called the landlord and asked when the exterminator would be back, she expected action. She did not expect an "I don't care" attitude. She has pictures of her 2 month old baby with bedbug bites on his thighs and face. Oh my goodness, seeing this just breaks my heart. Imagine this little baby getting bit during his sleep. They have every right to move out, to protect themselves. to protect their baby. They did everything they were told to do. If the exterminator had come back for the second treatment, there would have been a different outcome. They threw away so many of their belongings because of the bedbugs. The landlords are not held legally responsible because there is no proof the bedbugs were their fault. On the same note, Albelitza and Raul are not held legally responsible to pay the last two months rent since their apartment was not habitable. The legalities are one thing, but common decency is another. These landlords showed a complete lack of decency towards this family. They should not have had to expose their baby to the bedbugs for such an extended time period. The exterminator did not show up until 6 days after Albelitza reported the problem. After the initial visit, the exterminator never came back. This family should have received better treatment than this. I agree with their decision to move out and I am so glad they did not have to pay the remaining rent. What do you think about this situation?

Who Is Going To Pay For My Windshield?

Tamara is suing Lakisha and Rick for damage to her car. When Lakisha, Rick's mom,  was away, Rick had a party. Things got out of hand and there was fighting in the street. 5 parked cars were damaged.  Windshields were broken, the cars were dented. The police were called and the damage was documented. The next morning, Tamara discovers the damage to her car. Her windshield was broken. A neighbor told her about the party and she holds Lakisha and Rick responsible since the party was at their house. Unfortunately, the police have not identified the responsible party during their investigation. Tamara has no proof who actually broke her windshield, just the information from the neighbor. The neighbor did not even come to court to testify. She wrote a letter and did not even get it notarized. Lakisha explains why she was not at home. She was in court adopting a baby. She made it an extended stay because of her health issues. This has nothing to do with the case, but it gives insight to the character of this family. I really believe that if they thought the people at this party caused the damage, they would have stepped up. The police were called during the party and told Rick to turn down the music. There was no mention of the vandalism to the cars during this police visit. I think that Rick did not know about the damage until the next day. Lakisha did nothing wrong, she is not held responsible for the cost of the damage. She left an adult in charge while she was away. Rick was not held responsible since his only "crime" was having the party. His mother describes his punishment. He actually has been sent to live somewhere else. He is in a different school,  away from his friends and also his immediate family. This seems rather harsh. In the hallway, Tamara expresses her frustration at the system. She leaves us with these parting words, "what comes around, goes around". Rick sums it up with, "bad things happen when you do not have permission". He has definitely learned his lesson. What are your thoughts about this?

Keep It On The Down Low!

Patrick signed a lease with Drew to rent a 4 car garage. Patrick was planning to use it for an auto repair shop. Drew says this is not a commercial zone. Drew knows what Patrick is planning and tells him to keep the noise down, the gate closed and not let the township in. What on earth! What are these two men planning? It probably is good that the deal fell apart when it did. Things could have gotten so much worse. Patrick was supposed to take possession of the space on May 15th. Unfortunately or fortunately, the electric service was not hooked up and there was no bathroom. The bathroom was promised verbally, why wasn't it in the signed written contract? Patrick sent Drew a letter asking for his money back. Another glitch occurs, Patrick only asks for half of his money. He asks for the security deposit and not the first month's rent. Drew sends him a check for the amount he requested, which was only half of the original deposit of $3200.00. Why not just return all of his money? Drew says he is giving him back what he asked for. I am reminded of children on a playground, listening to the two of them talk! Drew has to return the rest of the money, after all the court cannot be expected to enforce an illegal rental. It would be like enforcing the payment of a cocaine purchase. I love when the Judge uses this as an example! After all, we all know if we do not pay for our illegal drugs, we are not going to sue over it!  I think the best part of this entire case is when  Patrick's wife talks in the hallway. She says that she will take care of everything in the future! On a positive note, Drew is pursuing getting the zoning changed. Hopefully, he will be successful and rent his garage legally! What do you think?

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

Stop thinking of what could go wrong and start thinking of what could go right.

-Unknown