People's Court - 8 3 2012 - Friday

The Blue Collar Is Faded!

Ceasia is suing the cleaners for the cost of clothing that she claims they ruined. The clothes were all Ralph Lauren, purchased for a polo party. She has not brought any of the items with her. This is Ceasia's day in court, this is when she should bring the evidence for her case. Because of this oversight, her lawsuit is reduced from $369.50 to $150.00. Dulce is representing the cleaners. She admits that the items brought in, a sweater, a tshirt and the polo shirt were damaged. She fixed the sweater and the tshirt and Ceasia accepted them. The polo shirt is the problem. The blue collar was faded. Dulce explains that the shirt is not going to look brand new after being worn and cleaned. Dulce had offered $60.00 when she was told the shirt was damaged. When she saw the receipt, Dulce said that was too much money. She was not going to pay for it. Ceasia's boyfriend thought Dulce was being disrespectful and he called the police. Why would someone call the police over a polo shirt and disrespect? He explains that he felt he needed to call the police before Dulce called them. I think he should have left the store and then decide how to proceed. I do not think the police need to use their resources responding to someone who is upset over a faded collar. Ceasia's boyfriend wanted it on the record that he was not satisfied with the dry cleaners. Okay, now we get to see the polo shirt. Dulce has brought it with her. The Judge examines the polo shirt and is struggling to see the problems. Looking at the shirt, the Judge says she would have liked to see the other items. It is a shame they are not available for her to look at. Ceasia forgot them. Ceasia's boyfriend says they were damaged, repaired and now the fabric is ruined. Unfortunately, there is no way to confirm this. Ceasia loses the case. In the hallway, her boyfriend says he is going to donate the shirt. Having high expectations is not a bad thing, but we all need to be realistic. Once an item of clothing is worn and cleaned, it will never look brand new. What do you think?

I Am Selling You A Free Boat! 

Marc is suing Bill for $500.00. Bill is counterclaiming for $500.00. Marc has a case, Bill does not. Marc was going to buy a fishing boat from Bill's good friend. He gave Bill a $200.00 deposit, a battery and $100.00 for his time. Marc believes Bill is acting as a broker for the sale. Bill admits he received the $200.00 and the battery from Marc. He said he returned the battery, he even took a picture of where he left the battery. Bill shows the picture of the battery left outside of Marc's garage. Why leave something outside when no one is home? How do you know they are going to get it? Marc says the battery was not left for him. The Judge does not believe him. The bigger issue here is the fact of boat ownership. Marc takes his friend, Robert, to see the boat. Robert is going to go in on the purchase of the boat. When the two men are looking at the boat, someone tells them it is great they are removing the boat from the property. The two men also find out that the boat is being given away for free. This causes a tense moment between the two men, since Robert was going to give Marc money towards buying the boat. You do not have to purchase a free boat. Bill has so much to explain. He was getting the boat for free and was selling it to Marc. He did not tell Marc any of this. Marc thought he was buying the boat from a friend of Bill's. Bill did not remove the boat from the owner's property, he did not transfer the title to his name. Is Bill really the owner of the boat? Can Bill sell the boat? No, he cannot because he does not own the boat. Marc has a letter from Bob, the owner of the boat. In the letter, Bob calls Bill a scamster. Bill says there is no proof the letter is legitimate. He says Bob is his friend and he did not write this letter. The Judge wants to call Bob. Bill should have his phone number since they are friends. Bills says this is a new cell phone and he has Bob's phone number in his rolodex. Do people still use a rolodex for phone numbers? Now, Bill shows a letter that Marc sent to his ex-wife. Bill claims this letter caused tension  between himself and his wife, oops! his ex-wife. He said they are divorced, but live in the same house for financial reasons. This tension is the reason for the counterclaim. He is not able to prove that any tension caused by this letter would be worth any amount of money. On top of that, he needs to pay Marc back the $200.00. Bill denies receiving the extra $100.00, so Marc does not get this money back. Marc did not breach a contract of sale, since Bill was not the actual owner of the boat. Bill had no right to sell a boat that did not belong to him. Beware of deals that are too good to be true! Also, get receipts when money changes hands!

My Diamond Ring is Missing - I Know Who Stole It!

Marita hired David's moving company and is now suing him for $5000.00. This is the value of a ring that was missing after the move. David gave her an estimate of $1600.00 for the move, the actual cost was almost double. The Judge says this is normal for the industry. David tries to defend this practice. The Judge says it is not necessary. This is not an issue, since the case is about a missing ring. Marita claims her diamond ring was missing after the move. She packed her jewelry box and the movers put it into her car. Marita remembers that she carried the box into her house and put it in her bedroom. Initially, she has problems with the movers because they scratched the the floors in her new home. It was beneficial for Marita that she purchased insurance for the move. She put in a claim for the scratched floors and was paid. Ten days after the move, Marita notices her diamond ring is missing. Where can it be? Of course it has to be the movers! I do not understand why Marita is so quick to jump to this conclusion. She says they are the only ones who had access to her bedroom. She did not see anyone actually take the ring. She has no proof. Marita contacted David, he suggested she file a police report and submit to insurance. When the claim was denied by the insurance company, Marita decided to sue David's company. David says that he has never had a problem with theft in the past. His employees have been with him for many years. He has complete trust in his employees. Marita loses her case. In the hallway, Marita says she does not understand why she bought insurance. David says he would like to change the image of moving companies, he is a nice guy! I have a feeling the ring is going to show up, I do not think the movers took it. What do you think?

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

Remember being a success without happiness is meaningless.

-Richard Denny

People's Court - 8 2 2012 - Thursday

I Did Not Damage Your Car!

Peter is suing Frank for $289.13. They were both in the supermarket parking lot. Peter's wife saw a shopping cart hit their car. She confronted the woman that let go of the cart. She told the woman she saw the cart hit the car. The woman cursed at her. Peter confronted the man, told him that his wife hit his car with a cart and asked to exchange information. The man told Peter that the woman was not his wife and they both got in the car and drove away. Peter quickly got the license plate of the fleeing car. Now in court, we find out the man and the woman are, Frank and Janette. Frank says that Janette did not damage the car. When Peter approached him and told him his car was damaged, he denied it. Frank did not see any damage to Peter's car. Janette explains that the cart slipped from her hands, but she was able to catch it before it hit the car. She did not see any damage to Peter's car. Janette denies cursing at Peter's wife. She is very adamant that she did nothing. She says that Peter's wife was yelling at her and she did not understand why. Janette also says that they were not fleeing, they did not know they did anything. Frank says that Peter and his wife were scaring Janette, that is why he left. Peter describes the damage and has the proof of repair. He spent $289.13 to have the scratches and the gouge fixed. Peter does not have any pictures of the damage. Since he has the receipt for the repair and the eyewitness testimony of his wife, he wins. The problem is he is suing Frank not Janette. Frank is not responsible for the damage. The Judge asks Janette if she would be willing to an amended complaint. Janette says yes and she is found responsible for the cost of the damage to Peter's car. In the hallway, Janette says she is a firm believer of honesty. Peter's wife says if Frank and Janette had behaved differently, it would be a different story. I think that means that there might not be a court case. Why can't people just be civil to each other? What ever happened to treating people as you would want to be treated? What has happened to taking responsibility for our actions? What do you think?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Elissia wanted to have a birthday party for her mom. She rented the local VFW hall. She hired Frances, her son's great grandmother, to cater the event. She gave Frances $1000.00 for the food needed for the party. The party was going to be on August 27th. Two days before the event, Elissia received a call from the commander of the VFW hall. He explained to her the hall would be closed due to Hurricane Irene. The governor declared a state of emergency and he was cancelling all upcoming events. Elissia called Frances to let her know. Frances said she had already done most of the shopping and had spent $700.00. Elissia told her she would pick up the remaining cash, groceries and receipts. When Elissia arrived she told Frances she would not accept any food without receipts. Frances did not have receipts for all of the food she had purchased. These two woman could not work this out. It is unfortunate since they are family. Frances explains that she did not save the receipts, since she had quoted Elissia a flat rate of $1400.00. Frances did return some of the food to Sam's Club, to get some of Elissia's money back. Elissia wanted all of her money back since she gave Frances notice about the cancellation of the party. Towards the end of the case, Elissia mentions a contract, a written contract. After all, she watches People's Court and she knows how important a contract is. The Judge is very pleased that Elissia has taken the initiative to write a contract. The Judge rules on the case, since the VFW hall had to close due to the hurricane, Elissia wins the case. In the hallway, Frances said she did offer Elissia an alternate date. Elissia says that she never had a party. Maybe, she would throw a party for her mom's next birthday. Spoiler alert - her mom is standing right next to her! Hopefully, this situation will not affect the family situation. Sometimes it is not a good idea to do business with family. When all goes well, that is great. When there are problems, it can get very complicated. What do you think?

Help Me - My Tenants Won't Pay Their Rent!

Lucia is suing Dennis and John for $5000.00. She hired Dennis's company to find her a tenant. John is an employee of the company. Lucia claims they misrepresented the terms of a contract. They actually did misrepresent what they were able to offer her. The only reason they are not found responsible to pay Lucia, is that the lease they were responsible for is over. They authored a lease for Lucia that was for one year. The tenants were eligible for a government program, Work Advantage. The rent is paid by the government. This was appealing to Lucia, since it is guaranteed rent. Why is there a problem? Lucia  wants $1500.00 a month rent. The government would only be paying $1316.00. Dennis and John provide a side agreement for the tenants to pay the remaining $284.00 directly to Lucia. A side agreement is not allowed through this government program. The Judge calls them on this illegal practice. Hopefully, they stop doing this, since it definitely causes problems. Lucia explains that the tenants no longer are paying  their rent, they are operating a tattoo parlor out of the apartment and they are smoking pot. Lucia explains that she is trying to evict them, but they have an additional year on the lease. The Judge tries to explain to Lucia that since the original lease is over, there should not have been an automatic renewal. Lucia says she retained an attorney and was told she could not do anything for another year. Lucia got rid of this attorney and is pursuing the eviction on her own. Lucia cannot prove that she is out $5000.00. Since the paperwork that Dennis and John provided has expired, they cannot be held responsible for the current conditions. Lucia feel it is wrong that she lost the case. She still continues to talk about a 2 year lease. The two men admit they were embarrassed by what was said in court. They really need to take a close look at their business practices. They might have won the case, but they lost in morality. I hope Lucia can get everything worked out, so she can collect rent for her apartment. Good luck Lucia!

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

Some people grin and bear it; others smile and do it.

-Unknown