People's Court Blog - 8 29 2012 - Wednesday

Your Boat Damaged My Wall!

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

 

Bring Evidence To Court!

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

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

A Counterfeit Postal Money Order!

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

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.

-Unknown source

People's Court Blog - 8 27 2012 - Monday

He Lives In The Basement!

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

 

My Virgin Mary Statue Is Ruined!

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

 

The Boat Is Paid For - I Need The Title!

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

 



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

 

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

 

This is a wonderful country.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

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

- Unknown

 

 

People's Court: 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