Showing posts with label bumper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bumper. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 17 2012 - Monday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

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

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

Friday, September 7, 2012

People's Court Blog - 9 6 2012 - Thursday

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

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