People's Court Blog - 9 28 2012 - Friday

Frank And The Water Leak

Frank is suing Kevin for $5000.00. Frank is the superintendent of Kevin's building. His apartment is underneath Kevin's. Frank explains that he posted notices that the water in the building was going to be turned off due to plumbing repairs. Kevin and his girlfriend did not get the dates correct and when she went to take a shower, there was no water. Kevin called Frank and was reminded that this was the day the repairs were being done. When the repairs were finished and the water was turned back on, Frank noticed a leak in his apartment. He checked the apartments above him and found the water running in Kevin's apartment. Kevin and his girlfriend do not remember closing the drain to the tub and did not think they left the water running. 

Kevin asked Frank on two occasions to see the damage. Frank would not show him unless he was willing to take responsibility for the damages and pay $5000.00. Kevin wanted to see proof. He felt that Frank might be inflating the cost of the damages. In court, Frank does not have any proof for everything he is asking for. He claims the hardwood floor has to be replaced instead of repaired. He wants to be reimbursed for bedding that could be washed. He wants payment for a laptop, a playstation and DVDs and CDs, he claims were damaged. He has no proof, he did not even bring them to court. 

The Judge agrees there was clearly water damage due to the leak. There is no question the water came from Kevin's apartment. Since Frank has no proof of the damage to specific items, the Judge awards him $750.00. This is a major difference from the $5000.00 he was asking for. It is very important to have evidence of damages and the value of the items. Frank realizes this and admits he should have been better prepared for court. Maybe next time...

Delphena And Road Rage 

Delphena is suing Andrew for $2781.91. This is the cost of the damages to her car due to a traffic accident. The only problem with her lawsuit is that the accident was her fault. She tried to pass Andrew's van on the left side, squeezing between him and a parked car. Andrew has pictures for the court showing the position of the cars. Delphena tries to say that Andrew caused the accident, but the pictures tell a different story. Delphena admits that Andrew was driving slowly and she honked at him and passed him. Andrew shows there was one lane and there was not enough room for Delphena to fit. Delphena was very angry and after the accident told Andrew and his passenger to stay away from her or she was going to smack them. Really! This is no way to talk to someone. She also says the accident was not necessary. Well, this is absolutely true since she caused it! Andrew's van suffered minor damage that he was able to fix himself for $15.00. Since Delphena caused the accident, she is not entitled to any money. She continues to accuse Andrew of deliberately hitting her car even as she exits the courtroom. Delphena needs to realize that she caused this accident so she does not do this again in the future. Anger management might be beneficial for Delphena to curtail her road rage! What do you think?

Jamal And The Security Deposit

Jamal is suing Althea, his landlord, for $2500.00. This is for a security deposit and increased electric bills. Jamal has rented an apartment from Althea since 2006. He moved in after his mother moved out. The rent was partially covered by Section 8, a government assistance program. Althea explains that she constantly had to take Jamal to housing court for nonpayment of rent. Jamal says he has had many problems with the apartment and constantly reported them to the city. Althea and Jamal had a court settlement that instructed him to vacate the apartment by January 31, 2012. Jamal admits he did not move out until March 2, 2012. He blames this on Section 8. He claims he could not move out without their approval. He received their approval on February 15th, but did not move out until March 2. Since he did not pay the rent for March, the security deposit would cover that payment. Jamal also wants to be compensated for an increase in the electric bills since the landlord put in a dehumidifier. He is not entitled to this money. He does not get any money back. The landlord describes his behavior as arrogant and intimidating. She went through the proper channels to evict him and he took advantage by ignoring the court settlement. Hopefully he will pay his rent and get along with his new landlord. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

~Albert Einstein

People's Court: 7-20-12

We Are Here Over $9.00!

Susan took her Dad's car to Rohon's auto repair shop. She needed tires and was having problems with the fan belt. Rohon operates out of a storefront in Brooklyn. He does not have a yard, his customers have to park on the street. The alternate side of the street parking rules are in effect in this area.There is much talk about double parking, and it being tolerated. Double parking is not legal, it is essential leaving your car in the middle of the street. Susan drops off the car before work, goes into the shop and tells Rohon where the car is parked. She is planning to pick the car up the next day. Unfortunately, her car was not moved in a timely manner and she received a ticket and was towed. She wants Rohon to be responsible for these costs. The funny thing is, he is willing to take care of her repairs for free. This would appear to be a sense of responsibility on his part for the ticket and the tow. The tow ticket shows that the car was still on the street two hours after Susan dropped it off. Rohon should have moved it soon after she left it and none of this would have happened. Offering to do the repairs for free seems to be a reasonable offer. What goes wrong? He asks Susan to pay a $9.00 environmental fee. She refuses and sues him for the cost of the ticket and the tow. Why doesn't she accept his offer? She said he was rude to her and the offer was not enough. Also,her car was never fixed! Why do people get caught up in these situations? For a person like Susan who appears to be very busy, why take the time to come to court? It is always about the principle. It is never about the money. For $9.00, this would have been over, she would have remained a customer and would not have to look for a new mechanic. Rohon is not upset about losing a customer, he feels it is her loss, she is losing a great mechanic. As far as the outcome of the case, they are found equally responsible and split a $300.00 verdict. Susan should have accepted Rohon's initial offer and saved everyone major headaches!

You Killed My Trees!

Edward is suing Thomas for the removal and replacement of 5 trees. Edward is convinced the snow that was pushed against the trees killed them. Thomas admits when he plowed snow at the neighbor's house, he pushed the snow onto Edward's property during one year. Several years went by and Edward says that Thomas is responsible to remove and replace the trees. He has brought evidence. He has some pictures of trees with broken branches.  He has also brought an estimate to have the trees removed and replaced. He does not have a letter from an expert explaining the condition of the trees. Thomas is counterclaiming for the cost of research and preparation for court.  It is true there has been a lot of snow this past winter. Thomas says that after he was asked to stop plowing the snow toward's Edward's property, he stopped. He was not responsible for the snow accumulating against the trees. Can snow build-up next to trees damage and kill them? Wouldn't there be many more dead trees after a bad winter? Edward does not have enough evidence to prove his case. The pictures do not show who is responsible for the damage to the branches. Broken branches do not cause trees to die. If a snowplow hit the tree, that would be a different story. That did not happen. Why would Edward waste everyone's time and resources when he does not have any proof? Why didn't he videotape the damage being done? Why didn't he call the police? This is always the best way to document an injustice. Edward cannot prove his case, he does not win. Thomas has a video of the trees on Edward's property. He identifies the type of trees and show some damage they have sustained. He says this damage could have happened in any storm. He cannot prove his counterclaim. Both men lose their cases. Hopefully. both men have learned something, so it is not a total waste of time. It is really important to have documentation when you want to prove something.

We Have A Leak - Please Fix It!

Daryl is suing Julio and Tom for back rent and utility bills. They rented a laundromat from her. They were already renting another store in the same strip mall. They saw an opportunity for another business. I give them credit for wanting to have another business. Unfortunately, they did not do their homework. The laundromat was not a booming business. They also had problems with a leaking roof. They claimed they called Daryl to let her know and she did not look into the problem. Daryl said she went to the store and the doors were locked. When she contacted Julio and Tom, they said they shut down. In February, the leak was worse and now there was snow and ice built up on the roof. When she finally has a contractor evaluate the problem, the condition of the leak had gotten really bad. The laundromat has been closed for business, so the landlord did not feel an sense of urgency to repair it. The two men had signed a 6 month lease, so they need to abide by the terms of the contract. They do have to pay the utilities and the majority of the rent. The Judge reduces the amount of the rent because of the condition caused by the leak. They are responsible to pay the landlord $2000.00 for the utilities and a portion of the rent. What could Julio and Tom done differently? They could have documented contact with landlord regarding the leak. What could the landlord have done differently? She could have treated Julio and Tom with more respect. Especially since they were already tenants and she had a working relationship with them. People need to treat each other better and communicate when they have problems.

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

 A life without dreams is like a garden without flowers.

-Unknown