People's Court Blog - 1 14 2013 - Monday

Alexis is suing Frances for $1480.00.

Frances has a countersuit.

Alexis and her boyfriend were living in an apartment rented by Frances. Even though they were told that smoking was not allowed, they continued to smoke. When Frances smelled marijuana she told them again it was not allowed. When Frances noticed people were coming and going at all hours, she felt that they were dealing drugs. Frances told them to move out. The boyfriend moved out right away but Alexis stayed on. Finally Frances had enough and told Alexis she had to leave. Alexis was upset by this and reported Frances for having an illegal apartment. Alexis was starting to move out and had left furniture behind. Frances took the key back from Alexis. When Alexis wanted to get the rest of the furniture, Frances told her she threw it out. She did this because she  was not happy being reported for the illegal apartment. 

Clearly, these two women were not able to communicate effectively with each other. They were both angry and not dealing with the situation in a business-like manner. After Alexis moved out, she noticed 4 pairs of her shoes had been damaged. The closet they were in had water damage and the shoes were covered with mold. Frances blames Alexis for causing the leak. Both sides are at fault and both sides have to pay the other. After the Judge decides what damages they are entitled to, it results in the landlord receiving $1400.00, not the almost $5000.00 she was countersuing for. The landlord was not entitled to back rent because it was an illegal apartment. She was entitled to the damages she could prove. In the hallway, Alexis claims that some of the damages were caused by them killing bugs. When she was in the courtroom, she never mentioned bugs. The landlord, Frances, feels that the verdict was fair and will never rent again. 

What I find very interesting is that Alexis did not care the apartment was illegal until she wanted to get back at Frances. Why do people need to be so vindictive? Why do they have to become so angry with each other that common sense flies out the window?

Omari is suing Nathaniel for $5000.00.

Omari hired Nathaniel to install an air conditioner unit for his house. He had received several other estimates and each one specified the size of the unit. On the contract from Nathaniel the size of the unit was not on it. After he installed the unit, Omari felt that it did not cool his house. Omari hired an air conditioner specialist to evaluate the situation. He had in writing from the specialist that the air conditioner unit was undersized and that it was not calibrated correctly.

Nathaniel admits he is not licensed to install this type of air conditioner unit. He says he replaced the unit based on the size of the existing one. Unfortunately, when Omari bought the house the air conditioner did not work. Nathaniel did not do sizing calculations and did not realize the existing unit was undersized.

It is very clear that Nathaniel did not do the job correctly. Omari does not receive $5000.00 because of this, he only receives what he paid for the job, $3820.07. Also, Nathaniel needs to pick up the unit from Omari.

It is a shame that the communication broke down between these two men. When Omari initially complained to Nathaniel, there was a negotiation that could have worked out. Unfortunately both men become hostile towards each other and wound up in court. The further shame of this case, is that these two men were friends. Hopefully they can get past this situation and renew their friendship. Friends should not do business with each other, especially if the contract is not clear. It easily can become uncomfortable and awkward. What do you think?

Selena and Omer sue Cesar for $2800.00

Selena and Omer purchased a three piece livingroom set from Cesar's furniture store. They prepaid for the set. When it was delivered, Omer was not happy with the recliner and refused delivery. Omer thought he was buying a power recliner. The recliner was manual, it did not even have a lever. When he called Cesar and was told the recliner did not come in a power model, he decided to sue. Why is he suing for the entire amount of the purchase when he kept the other 2 pieces of the set? This is not clear, except that Omer is focused on the power recliner. The fact that he is so adamant about a power recliner would be a very good reason for it to have been specified on the contract. It is not. Also, when Cesar realized that Omer wanted a power recliner, he called to find out if this model had that feature. He found out it did not and never let Omer know. Cesar needs to learn how to communicate with his customers. 

Omer does not get his money back but he is entitled to get his recliner back. Cesar agrees to deliver the recliner to Omer. At first he said he would make him pick it up and then he agrees to the delivery. The Judge reminds them both to play nice in the hallway!

Once again, effective communication was needed. Hopefully Cesar will learn from this and care about what his customers want. This will serve him well in the future. What do you think? 

Communication is very important in all three of these cases. People need to be very clear about what they want. When you enter into a contract, check the information before signing. This will save everyone headaches and heartaches!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court: 7-23-12

I Want A Perfect Copy!

Melissa and Adam purchased a designer engagement ring for $6000.00. They took this ring to Dana and Ira's jewelry store to have it copied. They asked if it could be done and the answer was, yes. It would cost them $1712.00. This is a major savings over the designer ring. Melissa was not happy with the copy. After Adam proposed to her, she called the store and wanted changes to the ring. She finally brought the ring into the store in December, 2 months after the proposal. She did not want to leave the ring. Months later, Melissa brings the ring back to the store. She requested several specific changes: four diamonds needed to be changed, one of the prongs needed to be straightened and to even a little bit on the top. When Melissa and Adam returned to the store 3 weeks later, nothing had been done. Adam was very frustrated and voiced his concern about the lack of  repairs. Ira thought he had too much attitude and kicked him out of his store. So many times it is attitude that causes these cases to wind up in court. If everyone could communicate calmly, these issues could be resolved without a lawsuit. Now, Ira will not have a chance to make the repairs he acknowledged. He has to return Melissa and Adam's money. Dana feels that Melissa would never have been satisfied. Even though she won the case, she had to throw a nasty parting remark to Melissa, calling her a bridezilla. This comment was not necessary. The good news is that Melissa and Adam did get other rings for their wedding and will now live happily ever after.

Easy Life!

Eva is suing Kenneth for $2000.00. Eva was visiting her mother's house the weekend before Memorial Day. She noticed the neighbor, Kenneth, was having work done at his house. Kenneth's house is directly behind her mom's house. They each have a backyard fence, with about twelve inches between the fences. Eva noticed the contractor looking at the space between the two fences. She told him not to throw anything between the fences. He told her to talk to the owner. She did not talk to him. She said she had never met him and did not take the time to talk to him. The next day, the contractor gives her a thumbs up. She takes this to mean that he is not going to put anything between the fences. How nice this would have been! Now, she shares the story with her 78 year old mom. The next day, her mom is gardening in the backyard and notices the fence is bulging. There is concrete debris and sand between the fences. Eva looks at this and knows it was not there the day before. She talks to Kenneth and his response is that he does not understand why there is sand. Really! His contractor was doing concrete work, sand is used to mix it. He has to know this. He has his contractor come back and tell Eva's mom that he did not put anything there. Eva's mom says to her, easy life! What does this mean? It means that it was just easier for them to throw the concrete and sand between the fences. Well, they might have taken the easy way out and thought they would get away with it. Kenneth is found responsible for the clean-up. Eva has an estimate for $2,000.00. She explains why it is going to be so expensive. The Judge is satisfied and Eva is awarded the money. 

                                                            All In The Family!

Emanuel is suing Julie for $1000.00. Julie is the mother of his ex-girlfriend. He sold Julie a used car for $2000.00. They had a written contract. He did put in writing that the car needed certain repairs and he also was providing specific parts. Julie claims he also promised to do the repairs for her. These promises were not in writing. This gets to be a problem. When there is a written signed contract, that is where all the promises should be. If someone says something, add it to the contract. Julie is not happy with the deal and is counterclaiming for repair costs and pain and suffering. She does not want to pay the $1000.00 balance and wants him to pay her. This entire case revolves around the signed written contract. Since it was good enough for Julie to sign, the Judge does not find fault with it. She rules for Emanuel, Julie needs to pay the balance. She is not entitled to her counterclaim. Now, we come to the big question, why on earth would Julie buy a used car from the ex-boyfriend of her daughter? Why did either of them feel this was a good idea? Would you buy a used car from a family member or someone that you know?

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

 I have found that if you love life, life will love you back - Arthur Rubinstein.

People's Court: 7-18-12

Where Do You Want Me To Start?

There is so much history that leads up to this case, almost 40 years. Lila and Debra's mom met in church almost 40 years ago. They became friends and their lives entwined. Throughout the years, so much happened. They co-signed on the mortgage to the house. At some point, there were changes, so only Lila's name was on the deed. Lila and her family continued to live there, Debra's mom and family moved out. Debra's mom starts to say she was paying rent to Lila, since this is not pertinent to today's case, she does not continue with her part of the story. At some point Debra and her family move in with Lila. Debra claims she has paperwork that shows in the event of the sale of the house, her mom gets part of the proceeds. Lila says this is not true. She does not have that paperwork with her. It is really not what she is in court to pursue. So much going on and it is not for this court to decide on the issues of who the house belongs to or who is entitled to the proceeds of a sale. The lawsuit that brings us here today is about an unpaid loan and unpaid storage fees. The loan appears very straightforward. Debra agrees that Lila lent her $1000.00. She says she is so grateful to Lila for helping her out. Yet, she did not pay her back. Why? Debra claims the $1000.00 is supposed to come out of her mom's share of the proceeds of the sale of the house. The one thing has nothing to do with the other. Why would this be the agreement, when Lila is denying that Debra's mom has claim to the house? The other part of the lawsuit is about storage fees. When Debra moved out of Lila's house, she left her motorcycle in the garage. She does show receipts for $25.00 a month payments. Lila says she owes her $100.00 a week for storing the motorcycle. Unfortunately, they did not have a contract regarding the storage of the motorcycle. Since Debra was paying Lila $25.00 a month, she is responsible to maintain those payments. She also has one month to remove the motorcycle. I would think she would rush over to get it out of there, since it is her baby! She would never even consider selling it to pay her bills. It does not end there. Debra has a $4200.00 counterclaim against Lila. She is suing her for broker's fees, one month's rent and one month's security deposit. Debra claims Lila kicked her out, forcing her to find another place to live. Why on earth would Lila be responsible to pay these expenses? The counterclaim is dismissed. Debra also claims that when she was locked out for three weeks, her fish died. Why didn't she call the police? She says she did not want to make trouble for Lila. This does not make any sense. If she truly had fish that needed care, she should have moved heaven and earth to save them. So dramatic! The sad, sad part of this entire situation is the breakdown of the friendship between Lila and Debra's mom. What a shame that it comes to this! It is not over for them, the ownership of the house is still in question and that case is pending. I wish these two ladies luck in working out this lifelong problem.

We Slept Together! - No, We Didn't!

Randy and Anna are stand-up comics. They are both here today suing each other. I will tell you now, there is nothing funny about these two. They are both mean-spirited and seem to enjoy torturing each other. Also, there is not much of the story they agree upon. Thank goodness they are able to bring their cases to civil court, otherwise it would certainly be criminal. Randy is suing Anna for the cost of the promotional items directly relating to her participation in a play they worked on together. He approached her at a comedy club and suggested they pursue a joint venture based on her "bestselling" book. Anna claims he hired her at $100.00 an hour to write a play based on his failed marriage. Right from the beginning, there is not a meeting of the minds. Needless to say, there is nothing in writing, no contracts, no confirmation e-mails or texts. The saga continues, Randy claims they had an intimate relationship. Anna vehemently denies it and is quite insulting to Randy. She thinks this is her time to do her act, it is not! Randy provides very explicit e-mails that do not leave anything to the imagination. Anna claims someone hacked her e-mail account. She even tries to implicate Randy, claiming he had access to her laptop. For two people that had only a business relationship, they seem to know an awful lot about each other. Anna finally says they were fooling around. What does that mean? She seems to stumble over her words. For someone who performs for a living and has written a book, she did not handle this appearance in a very professional way. She shows such hatred towards Randy, you wonder how involved they really were. There is definitely more to this relationship than meets the eye. What do you think? Randy did manage to go on with the show. He changed the name of the play and found a replacement for Anna. There were certain promotional items that he was not able to use since Anna was not involved in the production. Anna agreed they were supposed to split the costs of the play. She is found responsible to pay Randy back for the promotional items. Now for Anna's counterclaim. She wants $5000.00 for writing a play for Randy. He denies that he offered to pay her anything, let alone $100.00 an hour. Anna cannot prove she had any promise of payment. She loses on her counterclaim. It is a relief when this case is over. It is very painful watching these two people torture each other. Hopefully they will go their separate ways and stay far, far away from each other. Please let me know what you think about the Randy and Anna Show!

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

An obstacle is often a stepping stone.

-Prescott

People's Court: 7-5-12 **** Lawyer **** Dog Bite ** Best Friends

Let's explore the following situations involving strangers, family and friends. Trusting people to do the right thing is an ideal that is not always achieved. When these relationships break down, the courtroom is a neutral place to find a resolution.

Jose is a lawyer who has entered into an agreement to rent a furnished room. He gave Laura $1500.00 to hold the room she was renting. Neither of them agree whether this was the first month's rent or a security deposit. He gave her cash and he did not get a receipt. Thank goodness she does not deny receiving the money. Jose is quick to explain he does have follow-up emails discussing the money did change hands. He is very fortunate these e-mails exist. Laura has even asked him to write up an agreement for the rental. He does not prepare anything for the rental and then he changes his mind about the room. It is clear that Laura is confused, since it appears that he was already moving in, he brought toiletries and bedding to leave in his room. Jose sent Laura an e-mail that he changed his mind and wanted to pick up his belongings and get back his deposit. Laura wants to keep the money because she does not have time to rent the room to someone else. Why do people allow themselves to get into such a situation? Especially Jose, after all, he is a lawyer. Of all people he should have known better. He does not even do his homework before he comes to court. He is totally unprepared. The Judge is not happy with him and tells him he is not a very good lawyer, he does not care. She advises him to use the money on night classes. He is very fortunate to get his money back; he is fortunate the laws in New York support his case. In the hallway, Laura tells us she trusted him because he was a lawyer and now she has learned the law. Jose, the lawyer, tells us that when the law is on your side you do not have to do much, although he does admit he should have done research. We do expect more of a professional and it is a shame Laura left everything to him, he was not concerned with her best interests!

This next case is one of the saddest situations; a family torn apart. Everyone gathered at the home of Ryan and Cindy. Cindy and Isabel are cousins. Isabel had 3 dogs with her; 2 puppies and a dachshund.  This is a very close family, even welcoming the dogs to join them. There were more dogs, but they were not in the yard when the attack occurred. Someone let the 2 puppies into the yard and Isabel bent down to scoop them up. Bullet, a bull terrier, ran towards her and bit her inner thigh. There is no question she was bitten, although Ryan, Bullet's owner, tries to say no one knows which dog bit her. The other dog in the yard was Isabel's dachshund. No one believes her little dog bit her. The neighbors call the police when they hear the commotion. The police think they are responding to a domestic dispute and Cindy is embarrassed. Instead of being embarrassed, she should be worried about Isabel's injuries. They go into the house and look at the wound. The skin is not broken and they do not think it is serious. Over the next few days it gets worse. The pictures of Isabel's leg are truly worth a thousand words. She has developed a huge hematoma. The blood has pooled under the skin and looks really painful. Isabel misses a month of work due to doctor's orders. She needs a medical procedure and gets stitches. So much to go through and it seems the worst part to her is that the family is taking sides over this. Isabel and Cindy have not talked since the incident. Here is an interesting twist, Ryan tells us that when Animal Control comes to the house Bullet is missing. No one has ever been able to locate him. How can this be true? So, not only does he not pay for the medical bills and lost wages for Isabel, he hides his dog! Ryan and Cindy are found responsible and have to pay Isabel. In the hallway, Cindy comments that she misses her family and Isabel tells us if it was handled differently they would not be here. After listening to these people, I hope that Isabel and Cindy can repair their relationship. Ryan should be ashamed of himself for causing such family problems. What do you think happened to Bullet!

Alicia and Ashley have been friends since high school. They decide to move in together and share the expenses of an apartment. Alicia has children, Ashley does not. Alicia pays for the first month's rent and the security deposit. She expects Ashley is going to pay her back when she has the money. Ashley never plans on paying her back. This would have been the perfect time for a written agreement. These two friends do not seem to communicate with each other. Alicia does not ask for the money because she says her friend knows it was a loan. She did not want to keep reminding her to pay her back. Ashley had no idea Alicia was expecting the money back. They both admit it was tense in the apartment, they were both upset over different things. Ashley was upset because she thought Alicia's children and guests damaged her furniture. If these two friends talked with each other, we could have avoided the loss of this friendship. Ashley moves out, still not returning the money. Remember - she still thinks it was a gift. I think she is being selfish expecting her friend to pay her way, but that is Ashley! Alicia does the right thing bringing this to court, she proves her case and she gets her money back. The insight of the hallway interview is the Ashley has no clue and Alicia is a genuinely nice person. It is clear the friendship is over and Alicia handled it very gracefully.

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

All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be used at the end of the blog.