People's Court Blog - 1 3 2013 - Thursday

It is time to play catch-up! Here are the cases from January 3, 2013:

Joseph and John are suing Benjamin and his business for $2903.50. 

This includes the cost of a 1986 motorcycle, pain and suffering, mileage and tow costs. When they bought the motorcycle from Benjamin they received a 30 day warranty. Benjamin calls it a guarantee. What is the difference? Benjamin does not know what the difference is and he is the one who gave it!!! 10-12 days after buying the motorcycle, it would not start. When they called Benjamin, he said it would cost $300 to diagnose the problem. This is not the way a warranty or guarantee works. Benjamin claims they wanted to modify the bike, when they were looking to replace the chain and the sprocket. Most of what Benjamin says in response to questions does not make any sense. 

Benjamin needs to learn to sell the motorcycles as-is, if he is not going to honor a warranty or guarantee. He claims he does not run a business, he works out of his garage. He also needs to learn how to speak in court - he called Douglas, pal! That is not proper! 

The good news for Joseph and John is that they win the case. They do not get pain and suffering, it is a contract case! They do get back $1653.50. They are satisfied with the outcome. 

Buying a vehicle, car or motorcycle requires two important steps. One is a test drive, the other is having a mechanic look at the vehicle. Joseph and John did neither. They are very lucky that Benjamin gave them a warranty (guarantee) and breached the contract. Otherwise, they might have been stuck with the purchase of the 1986 motorcycle.

Iris is suing Louis and the Realty Corporation for $2000.00.

Iris wants her security deposit back. Louis, a realty broker showed her an apartment in mid April. She signed a lease and gave Louis $2000.00 out of the $3000.00 required. She could not get the additional money and let Louis know she was trying to get it. Then she called Louis and let him know she was not going to take the apartment. He had given $800.00 to the landlord and kept $1200.00 for his fee. 

Neither party has any paperwork to show the Judge. Iris claims the paperwork stated only $50.00 was non-refundable. Unfortunately, she does not have the paperwork. Louis should have proof, but no, he does not have it either!

How can people come to court so unprepared?

Why would Iris think she should get back her money? She held up the apartment from being rented to someone else. There is a cost to changing your mind! Iris does not get her money back and Louis actually received a brokers fee twice for the rental of the apartment. He does not seem very trustworthy, but he is entitled to the fee. 

People need to realize there are consequences to their actions. You cannot make a decision and not know it does not have an impact. When you put a deposit on an apartment, no one else can rent it. If you do not go through with the deal, then the landlord has lost the opportunity to rent it to someone else. I hope Iris has learned from this experience, it was a very expensive lesson!

Rachel sues Levy for $1643.54.

Rachel lives next to Levy's rental property. After a very severe windstorm, debris from Levy's roof landed on Rachel's car. She took the debris off the car and went to work. When she had a chance to look at her car, she saw it was scratched. She got in touch with Levy to let him know about the damage. Once he found out the amount of the estimate, he said it was an act of God and he was not responsible for the damages. 

How is it that someone would agree that they are responsible until they find out the cost? Scratches on cars are expensive to repair.  Levy keeps saying he never saw the damages and it could have been a different car. Well, it was not a different car, Rachel has pictures! Also, Levy needs to repair his roof. The pictures of the roof show that it is not in very good shape.

Rachel wins the case and gets the amount for the lower estimate, which is $1335.02.

I do not understand why people do not take responsible for their own property. Even losing this case does not seem to enlighten Levy. In the hallway, he is still saying his roof is in good shape. Really!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 16 2013 - Wednesday

Anthony is suing a Furniture Company for $2395.25.

Anthony purchased a leather sectional sofa and a cocktail table for $2395.25 two years ago. The sofa had a one year warranty. When the sofa began to fall apart, Anthony contacted the store. David, the manager offered to repair the problem but Anthony would have to pay for labor. Anthony did not like this solution and is suing for the entire purchase price. In court, David, the manager is explaining the sofa is bonded leather. This is not written on the receipt. On the receipt it only has the model no. of the sofa and does not even list the cost of the cocktail table. David explains that the sofa is not leather and is bonded leather. Except for describing bonded leather as including 17% leather, he does not give a clear description. Anthony thought he was purchasing a leather sofa. He shows pictures of the damage and it is so true that a picture is worth a thousand words. Anthony also brought pieces of the sofa to show how it is falling apart. 

The Judge takes a recess and when she returns reads a  description of bonded leather. According to the leather council this particular material is vinyl and not leather. The Judge finds in favor of Anthony and he receives $1900.00. The cocktail table was valued at $300.00. David needs to pick up the sofa as soon as possible.

It is unethical to advertise a product that is not truly leather and call it leather. It is not stated on any information or advertising from David's furniture store that they sell bonded leather. I am so glad Anthony pursued this and brought it to court. He deserves to get his money back. What do you think?

Susan is suing John's Home Improvement Company for $2163.33

Susan hired John's company to repair her roof. They gave her an estimate after looking at the damage. The damage to her roof was caused by a raccoon. The pictures of the damage are very impressive. Once again, a picture is worth a thousand words! The estimate was for $4000.00. Once they started the work, they realized the damage was much more extensive than they originally thought. It was not until they removed the gutter and the fascia, that they were able to see the extent of the damage. When they brought this to Susan's attention, she just wanted them to do the original work. She signed a document to waive the warranty, since she was not going to have the additional work done. The work was going to resume the next day.

After they left on the first day, Susan had a change of heart. She said she was not happy that no one spoke English. Also, she did not trust they were going to return to finish the job. She went to the bank to stop payment on her check, only to find out it was already cashed. She called to tell John not to come back the next day. 

Since Susan is the one to breach the contract, she does not get her deposit back. She had also included in the lawsuit the extra money she had to pay getting the work done by another company. She does not get this money either. If she did not cancel the job, she probably would have won the case if they did not return to finish the job. The problem is that she did not give them a chance to do the job. I do not understand why she acted this way and then to sue them, it does not make sense. What do you think?

Kelvin is suing Guiseppe and Risa for $271.56

Kelvin was driving past Guiseppe's house and the side window of his car shattered. Since Guiseppe was weedwhacking near the road, Kelvin felt that a stone broke the window. He stopped to talk to Guiseppe and also called the police. 

It is fairly straightforward for a civil case. The Judge explains that the proof only needs to be more likely than not. It makes sense that is could have happened that way. That a stone could have been thrown by the weedwhacker and broke the window. In this type of case, you never know for sure. Since it is more likely than not, Guiseppe and Risa are found responsible for the cost of the damage to the window. 

It is very important when working near the road to be aware of cars passing. Mowing or weedwhacking could cause a stone to be thrown toward the cars. Always stop and wait until the car passes. Also, be aware of cars parked in your own driveway. I know personally of a window being shattered when the lawnmower was operated too closely to a parked car. It is a very expensive mistake!

Thank you for joining me.

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog-10 17 2012-Wednesday

An iPhone And Promise Rings

Tyanna is suing Jennifer for $713.00. This is for an iPhone and a promise ring she bought for Jennifer. Jennifer is counterclaiming for $520.00, the cost of the promise ring she gave to Tyanna. These two women were in an intimate relationship with each other. Tyanna says she loaned Jennifer an iPhone. Jennifer says it was a gift. She says that Tyanna gave her many gifts. She starts taking items out of her purse to show the gifts that Tyanna has given her. Tyanna seems to be a generous person or is she just trying to buy Jennifer's love? Either way, this seems like such a sad situation. Tyanna thought the relationship was serious, Jennifer did not return the sentiment. People do need to realize that to have a cell phone on someone else's account gives them a way to keep track of who you call. There are a series of text messages between the two women. There is nothing in the text messages to prove the iPhone was a loan. Jennifer gets to keep the phone. Neither women recover any money for the promise rings. The Judge tells them to go home and move on. 

Why do people need to be petty when they break up? It is over, move on. You give each other rings, gifts, etc., it is all part of being in a relationship. In any type of relationship there is give and take. It is not easy to separate all of this when there is a breakup. I hope both women can find happiness in their lives. 

Drag Racing Quilts

Patricia is suing Dave for $981.37. This is for the cost of several quilts that Patricia made for Dave.  These quilts are gorgeous. I am sure after this case Patricia will have no problem selling them. The Judge fell in love with them! I fell in love with them! Too bad Dave did not fall in love with them! These quilts were made out of T-shirts that Dave had saved from car racing events. When he met Patricia and found out she made quilts he asked her if she could make quilts from the T- shirts. They discussed it and Patricia made the quilts. Why doesn't Dave want to keep them? He did not like that Patricia put Indy cars on the quilt. His passion is drag racing and he did not like the Indy cars on the quilt. Patricia agreed to give him his money back and take back the quilts. Patricia feels she does not have the right to sell the quilts since they were made with Dave's property. The Judge rules in favor of Dave. Since they reached a settlement when Patricia returned the money to Dave and he returned the quilts, she has the right to sell the quilts. In the hallway, Patricia says she could probably get $500-$600 a piece for these quilts. Dave agrees they should have had a written contract. These quilts are so beautiful, I hope Patricia is able to sell them!

The Chimney Needs a Permit

Felix is suing Neranjohn for $4999.00. This is for costs associated with obtaining a permit for work done 4 years ago. Felix hired Neranjohn to install a chimney for him. Neither man obtained a permit from the city. Felix says he did not know he needed one, Neranjohn said he told him to get one. Even though there was no permit, Neranjohn completed the job. Now, years later Felix is contacted by the city for the lack of a permit. In order to get a permit Felix has to obtain architect's plans, pay the permit fees and pay the fines. He wants Neranjohn to pay for all of this. Why would he be responsible for these fees? Felix should know he would need a permit for this work. He would be responsible for all of the fees in the first place and the fine, well, that is his own fault for not calling the city. And why is the city contacting him years after the job was done? Well, Neranjohn tells the court that Felix called the city on his neighbor for work being done and brought this on himself. Remember - people in glass houses should not throw stones!!!! The Judge finds in favor of Neranjohn. Hopefully, Neranjohn will not compromise his contractor's license in the future doing work without a permit! 

Please share your thoughts in the comments. 

Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Life is half spent before we know what it is.

~George Herbert

People's Court Blog - 10 9 2012 - Tuesday

James And Road Rage

James is suing Danielle for $500.00. This is for damage to his car during a road rage incident. Both of these people were wrong wrong wrong for their actions. James and Danielle's stories are slightly different. The damage done to the car is not in dispute. Danielle admits to throwing a grape jelly jar at James's car. She broke the back window. James had 2 car seats in the back seat and they were covered with glass when the window shattered. Thank goodness the kids were not with him. James does admit he would have behaved differently if the kids were in the car. Danielle does not believe there were car seats except that the pictures shown were taken at the scene. What is wrong with these people? James does not get the replacement value for the car seats, so the ruling for him is $431.67. Danielle needs to control her temper, she has a baby on the way. James needs to grow up and be a better role model for his kids. Both of these people need to take stock of themselves and stop the road rage! This could have ended so much differently with two people who do not know how to walk away!

Shantel And The Lost Friendship

Shantel is suing Katisha for $2412.35. This is for the cost of a money order, a loan, bank fees, and pain and suffering. These two women have known each other for years. Shantel describes Katisha as her godsister. Her parents are godparents to Katisha's son. Shantel thought she was helping out Katisha when she cashed a money order for her for $1900.00. This was for work Katisha had done as a mystery shopper. Katisha did not know the company was going out of business and the money orders were fake. Shantel gave Katisha the money and deposited the money orders. They were no good!!! Did Katisha give Shantel the money back? No, she says that they were both victims. I do not know how Katisha was a victim. She has the money, Shantel does not. She also claims that she gave Shantel $600.00 for cashing the money order and then borrowed $100.00 from her. Shantel denies getting $600.00. I believe her. Why on earth would someone pay that kind of money to cash a money order! That does not make any sense! Of course, Katisha has to pay Shantel the money. In total, Shantel recovers $2012.35. She is not entitled to $400.00 for pain and suffering. The really sad part of this is that these two women are not talking to each other anymore. Does anyone know how Katisha can keep saying that Shantel is a victim also? Shantel is an innocent bystander that was trying to be nice and help out a really good friend in her time of need. What do you think?

Lorraine / Vashti And The House In Guyana

Lorraine and Vashti are suing Sugrim for $3487.00. This is for the deposit and fees associated with the purchase of a home. The house is in Guyana. The contract was completed in April of 2006. Sugrim told them it would take three months for the contract to be processed for approval. In Guyana, the government owns the land the house is on. Lorraine claims that she was never given proof of the approval. She tried to contact Sugrim and he did not return his calls. Lorraine sent Sugrim a certified letter. Soon after this  he let her know the contract had been approved. It was a little over three months later. Lorraine told Sugrim she did not want to go through with the sale and claims they had a verbal agreement that she could cancel if the process took over three months. There is nothing in the written contract that references a time limit. At the time Sugrim offered Lorraine half of her $2500.00 deposit back. She refused. Now 6 years later she is suing him. She does not recover any money on her lawsuit. She should have taken him up on his initial offer. AND  why on earth would she wait six years to file a lawsuit? I do not know, do you?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Start Where You Are.

Use What You Have.

Do What You Can.

~Arthur Ashe

People's Court Blog - 9 25 2012 - Tuesday

Tianne And The Irresponsible Landlord

Tianne is suing Frances for $2800. This is for her security deposit from an apartment she rented from Frances. Tianne lived there for 5 years and when she decided to move out gave Frances 2 months notice. At first Frances told her to live out her security deposit, which was 2 months rent. Then Frances changed her mind. Tianne did use the security deposit towards one month's rent. Why wouldn't Frances give her back the rest? Frances claims that Tianne left air conditioners and a TV set in the apartment and she could not rent it. A friend of Tianne's picked up these items within 45 days. Frances says she did not know what to do with the items and she needed to paint the apartment. Really Frances! You couldn't paint the apartment and show it working around window air conditioners units and a TV set? She also says that Tianne broke a window pane. Frances has a receipt for supplies and labor for $70.00. This is no excuse to keep all the money. The Judge is not going to permit Frances to keep it all. She has to return $1230.00 to Tianne. Frances is lucky she does not live in one of the states that has a penalty for landlords that withhold the security deposit without proper notification. She needs to learn her rights and responsibilities as a landlord. Tianne was a good tenant and did not deserve to be treated this way. What do you think?

Anabela And The Need For A Contract

Anabela is suing Mack for $2450.00. She hired Mack and his friend to do some handyman work in her office. Anabela says that Mack did electrical work and she was pleased with the job. Now she needed flooring done, paneling installed and a wall air conditioner covered. They did not have a written contract. This is never a good idea. Especially in this case, since Anabela has very specific ideas about what she wanted done. She is not happy about the work that was done. She says the floor tiles lift up when the floor is vacuumed, the floor is not level and the wind blows through the wall around the air conditioner. The checks for supplies and labor were written out to Mack. He claims he was the helper on the job. He is an electrician and not a carpenter. Mack feels that Anabela should sue his friend Johnny. 

The Judge rules in favor of Anabela since the checks were written out to Mack. He is not able to accept the money for the job and not have responsibility for the quality of the work. Anabela does not get all of the money she is suing for since she cannot prove the exact work she wanted done. Also, she wants $1000.00 to remove the tiles that are so loose they come up with the vacuum. She does get back $1200.00.

This is why it is so important to have a written contract. Showing notes about a transaction does not prove that the other person knew what you wanted done. We all need to learn from this experience. Whatever type of transaction is being conducted - get it in writing!

Andrea / Tylan And The Non-Existent Title

Andrea and Tylan are suing Adrian for $1091.86. This is for various expenses associated with the purchase of a used car. Adrian owns an auto sales business. The car they purchased was a 1990 Honda Accord. They paid $795.00. Unfortunately they never received the title for the vehicle. After several months, Andrea received a salvage title showing Progressive was the owner of the vehicle. She contacted Adrian and to this day has not received the title to the car. Adrian gives an excuse about the title being lost. When he finally received the title from the auction house he submitted it to the DMV. Why wouldn't the person who purchased the car receive the title? It does not seem like a very efficient way to do business. 

Since one of the only consistent warranties of purchasing a used car is to receive the title, Andrea wins the case. She will not get everything she is asking for because they did have the benefit of Tylan driving the car. She does get back $931.86. This is a significant portion of the money she is suing for. The Judge rules this way since Adrian is only able to come up with excuses and not results. 

It is so important to make sure all of the paperwork is in order for the sale of a used car. Adrian of all people should know this since this is his business. Hopefully he will learn from this and conduct business differently in the future! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

My success just evolved from working hard at the business at hand each day.

~Johnny Carson

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

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 1 2012 - Wednesday

I Am Trying To Save The Kittens!

Debbie is suing Yolanda and Mike for $297.48. This is for the money she has spent on the equipment and veterinary care of six kittens. When Yolanda and Mike called her for assistance, she responded immediately. They had a feral mom cat and six newborn kittens. Debbie asked Yolanda if she would consider a foster situation until the kittens were old enough to be adopted. She would set up a cage in their house, provide them with food, litter and essentials. Debbie also offered to pay for the deworming and vaccinations for the kittens. When it was time to wean the kittens, the mom cat would be spayed and released. The kittens would be socialized by Yolanda's family and be adopted out when old enough. Yolanda understood this to be about 8 weeks. She agreed to this foster situation. Even though she does not like cats, she knew her 5 children would help with the kittens. Several of her children's friends wanted to adopt the kittens. Debbie explained to Yolanda there was an application that needed to be filled out. Four of the six kittens were adopted, Debbie told Yolanda should would be back to pick up the last two kittens. When Yolanda's kids physically fight over the kittens, she decides to get rid of the kittens. Does she call Debbie to come and get the kittens? No, she takes the kittens to the local train station and gives them away to strangers. She claims that she found out Debbie charges an adoption fee. Why would this be a problem? Debbie has paid for all of the expenses involved with the kittens. She is also spending the time to get good homes for the kittens. Debbie explains that the adoption fee covers all care, vet and   future spay/neuter expenses. I would imagine it costs much more than $100.00 each for all of the care provided for the kittens and mom cat. Yolanda thinks Debbie is making money from the adoption fees. She keeps mentioning this fee as if it were wrong. Debbie was doing everything she promised, Yolanda should have kept her end of the bargain. The Judge decides in favor of Debbie, but not for the full amount she is asking. The Judge divides the cost among the kittens and Debbie gets $126.84. Yolanda is counterclaiming for $1000.00. She wants money for carpet cleaning and the labor of fostering the kittens. She has no proof for the cost of the cleaning the carpet and does not get paid for taking care of the kittens. Now, let's talk about giving the kittens away. This was wrong on so many levels. Debbie was keeping her part of the bargain. I am sure she would have rushed over to get the kittens if she knew there was a problem. Debbie obviously is involved in cat rescue because she loves the animals. It is definitely not about the money. What do you think?

This Is A New Crack!!

Alan is suing David's company for $2232.00. This is the cost to repair his driveway. Alan approached David's employees to do work for him. David's employees were doing a job near Alan's house. Alan did not contact David, he wanted the guys to do some side work for him. Right away, we get the feeling this is not a good idea. When they are leaving the job, they backed up onto Alan's lawn. Alan immediately sees this as a way to get them to do additional work for him. When Justin, the supervisor, stops to see what is going on, he tells the workers that David will not be happy about the situation. He does not tell them to leave. He does not call David. This has become a comedy of errors. It continues to get worse. Alan notices a crack in his driveway. He says it was not there before the workers drove their equipment on the driveway. He admits his driveway was not in perfect condition, but this was a new crack. He pays the workers for the job they did, but tells Justin they have to fix the crack. Justin says they are not responsible for it. Alan calls David to tell him about the problem. Alan claims that David tried to offer him sod for his lawn. David denies that he made this offer. David feels that the driveway was in such poor condition, he should not be held responsible. He does admit that his workers should not have been there. He wrote them up, he did not fire them. How can he continue to employ such dishonest workers. They were using company equipment and company time to make a few extra dollars. Alan provides an estimate to the court for the repairs to the driveway. The Judge asks David what he thinks it would cost to fix the crack. He estimates $1300.00 to $1400,00. The Judge awards Alan $1300.00. In the hallway, David says he is mad at his employees and the next time they will be fired. Alan is not happy about the money, but he loves life and says it is fantastic! I believe that Alan is lucky to have won, he brought this upon himself. I feel sorry for David. He seems to be at the mercy of his employees. Hopefully, he has learned from this situation and take better control of his employees. Good luck David!

I Want My Wedding Pictures!

Shane and Amanda hired David to be their wedding photographer. David was paid in full to take pictures during the wedding, 2 pm to 10 pm, and produce three albums. It is now 2 years after the wedding and Shane does not have the pictures. He wants his money back. David tries to explain why he has not provided the pictures after 2 years. He went out of business and claims to have reached out to his clients. When he did not get a reply to his e-mail to Shane, he did not do anything else. Why? He really does not have a good answer to this question. Shane had an attorney send David a letter requesting the pictures. David replied to the attorney and sent the proofs. This does not satisfy the contract they had together. Now, Shane wants all of the pictures and the entire $2700.00 back. He cannot get both. David turns over the wedding pictures and Shane is awarded $1200.00. After all, court is about making you whole, not getting a bonanza. I love when the Judge says this! It is a shame when a business person treats their customer in this fashion. I am so glad that Shane and Amanda finally have their wedding pictures.

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

Life is not a final. It's daily pop quizzes.

-Unknown 

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: 7-17-12

You Gave Me A Stroke!

Du-en and Latisha are cousins. When Du-en needed help, Latisha was there for him. She had her own family to take care of, yet she let Du-en move in with her. Latisha became the payee on his social security checks as a requirement of his medical condition. Du-en is bi-polar and is on medication. He admits that he talks a lot and definitely proves it in court. One night, Du-en had a friend over and Latisha's friend was also visiting. They were all sitting in the livingroom. Latisha's friend was watching television and Du-en was talking to his friend. He said he was not interested in the show that was playing. Why not go into another room to talk? Latisha's friend asked him to be quiet. Unfortunately, Du-en got into an argument with Latisha's friend. Latisha asked them to calm down. The situation escalated. Latisha told Du-en to move out since he was a bad influence around her children. She cannot tolerate stress. When she is in a stressful situation, she can become dizzy and then she can have a stroke. This has happened two times to her. Well, it was about to happen again. She was starting to get dizzy and she passed out. She said that when she came to, she was in the hospital. She had a small stroke. Latisha was kept in the hospital for three days. So, why are we in court? When Du-en's check arrived, Latisha cashed it and kept the money. She felt that she deserved it for everything her cousin put her through. She had no right to keep the money. She has to pay it back. This is a very sad situation because she was the only one who was there for Du-en when he needed help. She let him move into her home and he did not behave properly. Latisha has her children to think of. She should not have allowed him to move in and disrupt her life. The stress he caused her affected her health. Du-en regrets his behavior and says it is not worth it to lose the support  of his cousin. It is a shame that it worked out this way. We need to rely on others in our times of need. It is unfortunate that Latisha is so soured by this experience, she says she will not help anyone in the future.

The Dog Ate The Paperwork!

Vilma and Reynold bought an Akita puppy from George. They took the puppy to their vet and was told the puppy had entropion. This is a condition where the eyelids grow inward. Sometimes the puppies grow out of it and sometimes they need surgery. The vet said they should wait and see what happens. When the condition continued to get worse, the dog needed the surgery. The vet said the dog should not be used for breeding. When Reynold bought the puppy, he planned to breed him. He paid $2200.00 for the puppy and was looking forward to recouping some of his money. This is not responsible, but that is another story for another day. Reynold said he contacted George and wanted his money back. He claims George agreed to give him half of the money back. Of course, nothing is in writing and George denies this. George seems to deny most of what was said. George says he could not understand Reynold because of his accent. He understood well enough to sell him the puppy. Why behave this way? Why make up such unbelievable answers? Just tell the truth! He should not be selling puppies, he is not a responsible breeder, he calls himself a hobbyist. Again, another story for another day. This is about the sale of the puppy. Reynold's family is love with the puppy and has no plans of letting him be returned to George. The surgery is done to repair the entropion and now the akita is diagnosed with hip dysplasia. Again, George is contacted. And again, George does not have recall of the conversations. He tells Reynold to take the dog to his vet. This is done and the vet agrees that the dog should not be used for breeding. Reynold says that George is telling him to breed the dog. George does not remember any of this, thank goodness the vet records are available. What is not available are contracts, there is no paperwork. Where is the paperwork? The dog ate it! This is an amusing moment, since the Akita is in court and he is big and beautiful. Obviously, he is big enough to reach papers on the table! There is some laughter about this, as we think about the infamous dog ate my homework excuse. The bottom line is that unless Reynold is willing to give the dog back, he cannot get the purchase price back. He is entitled to the money spent on the surgeries. This works out well, since Reynold's family would never give the dog up. They are in love with him and would give Reynold away first! George is not happy about this decision. In the hallway, he says something about intricate decisions and living things and continues on his way. He really needs to stop breeding dogs. He also needs to be more respectful towards people. No one deserves to be insulted and treated in a demeaning manner. This beautiful Akita has a wonderful and loving home. He will continue to be a family pet and not a stud dog.

We Admit We Damaged The Carpeting!

LaToya and Mark are suing their landlord for their security deposit. They think the landlord did not give them proper notice to withhold the security deposit, so they are suing for double the amount. The landlord is able to prove the notice was sent out to meet the requirements of notification. They will not get double back, will they get anything back? Can the landlord prove that she can keep the entire security deposit. She shows the Judge pictures of the carpeting. There is no visible damage. LaToya and Mark are honest. They remember their babysitter doing something that caused the damage to the carpet. I give them so much credit for being honest. It shows character. The landlord also is asking for payment for cleaning the apartment. She is able to prove that this was a necessary cost. She is not able to prove the money she spent on a new floor in the bathroom was justified. The Judge rules that a portion of the security deposit is to be returned to LaToya and Mark.The landlord can only keep the amount for the carpet and the clean-up costs. She is lucky that LaToya and Mark were so honest. In the hallway, the landlord says she will take batter pictures next time. LaToya and Mark leave the court feeling the right thing was done. They still got back more than the landlord wanted to give them. I am so glad to see honesty in court. LaToya and Mark have set a really good example for how people should behave in court and in life.

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

Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does.

-William James

People's Court: 7-13-12 ** Bittersweet ** ****Music Business ** Responsibility ****

This is such a sad family situation. Keith is suing Kara for $2090.00. Kara is married to Keith's stepson, Dan. In 2008, Dan, Kara and their children lived in Missouri. Keith and his wife lived in Florida. Dan was arrested for felony possession of marijuana. The family needed money to get Dan out of this situation. Keith says he does not remember who he spoke when he agreed to lend them the money. Since Kara signed for the money, he is suing her. I do not think Kara is responsible to pay this debt. She had to sign for the money since Dan was in jail. The money was used to pay Dan's fines. When this situation was resolved, Dan and family moved to Florida for a fresh start. They stayed with Keith and his wife while they were trying to get on their feet. This was supposed to be a fresh start for them. Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. Living with the in-laws is a strain to begin with. The loan added tension to the situation. Kara thought that Keith was mean to her children, yelling at them all the time. She said that there were too many rules in the house, it was not fair to the children. They could not even have their snacks when they got home from school. Kara is so emotional, she can hardly tell her story. It is very obvious this entire situation is hard on her. She is trying to be everything to everyone. She has moved out of Keith's house, to try to give her children a better environment. Dan continued to live at his stepfather's house, until he broke curfew. He was kicked out and now sleeps on Kara's livingroom couch. This poor woman seems like she is about to break. Thank goodness, the law is on her side. She is not responsible for this loan. Keith needs to sue Dan for the money. In the hallway, Dan says he will sue his stepson. Kara says she is planning to move to Kansas, to be with her family. I wish her luck. She seems like she is carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders.  I hope everything works out for her and her children.

Yvette is trying to help two teenage friends of her son. She thinks they have musical talent and wants to give them a chance to pursue it. This is not her day job, she is trying to do something nice for them. She hires McAuthor to promote their talent. She gives him $2000.00 for an artist development package. He is a music producer, agent, musician, etc. With all of his expertise, he does not seem to steer Yvette in the right direction. There is a one page contract with little information on it. McAuthor says all of the details are on his website. Yvette is new to this business and does not understand all of the pitfalls that can happen. The major pitfall being the teenagers themselves. She does not get a written contract with the kids and their parents. This becomes a problem because one of the kids drops out. Yvette claims McAuthor tried to steal him away from her. She does not have any proof of this claim. He denies it. This particular young man did drop out of the group. Yvette found someone to take his place. She leaves messages for McAuthor and he avoids her. McAuthor has not upheld his end of the contract and Yvette will get her money back. I hope if Yvette continues in the music business, she learns her way around. I give her credit for wanting to help these kids, but she has to protect herself. Hopefully, this will be a learning experience for her.

A shopping cart rolls into a parked car and causes damage. Who is the responsible party? Tracey would like us to believe the store is responsible because the parking lot is hilly. She spoke to the store manager and finds out that this happens to others all of the time. They would not give her anything in writing. She would like us to believe the wind is responsible. She has weather reports with her in court as proof, it was a very windy day. She would like us to believe it was because she was closing her car after loading up her kids and packages. Okay, this is all very amusing! Fortunately, John was sitting in his car when the shopping cart rolled into it and caused the damage. Tracey looked in the car, said she was sorry and then was going to drive away. John approached her and got her information and has pursued this case. He would like her to pay the $543.13 cost of having the damage repaired. Even after being sued, Tracey still  thinks someone else should be responsible. She checked with her insurance company and found out that John can go through his own insurance company. Really! Why? Tracey really has lost all touch with the reality we call life. How can she truly believe she is not responsible for the damage to John's car? Why is she so quick to blame everyone else? What a great role model she is for her children, remember they were in the car! We are not surprised to find out the verdict, Tracey has to pay for the damage. In the hallway, she finally admits that she was responsible for the mishap. Hopefully, Tracey will change the way she looks at life and realize we all need to take responsibility for our actions. 

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

Think and wonder, wonder and think.

- Dr. Seuss

Submit your favorite sayings and quotes to be included in future blogs.

People's Court: 7-12-12 ** Delivery Date ** Only 4 ** Handyman

Jay and Amy order a dining room set. The written contract states the delivery date is estimated and cannot be guaranteed. They are told it will be 8-10 weeks for delivery, this does not hold more weight than the written contract. Do people ever read the contracts they sign? The information in the contracts is very important. It is essential that we read everything we are going to sign. At some point in the future, this could become very important. The dining room set is not delivered on time. There are problems with getting the furniture from the manufacturer. Spencer, who works for the furniture company, even called Jay to tell him the furniture was in and set up a delivery date when the furniture was not available. Spencer made a mistake. Jay was not happy with continued false promises of delivery and cancelled the order. Unfortunately, there is no proof of the cancellation. Zach, the store owner, does not recall the cancellation. Jay calls the credit card company and has the charges reversed. He is not going to have to pay for furniture he did not receive. Why are we in court? Jay and Amy purchased an identical dining room set from another store. They paid more for it and want Zach to pay the difference. This does not make any sense at all. Zach is protected by his contract and does not have to pay Jay and Amy. Now, let's talk about Spencer. He is Zach's employee, new to this store, yet has the audacity to be rude to his boss and the Judge. For some reason, Zach is not offended and even says that Spencer has done a good job. It does not look like it from my perspective. Spencer has a bad attitude and does not seem to care about customer service.

Jordan is only 4 years old. Michael is a neighbor suing Jordan and his mother, Maryellen. He believes Jordan threw rocks that broke his windshield. He did not see Jordan break the windshield. The next day Michael's grandson tells him that Jordan threw rocks at the windshield. Michael also claims that Jordan confessed to him. Jordan is only 4 years old. It sounds like there are many problems in the neighborhood between the neighbors. Maryellen feels her family is being harassed. The Judge tells her it is time to move out of there. There is so much tension the children do not play together anymore. Is a 4 year old responsible for his actions? Keep in mind there is no actual evidence that Jordan is responsible. There have been a rash of vandalism in the neighborhood. The windshields of several cars were broken during this same time period. Did Jordan break those windshields also? The Judge explains that even if Jordan did break the windshield, he is not legally responsible, he is 4! Also, his mother would not be legally responsible, she was not negligent. I can not believe that Michael sued Jordan, he is 4! The cutest thing, he wants to be a police officer when he grows up!

Frederick is a handyman suing Ann for unpaid work. He would do odd jobs for her and get paid the same day. He says he was always paid $100.00 a day. Ann says she paid him per job. He claims she owes him $160.00. When he goes to her house at 7:30 in the morning to collect his money, Ann will not pay him. Ann says she does not owe him anything. She has paid Frederick per job and is all caught up. Her explanation for the early morning visit does not make any sense. She says Frederick was supposed to work that day and showed up too early. She wanted him to leave and come back at 9:00 am. This does not make any sense at all. When a contractor shows up for work, that is a good thing. Since most of what Ann says does not make any sense, she is found responsible to pay Frederick the money. In cases, where it is he said - she said, it is very important that the testimony is truthful. To determine if someone is telling the truth, the Judge pays very close attention to what makes sense. Ann does not sound credible at all and Frederick deserves to get paid for the work he has done.

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

A friend walks in when everyone else walks out.

-Unknown

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be used in future blogs.

People's Court: 7-9-12:***** A Table ***** A Scooter ** An Internet Scam

Sue is an interior designer. In her line of work, she deals with subcontractors. She hires Richard, a furniture maker, to redo the centerpiece of a dining room table. This table has sentimental value to Sue's clients. Sue and Richard agree on a price and have a written contract. Sue delivers the table in October and lets Richard know this is not a rush job. Everything sounds good, so far. The troubles start in January when Sue picks up the table. The centerpiece is warped, the table is not able to be used. Richard fixes it a second time. In March, the table is finished, but is it? Sue goes to pick it up and when no one answers the door, she calls the police. Richard opens the door when the police arrive. He claims he always keeps the door locked because it is a bad area. Richard has to let Sue take the table. When she is able to check it, she finds the centerpiece is still warped. When Sue calls him to complain, he returns her call and leaves a voicemail stating he wants a written apology and will only deal directly with the customers. Sue is not going to let Richard anywhere near this table again. Richard says the table was not ready to be picked up. The repair will need to be done again. Why would Sue go to his store unless she got a call from him that the table was ready? He loses even more credibility with the demand for a written apology and to keep Sue out of the picture. Richard is countersuing for the cost of the additional repairs to the table. He has no right to change the original contract. Sue gets back the money for the repair, not the additional monies she wants for lost wages from the job. With this money, she can get the table fixed properly, keep her clients happy and hopefully do more work for them. In the meantime, she needs to find a different furniture maker! 

Kristi has decided she wants to "go green". When she sees Jeremiah's ad on Craigslist selling scooters, she thinks this is a great way to get to work. She calls Jeremiah at 5:00 am to ask about the scooters. She said the ad said to call anytime. This is important later on in the story. She goes with a friend to look at the scooters. After she rides both scooters, she has difficulty making up her mind. Both need some work and Jeremiah spends the entire next day fixing up the scooter Kristi picked. The next day he is delivering it to her house and she calls him and says she changed her mind and wants the other one. He turns around and goes home. She then calls him and says her friend wants to buy the other one. He works on the second scooter to prepare it for sale. He delivers both scooters to Kristi. Now he offers her $50.00 back since he was selling the second scooter to her friend. Why does he offer this? He put so much time and energy in fixing up the scooters and he delivered them to her. He also promises her he will help her out with the scooter if it has any problems. Also, he has forgotten the mat and shows her he scratched a panel and has ordered a new one. Jeremiah seems like a really nice guy, who needs to learn when a sale is final, it's final. The next day, Kristi rides the scooter to work. She has problems on the way there, describes that it cut out and she had to restart it. At the end of the day, there is a puddle of gas underneath the scooter. A coworker fixes it for her and she is able to ride it home. She calls Jeremiah and has trouble reaching him. She calls again the next day at 6:42 am. Very specific!. These early morning calls, 5:00 am and 6:42 am do not seem to phase her. When the Judge questions her about it, she replies, "the ad said anytime" and she is up early anyway. How rude to call people so early in the morning. Too bad Jeremiah did not seem bothered by the 5:00 am call and see it as a red flag! When Kristi cannot reach Jeremiah, she files the court papers. This case is occurring within 30 days of the sale. He had to leave town for awhile and he had family issues to deal with. He was going to take care of everything he promised, only if Kristi had given him the opportunity to do so. The sale is final and Kristi does not get her money back for the cost of the scooter, but she does get the cost of the repairs, the $50.00 rebate, the mat and the replacement panel. They both seem like really nice people, Kristi needs to be more patient and Jeremiah needs to stop making so many promises when he makes a sale. 

Edith has been renting a house for several years. When the house is sold, she receives notice to move out. She feels she needs to move out quickly, even though the new owner, Shanaan, tells the court she gave Edith 30 days and then extended it to 60 days. Edith says that Shanaan asked her constantly when she was going to move out. Edith's son found an apartment on the internet. They sent $500.00 through Western Union to a stranger to hold an apartment sight unseen. When the Judge questions him, he very matter-of-factly says, "we were scammed". The honesty is refreshing. Edith is suing her landlord for $1500.00, the security deposit and the money she sent through Western Union. Is she kidding? The landlord had nothing to do with her losing that money. Why is the landlord keeping the security deposit? She claims Edith replaced an expensive Kohler toilet with a different one. She knows this because a Kohler toilet has a stamp on the bottom and the toilet in the house did not have the stamp. Also, she has her friend with her that recently renovated her bathroom with Kohler products. This does not make her an expert! The landlord does have pictures of damages to a door and the ladder to the attic. Edith admits her cat scratched the door because he was trying to go outside. Not looking for love, she promises he is fixed!  Edith's son says the rung of the ladder was always loose. The landlord cannot keep all of the security deposit, since she is unable to provide proof of the toilet switch! She does get to keep $250.00 for the other damages. Edith's son is very truthful about the internet scam. Many people would have tried to blame someone else. Like his mom, she wanted the landlord to be responsible for their bad decision. Edith needs to learn to protect herself against scam artists. Good luck to Edith and her very honest son!

Please let me know what you think in the comments.  Thank you for joining me today.

Even if you fall on your face, you're still moving forward.

-Victor Kiam

Also, remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings!