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: 7-4-12 ** Silver Coins *** A Tree *** Allergies

Happy 4th of July!!!!! 

We are responsible for the decisions we make. Hopefully we make these decisions with the best intentions. To blatantly take advantage of someone is inexcusable. To ignore a past relationship is so so sad. And to ignore our surroundings is not always the best idea. The following cases illustrate these situations. 

Finding a great deal at a flea market is a wonderful feeling. Getting taken advantage of is another story. Daniel thought he discovered a deal at a local flea market. A vendor was selling silver coins. He even showed Daniel a book of coins to prove they were real. After the coins were purchased, Daniel took them to have them authenticated. He learned he paid $1100.00 for nothing. These coins had no value. The question is: Did the vendor know this when he sold them? And if he did, why is he taking advantage of someone? If the vendor did not act guilty, leaving the flea market directly after the sale, I would think he did not know the coins did not have any value. This theory is dispelled quickly as the vendor tells his story. He is not believable. He is rude to the Judge, pointing his finger at her and raising his voice. I am surprised she did not throw him out of the courtroom. The more he talked, the guiltier he appeared. He does have to pay the money back. I am so glad it turned out this way. People do not deserve to be taken advantage of. Of course, we all have to do our due diligence to protect ourselves.

Two neighbors in court over a tree. What a shame, these two people were good friends at one time. They have lived next to each other for over 20 years. Why does it wind up this way? Thomas claims that his neighbor, Joan, had one of his trees cut down after the snowstorm last Halloween. There was damage to trees on both properties. Thomas says this particular tree was not damaged. He thinks since it was so close to the property line, when the clean-up was done on Joan's property, they cut this tree down. Joan tells us she paid her friend's cousin $50.00 to clean up 2 damaged trees. If this tree was not damaged, why would someone cut it down. They wouldn't! Thomas should be glad someone did free work for him and instead of dragging his friend into court, he should be thanking her. He does not get the money he is asking for. Joan does not have to pay him over $3000.00 for a tree that was damaged in a snowstorm. What brings us to this point where we can not even talk to each other in a civil manner? We need a courtroom setting to resolve our problems? These two people were friends and that should count for something. In the hallway, they both agree the friendship does not exist anymore.

Denise is highly allergic to animals. She moves into an apartment building that allows animals. After several months she develops such a severe allergic reaction she winds up in the hospital. When she decides to move out without proper notice, she wants her security deposit back. So much of what she says does not make sense. She tells us the apartment manager told her no pets were allowed in the building, yet the lease she signed does not state this information. The lease gives the specifics of the restrictions of having a pet. They have to be approved by management and there are specific rules to follow. Denise also tells us that on at least two occasions she has to deal with dog feces near her door and the entrance to the building. She does not contact management at this point. She does not submit a complaint. She does not give notice to move out. It is not until 5 months later, when she gets sick, she moves out. How does she not see dogs for the entire time she has lived there? Denise does not get back her security deposit. We all need to take responsibility for our lives. Knowing she had a severe allergy, she should have made sure there were no pets in the building. Why put her health at risk? There are many ways to rationalize our behavior. In this case, I am baffled by the decisions that Denise made!

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today!

Happiness will not come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have.

-Unknown

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings!

People's Court: 6-29-12: Resolutions

When we are spending our hard earned money, we expect to receive value for it. When the service or product is not satisfactory, we feel we should not have to pay for it. Sometimes, you need to pay for part of the service received and renegotiate the rest of the payment. When this is not a  possibility, court is available to resolve the issue.

A couple is being sued for the balance owed for the limo that was rented for their wedding day. The driver arrived late and upset the entire day's schedule.  The bride and her bridal party were almost 30 minutes late to the church and the rest of the day's events were not on schedule. They are not looking for a free ride (see what I did there!). They are willing to pay for the rental, but not give the driver a tip. They feel a tip is for good service and this was not received. When the driver was running late she did call a cell phone number for the bride but did not call the very prominent pick-up number on the contract. When she realized she was lost she should have done everything possible to minimize the problem. At the end of the day, when the balance was due, they did not want to give the driver the tip. The driver would not leave without the check and since the tip was part of the payment, they gave the entire amount. The next day, they called and tried to reason with the owner of the limo company. Getting nowhere, they cancelled payment on the check. The Judge finds they did not receive good service and should not have to pay the tip. What bothers me about this situation is the attitude of the owner of the company. This is the most important day of someone's life. So much planning is involved and his driver did not even know how to get to the bride's house or to the church. The owner did not seem to care, the driver was not available in court to answer questions. Even the most well planned events can have glitches. Sometimes, the mishaps define the day, other times they are just bumps along the way and the day is still enjoyed. For Maureen's wedding, the late limo was a glitch. Hopefully, the day itself will live on in everyone's memory without the late limo being the defining moment. 

Hector has a diningroom set that is very meaningful to him. He received it from his grandmother. It is very very old and he hires Barry to restore it. The work is substandard and Hector wants his money back. It does appear that this is not Barry's best work. There are actually two chairs to look at. It is obvious the chair restored by Barry is not done as well as the chair finished by Frankie. Having the chairs to compare was a great idea. The Judge is able to see details that may not be clear in a picture. Hector does not get all of the money back. Some of the work done did not have to be redone. He gets back part of the money. This is only right. When someone does work they should get paid for it. When you hire someone for a job, you should be satisfied with the work or services provided.

Would you drive two and a half hours one way with a coworker and work all day for free? This is what Domenic would like us to believe. He does not want to pay Michael for work done on his cabin. The problem here is that no one put anything in writing. Michael thought he was going to be paid and Domenic thought he was getting free labor. What did they talk about in the car on the way to the cabin? Why are we so hesitant to put agreements in writing when we are dealing with friends and co-workers? Why do situations escalate to cause a $5000.00 harassment countersuit? After both parties explain what occurred, Michael is awarded half of what he was suing for. Even though he calculated he was owed $1000.00 for his work, he will only get half. These two men work together and hopefully this resolution will make it less awkward for them.

Please let me know what you think.

 Thank you for joining me today!

Remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings!

There are no mistakes in life, only lessons. - a Teacher

People's Court: 6-27-12: Lucky

An announcement - There is something new to the blog! I am asking readers to submit their favorite quotes or sayings. I am looking forward to your submissions.  Check out the end of the blog for this fun addition. Thank you for participating!

The first case is 5 years old. I guess the economy is causing people to go after old debts. If they are credible that would be okay. This case seems very far-fetched. William, a landscaper is suing a couple for the balance due on work he did years ago. There is no written contract to back up any of his claims. He brought in free fill to their property, installed an irrigation system and graded the property. He created berms and feels he made major improvements to their property. The couple sees it differently. I am surprised they did not countersue. They talk about flooding in their basement caused by his irrigation pipe, unclean fill used on their property and the dirt left in piles. They had to pay to have work done to correct the mess he created. He does not win the case and claims he did not even get a chance to tell the entire story. Many people will say this in the hallway. I always wonder why they do not lead with the information they feel would have been essential. This contractor needs to stay on top of his business. He should follow-up in a more timely manner. He should also keep better records in case he needs to take someone to court.

Hurricane Irene strikes again. So many cases are in court because of the damage caused during this hurricane. In this particular case an ice cream freezer was damaged from the flooding in a pizza parlor. Ryan is suing for $500.00, the cost of the freezer. When he removed the damaged freezer he had the store owner sign a promissory note. This should have been enough to get his money. The store owner signed it because he thought his insurance company was going to cover the damages caused by the storm. When the insurance money did not come through, the store owner refused to pay. Is he responsible? In this situation there is a contract. The specifics of the contract state that the store owner is responsible for the cost of the freezer in case of fire, theft or vandalism. It does not mention flooding, acts of god or anything that would describe this occurrence. The store owner is not held responsible for the money, even though he signed the note.  It is a good idea to read and understand anything you are going to sign. In most cases, you will be held to what you sign. This is a very unique situation. The store owner is very lucky.

Two business women hire someone to design a website for them. They do not have a written contract. They are able to show e-mails detailing their progress or lack of. It is helpful for them that they have this information in writing. They discuss deadlines that are not met and specifics they want in the website. When they hired Benite to build the website, they did not know they were not going to own the domain name. They did not understand they were going to have to pay an annual fee to her for the website. Benite explains that this is how a web designer does business and it makes sense. Someone has to pay for the website. Since the two women did not have a clear understanding of the agreement, they were able to get their money back. They were also able to get back the money they spent on promotional materials. It is unfortunate that Benite does not offer a written contract with all of this information. She showed the website she designed for the business and it was really nice. She seems to be good at what she does and should not have to mislead people in order to get customers.

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

Submit your favorite quotes or sayings and I will include them at the end of the blog.

Nothing messes up your Saturday like realizing it is Wednesday.

- reader submission

Thanks to RedShoesRock

People's Court: 6-26-12: Protect Yourself

We should be able to count on the people in our lives. Whether they are friends, family or strangers we make agreements with, we should be able to feel secure. This is not always the case and we find ourselves going to court.

This is what happened with Gabby. She is a young woman suing her boyfriend, Keith. They were dating for a short time when Keith needed money to fix his car. Gabby lent him the money and they agreed upon a date for him to return the money to her. He tells the story a little differently. He does not remember that he had agreed to pay it back and says he was going to give her some money here and there to help her out. What does this even mean? It seems that he is making it up as he goes along. Did she give him the money by check and write loan on the memo line? No, that would make it way too easy. She did text him about the money, this could help her. Unfortunately, she does not have that cell phone anymore. Keith has the text messages and offers them to the Judge. They do not help him. The text messages reference the agreed upon date for returning the money. Also, Gabby has called his ex-girlfriend and Keith feels this is harassment. It is annoying, but is not harassment. He has countersued for harassment and cannot prove it. He gets nothing and is liable for the money he borrowed. A loan does not turn into a gift because a couple breaks up. Couples need to be careful when they lend each other money and put everything in writing to protect themselves.

Elyse has agreed to rent an apartment. She gives a security deposit, signs a lease agreement and is due to move in on December 15th. On December 13th she finds out the city inspection did not pass. There is a discrepancy regarding the reinspection date, is it going to be done in time for Elyse to move in?  Elyse leaves a message for the landlord and does not hear back. She believes she will not be able to move in on December 15th  and wants her money back. She sends a certified letter to the landlord explaining that she cannot move into an apartment that has failed inspection and wants her money back. The landlord still does not respond. Now they can communicate in court. The landlord failed to send Elyse a certified letter explaining why she was keeping her security deposit. Failure to communicate has become very expensive for the landlord. By law, she is responsible to pay back double the security deposit. People need to learn the law to protect themselves. 

Lula hires a contractor to fix a leaky roof. She just wants it patched. He explains to her that a patch job is not guaranteed. After he does the work, she continues to have leaks. Even though it is not guaranteed, he does go back a few times to try to fix it again. When snow and ice accumulate on the roof, Lula will not pay to have it removed. They explain to her this will be harmful to the roof. She does not change her mind. The contractor has also explained to her that the gutters are a problem. He is telling her a new roof and gutters are needed. She does not want to do anything more than the patch job. The problem is: none of this is in writing. The contractor does have a written agreement that states repair jobs are not guaranteed. He does not have Lula sign this. Why? He needs to have a contract for every job that he does. He needs to protect his contracting business. The good news is that without a written agreement he still wins the case. His business practices are logical and her story is not. In the hallway, Lula lets us know she has put a new roof on the house. The contractor will always make sure he has a signed contract, a very sound business practice! 

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

All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.

Havelock Ellis

People's Court: 6-22-12: True Colors

Everyday brings new experiences for us. When we pay attention, we learn. Being aware of what is around us and embracing this knowledge will keep us informed and safe. 

This case is really about the lack of good judgement. A contractor feels he is being challenged and he acts out. He could have taken the high road and taken his client to court. Instead, he got angry and removed the storm doors from the property. One door had already been installed. There was a physical altercation between the two men, the story of the fight  is not clear. Even though there are two different stories, we know there was a physical fight and the truth is somewhere in between. These two men completely lost all of the common sense they might have had. At the first sign of violence, the police should have been called. Instead, the homeowner was concerned with what the neighbors would think. Who cares? Our well-being is more important than what others would think. This man described a running drill being held to his head. He keeps saying how he needed the job done because he was going away on a trip in ten days. Why would he put his safety aside because of an upcoming trip? What motivates him? Finally, the homeowner calls the police, by the time they arrive, the contractor has left. He does get arrested and spends the night in jail. This might have been the best thing to have happened to him. He needed to know there were consequences to his behavior. In the hallway, he is not happy with the decision, but he does appear subdued. Hopefully, he will learn from this and in the future not take matters into his own hands.

A contract is signed to purchase a hot dog cart. The deposit is given and the balance will be paid upon delivery. The delivery of the cart is planned for December 25th. The cart is not ready by this date. The deposit should be returned. This sounds so straight forward. Why are we here? Well, the first thing I noticed was that the man selling the hot dog cart is treating this as a commercial for his business. He has even brought samples of the material used to build the carts. Is this the reason he let it get this far? Is the cart available now for delivery? Well, it would be, but it is not new anymore, he has been using it! This makes no sense, I am sure he has other carts he could have put into use. Another question: why does he bring his brother with him? He is not a witness and he acts out in court, is thrown out and is completely disrespectful to the Judge. In the hallway, the hot dog cart builder show his true colors, he insults the Judge. If he thought appearing on this show would bring him business, he should have acted much much more professional!

A woman signs a lease for an apartment. She gives the deposit and hopes to move in by a certain date. The landlord continues to delay saying the apartment is not ready. She seems to be very patient, waiting months. Finally, she has had enough and asks for her money back. At first the landlord agrees to give her back whatever she gave him. This is in a text the woman provides to the court. The landlord flounders and says he would give her something back but has not decided how much that would be. He can not come up with a good reason why he is holding onto her money. Of course she deserves her money back. She even is awarded pre-judgement interest! When the landlord leaves the courtroom, he says the outcome is crazy. It is not crazy, it is fair and just.

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

Happiness is not a goal; it is a by-product.

Eleanor Roosevelt

People's Court: 6-14-12: Lessons to Learn

People need to be able to use common sense in their interactions with others. When this fails, thank goodness for small claims court. We can learn from these experiences.


A father tries to help his son by letting him move back in. The son rents a storage unit for his belongings. He does not make his payments and the father pays the back fees. Now it is up to the son to maintain his payments. He does not. He is a 34 years old  and irresponsible. He does work but does not help with any of the bills. He ignores the e-mail notifications from the storage unit company. Unfortunately, they do not send him a certified notification. This is required by the rules of the industry. The items in the storage unit are thrown out. The owner of the company understands now that this was not a very responsible way to do business. The father also understands that he is enabling his son to be irresponsible. The Judge tries to explain to him that it is time to let his son stand on his own two feet. Let us hope that the money they won from the case goes into a bank account for the son to use when he finally moves out into his own place.

A woman rents an apartment. She finds out after 2 months she needs to move out due to a family emergency. She thinks this is reason not to give notice. It does not work this way. When the landlord lets her know she is not going to get her security deposit back, the tenant returns to the apartment, puts the heat on high and opens all of the windows. Now we find out it was an illegal apartment - who saw this coming? - the Judge cannot award rent money to the landlord. She can award the cost to fix the boiler and because these actions were seen as malicious, she awards punitive damages. The tenant does not get any money back.

A man wants to get his 1976 Buick restored. He takes it to a shop on the recommendation of his brother. The owner is a longtime friend of his. After taking the car and discussing what he wants, he leaves the car and after that no one seems to be on the same page. Their stories are so different, you wonder if they were even in the same room with each other. Written contracts are so important. Receipt for monies given are so important. A contract does not exist if there is not a meeting of the minds, written or verbal. At the end of the case the man does get his money back. His brother, who was in court with him, lets us know this incident is not going to ruin the friendship he has maintained for years. This is always good to hear.


These situations should be able to be resolved and not ruin years of friendship. Unfortunately, in so many cases it does not appear to end this way.


Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you for joining me today.

Remember:

 I believe that love and laughter can only happen when one person takes the time to think about what would cause the other person to feel good.

-Yakov Smirnoff

People's Court: 6-13-12: Denial

People are very good at denial in the face of the truth. How is it that it is so easy to deny? Telling the truth is the right thing to do. 

The first case is about 2 friends. He is helping his friend fix her motorcycle. She does not let him know the tags are expired and the bike is not insured. He brings the bike from one location to another. After installing a new battery he takes it for a test ride. He said he is moving it around the house. Yet he is on the road when he crashes into the back of a car. He admits the accident is his fault, although he says the bike malfunctioned. He did pay for the damage to the car, but feels she is asking too much for the repairs. They were not able to negotiate the amount on their own, so they find themselves in court. I do not understand why she did not get a proper estimate for the repairs. She provides a receipt for replacement parts. She is awarded part of the money she is asking for. The bigger question is: are they going to remain friends? They have been friends since childhood and it would seem a shame for that to disappear over this incident. The hallway conversation does not give any specific insight into the friendship question. They both seem like they do not care about holding onto the friendship. How sad!

The second case is about a moving company that damages the pedestal to a table. Although they fix it, the owner does not feel it is fixed properly and it will be unsafe to use. After all, he has grandchildren! The owner of the company feels the signed contract absolves him of responsibility. He was being a "good guy" and repaired it, even though he says legally he did not have to. The Judge points out the incorrect and unclear language in the contract. Also, the clients are not signing in the correct places. He is responsible, although not the entire amount that is being asked for. The owner of the table needs to understand he does not receive replacement value, he receives the depreciated value. The Judge lets him know it is the amount the table would sell for at a garage sale. He is not happy at all!

The third case involves an illegal apartment. The owner of the house purchased the house with an existing tenant. He claims he had no idea that it was an illegal apartment. He then builds an additional apartment without permits. Now he would seem to be very aware that the apartments are not legal. One of the tenants starts a fire, fire department comes out, lets everyone know the illegal status of the apartments. What I find so interesting is that the landlord returned the security deposit to the tenant that started the fire and was not returning it to the other tenant. Well, she gets the money she is asking for.

The landlord now has to admit he knows the apartments are illegal and will go through the proper channels.

Please let me know what you think of these situations. Thank you for joining me today.

Remember: Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be.  

-Abraham Lincoln

People's Court: 6-11-12: Voodoo Curse

Another exciting day on People's Court. Three new cases today. Let's get started...

A woman wants a granite countertop in her kitchen. The store she goes to sends a subcontractor to her house to measure. She gives him a check and cash. Not only does she not get a receipt for the payment, she does not fill out the check. She leaves it blank instead of writing the name of the store. Of course, the subcontractor happens to be a thief. He deposits the check and takes the cash. The store owner thinks she is dealing directly with the sub and cutting him out of the picture. When she tries to get her money back, the store owner realizes what has happened and is able to get some of the money back from the sub. He is responsible to pay her the rest of the money. Now he can go after the sub if he chooses to. The woman does realize that she made a mistake, the way she wrote the check, giving the cash and not getting a receipt. She does not think threatening a voodoo curse was a mistake!

The second case involves family. A brother suing his brother. It is a shame to watch a family fall apart right in front of you. The Judge wonders whether the one brother is clueless or evil. She quickly finds out as the brother tells one lie after another. He let his brother sublet his rent controlled apartment when there was a balance due. He collected rent from his brother and pocketed it. He lied about receiving money even though he signed a receipt. He illegally locked his brother out of the apartment. The brother that was taken advantage of won the case and seemed like a really nice guy. There was mention of a sister. She was not in the courtroom. This seems to be common when family members do not want to be caught in the middle. The consensus is that the brother is evil!

The last case is a traffic accident. The young man that caused the accident admits it in court. On his written response to the complaint, he stated he was not at fault. The truth comes out, he admits he is responsible but feels the estimate is too high. He actually obtained two estimates from pictures of the damage to the other vehicle. This does benefit him, since the Judge takes this into consideration. It was very impressive for this young man to get the estimates. 

People do constantly amaze. Sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way. The important thing is to always think about what you are doing. Do not let people take advantage of you.

Please let me know what you think of these situations. Thank you for joining me today.

Remember:

They can't hurt you unless you let them. - Anonymous

People's Court: 6-8-12: Contracts

More stories today that make you say - Really!!!!. A woman is buying a car from a family friend. He claims he tries to talk her out of it, yet he still sells it to her. They have a very detailed contract of sale. He retains possession of the car, while she is making payments. She wants to "borrow" it for the weekend, but has no intention of returning it in a timely manner. This does not go well and becomes the beginning of the end... Then she claims that he wanted to trade sexual favors for the car. He denies this also. The contract they have agreed to is binding. Why do they think they can change it now? 

Next there is a lawyer who does not provide a retainer agreement to a client. He tries to bill her for many hours of telephone calls. It seems she was picking his brains so she could file paperwork on her own. They both were wrong and seem to deserve each other. This man should know better since he is an attorney. Why would he do business this way?

The last case seems to be such a waste of everyone's time. A recently purchased used vehicle breaks down. It is still under the warranty. When the young man calls the dealer, he is told they do not pay for nor provide tow service. Why would be wrong in recommending a tow company? What has happened to common courtesy?

Please let me know what you think about these situations.

Thank you for joining me today.

Remember:

Laugh when you can,
apologize when you should,
and let go of what you can't change.
Life's too short to be anything... but happy.
- Anonymous

People's Court: 6-7-12: Consequences

People do not seem to realize their actions have consequences. A landlord moves around a tenant's belongings. Things are broken and missing. She is responsible since she had no right to touch anything. They have a contract and she does not abide by it. She does not seem to understand that she had no right to be so involved in her tenant's living situation. I felt terrible for the tenant, he was in school and was constantly having his life disrupted.

A man buys a car for the mother of his child. Several years later she takes him to court for child support. It is awarded along with back support. He takes the car back. He is angry that she took him to court and does not admit that is the reason he took back the car. It is very apparent from the timing that he was being spiteful. It is a shame that these people do not get along. They are raising a child together. 

A woman hires a contractor to replace the roof of her garage. She is very happy with the work. He returns some of the materials to Home Depot. For some reason, the store gives her the receipts. She has no right to the extra materials or to the money. The contract she signed was for a set amount, including materials and labor. He did the job and that should have been the end of it. She did not even pay him the full amount. He did not file a countersuit, why? His explanation is lack of time. I think he should still file a countersuit, he did the work and is entitled to the money.

When striking a deal with someone, a written contract is very important. People need to understand what they are getting and what they are providing. Please let me know what you think.

Remember: Today is the first day of the rest of your life!

Life Lessons Continued

Thank you for joining me on this journey...

The most recent episode of People's Court has new lessons for us. Be careful of contracts. Of course, it is important to have a  contract.  Written is the best, but even a verbal contract is good. A meeting of the minds is what we need to remember. The young woman wants her security deposit back, even though she did not give the proper amount of notice. She had a lease and read into it what she wanted it to say. We often do this, since we want to believe we are in the right. Unfortunately, she did not follow the agreement to the letter and did not get her money back. She understood what the judge explained to her and that will benefit her in the future. Another case, a man rented a Winnebago. Again, there was a written contract. More detail would have been a benefit to both sides. When the vehicle was returned 6 days early, the men should have discussed and documented the condition of the vehicle. Also, if  he was going to get any money back for returning the vehicle early. When people are unhappy with the verdict, they say the judge did not understand. And the woman with the dog, blaming the groomer for a skin condition. She waited six days to take her dog to the vet. The vet did not connect the dog's condition to the recent grooming. Once again, the person bringing the case, did not seem to learn from the experience.

We learned that contracts should be very specific, read before you sign. With rental vehicles, document the condition before and after. When a pet is injured, go to the vet right away.

A heartwarming story on Anderson. Igor, over 7 ft. tall, needs shoes that fit him. They are very expensive and he has reached out to the public to help. Until now, the family did everything themselves. Having proper shoes will enable him to get out of the house. Walking is difficult for him and also the shoes he wears continue to cause him to have additional health problems. Anderson put together people to help him. New shoes, new wardrobe and a new mattress. Igor was genuinely overwhelmed by this generosity. I hope Anderson checks in with Igor in the future, so we can share in his happiness. Please remember in these difficult times, people are kind.

Thought for the day:

Acts of kindness are their own reward.