People's Court Blog - March 25 2013 - Monday

Hi everyone - I am back.  A new episode today, I am so happy to share my thoughts with you about these cases. 

What did you think about Aries and Wascar moving during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy? That is amazing! They are in court today suing their landlord for $3500.00. This includes their security deposit and the deposit on their new apartment and their moving expenses. WHAT? Why would their landlord be responsible to pay for their moving expenses and a deposit on their new apartment? Aries did not have an answer either!!! They moved out of their apartment because they did not get heat on a regular reliable basis. They have a baby and they did not want the baby subjected to a cold apartment. That is reasonable. I would move out too! What is not reasonable is that they moved out on or after the first of the month. They claim it was the first of the month, their landlord claims it was the 6th of the month. Either way they were there into the month of November and are responsible for the rent for the month. Since the landlord rented the apartment for November 15th, mitigating his damages, they are only responsible for half the month's rent. Also, we all learned something new today - Tenants in New York City do not have to give one month's notice to the landlord. You can tell that Edward, the landlord was surprised by this information. Live and learn!!!!! Aries and Wascar do get back $650.00 which is half of their $1300.00 security deposit. They do not get what they are asking for since it is not their landlord's responsibility to pay towards their moving expenses or their new apartment. It was their choice to move out. Good luck to Aries and Wascar in their new home.

Carol is suing Lateresia and her nephew Kristopher for $100.00. Kristopher damaged Carol's fence when he knocked it down while riding a dirt bike. They had already paid $250.00 towards the $350.00 repair bill. There is no question they are responsible to pay for the damages. They were paying Carol and then just stopped. What a shame Carol had to sue to get the last $100.00! Sometimes it seems like a waste of everyone's time to sue for a small amount of money. After all, there are court costs and the time and expense of coming to court. In this case, I agree with Carol since Kristopher should be help responsible for the cost of the damage. The judge finds in favor of Carol and Kristopher needs to finish paying for the damage he did. Carol will get the $100.00!

Keith loaned his friend of 25 years, $2600.00 for his wedding. William does not deny the loan, but claims he did not borrow that much money and he paid his friend back. Keith has a promissory note signed by William. The promissory note is great evidence for Keith. Thank goodness he has this because si much of the relationship does not make sense. Keith hired William to do electrical work in a house he was renovating. He paid William in full for the work even though William owed him money. Keith explains that there were other people involved and the loan was separate. I think he is lucky that William's testimony seems very shaky. He claims he borrowed $1100.00 and paid it back in full, paying Keith $600.00 on 2 separate dates. This would be $1200.00 and he has no proof of paying it. The Judge finds in favor of Keith for the full amount of $2600.00.  This is a good thing, Keith should get his money back. Unfortunately, the long-term friendship is over! Money, business and friendship do not mix well. 

Thank you for joining me today. Please subscribe and stay updated!

Share your thoughts in the comments.

Please check out this animal rescue group and help them raise money to help the animals.

I support them and their efforts to rescue animals. They do really good work.

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/NJ617.html

People's Court Blog - 10 5 2012 - Friday

Challenge Check-Up: It has been one week of the October Challenge. I was hoping to be on my way to success. I was not able to post Friday's blog until today. I will try harder next week. It will give me something to work towards. How are you doing for your October Challenge? Please share your resolution and update in the comments. We can all try for success together!

Grant And The Unleashed Pitbull

Grant is suing Theodore for $1000.00. This is for vet bills and pain and suffering for a dog attack. Grant was walking his Yorkie on a leash when a Pitbull, not on a leash, attacked. Grant took his little dog to the vet. Thank goodness the little dog survived an attack from the Pitbull. It would seem rather straighforward that Theodore would be responsible for the vet bills. He claims that the dog does not belong to him. Who does the the Pitbull belong to? Theodore's roommate. Why isn't the roommate in court? She is in Rikers Island. Where is the Pitbull? He lives with Theodore. Remember if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck! I love when the Judge uses this reference! The Judge rules that the Pitbull belongs to Theodore, so he is responsible for the vet bills. Grant receives $797.01. Grant does not receive pain and suffering, although I am sure he experienced both! Why wasn't the Pitbull on a leash? Why does this seem like a common occurrence? Why are there so many dog attack cases that involve Pitbulls? Please help to answer these questions!

Tialonee And The Con Man

Tialonee is suing Adrian for $2000.00. This is a case of a con man taking advantage of a young, naive girl. Tialonee is 18 years old. She thought she was buying a car from Adrian. She gave him $2000.00 and he signed a contract with her. The contract was notarized. Adrian points out that in the state of Florida, a notarized contract contains certain elements that are missing from this one. Tialonee shows text messages between the two of them concerning the planned purchase of the car. Adrian points out that there are apps available for fake texting. Tialonee says they were friends, Adrian said they dated. Tialonee said they met on Facebook. Adrain says they met on an Internet chat site. Tialonee said she gave him $2000.00 for a car. Adrian says she was holding the money for him. There is so much that neither of them agree on, it is almost as if they were having two different realities, that is the essence of a con!

The car Tialonee was buying was a 2012 Impala that cost $18,000.  Why would Adrian sell it to her for $2000.00? Exactly! Think about it. Of course it is too good to be true. The entire situation was orchestrated to discredit Tialonee. I give Tialonee so much credit for bringing Adrian to court. The Judge sees right through this polished con man. Tialonee will get her money back. We all need to be constantly on guard to protect ourselves from situations that are too good to be true. Remember there is no free lunch!

Ferris And Progressive Glasses

Ferris is suing Larry for $654.00. This is for the cost of glasses that Ferris bought and cannot wear. Ferris went for an eye exam and had new glasses made. These glasses were different from his previous ones. He received progressive glasses and cannot see with them. He wants to return them and get his money back. Why would he leave the store with the glasses if he could not see? He did go back and demand his money back. The store policy is no refunds and a one year guarantee. This is stated on the receipt. Ferris is not entitled to his money back, he is entitled to have the glasses fixed. Larry agrees that he will do everything to fix the problem.

Why didn't Ferris give Larry a chance to fix the glasses before he brought Larry to court? This is something we will never know. People need to try to resolve their problems before rushing to court. Now, Ferris can return to Larry's store and get his glasses fixed so he will be able to see clearly.

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe

We have it in our power to start the world over again.
~Thomas Paine

People's Court Blog - 10 4 2012 - Thursday

Chris / Billiejo And The Not So Brand New Refrigerator

Chris and Billiejo are suing for $2694.94. This is for the cost of a refrigerator and various other costs associated with the purchase. Peggy Lee and Carlos were the contact for an ad on Craigslist. Peggy Lee's mother-in-law placed an ad to sell a refrigerator. The refrigerator was advertised as brand new. After Chris and Billiejo purchased the $3000.00 refrigerator for $950.00, they took it home, plugged it in and guess what? It did not work. Chris took the refrigerator to a repair shop and found out it had been repaired. The condenser had been replaced and other work had been done. The repair shop has documented the work done on the refrigerator. It is very obvious this was a scam to sell a used refrigerator as new. Peggy Lee shows that Chris damaged the refrigerator when he transported it on its side in a trailer. This does not matter since the information in the ad was false.

When Chris tries to reach Peggy Lee and Carlos, they do not return his calls. He meets with them using a fake name when he answers another Craigslist ad. The problem is he does not act responsibly and makes himself look like a loose cannon! Now he is doing the right thing to bring them to court. The Judge finds Peggy Lee and Carlos responsible to return the purchase price of the refrigerator, travel expenses and the cost of the repair shop diagnosis. In total, Chris and Billiejo get back $1177.49. Remember if something sounds too good too be true, it probably is! 

Lisa Lynn And Her Pottery Equipment

Lisa Lynn is suing Nicolle and Christopher for $3978.40. This is for pottery equipment that was stored with Nicolle and Christopher. When Lisa Lynn was pregnant in 2008, the father of her baby removed her items from storage and stored them with Nicolle and Chris. In 2010, she tried to get her property back and did not get it. In 2011, Nicolle donated the pottery equipment to a local school. She has a donation receipt to prove this. 

Why does Lisa Lynn wait so long to get her property back? The only answer she has is that she had so much going on in her life. This is not a good excuse. Years went by. She really could not expect for the items to be there forever. Lisa Lynn seems surprised to lose her case. She feels she did not get a chance to tell everything. I cannot imagine what else there could be. She had years to get back her property and she did not make the effort. It was not Nicolle and Chris's responsibility to return it to her. Maybe she is used to everyone doing for her, but not this time. The silver lining is that the pottery equipment went to a school and children are learning the art pf pottery. Lisa Lynn does not see this as a silver lining, she just wanted her belongings back!

Shannon And The Lost Friendship

Shannon is suing his friend for $1032.54. This is for the cost of parking tickets, impound fees, and various other costs. Shannon claims he put a car in his name for his friend, Richard. The reason he gives is that he wanted to help out his friend. Richard denies that Shannon helped him. This is very much a case of he said he said. It all comes down to the most credible person. The winner is Shannon. Richard continues to deny that anything was done for him, but he is so unbelievable. Shannon's story rings true. I am sure it will be a very long time before he lets someone else take advantage of him. Shannon gets back $784.21. The money he does not get back will be a lesson for him. The shame of this situation is that these two men have known each other for 29 years. This is a lifetime. It must be so difficult for Shannon to have been treated this way by a friend he has known for this long. Another question answered. What is the cost of a 29 year friendship? The answer: $1032.54. Good luck Shannon!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe 

Being entirely honest with oneself is a good exercise.

~Sigmund Freud

People's Court Blog-10 3 2012-Wednesday

Ashley And The Lost Friendship

Two friends move in together. Ashley and Christine have been friends for eleven years. Now the friendship is over for good. This is a real shame. What is the cost of an eleven year old friendship? Well, it turns out it is $532.58. This is the cost of the utility bills that Christine did not pay. When these two young women entered into a rental agreement together, they agreed to split the utility bill. Christine paid her half for a few months and then stopped. Why did she stop? Christine claims that she did not feel safe in the apartment so she stayed with her boyfriend. Her defense for not paying her half of the utility bill is that she was not there to use the utilities. Agreements do not work this way. The Judge explains that as long as she had the ability to live in the apartment she was responsible to pay her share. The more important issue here is that this longterm friendship has now ended, Ashley seems very happy to get the money for the utility bill and does not seem to mind that the friendship is over. What a shame! A friendship is something to be valued and not thrown away! Both of these young women will go on with their lives and will most definitely make new friends. Unfortunately you can never replace a friendship that started in the 9th grade. Don't you agree?

Sondra And Her Really Small Mouth

Sondra is suing Ronald, her dentist, for $1567.00. This is the cost of new dentures that Ronald made for her. Sondra explains that she has a very small mouth. She explained this to Ronald and he assured her he could make new dentures that would fit her. Ronald made the dentures for Sondra and she was not happy with the fit. She returned to him 5 times for adjustments. At the last visit, Ronald told her there was nothing more he could do for her. Sondra decided to chalk it up to experience and walked away. A year later she met the nurse from the dental office. The nurse asked Sondra if she was wearing the dentures. Sondra told her that she could not wear them. The nurse said she never liked the forms he used for the molds. This is the reason Sondra decided to sue a year after purchasing the dentures. Sondra should have pursued this sooner. Also, Sondra did not go to another dentist to get an opinion on the dentures. There is no proof that the forms might have been incorrect or the dentures were not fit properly.

Sondra does not recover her money for the dentures. At the end of the case, Ronald offers to continue to help her. Sondra says she will not return to him, she does not want to give him another chance. That is a shame. Ronald is offering, Sondra should take him up on it. What does she have to lose?

Brenda And The Cancelled Skit

Brenda is suing Vinel and Lois for $914.00. These women belong to a fraternal organization. They were participating in a fundraiser that helps kids with their college fees. Part of the fundraiser included a competition of skits. Brenda wrote the skit, organized the rehearsals and was looking forward to participating in the competition. On the night of the fundraiser, Brenda's guests were told the skit was cancelled. Vinel was in charge and decided to cancel the skit. Brenda wants to be compensated for her time and effort for writing and putting on the skit. Brenda needs to review the definition of a volunteer. There was no promise of payment, whether the skit went on or not. It is true that Brenda was embarassed by the last minute cancellation, but you do not get compensated for embarassment! Brenda needs to make sure everyone agrees on terms of payment before she gets involved in a project! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

Faith is taking the first step when you do not see the whole staircase.

~Martin Luther King Jr.

People's Court Blog - 10 2 2012 - Tuesday

Shannon And The Color Purple

Shannon wanted highlights in her hair. She did not like the colors that were put in her hair and is suing for $435.00. This is for the cost of the job and the repair. Shannon describes a process by which she chose colors out of a book for her hair. Kevin says she said she wanted purple. He told her purple would not look good with blonde hair. Shannon denies this. She says she wanted eggplant. Well, Shannon...purple and eggplant are the same color! When Shannon saw the colors of her hair when it was done, she was unhappy. So unhappy that she tipped the hair stylist. She did return to the shop three days later and wanted her money back. She says that Kevin told her to give it the weekend and come back. It is so hard to figure out who to believe. Thank goodness the Judge is really really good at this! The Judge decides in favor of Kevin and Shannon does not get any money. I think a major part of the decision involves Shannon using the word, eggplant. It means purple! Shannon's hair looks good now! She should continue going to her current stylist! The Judge shares that she once had purple hair, I would love to see that! 

Dan And His Beloved Guitar

Dan is suing for $1180.00. This is for the cost of the repair to his beloved guitar. Peter is in court to represent the bar that Dan and his band were playing in.  Dan's band is called "Below Average White Band". They play classic 70's rock. One night they were playing in a bar and Dan took a break and put his guitar on the stand. An intoxicated patron carrying a beer in his hand, stumbled on the stage and knocked over a speaker that hit the guitar and broke its neck. Dan describes his guitar as priceless. Thank goodness it was able to be repaired since the bar now has to pay for that. The Judge finds they are liable for the cost of the repair. Dan was able to prove his case. Peter, the manager is not happy about this. Peter was not there that fateful evening and has nothing to contribute to this case! Dan plays in the hallway for us...http://peoplescourt.warnerbros.com/

Robert And The Very Responsible Driver

Robert is suing Brandon for $189.99. This is for the cost of a lawnmower. Brandon was being a responsible driver. He swerved to avoid hitting a cat. He turned into Robert's driver and ran over his lawnmower and ruined part of his vegetable garden. What is Brandon's reward for not killing a cat? He worked for a half a day on Robert's farm and gave him a replacement lawnmower. Two weeks later Robert decided he did not like this particular lawnmower. He bought a new one. Of course he should not expect Brandon to have to pay for a new lawnmower. The Judge awards Robert $85.00. This is the legal answer. 

The moral answer would have been to reward Brandon's responsible driving with a free pass. I think saving a cat's life is way more important than a lawnmower. Please Brandon remember you did the right thing. It is Robert who needs to look at his behavior a little more closely. Also, no one mentioned who the cat belonged to. Since Robert owned a farm amd the cat was in front of Robert's house, what if? ... 

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.

~Carl Sagan

People's Court Blog - 10 1 2012 - Monday

Welcome October 1, 2012!

The first day of the month. A day to make a resolution, make a change! Resolutions do not have to wait until January 1st. I like to think the first day of each month can be a day for new beginnings. Just as each day can be the first day of the rest of your life, each month can be a time to take stock and set a new goal. My goal for October is to post my blog the same day as the show. Stay with me and keep me on track. I challenge you to set a goal for the month and share it in the comments. We will succeed together!

Latisha And The Hit And Run

Latisha is suing Antoinette and Amy for $2935.27. This is for damages to her car from a hit and run accident. Antoinette and Amy are countersuing for the same amount of money. One night Latisha heard a loud noise in the front of her house. There was a car driving away from her house after hitting her car that, he had to stop and return home. He was able to describe the car as a dark red impala with tinted windows and a  spoiler. He was not able to see the license plate number.

5 days after the accident, Latisha saw the car parked at a house near her home. She called the police. They investigated and determined this was the car that caused the accident. In court, Antoinette, the owner of the car, explains the damage to her car was from a previous accident. She  also has pictures of a car that looked like hers and has body damage. This car was parked at a house in the area. She did not turn this information over to the police since she just saw it the day before court. Hello "My Cousin Vinny"!

The Judge is not able to find in favor of Latisha because there is a chance Antoinette was not responsible. Oh and the countersuit for the exact amount Latisha is suing for...Antoinette claims she was falsely accused and wants to be compensated. She does not get any money. The police investigated and they concluded she was responsible for the accident. Latisha was using the expert opinion of the police to bring Antoinette and Amy to court.

Latisha was trying to find the person responsible for the damage to her car. It is possible it is the owner of the car that Antoinette found. Hopefully she follows up and finds out if that is true. The person responsible should be held accountable for the damage they caused. What do you think?

Thomas And Bella

Thomas is suing Sharon for $1600.00. He purchased a puppy from her and he wants to be compensated for the purchase price and various other expenses. Thomas has "the puppy" in court. She is full grown now and is gorgeous. She is an Old English Bulldog named Bella. I have to say, Bella stole the show. What an amazing face, what a gracious and sweet dog!

They are in court today because Bella has hip dysplasia. Thomas would like the breeder to assume financial responsibility for her condition. There is one big problem, he would have to exchange Bella in order to legally resolve the issue. Thomas is not about to do that. Bella is his constant companion. He is a truck driver and is very proud to tell the court that Bella has been to 27 states with him. He obviously loves Bella very much.

One day Bella may need surgery to correct her condition. When this day comes, Thomas is going to do everything he can for her. He will not get any financial help from the breeder. This is a shame, but it is what is legal for the state Bella is from. Maybe the breeder should step up and work  with him, but to her this is business. To Thomas, Bella is family and he would never give her up! I hope Bella and Thomas have many many long years of travelling the open road together!

Jack And The Concealed Weapon

Jack is suing Julia for $1250.00. This is for a security deposit and additional money for stress. Jack rented a mobile home from Julia for one year. After the year lease was over, Jack rented month to month. When he decided to move out, he let Julia know. He spent 40 hours cleaning the mobile home before the walkthrough. When Julia met him for the walkthrough, she had a gun with her. Why did she bring a gun? She has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Why does she carry a gun? She tells the court, because she can. That is a great answer! Did she think she would need it? She did not get a chance to find out. After she refused to give Jack the security deposit back, she called the police. When they arrived, they took the gun away from her.

Julia claims the mobile home was filthy. She has pictures that show there was some clean-up needed. Jack's pictures showed a clean mobile home. Julia also says that Jack was supposed to maintain the gardens around the mobile home. She is trying to keep $750.00 for cleaning and for weeding. The Judge reviews the pictures and the costs involved and awards her $150.00. Jack gets back $600.00. He does not get an additional $500.00 for stress. If he was that stressed out by the gun he should have left. Instead he stayed and did not leave until the police told him to.

Jack seems very intent to explain that he did not do a good job cleaning because he is a man. Really! I do not think it matters whether you are a man or a woman. Cleaning is cleaning! Jack needs to wake up and smell the coffee and then wipe it up when it spills!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

You may delay, but time will not.

~Benjamin Franklin

People's Court Blog - 9 24 2012 - Monday

Thomas And His Soulmate

Thomas is suing Kathleen for $10,000. The two of them met at a singles dance. Thomas loved to dance and he saw Kathleen and asked her to dance with him. They were on the road to becoming soulmates, even though Kathleen finds it difficult to explain what a soulmate is. The two of them had so much in common. They decided to buy homes, renovate them and resell them. Oh and when Thomas says they were going to buy houses, he means Kathleen pays for them and then they  split the profit 50 - 50. Kathleen does not remember it this way. She thought Thomas was helping her because he liked her. Thomas felt his time was worth $8.25. Kathleen never agreed to pay him by the hour. She never agreed to reimburse him for the money he spent on gas for all of the driving he did. After they broke up, Thomas decided he should be paid for all the work he did and all of the money he spent on gas. Since they did not have a contract or an agreement, they Judge decides in favor of Kathleen. 

The really sad thing is that Kathleen was not breaking up with Thomas. The day of the "altercation" as the two of them refer to the breakup day, Kathleen was moving Thomas's belongings from one mobile home to hers. She wanted to sell the mobile home he was staying in. When Thomas returned home from a doctor's appointment, he saw all of his belongings outside of the mobile home. He left and did not speak to her again. If Thomas was delayed that day, none of this would have happened or would it?

Nelson And His Mistress

Nelson is suing Pristine and Clean car wash for $1115.09. This is for the cost of an antennae and a mount for his mustang. He tells us that his friends and family refer to his car as his mistress. Really, is this necessary to tell us? Nelson noticed the mount and the antennae were missing after he returned home from the car wash. Why didn't he check his mistress right away? He went back to the car wash 2 days later. Why didn't he take his mistress back right away? Raul explains that there was video surveillance of the mustang and they did not save it. Why not? So many questions and very few answers! The clincher for this case is that Nelson did not check the car right away and then he waited 2 days to go back to the car wash. This is no way to treat a mistress! Oh well! The Judge finds in favor of the car wash. It is very important to deal with issues right way. Nelson would have had much more credibility if he checked his mistress before he left the car wash or at very least returned immediately after he noticed the antennae and mount were missing!

Leonardo And The Suspended License

Leonardo is suing Ramonita for $3368.81. Ramonita is Leonardo's insurance broker. At the end of December Leonardo went to her office and wrote a check to the insurance ompany for one year coverage on his car. In mid January he received a cancellation of service letter from the state of New York. When he showed the letter to Ramonita she said not to worry about it. Then Leonardo received a second notice and Ramonita gave him a temporary insurance identification card. Since he did not respond to the letters and did not make sure he had car insurance, his driver's license was suspended. He relied on Ramonita's expertise to ensure all was well. This backfired on him. Why would Ramonita lie to him? She says she called the insurance company and verified there was no problem. Getting the letters of cancellation was a very good indication there was a problem. The insurance company went out of business. Ramonita would have found this out when she called them. Leonardo's check was never cashed. He finally put a stop payment on it in April. Leonardo should have realized the check was not cashed and he did not have insurance coverage.

Leonardo wants Ramonita to be responsible for all the expenses he incurred as a result of his suspended license. He has to take some responsibility in this matter. The Judge finds in his favor for some of the expenses. and he receives $1221.81.

The real curious part of this story is why Ramonita did not explain to Leonardo what was happening. She would have known that the insurance company went out of business. She could have sold Leonardo insurance through another company. Someone needs to learn how to do their job. There must have been other clients that were affected by this insurance company going out of business. Hopefully Leonardo will learn from this experience and be more aware of the status of his finances. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Laughter is an instant vacation.

~Milton Berle

People's Court Blog - 9 20 2012 - Thursday

Matthew And 7 Long Years

Matthew is suing Aneta for $5000.00. This is for the cost of an engagement ring. Matthew and Aneta dated for 2 1/2 years and broke up 7 years ago. Wow! That is a really long time. Matthew does not have a good reason why he waited so long to sue Aneta. He says that for the first year he tried to get the ring back and then...what happened? He never tells the Judge why he waited so long. Aneta tells a different story. She says that she supported Matthew, financially and emotionally. Aneta always worked and there were periods of time when Matthew was unemployed.   Aneta says that when Matthew was addicted to prescription drugs, she was there for him.  They did not have an amicable break-up. Aneta describes an incident when Matthew kicked her out of the car on a deserted road in February. She said it took her 15 - 20 minutes to walk home. You do not do this to someone you love. When they broke up she told him he could pay her back the $6000.00 he owed her or she would keep the ring. He did not have any money, so she kept the ring. She thought that was the end of it. 

Aneta said she could not believe he was suing her for the ring so many years later. Even though  an engagement ring is typically returned when a couple breaks up, the Judge finds in favor of Aneta in this case. It might have been a different story if Matthew had not waited so long to sue. What do you think?

Giusto And The Craigslist Ad

Giusto is suing Amanda for $760.00. This is for the deposit given to Amanda to hold an apartment for rent. There is not too much of this case that makes sense. Amanda advertised on Craigslist for a female roommate with no pets, except maybe a goldfish. Giusto answered the ad, he is not female and he has a Pitbull. Why would Amanda even consider him for a roommate? She does because he is from her school and she knew his girlfriend from one of her classes. She shows him the apartment, explains the rent and living arrangements and takes a deposit. He was supposed to sign the lease when he moved in. Giusto contacts Amanda and says he needs to take some measurements. Then he contacts her and wants the complete spelling of her name and the exact address so he can send her a gift. She tells him to bring it with him when he moves in, he says no he wants to mail it. Amanda thinks this is very strange. Then he contacts her and wants to renegotiate the rent.  Instead of the utilities being included, he wants to split them. He wants to lower the rent. Amanda tells him it is not negotiable. He also makes comments about being more than roommates. He is looking for a friend and a partnership. Amanda just wants a roommate. When Amanda would not change the terms of the rental agreement, Giusto asked for his deposit back. Amanda said that she would not return it. The day before he was due to move in, Amanda texted him to verify he was not coming. He did not respond. Amanda did not hear from him until he sued her.

Giusto claims he should get his money back because Amanda told him the apartment was not available. Amanda told him the apartment was not available to rent to someone else because she was holding it for him. Giusto totally ignores this fact. The Judge rules in favor of Amanda. This worked out for the best for Amanda. If Giusto had moved in, I do not believe it would have lasted. Hopefully Amanda has learned that when she advertises for someone specific, she should stick to it. Amanda wanted a female roommate with a goldfish, not a male friend with a Pitbull!

Bryan And The Spilled Drink

Bryan is suing Kaycie for $755.00. This is for the cost to get his laptop repaired. Bryan and a few friends rented rooms at a hotel to celebrate New Year's Eve in a responsible way. They did not want to drive after a night of celebrating. Bryan put his laptop on top of a dresser to keep it out of the way and safe. He was playing music from it so it was open. When someone started taking pictures, Kaycie did not want to have a drink in her hand. She put the drink on top of the dresser. She says she did not see the laptop, even though it was open. This is so strange. When someone else saw the drink had spilled they tried to save the laptop. They wiped it off and even used a blow dryer to dry it quickly. Bryan said it worked for a few minutes and then stopped. 

Kaycie says she offered Bryan $500.00 after it happened. She said she could not pay him right away because she was not working. Bryan says the offers were always changing. He asked Kaycie to pay for the entire repair because she was responsible for the damage. Why doesn't Kaycie think she should have to pay for it? Kaycie says that Bryan knew the risk and it is ridiculous it went this far. Really? For someone who is responsible enough not to want a drink in her hand in a picture, she should be responsible to pay for the consequences of her actions. Yes, it was an accident. No one is claiming it wasn't. Bryan did the right thing to bring her to court. The Judge finds in favor of Bryan. Unfortunately he has lost a friend over this. Kaycie says she will never speak to him again. What a shame that friends could not have worked this out and the friendship is ruined over $755.00! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

A waffle is like a pancake with a syrup trap.

~Mitch Hedberg

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 - 9 13 2012 - Thursday

Diego And The Linked Computers

Diego  is suing Stephanie for $1830.70. This is for  rent, utility expenses, food expenses, a diamond ring, and the replacement cost of a refrigerator door. Diego and Stephanie dated for 4 1/2 years and moved in together. This lasted 8 months. Diego thinks the problems started when they linked their computers together. Diego says they did this to share movies. Whatever the reason, it is a very bad idea. Diego admits curiosity got the best of him. He read documents that were essentially Stephanie's journal. She wrote about being unhappy in her relationship with him and feeling sexual tension with someone else. Stephanie admits to reading Diego's journal. They were writing about the same topic, being unhappy in their relationship with each other. Diego said this started a huge fight. Stephanie threw a small Buddha statue at him and hit the refrigerator instead. She also threw his guitar. Both of them left the apartment in order to diffuse the fight. Diego came back that night, Stephanie did not. When Diego came back he put all of Stephanie's belongings in trash bags and changed the locks. He texted her the next day to pick up her stuff and asked for the money she owed. Diego said she owed him money for the rent, utilities, and food expenses. Now is is also suing for the cost to repair the refrigerator door. 

Stephanie came the next day to pick up her stuff. She called the police and had Diego arrested for harassing text messages. He also had done an illegal lockout. Diego had no right to lock Stephanie out of the apartment. Stephanie admits that she owes the money for the rent. She does not feel she should have to pay the utilities. She says she always paid for the food. She denies damaging the refrigerator door. The diamond ring was a gift, not an engagement ring.

The Judge finds that Stephanie is required to pay her share of the rent, the utilities and the repair to the refrigerator door. Her denial of the damage to the door is not believed. She does get to keep the diamond ring. Diego gets a total of $1192.62.

These two people really need to move on and find healthier relationships. Hopefully they will learn from the mistakes in this relationship. I would hope in future relationships they do not link personal computers together! What do you think?

Michael And The Lawyer Fee

Michael is suing Carie, a former client, for $604.64. Carie hired Michael to represent her in a very complicated case. She chose Michael because she has known him since she was in the first grade. Carie went to school with Michael's son. Carie says that Michael guaranteed he would win the case. There are no guarantees in life, Carie should know that! Michael's representation for Carie cost over $7,000.00. This seems very silly for a $5000.00 case. Carie withheld the balance of the bill because she dismissed Michael as her lawyer. After the case went to arbitration and Carie lost, she appealed the decision and won. Carie ignored the bill for the balance of her bill to Michael. Because she ignored it, Michael brought her to court. The Judge wants to know why he didn't just forget about it. He says because she ignored the bill and also had told him her father would pay the bill. This was a business transaction and Carie signed a retainer agreement. Michael did the work. Just because she was unhappy with the outcome is no reason to withhold payment. 

The Judge finds in favor of Michael and Carie has to pay him. This is only right since there was an agreement. The history they might have had should not factor in a business deal. Michael is very matter of fact in his presentation of the case - just the facts! There was nothing personal about the lawsuit, he did the work and should get paid for it. What do you think?

Tobias And The Lost Pair Of Pants

Tobias is suing Ken, his dry cleaner for $500.00. This is the cost of a pair of pants from a Hickey Freeman designer suit. Ken admits to losing the pants. The policy of the store is to reimburse a customer 10 times the cost of the dry cleaning when an item is lost. This would have come to $137.50. Ken also offered Tobias an additional $50.00 in store credit. Tobias refused this offer, he wanted $300-$350 for the pants. Ken was not going to pay this amount, he had a store policy in place. Ken is responsible to pay Ken the $137.50. Tobias is not happy with this because he still does not have pants for his suit. 

This is a very straight forward case. The store policy is very clearly stated on the back of the receipt. Since Tobias is a regular customer, he has been given the receipt on many occasions. What I do not understand is why dry clean only the pants of a suit. Wouldn't the pants and jacket wind up being different colors through time and not match? Please Tobias, if you read this, let me know why you did not take the complete suit to the cleaners? I would think you would want the suit to match! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A house is just a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get more stuff.
~George Carlin

People's Court - 9 11 2012 - Tuesday

Evette And The Essence Magazine

Evette is suing her neighbor, Cynthia, for $2000.00. This is for an unreturned magazine and for being threatened with bodily harm. Cynthia is counterclaiming for $2000.00 for aggravation and harassment. Evettte lent Cynthia an Essence magazine. Evette paid $3.99 plus tax for the magazine. She wants $1000.00 for it. Evette claims there were unique articles about men in love. Of course there were! Cynthia was unable to find the magazine when Evette asked for it to be returned months later. Evette claims that Cynthia threatened to hit her. This sounds like a very drama filled apartment building. They have even called the police when they have been fighting. The police officer told them that if he had to come back he would lock both of them up. This should have been enough for them to stop behaving like children. Unfortunately it was not. 2 days before this court case. Evette called Child Protective Services on Cynthia. Evette claimed that Cynthia's 2 year old baby  never stops crying. Evette's behavior is so malicious that the Judge awards Cynthia the $2000.00. Evette wasted city resources to hurt Cynthia. If Evette was so worried about the welfare of the child she should have called sooner. Instead she waits until right before the court case. This is very calculated. 

Evette does not get any money. Both women are told by the Judge that neither of them is innocent. Evette is crazy to behave this way. Cynthia needs to focus on her family and her miracle baby. In the hallway, Evette does not seem to have been affected by what the Judge told her. Cynthia tells us that she is 46 years old and her baby is a miracle. This is where she needs to spends her time and energy, not fighting with a neighbor. What do you think?

Samuel And The Totaled Truck

Samuel is suing Hilda for $2500.00. This is for the cost of a totaled vehicle. Samuel and Hilda dated on and off for a year. Samuel says that Hilda took his truck one day when he was very sick. He claims he did not give her permission to drive it. Hilda says she drove the truck all the time and Samuel was giving it to her. Hilda plays a voicemail that confirms this information. Hilda should not have been driving the truck because she did not have a driver's license. This did not stop Samuel from promising to give the truck to Hilda. After these two had a major breakup involving a fight and a broken television, Samuel wanted Hilda to pay for the totaled vehicle. Hilda says that Samuel is stalking her. She has a restraining order against him. Samuel was arrested and spent a month in Rikers Island prison. Hilda is afraid of him. She says she is living in a shelter for battered women. The Judge tells Samuel that he has an unhealthy obsession for Hilda. He needs to forget about her and move on. Samuel says he has moved on and is even engaged. The evidence that Hilda has presented is proof that Samuel wanted her to have the truck. He has no basis to ask her after the breakup for payment. Hilda does not have to pay Samuel for the truck. In the hallway, Hilda says she is glad it is over, wants to be left alone and has moved on. I hope she can find peace and happiness in her life. 

Shaniqua And The Parking Tickets

Shaniqua is suing Clarence for $337.04. This is for parking tickets that Clarence got while driving a car that was registered in Shaniqua's name. Clarence is counterclaiming for $1960.00 for the towed and missing car. Shaniqua and Clarence were friends for a very long time. When Clarence bought a car, he was not able to register it. He only had a driver's permit. Clarence asked Shaniqua to register the car in her name. She should have said no. Letting someone else, with only a driver's permit, drive a car in your name is a huge liability. Clarence started getting parking tickets and did not pay them. He did not even tell his very good friend about the tickets. Shaniqua found out when she received a notice in the mail. Shaniqua says it is 3 unpaid tickets, Clarence says it is 1 unpaid ticket. It does not really matter how many unpaid tickets there are. What matters is that there are unpaid tickets. Shaniqua takes the license plates off the car. After one week, Shaniqua had the car towed. During the week when the plates were removed, Clarence did not do anything to resolve the problem. It is Clarence's fault that the car was impounded. Clarence is not able to prove that he paid the tickets. He is found responsible to pay Shaniqua the $337.04 for the outstanding tickets. Since it is Clarence's fault that the car was impounded, he does not get any money on his counterclaim.

These two people were friends for over 19 years. What a shame that it ends over a situation like this. Shaniqua thought she was being a good friend by doing this favor. I hope she learned her lesson and never does this again. Clarence should not have asked Shaniqua to do this for him. It is a huge  responsibility to put yourself in this position. Clarence did not appreciate what Shaniqua was doing for him. If he did, he would have gotten up earlier and moved his car to avoid the parking tickets! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

September 11, 2001 - We will always remember  - We will never forget!

People's Court Blog - 9 10 2012 - Monday

The Dog Bit My Penis

I apologize for not having the names for the plaintiff and defendant. Due to technical difficulties I missed the first few minutes of the show.

The plaintiff is suing for $6000.00. This is for the pain and suffering from a dog bite to his penis and his hand. When the plaintiff entered the defendant's home, he was attacked by their dog. The dog first grabbed his private area and latched on. The plaintiff was trying to protect himself and get the dog to let go and then the dog bit his hand. The plaintiff went to the emergency room for treatment. The plaintiff claimed he had puncture wounds in his penis. The Judge read the medical reports and this was not confirmed. The plaintiff claimed his girlfriend would not have sex with him. She was in court to testify and did not confirm this information. She said they had to wait a little bit but then if was okay. The plaintiff claimed he now had permanent injuries to his private area. The medical reports do not confirm this. 

Why did the dog bite him? It seems that the defendant's Labrador does not like unfamiliar people in the house. The adults of the house thought the dog was locked up . According to the defendant, the dog has not bit anyone in the past. The reason for locking up the dog is because he gets aggressive ever since they were robbed. It seems the dog was beaten during one of the robberies. This dog is just acting like a dog. It is up to the owners to keep everyone safe. The plaintiff did suffer bites to his hand, he had to get several stitches. The trauma to his penis was physical as well as emotional. He wants to receive the maximum amount of money he can because of the indignity he suffered. The Judge awards him $2,000.00 since he did experience some pain and suffering. The plaintiff does not feel this is enough for the misery and humiliation he has to suffer for the rest of his life.

I think it is terrible that the plaintiff was attacked. He is very fortunate his injuries were not much worse. The dog owner needs to take responsibility for the dog's actions. Having a dog that behaves in this way in a home with young children is asking for trouble. This dog is unpredictable and cannot be trusted. I would hope the family consults an animal behaviorist as long as they are intent on keeping the dog. There is always the chance this could happen again. What do you think?

I Am Here For My Money!

Brian is suing his cousin, Shawn, for $60.00. Yes, this case is about $60.00, It cost Brian $40.00 to file the lawsuit to get back the $60.00. Usually when this occurs it is about the principle. Someone is trying to prove a point. Not in this case! Brian makes it very clear, he just wants his money back. He is not here to teach anyone a lesson. He is here to entertain. Brian is a very engaging man! He is very good with the one-liners. He says he must be living in an Annie musical. The reason for this is that when he asks Shawn for the money back, he tells him tomorrow, tomorrow! Even the way Shawn got the money was entertaining. It seems that the day before Brian got paid he told his wife that money did not grow on trees. When he cashed his paycheck, he took the money and hung it on a ficus tree in their livingroom. I am sure this was very amusing. That same day Shawn came over and asked to borrow money. Brian could not tell him that he did not have any money since Shawn saw the money tree in the livingroom. Brian told Shawn to take some money off the tree. Shawn took $60.00. Shawn told Brian that his mother would pay him back very soon. 

The best part is that Shawn's mother, Carlene, is in court to testify for Brian. Shawn feels that since his mom is going to testify against him, he does not have a chance. A chance of what? He borrowed the money. Now pay it back. Shawn says he has been unemployed and could not pay Brian back. It is $60.00, pay your cousin back! The day that Shawn started a new job, Brian filed to get his money back. Brian waited a year and a half for his money. His wait is over. Shawn has to pay him back! What a shame that family winds up in court over $60.00. Why does it have to come to this? If someone is nice enough to help you out when you are in need, pay them back! What do you think?

"Happy" New Year!

Annette is suing Jon for $1500.00. Annette hired Jon's company to provide a DJ for her New Year's Eve Party. She paid $300.00 for the DJ. The day before the party, Annette received a call from Jon's company and was told that the DJ was in a car accident. They offered her a refund or she could go with another company for an additional $200.00. Annette told them she would take the refund. Annette also told them she would like an e-mail confirmation. That was the best idea! The e-mail confirmation sinks Jon's testimony. Jon  tells the Judge that Annette cancelled the DJ and this is why she could not get a refund. When he reads the e-mail from his own secretary, he claims that she made up the story. Really! It looks like Jon's company was cancelling the DJ either because they overbooked or they were looking for more money. Jon denies this and maintains that Annette cancelled her party. Maybe he should have brought his secretary to court to tell her side of the story.

It gets better! When Annette contacted her bank regarding this transaction, she was given provisional credit while the bank was investigating. Jon had the nerve to lie to the bank and the provisional credit was reversed. Annette was charged by the bank and she has included these fees in her lawsuit. She is also suing for pain and suffering and the cost of a replacement DJ. Annette has turned a $300.00 lawsuit into a $1500.00 lawsuit! Does she get everything she is asking for? No, but she does get the bank fees, her refund for the DJ and punitive damages. This adds up to $668.00. The punitive damages cover the cost of the replacement DJ since Jon's actions were malicious. I think Jon needs to look into his business practices and have more respect for his customers. Annette was very smart to have requested the confirmation e-mail. This won the case for her! Also, it sounds like the New Year's Eve Party was fun and everyone had a great time bringing in the New Year!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

What's life without whimsy?

- Dr. Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory

People's Court Blog - 9 7 2012 - Friday

Erika And The Car Accident

Erika is suing Glenda for $5000.00. Glenda is counterclaiming for $3500.00. Both women and Erika's boyfriend were in a terrible car accident. They are all fortunate to have survived this crash. A car hit Glenda's van and she lost control and landed on top of Erika's car. Both cars burst into flames minutes after everyone got out of the vehicles. Why are they both suing each other? Erika did not have collision for her vehicle. Glenda did not have car insurance at all. She had lapsed in her payments. This is a terrible situation for both of them. Both vehicles were totaled. This accident was not the fault of either driver. Neither of them will recover on their lawsuits against each other. 

These three people are very lucky to be alive. The lesson in this case is that life is short and we need to appreciate every moment. No one knows what the day will bring for them. Glenda says that she was thinking of her children when her car spun out of control and flew into Erika's car. She just wanted to see them again. Everyone involved in this accident is conscious of the fact they were lucky to walk away. With that in mind, it is also very important to keep insurance up to date. Keeping proper coverage on our vehicle will provide us with financial protection. The person that caused this accident fled the scene and is the one who is  responsible for all of the financial burdens. What do you think?

Claire / Ivan And The Dow Museum

Claire and Ivan are suing Bernard's hospitality business for $2749.62. This is the amount of the deposit they gave for their wedding reception. Bernard is the exclusive caterer for the Dow Museum. This is in St. Augustine, Florida. The Dow Museum encompasses a group of historic homes that are routinely used for catered events. Both Claire and Ivan had attended a wedding at the Dow Museum and fell in love with it. They wanted to be married there. When they called to inquire about the procedure, they were told to call Bernard. He has the exclusive catering contract for this venue. Claire and Ivan met with Bernard in June 2011, signed a contract, and gave him a deposit for half of the estimated cost. Their wedding date was set for October 20, 2012. In January of this year, Claire and Ivan visited the Dow Museum. They were told the museum was being sold and weddings were being cancelled. They immediately contacted Bernard to find out what was happening with their wedding. 

At first, Bernard said he would give the money back. Then, he changed his mind and wanted to cater the event at another venue. He felt they had a contract and they should not be able to cancel it and get their money back. Bernard is missing the point. Claire and Ivan wanted their wedding at the Dow Museum. They had to hire him as the caterer, since he was the exclusive caterer for the Dow Museum. Claire and Ivan will get back their entire deposit. This is only right. They are so happy and can now continue with their wedding plans. The lesson here is to realize what is right. Bernard had to have known the reason he was hired was because of their desire for the Dow Museum. It would have been the right thing to do to return their deposit when they asked. It would have been the right business decision. What do you think?

Anastasia And Her Cousin

Anastasia is suing her cousin, Donna, for $5000.00. $750.00 is the pay Anastasia was entitled for work. Anastasia worked for Donna at a daycare center for several years. After Donna's mother had an issue with Anastasia, Donna did not want to pay her. Donna's mother felt Anastasia had stolen medicine and money from her. It seemed Donna paid Anastasia cash to avoid paying taxes. Yet after Anastasia stopped working for her, Donna filed a 1099. This seems rather spiteful. Donna admits paying Anastasia $750.00 a pay period. Donna has no way to prove that she has paid Anastasia. She keeps a ledger of payments, but does not include cash payments she is hiding for tax purposes. Anastasia is entitled to her pay. What else is she asking for that adds up to $5000.00? Anastasia wants the money she now has to pay the IRS since Donna filed a 1099. Really! Also she wants pain and suffering. For what? Anastasia claims she is behind on her bills and this has caused her pain and suffering. She is not able to recover this money.

Anastasia does get her $750.00. She is not happy with this and does not feel that inflating the lawsuit was wrong. The lesson here is family and business do not mix well. Also, cheating the government is a really bad idea. Why do people find it so easy to cheat and lie?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Be miserable. Or motivate yourself. Whatever has to be done, it is always your choice.

~ Wayne Dyer

People's Court Blog - 9 6 2012 - Thursday

Michelle And The Rented Room

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

Octavia And Free Storage

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

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

Allan And The Damaged Bumper

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

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

People's Court Blog - 9 5 2012 - Wednesday

Michael And The Angry Girlfriend

Michael is suing Rosalie for $3000.00. This is for damages to his belongings after they broke up. Rosalie is counterclaiming for $600.00, the cost of a pool cue. Michael and Rosalie met at a pool tournament. They dated for 6-7 weeks and then they broke up. When Michael was out of town his furniture was damaged and DVDs and photo albums stolen. Michael says that Rosalie went in his room, when she drove his friend home. His friend Jimmy wrote a statement to confirm this information. It seems Rosalie was in Michael's room and came out with a duffel bag. Rosalie denies this. She says she drove Jimmy to Michael's and stayed outside. The pictures of the damage to the dressers show scratch marks all over the surface. The Judge describes the damage as that done by an angry woman. Rosalie claims someone else must have done this. Someone that was mad at Michael over a fight. This is not the type of damage an angry man will do. I agree with the Judge. Rosalie continually makes comments directed at Michael  throughout the court case. This is not the time or place for this. Her inability to conduct herself in court does not help her credibility. The Judge finds that Rosalie did the damage to the dressers. Unfortunately, Michael does not have any proof of the value of the furniture or items stolen. Michael does provide an estimate to have the furniture restored. He is awarded $2000.00.

Regarding the counterclaim, Rosalie says that the pool cue was loaned to Michael. She said he broke his pool cue during a tournament and she let him use hers. He said it was a gift. There really is no proof for either side. The Judge finds that the pool cue was a loan and directs Michael to return it to Rosalie. It is a shame that Rosalie damaged the furniture. One of the dressers had belonged to Michael's grandmother and mother. The sentimental value of the dresser is not a factor in the money he can receive. After the verdict, Rosalie had to get in the last word. In the hallway, she  continues to say that everyone has lied for him. Michael feels justice was served and then gives a commercial spot for People's Court. Hopefully they do not frequent the same pool halls! 

Drew/Dorothy And The Super Mint Condition Car!

Drew and Dorothy are suing Anthony for $3284.67. This is for repairs they had done to a used car Drew bought from Anthony. Dorothy is Drew's mom. Drew found the 2001 VW Jetta advertised on Craigslist. Anthony advertised it in super mint condition with a new timing belt. Drew and his mom went to look at the car. They went for a test drive and gave Anthony a deposit to hold the car. Drew was paying for the car himself with money he earned working all summer on a goat farm. What they failed to do was have the car inspected before they purchased it. Dorothy says they had a post purchase inspection done. This does not even make sense. And the best part, they did not take the car to a mechanic for a month after buying it. When they do take the car to a mechanic, they are told there is a piece of wood wedged to hold the timing belt tensioner. The mechanic was so amazed to see this, he took pictures of it with his cell phone. Dorothy shows these pictures to the Judge. It is so true a picture is worth a thousand words. 

Anthony explains that he had the timing belt replaced by a neighborhood mechanic or an alley mechanic as the Judge describes it. Anthony has no proof of the work done on the car. Since he advertised the car with a new timing belt, it is considered a warranty. The other issues that are wrong with the car are not covered by a warranty. The sale of a used car by a private individual is an as-is sale. It is always a good idea to have a used car inspected prior to buying it. Drew and Dorothy do get back some money. They get back $1195.88, the cost of the timing belt. The other problems on the car are on them. Maybe if they had it inspected before they bought it, they could have avoided all of these problems. Also, why wait one month to take it to a mechanic? They are very lucky that Anthony advertised the car with a new timing belt. This is the only reason they were able to get money back. Anthony seemed surprised at the discovery of the piece of wood. I get the feeling he will be following up on this! What do you think?

Wayne And Collecting Double The Debt!

Wayne is suing Michael for $1794.92. This is for rent and damages for an apartment Michael rented from Wayne. Michael and his girlfriend, Pam, were renting the apartment. Pam moved out first when the couple broke up. She had paid the rent up to and including September. Michael moved out at the end of October . He would be responsible to pay that October's rent. Wayne also wanted  rent for November. He claimed that Michael would not let him show the apartment, so he lost a month's rent. Michael said that Wayne would not give him any notice when he wanted to show the apartment and even showed it once when he was not home. Wayne said they damaged the floor and damaged a door. He did not have estimates for this damage because he is only suing for rent. He is suing for damages, they are on the list. Wayne has an itemized list of the money owed to him. He has actually already been paid for the damages. The couple had a $800.00 security deposit they were used to cover any damages. Pam's mom sent Wayne a check for $1054.00. In total, Wayne has received $1854.00. This is more than the amount he is suing for. Why does he think he can receive this money twice? He has no answer for this. The Judge rules in favor of Michael. Wayne cannot collect this money twice! In the hallway, Wayne says he had more to say. Michael says Wayne was unprepared and lied. He also says that the break up with his girlfriend was because they were not getting along. She is in court to testify for him and help him with this case. That was really nice of her. I wish these young people good luck in the future!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

If you can dream it, you can do it.

-Walt Disney

People's Court Blog- 9 3 2012 - Monday

Joseph and The Matchmaker

Joseph is suing Jacqueline for $2227.00. Jacqueline runs a matchmatching business. When Joseph moved to Oregon from Ohio, he signed up for 2 free online dating services. Joseph is very proud to show the reason he moved to Oregon. He has a picture of his 6 year old granddaughter. He is a very proud grandfather! Joseph decided to upgrade his services on Jacqueline's website and paid her $27.00 for a consultation. He then agreed to a platinum service package that cost $2200.00 for 90 days of personal service. He refers to the money as "benjamins" (This is so cute!) Joseph was supposed to receive personal attention for this additional cost. Jacqueline said she does background checks on the potential dates and even conducts personal introductions. Jacqueline had asked Joseph to update his online pictures. He did this, had current pictures taken,  and sent them to Jacqueline. After several weeks, Joseph was not happy with the service. He sent an e-mail to Jacqueline demanding a refund. He felt she was stringing him along. Joseph received an e-mail from a potential date. He was upset because the woman was not a platinum member. He did not know what he was getting for the additional money he paid. When Jacqueline received a complaint from the Better Business Bureau, she suspended Joseph's membership. She did not notify him about this. Jacqueline explains that she did it for his benefit and then admits she did it to protect the company. Either way, when she suspended his service, she breached their contract. Joseph had every right to complain about a service he was not happy with. He was taking the proper steps and going through the right channels. The Judge finds in favor of Joseph. He receives $2200.00, the cost of the platinum package. He does not get back the consultation fee. Jacqueline should never have suspended his membership. Joseph is elated about winning the case. He is also dating the photographer that took his pictures to update his profile. It seems that Joseph is a man of action. He moved to Oregon to spend time with his granddaughter. He is enjoying an active social life! He knows what he wants and is willing to go to court to fight for it! What do you think?

Richard And The Shopping Cart

Richard is suing Jamie for $650.00. This is for damages to his car from a shopping cart. Richard explains that he was parked next to the shopping cart corral. When he came out of the store and approached his car, someone in the parking lot pointed out the damage to his car from a shopping cart. He said the person shoved the cart from across the lane and then pointed to a car that was leaving the parking lot. The car circled around and came back. The passenger in the car told him that her cart hit his car. She gave him her information. The passenger was Jamie. Jamie admits that the cart hit the car instead of going in the cart corral. She says she pushed it from a few inches, not a few feet. She knows it scratched the car. Why shouldn't she pay for the damages? (This is where it gets really interesting!) Jamie says she was an invitee of the supermarket. She was told by a lawyer that she is not responsible for this reason. The Judge explains that as an invitee it does not absolve her of responsibility from consequences of her own actions. Also, the Judge tells Jamie that the legal advice she received was not correct. You get what you pay for! Yes, it is true, Jamie did receive free legal advice! I think it is amazing that Jamie knows she hit Robert's car and was not willing to pay for the damages. Why did she give him her information at the scene? Jamie feels that Robert was threatening and intimidating when he was calling her to ask for the money. It took a lawsuit to show Jamie that she is responsible for her actions. Robert is awarded $544.75. He will get back the cost of his deductible, credit card interest and his court costs. Robert was also suing for the cost of gas, he will not get this because he did not bring proof to court. Robert was fortunate there was a witness to this incident. Jamie should have left her information on Robert's car as soon as she saw the cart had caused damage. I hope Jamie is more responsble in the future and puts the shopping cart directly in the corral. This way she will avoid hitting someone's car! What do you think?

David / Margaret And The Flood

David and Margaret are suing Alex for $3000.00. They explain their neighbor's toilet overflowed and caused flooding in their home. The insurance company hired a restoration company for the clean-up. Alex's company did the initial clean-up, removed the damaged carpeting and padding. They also removed the parts of the walls that had absorbed water. When the contractors started their work, Alex was contacted to store David's and Margaret's belongings. The belongings were packaged in cardboard boxes and Rubbermaid containers and stored in Alex's warehouse. When David and Margaret received their items back, they were very unhappy. They say that everything was moldy and smelled really bad. One of the Rubbermaid containers was cracked. They threw almost everything away. They did save a few items they brought to court with them. They did not take any pictures, they do not have any receipts. They do have a list with the number of boxes and containers removed from their home. This is their only evidence. Alex does not have any paperwork for this transaction. The list also has written on it that 3 rugs were taken to the storage unit. When the items were returned, the rugs could not be found. Alex does have 2 of the rugs in court for this case. He admits that one rug is still missing. The Judge checks the items that David and Margaret brought in with them. She notes they do smell, but is not able to determine whether it is from the flood or from the storage unit. Alex explains the items were packaged and sealed at their home and stored in his warehouse. Everything was still sealed when it was returned on February 2nd. Alex did not know there was a problem with the items until March 28th, when he was notifed about the lawsuit. Since David and Margaret are not able to prove that the storage procedure damaged their belongings, they do not get paid for them. They will receive $200.00 for the missing rug. They also get back the 2 rugs that Alex brought to court. The Judge smelled them and said they were fine. It is a shame what happened to David and Margaret. Having your home flooded with sewage water was a nightmare for them. I do think they should have notified the company as soon as they got back their belongings. It might have made a difference! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.

- Robert Frost

People's Court: 7-16-12

I Want To Live In Peace!

Today we meet Jane and John. They are neighbors in a 4 family townhouse. Jane and John share a common wall. They have also share a love-hate relationship. Their children have played together and they have exchanged gifts at Christmastime. Yet John complains about where Jane parks her car and when her yardwork is done. Jane consults her neighbors when she decides to relocate her trashcans. She says she is trying to keep the peace. John says she parks down the street when she should park in her own driveway. Also, John has issues when Jane's landscaper decides to spread pesticides during a barbeque. There were people and food outside and he thought it should be done at a different time. There is a tense moment in court when John finds the need to describe the landscaper as Mexican. Why does he think this is necessary? It does not endear him to anyone. This case is not about the petty squabbles these two have had through the years. It is about the siding that John decided to put on Jane's portion of the house. He had the exterior of his house renovated and extended it to include Jane's house. The additional siding makes his house look bigger than hers. She wants the siding removed and the stucco replaced on the first level and siding replaced on the second level. This is not an entirely reasonable request. According to an estimate Jane has provided, this job will cost $4000.00. The Judge says this is an overinflated estimate. The siding on the second level does not have to be replaced, it can be painted. The siding on the first level needs to be removed and the stucco replaced. The Judge rules that this should cost $1500.00. In the hallway, John says he still loves Jane and wants to get along. Jane tells us coming to court is not about the money. She wants to live in peace. I do hope they can work out their differences. Living so close to someone is a delicate situation. When you do not get along, it can create so much tension. Everyone should feel comfortable in their own home. 

It Is Time To Put On Your Big Girl Panties!

Jessica and her Aunt Genese are in court suing Chanelle. Chanelle is Jessica's friend. Jessica received a very large amount of money on her food stamp card. She offered the card to Chanelle, but did not specify how much she could use. When Chanelle returned the card with no money left on it, Aunt Genese was upset. Jessica did not care. Jessica does not seem to worry about anything. She is smiling and happy and does not want to sue Chanelle. Her aunt has no legal right to sue. Genese tells us that Chanelle promised to pay back part of the money. Chanelle admits this and then adds that Jessica told her she did not have to pay anything. So she decided not to give Genese any money. Genese is not happy about any of this. She wanted Jessica's food stamp money. It seems everyone wants the food stamp money except Jessica. The Judge tells Jessica it is time to put on her big girl panties. I do not think Jessica understands that the Judge is telling  her to grow up. She needs to take responsibility for what is going on around her. She has a two year old son and needs to be a good parent. The Judge tells Genese she has no right to sue and since Jessica is not pursuing a case against Chanelle, the case is dismissed. Also, Chanelle has a counterclaim against Genese for harassment. This is dismissed also.  Genese was not harassing Chanelle by asking for money that was promised. Aunt Genese did not know that Jessica told Chanelle not to give her any money.  In the hallway, Aunt Genese says Jessica will learn from this. I hope she does learn and realize that her actions have consequences. She needs to provide for herself and her son. Chanelle tells us that she does not have hard feelings towards Jessica. Why would she? Jessica did not even want to be here!

Tow The Car To My House!

Dwight was in a car accident and needed his vehicle towed. He wants everyone to believe the car was to be towed to his house. The tow/repair company towed the car to their yard. An insurance adjuster needed to  see the car. When they find out the insurance company is not going to cover the cost, they bill the owner for the tow and storage fees. Dwight claims he wanted the car back right way. Why does he wait a month to get the car? When he goes to get the car, the bill is over $1,000.00. By the second month, the bill is over $3000.00. The Judge tries to find out why Dwight waited so long. He keeps saying the same thing - I wanted the car towed to my house. Okay, we get it, unfortunately, the car was not brought to his house. Why did Dwight wait so long to get it back? There were delays by the insurance adjuster, there was snow during the winter. Are these reasons to wait a month and then call the police? There is never a clear answer about the timing. We are very clear that Dwight says he wanted the car towed to his house. He did not sign a release at the scene of the accident authorizing the car to go to the tow/repair company's yard. Although, it does make sense that a car that is totaled is not left in a private driveway. Dwight can not prove the repair company did anything wrong. He is responsible to pay the tow and storage bill. The good news for Dwight is that it is not the amount the tow company is asking for. He is found responsible to pay $580.00, not the $3000.00 plus that the tow company is asking for. He also is going to get his car back. I hope this is what he really wants! You know what they say, be careful what you ask for, you might get it! In the hallway, the manager of the repair company does not understand why they did not get paid for the entire time they had the vehicle. The Judge explained it in detail. Yet another person who is not listening in court. There are rules and the Judge is there to enforce them.

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

Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.

-Unknown source