People's Court Blog - 9 28 2012 - Friday

Frank And The Water Leak

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

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

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

Delphena And Road Rage 

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

Jamal And The Security Deposit

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

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

~Albert Einstein

People's Court Blog - 9 4 2012 - Tuesday

Evita And The Car

Evita is suing Fantasha for $2892.00. This is for several loans, lost wages and the cost to come to court. Evita and Fantasha met through a mutual friend on Facebook. After 2 months Fantasha was staying at Evita's home. Evita helped Fantasha in her search for a used car. Evita is a car mechanic and could check the cars for Fantasha. Another friend of Fantasha's was going to give her money to help her buy a car. When she found the car she wanted with Evita's approval, she did not have the money to buy it. Evita lent her the money, thinking she would get paid back very soon. The car was put in Fantasha's name but left at Evita's home. Fantasha's other friend never gave her the money and she was not able to pay Evita back. Since the car was at Evita's home, she refused to give it to Fantasha until she got her money back. When Fantasha decided she wanted the car, she called the police. Fantasha did not have insurance on the car, so she was  not able to drive it away. She did not want to tow it so she left it at Evita's home. Evita was angry at Fantasha, so she called the police the next day and they towed the car. 

Now the car was impounded and someone needed to pay to get it out. The story is complicated enough and now it gets worse! Evita pays to get the car out of the impound and has Fantasha sign a promissory note for the $500.00. It seems very mean-spirited for Evita to have done this. I understand her frustration at the situation, but this was not the right thing to do. So now Fantasha has the car, Evita is out the car loan plus the costs associated with the impound. What is Evita entitled to? The Judge finds that Evita should get back the car loan, but not the impound costs. She brought that on herself. The two young women are no longer in a relationship and both have so much to learn. Fantasha needs to realize that she cannot expect others to pay her way. Evita should not lend people money unless she knows them better and gets it in writing! What do you think?

Merline And The Fish Tank

Merline is suing Stafford for $2448.60. This is the cost of her furniture damaged by a water leak caused by Stafford's fish tank. Stafford is Merline's upstairs neighbor. He admits that his 90 gallon fish tank sprung a leak. He had to replace it to save his fish. When Merline knocked on his door and said there was water in her apartment, he ignored her. She had to go back several times before he came to her apartment to see the damage. Why did he make her wait so long? Stafford claims he was in his underwear and had to get dressed. It took him a very long time to put his pants on! Stafford does not deny the water from his fish tank caused the damage. Why does Merline have to sue him to get paid? This question is never answered. The facts speak for themselves. The fish tank had a leak, the water damaged Merline's furniture, Stafford is responsible to pay. 

Now the question is how much does he have to pay? The Judge explains that Merline is not entitled to replacement cost. Even though she had to buy a new couch and new items, the original items had a depreciated value. That is what Merline would get. The Judge estimates the depreciated value of the replaced items and Merline's troubles to be $1132.00. Merline is not happy about the entire situation, especially since Stafford still has a huge fish tank above her. She is planning to move to a new apartment. This is a real shame. Merline feels this situation could happen again and does not want to take the chance. I do not understand why Stafford had to make it so difficult for Merline to get her money. It is true that she got less than she was asking for. I believe if Stafford was cooperative they could have worked it out. I hope Merline finds a new home with good neighbors! What do you think?

Mary And The Adoption Fee

Mary is suing Leslee for $180.00. This is the cost of the adoption fee for two kittens. Both ladies do cat rescue. This is very commendable. Mary rescued two kittens and was trying to find a home for them. Mary paid for vet visits, food and litter. Mary's friend, Ellen, was taking care of the kitttens. They were actively trying to get homes for the kittens. They were distributing flyers with the kittens pictures and information. The adoption fee was set for $75.00 each. They were asking everyone they knew. Someone at the vet's office recommended Leslee. She has an animal rescue group called Here Kitty Kitty. Leslee works with a local Petco to show cats and kittens for adoption. Leslee helped Mary to find someone to adopt the kittens. The adoption fee was $180.00. Since Mary paid for all of the expenses for the kittens, she told Leslee she wanted the adoption fee. Leslee agreed to give it to her, but told her she would have to wait for the money. It seems Purina has a program to help seniors with pet adoptions. Purina was paying the $180.00 adoption fee and Mary would have to wait for the check. When Mary did not hear from Leslee, she tried to contact her. Mary went to Petco and confronted Leslee. When she asked for the money, Leslee told her she had to use it on vet emergencies and if she wanted it she could sue her. And here we are. 

It is a shame that these two women could not work this out. They both care about cats and are doing their best to save them. Mary did lay out the money to care for the kittens and should be able to cover some her costs with the adoption fee. Mary needed to discuss this with Leslee right in the beginning. It does seem that the animal rescue people find it difficult to discuss money. Their passion is for the animals and not the money. But there are costs involved and no one can afford to continually pay for the rescue of all of these animals without help. Since these two women did not agree on the terms, the Judge makes the decision for them to split the adoption fee. Both women do excellent work rescuing cats and kittens. I wish them both the best in their future endeavors of cat rescue! 

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

You cannot find peace by avoiding life.

-Virginia Woolf