People's Court Blog - 1 9 2013 - Wednesday

HAPPY NEW YEAR! 

I am glad to be back and sharing my thoughts about the cases on People's Court. Today the first case is about a woman trying to move into an apartment she was not renting.

Keturah sues Michael for $1734.54
This is a very interesting case. After Keturah signs a lease, the landlord, Michael, runs a background check. He should have run the background check before having Keturah sign the lease. Michael was not comfortable with the results of of the background check. He contacted Keturah to let her know he was not going to rent the apartment to her. She says she did not know, yet there are voicemail and text messages that say otherwise. Keturah maintains that Michael is a liar, while she changes her testimony from minute to minute. It does seem that Keturah was trying to move into the apartment even though she knew that Michael had changed his mind. Michael says he tried to return her deposit and she refused it. It is clear that Keturah did not show up for a meeting with Michael to discuss the background check. Even though she did not show up, she will get back her deposit because Michael did not do the background check right away. Keturah does not get the money back for the moving van, she should never tried to move in. Michael also has to pay for the stopped payment fee. Keturah claims she gave him checks for first and last month's rent. Michael denies receiving the checks, but there is a stop payment fee. Keturah also receives $100.00 for her time spent cleaning the apartment. She will receive $630.00, not the total amount she was suing for.
I give Michael much credit for being so organized. He kept the voicemail messages and the text messages. This evidence was crucial to the case. For as organized as he is, why did he have Keturah sign a lease before doing the background check and why wait to do it? Also, why is Michael renting an illegal apartment? What do you think?

Edwin and Helen sues Althea for $1120.00

Even though this case is not about irresponsible dogbreeding, I cannot ignore certain facts. The owner of the female dog refused medical attention for the dog. I do not think this woman should be breeding her dog. The case is about two people with pitbulls and they decided to breed them. They did not put anything in writing and neither side know what the terms are. Edwin and Helen thought they were getting 3 puppies for the stud fee. Althea says they were getting one puppy. When Althea's pitbull was giving birth, there were complications. Althea did not want to pay for the dog to have a c-section and not all of the puppies survived. After the puppies were old enough, Althea gave Edwin one puppy. He was so angry he posted Althea's picture and terrible comments about her. She was called in for a random drug test at work. She felt this was because of the comments Edwin posted and she is suing for $2000.00 for harassment. Althea did not lose her job and cannot prove that being accused of using drugs is automatic termination from her job. Because of this she does not win her countersuit. She does have to pay towards the vet bill and the sale price of 2 puppies. Althea has to pay Edwin and Helen $735.00.

People need to agree to terms and have the agreement in writing. Being friends is not a reason not to have a written agreement. Because the result is usually that people do not stay friends after going to court. Now, to discuss the dog breeding. If people are going to breed their dogs they need to be responsible about it. A dog in labor should not be refused medical attention because the owner does not want to spend the money. What do you think?

Ralph sues Pete for $2217.60

This case is very straighforward. Ralph bought a used car. When he was driving it home the check engine light went on. Since he lived really far from the dealership he called them and told them what happened. He was told to have it checked out and call them. Instead Ralph had the car repaired and spent over $2000.00. Now he expects the dealership to pay. He did not give them a chance to fix it themselves. Ralph claims they were so far away he could not be expected to take the car back to them. Ralph is the one who decided to buy the car. Ralph loses the case. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. What do you think?

2013 is going to be a wonderful year. Everyone needs to have positive thoughts about a great year. Making plans, having resolutions, setting challenges are all great ways to strive for positive change.

Good luck to all for this wonderful New Year!

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 - 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 - 8 30 2012 - Thurday

Who Is Telling The Truth?

Sheria is suing Clarence for $250.00. This is for the cost of a turn signal broken in her car. Sheria claims that Clarence broke it when he went to get her keys out of the ignition. How on earth could he have broken the turn signal? Sheria says when she asked Clarence how it happened, he put his head down and would not answer her. Clarence has a totally different story. Clarence says they were having sex in the front seat of Sheria's car and her leg hit the turn signal and it broke. Clarence describes their actions in graphic detail. Sheria said this did not happen. She has voicemail messages from Clarence that are supposed to prove her story. Sheria plays the messages and they do not help her case at all. If anything, they support Clarence's story. He professes his love for her over and over. Sheria has a receipt for $250.00 from her father, a mechanic. The receipt is from a store bought receipt book, it does not have a business name on it, it is not from the purchase of the turn signal. The Judge tells Sheria that this is something that anyone can make up. Sheria does not have any other proof for the replacement of the turn signal. At the very end of her testimony, Sheria admits that she had sex with Clarence in the back seat of her car. Too little, too late. Sheria's credibility is shot at this point. It is really important to tell the truth, no matter how embarassing it might be. Sheria cannot be believed. She loses her case. On the way out of the courtroom, Sheria continues to deny having sex in the front seat of her car. She really does protest too much! Clarence says he does not love her enough to pay for the turn signal. Why do people come to court over such trivial matters? Sheria had to know what Clarence would say. Why put yourself in this position on national television? What do you think?

 

Is This A Pitbull Witch Hunt?

Lunique is suing Joanne for $5000.00. This is to cover vet bills, medical bills and pain and suffering. Lunique explains how her and her family have been terrorized by Joanne's dogs. Joanne is her next door neighbor and has a Pitbull and a Rottweiller. Lunique has a Toy Poodle. On 7 occasions, Lunique has called the police because the two large dogs were running loose. On 3 of these occasions, the dogs were not there when the police arrived. On 4 occasions, the dogs were still out. Lunique describes when the dogs chased the police officer into her house. Also, one of the dogs bit a police officer. The Pitbull attacked Lunique's Toy Poodle. In her efforts to keep the Pitbull from killing her dog, Lunique was injured. Her dog was injured and she was injured. What else needs to happen before something is done? How are these dogs getting away with this? After this incident, Joanne was ordered to get rid of one of the dogs. Joanne admits this is true, and she chose to get rid of the Pitbull and keep the Rottweiller. Joannes gave the Pitbull to her daughter's boyfriend. Lunique says that he often visits with the Pitbull, so the dog is not really gone from the neighborhood. Lunique needs to pursue this. If Joanne is violating a court order, something needs to be done.

Joanne explains that this is a large dog friendly neighborhood. What does this mean? Does everyone let their large dogs run loose? Of course not! Joanne says that her dogs only get out when no one is home. Why are they outside when no one is home? It does not sound like the fence and gate keep the dogs in. Joanne says she would pay the vet bill, if it was given to her. She also explains that her insurance paid Lunique's medical bills. This is a very interesting turn of events. Lunique did not know a check for $1500.00 had been sent to her lawyer. The lawyer accepted this settlement check and put it into a trust account. Lunique found this out during a recess. I am sure she will have some choice words for her lawyer. Joanne does not seem concerned that her dogs continually got out of the yard. She did not seem concerned that the Pitbull  attacked Lunique's Toy Poodle or bit a police officer. What needs to happen to have Joanne care about the actions of her dogs? I do not know. I do know that Joanne is found responsible to pay the vet bill, $924.57. Hopefully, she will start to be more responsible for the sake of her neighbors! What do you think?

What Is Leaking?

Camille is suing Elizabeth for $180.00. This is for the damage caused by a water leak. Elizabeth lives in the apartment above Camille. One morning, Camille was awakened by the sound of water. She found water leaking from the ceiling onto her dresser. Camille went upstairs and knocked on the door. No one came to to the door. Camille got her dog and waited on the porch. In about one hour, Elizabeth came out. Camille confronted her and Elizabeth ignored her and walked away. Camille is convinced that the water leak is coming from Elizabeth's air conditioner. Elizabeth denies this and yet, shows pictures of her air conditioner with a bucket underneath it. Really! Where do you think the water goes? Camille shows a video of a water blister on the ceiling of her bedroom. She pokes it and the water comes streaming out! If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth a million! Brown water comes pouring from the ceiling, while we all watch in wonder! Good job, Camille! This is the best evidence. There is nothing more for Elizabeth to say. She tries and tries to deny the leak is from her air conditioner. Nothing doing! The water leaking through Camille's ceiling is from Elizabeth's air conditioner. Elizabeth is found responsible to pay Camille $180.00 for the damage to the ceiling. The next thing is for Elizabeth to change how the air conditioner is set up to prevent further damage. Good luck, Camille!

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

Truly great friends are hard to find, difficult to leave, and impossible to forget.

-Unknown Source



People's Court - 8 9 12 - Thursday

I Had To Punch The Dog In The Head Ten Times!

Joel is suing Nathan for $5000.00. Joel explains that he had his two cocker spaniels tied in his jeep. He was getting ready to go out with the dogs. After he secured them in his jeep, he walked away from his vehicle. Joel realized Nathan's gate was open. All of a sudden, Nathan's large black dog was running up to him and barking. At this time, Joel's two dogs started barking. The neighbor's dogs ran towards the cocker spaniels and attacked one of them. Joel said he was there in a split second, trying to save his dog. The large black dog had his cocker spaniel by the throat. In order to release the hold, Joel had to punch the dog in the head ten times. He seems genuinely upset that it came to this. But, he would have done anything to save his dog. The large black dog released its hold on the cocker spaniel and ran away. Joel took his dog to the veterinarian immediately. The dog needed emergency care and then follow-up visits. The total for the vet bills was $1323.59. Joel is also suing for the damage to his jeep. He shows pictures of scratches to the jeep. Nathan denies that this was from his dog. Nathan also says that the two cocker spaniels were not in the car. He claims they were at large. He has no evidence to back up this claim, since neither he nor his wife, saw what happened. Neither of them were home. They had guests in the house. They try to explain how the dog was sly and snuck out. Interesting, they admit leaving the gate open. The dog did not have to work very hard! What kind of dog do Nathan and his wife own? Nathan's wife very quickly answers, "pitbull". Nathan starts to name a different breed and then says pitbull mix. The Judge responds favorably that they admitted their dog was a pitbull. It seems many people do not because of the prejudice attached to the reputation of a pitbull. The Judge explains that she has no prejudice against pitbulls or their owners. Most pitbull owners feel their dogs are no different than any other dog. If this is true, then why do the majority of the dog attack cases involve pitbulls? Joel is also suing for pain and suffering. He claims that the injury to his hand, from punching the dog, loss of his voice, from screaming at the dog, and time spent nursing his dog, are reasons to receive additional money. Nathan and his wife are found responsible to pay for the vet bill and the car damage, not the pain and suffering. Nathan's wife said she was willing to pay half, except she did not understand the vet bill. Please, if she was going to pay anything at all, she would have done so already. The fact that Joel had to bring them to court, proves there was no intention to pay. Why do dog owners not want to be responsible for what happens? They left the gate open. It is their actions that caused their dog to be able to jump in the jeep and attack the cocker spaniel. We should be glad the cocker spaniel survived this attack. Some dogs are not so lucky! What do you think?

I Just Want My Deductible!

Teai is suing Princess and Antwane for $500.00. This is the amount of the insurance deductible Teai had to pay to get her car repaired. Princess is Antwane's mother. Antwane is the 9 year old riding his bike that day. Somehow Antwane and his bike collided with Teai's car. I say somehow because none of the stories told in court are the same. It is apparent when Antwane tells what occurred on that day, he was coached. This is truly a shame, since accidents happen and we should all be thankful that he did not get seriously injured. Teai explains that when she was driving she felt something and stopped her car. She said the child hit the side of her car, knocking the mirror and denting the side. She immediately took the child home, spoke to the mother, and took them both to the hospital. Her main concern was to make sure Antwane was okay. I give Teai credit for being so  caring  and responsible for Antwane's welfare. Thank goodness, he was fine. The Judge asks Antwane to tell what happened. He says he was on the sidewalk, the car was wiggling and the car hit him. It sounds like Teai was driving on the sidewalk! Princess says Teai backed up  and hit her son. Teai shows pictures of the damages to her car and they match the information on the police report. It is so interesting when everyone tells different stories. It is also a shame that a parent does not encourage their child to tell the truth. It is an important life lesson. Princess also says that Teai is looking to pay for damages that already existed, she insists the side mirror was covered in tape. The Judge explains to Princess that Teai is suing for the deductible, the repairs have been paid for by the insurance company. There is also a counterclaim of $500.00. Princess claims that her son is traumatized and will not go near a bicycle. I think this would be worth more than $500.00. The counterclaim is dismissed. The Judge finds the accident was the child's fault. Teai will receive her $500.00 deductible. The lesson here is that accidents happen. Most importantly, Antwane did not get seriously hurt. I hope he can overcome his fear of bicycles and continue enjoying his childhood!

You Are A Criminal And Apparently So Am I!

Joseph is suing Diane for $3000.00. He wants back his rent money for one month and the rest for pain and suffering. What did Diane do? She rented a room in her mobile home to Joseph without a lease and without a background check. She claims he was not supposed to move in until the 10th of the month, but when he showed up on the 2nd, she let him move in. Diane had accepted a check from Joseph for $550.00 without providing a lease. She explained that she also did not have time to do a background check. When she did check his background she found that he had a criminal matter in his past. Diane said this frightened her and she asked him to leave. She also explains that he ate all of her food, including her spaghetti. Joseph tells a different story. He said Diane liked him right away as a tenant, he paid the rent money and moved in. Joseph explains that Diane provided him with an air mattress and he thought everything was going okay. On the 4th day, Diane's boyfriend threw him out, saying he was too noisy. Either way, Diane does not have a right to keep the rent money. She says she is keeping the money because of damages Joseph caused. Can someone really do $550.00 worth of damage in 4 days? If so, Diane would have to prove it and she has no proof. The Judge tells Diane that she is a cheat, a fraud and that she is stealing Joseph's money. Diane has to return the rent money. She does not have to pay the additional $2450 in pain and suffering. Joseph is not completely happy to get back the rent money, he feels he should have gotten more because of his age and the stress he went through. Life does not work this way! What do you think?

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

Wise sayings often fall on barren ground, but a kind word is never thrown away.

-fortune cookie