People's Court Blog * 12-10-12 * MONDAY Case 1 of 2

Hi Everyone. I am back. Thank you for being patient. My family was affected by Hurricane Sandy but not to the extent of many others. We had house damage, property damage and we were without power and water for over a week. This is minor compared to the loss many others experienced. We all need to continue to have compassion for those that lost so much in this terrible storm.

People's Court is still airing repeat episodes. Because of this I am going to catch up on past shows.

The episode that I am posting today is from 10-29-12 when Hurricane Sandy hit us. I was in the process of writing when we lost the power. I am going to review the episodes individually. Today's review is the first case from 10-29-12. Here it is:

This Was Not A Harmless Prank!

Lucinda is suing Leigh and her son Marcus for $852.00. This is for medical bills she has because of what Marcus describes as a harmless prank. What did the 15 year old Marcus do? Well, he was frustrated with the way Lucinda bossed him around at work so he stole her wallet and threw it in the dumpster. Why does Lucinda have medical bills? Lucinda had a panic attack when she realized her wallet was missing. Did Marcus confess right away? No, he waited until he went to the police station and then confessed. His mother is in court and is defending his actions, saying he did the right thing. I understand she is his mother, but Marcus needs to take responsibility for his actions. In court, he does admit he stole money from the wallet. He was not arrested yet, he has to do community service; washing and waxing police cars. His mother is also making him wait until he turns 17 to get his driver's permit. Since he did not confess right away to what he had done he created the situation where Lucinda had a panic attack. The Judge finds him responsible to pay the medical bills. His mother is taken off the lawsuit since she is not responsible for her son's actions. Lucinda tells Marcus that she is not mad at him and hopes there are no hard feelings. In the hallway they all hug and it brings tears to my eyes! Marcus seems to have learned his lesson and hopefully in the future will find a better way to deal with his anger and frustration.

Why do people find it so easy to treat each other with disregard? I know Marcus is young,but he should still have a moral center and should know better. I think it is important to teach our children to have respect for others. The mom should be setting a much better example for her son. What do you think?

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Thank you for joining me! 

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

A Word To Learn:
Tutelary - of or relating to a guardian

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 - 9 21 2012 - Friday

James And The Twin Sister

This is one of the saddest cases I have seen. James is suing Elizabeth for $4650.00. James is dating  Veronica, Elizabeth's twin sister. The two girls had a major fight and Veronica moved out over a year ago. The sisters have not talked to each other in all this time. One evening James, Elizabeth, Veronica, and the girls' father all met up in the parking lot where Veronica worked. There was an argument and physical fighting. The father says he tried to break it up. Everyone's stories are different from each other. Something happened that night and James claims that Elizabeth broke his cell phone, ripped his shirt and caused him physical injury. He has also added pain and suffering to his damages. 

The truly sad thing here is that James should be trying to help Veronica make up with her sister. Instead he seems to be fueling the fire. These two girls are so upset, they both find it hard to talk. in court. This is such an emotional case, even the Judge has to hold back tears. James is not helping matters at all by bringing this case to court. What a shame he is not supportive of his girlfriend. Hopefully Veronica realizes this and stands up to him. She needs to have the support to work things out with her sister. Elizabeth describes James as rude, controlling and arrogant. He certainly seems this way when he demanded the dad pay him $900.00 for damages from that night or he would sue. And then when he does sue, the amount increases to over $4000.00. This is not someone trying to help his girlfriend repair the relationship with her twin sister.

Since James has no evidence for anything he is suing for, the Judge rules in favor of Elizabeth. This family needs time and support to be able to work things out. I hope they can get the help they need. Good luck Veronica and Elizabeth. I hope you can be close again!

Kim And The Custody Battle

Kim is suing David for $3000.00. This is for expenses and emotional distress when her son did not come home after a month long visit with his father. Kim and David have a 12 year old son together. Two days before young David was to come home, his dad called and told Kim he was not returning. Kim went to family court and received a court order for the return of her son. She drove from Alabama to Michigan to pick up her son. When she got there, she went to the school and was denied the return of her son. The principal of the school and the police supported this position. Kim drove home without her son. Then Kim filed in court for full custody. Since David did not show up for the hearing, she won. David was given supervised visitation. This is probably a difficult thing to do since they live so far away from each other. David should have showed up for the hearing. He claims he could not afford it, actually he couldn't afford not to go. The custody arrangement might have worked out much differently if he would have showed up. Also, it would have showed his son that he was fighting for him.

Kim has no grounds to sue David for her expenses in trying to retrieve her son. They did not have a custody agreement before this incident occurred. Kim does not get money from David for travel expenses and does not get any money for emotional distress. She has caused this situation by not having a legal custody agreement with her son's father. David had no legal obligation to return young David to his mother. Looking back, he probably would have done things differently. The only person getting hurt in this situation is young David. It is so unfair to a 12 year old to be fought over by his parents in this way. It seems that Kim does not let father and son talk. In court, the Judge asked for young David's cell phone number and gave it to David. David is so happy now that he will be able to call his son. It is important for a father and son to be able to have a relationship. Distance makes this difficult to begin with, but the mother should not stand in the way! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

I no doubt deserved my enemies, but I don't believe I deserved my friends.

~Walt Whitman

People's Court - 8 10 2012 - Friday

I Want My Money Back Now!

Diane and Constance were good friends. Once again, money gets in the way of a friendship. When are we going to learn that friendship and money do not mix? Diane is suing Constance for $390.00. Diane tries to explain how she came up with $390.00. There is money lent for a plane ticket, there was money given to return to a family member. It is somewhat convoluted how much money was lent and how much money was returned. No one has written anything down, no one has kept track of the money. Diane would lend her friend money and a portion of the money would be returned. Then she would lend her more money. Constance says they were such good friends they would lend each other money all the time. What went wrong? Diane wanted her money back and did not want to wait. Diane left several voicemail messages for Constance. They were not very nice messages. Since they were in a different language, the Judge gets help from someone in the gallery. The Judge swears in a fifteen year old, after he agrees to translate the voicemail messages. He explains that there is cursing and demands of the return of money. What is not included is the amount of money that is owed. Constance says she accidentally erased the message that mentioned the amount of the loan. This is very convenient. Constance said she returned $90.00. She said she gave a check to a friend to give to Diane. It is funny, Constance has not mentioned this in her written response to the complaint. Constance has not made any other attempt to pay the money back. Neither woman is very credible in their testimony. Considering how much money Diane said has been returned to her, the Judge awards her $270, not the $390.00, she is asking for. I am constantly amazed how people allow their friendships to be destroyed over money. Friends should not lend each other money. When money is involved, people seem to forget the value of their friendship. They also find it very easy to be cruel to each other.  It really is a shame that this friendship is over due to money. What do you think?

The Roof  Is Leaking- I Want My Money Back!

Tynesa is suing Donna for $200.00. Tynesa wanted to rent a house from Donna. They agreed to meet at the house on Friday. They met at the house and did a walkthrough. Tynesa signed a lease and gave Donna the money for the deposit to hold the house. This actually was a partial deposit. Tynesa was supposed to give the rest of the deposit in a few days. After Tynesa signed the lease, she changed her mind about the rental. Tynesa says it is because she saw the roof was leaking and the floors were unclean. Donna told Tynesa she would fix everything before she moved in. Tynesa says that Donna told her she would only fix what was required by HUD. This was a government subsidized rental. Tynesa's son has asthma and she did not want him to be exposed to mold. It is interesting she did not see any of these problems before she signed the lease. Tynesa asked Donna for the deposit back. When she refused to return it to her, Tynesa called the police. Tynesa said this all happened on Friday. Donna says this is not how it happened. They met on Friday and then again on Monday. She said Tynesa had called her on Monday to say she changed her mind and wanted her deposit back. Donna explained it was a nonrefundable deposit. She had a signed lease and was not going to return the money. Also, on Monday, Donna received a call from someone who wanted to rent the house. She went to the house and Tynesa was there with a man. Donna says they both demanded Tynesa's money back and were yelling at her. Donna called the police. Tynesa denies this. The Judge gives her a chance to change her testimony. She is adamant that she was there on Friday and not on Monday. The Judge calls a recess to contact the  police department. The Judge returns and now we find out that Tynesa lied. The police were called to the house on Monday. Donna does not have to give back the deposit. Why would Tynesa lie? Did she think it would really help her get her deposit money back? What do you think?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Sylvia is suing Tanya for $800.00. This is for a shed that was damaged during Hurricane Irene. A tree limb from one of Tanya's trees fell on the roof of the shed. When Sylvia saw the damage, she had her landscaper speak with Tanya. The landscaper was going to charge $75.00 or $80.00 (depends on who is telling the story) to remove it. Tanya said this was too expensive. The landscaper offered to take it off the shed and throw it in Tanya's yard for $20.00. Tanya declined this offer also. Sylvia and her son went over to talk to Tanya at a different time. Tanya said she would deal with it on Saturday. When it was not done on Saturday, Sylvia called her. Tanya said she would deal with it on Wednesday. It was not done by Wednesday, and it is still not done. Tanya explains that she called a tree removal service and they were backlogged because of the storm. There was some laughter on the courtroom, when the Judge thought she was saying a tree boo boo company. This really was cute. Tanya said she is still waiting for them to show up. Sylvia did not want to wait and filed this lawsuit. The kicker is that legally Tanya is not responsible to remove the limb from the shed. The tree was not dead, dying or diseased. The limb broke off the tree during the Hurricane and it is considered an act of God. Sylvia wants a new shed, although Tanya says that Sylvia said she did not care about the shed. Sylvia denies saying this. She wants Tanya to replace her shed. This is not going to happen because the Judge rules in favor of Tanya. It is unfortunate that Sylvia was not more patient. If she was, Tanya would have had the tree limb removed from the shed. In the hallway, Tanya says she is still going to have  the tree limb removed from the shed. Do you think she is really going to do this?

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

You are young at any age if you are planning for tomorrow.

-Unknown

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

People's Court: 7-20-12

We Are Here Over $9.00!

Susan took her Dad's car to Rohon's auto repair shop. She needed tires and was having problems with the fan belt. Rohon operates out of a storefront in Brooklyn. He does not have a yard, his customers have to park on the street. The alternate side of the street parking rules are in effect in this area.There is much talk about double parking, and it being tolerated. Double parking is not legal, it is essential leaving your car in the middle of the street. Susan drops off the car before work, goes into the shop and tells Rohon where the car is parked. She is planning to pick the car up the next day. Unfortunately, her car was not moved in a timely manner and she received a ticket and was towed. She wants Rohon to be responsible for these costs. The funny thing is, he is willing to take care of her repairs for free. This would appear to be a sense of responsibility on his part for the ticket and the tow. The tow ticket shows that the car was still on the street two hours after Susan dropped it off. Rohon should have moved it soon after she left it and none of this would have happened. Offering to do the repairs for free seems to be a reasonable offer. What goes wrong? He asks Susan to pay a $9.00 environmental fee. She refuses and sues him for the cost of the ticket and the tow. Why doesn't she accept his offer? She said he was rude to her and the offer was not enough. Also,her car was never fixed! Why do people get caught up in these situations? For a person like Susan who appears to be very busy, why take the time to come to court? It is always about the principle. It is never about the money. For $9.00, this would have been over, she would have remained a customer and would not have to look for a new mechanic. Rohon is not upset about losing a customer, he feels it is her loss, she is losing a great mechanic. As far as the outcome of the case, they are found equally responsible and split a $300.00 verdict. Susan should have accepted Rohon's initial offer and saved everyone major headaches!

You Killed My Trees!

Edward is suing Thomas for the removal and replacement of 5 trees. Edward is convinced the snow that was pushed against the trees killed them. Thomas admits when he plowed snow at the neighbor's house, he pushed the snow onto Edward's property during one year. Several years went by and Edward says that Thomas is responsible to remove and replace the trees. He has brought evidence. He has some pictures of trees with broken branches.  He has also brought an estimate to have the trees removed and replaced. He does not have a letter from an expert explaining the condition of the trees. Thomas is counterclaiming for the cost of research and preparation for court.  It is true there has been a lot of snow this past winter. Thomas says that after he was asked to stop plowing the snow toward's Edward's property, he stopped. He was not responsible for the snow accumulating against the trees. Can snow build-up next to trees damage and kill them? Wouldn't there be many more dead trees after a bad winter? Edward does not have enough evidence to prove his case. The pictures do not show who is responsible for the damage to the branches. Broken branches do not cause trees to die. If a snowplow hit the tree, that would be a different story. That did not happen. Why would Edward waste everyone's time and resources when he does not have any proof? Why didn't he videotape the damage being done? Why didn't he call the police? This is always the best way to document an injustice. Edward cannot prove his case, he does not win. Thomas has a video of the trees on Edward's property. He identifies the type of trees and show some damage they have sustained. He says this damage could have happened in any storm. He cannot prove his counterclaim. Both men lose their cases. Hopefully. both men have learned something, so it is not a total waste of time. It is really important to have documentation when you want to prove something.

We Have A Leak - Please Fix It!

Daryl is suing Julio and Tom for back rent and utility bills. They rented a laundromat from her. They were already renting another store in the same strip mall. They saw an opportunity for another business. I give them credit for wanting to have another business. Unfortunately, they did not do their homework. The laundromat was not a booming business. They also had problems with a leaking roof. They claimed they called Daryl to let her know and she did not look into the problem. Daryl said she went to the store and the doors were locked. When she contacted Julio and Tom, they said they shut down. In February, the leak was worse and now there was snow and ice built up on the roof. When she finally has a contractor evaluate the problem, the condition of the leak had gotten really bad. The laundromat has been closed for business, so the landlord did not feel an sense of urgency to repair it. The two men had signed a 6 month lease, so they need to abide by the terms of the contract. They do have to pay the utilities and the majority of the rent. The Judge reduces the amount of the rent because of the condition caused by the leak. They are responsible to pay the landlord $2000.00 for the utilities and a portion of the rent. What could Julio and Tom done differently? They could have documented contact with landlord regarding the leak. What could the landlord have done differently? She could have treated Julio and Tom with more respect. Especially since they were already tenants and she had a working relationship with them. People need to treat each other better and communicate when they have problems.

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

 A life without dreams is like a garden without flowers.

-Unknown