People's Court - 8 8 2012 - Wednesday

My Dog Is Not A Pitbull!

Benjamin is suing Sharon for $264.30. This is amount it cost at the vet, when Sharon's dog attacked his dog. Benjamin has an Italian Greyhound mix and Sharon has a chocolate lab mix. What is her dog mixed with? She says boxer, Benjamin says pitbull. Why do people who own pitbulls or pitbull mixes call them by another name? I don't know, do you? Both Benjamin and Sharon are members of a private dog park. Sharon actually has a counterclaim for 2 years of membership fees. Benjamin explains that Sharon's dog, Liberty, had  contact with his dog, Mister, 2 weeks before the incident in question. Benjamin describes the incident as minor even though Mister was scratched. Benjamin says this was a typical dog park incident and did not report it. This incident was much more serious. Liberty ran after Mister and bit him on the back leg. Benjamin says that Sharon did not even ask how the dog was and did not volunteer her information. Mister needed ten stitches. Benjamin works at the animal hospital and was fortunate to get a discount. Benjamin contacted Sharon and wanted her to pay the bill. She did offer to pay half, Benjamin refused this offer because he wanted the whole amount. He should have taken the offer, because he does not win his case. The Judge explains that there is an assumption of risk in the dog park. Neither owner did anything wrong. The dogs were both off leash, this is not an issue. The dogs were in the correct area, so this is not an issue. The dogs were acting like dogs. The previous minor incident does not factor in, since Benjamin did not report it and he even describes it as a typical dog park incident. Sharon would have needed to have been on notice that her dog was aggressive, to be held responsible for the bill. I understand the legal ruling. What I can not understand is Sharon's attitude. She said that the larger dogs run after the little dogs and grab their back legs to slow them down. This is ludicrous. This is not normal dog behavior. If that is what her dog does, it is a good thing she is banned from the dog park. Benjamin spoke with the owner of the dog park and Sharon was dropped as a member. This is the reason she wants to be compensated for 2 years of membership fees. This does not make any sense, she she has been taking her dog to the park all of that time. She tells the Judge she does not want to pursue the counterclaim and it is dismissed. Dog parks are a nice idea when everyone watches their dogs. After all, dogs will be dogs! What do you think?

I Did Not Break The Windows!

Nicole and Ryan are suing to get their security deposit back. They rented a garage apartment for about a year. When the cable did not work, they called their landlord. After no response, they contacted the cable company. When the cable serviceman came to the apartment, he informed them it was an illegal apartment and removed the cable wire. Nicole and Ryan contacted Tracy, their landlord and gave notice to move out. Tracy and her son, Chris, did the walkthrough with them. At first, Tracy tells Ryan he would be responsible for fixing the windows. They do not open or close because the handle is broken. Ryan says the handle broke off through normal wear. The arm that guides the window to open and close is detached from the track. Because of this the windows do not open and close. Tracy says this is because Ryan climbed through the windows when he constantly locked himself out. Ryan admits to locking himself out, but denies climbing through the window. Tracy had the spare key and he would ask her for it when he locked himself out. Maybe he should have brought his house key with him when he went outside to smoke! It does seem believable to the Judge that Ryan could have climbed through the window. The rest of the security deposit was withheld for the cable. When Tracy told Ryan, he would have to pay $600.00, to have the apartment rewired, he admits to getting angry. Chris did not like the way Ryan spoke to his mother and a fistfight occurred. Ryan admits that he cursed at Tracy and admits hitting Chris. The police were called and there is a police report. No one is denying the fistfight. It is very sad when situations escalate to violence and involving the police. Ryan still believes he should be able to get back the entire security deposit of $1150.00. He is not responsible to rewire the cable and he continues to deny breaking the windows. Tracy's account of the window damage is more believable than Ryan's constant denial. He will have  to pay the $488.81 to have the windows fixed, but does get back the $661.19 balance of the security deposit. Ryan does not have to pay to have the cable rewired. It was not his fault that the cable was removed, it should not have been there in the first place. In the hallway, the landlord says she is happy Ryan is getting back some of the money. Ryan feels it is still not fair, he continues denying the damage to the window. I think it is terrible that a fistfight broke out during the walkthrough. People need to maintain respect for each other. Ryan should have walked away from the situation when he realized they could not come to terms. He was able to get back part of the security deposit and hopefully he will have learned that physical violence does not solve anything. What do you think?

I Bought A Lemon!

David bought a used car from John. David did not test drive the car, he did not take the car to a mechanic. When you are interested in buying a car, used or new, it is important to test drive it. When it is a used car, it is essential to have a mechanic look at it. David says now, he did so much wrong , but this car is a lemon. After David bought the car, he noticed problems with it right away. The next day, the car would not start. David called John and was told he was on his own for having it towed. David's mechanic said the car needed a distributor, John provided a distributor for David's mechanic to install. With that done, the car still did not work. John told David if the car was towed to his mechanic, he would look at it. The car was fixed and ready to be picked up within 2-3 weeks. After David got the car back, he was still not happy with it. He is suing for the purchase price, the towing costs and the cost of repairs. John explains that the car was sold as-is. David signed a release of liability. David claims he forgot about the paperwork he signed. John was under no obligation to help him after the sale. John says he spent over $600.00 when David brought the car back to his mechanic, because he did not want continued grief from this man. David continually texted and called John, and John just wanted him to go away. John even called the police because of David's continued harassment. The sale of the used car was as-is, there was no warranty given and David did sign a release of liability. David does not win this case. I give John so much credit for trying to help even when he did not have to. Unfortunately, it backfired on him. John needs to remember, an as-is sale is final! What do you think?

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

Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.

-Mark Twain

People's Court - 8 7 2012 - Tuesday

My Cat Almost Died!

Jill is suing Juan for $5000.00. Juan owns a pest control company. Jill received a lovely gift from one of her cats. He left a mouse on her pillow. Jill called Juan to take care of the problem. She had a contract with his company for termite control. Jill said she told Juan what the problem was and left the doors unlocked for him. About one month later, one of her two cats started to act lethargic. Jill's daughter took the cat to the vet. She brought him home with instructions to give him the prescribed medicine. The next day, the cat was worse. Jill rushed him to critical care. He was being poisoned by a rodenticide, a poison used to kill the mice. Jill found bags of poison in the basement. These bags have instructions on them to keep out of reach of children or animals. Juan claims these bags were used years before when the basement was separated by a wall. He used a different type of pest control for this occurrence, because he did not want the cats to have access to the poison. Juan says he used bait boxes in the basement. He claims the cat got sick from eating a mouse that ate the poison. So either type of approach would have caused the cat to get sick. Jill did not mention finding bait boxes in the basement. It is very clear from the cat food and the litter boxes, the cats spent a lot of time in the basement. The Judge finds that Jill can not prove her case. There is no proof of when the bags of poison were put in the basement. There is no proof of how the cat ingested the poison. For these reasons, Juan is not responsible to pay the vet bills. The good news - the cat survived and is enjoying life. In the hallway, Jill said she is happy that her cat is fine. Juan said he would have done it differently if he knew there were cats in the house. Wait a minute...Juan knew there were cats in the house. Jill told him her cat brought her the mouse, also the cat food and litter box were in the basement. What would he have done differently? Maybe he wouldn't have used poison at all. There are other ways to remove mice from a home without using poison. Hopefully, Juan will approach his job with a more humane approach towards the animal residents of a house. What do you think?

I Want My Guccis!

Samuel has been going to Ed's optical shop for many years. This most recent visit was not a happy one. Samuel had his eye exam and had his lenses upgraded. At this same visit, Samuel asked Ed to adjust his sunglasses. When Ed worked on the adjustment, he broke the temple (arm) of the Gucci sunglasses. Ed tried to locate a replacement arm, but could not. The frames were six years old. Samuel wanted replacement frames. He says that Ed has many Gucci frames in the store. Ed did replace the frames with a comparable frame. The frames were not the Gucci brand, just comparable in shape and color. Ed explains there are signs in the store explaining the store is not responsible when customers provide their own frames. He says that Samuel routinely brings his own frames. Samuel returned to the store two weeks later, and demanded replacement Gucci frames. The manager spoke to him in the back room since Samuel was being very disruptive. He was offered a solution and left the store, only to file a lawsuit. Samuel says there is a gap between the lense and the frame where light comes through. The Judge agrees with him after examining the sunglasses. The solution to this problem is that Ed is found responsible to pay the depreciated value of the six year old Gucci sunglasses. This amounts to $255.00. Samuel is suing for $5000.00. The rest of the money is for pain and suffering. Samuel is not able to prove that he had pain or that he suffered by not being able to wear Gucci sunglasses. In the hallway, he says that if he had walked into a train because he could not see, there would have been pain and suffering. He also says that he likes Ed's store and he will definitely go back. Oh lucky day for Ed! 

Never Lie To the Judge!

James, a photographer. is suing Jim, for copyright infringement. James has a verbal agreement with the owner of a nightclub. One night a week he took pictures for the nightclub's Facebook page. He was paid $50.00 for the one night a week. The nightclub is out of business. James does not have any proof from the owner about the agreement they had. Jim has a website that promotes local businesses. The nightclub is listed as an out of business venue. Pictures from the nightclub are still available on this site. James believes Jim is selling the pictures and is making money from his work. Jim explains that a third party actually sells the pictures. Jim also says that he made $38.00 in commissions from the sale of the pictures. None of the pictures that were purchased were James's pictures from the now closed nightclub. Now, it is time for James to show proof of his copyright. He hands the Judge a paper when she asks if he has a copyright on the pictures. He says yes, but he does not have a copyright. Why did he lie in court? He says his attorney says he does not need a copyright in order to sue. Yet, he is suing based on copyright infringement. It is a shame that James received such bad advice. Yet, it was his choice to lie to the Judge. It is always better to be honest. Remember - honesty is the best policy. James does not prove his case, he does not get $5000.00. In the hallway, James says he will now get the copyright and sue again. Jim says that James is suing him personally and should have sued the company. Hopefully, James will not sue Jim again. It is time to move on. What do you think?

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

Sometimes all you can do is walk away, hide your tears, and pretend you're okay.

-Unknown

People's Court - 8 6 2012 - Monday

Put This In Your Pipe And Smoke It!

Douglas is suing David's business for $2314.00. Douglas had 4 grow tents for medical marijuana. Before he could use them, he changed his mind and went into another business. He took the 4 brand new grow tents to David's consignment shop. David sells indoor and outdoor horticultural equipment. Douglas does not have a consignment agreement. For some reason, he never signed one or received one. Douglas does have a claim check to prove he dropped off the 4 tents at David's store at the end of March. In September, Douglas received a call from the manager asking if he would sell 2 of the grow tents  for $2000.00. Douglas agreed. Two days later, Douglas was informed the store had been burglarized and the money was missing. This really should not affect Douglas. The store sold the grow tents, had the money and should pay Douglas. This does not happen. David says the claim check absolves him from his responsibility. The claim check states they are not responsible for lost or missing items. Okay, that is true, except the items were not lost or missing. They were sold and the money was stolen. There is a police report that does not even reference the money. David claims he did not know until 2 days later that the money was missing. How can you overlook a theft of $2000.00? Very, very suspicious. When he realizes the money is missing, he does not call the police to amend the report. Because the theft of the money is not recorded on the police report, David can not submit a claim to his insurance. David's defense is so convoluted, the Judge exclaims to him - put this in your pipe and smoke it - as she rules in favor of Douglas. In the hallway, David claims he did not get a chance to present his case. Douglas is very happy with the outcome. He does not believe David is involved in the theft, he thinks they both know who is responsible. Everyone will be happy to know, that Douglas picked up the remaining 2 grow tents from David's store. These types of cases are very interesting to me. It would seem straight forward that David would have to pay Douglas. Why he would think saying the money was stolen is beyond me. His own paperwork supports the fact that he is responsible to pay Douglas for the sold items. What do you think?

We Are Moving Out - The Mold In The House Is Making Us Sick!

Suzanne and Frank were renting a house from Karin and Mark. They had rented the house since 2005. Frank describes the relationship in favorable terms. Everyone got along. In 2008, Suzanne and Frank started to get sick on a regular basis. Their neighbor, Chris, was an environmental consultant. He brought them a mold kit and then sent it in to a laboratory for analysis. Unfortunately, Suzanne and Frank did not receive the results. Based on a visual inspection prior to sending the mold kit to the lab, Chris told Suzanne and Frank there was mold in the house. They felt this explained their illnesses and decided to move out of the house. Suzanne and Frank claim they gave proper notice. Karin and Mark say they did not get proper notice. Their tenants moved out without paying a full month's rent and also left unpaid water bills. The security deposit is being used to cover these expenses. Suzanne and Frank believe they should get back their security deposit and be paid for heating oil that was left in the oil tank. Frank wrote two notes to their landlords about this. Unfortunately, he quotes different amounts of oil at different prices. His reason for this is that he misread the oil chart. I can understand the amount of oil, but the price of the oil? He knows how much he paid for it. This does not make any sense to me. Regarding the water bills, Suzanne and Frank claim they never paid the water bill during the time they lived in the house. Karin explains that the water bill was in her mother's name and then stumbles over her words as she tries to explain the agreement. She does not have any proof to show the tenants paid the water bill. The Judge awards half of the security deposit to Suzanne and Frank. They also get some money for the heating oil left in the oil tank. Since Karin and Mark have no proof about the water bill, Suzanne and Frank do not have to pay for it. They are able to get back $965.00 of the $1500.00 security deposit. The important lesson in this case, is to document everything you do. Keep important paperwork, correspond by letter or e-mail. Maintaining a paper trail is very essential when you are trying to prove your case! What do you think about this situation?

I Need Evidence For Court?

Barbara is suing James for $1312.89. This is the cost to fix her car after a car accident. Barbara said that James was entering the highway from a ramp and hit the back of her car. After they pulled over and made sure everyone was okay, James told her someone hit him from behind. The impact of the truck hitting him, pushed his car into her car. The police were called and a report was written up. No one at the scene received tickets. James told the police about the truck that hit him, This information is documented in the police report. The damage to the back of James's car is also written on the police report. This is very important, since James came to court completely unprepared. He did not take pictures of the damage to the back of his car. Barbara does not believe there was another vehicle. She said she was moving when James hit her car. James says she was at a standstill. Their stories are so different. Barbara says she did not see a white truck. James says the white truck kept going after it hit him. He did tell Barbara about the truck right away. James also told the police about the truck. The information on the police report about the damage to the back of his vehicle is enough to convince the Judge. Barbara does not win her case. In the hallway, Barbara says the damage to James's car was probably there before the accident. James says he told the truth. I do not think he even realizes how lucky he is. If the police report did not contain the information about the damage to the back of his car, he would not have won the case. It is very important to bring evidence to court. When someone is suing you, honesty and truth are important, but evidence is crucial. 

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

There is no right way to do something wrong.
-Unknown

People's Court - 8 3 2012 - Friday

The Blue Collar Is Faded!

Ceasia is suing the cleaners for the cost of clothing that she claims they ruined. The clothes were all Ralph Lauren, purchased for a polo party. She has not brought any of the items with her. This is Ceasia's day in court, this is when she should bring the evidence for her case. Because of this oversight, her lawsuit is reduced from $369.50 to $150.00. Dulce is representing the cleaners. She admits that the items brought in, a sweater, a tshirt and the polo shirt were damaged. She fixed the sweater and the tshirt and Ceasia accepted them. The polo shirt is the problem. The blue collar was faded. Dulce explains that the shirt is not going to look brand new after being worn and cleaned. Dulce had offered $60.00 when she was told the shirt was damaged. When she saw the receipt, Dulce said that was too much money. She was not going to pay for it. Ceasia's boyfriend thought Dulce was being disrespectful and he called the police. Why would someone call the police over a polo shirt and disrespect? He explains that he felt he needed to call the police before Dulce called them. I think he should have left the store and then decide how to proceed. I do not think the police need to use their resources responding to someone who is upset over a faded collar. Ceasia's boyfriend wanted it on the record that he was not satisfied with the dry cleaners. Okay, now we get to see the polo shirt. Dulce has brought it with her. The Judge examines the polo shirt and is struggling to see the problems. Looking at the shirt, the Judge says she would have liked to see the other items. It is a shame they are not available for her to look at. Ceasia forgot them. Ceasia's boyfriend says they were damaged, repaired and now the fabric is ruined. Unfortunately, there is no way to confirm this. Ceasia loses the case. In the hallway, her boyfriend says he is going to donate the shirt. Having high expectations is not a bad thing, but we all need to be realistic. Once an item of clothing is worn and cleaned, it will never look brand new. What do you think?

I Am Selling You A Free Boat! 

Marc is suing Bill for $500.00. Bill is counterclaiming for $500.00. Marc has a case, Bill does not. Marc was going to buy a fishing boat from Bill's good friend. He gave Bill a $200.00 deposit, a battery and $100.00 for his time. Marc believes Bill is acting as a broker for the sale. Bill admits he received the $200.00 and the battery from Marc. He said he returned the battery, he even took a picture of where he left the battery. Bill shows the picture of the battery left outside of Marc's garage. Why leave something outside when no one is home? How do you know they are going to get it? Marc says the battery was not left for him. The Judge does not believe him. The bigger issue here is the fact of boat ownership. Marc takes his friend, Robert, to see the boat. Robert is going to go in on the purchase of the boat. When the two men are looking at the boat, someone tells them it is great they are removing the boat from the property. The two men also find out that the boat is being given away for free. This causes a tense moment between the two men, since Robert was going to give Marc money towards buying the boat. You do not have to purchase a free boat. Bill has so much to explain. He was getting the boat for free and was selling it to Marc. He did not tell Marc any of this. Marc thought he was buying the boat from a friend of Bill's. Bill did not remove the boat from the owner's property, he did not transfer the title to his name. Is Bill really the owner of the boat? Can Bill sell the boat? No, he cannot because he does not own the boat. Marc has a letter from Bob, the owner of the boat. In the letter, Bob calls Bill a scamster. Bill says there is no proof the letter is legitimate. He says Bob is his friend and he did not write this letter. The Judge wants to call Bob. Bill should have his phone number since they are friends. Bills says this is a new cell phone and he has Bob's phone number in his rolodex. Do people still use a rolodex for phone numbers? Now, Bill shows a letter that Marc sent to his ex-wife. Bill claims this letter caused tension  between himself and his wife, oops! his ex-wife. He said they are divorced, but live in the same house for financial reasons. This tension is the reason for the counterclaim. He is not able to prove that any tension caused by this letter would be worth any amount of money. On top of that, he needs to pay Marc back the $200.00. Bill denies receiving the extra $100.00, so Marc does not get this money back. Marc did not breach a contract of sale, since Bill was not the actual owner of the boat. Bill had no right to sell a boat that did not belong to him. Beware of deals that are too good to be true! Also, get receipts when money changes hands!

My Diamond Ring is Missing - I Know Who Stole It!

Marita hired David's moving company and is now suing him for $5000.00. This is the value of a ring that was missing after the move. David gave her an estimate of $1600.00 for the move, the actual cost was almost double. The Judge says this is normal for the industry. David tries to defend this practice. The Judge says it is not necessary. This is not an issue, since the case is about a missing ring. Marita claims her diamond ring was missing after the move. She packed her jewelry box and the movers put it into her car. Marita remembers that she carried the box into her house and put it in her bedroom. Initially, she has problems with the movers because they scratched the the floors in her new home. It was beneficial for Marita that she purchased insurance for the move. She put in a claim for the scratched floors and was paid. Ten days after the move, Marita notices her diamond ring is missing. Where can it be? Of course it has to be the movers! I do not understand why Marita is so quick to jump to this conclusion. She says they are the only ones who had access to her bedroom. She did not see anyone actually take the ring. She has no proof. Marita contacted David, he suggested she file a police report and submit to insurance. When the claim was denied by the insurance company, Marita decided to sue David's company. David says that he has never had a problem with theft in the past. His employees have been with him for many years. He has complete trust in his employees. Marita loses her case. In the hallway, Marita says she does not understand why she bought insurance. David says he would like to change the image of moving companies, he is a nice guy! I have a feeling the ring is going to show up, I do not think the movers took it. What do you think?

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

Remember being a success without happiness is meaningless.

-Richard Denny

People's Court - 8 2 2012 - Thursday

I Did Not Damage Your Car!

Peter is suing Frank for $289.13. They were both in the supermarket parking lot. Peter's wife saw a shopping cart hit their car. She confronted the woman that let go of the cart. She told the woman she saw the cart hit the car. The woman cursed at her. Peter confronted the man, told him that his wife hit his car with a cart and asked to exchange information. The man told Peter that the woman was not his wife and they both got in the car and drove away. Peter quickly got the license plate of the fleeing car. Now in court, we find out the man and the woman are, Frank and Janette. Frank says that Janette did not damage the car. When Peter approached him and told him his car was damaged, he denied it. Frank did not see any damage to Peter's car. Janette explains that the cart slipped from her hands, but she was able to catch it before it hit the car. She did not see any damage to Peter's car. Janette denies cursing at Peter's wife. She is very adamant that she did nothing. She says that Peter's wife was yelling at her and she did not understand why. Janette also says that they were not fleeing, they did not know they did anything. Frank says that Peter and his wife were scaring Janette, that is why he left. Peter describes the damage and has the proof of repair. He spent $289.13 to have the scratches and the gouge fixed. Peter does not have any pictures of the damage. Since he has the receipt for the repair and the eyewitness testimony of his wife, he wins. The problem is he is suing Frank not Janette. Frank is not responsible for the damage. The Judge asks Janette if she would be willing to an amended complaint. Janette says yes and she is found responsible for the cost of the damage to Peter's car. In the hallway, Janette says she is a firm believer of honesty. Peter's wife says if Frank and Janette had behaved differently, it would be a different story. I think that means that there might not be a court case. Why can't people just be civil to each other? What ever happened to treating people as you would want to be treated? What has happened to taking responsibility for our actions? What do you think?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Elissia wanted to have a birthday party for her mom. She rented the local VFW hall. She hired Frances, her son's great grandmother, to cater the event. She gave Frances $1000.00 for the food needed for the party. The party was going to be on August 27th. Two days before the event, Elissia received a call from the commander of the VFW hall. He explained to her the hall would be closed due to Hurricane Irene. The governor declared a state of emergency and he was cancelling all upcoming events. Elissia called Frances to let her know. Frances said she had already done most of the shopping and had spent $700.00. Elissia told her she would pick up the remaining cash, groceries and receipts. When Elissia arrived she told Frances she would not accept any food without receipts. Frances did not have receipts for all of the food she had purchased. These two woman could not work this out. It is unfortunate since they are family. Frances explains that she did not save the receipts, since she had quoted Elissia a flat rate of $1400.00. Frances did return some of the food to Sam's Club, to get some of Elissia's money back. Elissia wanted all of her money back since she gave Frances notice about the cancellation of the party. Towards the end of the case, Elissia mentions a contract, a written contract. After all, she watches People's Court and she knows how important a contract is. The Judge is very pleased that Elissia has taken the initiative to write a contract. The Judge rules on the case, since the VFW hall had to close due to the hurricane, Elissia wins the case. In the hallway, Frances said she did offer Elissia an alternate date. Elissia says that she never had a party. Maybe, she would throw a party for her mom's next birthday. Spoiler alert - her mom is standing right next to her! Hopefully, this situation will not affect the family situation. Sometimes it is not a good idea to do business with family. When all goes well, that is great. When there are problems, it can get very complicated. What do you think?

Help Me - My Tenants Won't Pay Their Rent!

Lucia is suing Dennis and John for $5000.00. She hired Dennis's company to find her a tenant. John is an employee of the company. Lucia claims they misrepresented the terms of a contract. They actually did misrepresent what they were able to offer her. The only reason they are not found responsible to pay Lucia, is that the lease they were responsible for is over. They authored a lease for Lucia that was for one year. The tenants were eligible for a government program, Work Advantage. The rent is paid by the government. This was appealing to Lucia, since it is guaranteed rent. Why is there a problem? Lucia  wants $1500.00 a month rent. The government would only be paying $1316.00. Dennis and John provide a side agreement for the tenants to pay the remaining $284.00 directly to Lucia. A side agreement is not allowed through this government program. The Judge calls them on this illegal practice. Hopefully, they stop doing this, since it definitely causes problems. Lucia explains that the tenants no longer are paying  their rent, they are operating a tattoo parlor out of the apartment and they are smoking pot. Lucia explains that she is trying to evict them, but they have an additional year on the lease. The Judge tries to explain to Lucia that since the original lease is over, there should not have been an automatic renewal. Lucia says she retained an attorney and was told she could not do anything for another year. Lucia got rid of this attorney and is pursuing the eviction on her own. Lucia cannot prove that she is out $5000.00. Since the paperwork that Dennis and John provided has expired, they cannot be held responsible for the current conditions. Lucia feel it is wrong that she lost the case. She still continues to talk about a 2 year lease. The two men admit they were embarrassed by what was said in court. They really need to take a close look at their business practices. They might have won the case, but they lost in morality. I hope Lucia can get everything worked out, so she can collect rent for her apartment. Good luck Lucia!

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

Some people grin and bear it; others smile and do it.

-Unknown 

People's Court - 8 1 2012 - Wednesday

I Am Trying To Save The Kittens!

Debbie is suing Yolanda and Mike for $297.48. This is for the money she has spent on the equipment and veterinary care of six kittens. When Yolanda and Mike called her for assistance, she responded immediately. They had a feral mom cat and six newborn kittens. Debbie asked Yolanda if she would consider a foster situation until the kittens were old enough to be adopted. She would set up a cage in their house, provide them with food, litter and essentials. Debbie also offered to pay for the deworming and vaccinations for the kittens. When it was time to wean the kittens, the mom cat would be spayed and released. The kittens would be socialized by Yolanda's family and be adopted out when old enough. Yolanda understood this to be about 8 weeks. She agreed to this foster situation. Even though she does not like cats, she knew her 5 children would help with the kittens. Several of her children's friends wanted to adopt the kittens. Debbie explained to Yolanda there was an application that needed to be filled out. Four of the six kittens were adopted, Debbie told Yolanda should would be back to pick up the last two kittens. When Yolanda's kids physically fight over the kittens, she decides to get rid of the kittens. Does she call Debbie to come and get the kittens? No, she takes the kittens to the local train station and gives them away to strangers. She claims that she found out Debbie charges an adoption fee. Why would this be a problem? Debbie has paid for all of the expenses involved with the kittens. She is also spending the time to get good homes for the kittens. Debbie explains that the adoption fee covers all care, vet and   future spay/neuter expenses. I would imagine it costs much more than $100.00 each for all of the care provided for the kittens and mom cat. Yolanda thinks Debbie is making money from the adoption fees. She keeps mentioning this fee as if it were wrong. Debbie was doing everything she promised, Yolanda should have kept her end of the bargain. The Judge decides in favor of Debbie, but not for the full amount she is asking. The Judge divides the cost among the kittens and Debbie gets $126.84. Yolanda is counterclaiming for $1000.00. She wants money for carpet cleaning and the labor of fostering the kittens. She has no proof for the cost of the cleaning the carpet and does not get paid for taking care of the kittens. Now, let's talk about giving the kittens away. This was wrong on so many levels. Debbie was keeping her part of the bargain. I am sure she would have rushed over to get the kittens if she knew there was a problem. Debbie obviously is involved in cat rescue because she loves the animals. It is definitely not about the money. What do you think?

This Is A New Crack!!

Alan is suing David's company for $2232.00. This is the cost to repair his driveway. Alan approached David's employees to do work for him. David's employees were doing a job near Alan's house. Alan did not contact David, he wanted the guys to do some side work for him. Right away, we get the feeling this is not a good idea. When they are leaving the job, they backed up onto Alan's lawn. Alan immediately sees this as a way to get them to do additional work for him. When Justin, the supervisor, stops to see what is going on, he tells the workers that David will not be happy about the situation. He does not tell them to leave. He does not call David. This has become a comedy of errors. It continues to get worse. Alan notices a crack in his driveway. He says it was not there before the workers drove their equipment on the driveway. He admits his driveway was not in perfect condition, but this was a new crack. He pays the workers for the job they did, but tells Justin they have to fix the crack. Justin says they are not responsible for it. Alan calls David to tell him about the problem. Alan claims that David tried to offer him sod for his lawn. David denies that he made this offer. David feels that the driveway was in such poor condition, he should not be held responsible. He does admit that his workers should not have been there. He wrote them up, he did not fire them. How can he continue to employ such dishonest workers. They were using company equipment and company time to make a few extra dollars. Alan provides an estimate to the court for the repairs to the driveway. The Judge asks David what he thinks it would cost to fix the crack. He estimates $1300.00 to $1400,00. The Judge awards Alan $1300.00. In the hallway, David says he is mad at his employees and the next time they will be fired. Alan is not happy about the money, but he loves life and says it is fantastic! I believe that Alan is lucky to have won, he brought this upon himself. I feel sorry for David. He seems to be at the mercy of his employees. Hopefully, he has learned from this situation and take better control of his employees. Good luck David!

I Want My Wedding Pictures!

Shane and Amanda hired David to be their wedding photographer. David was paid in full to take pictures during the wedding, 2 pm to 10 pm, and produce three albums. It is now 2 years after the wedding and Shane does not have the pictures. He wants his money back. David tries to explain why he has not provided the pictures after 2 years. He went out of business and claims to have reached out to his clients. When he did not get a reply to his e-mail to Shane, he did not do anything else. Why? He really does not have a good answer to this question. Shane had an attorney send David a letter requesting the pictures. David replied to the attorney and sent the proofs. This does not satisfy the contract they had together. Now, Shane wants all of the pictures and the entire $2700.00 back. He cannot get both. David turns over the wedding pictures and Shane is awarded $1200.00. After all, court is about making you whole, not getting a bonanza. I love when the Judge says this! It is a shame when a business person treats their customer in this fashion. I am so glad that Shane and Amanda finally have their wedding pictures.

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

Life is not a final. It's daily pop quizzes.

-Unknown 

People's Court - 7 31 2012 - Tuesday

We Met On Pogo!

Barbara and Della met online playing games on Pogo. They chatted for awhile and then met in person. After a whirlwind courtship of a little over a month, they decided to get an apartment together. This is so fast. People do need to know each other better before making such a huge commitment. The two women rented an apartment together in Massachusetts. This was near Barbara's family. Della moved from Kentucky. After 5 days, Della went back home. Barbara describes a fight that seems to be about nothing. I think the bigger picture here, is that they did not know each other well enough to live together. Barbara is suing for back rent, a ring and a plane ticket. Barbara has no proof with her that any of these costs were loans. During a relationship, people spend money on each other. To expect the court to divide these into gifts or loans is asking for too much. Proof needs to be provided in order to make this decision. Barbara does not have the lease with her, she gave the ring as a gift and there was no agreement to be reimbursed for the plane ticket. Barbara seems very bitter about the relationship. When she leaves the courtroom, she is still throwing insults at Della. When Della leaves, she is so sad and is crying over the lost friendship. Why do people insist on moving so quickly with a relationship? Savor the journey! This could have been a very nice friendship that would have blossomed, if they were not in such a hurry! What do you think?

She Curses Like A Sailor!

Rae hired Larry's pool company to repair her 27 year old above ground swimming pool. Larry gives her a price of $1890.00, Rae says she rounded it up to $2000.00, because she is just that kind of person. Larry said there was tax on the original price and the few extra dollars were a tip for Charlie. Charlie elegantly describes his position with the company as, "he's the boss, I'm the horse". I like this, Charlie seems like a really sincere person. When the work was being done on the pool, Rae kept a close eye on the job. She claims she pointed out a few times when things were being done incorrectly. Charlie denies this claim. After the repairs were completed, the pool was filled. Rae said she noticed the sides were buckling and the pool was losing water. She called Larry to let him know the pool was leaking. Charlie came to look at it and realized there were holes in the liner caused by the ladder. Charlie asked if she used a ladder mat to protect the liner. Rae installed the ladder and said a ladder mat was not necessary. This is not what was causing the leak. She knows this because the leak was caused by the inept way the repairs were done. Unfortunately, Rae does not have any proof to show the Judge. She was so upset that she was being charged for a service call, she loses her temper and curses in front of Charlie. Charlie seems genuinely uncomfortable to describe the way Rae cursed after talking to Larry on the phone. His words are bleeped as he recounts the way Rae spoke. She does not deny that she lost her temper. She feels that she overpaid $110 at the beginning and should not have been charged for them to come back out. Larry says he was charging half of the $150.00 service call fee as a courtesy to her. Rae does not see this as a courtesy. Rae did give Charlie the $75.00, even though she was not happy about it. She is suing Larry's pool company for $1500.00. She said this is what another company wants to charge to fix their mistakes. She does not have the estimate with her, describing the new company as clowns. Is there any company out there who could properly fix her pool? Rae is unable to prove her case. She is not pleased as she leaves the courtroom. She says she had more evidence and did not get a chance to show it. Charlie is still shocked as he describes that Rae cursed like a sailor! Why do people resort to such bad behavior if they are not getting their own way? Where is common decency? Why are we so quick to yell and curse at others? Do you feel that respect is a thing of the past? 

Your Plow Damaged My Driveway!

Robert hired Alexander to clear the snow from his driveway. Robert did not actually speak to Alexander. He was in the room when his significant other spoke with him on the phone. This was an emergency snow plow job. Alexander did not have Robert sign a contract for the job. He came out, cleared the driveway and was paid $20.00. Alexander says this is the going rate, it was a 5 minute job. Now, there is a second snowstorm and Alexander is called again to plow the driveway. This time the job does not go smoothly. Alexander has problems and tells Robert he cannot finish the job. Robert says he heard scraping sounds. When the snow melts two days later, Robert sees the damage done by the plow. He gets an estimate for $750.60 to repair these damages. Alexander does not deny that he could have caused the damage. He tells his customers that he would not be responsible for damage and they usually sign a waiver. Robert did not sign this waiver. He said he did not agree to waive responsibility for any damage caused by Alexander. He wants Alexander to repair his driveway. I feel bad for Alexander. I believe he told Robert's significant other the restrictions about what could happen when the driveway is plowed. His only mistake was not having Robert sign a waiver. He is paying dearly for this mistake, as he is found responsible for the $750.60 to fix the driveway. This is a difficult way to start out in business. Alexander has learned a valuable lesson that will save him problems in the future. He will now keep a waiver in his truck, for emergency situations. Good luck Alexander!!!!

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

Don't wait for your ship to come in, swim out to it.

-Unknown