People's Court - 8 17 2012 - Friday

I Met Them In Church!

Lillian is suing Peter Gary (Lillian calls him Gary) and Theresa for $3000.00. This is for rent, a loan and damages from bedbugs. Lillian met Gary and Theresa in church. Lillian and her husband got a divorce and he moved out. Lillian wanted to help Gary and Theresa and she also needed help with her mortgage. She asked them to move in with her and her two children, ages 5 and 7. Lillian asked them to pay $400.00 a month rent. Initially, they gave her $200.00.  I do not think Lillian should have moved people into her home. It is not a good idea when you have young children. Her ex-husband did not like it either and he took the children away. He wanted Gary and Theresa to move out right away. Lillian's ex-husband did a background check on Gary and found out he had a warrant for his arrest. He did not want his children in the same house as Gary and Theresa. He felt they were a bad influence around the children. Lillian asked them to move out. They found a free house to move to. The house needed some work before they could move in. Lillian gave them back the $200.00, hoping this would get them to move out. Then, Gary and Theresa told Lillian the house needed more work, so she gave them $500.00. Lillian was paying them to move out. The next thing that happened was a bedbug infestation. Lillian had the house exterminated and it seemed the infestation originated form Gary and Theresa's room. Lillian and her present husband took the couple out to dinner and told them they needed to throw away the futon, since it was infested with bedbugs. They also told them they needed to move out. Gary and Theresa deny everything. They claim they were never asked to pay rent. They were going to help with the children and pay the utilities. They said the bedbugs did not come from their furniture. It was from used furniture Lillian brought home. Lillian said the used furniture she brought in was before Gary and Theresa moved in.  Lillian threw away their futon and then they finally moved out. They never paid her towards the utilities, they never helped with the children (the children were with their dad). So, what did they do? Well, Gary and Theresa took advantage of Lillian and had a free place to live. When they did move out, they moved into a fixer upper for free. How do people behave this way? The Judge finds that they owe Lillian 2 months rent and the $500.00 loan. They do not have to pay for the damages from the bedbugs since there is no way to prove they were responsible for the bedbugs. It is such a shame that Gary and Theresa took advantage of Lillian. Although, Lillian did allow this to happen. What was she thinking bringing strangers home to live with her and her children? What do you think?

We Were Friends For 30 Years - What Happened?

Arthur is suing his longtime friend, Kurt, for $5000.00. This is for medical bills, wages from lost work and a tree replacement. What causes two men who have been friends for 30 years part ways? We may never know because their stories are so different. Arthur claims that Kurt attacked him and broke his wrist. Kurt blocked the driveway with his camper all night. In the morning, Kurt left and Arthur was able to go to the hospital for treatment. After that incident, Arthur told Kurt to get his belongings off his property. Kurt keeps some of his belongings, machinery and equipment stored on Arthur's property. The second incident occurred when Arthur was staying at a campground. Arthur says that when Kurt removed his belongings, he cut the lock on the garage. Kurt did leave a new lock in its place. Arthur says that Kurt came to the campground to apologize to him. Kurt was intoxicated and very incoherent. When Arthur left the campground and returned to his mobile home, he heard a chainsaw. When he went to look he saw a tree cut and it was blocking the driveway. Arthur shows a picture of cut trees as evidence. Arthur explains there is more than one tree cut because he cuts trees also. Arthur says he contacted the police and tried to make several police reports but was not able to. He also was not able to get a restraining order. Why would Kurt attack Arthur? Why would he block the driveway? Arthur does not have answers to these questions. Now, it is Kurt's turn to talk. He explains that they are both on the lease for a campground property. When Kurt went to get his seasonal pass for the campground, he found out that Arthur took his name off the lease. This was corrected. Arthur told Kurt to remove his belongings from the property. Kurt removed everything and admits he had to cut the lock to get in the garage. He did leave a new lock with two keys. He denies attacking Arthur and breaking his wrist. Kurt says he heard through the grapevine that Arthur broke his wrist. Kurt denies cutting down the tree and blocking the driveway. Arthur cannot prove his case. He does not have any evidence. What a shame that a 30 year friendship ends over ...what? We really do not know what caused this to happen. Both men tell such different stories, we can only speculate about the answer. What do you think?

Please Don't Hurt Sebastian!

Sheila is suing Willie, her neighbor, for $5000.00. This is for vet bills and pain and suffering from a dog attack. Sheila explains that she and her cousin were getting ready to leave the house. While she was pulling the van out, her cousin, Vincent, had her little dog, Sebastian. Sebastian is a Maltese, a small breed of dog. Vincent explains that while he was walking Sebastian, a Rottweiller came running towards him. He pulled Sebastian up in his arms and the large dog jumped at him. Sebastian wriggled and jumped out of his arms. The Rottweiller grabbed Sebastian and was running away with him. Vincent was chasing him and then, Sheila saw what was happening. She started to chase after them to save her dog. Sheila said there were people watching, but they did not help. Finally, the Rottweiller dropped Sebastian. When Sheila picked up Sebastian, he nipped her on the finger because he was so scared. The Rottweiller started to come back and Vincent kicked him. Sheila took Sebastian to the vet for emergency care. Sheila shows pictures of Sebastian's wounds. He is lucky to have survived such a vicious attack. The neighbors told Sheila the Rottweiller was Junior's dog. Her neighbor Willie is known as Junior and he raises Rotteillers. Willie explains that he was out of state when this occurred. The police called him and told him his dog attacked another dog. Willie called his house and had them check if any of his dogs were missing. Willie says he has 4 Rottweillers, all females. 3 Rottweillers were in the kennel and one of them was not at home. Willie said the other female was not on the property. He takes his females to the male when they are ready to be bred. It does seem suspicious that one of his dogs was missing at the time of the attack. The police did catch a Rottweiller and the dog was taken to the shelter. Willie went to the shelter to identify the dog. Actually, the Animal Control Officer, wanted the dog to identify Willie. The Judge explains that a penned dog will react when they see their owner. Willie said when he stood at the pen, the dog stayed in the corner. Also, this was a male dog and his dogs are all females. Willie does admit that his dogs have gotten out of their kennel and the fenced in yard. He says this has happened several times. How do the dogs get out? Willie says his 9 year old daughter will go in the the kennel to play with the dogs and puppies and sometimes does not close the gates properly. Why would this have to happen several times before he corrects the problem? This particular incident occurred when his daughter was not home. Also, Willie is adamant that the dog was not his. Since there is no proof that the dog belonged to Willie, the Judge calls a recess to contact the Animal Control Officer. She is not able to reach the A.C.O. and makes an interim ruling. At this time, she rules in favor of Willie. The Judge is very clear that she will go to him personally and "slam" him if she finds out he owned the dog. Sheila cannot prove the dog that attacked Sebastian belonged to Willie. It is a shame that no one is held responsible for what happened to Sebastian and to Sheila. They went through a horrible experience. The story does not end there, no one claimed the Rottweiller and he was put to sleep. Someone owned this dog and this is inexcusable to have allowed this to happen. What do you think?

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

We all live with the objective of being happy; our lives are all different,  yet the same.

-Anne Frank

People's Court - 8 16 2012 - Thursday

You Kept Me Out Of Jail - But I Don't Want To Pay You Too Much!

Nicholas is suing John for $850.00. Nicholas was arrested for the possession of heroin and the intent to deliver. John is an attorney recommended to Nicholas by his girlfriend. Nicholas explains that John agreed to represent him for $500.00. John did not have Nicholas sign a retainer agreement. At this point, it is one person's word against the other. Nicholas signed over his bond to John as payment. When Nicholas received his bond back, he would turn it over to John, minus the fees. This would be $1350.00. Nicholas explains that John said he would give him money back from the bond, since he was only charging him $500.00. John denies this. John explains that he went to court with Nicholas 7 times.The first 2 times they went to court, Nicholas was stoned, so John rescheduled the case. He said he told Nicholas he was facing probation or up to 3-7 years in prison. He was going to try to get him in drug school, this did not happen. He would get him supervision, this did not happen. He would get him expungable probation, this did not happen. Nicholas was not happy with his representation. John did get the sentence reduced to probation after a series of court appearances. In order to receive this, Nicholas had to take a plea. John explains it was not an expungable probation because the arrest was an undercover operation. Nicholas seems very upset over the fact he did not receive expungable probation. He is lucky he did not go to prison for this. The problem with the question of the amount of the attorney's fee rests on the lack of a retainer agreement. The reason to have a retainer agreement is so both sides know exactly what to expect. Because John did not provide this to his client, Nicholas wins this case. An attorney cannot keep changing the fee as the case progresses. This is not fair to the client. John says he is too busy to provide the paperwork to his clients. Is he too busy to be taken to court because of payment issues? Was Nicholas unreasonable thinking an attorney would go to court for him 7 times for $500.00? Both parties would have been better off if they were in agreement regarding the payment. Why do people create problems for themselves? What do you think?

I Need My Transmission Rebuilt Every Year!

Susan is suing Vasile for $2300.00. Vasile owns an auto body shop. In 2009, Susan took her car to Vasile's shop and had the transmission rebuilt in her 1998 BMW 740i. Right before the one year warranty expired, she took the car back and had the transmission rebuilt again. Now, it is 2011 and Susan's car is having problems again with the transmission. The mechanic that usually works on her car does not work for Vasile anymore. Does Susan take her car to Vasile's shop where she has the warranty? No, she finds where the mechanic is working and takes her car to him. She wants this mechanic to honor the warranty from Vasile's shop. When Vasile does not provide information about the specifics of the warranty, Susan sues Vasile. This does not make any sense. If she took the car to  Vasile, he would have fixed the car, since it was still under the warranty. Susan does not win her case because the warranty is valid only if she brought the car back to Vasile. Why didn't she take the car to Vasile? Why does Susan need to have the transmission rebuilt every year? Why did Susan think Vasile would have to pay for another rebuilt transmission? What is going on?

I Do Not Want To Pay The Rent!

Albert is suing Jim for $2701.00. This is for back rent. Jim is counterclaiming for $3000.00 because he claims mold in the apartment and the basement made him sick. Albert rented an apartment to Jim and his girlfriend. Jim did not pay rent for part of February, all of March and April. Jim says the reason he did not pay rent is because there was so much mold in the apartment, he suffered from health issues. The bathroom does not have a ventilation fan and this caused a very humid environment. Jim shows pictures of the bathroom and there is mold growth visible. Albert says that Jim made him aware of the problem and he tried to take care of it. Albert hired a mold remediation company. The company tried twice to evaluate the problem. Jim would not let them in. Jim explains that when Albert would call the night before and tell him the company would be there the next day, it was not enough time. If  Jim was so worried about the mold he would have accommodated the mold remediation company. Also, why would Jim continue to live there? If the mold was making him sick, why not look for another place to live? Jim claims he could not find anywhere else to live. I am sure there are other apartments in the area if the conditions were so bad. The Judge finds that Jim does owe back rent. There is a discrepancy over  $800.00, given as a security deposit. Albert cannot prove that it was not rolled over to the new lease. Becasuse of this, Albert is awarded $1726.00, instead of the $2701.00, he is asking for. Jim does not get anything on his counterclaim. He made no attempt to let Albert fix the mold problem. Why do some people think they deserve a free ride? Jim and his girlfriend rented an apartment, they were responsible to pay the rent. They were responsible to let Albert try to fix a problem. It is a waste of everyone's time when people do not abide by their commitment. What is gained by forcing a landlord to go to court to get the rent? What is gained by not letting the landlord fix a problem? What do you think?

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

To the world, you are just one person. To your dog, you are the world.

-reader submission from a bumper sticker

People's Court - 8 15 2012 - Wednesday

I Want My Pay!

Michael is suing for $1500.00. This is for pay he earned as a general manager of a new restaurant and lounge. He is also suing for pain and suffering. Omera is the operations manager of the establishment. She represents the owner in court. Omera is the person who had the most contact with Michael at the restaurant. At first, Michael was hired as a bartender.  He went through a paid orientation for three days. Michael explains that the restaurant had not even opened. He received a call and was asked if he wanted to be the general manager instead of the bartender. Michael agreed because he was being offered $15.00 an hour. Michael worked 43 hours at regular time and 17.75 hours of overtime. During a meeting before the restaurant opened, they were discussing payroll. It was during this meeting that Michael found out he would be making $8.50 an hour, not $15.00. Michael and Omera disagreed, Michael walked out. He explains in court that he would not take the position for only pennies more than he was making as a bartender. Up to this point, Michael had not received any pay. He texted Omera that he was coming to get his check. She responded that the check was being sent certifed mail for legal reasons. Michael did not receive the check and he continued for 2 weeks to ask for his money. Finally, Omera has his check ready and Michael goes to the restaurant to pick it up. It was only for 40 hours,  not the hours he worked. He refused to sign for it and did not take the check. Omera explains that the receipt she has with his hours is not consistent with what he is asking for. She also explains that the receipt does not make sense. This receipt is printed out from the register when Michael would clock in and clock out. Omera also explains that Michael was not making $15.00 an hour. She said that she gave him the promotion and he was supposed to make $8.25 an hour. He was hired at $7.25 and was increased to $8.25. Omera says, she knows this, because she gave him the promotion and the raise. Also, why would Michael make more money than she does. Omera says that she does not even make $15.00 an hour. Omera keeps staring at  Michael when he insists on the amount of money he was supposed to get. At first the Judge laughs, since it is very comical. Omera is putting on quite a show. Everyone in the gallery is laughing. Then, it gets serious, because Omera will not stop. The courtroom is not the place for this type of behavior. It gets so bad, the Judge tells Omera if she does not stop, she will be thrown out. Finally, Omera stops staring at Michael and the courtroom calms down. Michael does not have any proof that he was supposed to receive $15.00 an hour. Also, he cannot receive pain and suffering. The Judge rules that Michael is to receive $500 in wages. When they leave the courtroom, Omera takes the opportunity to trash Michael. She says that no one should hire him, he is not worth $2.00 an hour. Michael says he would not take the position for that pay. This would be the perfect situation to have something in writing. Especially when you are receiving a promotion that doubles your pay. We all have to remember to protect ourselves by having everything in writing. Even a confirming e-mail would be great back-up. What do you think?

I Could Have Been Killed!

Elizabeth is suing for $1117.00. This is for the parts, labor and a new tire. Elizabeth explains she was driving, felt something funny and pulled into the nearest gas station. She had a flat tire and called her  roadside assistance service. Tony was dispatched to change the tire. Tony works for Alan, the owner of a franchise called Pop-A-Lock. Elizabeth explains that it took a very long time for Tony to change the tire. She then drove directly to a Goodyear shop and was surprised by what they found. The manager told her she was lucky to be alive. When the car was put up on the lift, they found that the lug nuts were smashed. Elizabeth has the lug nuts with her as evidence. Elizabeth also has a notarized statement from the manager at Goodyear. Elizabeth is very prepared for court. Now what does Tony have to say? He says when he arrived, Elizabeth's son was already trying to change the tire and having trouble. He said the tire was so shredded, she must have drove on it for awhile before she stopped. He jacked up the car properly, put on the spare donut and Elizabeth drove away. When the Judge shows Alan and Tony the damaged lug nuts, they say that Elizabeth's son must have caused the damage. If that is true, why would Tony use them for the spare donut?  Alan explains that they change 3,000-4,000 tires a year and never have a problem. The equipment they use would never do that type of damage. The way Tony put on the tire caused a condition that was very dangerous. In the statement that Elizabeth has from Goodyear, the manager states that the right rear well was not properly mounted onto the vehicle. The lug nuts were mushroomed and damaged the studs. The manager determined that the improper mounting of the tire caused the damage. Alan is still maintaining that he has no idea what would cause the damage and continues to say that it was because Elizabeth continued to drive on a flat tire. I would think Tony would have noticed the damage to the lug nuts and he would not be able to use them to put on the spare donut. Elizabeth has proven her case with the evidence she has brought to court. She does get $742.00 which does not include the cost of the new tire. Elizabeth explains she included that cost of the new tire because they aggravated her! Court does not compensate you for aggravation! In the hallway, Alan and Tony are still talking about the amount of tires they change every year. Elizabeth is happy with the decision and says she had no idea the tire was going to fall off. Elizabeth is very fortunate that she went directly to Goodyear, otherwise the outcome would have been very different. I wonder what really happened when Tony changed the tire. How could he not know something was wrong. We can only speculate. What do you think? 

Hurricane Irene Damaged My Apartment!

Cerline is suing for $334.10. This is the cost of an entertainment center and a vase. These items were damaged by workers that came to her apartment to do repairs after Hurricane Irene. Cerline is suing Anthony, the owner of the realty company. Anthony is countersuing Cerline for $2600.00 in back rent. After Hurricane Irene, Cerline had damage to her apartment. The ceiling fell in and everything was soaked. Anthony sent 2 men to repair the ceiling, fix part of the floor and paint. They did most of the work and were supposed to return to finish. When they did not come back, Cerline told Anthony. She requested the men come on a specific day, since she did  not want them there when she was away. Unfortunately, Anthony sent them to do the work when Cerline was not home. Cerline feels they entered her apartment without authorization. They damaged the entertainment center and broke a vase when they were working. Cerline is suing Anthony, since he is the one who sent them. The Judge rules that Cerline does not get any money on her lawsuit. She would need to sue the men that actually did the damage. Anthony is not responsible to pay for the damage done by the workers. Now, Anthony has a counterclaim. He says that Cerline owes him for 2 months rent. Cerline decided to move out, so she stopped paying rent. She lived there for an additional 2 months and then moved out. When Cerline moved in she gave Anthony $3900.00. According to Cerline, this covered the security deposit and the first and the last month's rent. Anthony said that it was the security deposit, first month's rent and a fee. What is this fee for? Anthony says it is because Cerline wanted to move in early. The lease does not reflect any of this information. Anthony cannot record the money one way, as rent and security deposit, and then distribute it another way. He did not tell Cerline she was paying him an additional fee. Cerline thought she was in the right, since a legal aid attorney told her she could live out her security deposit. The Judge tells her the legal aid attorney was wrong. That is not what the security deposit is meant for. Because she withheld rent, the Judge rules that Cerline needs to pay Anthony $1300.00, for one month's rent. When they leave the courtroom, Cerline reminds us that she will get her security deposit back. This case took a very interesting turn. Does Anthony always take a fee when he rents an apartment? Is this a common practice? Are the tenants aware they are paying towards a fee and not rent? So many questions and no answers. What do you think?

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

Fantasies are like sand castles. Fun to build, but you can't live in them.

-Ruth Ingrid 

People's Court - 8 14 2012 - Tuesday

I Stole From My Parents To Give To My Boyfriend!

Lindsay is suing Timothy for $1501.75. Lindsay is 19 years old and has been dating Timothy for a year. They are not together anymore. Lindsay explains they broke up when she kicked him and then he punched her. While they were together, Lindsay says that Timothy wanted a new bed. They went shopping together. When it was time to pay, Lindsay took a line of credit at the store. The purchase of the bed was put in her name. Why did she do this? If Timothy wanted a bed, he should pay for it himself. Lindsay's explanation is that she was in love. Next, Lindsay lends Timothy money for a softball team. She also lent him money to get his car fixed, to pay for his car insurance, to pay rent, to pay bills and for a trip to Florida. Where was Lindsay getting all of this money? She was stealing it from her parents savings account. This was an account that Lindsay's mom had many years ago and added Lindsay to the account. Lindsay stole $10,000 from the account. Why would she steal from her parents to give to her boyfriend? Why would her boyfriend allow this to happen? Timothy tries to explain that he thought it was Lindsay's child support money. Even if that was true, why would he be entitled to that money? When Lindsay's mom discovered the withdrawals from the account, she asked Lindsay to return the debit card. Timothy had the debit card. That is so ridiculous that Lindsay would trust him with the debit card. She really had no respect for her parents or even herself. Lindsay's mom explains that she has a $6500.00 lien against a personal injury suit of Timothy's. It seems Lindsay negotiated with Timothy to pay back $6500.00. Lindsay claims this money does not include the money spent on the bed. This is why she is suing him, to get back the money for the bed. Timothy says it does include the money spent on the bed. At first, they agreed on $5500.00. Then Lindsay brought up the payment for the bed. Timothy said he would give her another $1000.00. Lindsay agreed that he offered that amount and that is why the final amount is $6500.00. But, Lindsay says it was not for the bed. This does not make sense, since she brought up the bed, he offered additional money and she agreed. Lindsay also gave him a watch. Timothy has the watch with him and it is returned to Lindsay. What would possess this young woman to act this way? The Judge tells the mom that she is mortified since this is no way for a daughter to behave. Her daughter needs help. Lindsay is not awarded the the $1501.75 for the bed. This money is included in the lien and she cannot recover it twice. Lindsay needs to have more respect for herself. She should not be showering money on a man to keep his attention. This is a very important lesson to learn. Lindsay is young enough to move forward from this experience and not repeat this mistake. Lindsay is working and paying back her parents and I wish her luck in the future.

I Wanted To Go On The Bus Trip - Now Give Me My Money Back!

Amazetta is suing Denise for $105.00. This is for 3 tickets for a bus trip to the casino. Amazetta considers Denise like family. When they were both at a family reunion, Denise asked Amazetta if she wanted to go on a bus trip. Denise explained that she was working with the organizers. Amazetta wanted to go on the bus trip and also asked a friend to go. Amazetta laid out the money for her friend and  Denise's father. She paid Denise $105.00 for the three tickets for the trip that was scheduled for the 27th of the month. On the 27th, Amazetta called the phone number on the ticket, to find out where to meet the bus. The man on the phone would not give her an exact address, he gave her an intersection. He told her the bus leaves from the corner of Purdue and Agler. Amazetta had a friend call the number and found out the man's name was Cliff. Cliff also gave her an exact address. No one told Amazetta that the trip was cancelled. When she found out she wanted her money back. Denise said that Cliff and Juan are responsible to pay her back. Denise gave the money to Juan and he should give it back. The problem is that no one can find Juan or Cliff. Amazetta gave the money to Denise, she wants Denise to pay it back. Since Denise was helping to organize the trip and she admits she was going to travel for free, she is responsible to pay the money back. Denise can now sue Cliff and Juan to get the money from them. I think it is sad that Denise treated Amazetta this way. She let Amazetta pay for a trip and never bothered to let her know it was cancelled. And what about Denise's father? He never paid Amazetta for the ticket. She was nice enough to lay out the money for him. Why do people treat each other this way?

I Just Want The Title To The Car!

Dev is suing Artie for $3000.00. This is for the cost of a used car he bought from Artie. Dev does not want the money, he just wants the title to the car. Artie will not give him the title, since he claims that Dev owes him for the cost of having the car towed. Artie is also countersuing for $640.00, the cost of a lawyer and the cost of the tow. Dev bought a 2001 Kia Sportage from Artie's used car business. When he left the lot, he drove 8-10 miles, the car sputtered and died. He called Artie, was told the car ran out of gas. Artie informed him the gas gauge was broken and he was sending someone with gas for the car. In the meantime, a police officer stopped and called for a tow truck. It seemed Dev's car was blocking a snowplow. When Dev called Artie to tell him the car was being towed, Artie got upset. Artie told Dev to get the mileage on the tow truck. He did not know why Artie wanted this information. The cost of the tow was $140.00, Dev was not going to pay for the tow. He did not feel it was his responsibilty. The driver was going to leave with the car. Artie went inside and got money to pay for the tow. Artie claims that Dev was supposed to pay him back, Dev denies this. Artie put gas in the car and Dev drove away. Did Artie fix the gas gauge? No. Artie says he never said the gas gauge was broken. Did Dev ask him to fix it? No. Dev said he bought a used car and knows the rules. Dev is very calm about this whole situation.  He shows a video of his car, the gas gauge, putting gas in the tank and the gas gauge does not move. Dev says he knows when to put gas in the car. Why won't Artie give him the title to the car? Artie feels Dev should pay for the tow. Well, it does not work out this way. Dev wins his case and gets...the title to the car! I am so happy for him. Dev sounds like he really likes the car and is not bothered about the broken gas gauge. I really think Dev should have also sued for the cost of fixing the gas gauge. He did not know he was buying a car with a broken gas gauge. I admire Dev for the cool, calm, collected way he approaches life. Oh, and Artie loses on his counterclaim. Artie should be more upfront with his customers. Letting someone leave a used car lot with no gas in the tank is not responsible at all! What do you think?

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

Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart.

-Phil Jackson

People's Court - 8 13 2012 - Monday

I Will Not Let You Take Advantage Of Me Anymore!

Lisa is suing Steven for $955.55. They dated for several months after meeting online. For some reason, Lisa kept laying out money for Steven, even though he did not pay her back. After they broke up, she tried to get her money back. When she had no luck, she filed this lawsuit. Lisa says the first time she laid out money was for Broadway tickets to Jersey Boys. Steven wanted to get tickets for his sisters. Lisa's mother works in the industry, so she was able to get the tickets. Why would Lisa put the purchase on her credit card? Steven admits he was going to pay her back for the tickets. Why didn't he pay her back right away? He does not have a good answer. He says he kept asking to see a receipt. This is ridiculous. The prices are on the ticket. Also, since Lisa wanted her money back, I am sure she would have provided a receipt for him. Lisa got plane tickets for the two of them with her earned miles. Lisa says she got the tickets because Steven could not afford them. He was running in a half marathon in Virginia Beach. How was he going to get there if Lisa was not around? Steven changed his mind about the marathon and Lisa had to cancel the tickets. It cost $100.00 to restore the used miles. She asked Steven for this money and he told her he was not going to pay her. Is it time for Lisa to dump him? I would think so. The Judge even thinks so. Does Lisa set him free? No, she continues with the relationship. Now, she invites him to a spring training trip along with other friends. Lisa explains that their relationship consisted of meeting at his house and going to bars. Did they go out to dinner? No. Did they go to the movies? No. What kind of relationship was this? Lisa says she broke up with him when she found out he was cheating on her. Good for her. Now she wanted her money back. Steven explains that he would have paid her for the Broadway tickets if he saw a receipt. Good news, Lisa has the proof in court. Steven says he does not owe her the $100.00 for the cancellation of the plane tickets to Virginia Beach. His reason for this, it was her idea. Really! He sent her numerous text messages about paying her back. He never said he did not owe her the money. He said he saved that to say on the phone. What else does he owe Lisa? Lisa says a movie and a wii game. Steven has brought the movie to court with him and returns it to Lisa. He denies having the wii game. He says he has his own, why would he need to take her game? The Judge rules in favor of Lisa for $930.55. She gets almost all of what she was suing for. The Judge takes the opportunity to address Lisa about learning a lesson. The Judge hopes Lisa has learned something from this experience. The real way to learn would be to lose the money she lent to Steven. The law is on her side, so she does get her money back. In the hallway, Lisa does say that she has learned her lesson and will not lend money anymore. I hope she means this. She seems like a really nice person and should not let men take advantage of her. Why are women so quick to lend money to the men in their lives? If their boyfriends cannot afford something, they can wait until they have their own money. Remember ladies, if he cannot afford it, he cannot afford to pay you back!

We Are Here Over $30.00!

Kent is suing Carl and Cynthia for $221.67. Carl brought his laptop to Kent for repair. Kent owns a computer repair shop. Kent agreed to remove the data, wipe the hard drive clean and restore the data. When Carl got home after picking up the computer, he found there was no information on it. This was especially troubling, since he wanted to print pictures of his mom for her memorial service. He called Kent to let him know there was a problem. Kent told him to come bace to the store, he probably forgot to put the data back on. Carl drove the 10-15 minutes back to the store and waited about an hour while Kent restored the information. Carl explains that when he got home, he decided that was not right and stopped payment on the check. He felt that Kent wasted his time. He sent Kent an e-mail explaining that he stopped payment on the check. Carl offered to pay for 30 minutes of labor. The Judge expresses her astonishment regarding the way Carl handled the situation. Carl should have let the check clear and then negotiate with Kent. Carl created a major problem over this situation. When all the charges have been figured out, this case is really over  $30.00. Kent is not so reasonable either. He is trying to explain that Carl should never have stopped payment on the check because he provided a service. Kent feels that when Carl returned to the store it was for a warranty issue. Kent mishandled the job, this is not a warranty issue. Kent was supposed to restore the data and he did not. It is not like there was an additional problem or something he fixed had to be corrected. Kent does not seem to understand that he is also wrong. Both men are at fault in this situation. The Judge rules to give Carl a rebate on the service charge. He will pay $100.00 for the repair of the laptop, instead of $125.00, the original amount. Carl also has to pay the $35.00 stop payment charge. After the decision, the Judge tells both men that they were foolish. I totally agree with this. In the hallway, Carl says that he was not foolish, since he did not initiate the court case. Did he already forget that he stopped payment on the check for a service he received? Kent says that he had to fight him because anyone can write a check and stop payment on it. Did he forget that he wasted this man's time by not doing the job correctly in the first place? It seems to me that both men left the courtroom less informed then when they entered. Neither of them listened to the Judge. Neither of them seemed to learn anything from this experience. What do you think?

I Want My Daughter's Belongings!

This next case is very sad. Sylvia is suing her daughter's friend for $5000.00. Valcharal, her daughter's friend, is countersuing Sylvia for $5000.00. What occurred to bring these two women to court today? Sylvia's daughter passed away. Sylvia wants her daughter's belongings back. The belongings consists of jewelry, laptops, debit cards and a phone. Valcharal has the belongings and claims that Sylvia's daughter, wanted her to keep the belongings from her mother. What occurred to have these two women at odds with each other? Instead of supporting each other after the death of someone close to both of them, they are suing each other. Sylvia explained that she took money to her daughter, so she could have Valcharal deposit it, to pay bills. Her daughter was in a rehab facility and told her mom she was not feeling well. Sylvia told her she should go to the hospital. Her daughter told her she would go the next day. Sylvia explains that she tried to get in touch with her daughter the next day and could not. It seemed that Valcharal took her to the hospital. She was admitted, there were complications and she passed away. Sylvia explains that she was contacted by someone at the hospital. Sylvia is distraught over the loss of her daughter. Valcharal claims that Sylvia's daughter had told her to keep her mother from getting anything that belonged to her. Valcharal has brought a witness to court and an affadavit from a family member. No one has anything nice to say or write about Sylvia. Valcharal even accuses her of doing drugs at her own daughter's funeral. Things can get nasty very quickly. Of course, Valcharal does not have any proof. Just to say such things, is very hurtful. Sylvia's daughter did not leave a will. The Judge dismisses the case without prejudice and explains that they need to go to probate court. Someone has to be appointed administrator of the estate, in order to determine how to distribute the belongings. The Judge directs Valcharal not to touch or throw away any of the belongings. This matter needs to be decided in probate court. The Judge directs Sylvia to call a lawyer to handle the case. Why is Valcharal countersuing for $5000.00?She explains that Sylvia has been calling her and leaving numerous messages. Sylvia even called Valcharal's mother! The Judge rules against Valcharal, explaining to her, this does not make a $5000.00 harassment suit. After the case is over, Sylvia says to Valcharal that her mother smokes crack. Valcharal responds to this by saying, my mother does not smoke crack, only you do. This is so sad. Two of the people who loved someone very much, are attacking each other. During their time of grief, it would be so nice if they could lean on each other. I would hope they could get past this and be a comfort to each other during this time of  great loss. What do you think?

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

Kindness, I've discovered is everything in life.

-Isaac Bashevis Singer

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