People's Court Blog - 9 5 2012 - Wednesday

Michael And The Angry Girlfriend

Michael is suing Rosalie for $3000.00. This is for damages to his belongings after they broke up. Rosalie is counterclaiming for $600.00, the cost of a pool cue. Michael and Rosalie met at a pool tournament. They dated for 6-7 weeks and then they broke up. When Michael was out of town his furniture was damaged and DVDs and photo albums stolen. Michael says that Rosalie went in his room, when she drove his friend home. His friend Jimmy wrote a statement to confirm this information. It seems Rosalie was in Michael's room and came out with a duffel bag. Rosalie denies this. She says she drove Jimmy to Michael's and stayed outside. The pictures of the damage to the dressers show scratch marks all over the surface. The Judge describes the damage as that done by an angry woman. Rosalie claims someone else must have done this. Someone that was mad at Michael over a fight. This is not the type of damage an angry man will do. I agree with the Judge. Rosalie continually makes comments directed at Michael  throughout the court case. This is not the time or place for this. Her inability to conduct herself in court does not help her credibility. The Judge finds that Rosalie did the damage to the dressers. Unfortunately, Michael does not have any proof of the value of the furniture or items stolen. Michael does provide an estimate to have the furniture restored. He is awarded $2000.00.

Regarding the counterclaim, Rosalie says that the pool cue was loaned to Michael. She said he broke his pool cue during a tournament and she let him use hers. He said it was a gift. There really is no proof for either side. The Judge finds that the pool cue was a loan and directs Michael to return it to Rosalie. It is a shame that Rosalie damaged the furniture. One of the dressers had belonged to Michael's grandmother and mother. The sentimental value of the dresser is not a factor in the money he can receive. After the verdict, Rosalie had to get in the last word. In the hallway, she  continues to say that everyone has lied for him. Michael feels justice was served and then gives a commercial spot for People's Court. Hopefully they do not frequent the same pool halls! 

Drew/Dorothy And The Super Mint Condition Car!

Drew and Dorothy are suing Anthony for $3284.67. This is for repairs they had done to a used car Drew bought from Anthony. Dorothy is Drew's mom. Drew found the 2001 VW Jetta advertised on Craigslist. Anthony advertised it in super mint condition with a new timing belt. Drew and his mom went to look at the car. They went for a test drive and gave Anthony a deposit to hold the car. Drew was paying for the car himself with money he earned working all summer on a goat farm. What they failed to do was have the car inspected before they purchased it. Dorothy says they had a post purchase inspection done. This does not even make sense. And the best part, they did not take the car to a mechanic for a month after buying it. When they do take the car to a mechanic, they are told there is a piece of wood wedged to hold the timing belt tensioner. The mechanic was so amazed to see this, he took pictures of it with his cell phone. Dorothy shows these pictures to the Judge. It is so true a picture is worth a thousand words. 

Anthony explains that he had the timing belt replaced by a neighborhood mechanic or an alley mechanic as the Judge describes it. Anthony has no proof of the work done on the car. Since he advertised the car with a new timing belt, it is considered a warranty. The other issues that are wrong with the car are not covered by a warranty. The sale of a used car by a private individual is an as-is sale. It is always a good idea to have a used car inspected prior to buying it. Drew and Dorothy do get back some money. They get back $1195.88, the cost of the timing belt. The other problems on the car are on them. Maybe if they had it inspected before they bought it, they could have avoided all of these problems. Also, why wait one month to take it to a mechanic? They are very lucky that Anthony advertised the car with a new timing belt. This is the only reason they were able to get money back. Anthony seemed surprised at the discovery of the piece of wood. I get the feeling he will be following up on this! What do you think?

Wayne And Collecting Double The Debt!

Wayne is suing Michael for $1794.92. This is for rent and damages for an apartment Michael rented from Wayne. Michael and his girlfriend, Pam, were renting the apartment. Pam moved out first when the couple broke up. She had paid the rent up to and including September. Michael moved out at the end of October . He would be responsible to pay that October's rent. Wayne also wanted  rent for November. He claimed that Michael would not let him show the apartment, so he lost a month's rent. Michael said that Wayne would not give him any notice when he wanted to show the apartment and even showed it once when he was not home. Wayne said they damaged the floor and damaged a door. He did not have estimates for this damage because he is only suing for rent. He is suing for damages, they are on the list. Wayne has an itemized list of the money owed to him. He has actually already been paid for the damages. The couple had a $800.00 security deposit they were used to cover any damages. Pam's mom sent Wayne a check for $1054.00. In total, Wayne has received $1854.00. This is more than the amount he is suing for. Why does he think he can receive this money twice? He has no answer for this. The Judge rules in favor of Michael. Wayne cannot collect this money twice! In the hallway, Wayne says he had more to say. Michael says Wayne was unprepared and lied. He also says that the break up with his girlfriend was because they were not getting along. She is in court to testify for him and help him with this case. That was really nice of her. I wish these young people good luck in the future!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

If you can dream it, you can do it.

-Walt Disney

People's Court Blog - 9 4 2012 - Tuesday

Evita And The Car

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

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

Merline And The Fish Tank

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

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

Mary And The Adoption Fee

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

You cannot find peace by avoiding life.

-Virginia Woolf

People's Court Blog- 9 3 2012 - Monday

Joseph and The Matchmaker

Joseph is suing Jacqueline for $2227.00. Jacqueline runs a matchmatching business. When Joseph moved to Oregon from Ohio, he signed up for 2 free online dating services. Joseph is very proud to show the reason he moved to Oregon. He has a picture of his 6 year old granddaughter. He is a very proud grandfather! Joseph decided to upgrade his services on Jacqueline's website and paid her $27.00 for a consultation. He then agreed to a platinum service package that cost $2200.00 for 90 days of personal service. He refers to the money as "benjamins" (This is so cute!) Joseph was supposed to receive personal attention for this additional cost. Jacqueline said she does background checks on the potential dates and even conducts personal introductions. Jacqueline had asked Joseph to update his online pictures. He did this, had current pictures taken,  and sent them to Jacqueline. After several weeks, Joseph was not happy with the service. He sent an e-mail to Jacqueline demanding a refund. He felt she was stringing him along. Joseph received an e-mail from a potential date. He was upset because the woman was not a platinum member. He did not know what he was getting for the additional money he paid. When Jacqueline received a complaint from the Better Business Bureau, she suspended Joseph's membership. She did not notify him about this. Jacqueline explains that she did it for his benefit and then admits she did it to protect the company. Either way, when she suspended his service, she breached their contract. Joseph had every right to complain about a service he was not happy with. He was taking the proper steps and going through the right channels. The Judge finds in favor of Joseph. He receives $2200.00, the cost of the platinum package. He does not get back the consultation fee. Jacqueline should never have suspended his membership. Joseph is elated about winning the case. He is also dating the photographer that took his pictures to update his profile. It seems that Joseph is a man of action. He moved to Oregon to spend time with his granddaughter. He is enjoying an active social life! He knows what he wants and is willing to go to court to fight for it! What do you think?

Richard And The Shopping Cart

Richard is suing Jamie for $650.00. This is for damages to his car from a shopping cart. Richard explains that he was parked next to the shopping cart corral. When he came out of the store and approached his car, someone in the parking lot pointed out the damage to his car from a shopping cart. He said the person shoved the cart from across the lane and then pointed to a car that was leaving the parking lot. The car circled around and came back. The passenger in the car told him that her cart hit his car. She gave him her information. The passenger was Jamie. Jamie admits that the cart hit the car instead of going in the cart corral. She says she pushed it from a few inches, not a few feet. She knows it scratched the car. Why shouldn't she pay for the damages? (This is where it gets really interesting!) Jamie says she was an invitee of the supermarket. She was told by a lawyer that she is not responsible for this reason. The Judge explains that as an invitee it does not absolve her of responsibility from consequences of her own actions. Also, the Judge tells Jamie that the legal advice she received was not correct. You get what you pay for! Yes, it is true, Jamie did receive free legal advice! I think it is amazing that Jamie knows she hit Robert's car and was not willing to pay for the damages. Why did she give him her information at the scene? Jamie feels that Robert was threatening and intimidating when he was calling her to ask for the money. It took a lawsuit to show Jamie that she is responsible for her actions. Robert is awarded $544.75. He will get back the cost of his deductible, credit card interest and his court costs. Robert was also suing for the cost of gas, he will not get this because he did not bring proof to court. Robert was fortunate there was a witness to this incident. Jamie should have left her information on Robert's car as soon as she saw the cart had caused damage. I hope Jamie is more responsble in the future and puts the shopping cart directly in the corral. This way she will avoid hitting someone's car! What do you think?

David / Margaret And The Flood

David and Margaret are suing Alex for $3000.00. They explain their neighbor's toilet overflowed and caused flooding in their home. The insurance company hired a restoration company for the clean-up. Alex's company did the initial clean-up, removed the damaged carpeting and padding. They also removed the parts of the walls that had absorbed water. When the contractors started their work, Alex was contacted to store David's and Margaret's belongings. The belongings were packaged in cardboard boxes and Rubbermaid containers and stored in Alex's warehouse. When David and Margaret received their items back, they were very unhappy. They say that everything was moldy and smelled really bad. One of the Rubbermaid containers was cracked. They threw almost everything away. They did save a few items they brought to court with them. They did not take any pictures, they do not have any receipts. They do have a list with the number of boxes and containers removed from their home. This is their only evidence. Alex does not have any paperwork for this transaction. The list also has written on it that 3 rugs were taken to the storage unit. When the items were returned, the rugs could not be found. Alex does have 2 of the rugs in court for this case. He admits that one rug is still missing. The Judge checks the items that David and Margaret brought in with them. She notes they do smell, but is not able to determine whether it is from the flood or from the storage unit. Alex explains the items were packaged and sealed at their home and stored in his warehouse. Everything was still sealed when it was returned on February 2nd. Alex did not know there was a problem with the items until March 28th, when he was notifed about the lawsuit. Since David and Margaret are not able to prove that the storage procedure damaged their belongings, they do not get paid for them. They will receive $200.00 for the missing rug. They also get back the 2 rugs that Alex brought to court. The Judge smelled them and said they were fine. It is a shame what happened to David and Margaret. Having your home flooded with sewage water was a nightmare for them. I do think they should have notified the company as soon as they got back their belongings. It might have made a difference! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.

- Robert Frost

People's Court Blog - 8 31 2012 - Friday

Good Luck, Erin!

Vicki is suing Erin for $1260.00. This is for rent, parts for her truck and stolen money. Erin is almost 20 years old and has been on her own since she was 18. When Erin turned 18, she told her parents she wanted to be an adult and live on her own. This is very commendable for Erin. When she had difficulties, her mother would not let her come home. (This is really sad. A parent should always let their child come home). Erin went to live with her aunt. For some reason, this did not work out and Erin wound up with her aunt's friend, Vicki. This sounds crazy, how can you just drop someone off on a doorstep? This is not what this case is about. This is about money that Erin owes Vicki. Erin was supposed to pay rent. Also, Erin borrowed Vicki's truck and had an accident. Vicki bought the parts for the truck and Erin did the repairs. Also, Vicki wants her money back that Erin stole from her. Erin admits stealing money for cigarettes.This is not commendable. Why is Erin stealing from Vicki? Erin needs to realize that other people are not responsible to take care of her. She needs to take responsibility for herself. Erin is hoping to get a job and go to school. She wants to be an auto and diesel technician. Part of getting her life together is to pay her debts. She is found responsible to pay Vicki back the money she owes her. Erin signed a promissory note for $1070.00. Even though Vicki claims she added wrong and the amount is higher, she cannot get more than the agreement. Erin claims she was forced to sign the note because she felt threatened by Vicki. Erin cannot prove that she was threatened and she did sign the agreement. Erin needs to pay Vicki back. This is the beginning to getting her life on track. I wish Erin all the luck in the world. I hope she gets the job she wants and she does well in school. Good luck, Erin!

You Cancelled The Reunion!

Khadija is suing Lisa for $30.00. This money is for 3 tickets to a neighborhood reunion. Every year the neighborhood that Khadija grew up in would hold a reunion. This year it was cancelled. Lisa and several others started a Facebook group to revive the reunion. Khadija wanted to go to the reunion and ordered 3 tickets. She sent a money order to Lisa for $30.00. Two days before the reunion, Lisa decided to cancel it because she did not have enough barbeque grills to cook the food. Lisa promised to return everyone's money. Khadija saw this notice and expected to get her money back. She sent a message to Lisa on the Facebook page regarding her refund. Lisa was upset because she did not inbox her or contact her personally. This is so ridiculous! Lisa cancelled the event and then the next day, messaged that it was back on again. Once the event was cancelled, why would Khadija check the Facebook page again? Lisa is positive she knew the event was back on. Why is she so sure? She says because she wrote to Khadija to reread the message. What? This is such a waste of everyone's time! If Khadija knew the reunion was going to happen, she would have gone. She was looking forward to going to the reunion with her two sons. All she wants is her money back.  This is not too much to ask for, is it? Why would Lisa make Khadija sue her to get back $30.00? According to Lisa, it was to teach her a lesson. Well, Lisa is the one who is learning a lesson. She is ordered to pay Khadija the $30.00 for the tickets. I think that forcing someone to sue you for $30.00 is very spiteful. What do you think?

 

You Rented The Studio - Pay Me!

Matthew is suing Marshaun for $2324.99. Matthew rented  recording studio space to Marshaun for $500.00 a month. One of the conditions to the rental was for the equipment to be upgraded. Matthew paid for the upgrade, now he wants Marshaun to cover that cost, as well as pay the rent for the rest of the contract. In the beginning, everything went well. Marshaun stopped paying rent after a few months and someone broke into the studio. Matthew changed the locks on the studio after the break-in. Matthew claims he tried to contact Marshaun to let him know and to give him new keys. (Really, you are going to give someone keys when they are not paying rent!). Marshaun says he was never notified about the changed locks. When he found himself locked out, he stopped paying rent. Who are we to believe? Matthew has no proof that he notified Marshaun. It would be very easy to verify notification. Text, e-mail, letter mailed return receipt, are all good ways to prove you have notified someone. The Judge explains to Matthew that the lockout was illegal. He has no right to change the locks when he has a tenant. The only money that Matthew is entitled to is the rent money for the month and a half that Marshaun could access the studio. He is not entitled to rent money for the time that Marshaun was locked out or the cost of upgrading the equipment. It is very important when you are a landlord to know your rights and responsibilities. Hopefully, Matthew learned a valuable lesson about being a landlord.

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

We are made strong by the difficulties we face not by those we evade.

-Unknown Source

People's Court - 8 30 2012 - Thurday

Who Is Telling The Truth?

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

 

Is This A Pitbull Witch Hunt?

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

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

What Is Leaking?

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

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

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

-Unknown Source



People's Court Blog - 8 29 2012 - Wednesday

Your Boat Damaged My Wall!

Nancy and Robert are suing Ambrose and Tami for $5000.00. This amount is actually much less than what they have spent when Ambrose and Tami's boat landed on their property. The area where these couples live was hit by Hurricane Irene. Both families had boats and needed to secure them before leaving due to a mandatory evacuation. Nancy and Robert secured their boat by lifting it out of the water and tying it down. When they were able to return home, they found a boat had damaged their retaining wall (bulkhead) and fence. This boat belonged to Ambrose and Tami. This couple explains that they also secured their boat before leaving the area. Ambrose explains that his mechanic helped him secure the boat. Ambrose has pictures of the boat to show the Judge. The pictures do not help his case. The chains and ropes he describes are not visible in the picture. Ambrose does not have the mechanic in court or an affadavit from him. Why doesn't he have any evidence to support his claim? His wife, Tami, does not feel they have to prove anything. After all, there was a hurricane and everyone's property was all over the place. When they got home, they found debris on their property and they are not suing anyone. This is not a defense. Nancy and Robert have a letter from another neighbor explaining that Ambrose and Tami's boat was not secured. There is also a Youtube video of their boat floating by a house. It seems this is a very famous boat! Nancy and Robert were denied by their insurance company, since the bulkhead and the fence were not able to be covered by insurance. They are able to prove that Ambrose and Tami did not secure their boat properly, due to the letter from the neighbor.  Because of this, Ambrose and Tami are found responsible to pay the $5000.00. If they had secured the boat and it still caused the damage, they would not have had to pay. This is the difference between neglect and an Act of God. On the way out of the courtroom, Ambrose admits that he should have brought evidence. Nancy says that it cost her $3000.00, just to have the boat removed. This is a good illustration of the need to do everything possible to prevent something from happening. During extreme weather, everything needs to be tied down or put away to protect it from blowing away.  This would have saved Ambrose and Tami so much money! What do you think?

 

Bring Evidence To Court!

Aisha is suing Laura for $4000.00. This amount is for double her security deposit and the cost of gas and electric. Aisha rented an apartment in a 2-bedroom house from Laura. Aisha believed that Laura lived in the other apartment. Laura says it was empty and she lived in another location. Aisha says there was one meter for electric and one meter for gas. Aisha believed she was paying the utilities for the entire house, not just her own use. Laura says there were meters for each portion of the house. Aisha has a picture of the meters. It shows the two meters, but since it is a close-up, there is no way to tell if there are other meters on the panel. Laura does not have any proof at all. Aisha shows a picture of dog feces on a snowbank. There are no footprints or pawprints in the snow. Aisha says the dog feces was thrown from the other part of the house, the part she believed Laura was living in. Aisha says this is why she moved out, because of the filth and the smell of the dog feces. Aisha sent Laura notice when she decided to move out. Laura claims she did not receive it. Laura only provided a PO Box number on the lease and since Aisha needed to send her notice certified return receipt, Aisha sent the mailing to the house she lived in. Laura says she did not live there, so she did not get the notice. This is not Aisha's fault.

Aisha should get her security deposit back. The question is how much money would that be? How much did she actually pay for the security deposit. According to the lease, she paid $800.00. According to proof of payment, she paid $323.00 towards the security deposit. An agency paid the difference, and Aisha does not get the money back paid by someone else. Since she can only prove payment of $323.00, that is the amount she is awarded. Aisha's pictures do not prove the number of meters on the house, so she is not able  to recover the utility money. Neither the tenant or the landlord came to court prepared with proper evidence. This is the time to bring all paperwork with you. Aisha kept saying that Section 8 was going to fax documents to the Judge. Since this rental was government subsidized, Aisha could have dealt with Section 8 regarding her problems before she moved out. Laura does not seem to be on top of the rights and responsibilities of being a landlord. I think Laura and Aisha should have been better prepared for this case. On their way out of the courtroom, Laura says she respects the decision and Aisha realizes she was not well prepared and is appreciative of what she is getting. What do you think?

A Counterfeit Postal Money Order!

Renna is suing Arnold for $965.00. This is for a counterfeit postal money order that Renna cashed for Arnold. After Renna deposited the check, she withdrew $723.00 from the ATM. She gave that money to Arnold with an additional $100.00. Arnold says he received the postal money order as payment through a sale he made on Ebay. He sold a computer to someone. Arnold says he usually is paid through Paypal, but he accepted the postal money order. Arnold explains that he does not have a local bank account, so he would have had to wait up to 2 weeks to cash it through his account. Arnold did not even wait until the money order cleared before mailing the computer. The bank took the money from Renna's account, when it was determined the postal money order was counterfeit. Arnold seemed not to believe this, since he did not want to return the money to Renna. I do not understand why Renna would cash the money order for Arnold. She did not even know him for very long, they had only met the month before. Why did she do this for him? The only answer Renna keeps giving, is that she did not know a postal money order could be counterfeit. Well, I guess we learn something new everyday! The money order was counterfeit, Arnold should not have involved Renna, and Renna gets back her money. She can prove that she gave Arnold $823.00, so that is the amount she gets back. Also, Arnold has in girlfriend in court with him, why didn't he ask her to cash the money order? Why ask Renna, when he only knew her for a month? What do you think?
 

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.

-Unknown source

People's Court Blog - 8 28 2012 - Tuesday

 

She Cut The Medals Off  My Uniform!

Jonathan is suing Paulette for $4707.68. This is for rent money and also for a broken television. They reconnected through Facebook, had an online relationship and moved in together. When Jonathan was honorably discharged from the military, he rented a 3-bedroom apartment. Paulette moved in with Jonathan with her two sons, ages 4 and 2. The apartment was $1600.00 a month. Jonathan says they were each paying half of the rent. Paulette denies that this was the agreement. Although, she does admit paying half of the rent while they lived together. After living together for 2 months, Paulette told Jonathan she was going to have a girls night sleepover. He left the apartment for the night, so she could have fun with her friends. In the morning, Paulette called Jonathan and asked him to call before he came home. He thought this was suspicious, so he went home unannounced. He found Paulette in bed with another man. When Jonathan asked what she was doing, she assaulted him. He called the police and Paulette was arrested. Jonathan did not let her stay in jail, he got her out and also dropped the charges.Sometimes, people need to learn from their mistakes. 

 

Soon after this incident, there was another one. When Jonathan gets home one day, Paulette is on the phone in the children's room. Paulette's uncle was visiting that day and he is in court to testify. Paulette and Jonathan have another fight. Paulette cuts the medals off of Jonathan's uniform. She also throws something at the television and breaks it. Paulette's uncle broke them apart and kept the fight from escalating. Paulette says that Jonathan broke her television first, she has no proof. Her uncle did not see this. Paulette also says that the television she broke was not Jonathan's, it belonged to the family. She admits that she cut the medals off of his uniform, how horrible! A new kind of low, according to the Judge. It is obvious that Paulette has anger management issues. She really needs to gain control over her anger. Jonathan moved out and Paulette continued to live in the apartment. Jonathan's name was on the lease. Neither of them paid the rent. Paulette lived there five months rent free until she was evicted. The judgement from eviction court for the back rent was against Jonathan. Paulette is found responsible to pay Jonathan the full amount he is asking for in court today. She cannot expect to live somewhere rent free and damage someone's property. She needs to continue to work on managing her anger issues. Cutting the medals off of Jonathan's military uniform is inexcusable. How did she have the audacity to do something so terrible? Jonathan served our country and Paulette should show respect for the uniform. This is definitely a toxic relationship and they are directed by the Judge to move on mentally. They are not together anymore and are both in new relationships. People should not move in with each other so quickly , especially when there are children involved. Why are women so willing to expose their children to these unhealthy relationships? What do you think?

I Do Not Want The Murphy Bed Anymore!

Claudia is suing Tom for $1607.60, the deposit (half of the purchase price), paid for a custom bed. She purchased a Murphy Bed from Tom's company. Tom explains that he is able to advertise the product as a Murphy Bed, since the hardware for the bed is purchased from the Murphy Company. This is a type of bed that folds up in the wall when not in use. Claudia purchased the bed in September 2009, and was going to pay the balance, when the bed was delivered and installed. When Claudia found out she might have to move out of her rent stabilized apartment, she contacted Tom. Claudia wanted to know what the cost would be to relocate the bed if she had to move. She was told the cost would be $1000.00. At that time, she decided to cancel the order. The cancellation fees are listed on the signed contract. Claudia wanted her entire deposit back. So much time had passed that she was not entitled to her deposit back. Tom tried to help her out and offered to try to sell the bed. He would give her the deposit back, if he sold the bed. It could not be this easy! It wasn't!

Hurricane Irene hit the area in New Jersey where the Murphy Bed was stored in Tom's warehouse. The bed was on a pallet on the floor and was water damaged and could not be sold. Claudia said the flyer about the bed lists it as in stock and ready for immediate delivery. Why would it be in a warehouse in New Jersey? It can be delivered from the warehouse when it was purchased. It did not have to be in the showroom to be available for immediate delivery. Keep in mind, this is now almost two years after the original purchase. I would think that Claudia should have had the bed by now or lost her deposit. Tom was being nice to a customer to try to help her after all this time had passed. Claudia is the one who changed her mind about the purchase. She could have had the bed delivered and installed and dealt with the other issue later. The case about her apartment is still pending. While the Judge is ruling on this case, Claudia is trying to interrupt her. This is very rude, Claudia keeps saying she wants to finish. The Judge is quite clear during her ruling, that Claudia is finished and does not get her deposit back. I give Tom so much credit as a businessman to have done everything in his power to help his customer. There were unforseen circumstances called Hurricane Irene. Claudia tries to continue the case in the hallway, this is not the time or the place. If there was some other information she wanted the Judge to know, then she should have said it in the courtroom. Tom describes Claudia as a ridiculous and unreasonable customer. Yet, he tried to help her out for almost 2 years!
Claudia did not want this case aired. She took it to the New York Supreme Court, there were three hearings, yet here we are. Interesting!

 

Who Broke The Window?

Elanna is suing Nancy for $970.00 ($550.00 for rent and $420.00 for moving fees). Nancy runs a trailer park for her parents. Elanna went to look at a trailer after seeing it on Craigslist. Elanna signed a 7 month rental agreement. She was moving in with her two children and a co-worker. Elanna explains that she asked Nancy about the environment in the park. Elanna wanted a drama free environment. She was worried about racial problems because she has 2 biracial children, ages 3 years old and 6 months. Elanna says that Nancy assured her they would be fine. Elanna was also concerned about a pile of trash that a neighbor had stockpiled and Nancy assured her it would be taken care of. Elanna says it never was taken care of and it is still there. Did Nancy have a chance to take care of it? And why would it matter, Elanna moved out after living there for one day.

The first night at the trailer, Elanna said she saw someone running from the trailer after they broke a window. She did not have a phone and was too scared to go ask the neighbors to call the police. In the morning, when her co-worker came home from working the night shift, he called the park office. He told Nancy the window was broken. Perry, Nancy's fiancee, went to fix it. He was not told about someone breaking it and running away. He went inside and found a large rocking recliner near the window. He believes this is the cause of the broken window, since the glass and the screen were on the outside of the trailer. There was no glass on the inside. Perry fixed the window. Elanna moved out this same day, her co-worker still lives there. If Elanna was so frightened why didn't she call the police the next morning? Why not tell Perry to call the police? Why not call the police when she got to work? Elanna does not have answers to these questions. She expects to get money back for changing her mind. The general belief is that she got back together with the father of one of her children. He is in court with her, standing right next to her. Her boyfriend is not there to testify, so why is he there? It appears as if they are back together, even though Elanna denies it. The Judge rules in favor of Nancy. Elanna does not get any money back. It seemed that she changed her mind about her living situation and there are consequences attached. If someone is that afraid for the safety of themselves and their children, they should call the police. What do you think?
 

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

Happiness often sneaks in a door you did not think was open.

- Anonymous