People's Court - 7 30 2012 - Monday

The Stamp Collection is Worthless!

James and Andrew were friends for five years. When Andrew needed help with his mortgage payment and his child support payments, he turned to James. His friend had no problem lending him the money to help him out of this predicament. He loaned him $5500.00. Andrew agreed to pay James back the money within one year. They did not have anything in writing, but they both agree the money was a loan and it was supposed to be paid back. What they do not agree on is how the money was going to be paid back. James thought he would get money, Andrew was giving him some cash and items of unknown value. How is he going to know when the debt is paid back? The first item was a watch. James had it appraised at $1400.00. James thought this was being given to him as collateral on the loan. Andrew was giving it to him as payment. The next item was a stamp collection. Neither men had an appraisal done. How did Andrew know how much he was paying back to James? Andrew said the value of the stamp collection would satisfy the loan. How does he know this when he did not have the collection appraised? James did take it to have someone look at it, but did not pay for an appraisal. He does not have anything in writing regarding the value of the collection. He did not want to pay for the appraisal. You really can not blame him. Why should he spend money to find out the value of this item? James watches as Andrew lives a very full life. Andrew went to Africa to get married. He also had an extended honeymoon in Vegas. After that, there was a party at a clubhouse. James felt he should get his money back before Andrew spends it. James even said he would have been okay with a payment plan. When he asks Andrew again for the money, Andrew gets really angry. He thinks he has satisfied the loan with the stamp collection. Andrew explains that his wife has paid for all of the trips and the party. This is the same wife that he has split up with, he says because James has been harassing him for the money. Andrew also believes his wife had a relationship with James. Who really knows what is going on? We do know that Andrew does owe James the money. Since he gave him some cash payments and the watch, the balance is $2350.00. The stamp collection is returned to Andrew since no one can confirm the value. I think it is a shame that Andrew took advantage of his friend. Who will lend someone that amount of money with such relaxed terms of repayment. I really believe that if Andrew would have made some attempt to pay his friend back, they would have remained friends. What do you think?

Who Turned On the Lights?

Casey is suing Jean for $1500.00. They had a written contract for the rental of a ballroom. Casey had planned the wedding reception to be from 8:00 pm to 3:00 am. The wedding planner had approached Casey and said she needed additional time for the setup of the reception hall. He did not agree to changing the time. Unfortunately, he had signed over all decisions to the wedding planner and the mother-in-law. This was not a good idea. He entire case rests on the fact that he was not the final decision maker. He might have said no to the wedding planner, but then he was overruled. Unfortunately, he did not know about the change of plans. At midnight when the lights were turned on, his bride burst into tears. She was so upset that her wedding reception was ruined. By the time Jean was notified about the problem and was doing everything to solve it, the guests were leaving. This is a shame. A woman's wedding day is so important, no one should ruin it. Things happen and they get handled, but this should never have occurred. The wedding planner should have respected Casey's decision. Casey should not have given the final word to anyone else. Because he gave away his authority, Casey loses this case. The Judge encourages him to sue the wedding planner. She gives him advice on how to proceed. I think there comes a time to cut your losses and move on. I do not think he would win since he did give away the decision making. I hope Casey and his bride can remember the fun they had at the reception. His bride says it was ruined, that is not a good memory to have. Her guests must have enjoyed themselves until the lights went on. Remember the fun, forget about the bad stuff. Blaming the mother-in-law for ruining the wedding is not a good way to start a marriage. What do you think? 

The Loan Is Approved - The Loan Is Denied!

Foday and Alhaji, father and son, purchase a used car from Michael. The loan application is filled out by the dad. He says he is the owner of his own business. They leave the lot with the car, pending bank verification of the loan. Michael says this is common practice. Typically, there are no issues with this process. This time there is a problem, a major problem. A week after the purchase, Michael lets them know the bank denied the loan. The car needs to be returned. This should be the end of the story, but it is not. The car had been vandalized two days before the phone call. Someone threw a brick at the car and it broke both the front and back windshields. There is also some minor body damage. There is insurance on the car and everything is covered. The car is repaired. Michael picks up the car from the auto repair shop. Again, the story should end here, but it does not. Why are we in court today? Foday and Alhaji paid $4000.00 for the car, Michael does not want to return the money. He says the car has depreciated by this value because of the damage and the additional mileage. Is he kidding? The car was fixed and he had to know it was going to be driven. It's a car! Michael does not have any evidence of the depreciation. He claims that non standard parts were used for the repair, he cannot prove it.He has  no proof from the bank regarding the reason for the denial. What he lacks in evidence, he makes up in personality. He does have a charismatic smile. He continues to smile while the Judge rules against him. He has to give the money back for the sale of the car. He had no right to keep it. Michael continues to smile as he says, " She's kind of hot!" He leaves the court smiling and glad his customer is happy. 

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

A delay is better than disaster.

-Unknown

People's Court: 7-27-12

He Stole My Cappuccino Machine!

Kenneth is suing Ronnie for $5000.00. This is for back rent and for jewelry and a cappuccino machine that are missing. Kenneth is a promoter. He knows celebrities and is involved with celebrity events. Ronnie saw Kenneth's website and contacted him. He wanted to meet celebrities. Kenneth wined and dined him. In exchange for introducing him to this exciting life, Ronnie did work on Kenneth's house. When he needed plumbing done, Ronnie was a plumber. When he needed electrical work done, Ronnie was an electrician. Wow, this just seems all too good to be true. Then Kenneth loses his job, his wife leaves him and he needs help with the house. He asks Ronnie and wife, Donna, to move in with him. Kenneth says they were supposed to pay half the mortgage. Ronnie says they were supposed to pay the cable bill, electrical bill and provide food for the house. Kenneth said all went well the first month. It was at the end of the second month that the problems occurred. Ronnie did not pay his half of the mortgage, he moved out without saying anything and he stole jewelry and a cappuccino machine. Ronnie denies all of this except the moving out. He said he was not supposed to pay towards the mortgage. He denies taking the jewelry and cappuccino machine. He remembers that Kenneth's wife had been in the house. I guess this was to give another reason for the missing jewelry and cappuccino machine. Casting suspicion on someone else is a great defense! Ronnie claims he paid the bills, although he does not have any proof. He does admit leaving behind his coffeemaker. He really wants everyone to believe he did not take the cappuccino machine. This must have been a very special machine! Now, Kenneth says he has proof that Ronnie agreed to pay half the mortgage. It is an open and shut case!  Kenneth shows the Judge a signed agreement with Ronnie. This is the agreement for Ronnie to pay half of the mortgage. Ronnie says he never signed it. He shows several examples of his signature, they do not match the signature on the agreement. Kenneth explains this by saying that Ronnie is a con man. This does not make any sense. Showing this document hurts Kenneth's credibility. He has no proof regarding the stolen jewelry or the cappuccino machine. The police have been investigating and Kenneth does not have any answers. Ronnie said the police called him once and he told them he pawned jewelry that belonged to his family. Kenneth claims that Ronnie left a voicemail admitting to the theft. He does not remember the exact words and he does not have the voicemail. This is not evidence. The signed document is not evidence. Kenneth also shows a Facebook message, that does not appear very legitimate. Kenneth can not prove his case. Kenneth tells the court that Ronnie was selling  prescription drugs and his wife was scamming disability. Why on earth would he ask these two people to live with him? If he found out this information after they moved in, why not ask them to leave? Kenneth took a big chance asking two strangers to move in with him. He should be glad they moved out. It is a shame that his jewelry is missing, it sounds like so much of it had sentimental value. Kenneth was not able to prove his case. He leaves the court very disappointed but plans to pursue the case of the stolen goods. Ronnie assures everyone he will still continue to watch the show. He believes he would have been arrested by now if the police had any evidence against him. We all will continue to watch the show and hope to figure out what possesses people to make such poor decisions!

I Tried To Tell You What I Did Not Do!

Michael and Rosemary are suing Robert and Jim. Robert was driving the tow truck for Jim's company.  Jim said Robert is the dispatcher, driver and his friend. Robert was picking up a vehicle at Michael and Rosemary's house. Rosemary's neighbor saw Robert hit her fence with his tow truck. The neighbor called her to tell her to go outside. She ran outside in her pajamas, it was 7:00 am. She watched Robert load the vehicle and as he was leaving, she asked him about the fence. He said it was nothing, started pulling on the fence. He said he could pull it back into place. Robert said he did not hit it, it was loose. Rosemary asked him for his driver license information. She wrote it down and gave it to the police. Robert did not wait for the police to arrive. There is also a question about the validity of his license. Rosemary said it was expired, Robert says it was valid. He shows the Judge a Florida license. I think Rosemary would remember if the drivers license was from out of state. Robert says he has a license in both states. He does not have his other license to show to the Judge. Robert does not sound very believable about any of this information. For some reason, his boss, Jim, believes him. When the Judge is questioning Robert, he says he tried to tell Rosemary before she asked about the gate and the fence. This is the "aha" moment that does not always happen for us. What was Robert trying to tell Rosemary? If Robert did not damage the gate and fence, what was there to say? This is also when Jim realizes that Robert has not been truthful to him. He nods his head in agreement with the Judge. He knows he is responsible to pay the $575.00 for the repair to the gate and fence.  Rosemary is happy to have won the case and will now have her gate and fence fixed. Everything would have been so much better if Robert would have been truthful. Honesty really is the best policy!

I Ordered A Round Bed!

Mary ordered a round bed from Elliot's store. She had it on a layaway plan. When she paid enough to have it delivered, there was a problem. For some reason, Elliot was not able to provide a round base for the round bed. This does not make any sense since Mary ordered a round bed. It is not practical to put a round bed on a square platform. Elliot shows the Judge a signed agreement with Mary. Mary's signature is next to two descriptions. Both descriptions describe the size as a diameter. There is a separate paper with a drawing showing a square base. This paper is not signed by Mary. I do not think Mary would have signed anything that described the shape as square. She is very clear about the shape she wants. Why wouldn't Elliot give Mary her money back when he realized he could not fill the order? His response is that he would not return her money but would make her happy. He would have a platform custom made to accommodate the round bed. He does not tell Mary that the base would be square. When the bed is delivered and put together, Mary is not happy. She wants a bed she can sleep on in comfort. She does not want a bed that is unstable. Elliot is not able to make Mary happy. She wants her money back. Mary is successful in proving her case. She will get her money back. I hope she will be very happy with her new round bed. Elliot needs to learn a basic lesson of customer service - The customer is always right.

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

Adversity is a fact of life. It can't be controlled. What we can control is how we react to it.

-Unknown

People's Court: 7-26-12

Just Say NO!

Donna is suing Mitchell and Kim for $1109.00. This amount is for the money she is out after Mitchell totaled her car. How did Mitchell, a 17 year old brand new driver wind up driving Donna's car? She gave him the keys at 10:00 pm, so he could drive home to pick something up. Why? This is the question of the day that is never really answered. The legal question of who is responsible for the damages, is straightforward. Mitchell is responsible because he was driving when the accident occurred. The moral issue is who is responsible for Mitchell driving the car. There is no question that Donna is responsible. She handed over the keys. Mitchell only had his license for 11 days. He was not supposed to be driving alone at night. What was she thinking? We will never know because this case was about the legal question. Mitchell was going to sleep over Donna's home. Mitchell is the cousin of Jake, the son of Donna's boyfriend. When they all returned home after dinner, Mitchell asked if he could borrow Donna's car. He told her he needed to get his medicine. He actually wanted his X-box. We never find out what kind of medicine he needed. It is unfortunate that Donna gave Mitchell the keys to her car. Someone could have been killed in the car accident. Why didn't she tell him to call his mother, offer to drive him, find out what he really needed, why he was going alone, etc? There are so many questions that should have been asked. Donna should have said no. There were so many other ways to handle this situation. Ask questions, find out what kind of medicine he needed. Did he need it that night? Can his mother bring it to him? The answers to any of these questions would have lead to a totally different outcome. How could she hand over the keys and not know where he was going? She never asked where he lived. There are so many questions that have nothing to do with the legal issue. The answers to these questions would offer insight into how this accident occurred. Unfortunately, we do not get these answers. Kim, Mitchell's mom is counterclaiming for $1500.00. She feels the stress she endured after her son's accident entitles her money. She has responsibility in this as well. Mitchell called her from the car because he was lost and needed directions. She did not tell him to pull over and stop. She did not offer to come and get him. She knew he was not supposed to be driving at this hour by himself. She knew he was lost, since she was giving him directions. They were on the phone when the accident occurred. Kim heard the accident and rushed to the scene. She feels her experiences and the aftermath entitle her to $1500.00. What is wrong with people? I would like to hear one person admit they were wrong. Finally, Mitchell does admit that since he was driving, he was responsible for the damages. Legal responsibility and moral responsibility are two different things. I am so glad that no one was seriously injured in this accident. Cars are replaceable, people are not. Please let me know what you think.

Walk Away From A Fight!

Ella and Lisa are suing Deborah and Justin for $5000.00. Ella is Lisa's mom. Deborah is Justin's mom. This is for dental bills and pain and suffering after Justin punched Lisa in the face. Why would a 15 year old boy punch a 13 year old girl in the mouth? This is a question that is left to us to speculate on the answer. The two teenagers tell totally different stories. The only fact that is clear to us, is that Deborah and Justin are found legally responsible to pay for the dental bills and pain and suffering. Ella and Lisa do not get the full amount they are asking for. They are awarded $3000.00; the full cost of the dental bills and $600.00 towards pain and suffering. Lisa's story is that when she was walking home afterschool, she passed Justin and a group of kids. She said Justin was being hit and then he punched her as she walked by. She ran home, crying and bleeding. Her mom called 911, the police came, Justin was arrested. One of Lisa's teeth fell out and she needed major dental care. Justin's story is that he was playfighting with a group of friends. Lisa walked up to the group, slapped him and he punched her in the face. The truth is somewhere in the middle. There were witnesses to the incident, yet no one is in court to testify for either side. The two stories make no sense. Why would Lisa walk up to a group and slap Justin? Why would Justin walk up to Lisa and punch her? Either way, the legal responsibility lands on Justin. If Justin's story is true, punching Lisa was an unreasonable reaction to a slap in the face. This could have lead to even more serious consequences than losing a tooth. Justin learned a valuable lesson, punching someone is wrong, especially a girl. I feel that a fifteen year old should already know not to hit someone. Thank goodness Lisa's injuries were not worse. Hopefully they will both come to terms with what really happened, since they are the only two that know the truth. What do you think happened?

 Three Years!

Sharyn is suing Mike for $686.00. This is for the cost of lanterns that were damaged three years ago. Mike owns a rubbish removal company. He was contracted by Sharyn's across the street neighbor. When the dumpster was being removed, the cable broke and there was damage to Sharyn's property. A stone pillar with a lantern and a stonewall were damaged. Mike took responsibility for the damage. He removed the rubble and debris. He had a mason rebuild the pillar and the stonewall. When the work was completed, Sharyn informed Mike that the lantern did not work. She also wanted the working one replaced so they would match. Mike agreed. The story should end here, but it does not. Why?, what went wrong? Sharyn priced lanterns, found out they were more expensive than she originally thought. She did not want to tell Mike it would cost more money. She got tired of looking at lanterns and forgot about it. Now, three years later, she wants her yard to look nice because her son is coming hme from college. Her son is in court, yet Sharyn does not want him to testify. Is anyone of this Mike's fault? He was more than cooperative at the time.  He took responsibility for the damage. He did the repairs right away. He even agreed to replace the working lantern. Three years later, why would he have to replace the lanterns? Sharyn feels that since the statue of limitations has not run out, he should have to pay. If she had evidence, she might have won. She might have been within her right to bring the case, but she still has to prove it. She should not have waited so long to pursue this case. In the hallway, it is clear she does not understand why she lost. Mike is satisfied with the outcome. He knows he did the right thing and is suspicious of the three year wait. It is so important to take care of a situation in a timely manner. What do you think of the outcome of this case?

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

Adventure is worthwhile in itself.

-Amelia Earhart

People's Court: 7-25-12

I Finally Found You After Six Years!

Peggy and Sharon are suing each other for $3,000.00. Peggy attempted to rent a house from Sharon 6 years ago. Peggy explains that so much time has gone by because she has not been able to find Sharon. She happened to be driving behind her one day and recognized her. She followed her, blocked her car in with her own car and called the police. Sharon was able to maneuver her car to get out and drive away. Peggy follows her again and thinks they are going to have a burger together! Sharon had pulled into a parking lot with a McDonald's. She does not want to eat with Peggy! She wants to get away from her. None of this has anything to do with the lawsuit. It does illustrate that Peggy is a very determined lady! Here is the story: Peggy was going to rent a house from Sharon. They met, did a walkthrough and signed a lease. Peggy handed over $1200.00, the security deposit and first month's rent. After this, Sharon tells Peggy that once a month someone is going to inspect the house. Peggy gets upset over this, she did not want someone checking on her, she said she wanted her money back. Peggy was not going to live under those conditions. Sharon offers to give her back half, Peggy wanted it all back. After all, only minutes had passed since signing the lease and giving Sharon the money. Sharon finally tells her that she will not return any of it and she can take her to court. Peggy could not find Sharon to serve papers for a lawsuit and then she sees her! So, here we are, 6 years later in court. The reason Peggy is suing for $3,000.00 and not $1200.00, is to include interest for the past 6 years. So much time has gone by, can Peggy still sue? She is very lucky, the statue of limitations has not run out! Now we hear the landlord's story. She claims that Peggy came to the meeting with her daughter, 3 children and a very big dog. She overheard them talking about fixing up the rooms for the children. She was worried about her property because she was not going to be living nearby. She says she told Peggy about the monthly inspections before the agreement was signed and the money paid. That really does not sound truthful. I do not think Peggy would have agreed to these terms. She said Peggy called her days later and said she found another place. Another statement that does not have the ring of truth. It does not seem to matter that the stories do not match. The monthly inspections do not seem to be unreasonable to the court. I would not want to live with those conditions. Would you want someone conducting monthly inspections of your home? The signed agreement limits Sharon to keep $600.00. She has to return $600.00 to Peggy, since she had no right to keep the entire amount. Her counterclaim for $3,000.00 is dismissed. I do not think the counterclaim makes any sense, she is suing Peggy for breaking the lease. She was already keeping her money, why would she be entitled to receive more money? Legally, she is not entitled. That is a good thing. It is curious that Peggy amended her lawsuit to match the amount of the counterclaim! A coincidence? Something to think about. These two women are like oil and water. Thank goodness Peggy never moved into Sharon's house. There was never anything good that would have come of that relationship. Some things happen for a reason! Let me know what you think.

What Are The Two Best Days Of A Boat Owner's Life?

(The answer to this question will be at the end of this case)

Fred wanted to buy John's boat. John sold his boat to someone else. Fred is suing John for survey costs, financing fees and the difference in the purchase of another boat. Why would he think that John would be responsible to pay these costs? Fred tells us that after he saw the boat, he offered John a deposit to hold it and John refused the check. Fred wanted to have some tests done, a survey and a sea trial, to make sure the boat was worth the $24,000 he was planning to pay for it. He met with John several times to see the boat, drive the boat and have professionals test the boat. On their last meeting, Fred makes up his mind, tells John he is definitely going to buy the boat and offers another deposit check. Fred prepares a written agreement that John signs, and still, no money changes hands. Fred claims that John told him he was a man of his word, he would not sell the boat out from under him. When it seems the deal is well underway, Fred contacts John again for an additional test. Fred says the surveyor e-mailed him regarding another test. John agrees that Fred called him, but said he was going to walk away from the deal because there might be a catastrophic failure. These two men seem to be having entirely two different conversations! Yet, they both appear so truthful. John contacts someone else that was interested in the boat. They meet and the person buys the boat immediately. Fred thinks he is still going to buy the boat and contacts John. Fred is told the boat is sold and he is upset because of all the time and money he has put into the anticipated purchase. Fred purchases another boat that is not as nice as this one and is more expensive. He wants to hold John responsible for these costs. He is not able to prove his case and leaves the court very disappointed. John is very satisfied with the verdict and is still convinced that Fred got cold feet and was not going to buy the boat. This is a good example of getting everything in writing from the beginning of a transaction. If this is not possible, communicate through e-mail so there is proof of intentions. I feel bad for Fred because he seemed so sincere about wanting this boat. He was trying to be a very careful buyer but seemed to be taking too long to make a final decision. What do you think?

(answer: the day he buys the boat and the day he sells it!)

You Ruined My Pants!

Patricia was walking past Ming's chinese restaurant when his employee was cleaning the sidewalk. When she got to work, she noticed her pants had been splattered with bleach. She called the store to let them know. After work, she went into the store and showed the manager the damage to her pants and asked for $78.00, the cost of the pants. Why is she suing for $379.00? She wants to be paid to replace the pants and for her costs of filing the claim. How much did she pay for the pants? $46.41. She received a discount since she opened a store account. This would not be an offer she would be able to get again. Patrica would only be entitled to receive the depreciated value of the pants, even though she wore them for the first time that day. Before she can get anything, we need to know if the store employee is responsible for the damage. The sidewalk is cleaned everyday. The employee puts out yellow markers to block half of the sidewalk. The employee pours a bleach solution and sprays the sidewalk with water. Patricia says she walked on the dry part of the sidewalk and noticed the bleach spots when she got to work. The employee told the owner, she walked on the wet part. He said he remembered her because of where she walked. That is why they were not going to pay for the damage. It does not seem believable that the employee remembered her with all of the people that must walk by in the morning. It does not seem believable that she would walk in the wet area in the direct line of the water spraying from the hose. Because this story is not believable and Patricia's story is believable, Patricia wins. She does not win $379.00, she is awarded $50.00, the depreciated value of the pants. In the hallway, Patricia says it was about the principle. The manager was rude to her and that is why she is here today. Also, she still has to walk in front of the store everyday and she crosses the street when the sidewalk is being cleaned. The owner says his employee is honorable and he continues to believe him. The owner needs to realize, if something does not make sense, it is probably not true. What do you think?

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

Of all the things you wear, your expression is the most important.

-Janet Lane

People's Court: 7-24-12

Bedbugs Bit My Baby!

I think this case is about common decency. Albelitza and Raul are suing their landlord for $5000.00 for the items they had to throw away because of bedbugs. Unfortunately, they lost because they could not prove where the bedbugs came from (an impossible task!). The landlord is suing them for 2 months rent, because they broke their lease. They had every right to leave when they did because the landlords did not follow through to exterminate their apartment for bedbugs. The exterminator was there once. They were supposed to come back and never did. When Albelitza called the landlord and asked when the exterminator would be back, she expected action. She did not expect an "I don't care" attitude. She has pictures of her 2 month old baby with bedbug bites on his thighs and face. Oh my goodness, seeing this just breaks my heart. Imagine this little baby getting bit during his sleep. They have every right to move out, to protect themselves. to protect their baby. They did everything they were told to do. If the exterminator had come back for the second treatment, there would have been a different outcome. They threw away so many of their belongings because of the bedbugs. The landlords are not held legally responsible because there is no proof the bedbugs were their fault. On the same note, Albelitza and Raul are not held legally responsible to pay the last two months rent since their apartment was not habitable. The legalities are one thing, but common decency is another. These landlords showed a complete lack of decency towards this family. They should not have had to expose their baby to the bedbugs for such an extended time period. The exterminator did not show up until 6 days after Albelitza reported the problem. After the initial visit, the exterminator never came back. This family should have received better treatment than this. I agree with their decision to move out and I am so glad they did not have to pay the remaining rent. What do you think about this situation?

Who Is Going To Pay For My Windshield?

Tamara is suing Lakisha and Rick for damage to her car. When Lakisha, Rick's mom,  was away, Rick had a party. Things got out of hand and there was fighting in the street. 5 parked cars were damaged.  Windshields were broken, the cars were dented. The police were called and the damage was documented. The next morning, Tamara discovers the damage to her car. Her windshield was broken. A neighbor told her about the party and she holds Lakisha and Rick responsible since the party was at their house. Unfortunately, the police have not identified the responsible party during their investigation. Tamara has no proof who actually broke her windshield, just the information from the neighbor. The neighbor did not even come to court to testify. She wrote a letter and did not even get it notarized. Lakisha explains why she was not at home. She was in court adopting a baby. She made it an extended stay because of her health issues. This has nothing to do with the case, but it gives insight to the character of this family. I really believe that if they thought the people at this party caused the damage, they would have stepped up. The police were called during the party and told Rick to turn down the music. There was no mention of the vandalism to the cars during this police visit. I think that Rick did not know about the damage until the next day. Lakisha did nothing wrong, she is not held responsible for the cost of the damage. She left an adult in charge while she was away. Rick was not held responsible since his only "crime" was having the party. His mother describes his punishment. He actually has been sent to live somewhere else. He is in a different school,  away from his friends and also his immediate family. This seems rather harsh. In the hallway, Tamara expresses her frustration at the system. She leaves us with these parting words, "what comes around, goes around". Rick sums it up with, "bad things happen when you do not have permission". He has definitely learned his lesson. What are your thoughts about this?

Keep It On The Down Low!

Patrick signed a lease with Drew to rent a 4 car garage. Patrick was planning to use it for an auto repair shop. Drew says this is not a commercial zone. Drew knows what Patrick is planning and tells him to keep the noise down, the gate closed and not let the township in. What on earth! What are these two men planning? It probably is good that the deal fell apart when it did. Things could have gotten so much worse. Patrick was supposed to take possession of the space on May 15th. Unfortunately or fortunately, the electric service was not hooked up and there was no bathroom. The bathroom was promised verbally, why wasn't it in the signed written contract? Patrick sent Drew a letter asking for his money back. Another glitch occurs, Patrick only asks for half of his money. He asks for the security deposit and not the first month's rent. Drew sends him a check for the amount he requested, which was only half of the original deposit of $3200.00. Why not just return all of his money? Drew says he is giving him back what he asked for. I am reminded of children on a playground, listening to the two of them talk! Drew has to return the rest of the money, after all the court cannot be expected to enforce an illegal rental. It would be like enforcing the payment of a cocaine purchase. I love when the Judge uses this as an example! After all, we all know if we do not pay for our illegal drugs, we are not going to sue over it!  I think the best part of this entire case is when  Patrick's wife talks in the hallway. She says that she will take care of everything in the future! On a positive note, Drew is pursuing getting the zoning changed. Hopefully, he will be successful and rent his garage legally! What do you think?

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

Stop thinking of what could go wrong and start thinking of what could go right.

-Unknown

People's Court: 7-23-12

I Want A Perfect Copy!

Melissa and Adam purchased a designer engagement ring for $6000.00. They took this ring to Dana and Ira's jewelry store to have it copied. They asked if it could be done and the answer was, yes. It would cost them $1712.00. This is a major savings over the designer ring. Melissa was not happy with the copy. After Adam proposed to her, she called the store and wanted changes to the ring. She finally brought the ring into the store in December, 2 months after the proposal. She did not want to leave the ring. Months later, Melissa brings the ring back to the store. She requested several specific changes: four diamonds needed to be changed, one of the prongs needed to be straightened and to even a little bit on the top. When Melissa and Adam returned to the store 3 weeks later, nothing had been done. Adam was very frustrated and voiced his concern about the lack of  repairs. Ira thought he had too much attitude and kicked him out of his store. So many times it is attitude that causes these cases to wind up in court. If everyone could communicate calmly, these issues could be resolved without a lawsuit. Now, Ira will not have a chance to make the repairs he acknowledged. He has to return Melissa and Adam's money. Dana feels that Melissa would never have been satisfied. Even though she won the case, she had to throw a nasty parting remark to Melissa, calling her a bridezilla. This comment was not necessary. The good news is that Melissa and Adam did get other rings for their wedding and will now live happily ever after.

Easy Life!

Eva is suing Kenneth for $2000.00. Eva was visiting her mother's house the weekend before Memorial Day. She noticed the neighbor, Kenneth, was having work done at his house. Kenneth's house is directly behind her mom's house. They each have a backyard fence, with about twelve inches between the fences. Eva noticed the contractor looking at the space between the two fences. She told him not to throw anything between the fences. He told her to talk to the owner. She did not talk to him. She said she had never met him and did not take the time to talk to him. The next day, the contractor gives her a thumbs up. She takes this to mean that he is not going to put anything between the fences. How nice this would have been! Now, she shares the story with her 78 year old mom. The next day, her mom is gardening in the backyard and notices the fence is bulging. There is concrete debris and sand between the fences. Eva looks at this and knows it was not there the day before. She talks to Kenneth and his response is that he does not understand why there is sand. Really! His contractor was doing concrete work, sand is used to mix it. He has to know this. He has his contractor come back and tell Eva's mom that he did not put anything there. Eva's mom says to her, easy life! What does this mean? It means that it was just easier for them to throw the concrete and sand between the fences. Well, they might have taken the easy way out and thought they would get away with it. Kenneth is found responsible for the clean-up. Eva has an estimate for $2,000.00. She explains why it is going to be so expensive. The Judge is satisfied and Eva is awarded the money. 

                                                            All In The Family!

Emanuel is suing Julie for $1000.00. Julie is the mother of his ex-girlfriend. He sold Julie a used car for $2000.00. They had a written contract. He did put in writing that the car needed certain repairs and he also was providing specific parts. Julie claims he also promised to do the repairs for her. These promises were not in writing. This gets to be a problem. When there is a written signed contract, that is where all the promises should be. If someone says something, add it to the contract. Julie is not happy with the deal and is counterclaiming for repair costs and pain and suffering. She does not want to pay the $1000.00 balance and wants him to pay her. This entire case revolves around the signed written contract. Since it was good enough for Julie to sign, the Judge does not find fault with it. She rules for Emanuel, Julie needs to pay the balance. She is not entitled to her counterclaim. Now, we come to the big question, why on earth would Julie buy a used car from the ex-boyfriend of her daughter? Why did either of them feel this was a good idea? Would you buy a used car from a family member or someone that you know?

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

 I have found that if you love life, life will love you back - Arthur Rubinstein.

People's Court: 7-20-12

We Are Here Over $9.00!

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

You Killed My Trees!

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

We Have A Leak - Please Fix It!

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

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

 A life without dreams is like a garden without flowers.

-Unknown

People's Court: 7-19-12

Friends with Benefits!

Kim is suing Christopher for $5000.00. She describes their relationship as friends with benefits. It seems that Christopher is the one that benefits from the relationship. Kim says that he was living the fast life. He did not have a job and did not have good credit. Why would she think it was a good idea to cosign on a car loan. If he could not afford a car, then he should do without. She is raising two children and I am sure she can use the money more than Christopher. She said that he constantly asked her about the money. When Kim took out a loan to pay for new windows, she takes out extra to loan to Christopher. She hands over $7000.00 without a promissory note. Let's count the things that Kim is doing wrong. 1. Lending the money 2. Not getting a promissory note signed before she hands over the money. I will never understand why money is lent first and the promissory note thought about second. It needs to be the other way around. When Christopher explains the money, he claims it was a gift. Why on earth would a single mother of two children, borrow money to give to him. He must think he is very special. He has paid her back $2,000.00. He says this was not money towards a loan, instead it was just money to give to her, to help her out. It is very clear from the way he tries to evade answering the question, "Why would someone pay back a gift?", he is responsible to pay the money back. Ladies, please take notice, when a man cannot afford something, has bad credit, does not have a job, do not lend him money! If they cannot afford it, they can go without. Kim seems to have learned her lesson. Next time she might not be so lucky to get her money back.

Why Didn't You Tell Me The Diamond Was Not Real?

Margie took her rings to the local jeweler for repair. She dropped them off, got a receipt and returned the next day to pick them up. There was a major mix-up. When she got to the store, Carlos, the owner asked her to sit down. He had bad news to tell her. She could not believe her jewelry was given to someone else. This was not bad enough, she is also told the diamonds were not real. Why is she hearing about the diamonds being fake at this time? Carlos fixed this ring two years before. He did not tell her at that time about the fake diamonds. He did not tell her when she dropped the rings off this time. Why wouldn't he tell her? He claims he was being nice and did not want to hurt her feelings. Margie says it would not hurt her feelings. The rings have sentimental value because they were from a friend. Knowing the truth would not have changed that. It would have been good business for Carlos to tell her the truth. He says two years ago he did not have a diamond tester. Now that he has one and he tested the diamond, he knew for sure. He has the diamond tester in court and tests it on the Judge's wedding ring. Thank goodness it reads diamond! 

Carlos is truly sorry about the loss of Margie's rings. She did not accept the replacement he offered because she wanted real diamonds. Unfortunately, Margie has no evidence to prove the diamonds were real. The Judge administers a little "rough justice" and Margie receives $500.00. Carlos is satisfied with the verdict. Margie is upset because she was lied to. It really is true that honesty is the best policy.

Your Burger Gave Me Food Poisoning!

Charles ate a  burger at Grandma Susie's Cooking Shack. When he gets sick, four hours later, he is convinced it is from the burger. He is suing Susie for $5000.00. He does not have any evidence that he got sick from the food at her establishment. He ate the burger at 7:30 in the evening, got sick 4 hours later. He was sick throughout the night and went to the hospital in the morning. The paperwork he has from the hospital has a diagnosis of abdominal pain of unknown causes.Yet when he hands the paperwork to the Judge he says it will prove his claim. Yes, he sounds like he suffered terribly with gastrointestinal symptoms. Unfortunately, he cannot prove what caused it. Susie tells us that no one else got sick. The Judge says the industry standard for an investigation is at least two cases. The symptoms he had could have been from the flu, it was not necessarily food poisoning. Also, depending on the type of bacteria, it could take 2 to 5 days for symptoms to appear. Some types of food poisoning from shellfish can take up to 90 days. Charles cannot prove his case, he does not have any evidence. He does not receive $5000.00. In the hallway, he is truly disappointed. Susie admits it was scary to be there to defend her reputation. The important thing to remember is to be open-minded. Charles was convinced it was the burger and would not entertain any other reasons for his illness.

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

The harder you fall, the higher you bounce.

-Unknown  

People's Court: 7-18-12

Where Do You Want Me To Start?

There is so much history that leads up to this case, almost 40 years. Lila and Debra's mom met in church almost 40 years ago. They became friends and their lives entwined. Throughout the years, so much happened. They co-signed on the mortgage to the house. At some point, there were changes, so only Lila's name was on the deed. Lila and her family continued to live there, Debra's mom and family moved out. Debra's mom starts to say she was paying rent to Lila, since this is not pertinent to today's case, she does not continue with her part of the story. At some point Debra and her family move in with Lila. Debra claims she has paperwork that shows in the event of the sale of the house, her mom gets part of the proceeds. Lila says this is not true. She does not have that paperwork with her. It is really not what she is in court to pursue. So much going on and it is not for this court to decide on the issues of who the house belongs to or who is entitled to the proceeds of a sale. The lawsuit that brings us here today is about an unpaid loan and unpaid storage fees. The loan appears very straightforward. Debra agrees that Lila lent her $1000.00. She says she is so grateful to Lila for helping her out. Yet, she did not pay her back. Why? Debra claims the $1000.00 is supposed to come out of her mom's share of the proceeds of the sale of the house. The one thing has nothing to do with the other. Why would this be the agreement, when Lila is denying that Debra's mom has claim to the house? The other part of the lawsuit is about storage fees. When Debra moved out of Lila's house, she left her motorcycle in the garage. She does show receipts for $25.00 a month payments. Lila says she owes her $100.00 a week for storing the motorcycle. Unfortunately, they did not have a contract regarding the storage of the motorcycle. Since Debra was paying Lila $25.00 a month, she is responsible to maintain those payments. She also has one month to remove the motorcycle. I would think she would rush over to get it out of there, since it is her baby! She would never even consider selling it to pay her bills. It does not end there. Debra has a $4200.00 counterclaim against Lila. She is suing her for broker's fees, one month's rent and one month's security deposit. Debra claims Lila kicked her out, forcing her to find another place to live. Why on earth would Lila be responsible to pay these expenses? The counterclaim is dismissed. Debra also claims that when she was locked out for three weeks, her fish died. Why didn't she call the police? She says she did not want to make trouble for Lila. This does not make any sense. If she truly had fish that needed care, she should have moved heaven and earth to save them. So dramatic! The sad, sad part of this entire situation is the breakdown of the friendship between Lila and Debra's mom. What a shame that it comes to this! It is not over for them, the ownership of the house is still in question and that case is pending. I wish these two ladies luck in working out this lifelong problem.

We Slept Together! - No, We Didn't!

Randy and Anna are stand-up comics. They are both here today suing each other. I will tell you now, there is nothing funny about these two. They are both mean-spirited and seem to enjoy torturing each other. Also, there is not much of the story they agree upon. Thank goodness they are able to bring their cases to civil court, otherwise it would certainly be criminal. Randy is suing Anna for the cost of the promotional items directly relating to her participation in a play they worked on together. He approached her at a comedy club and suggested they pursue a joint venture based on her "bestselling" book. Anna claims he hired her at $100.00 an hour to write a play based on his failed marriage. Right from the beginning, there is not a meeting of the minds. Needless to say, there is nothing in writing, no contracts, no confirmation e-mails or texts. The saga continues, Randy claims they had an intimate relationship. Anna vehemently denies it and is quite insulting to Randy. She thinks this is her time to do her act, it is not! Randy provides very explicit e-mails that do not leave anything to the imagination. Anna claims someone hacked her e-mail account. She even tries to implicate Randy, claiming he had access to her laptop. For two people that had only a business relationship, they seem to know an awful lot about each other. Anna finally says they were fooling around. What does that mean? She seems to stumble over her words. For someone who performs for a living and has written a book, she did not handle this appearance in a very professional way. She shows such hatred towards Randy, you wonder how involved they really were. There is definitely more to this relationship than meets the eye. What do you think? Randy did manage to go on with the show. He changed the name of the play and found a replacement for Anna. There were certain promotional items that he was not able to use since Anna was not involved in the production. Anna agreed they were supposed to split the costs of the play. She is found responsible to pay Randy back for the promotional items. Now for Anna's counterclaim. She wants $5000.00 for writing a play for Randy. He denies that he offered to pay her anything, let alone $100.00 an hour. Anna cannot prove she had any promise of payment. She loses on her counterclaim. It is a relief when this case is over. It is very painful watching these two people torture each other. Hopefully they will go their separate ways and stay far, far away from each other. Please let me know what you think about the Randy and Anna Show!

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

An obstacle is often a stepping stone.

-Prescott

People's Court: 7-17-12

You Gave Me A Stroke!

Du-en and Latisha are cousins. When Du-en needed help, Latisha was there for him. She had her own family to take care of, yet she let Du-en move in with her. Latisha became the payee on his social security checks as a requirement of his medical condition. Du-en is bi-polar and is on medication. He admits that he talks a lot and definitely proves it in court. One night, Du-en had a friend over and Latisha's friend was also visiting. They were all sitting in the livingroom. Latisha's friend was watching television and Du-en was talking to his friend. He said he was not interested in the show that was playing. Why not go into another room to talk? Latisha's friend asked him to be quiet. Unfortunately, Du-en got into an argument with Latisha's friend. Latisha asked them to calm down. The situation escalated. Latisha told Du-en to move out since he was a bad influence around her children. She cannot tolerate stress. When she is in a stressful situation, she can become dizzy and then she can have a stroke. This has happened two times to her. Well, it was about to happen again. She was starting to get dizzy and she passed out. She said that when she came to, she was in the hospital. She had a small stroke. Latisha was kept in the hospital for three days. So, why are we in court? When Du-en's check arrived, Latisha cashed it and kept the money. She felt that she deserved it for everything her cousin put her through. She had no right to keep the money. She has to pay it back. This is a very sad situation because she was the only one who was there for Du-en when he needed help. She let him move into her home and he did not behave properly. Latisha has her children to think of. She should not have allowed him to move in and disrupt her life. The stress he caused her affected her health. Du-en regrets his behavior and says it is not worth it to lose the support  of his cousin. It is a shame that it worked out this way. We need to rely on others in our times of need. It is unfortunate that Latisha is so soured by this experience, she says she will not help anyone in the future.

The Dog Ate The Paperwork!

Vilma and Reynold bought an Akita puppy from George. They took the puppy to their vet and was told the puppy had entropion. This is a condition where the eyelids grow inward. Sometimes the puppies grow out of it and sometimes they need surgery. The vet said they should wait and see what happens. When the condition continued to get worse, the dog needed the surgery. The vet said the dog should not be used for breeding. When Reynold bought the puppy, he planned to breed him. He paid $2200.00 for the puppy and was looking forward to recouping some of his money. This is not responsible, but that is another story for another day. Reynold said he contacted George and wanted his money back. He claims George agreed to give him half of the money back. Of course, nothing is in writing and George denies this. George seems to deny most of what was said. George says he could not understand Reynold because of his accent. He understood well enough to sell him the puppy. Why behave this way? Why make up such unbelievable answers? Just tell the truth! He should not be selling puppies, he is not a responsible breeder, he calls himself a hobbyist. Again, another story for another day. This is about the sale of the puppy. Reynold's family is love with the puppy and has no plans of letting him be returned to George. The surgery is done to repair the entropion and now the akita is diagnosed with hip dysplasia. Again, George is contacted. And again, George does not have recall of the conversations. He tells Reynold to take the dog to his vet. This is done and the vet agrees that the dog should not be used for breeding. Reynold says that George is telling him to breed the dog. George does not remember any of this, thank goodness the vet records are available. What is not available are contracts, there is no paperwork. Where is the paperwork? The dog ate it! This is an amusing moment, since the Akita is in court and he is big and beautiful. Obviously, he is big enough to reach papers on the table! There is some laughter about this, as we think about the infamous dog ate my homework excuse. The bottom line is that unless Reynold is willing to give the dog back, he cannot get the purchase price back. He is entitled to the money spent on the surgeries. This works out well, since Reynold's family would never give the dog up. They are in love with him and would give Reynold away first! George is not happy about this decision. In the hallway, he says something about intricate decisions and living things and continues on his way. He really needs to stop breeding dogs. He also needs to be more respectful towards people. No one deserves to be insulted and treated in a demeaning manner. This beautiful Akita has a wonderful and loving home. He will continue to be a family pet and not a stud dog.

We Admit We Damaged The Carpeting!

LaToya and Mark are suing their landlord for their security deposit. They think the landlord did not give them proper notice to withhold the security deposit, so they are suing for double the amount. The landlord is able to prove the notice was sent out to meet the requirements of notification. They will not get double back, will they get anything back? Can the landlord prove that she can keep the entire security deposit. She shows the Judge pictures of the carpeting. There is no visible damage. LaToya and Mark are honest. They remember their babysitter doing something that caused the damage to the carpet. I give them so much credit for being honest. It shows character. The landlord also is asking for payment for cleaning the apartment. She is able to prove that this was a necessary cost. She is not able to prove the money she spent on a new floor in the bathroom was justified. The Judge rules that a portion of the security deposit is to be returned to LaToya and Mark.The landlord can only keep the amount for the carpet and the clean-up costs. She is lucky that LaToya and Mark were so honest. In the hallway, the landlord says she will take batter pictures next time. LaToya and Mark leave the court feeling the right thing was done. They still got back more than the landlord wanted to give them. I am so glad to see honesty in court. LaToya and Mark have set a really good example for how people should behave in court and in life.

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

Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does.

-William James

People's Court: 7-16-12

I Want To Live In Peace!

Today we meet Jane and John. They are neighbors in a 4 family townhouse. Jane and John share a common wall. They have also share a love-hate relationship. Their children have played together and they have exchanged gifts at Christmastime. Yet John complains about where Jane parks her car and when her yardwork is done. Jane consults her neighbors when she decides to relocate her trashcans. She says she is trying to keep the peace. John says she parks down the street when she should park in her own driveway. Also, John has issues when Jane's landscaper decides to spread pesticides during a barbeque. There were people and food outside and he thought it should be done at a different time. There is a tense moment in court when John finds the need to describe the landscaper as Mexican. Why does he think this is necessary? It does not endear him to anyone. This case is not about the petty squabbles these two have had through the years. It is about the siding that John decided to put on Jane's portion of the house. He had the exterior of his house renovated and extended it to include Jane's house. The additional siding makes his house look bigger than hers. She wants the siding removed and the stucco replaced on the first level and siding replaced on the second level. This is not an entirely reasonable request. According to an estimate Jane has provided, this job will cost $4000.00. The Judge says this is an overinflated estimate. The siding on the second level does not have to be replaced, it can be painted. The siding on the first level needs to be removed and the stucco replaced. The Judge rules that this should cost $1500.00. In the hallway, John says he still loves Jane and wants to get along. Jane tells us coming to court is not about the money. She wants to live in peace. I do hope they can work out their differences. Living so close to someone is a delicate situation. When you do not get along, it can create so much tension. Everyone should feel comfortable in their own home. 

It Is Time To Put On Your Big Girl Panties!

Jessica and her Aunt Genese are in court suing Chanelle. Chanelle is Jessica's friend. Jessica received a very large amount of money on her food stamp card. She offered the card to Chanelle, but did not specify how much she could use. When Chanelle returned the card with no money left on it, Aunt Genese was upset. Jessica did not care. Jessica does not seem to worry about anything. She is smiling and happy and does not want to sue Chanelle. Her aunt has no legal right to sue. Genese tells us that Chanelle promised to pay back part of the money. Chanelle admits this and then adds that Jessica told her she did not have to pay anything. So she decided not to give Genese any money. Genese is not happy about any of this. She wanted Jessica's food stamp money. It seems everyone wants the food stamp money except Jessica. The Judge tells Jessica it is time to put on her big girl panties. I do not think Jessica understands that the Judge is telling  her to grow up. She needs to take responsibility for what is going on around her. She has a two year old son and needs to be a good parent. The Judge tells Genese she has no right to sue and since Jessica is not pursuing a case against Chanelle, the case is dismissed. Also, Chanelle has a counterclaim against Genese for harassment. This is dismissed also.  Genese was not harassing Chanelle by asking for money that was promised. Aunt Genese did not know that Jessica told Chanelle not to give her any money.  In the hallway, Aunt Genese says Jessica will learn from this. I hope she does learn and realize that her actions have consequences. She needs to provide for herself and her son. Chanelle tells us that she does not have hard feelings towards Jessica. Why would she? Jessica did not even want to be here!

Tow The Car To My House!

Dwight was in a car accident and needed his vehicle towed. He wants everyone to believe the car was to be towed to his house. The tow/repair company towed the car to their yard. An insurance adjuster needed to  see the car. When they find out the insurance company is not going to cover the cost, they bill the owner for the tow and storage fees. Dwight claims he wanted the car back right way. Why does he wait a month to get the car? When he goes to get the car, the bill is over $1,000.00. By the second month, the bill is over $3000.00. The Judge tries to find out why Dwight waited so long. He keeps saying the same thing - I wanted the car towed to my house. Okay, we get it, unfortunately, the car was not brought to his house. Why did Dwight wait so long to get it back? There were delays by the insurance adjuster, there was snow during the winter. Are these reasons to wait a month and then call the police? There is never a clear answer about the timing. We are very clear that Dwight says he wanted the car towed to his house. He did not sign a release at the scene of the accident authorizing the car to go to the tow/repair company's yard. Although, it does make sense that a car that is totaled is not left in a private driveway. Dwight can not prove the repair company did anything wrong. He is responsible to pay the tow and storage bill. The good news for Dwight is that it is not the amount the tow company is asking for. He is found responsible to pay $580.00, not the $3000.00 plus that the tow company is asking for. He also is going to get his car back. I hope this is what he really wants! You know what they say, be careful what you ask for, you might get it! In the hallway, the manager of the repair company does not understand why they did not get paid for the entire time they had the vehicle. The Judge explained it in detail. Yet another person who is not listening in court. There are rules and the Judge is there to enforce them.

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

Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.

-Unknown source

People's Court: 7-13-12 ** Bittersweet ** ****Music Business ** Responsibility ****

This is such a sad family situation. Keith is suing Kara for $2090.00. Kara is married to Keith's stepson, Dan. In 2008, Dan, Kara and their children lived in Missouri. Keith and his wife lived in Florida. Dan was arrested for felony possession of marijuana. The family needed money to get Dan out of this situation. Keith says he does not remember who he spoke when he agreed to lend them the money. Since Kara signed for the money, he is suing her. I do not think Kara is responsible to pay this debt. She had to sign for the money since Dan was in jail. The money was used to pay Dan's fines. When this situation was resolved, Dan and family moved to Florida for a fresh start. They stayed with Keith and his wife while they were trying to get on their feet. This was supposed to be a fresh start for them. Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. Living with the in-laws is a strain to begin with. The loan added tension to the situation. Kara thought that Keith was mean to her children, yelling at them all the time. She said that there were too many rules in the house, it was not fair to the children. They could not even have their snacks when they got home from school. Kara is so emotional, she can hardly tell her story. It is very obvious this entire situation is hard on her. She is trying to be everything to everyone. She has moved out of Keith's house, to try to give her children a better environment. Dan continued to live at his stepfather's house, until he broke curfew. He was kicked out and now sleeps on Kara's livingroom couch. This poor woman seems like she is about to break. Thank goodness, the law is on her side. She is not responsible for this loan. Keith needs to sue Dan for the money. In the hallway, Dan says he will sue his stepson. Kara says she is planning to move to Kansas, to be with her family. I wish her luck. She seems like she is carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders.  I hope everything works out for her and her children.

Yvette is trying to help two teenage friends of her son. She thinks they have musical talent and wants to give them a chance to pursue it. This is not her day job, she is trying to do something nice for them. She hires McAuthor to promote their talent. She gives him $2000.00 for an artist development package. He is a music producer, agent, musician, etc. With all of his expertise, he does not seem to steer Yvette in the right direction. There is a one page contract with little information on it. McAuthor says all of the details are on his website. Yvette is new to this business and does not understand all of the pitfalls that can happen. The major pitfall being the teenagers themselves. She does not get a written contract with the kids and their parents. This becomes a problem because one of the kids drops out. Yvette claims McAuthor tried to steal him away from her. She does not have any proof of this claim. He denies it. This particular young man did drop out of the group. Yvette found someone to take his place. She leaves messages for McAuthor and he avoids her. McAuthor has not upheld his end of the contract and Yvette will get her money back. I hope if Yvette continues in the music business, she learns her way around. I give her credit for wanting to help these kids, but she has to protect herself. Hopefully, this will be a learning experience for her.

A shopping cart rolls into a parked car and causes damage. Who is the responsible party? Tracey would like us to believe the store is responsible because the parking lot is hilly. She spoke to the store manager and finds out that this happens to others all of the time. They would not give her anything in writing. She would like us to believe the wind is responsible. She has weather reports with her in court as proof, it was a very windy day. She would like us to believe it was because she was closing her car after loading up her kids and packages. Okay, this is all very amusing! Fortunately, John was sitting in his car when the shopping cart rolled into it and caused the damage. Tracey looked in the car, said she was sorry and then was going to drive away. John approached her and got her information and has pursued this case. He would like her to pay the $543.13 cost of having the damage repaired. Even after being sued, Tracey still  thinks someone else should be responsible. She checked with her insurance company and found out that John can go through his own insurance company. Really! Why? Tracey really has lost all touch with the reality we call life. How can she truly believe she is not responsible for the damage to John's car? Why is she so quick to blame everyone else? What a great role model she is for her children, remember they were in the car! We are not surprised to find out the verdict, Tracey has to pay for the damage. In the hallway, she finally admits that she was responsible for the mishap. Hopefully, Tracey will change the way she looks at life and realize we all need to take responsibility for our actions. 

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

Think and wonder, wonder and think.

- Dr. Seuss

Submit your favorite sayings and quotes to be included in future blogs.

People's Court: 7-12-12 ** Delivery Date ** Only 4 ** Handyman

Jay and Amy order a dining room set. The written contract states the delivery date is estimated and cannot be guaranteed. They are told it will be 8-10 weeks for delivery, this does not hold more weight than the written contract. Do people ever read the contracts they sign? The information in the contracts is very important. It is essential that we read everything we are going to sign. At some point in the future, this could become very important. The dining room set is not delivered on time. There are problems with getting the furniture from the manufacturer. Spencer, who works for the furniture company, even called Jay to tell him the furniture was in and set up a delivery date when the furniture was not available. Spencer made a mistake. Jay was not happy with continued false promises of delivery and cancelled the order. Unfortunately, there is no proof of the cancellation. Zach, the store owner, does not recall the cancellation. Jay calls the credit card company and has the charges reversed. He is not going to have to pay for furniture he did not receive. Why are we in court? Jay and Amy purchased an identical dining room set from another store. They paid more for it and want Zach to pay the difference. This does not make any sense at all. Zach is protected by his contract and does not have to pay Jay and Amy. Now, let's talk about Spencer. He is Zach's employee, new to this store, yet has the audacity to be rude to his boss and the Judge. For some reason, Zach is not offended and even says that Spencer has done a good job. It does not look like it from my perspective. Spencer has a bad attitude and does not seem to care about customer service.

Jordan is only 4 years old. Michael is a neighbor suing Jordan and his mother, Maryellen. He believes Jordan threw rocks that broke his windshield. He did not see Jordan break the windshield. The next day Michael's grandson tells him that Jordan threw rocks at the windshield. Michael also claims that Jordan confessed to him. Jordan is only 4 years old. It sounds like there are many problems in the neighborhood between the neighbors. Maryellen feels her family is being harassed. The Judge tells her it is time to move out of there. There is so much tension the children do not play together anymore. Is a 4 year old responsible for his actions? Keep in mind there is no actual evidence that Jordan is responsible. There have been a rash of vandalism in the neighborhood. The windshields of several cars were broken during this same time period. Did Jordan break those windshields also? The Judge explains that even if Jordan did break the windshield, he is not legally responsible, he is 4! Also, his mother would not be legally responsible, she was not negligent. I can not believe that Michael sued Jordan, he is 4! The cutest thing, he wants to be a police officer when he grows up!

Frederick is a handyman suing Ann for unpaid work. He would do odd jobs for her and get paid the same day. He says he was always paid $100.00 a day. Ann says she paid him per job. He claims she owes him $160.00. When he goes to her house at 7:30 in the morning to collect his money, Ann will not pay him. Ann says she does not owe him anything. She has paid Frederick per job and is all caught up. Her explanation for the early morning visit does not make any sense. She says Frederick was supposed to work that day and showed up too early. She wanted him to leave and come back at 9:00 am. This does not make any sense at all. When a contractor shows up for work, that is a good thing. Since most of what Ann says does not make any sense, she is found responsible to pay Frederick the money. In cases, where it is he said - she said, it is very important that the testimony is truthful. To determine if someone is telling the truth, the Judge pays very close attention to what makes sense. Ann does not sound credible at all and Frederick deserves to get paid for the work he has done.

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

A friend walks in when everyone else walks out.

-Unknown

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be used in future blogs.

People's Court: 7-11-12 **** Friends **** Test Drive **** Invitations

James and Steven are friends. They met in a recovery program. James lent money to Steven to buy a motorcycle. Steven denies the loan. Of course, there is nothing in writing. After the fact, James wants Steven to sign a promissory note. This does not go over well, they get into a physical fight. They both claim the other threw the first punch. Since Steven wants $3000.00 in medical bills, he needs to prove that he was attacked. Witnesses to the fight would make all the difference. Steven claims there were a few people that saw the fight but they do not want to get involved. He has so many excuses, some are elderly, another wears an ankle bracelet and can not be in New York. He also claims James was trying to steal his fiancee. He does not win his counterclaim. Meanwhile, James has a witness to the purchase of the motorcycle. The man that sold the motorcycle tells the court that James handed him the money and Steven rode the motorcycle away and crashed it! Steven does not sound like he is having too much luck. The shame of it is, these two men had a friendship and allowed money and jealously to get in the way. Also, James denies he ever had any desires towards his friend's fiancee. What caused this situation to escalate to physical violence? I believe the money transaction should have been made clear from the beginning. Before the money changed hands, both men should have been agreed on the loan. Also, Steven's fiancee should not have gone to lunch and spent time alone with James. On a happy note, Steven and his fiancee did work out their problems and are now married.

Titus buys a used car without taking it for a test drive. Jeff, the owner of the used car lot says this is common. I do not understand how anyone can buy a car, new or used without taking it for a test drive. Titus tells the court that 15 years ago, he bought a car from the same lot from Jeff's dad. and did not take it for a test drive. Since Jeff's dad was so reputable and he had no problem with that car, he felt he could trust Jeff. It really isn't about trust, it is about the car. What if it is just uncomfortable to drive? After the purchase of the used car, Titus drives the car away and comes back ten minutes later. He says there are problems with the car. Oh my, a test drive would have been a good idea!!!!  Jeff is willing to work with Titus even though there is no warranty on the car. Titus has signed three documents that it is an as-is sale. Titus does not want to take any responsibility for buying a used car without performing his own due diligence. Titus continues to have problems with the car, Jeff keeps telling him to have it checked out. Even after Titus loses the case, Jeff is still willing to work with him to keep him happy. He does not have to do this, but still extends the offer.

Jonelle hires Orrett, a friend of her uncle, to print 120 invitations for a surprise party for her mother. She wants them done quickly to hand out at a family gathering. Orrett agrees to print them for her right away. He should not have made promises he could not keep. He starts the job and then runs out of ink. To save money, he orders ink online. This adds an additional delay. None of this would have happened if he would have gone to a store for the ink. He wants to save a few dollars and now winds up in court and does not even stick to a straight story. First he says he would have the invitations ready, then he says he would try to have them ready. He says he would return the money, he gave Jonelle's uncle a check, then he says he is not returning her money. It is easy to see that Orrett is not believable. He is also counterclaiming for $80.00, even though he did not return Jonelle's money. Now he has to return her money and he is not getting an additional $80.00 for his time printing the invitations he says he threw away. He had an invitation to show the Judge, I guess he did not throw them all away!  Why not just tell the truth? Things happen and we need to be flexible. In a case where time is of the essence, Orrett should have bought the ink locally to avoid  the delay. He should have taken the commitment to the job much more seriously.

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

They can because they think they can.

-Virgil

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be included in future blogs.

People's Court: 7-10-12 **** Ten Dollars **** A Rim **** A Grey Suit

The first case is over ten dollars. It costs more to file the case! James noticed damage to his fence months after his neighbor had his driveway paved. What is the connection? James went online and found construction equipment that could have caused the damage. He showed pictures of the damage. Anything could have done it, maybe someone climbing over the fence. He claims he did not notice the damage right away because of all the snow. The damage was to the top of the fence. James pursues this with the owner of the paving company. Bill owns the paving company. He is willing to pay for the damage even though he does not think he caused it and it is many months after the fact. He says it is good business. He stops being a nice guy when James is nasty to Bill's 16 year old son and James calls him at 6:39 am. It is at that time he says a few choice words and tells James to sue him. Well, James does sue him, over ten dollars, two happy meals!!! I would hope he has better things to do with his time. There is something wrong when people are suing over ten dollars!!! The best part, James gets nothing since he was not able to prove that Bill caused the damage.

Now we have Shashi, who gets a flat tire and damages a rim. He takes the tire to be repaired at a local repair shop. He is very unhappy with the finished product. There is a blemish, a scar on the rim from the repair. The shop's manager, Sulieman brings a wheel to court to demonstrate how the repair is done. He explains that he told Shashi there would be a blemish when the job was finished. It would not look brand new. No one could fix it any better. Unfortunately, there is no paperwork to back this up. Shashi denies that he was told there would be noticeable marks. Why isn't there a contract? A signature from the customer to prove he was told about what to expect from the repair would be ideal. Since Sulieman cannot prove Shashi knew what to expect he has to pay for the rim. Shashi is suing for the replacement cost. Once again, we are reminded court is to make you whole and not to get a bonanza. Shashi bought them used, yet wanted replacement cost for something new. The shop will have to return the tire and rim and give back some of the money. The good news: Sulieman will now make sure customers sign off regarding any information told to them. Hopefully this will eliminate future lawsuits!

Now we meet Robin and Arthur. They have taken their son's suit to the cleaners and did not get it back. When Robin droppped off 6 items to be cleaned she received a receipt. Arthur returns about 2 weeks later to pick up the clothes. He does not take the time to count the number of items at the counter. If he did, we would not be here. Arthur takes the bag home, hangs it in the closet and that's that. Several months later, they notice the suit is not there. Arthur goes to the cleaners to see if the suit is still there. Cathy, the owner of the store, remembers that he first asked for a blue jacket. After calling his son and wife, he asked her for a grey suit. She looks and does not have it. Why would they wait months to check the laundry? The time to check was at the counter. The Judge reminds everyone whether it is months or minutes, you can not hold the store responsible once you leave. Always check how many items you are picking up before you leave the store. In the hallway, Arthur still does not take responsibility for this, he is going on about not being able to prove a negative...what does this have to do with anything? Please let us all learn from the mistakes we make in order to avoid those same ones on the future!!

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

We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone.

-Ronald Reagan

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be included in future blogs.

People's Court: 7-9-12:***** A Table ***** A Scooter ** An Internet Scam

Sue is an interior designer. In her line of work, she deals with subcontractors. She hires Richard, a furniture maker, to redo the centerpiece of a dining room table. This table has sentimental value to Sue's clients. Sue and Richard agree on a price and have a written contract. Sue delivers the table in October and lets Richard know this is not a rush job. Everything sounds good, so far. The troubles start in January when Sue picks up the table. The centerpiece is warped, the table is not able to be used. Richard fixes it a second time. In March, the table is finished, but is it? Sue goes to pick it up and when no one answers the door, she calls the police. Richard opens the door when the police arrive. He claims he always keeps the door locked because it is a bad area. Richard has to let Sue take the table. When she is able to check it, she finds the centerpiece is still warped. When Sue calls him to complain, he returns her call and leaves a voicemail stating he wants a written apology and will only deal directly with the customers. Sue is not going to let Richard anywhere near this table again. Richard says the table was not ready to be picked up. The repair will need to be done again. Why would Sue go to his store unless she got a call from him that the table was ready? He loses even more credibility with the demand for a written apology and to keep Sue out of the picture. Richard is countersuing for the cost of the additional repairs to the table. He has no right to change the original contract. Sue gets back the money for the repair, not the additional monies she wants for lost wages from the job. With this money, she can get the table fixed properly, keep her clients happy and hopefully do more work for them. In the meantime, she needs to find a different furniture maker! 

Kristi has decided she wants to "go green". When she sees Jeremiah's ad on Craigslist selling scooters, she thinks this is a great way to get to work. She calls Jeremiah at 5:00 am to ask about the scooters. She said the ad said to call anytime. This is important later on in the story. She goes with a friend to look at the scooters. After she rides both scooters, she has difficulty making up her mind. Both need some work and Jeremiah spends the entire next day fixing up the scooter Kristi picked. The next day he is delivering it to her house and she calls him and says she changed her mind and wants the other one. He turns around and goes home. She then calls him and says her friend wants to buy the other one. He works on the second scooter to prepare it for sale. He delivers both scooters to Kristi. Now he offers her $50.00 back since he was selling the second scooter to her friend. Why does he offer this? He put so much time and energy in fixing up the scooters and he delivered them to her. He also promises her he will help her out with the scooter if it has any problems. Also, he has forgotten the mat and shows her he scratched a panel and has ordered a new one. Jeremiah seems like a really nice guy, who needs to learn when a sale is final, it's final. The next day, Kristi rides the scooter to work. She has problems on the way there, describes that it cut out and she had to restart it. At the end of the day, there is a puddle of gas underneath the scooter. A coworker fixes it for her and she is able to ride it home. She calls Jeremiah and has trouble reaching him. She calls again the next day at 6:42 am. Very specific!. These early morning calls, 5:00 am and 6:42 am do not seem to phase her. When the Judge questions her about it, she replies, "the ad said anytime" and she is up early anyway. How rude to call people so early in the morning. Too bad Jeremiah did not seem bothered by the 5:00 am call and see it as a red flag! When Kristi cannot reach Jeremiah, she files the court papers. This case is occurring within 30 days of the sale. He had to leave town for awhile and he had family issues to deal with. He was going to take care of everything he promised, only if Kristi had given him the opportunity to do so. The sale is final and Kristi does not get her money back for the cost of the scooter, but she does get the cost of the repairs, the $50.00 rebate, the mat and the replacement panel. They both seem like really nice people, Kristi needs to be more patient and Jeremiah needs to stop making so many promises when he makes a sale. 

Edith has been renting a house for several years. When the house is sold, she receives notice to move out. She feels she needs to move out quickly, even though the new owner, Shanaan, tells the court she gave Edith 30 days and then extended it to 60 days. Edith says that Shanaan asked her constantly when she was going to move out. Edith's son found an apartment on the internet. They sent $500.00 through Western Union to a stranger to hold an apartment sight unseen. When the Judge questions him, he very matter-of-factly says, "we were scammed". The honesty is refreshing. Edith is suing her landlord for $1500.00, the security deposit and the money she sent through Western Union. Is she kidding? The landlord had nothing to do with her losing that money. Why is the landlord keeping the security deposit? She claims Edith replaced an expensive Kohler toilet with a different one. She knows this because a Kohler toilet has a stamp on the bottom and the toilet in the house did not have the stamp. Also, she has her friend with her that recently renovated her bathroom with Kohler products. This does not make her an expert! The landlord does have pictures of damages to a door and the ladder to the attic. Edith admits her cat scratched the door because he was trying to go outside. Not looking for love, she promises he is fixed!  Edith's son says the rung of the ladder was always loose. The landlord cannot keep all of the security deposit, since she is unable to provide proof of the toilet switch! She does get to keep $250.00 for the other damages. Edith's son is very truthful about the internet scam. Many people would have tried to blame someone else. Like his mom, she wanted the landlord to be responsible for their bad decision. Edith needs to learn to protect herself against scam artists. Good luck to Edith and her very honest son!

Please let me know what you think in the comments.  Thank you for joining me today.

Even if you fall on your face, you're still moving forward.

-Victor Kiam

Also, remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings!