People's Court Blog - 9 14 2012 - Friday

Rest In Peace Polly

Jetta and Tanya are suing James for $1698.75, the cost of their dog, Polly. Tanya hired James to pet-sit their two dogs, Polly and Memar. Polly is a female Bichon Frise / Maltese. Memar is a male Shih Tzu. Tanya was planning a vacation and did not want to put her dogs in a kennel. James was recommended to her by someone at the school where she worked.  James worked at a pet shop and he would do educational programs at the school. While Tanya was away she called to check on the dogs. James told her they were okay. When she got back from vacation, she called James and he said he would bring the dogs to her. When she opened the door, he was holding Memar, the Shih Tzu. He told her Polly was dead. Tanya asked what happened. What James told her then and what he says in court are different stories. He was so sketchy about the facts when he was telling her, that her daughter, Jetta, believed he sold Polly. They did not believe that Polly had died. This is the story James tells in court: On the second night that he was caring for them, he took Memar out for a walk and when he opened the door to put Memar in the house, Polly ran outside and ran away. He chased her for about a mile and then lost her. He went back to the house and got his car to look for her. He found her lying dead against the curb. He threw her body away in the garbage. 

This man is horrible. He should not be allowed to have an animal, let alone work with them. When he is telling the story he refers to Polly as "it", multiple times. I think this is terrible. When he found Polly, he should have taken her to a vet clinic. He did not. He told Jetta that he had her cremated. Now he admits to throwing her away. Jetta and Tanya loved Polly. They do not understand why James behaved the way he did. James says he is a poor man. What is that supposed to mean? Being poor is not an excuse for being cold and heartless! I am sure Tanya would have reimbursed him for any money he spent on Polly. Listen James, her name was Polly, she is not an "it"! 

James is found responsible to pay Jetta and Tanya $1300.00. This is the amount Jetta paid for her as a puppy. Tanya and Jetta miss their dog and no amount of money is going to make the heartache go away. James does not even seem affected at all by the misery he has caused these women. It is such a shame that this tragedy occurred. It is a tremendous responsibility to watch someone's pets. Extra care must be exercised. Having the dogs run loose in the house and be able to run through the front door just shows that James had no idea what he was doing. I hope he does not continue to offer his services to people. I understand that accidents happen, but in this case it is more than that. What James did after Polly was killed is inexcusable! What do you think?

Priscilla And The Process Server

Priscilla is suing Joseph for $75.00. This is for the cost of the service she hired him for. Joseph was supposed to serve a subpoena to the mechanic that Priscilla was suing. Priscilla says he did not serve the paperwork and wants her money back. When the Judge is questioning Priscilla she gives several different stories. She actually seems confused as to the facts of her own case. Joseph says he did his job. He served the paperwork and shows proof of service. Priscilla hired someone else to serve the paperwork. She does not show proof in court as to what was served. Since Priscilla cannot seem to get her facts straight and Joseph proves he did his job, she does not get the money back.

In Priscilla's written complaint to the court, she comments on Joseph's long hair. Why would this even be an issue? I do not understand why Priscilla would sue Joseph for his fee when he obviously did his job. She seems to have wasted much time and resources to bring Joseph to court. It  does not seem to make sense. Sometimes cases like this create more questions than answers! What do you think?

Carlos And The Bounced Check!

Carlos is suing Eddie for $1100.00. This is the amount of a bounced check for the balance on a car sale. Carlos owns a used car dealership. Eddie bought a used car for $1800.00.  He gave a $300.00 deposit and then told Carlos he only had an additional $400.00. He gave Carlos a check for $1100.00. Carlos turned all of the paperwork over to Eddie, including the title. The check bounced.

Why didn't Eddie make good on the bounced check? He claims that he had problems with the car right away. He did not complain about the problems right away. Even so, he should have paid for the car. Why would he think he has the right to keep the car when he did not pay for it? Carlos tried to collect the money from Eddie, he even went to his workplace. Eddie's boss told Carlos to take Eddie to court to get the money. Eddie wants Carlos to make good on the warranty he received for the car. The warranty paper he provides to the court is not even filled out. Also, he has not paid for the car, so why would any warranty be valid? The Judge finds in favor of Carlos to receive the $1100.00.

It is surprising that Carlos gave Eddie the title to the car. Carlos has sold used cars for 22 years and seems very trusting. This is refreshing since we do not always think that used car dealers are honest. Thank you Carlos for restoring our faith in used car dealers! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

He has the most who is most content with the least.

~Diogenes