People's Court Blog - 1 30 2013 - Wednesday

Today's cases include a defective diamond ring, an unprofessional caterer and a landlord that does not follow the rules. In all of these cases the plaintiffs have been wronged and have chosen the forum of small claims court to make it right.

Frank is suing Denise and Oleg for $5000.00. 

Denise and Oleg have a jewelry store. Frank purchased an engagement ring from them. The ring is in court, his new wife is not. They are newly married and she does not come to court to be at her husband's side. She is a schoolteacher and has a work related commitment. **Spoiler alert**: Her absence does not hurt the case! Frank explains that his wife had fallen in love with the ring - it is gorgeous! The problem is the diamonds kept falling out. When they would return to the store, Denise would take the ring back and have it fixed. The replacement diamonds were not as nice as the original diamonds. The entire ring was supposed to have been  replaced the second time it went back. The receipt shown to the Judge states the ring was replaced and the original diamonds were used. WHAT? This does not make sense. That is not a replacement. Frank wants his money back. He has a right to be satisfied with the purchase of the ring. Denise claims the ring has been abused and that is why the diamonds keep falling out. How does a schoolteacher abuse a diamond ring? 

The Judge rules in favor of Frank. Not for $5000.00. He did not pay $5000.00 for the ring. It cost $2300.00 and that is what he gets back.

In the hallway, he expresses disappointment for not being able to keep the ring, after all, it has sentimental value. Are you kidding me? He wants the money and the ring! What world does he live in?

Rhonda and Michael are suing Demetrius for $3100.00.

**Clementine Weather**

What is clementine weather?- stay tuned for the answer!

Demetrius is a distant relative that runs a catering company, Untamed Flavors. When Rhonda and Michael hired Demetrius to cater their wedding they did not expect substandard service. They expected to get good food and professional service. What they received was poorly cooked, pre-made foods served by children. 

Rhonda and Michael have complaints about the quality of the food from their friends and family in writing and in person. The chicken was overcooked and dry, the ribs were undercooked and had little sauce and the potatoes were from a box. Even worse, the boxes from the food were in plain site to the guests. Demetrius defends his foodservice by claiming the weather was bad that day, so the cooking was moved from outside grills to inside. After all, in his contract he has a clause about clementine weather, About what? Yes, you read it correctly! Clementine weather - oh he means inclement weather. This is so funny!!!! It is actually written in the contract as clementine weather!  Now, back to the case...Rhonda and Michael say the weather was fine. Either way, it does not excuse the quality of the food. Demetrius explains the children were a last minute addition because some of his staff did not show. I think Rhonda and Michael have a right to be unhappy about 12 year olds and 16 year olds serving at their wedding. 

Rhonda and Michael win the case. They get back a portion of the payment, $1854.00. 

In the hallway, Demetrius continues to defend his food and claims they are all exaggerating. After all, who can go away unhappy, when there is clementine weather!

Sharday is suing Darin for $1103.88. 

Darin has a countersuit for $1036.09.

Sharday rented one side of a duplex from Darin. At the time she rented it, the other side was unoccupied. Darin told her she could park in the driveway until someone moved in. When the other side was rented, she would have to park on the street. After 2 months, Darin rented the other side. Sharday did not want to park in the street, spoke to Darin and he told her she could move out. Sharday said they dissolved the lease and Darin was going to give her back her $750.00 security deposit. Darin did not return it. He claims Sharday left the apartment unclean and damaged the storm door. He does not have proof of $750.00 worth of expenses. The Judge allows him to keep $75.00. Sharday is happy to get back $675.00.  Darin's countersuit is dismissed because he cannot prove he is out over $1.000.00 in damages and clean-up fees.

In the hallway, Sharday continues to explain that Darin was an unprofessional and incompetent landlord. Darin needs to learn the responsibilities of a landlord and provide an itemized list when he is not returning the security deposit. It is not enough to make up a written list and claim he is out much more. After all, it is about proving your case with evidence in the People's Court!

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!