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