People's Court Blog - 1 9 2013 - Wednesday

HAPPY NEW YEAR! 

I am glad to be back and sharing my thoughts about the cases on People's Court. Today the first case is about a woman trying to move into an apartment she was not renting.

Keturah sues Michael for $1734.54
This is a very interesting case. After Keturah signs a lease, the landlord, Michael, runs a background check. He should have run the background check before having Keturah sign the lease. Michael was not comfortable with the results of of the background check. He contacted Keturah to let her know he was not going to rent the apartment to her. She says she did not know, yet there are voicemail and text messages that say otherwise. Keturah maintains that Michael is a liar, while she changes her testimony from minute to minute. It does seem that Keturah was trying to move into the apartment even though she knew that Michael had changed his mind. Michael says he tried to return her deposit and she refused it. It is clear that Keturah did not show up for a meeting with Michael to discuss the background check. Even though she did not show up, she will get back her deposit because Michael did not do the background check right away. Keturah does not get the money back for the moving van, she should never tried to move in. Michael also has to pay for the stopped payment fee. Keturah claims she gave him checks for first and last month's rent. Michael denies receiving the checks, but there is a stop payment fee. Keturah also receives $100.00 for her time spent cleaning the apartment. She will receive $630.00, not the total amount she was suing for.
I give Michael much credit for being so organized. He kept the voicemail messages and the text messages. This evidence was crucial to the case. For as organized as he is, why did he have Keturah sign a lease before doing the background check and why wait to do it? Also, why is Michael renting an illegal apartment? What do you think?

Edwin and Helen sues Althea for $1120.00

Even though this case is not about irresponsible dogbreeding, I cannot ignore certain facts. The owner of the female dog refused medical attention for the dog. I do not think this woman should be breeding her dog. The case is about two people with pitbulls and they decided to breed them. They did not put anything in writing and neither side know what the terms are. Edwin and Helen thought they were getting 3 puppies for the stud fee. Althea says they were getting one puppy. When Althea's pitbull was giving birth, there were complications. Althea did not want to pay for the dog to have a c-section and not all of the puppies survived. After the puppies were old enough, Althea gave Edwin one puppy. He was so angry he posted Althea's picture and terrible comments about her. She was called in for a random drug test at work. She felt this was because of the comments Edwin posted and she is suing for $2000.00 for harassment. Althea did not lose her job and cannot prove that being accused of using drugs is automatic termination from her job. Because of this she does not win her countersuit. She does have to pay towards the vet bill and the sale price of 2 puppies. Althea has to pay Edwin and Helen $735.00.

People need to agree to terms and have the agreement in writing. Being friends is not a reason not to have a written agreement. Because the result is usually that people do not stay friends after going to court. Now, to discuss the dog breeding. If people are going to breed their dogs they need to be responsible about it. A dog in labor should not be refused medical attention because the owner does not want to spend the money. What do you think?

Ralph sues Pete for $2217.60

This case is very straighforward. Ralph bought a used car. When he was driving it home the check engine light went on. Since he lived really far from the dealership he called them and told them what happened. He was told to have it checked out and call them. Instead Ralph had the car repaired and spent over $2000.00. Now he expects the dealership to pay. He did not give them a chance to fix it themselves. Ralph claims they were so far away he could not be expected to take the car back to them. Ralph is the one who decided to buy the car. Ralph loses the case. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. What do you think?

2013 is going to be a wonderful year. Everyone needs to have positive thoughts about a great year. Making plans, having resolutions, setting challenges are all great ways to strive for positive change.

Good luck to all for this wonderful New Year!

People's Court Blog - 10 23 2012 - Tuesday

Working For A Living

Deborah is suing Paola for $5000.00. This is for wages, a dinner, check fees, defamation of character and pain and suffering. Deborah worked for Paola taking care of her autistic sister. She also did some bookkeeping for her. When she joined Paola on a business trip, the two women had lunch together. Deborah paid for the dinner and expected Paola to pay her back. Then Deborah lent her $450.00 and the check Paola paid her back with was rubber. After the check bounced, Paola did make good on it but did not pay the bank fees. Then Paola did not pay Deborah for the work she had done. Paola admits she owes Deborah the money for the wages, but denies the money for the lunch. She starts to cry and and says she is going to be sick. Why is this? She starts talking about a friendship between the two of them. This does not make any sense. If they were friends, why wouldn't she pay Deborah. Paola also tried to get Deborah fired. She went to the restaurant where she worked and told her boss that Deborah was stalking her. She said that she waited this long to sue because she was asked to sign a statement at work that she would keep her job if she did not sue Paola. Deborah does not have any proof of this. The only aspects of the case Deborah could prove is the wages and the check fees. She recovers $567.00. Why do people treat each other this way? It seemed like there was a friendship between the two women, yet Paola did not treat Deborah with respect. Deborah did the right thing to sue for what was owed to her. I am sure she was hurt by this experience but cannot get money for that. 

Friends?

Anna is suing Nicole for $1394.50. These two young women were friends and Anna lent Nicole money over and over again. Why would she keep lending her money if it was not being paid back? Anna says she was being nice. It seems she was trying to be nice to a friend. Whenever Nicole needed help Anna was there for her. Wouldn't you value a friend like this? I would. Not only did Nicole not pay her back, but now she denies the loans. Facebook messages prove otherwise. Nicole has to pay Anna back $950.00. The reason Anna does not get all the money back is because she cannot prove all of the loans. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a friend sign a promissory note. If a friend is in need of a loan and they are truly going to pay it back, they will sign an I.O.U. If they do not want to sign, then do not lend the money! 

Permission To Park

Joshua is suing Edward for $1478.99. This is for the cost of repairs to his car and for a rental car. Joshua was visiting his grandfather in a senior retirement village. When he parked his car, he saw Edward outside. Joshua approached him and asked if it was okay to leave his car where he was parked. Edward said yes. Then Edward went to back out of his driveway, forgot Joshua was parked on the street and backed into him. It is refreshing that Edward is honest about this. He is not used to cars being there since it is a no parking zone. The problem occurs when Edward thinks the repair is too expensive. Joshua actually goes to Edward's mechanic. Unfortunately, the mechanic only replaces the taillight and leaves the rest of the repair undone. Joshua does recover the cost of the repair and the cost for a rental car for a total of $1037.18. I think it is unfortunate that Edward forgot the car was there, he still needs to look when he backs up.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

I can, therefore I am.

~Simone Weil

People's Court Blog - 10 22 2012 - Monday

Buying A Used Car

Ramona and Stephen are suing David for $10,000.00.

This is about a used car purchase, yet it seems to be about so much more. Ramona and Stephen purchased a used car from David for $4300.00. This was a 12 year old Monte Carlo. Like so many others they did not have a mechanic inspect the car before the purchase. The advertisement David put on Craigslist made certain claims. David has to honor these. When David wrote brand new tires, it is assumed it is all four tires. Ramona has proof that only one tire was new. Also, there were certain things discussed that both parties agree to. This includes fixing the windshield. The item in dispute is the transmission. Ramona claims that David and a mechanic tried to pull a fast one saying the only repair needed was a new cellinoid. After this work was done, the check engine light came on and further inspection found a new transmission was needed. Ramona cannot prove that David had prior knowledge about the condition of the transmission. After all, the car is 12 years old! Why didn't they have a mechanic inspect the car before buying it? The answer of course is money! This costs and no one seems to want to spend the extra money. Yet, the headaches it would avoid...

Ramona tries to make this case about David's character. She shows a YouTube video of David singing and dancing. David does not object to this video being shown in court. Ramona also introduces messages from David's Facebook page. They prove he has fun friends with a sense of humor, but do not prove defamation of character. Ramona and Stephen do recover $490.00, this is for the windshield and the tires. They do not prove their case regarding the transmission or defamation of character. The sale of a used car is as-is. If the owner promises certain things or provides a warranty that is definitely an extra. People need to take responsibility for their decisions. When you purchase a 12 year old car, you have to expect there are going to be repairs needed! Do you agree?

The Missing Coat

Joanne is suing Joseph for $652.89.

Joanne and her family eat at Joseph's restaurant 1-2 times a week. They obviously enjoy the food. On their last visit they were seated in a small booth. They hung their coats on a coat rack located in the center of the restaurant. When they were ready to leave Joanne's coat was missing. Her coat was practically brand new. She had received it as a Christmas present from her husband and only wore it 3 times. When she told the owner what happened, he threw up his arms and said he was not responsible. When she called a few days later to see if her coat had been found Joseph spoke with her. He told her the coat was still missing, but he felt bad about it. After all, she was a very good customer. He offered her gift certificates for the restaurant. Joanne refused and said she would rather have the cash. Joseph was not assuming responsibility for the missing coat. he was trying to do something to make his customer feel better. Joanne cannot prove it is the fault of the restaurant that her coat was stolen. They did not do anything wrong. She hung her coat in an area that other people had access to. Joanne says that there was not a sign regarding a policy on missing items. Why does the store need such a sign? They don't, although Joseph says they now have a sign. The Judge is very clear on personal responsibility. The coat was hanging in an area that anyone had access to. Joanne did not need to read a sign that said the store was not responsible for missing items. She is unable to prove that the restaurant did anything wrong and does not recover the money for her coat. In the hallway, Joseph is still offering the gift certificates. I think Joanne should take him up on the offer. After all, she was a good customer and he acknowledges that. Why should she deny herself and her family a nice time out and an enjoyable meal? What do you think?

The Crooked Contractor

Yvonne is suing Angel for $700.00.

Yvonne hired Angel to do work on her house. She wanted to have several windows boarded up because of drafts. She signed a contract and gave Angel a deposit for $700.00. After Yvonne did this she changed her mind. She contacted Angel and cancelled the work and asked for her money back. In the state of Connecticut, a person has three days to change their mind. She informed Angel of this and expected her deposit back. Angel offered her back $500.00 because he says he already bought some material for the job that he could not return. Why would he do this before the three days? Why wouldn't he return her money? More importantly, why is he working when he is no longer licensed and insured? The contract states that he is licensed and insured. Angel says this is an old contract, he closed his business 3 years ago. Okay, then don't work. Don't take people's money. This is very straightforward. Yvonne gets back her deposit money. Angel shows himself up to be a crooked contractor! Yvonne is very happy as she leaves the courtroom saying Justice is done!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.

~William Faulkner

People's Court Blog - 10 5 2012 - Friday

Challenge Check-Up: It has been one week of the October Challenge. I was hoping to be on my way to success. I was not able to post Friday's blog until today. I will try harder next week. It will give me something to work towards. How are you doing for your October Challenge? Please share your resolution and update in the comments. We can all try for success together!

Grant And The Unleashed Pitbull

Grant is suing Theodore for $1000.00. This is for vet bills and pain and suffering for a dog attack. Grant was walking his Yorkie on a leash when a Pitbull, not on a leash, attacked. Grant took his little dog to the vet. Thank goodness the little dog survived an attack from the Pitbull. It would seem rather straighforward that Theodore would be responsible for the vet bills. He claims that the dog does not belong to him. Who does the the Pitbull belong to? Theodore's roommate. Why isn't the roommate in court? She is in Rikers Island. Where is the Pitbull? He lives with Theodore. Remember if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck! I love when the Judge uses this reference! The Judge rules that the Pitbull belongs to Theodore, so he is responsible for the vet bills. Grant receives $797.01. Grant does not receive pain and suffering, although I am sure he experienced both! Why wasn't the Pitbull on a leash? Why does this seem like a common occurrence? Why are there so many dog attack cases that involve Pitbulls? Please help to answer these questions!

Tialonee And The Con Man

Tialonee is suing Adrian for $2000.00. This is a case of a con man taking advantage of a young, naive girl. Tialonee is 18 years old. She thought she was buying a car from Adrian. She gave him $2000.00 and he signed a contract with her. The contract was notarized. Adrian points out that in the state of Florida, a notarized contract contains certain elements that are missing from this one. Tialonee shows text messages between the two of them concerning the planned purchase of the car. Adrian points out that there are apps available for fake texting. Tialonee says they were friends, Adrian said they dated. Tialonee said they met on Facebook. Adrain says they met on an Internet chat site. Tialonee said she gave him $2000.00 for a car. Adrian says she was holding the money for him. There is so much that neither of them agree on, it is almost as if they were having two different realities, that is the essence of a con!

The car Tialonee was buying was a 2012 Impala that cost $18,000.  Why would Adrian sell it to her for $2000.00? Exactly! Think about it. Of course it is too good to be true. The entire situation was orchestrated to discredit Tialonee. I give Tialonee so much credit for bringing Adrian to court. The Judge sees right through this polished con man. Tialonee will get her money back. We all need to be constantly on guard to protect ourselves from situations that are too good to be true. Remember there is no free lunch!

Ferris And Progressive Glasses

Ferris is suing Larry for $654.00. This is for the cost of glasses that Ferris bought and cannot wear. Ferris went for an eye exam and had new glasses made. These glasses were different from his previous ones. He received progressive glasses and cannot see with them. He wants to return them and get his money back. Why would he leave the store with the glasses if he could not see? He did go back and demand his money back. The store policy is no refunds and a one year guarantee. This is stated on the receipt. Ferris is not entitled to his money back, he is entitled to have the glasses fixed. Larry agrees that he will do everything to fix the problem.

Why didn't Ferris give Larry a chance to fix the glasses before he brought Larry to court? This is something we will never know. People need to try to resolve their problems before rushing to court. Now, Ferris can return to Larry's store and get his glasses fixed so he will be able to see clearly.

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe

We have it in our power to start the world over again.
~Thomas Paine

People's Court Blog - 9 4 2012 - Tuesday

Evita And The Car

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

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

Merline And The Fish Tank

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

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

Mary And The Adoption Fee

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

You cannot find peace by avoiding life.

-Virginia Woolf

People's Court Blog - 8 31 2012 - Friday

Good Luck, Erin!

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

You Cancelled The Reunion!

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

 

You Rented The Studio - Pay Me!

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

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

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

-Unknown Source

People's Court Blog - 8 23 2012 - Thursday

The Reception Was Ruined!

Jacqueline and James (J & J) are suing the venue that held their wedding reception. Juan represents the business. J & J want $5000.00 back from the $7000.00 spent on the reception. What were the problems they experienced?

 

1. The candy table was set up improperly.

2. Cotton candy was removed from the bag and was unsanitary.

2. Ketchup and steak sauce were on the cake table.

3. There were dead roses on the cake table.

4. The top of the cake was wrapped in aluminum foil instead of being put in a container.

5. The servers dropped several glasses onto the dance floor.

6. Leftover food was packaged in a box from glue board traps for rats.

7. Champagne bottle favors had James's last name as his first name.

    Written on the bottles are the names -  Jackie and Lee, not Jackie and James.

8. There was an ice sculpture that was in the corner of the room, not in a featured spot.

 

Are these problems really worth $5000.00?  I do not think so. Can these problems really have ruined the entire experience? According to J & J, these problems ruined the reception for them and they want to be compensated. Jacqueline explains that she was going to set up the candy table. Since she was 1/2 hour late to the reception, Juan thought he would be nice and set it up for her.  He was trying to do something kind for the bride. Juan also explains that the boxes used for the leftovers are brought in by the clients. These could be boxes used for favors and by the florist. Juan said they do not use rat glue board traps, so they would not have a box like that. J & J have brought the box to court with them. They left the food in the box and saved it for over two months. It was not even refrigerated or frozen, so when they took it out of the plastic bag, it smelled awful. This is evident by the reactions of the people in the front row of the gallery. They looked like they were going to throw up. Why would they bring it to court this way? That was terrible and totally unnecessary. Regarding the favors, Juan explains that James's name was written incorrectly on the contract. No one noticed this mistake. Jacqueline explains that someone called her and asked her to spell James's name. The favors were provided free by the venue because the reception hosted over one hundred people. Even though they were free, they should have been done correctly. It is a shame that these favors were printed with the wrong name. Unfortunately, mistakes happen. The Judge explains that there are little disappointments in everyday life. These disappointments are not grounds for a lawsuit. The Judge does not award J & J any money. Are any of these problems a reason for the entire experience to be ruined? I do not think so. I know this is a very special day and I hope these issues did not truly ruin the day for Jacqueline.

 

The Photo Shoot Was Unprofessional!

Keianna is suing Alicia for $500.00. This is for the cost of a photo shoot and additional money for bad faith. Keianna hired Alicia to take pictures of her for her resume and other uses. Keianna paid Alicia $205.00 for the photos. The photo shoot was held in Alicia's home. Keianna says this was unprofessional and made her feel uncomfortable when Alicia's friend came over. Keianna received the contact sheet within 1-2 days. She was very happy to get this. Even though the pictures were small, she had faith in Alicia to do a good job on them. When she did not receive the finished photos, she contacted Alicia. She noticed on Alicia's Facebook page, other photos being uploaded. Why were her pictures not there? Why wasn't she receiving her photos? Alicia said she was very busy and she did e-mail the photos to Keianna. Why won't she resend the photos? Finally after several phone calls, Facebook messages and e-mails, Alicia does resend the photos. Since Keianna received what she paid for, she does not win her case. Just because she was unhappy with Alicia's attitude and she did not get the photos right away, it does not mean she gets her service for free. Keianna is not happy with this outcome and storms out of the courtroom and does not stop for her hallway interview. Why do these issues have to escalate to the point of coming to court? Why can't people resolve these issues on their own?

 

I Want My Broker's Fee!

Terri is suing Karen for $962.00. This is for her broker's fee and the cost of a bounced check. Karen answered an ad to rent an apartment. Terri showed Karen the apartment. Karen loved it and signed a lease. Terri explained her broker fee and Karen wrote her a check. The apartment was to be available for the first of the month. Karen wanted to move in earlier and the landlord accommodated her. Terri thought it would be a good idea to cash the check right away, since Karen was moving in earlier. The bank could not cash the check because information on it was not legible. Terri called Karen and let her know what happened. Karen wrote another check. She told Terri she was charged $40.00 for a stop payment fee. The second check was for $910.00, instead of $950.00. Terri deposited this check and it bounced. Karen was charged a $12.00 fee from her bank for a bounced check. Why is Karen refusing to pay Terri the broker fee? Karen explains that the apartment was filthy when she looked at it. Did she move in? Yes, she did. Why stop payment on Terri's fee? Karen said that it is an illegal apartment. Does she have proof? No, she does not. Karen said she called the city and it will take a month to get proof. Since she does not have any proof, she cannot justify withholding the broker's fee. Terri wins the case and Karen has to pay the $962.00. I still do not understand why Karen wrote a second check if she had no intention of paying the fee. If she was honest about the reason, things would make more sense. What do you think?

 

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

Please Subscribe!

You must learn from the mistakes of others.

You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.

-Sam Levenson

People's Court - 8 7 2012 - Tuesday

My Cat Almost Died!

Jill is suing Juan for $5000.00. Juan owns a pest control company. Jill received a lovely gift from one of her cats. He left a mouse on her pillow. Jill called Juan to take care of the problem. She had a contract with his company for termite control. Jill said she told Juan what the problem was and left the doors unlocked for him. About one month later, one of her two cats started to act lethargic. Jill's daughter took the cat to the vet. She brought him home with instructions to give him the prescribed medicine. The next day, the cat was worse. Jill rushed him to critical care. He was being poisoned by a rodenticide, a poison used to kill the mice. Jill found bags of poison in the basement. These bags have instructions on them to keep out of reach of children or animals. Juan claims these bags were used years before when the basement was separated by a wall. He used a different type of pest control for this occurrence, because he did not want the cats to have access to the poison. Juan says he used bait boxes in the basement. He claims the cat got sick from eating a mouse that ate the poison. So either type of approach would have caused the cat to get sick. Jill did not mention finding bait boxes in the basement. It is very clear from the cat food and the litter boxes, the cats spent a lot of time in the basement. The Judge finds that Jill can not prove her case. There is no proof of when the bags of poison were put in the basement. There is no proof of how the cat ingested the poison. For these reasons, Juan is not responsible to pay the vet bills. The good news - the cat survived and is enjoying life. In the hallway, Jill said she is happy that her cat is fine. Juan said he would have done it differently if he knew there were cats in the house. Wait a minute...Juan knew there were cats in the house. Jill told him her cat brought her the mouse, also the cat food and litter box were in the basement. What would he have done differently? Maybe he wouldn't have used poison at all. There are other ways to remove mice from a home without using poison. Hopefully, Juan will approach his job with a more humane approach towards the animal residents of a house. What do you think?

I Want My Guccis!

Samuel has been going to Ed's optical shop for many years. This most recent visit was not a happy one. Samuel had his eye exam and had his lenses upgraded. At this same visit, Samuel asked Ed to adjust his sunglasses. When Ed worked on the adjustment, he broke the temple (arm) of the Gucci sunglasses. Ed tried to locate a replacement arm, but could not. The frames were six years old. Samuel wanted replacement frames. He says that Ed has many Gucci frames in the store. Ed did replace the frames with a comparable frame. The frames were not the Gucci brand, just comparable in shape and color. Ed explains there are signs in the store explaining the store is not responsible when customers provide their own frames. He says that Samuel routinely brings his own frames. Samuel returned to the store two weeks later, and demanded replacement Gucci frames. The manager spoke to him in the back room since Samuel was being very disruptive. He was offered a solution and left the store, only to file a lawsuit. Samuel says there is a gap between the lense and the frame where light comes through. The Judge agrees with him after examining the sunglasses. The solution to this problem is that Ed is found responsible to pay the depreciated value of the six year old Gucci sunglasses. This amounts to $255.00. Samuel is suing for $5000.00. The rest of the money is for pain and suffering. Samuel is not able to prove that he had pain or that he suffered by not being able to wear Gucci sunglasses. In the hallway, he says that if he had walked into a train because he could not see, there would have been pain and suffering. He also says that he likes Ed's store and he will definitely go back. Oh lucky day for Ed! 

Never Lie To the Judge!

James, a photographer. is suing Jim, for copyright infringement. James has a verbal agreement with the owner of a nightclub. One night a week he took pictures for the nightclub's Facebook page. He was paid $50.00 for the one night a week. The nightclub is out of business. James does not have any proof from the owner about the agreement they had. Jim has a website that promotes local businesses. The nightclub is listed as an out of business venue. Pictures from the nightclub are still available on this site. James believes Jim is selling the pictures and is making money from his work. Jim explains that a third party actually sells the pictures. Jim also says that he made $38.00 in commissions from the sale of the pictures. None of the pictures that were purchased were James's pictures from the now closed nightclub. Now, it is time for James to show proof of his copyright. He hands the Judge a paper when she asks if he has a copyright on the pictures. He says yes, but he does not have a copyright. Why did he lie in court? He says his attorney says he does not need a copyright in order to sue. Yet, he is suing based on copyright infringement. It is a shame that James received such bad advice. Yet, it was his choice to lie to the Judge. It is always better to be honest. Remember - honesty is the best policy. James does not prove his case, he does not get $5000.00. In the hallway, James says he will now get the copyright and sue again. Jim says that James is suing him personally and should have sued the company. Hopefully, James will not sue Jim again. It is time to move on. What do you think?

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

Sometimes all you can do is walk away, hide your tears, and pretend you're okay.

-Unknown