People's Court Blog - 1 29 2013 - Tuesday

Steven is suing Warren for $3270.00. 

Steven does advertising for local businesses. He approached Warren who owns a dry cleaning business. Usually Steven receives 50% upfront and the remainder when the job is completed. For some reason he did not conduct business as usual in this case.

He does the whole job before having Warren sign a contract and receive payment. Warren gives him a check for $400.00 and the check bounces. He lets Warren know and it turns out this account was closed three years ago. Warren does pay the $12.00 bank fee for the bounced check. He does not pay the $400.00 for the job. Warren cancels the job. Steven puts another dry cleaner ad into the advertising project.

When Warren is asked why he signed the contract, he claims he did not know it was a contract! Really! Who is he insulting? Himself or the Judge? He tells the Judge he does not think she is stupid, so that leaves...himself!!!! Warren also says there was another dry cleaner ad, yet this was done after he cancelled the job. 

Steven has added many other expenses into the lawsuit. He is entitled to the money from the advertising job, not beefing it up to have a bonanza. Court is about making a person whole. The Judge finds in favor of Steven for $400.00, court costs and pre-judgement interest. It is a good day for everyone! Warren admits he did not look good and Steven still feels he was entitled to a lot more money.

Sarah is suing Felicia for $800.00. 

This is for the remainder of her security deposit. Sarah entered into a roommate agreement with Felicia. She lived in the apartment for 6 months. Felicia was only there a few times. At the fourth month, Felicia left a note for Sarah, telling her she was not happy with the cleanliness of the apartment and to confirm her move out date. Sarah did not feel the apartment was messy. Her mother was even visiting at the time and confirmed that she was an able housekeeper. Everyone has different standards!

The pictures Felicia shows tell their own story. Once again a picture is worth a thousand words. In the pictures, you see dirt, hairballs (there was no pet!), footprints on the wall!, an unclean stove top and dirty floors. Sarah says she cleaned after this. Why didn't Sarah take pictures? That would have solved the whole dilemma. 

Felicia cannot prove the amount for the cleaning of the apartment. The Judge finds in favor of Sarah but lets Felicia keep some of the security deposit. Sarah gets back $656.00. This is not the total amount she was asking, but is still a nice amount of money. The question is: Is it worth it to humiliate yourself in public for this amount of money? What do you think?

George is suing Nick for $200.00. 

This is for the cost of a door for a Chevy Suburban. Nick owns a junkyard. He sold George several parts for the Chevy Suburban. George wants to use the vehicle as a shed. What difference does it make if the door is dented? When George installed the door on his vehicle, the door would not close. This would be crucial, a shed door would need to close! Nick is not surprised by this problem, since the Suburban had auto body damage. When George brought the door back, he was offered store credit, not a cash refund. Neither of the parties have paperwork to prove the policy of no cash refunds. The Judge calls for a recess to give Nick a chance to get proof of his policy. He shows a picture of a sign in his store, George admits he saw the sign. He is just tired of being taken advantage of. He just wants his money back. He does not want store credit. I feel his frustration, sometimes it just does not seem fair! But, this is about the legality of the situation. George does not get his money back. In the hallway, George says when he is busy shopping, he does not always read the signs.

It is important to know the policies of the store you are in. Be aware of the signage around you and also read your receipt. Many times the receipt will have return policies written on it. Knowledge is power!

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 4 2013 - Friday

Still playing catch-up......

Tyler is suing George for $1396.60. 

This is for back rent and the value of some items that George took. Tyler and George are college students and were friends. It is sad when a friendship is lost over this type of situation. Tyler needed a roommate for the summer, since his current roommate, Albert, was going away for the summer. George agreed to move in.... and this is all everyone agrees to as facts. Tyler says they agreed on $350.00 a month rent and $100.00 towards the utilities. George says this is not true. Unfortunately, George's story keeps changing. At first he says there was no agreement for rent, then he says his medical bills from the car accident were a trade-off. Wait! if you were not supposed to pay rent, why would you trade-off the medical bills.

George's story is all over the place. Also, these two friends think taking belongings from each other serve as collateral, when it is actually stealing!

George needs to pay Tyler for the rent and the utilities. The Judge finds in favor of Tyler for $1350.00. He cannot prove that George stole from him. Also, if George sustained injuries in a car accident, he needs to go through Tyler's insurance for the money.

The shame of all of this is the lost friendship. George should not have expected to live rent free and take advantage of Tyler's friendship. Just because Tyler's dad pays his part of the rent, is no reason to think he was going to pay for George also. Friendships needs to be valued.

James is suing Annette and the housing corporation for $4900. 

James claims his room was broken into and someone stole his belongings. Why on earth would Annette and the housing corporation be responsible for this?  At first he told Annette that 3 items were stolen and then he kept adding to the list. He claimed he did not notice the other items were missing because they were in the closet. Why wouldn't you do a thorough check when you know your room has been broken into?

There was a surveillance camera that showed James leaving his room and then going back in the room. After that, the camera goes dark. The controls for the camera are in his room. This is all very suspect. Also, James lost his job that day. He claims it is because of being late due to the burglary There is proof of issues during his probationary period at the job, lateness, etc.

Annette did offer James $600.00 after he said his possessions were taken. He claims she offered him $1200.00. Either way, it does not matter, since James did not move out when he was asked to, staying an additional 10 days, that was not authorized, he did not receive any money.

James cannot prove he is out $4900 and loses the case. In the hallway, he says he is disappointed and such is life. Annette says she never believed his room was burglarized.

People need to be able to prove their case. Just saying something was stolen or someone offered you money is not good enough for court. It is important to have proof when you go to court. 

Kathleen is suing Alan's gym for $333.00. 

This is for membership fees to a gym. Kathleen claims she asked for her membership to be frozen when she was unable to go to the gym for medical reasons. Kathleen says she showed the person working at the desk a note from her doctor and was told she could freeze her membership. The gym actually has a policy for freezing a membership. Alan explains that someone can freeze their membership for 2 months. Anything longer than that, especially the year Kathleen wanted, would have been handled differently. They would have had her cancel the membership and then reinstate it.

Kathleen seems to be very unorganized. She says she asked for the membership to be frozen for a few months, yet expected it to be frozen for a year. Also, the letter from her doctor states a few months, not a year. She does not seem to understand that a few months is not a year. Also, she continued to pay the membership throughout the year. She states that she did not notice anything because she paid her daughter's membership. The monthly fee would have been different, wouldn't it? The way she found out the membership was not frozen was when she went to return to the gym, asked for it to be unfrozen and was told it had never been frozen, Well, actually it had, for 2 months. Both sides have trouble with record-keeping!!! So complicated!!!!!

Kathleen is very upset after losing the case, yet never mentions if her daughter continues to be a member, I wonder!!!!! Alan says that he offered her perks to stay on as a member, but she was did not accept. I think she should have taken him up on the perks since she is the one who did not handle this properly. What do you think?

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

Stay updated - Subscribe!

Did anyone notice the close-up of the Judge's fingernails? I really liked her manicure. Such a pretty color!!!!!!

People's Court Blog - 10 15 2012 - Monday

Snickers And Scorpio

Cindy is suing Mark for $3826.30. This is a combined total for lost wages and vet bills. Both of these dog owners are guilty of letting their dogs roam free in the neighborhood. There is a leash law in their town, neither of them care. They do  not care if their dogs get lost, stolen or hit by a car. Now they care because someone needs to be responsible for the vet bill. Scorpio, Mark's Chocolate Labrador attacked Snickers, Cindy's Dachshund. The vet bills are $2826.20. Mark offered to pay half because it was near Christmas and he wanted to help Cindy out. Actually Mark, you are going to pay the entire amount because of Florida law on strict liability. Even though both of them were wrong in leaving their dogs roam free, Mark is responsible for the bills. He does not have to pay for the week of work that Cindy chose to miss. She wanted to be home with Snickers while he was recovering. Please both of you put leashes on your dogs! The dogs deserve to be protected from harm. If you cannot be bothered to walk your dog on a leash, do not have dogs! What do you think?

The Harmonica Player 

Elliot is suing Michael for $200.00. He claims Michael hired him to play in a band on Labor Day in at a city sponsored picnic in 2010. Michael denies this. He says he does not even like harmonica players so why would he hire him. Are we to believe that Elliot just walked up to the band and started playing with them? Are we to believe that now Elliot is suing for a job he did not have? Well, it is hard to know what to believe since Elliot is claiming Michael owes him $200.00. Michael says he paid the men in the band $50.00 each. Elliot finally admits that he was hired for $50.00 and now wants more because he had to waste so much time trying to get paid. Elliot does have a letter from one of the men in the band stating that the were paid. Unfortunately, he does not mention the amount. After listening to both sides of the story, The Judge decides that Elliot was hired and he will get paid $50.00 and interest from the past two years! Why did Michael think is was believable that Elliot would sue him if he was not hired? Why did Elliot think that it was believable that he was hired for $200.00? If both men just told the truth it would have been a magical moment! What do you think?

The Pitter Patter Of Little Feet

Lisa is suing George for $5000.00. This is for damages to her apartment and for pain and suffering. Lisa has lived in her apartment for 40 years. In 2008, George moved in above her. She says there were leaks in her apartment caused by George. These problems were resolved. In 2011, he rented to a couple with a 7 year old, 45 lb child. Lisa claims that she has had damage to her ceiling fan light fixture, smoke detector, medicine cabinet and toilet because of the child. She said the child jumps up and down and creates problems. She complained to George on many occasions. He did ask the family to put down rugs and they did. Lisa said it did not help. One day George came in her apartment to see the damage she was complaining about. When Lisa asked him if he could hear the noise, he listened and heard the pitter patter of little feet. That is when he realized this was not going to to be easy to resolve. Lisa was super sensitive to the slightest noise. It does seem that George was trying to mediate the problem. The family was made aware of the complaints. They provided a letter to the court that described how they supervise their child and they even remove their shoes at the door. The family moved out because of this situation. That is really a shame! The child has a right to walk around in his own home. The Judge finds that Lisa cannot prove her case. What a shame that a family had to move out because of this unreasonable woman! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.

~James M. Barrie