People's Court Blog - 1 3 2013 - Thursday

It is time to play catch-up! Here are the cases from January 3, 2013:

Joseph and John are suing Benjamin and his business for $2903.50. 

This includes the cost of a 1986 motorcycle, pain and suffering, mileage and tow costs. When they bought the motorcycle from Benjamin they received a 30 day warranty. Benjamin calls it a guarantee. What is the difference? Benjamin does not know what the difference is and he is the one who gave it!!! 10-12 days after buying the motorcycle, it would not start. When they called Benjamin, he said it would cost $300 to diagnose the problem. This is not the way a warranty or guarantee works. Benjamin claims they wanted to modify the bike, when they were looking to replace the chain and the sprocket. Most of what Benjamin says in response to questions does not make any sense. 

Benjamin needs to learn to sell the motorcycles as-is, if he is not going to honor a warranty or guarantee. He claims he does not run a business, he works out of his garage. He also needs to learn how to speak in court - he called Douglas, pal! That is not proper! 

The good news for Joseph and John is that they win the case. They do not get pain and suffering, it is a contract case! They do get back $1653.50. They are satisfied with the outcome. 

Buying a vehicle, car or motorcycle requires two important steps. One is a test drive, the other is having a mechanic look at the vehicle. Joseph and John did neither. They are very lucky that Benjamin gave them a warranty (guarantee) and breached the contract. Otherwise, they might have been stuck with the purchase of the 1986 motorcycle.

Iris is suing Louis and the Realty Corporation for $2000.00.

Iris wants her security deposit back. Louis, a realty broker showed her an apartment in mid April. She signed a lease and gave Louis $2000.00 out of the $3000.00 required. She could not get the additional money and let Louis know she was trying to get it. Then she called Louis and let him know she was not going to take the apartment. He had given $800.00 to the landlord and kept $1200.00 for his fee. 

Neither party has any paperwork to show the Judge. Iris claims the paperwork stated only $50.00 was non-refundable. Unfortunately, she does not have the paperwork. Louis should have proof, but no, he does not have it either!

How can people come to court so unprepared?

Why would Iris think she should get back her money? She held up the apartment from being rented to someone else. There is a cost to changing your mind! Iris does not get her money back and Louis actually received a brokers fee twice for the rental of the apartment. He does not seem very trustworthy, but he is entitled to the fee. 

People need to realize there are consequences to their actions. You cannot make a decision and not know it does not have an impact. When you put a deposit on an apartment, no one else can rent it. If you do not go through with the deal, then the landlord has lost the opportunity to rent it to someone else. I hope Iris has learned from this experience, it was a very expensive lesson!

Rachel sues Levy for $1643.54.

Rachel lives next to Levy's rental property. After a very severe windstorm, debris from Levy's roof landed on Rachel's car. She took the debris off the car and went to work. When she had a chance to look at her car, she saw it was scratched. She got in touch with Levy to let him know about the damage. Once he found out the amount of the estimate, he said it was an act of God and he was not responsible for the damages. 

How is it that someone would agree that they are responsible until they find out the cost? Scratches on cars are expensive to repair.  Levy keeps saying he never saw the damages and it could have been a different car. Well, it was not a different car, Rachel has pictures! Also, Levy needs to repair his roof. The pictures of the roof show that it is not in very good shape.

Rachel wins the case and gets the amount for the lower estimate, which is $1335.02.

I do not understand why people do not take responsible for their own property. Even losing this case does not seem to enlighten Levy. In the hallway, he is still saying his roof is in good shape. Really!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court: 7-12-12 ** Delivery Date ** Only 4 ** Handyman

Jay and Amy order a dining room set. The written contract states the delivery date is estimated and cannot be guaranteed. They are told it will be 8-10 weeks for delivery, this does not hold more weight than the written contract. Do people ever read the contracts they sign? The information in the contracts is very important. It is essential that we read everything we are going to sign. At some point in the future, this could become very important. The dining room set is not delivered on time. There are problems with getting the furniture from the manufacturer. Spencer, who works for the furniture company, even called Jay to tell him the furniture was in and set up a delivery date when the furniture was not available. Spencer made a mistake. Jay was not happy with continued false promises of delivery and cancelled the order. Unfortunately, there is no proof of the cancellation. Zach, the store owner, does not recall the cancellation. Jay calls the credit card company and has the charges reversed. He is not going to have to pay for furniture he did not receive. Why are we in court? Jay and Amy purchased an identical dining room set from another store. They paid more for it and want Zach to pay the difference. This does not make any sense at all. Zach is protected by his contract and does not have to pay Jay and Amy. Now, let's talk about Spencer. He is Zach's employee, new to this store, yet has the audacity to be rude to his boss and the Judge. For some reason, Zach is not offended and even says that Spencer has done a good job. It does not look like it from my perspective. Spencer has a bad attitude and does not seem to care about customer service.

Jordan is only 4 years old. Michael is a neighbor suing Jordan and his mother, Maryellen. He believes Jordan threw rocks that broke his windshield. He did not see Jordan break the windshield. The next day Michael's grandson tells him that Jordan threw rocks at the windshield. Michael also claims that Jordan confessed to him. Jordan is only 4 years old. It sounds like there are many problems in the neighborhood between the neighbors. Maryellen feels her family is being harassed. The Judge tells her it is time to move out of there. There is so much tension the children do not play together anymore. Is a 4 year old responsible for his actions? Keep in mind there is no actual evidence that Jordan is responsible. There have been a rash of vandalism in the neighborhood. The windshields of several cars were broken during this same time period. Did Jordan break those windshields also? The Judge explains that even if Jordan did break the windshield, he is not legally responsible, he is 4! Also, his mother would not be legally responsible, she was not negligent. I can not believe that Michael sued Jordan, he is 4! The cutest thing, he wants to be a police officer when he grows up!

Frederick is a handyman suing Ann for unpaid work. He would do odd jobs for her and get paid the same day. He says he was always paid $100.00 a day. Ann says she paid him per job. He claims she owes him $160.00. When he goes to her house at 7:30 in the morning to collect his money, Ann will not pay him. Ann says she does not owe him anything. She has paid Frederick per job and is all caught up. Her explanation for the early morning visit does not make any sense. She says Frederick was supposed to work that day and showed up too early. She wanted him to leave and come back at 9:00 am. This does not make any sense at all. When a contractor shows up for work, that is a good thing. Since most of what Ann says does not make any sense, she is found responsible to pay Frederick the money. In cases, where it is he said - she said, it is very important that the testimony is truthful. To determine if someone is telling the truth, the Judge pays very close attention to what makes sense. Ann does not sound credible at all and Frederick deserves to get paid for the work he has done.

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

A friend walks in when everyone else walks out.

-Unknown

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be used in future blogs.

People's Court: 7-11-12 **** Friends **** Test Drive **** Invitations

James and Steven are friends. They met in a recovery program. James lent money to Steven to buy a motorcycle. Steven denies the loan. Of course, there is nothing in writing. After the fact, James wants Steven to sign a promissory note. This does not go over well, they get into a physical fight. They both claim the other threw the first punch. Since Steven wants $3000.00 in medical bills, he needs to prove that he was attacked. Witnesses to the fight would make all the difference. Steven claims there were a few people that saw the fight but they do not want to get involved. He has so many excuses, some are elderly, another wears an ankle bracelet and can not be in New York. He also claims James was trying to steal his fiancee. He does not win his counterclaim. Meanwhile, James has a witness to the purchase of the motorcycle. The man that sold the motorcycle tells the court that James handed him the money and Steven rode the motorcycle away and crashed it! Steven does not sound like he is having too much luck. The shame of it is, these two men had a friendship and allowed money and jealously to get in the way. Also, James denies he ever had any desires towards his friend's fiancee. What caused this situation to escalate to physical violence? I believe the money transaction should have been made clear from the beginning. Before the money changed hands, both men should have been agreed on the loan. Also, Steven's fiancee should not have gone to lunch and spent time alone with James. On a happy note, Steven and his fiancee did work out their problems and are now married.

Titus buys a used car without taking it for a test drive. Jeff, the owner of the used car lot says this is common. I do not understand how anyone can buy a car, new or used without taking it for a test drive. Titus tells the court that 15 years ago, he bought a car from the same lot from Jeff's dad. and did not take it for a test drive. Since Jeff's dad was so reputable and he had no problem with that car, he felt he could trust Jeff. It really isn't about trust, it is about the car. What if it is just uncomfortable to drive? After the purchase of the used car, Titus drives the car away and comes back ten minutes later. He says there are problems with the car. Oh my, a test drive would have been a good idea!!!!  Jeff is willing to work with Titus even though there is no warranty on the car. Titus has signed three documents that it is an as-is sale. Titus does not want to take any responsibility for buying a used car without performing his own due diligence. Titus continues to have problems with the car, Jeff keeps telling him to have it checked out. Even after Titus loses the case, Jeff is still willing to work with him to keep him happy. He does not have to do this, but still extends the offer.

Jonelle hires Orrett, a friend of her uncle, to print 120 invitations for a surprise party for her mother. She wants them done quickly to hand out at a family gathering. Orrett agrees to print them for her right away. He should not have made promises he could not keep. He starts the job and then runs out of ink. To save money, he orders ink online. This adds an additional delay. None of this would have happened if he would have gone to a store for the ink. He wants to save a few dollars and now winds up in court and does not even stick to a straight story. First he says he would have the invitations ready, then he says he would try to have them ready. He says he would return the money, he gave Jonelle's uncle a check, then he says he is not returning her money. It is easy to see that Orrett is not believable. He is also counterclaiming for $80.00, even though he did not return Jonelle's money. Now he has to return her money and he is not getting an additional $80.00 for his time printing the invitations he says he threw away. He had an invitation to show the Judge, I guess he did not throw them all away!  Why not just tell the truth? Things happen and we need to be flexible. In a case where time is of the essence, Orrett should have bought the ink locally to avoid  the delay. He should have taken the commitment to the job much more seriously.

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

They can because they think they can.

-Virgil

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be included in future blogs.

People's Court: 7-10-12 **** Ten Dollars **** A Rim **** A Grey Suit

The first case is over ten dollars. It costs more to file the case! James noticed damage to his fence months after his neighbor had his driveway paved. What is the connection? James went online and found construction equipment that could have caused the damage. He showed pictures of the damage. Anything could have done it, maybe someone climbing over the fence. He claims he did not notice the damage right away because of all the snow. The damage was to the top of the fence. James pursues this with the owner of the paving company. Bill owns the paving company. He is willing to pay for the damage even though he does not think he caused it and it is many months after the fact. He says it is good business. He stops being a nice guy when James is nasty to Bill's 16 year old son and James calls him at 6:39 am. It is at that time he says a few choice words and tells James to sue him. Well, James does sue him, over ten dollars, two happy meals!!! I would hope he has better things to do with his time. There is something wrong when people are suing over ten dollars!!! The best part, James gets nothing since he was not able to prove that Bill caused the damage.

Now we have Shashi, who gets a flat tire and damages a rim. He takes the tire to be repaired at a local repair shop. He is very unhappy with the finished product. There is a blemish, a scar on the rim from the repair. The shop's manager, Sulieman brings a wheel to court to demonstrate how the repair is done. He explains that he told Shashi there would be a blemish when the job was finished. It would not look brand new. No one could fix it any better. Unfortunately, there is no paperwork to back this up. Shashi denies that he was told there would be noticeable marks. Why isn't there a contract? A signature from the customer to prove he was told about what to expect from the repair would be ideal. Since Sulieman cannot prove Shashi knew what to expect he has to pay for the rim. Shashi is suing for the replacement cost. Once again, we are reminded court is to make you whole and not to get a bonanza. Shashi bought them used, yet wanted replacement cost for something new. The shop will have to return the tire and rim and give back some of the money. The good news: Sulieman will now make sure customers sign off regarding any information told to them. Hopefully this will eliminate future lawsuits!

Now we meet Robin and Arthur. They have taken their son's suit to the cleaners and did not get it back. When Robin droppped off 6 items to be cleaned she received a receipt. Arthur returns about 2 weeks later to pick up the clothes. He does not take the time to count the number of items at the counter. If he did, we would not be here. Arthur takes the bag home, hangs it in the closet and that's that. Several months later, they notice the suit is not there. Arthur goes to the cleaners to see if the suit is still there. Cathy, the owner of the store, remembers that he first asked for a blue jacket. After calling his son and wife, he asked her for a grey suit. She looks and does not have it. Why would they wait months to check the laundry? The time to check was at the counter. The Judge reminds everyone whether it is months or minutes, you can not hold the store responsible once you leave. Always check how many items you are picking up before you leave the store. In the hallway, Arthur still does not take responsibility for this, he is going on about not being able to prove a negative...what does this have to do with anything? Please let us all learn from the mistakes we make in order to avoid those same ones on the future!!

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

We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone.

-Ronald Reagan

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be included in future blogs.

People's Court: 7-9-12:***** A Table ***** A Scooter ** An Internet Scam

Sue is an interior designer. In her line of work, she deals with subcontractors. She hires Richard, a furniture maker, to redo the centerpiece of a dining room table. This table has sentimental value to Sue's clients. Sue and Richard agree on a price and have a written contract. Sue delivers the table in October and lets Richard know this is not a rush job. Everything sounds good, so far. The troubles start in January when Sue picks up the table. The centerpiece is warped, the table is not able to be used. Richard fixes it a second time. In March, the table is finished, but is it? Sue goes to pick it up and when no one answers the door, she calls the police. Richard opens the door when the police arrive. He claims he always keeps the door locked because it is a bad area. Richard has to let Sue take the table. When she is able to check it, she finds the centerpiece is still warped. When Sue calls him to complain, he returns her call and leaves a voicemail stating he wants a written apology and will only deal directly with the customers. Sue is not going to let Richard anywhere near this table again. Richard says the table was not ready to be picked up. The repair will need to be done again. Why would Sue go to his store unless she got a call from him that the table was ready? He loses even more credibility with the demand for a written apology and to keep Sue out of the picture. Richard is countersuing for the cost of the additional repairs to the table. He has no right to change the original contract. Sue gets back the money for the repair, not the additional monies she wants for lost wages from the job. With this money, she can get the table fixed properly, keep her clients happy and hopefully do more work for them. In the meantime, she needs to find a different furniture maker! 

Kristi has decided she wants to "go green". When she sees Jeremiah's ad on Craigslist selling scooters, she thinks this is a great way to get to work. She calls Jeremiah at 5:00 am to ask about the scooters. She said the ad said to call anytime. This is important later on in the story. She goes with a friend to look at the scooters. After she rides both scooters, she has difficulty making up her mind. Both need some work and Jeremiah spends the entire next day fixing up the scooter Kristi picked. The next day he is delivering it to her house and she calls him and says she changed her mind and wants the other one. He turns around and goes home. She then calls him and says her friend wants to buy the other one. He works on the second scooter to prepare it for sale. He delivers both scooters to Kristi. Now he offers her $50.00 back since he was selling the second scooter to her friend. Why does he offer this? He put so much time and energy in fixing up the scooters and he delivered them to her. He also promises her he will help her out with the scooter if it has any problems. Also, he has forgotten the mat and shows her he scratched a panel and has ordered a new one. Jeremiah seems like a really nice guy, who needs to learn when a sale is final, it's final. The next day, Kristi rides the scooter to work. She has problems on the way there, describes that it cut out and she had to restart it. At the end of the day, there is a puddle of gas underneath the scooter. A coworker fixes it for her and she is able to ride it home. She calls Jeremiah and has trouble reaching him. She calls again the next day at 6:42 am. Very specific!. These early morning calls, 5:00 am and 6:42 am do not seem to phase her. When the Judge questions her about it, she replies, "the ad said anytime" and she is up early anyway. How rude to call people so early in the morning. Too bad Jeremiah did not seem bothered by the 5:00 am call and see it as a red flag! When Kristi cannot reach Jeremiah, she files the court papers. This case is occurring within 30 days of the sale. He had to leave town for awhile and he had family issues to deal with. He was going to take care of everything he promised, only if Kristi had given him the opportunity to do so. The sale is final and Kristi does not get her money back for the cost of the scooter, but she does get the cost of the repairs, the $50.00 rebate, the mat and the replacement panel. They both seem like really nice people, Kristi needs to be more patient and Jeremiah needs to stop making so many promises when he makes a sale. 

Edith has been renting a house for several years. When the house is sold, she receives notice to move out. She feels she needs to move out quickly, even though the new owner, Shanaan, tells the court she gave Edith 30 days and then extended it to 60 days. Edith says that Shanaan asked her constantly when she was going to move out. Edith's son found an apartment on the internet. They sent $500.00 through Western Union to a stranger to hold an apartment sight unseen. When the Judge questions him, he very matter-of-factly says, "we were scammed". The honesty is refreshing. Edith is suing her landlord for $1500.00, the security deposit and the money she sent through Western Union. Is she kidding? The landlord had nothing to do with her losing that money. Why is the landlord keeping the security deposit? She claims Edith replaced an expensive Kohler toilet with a different one. She knows this because a Kohler toilet has a stamp on the bottom and the toilet in the house did not have the stamp. Also, she has her friend with her that recently renovated her bathroom with Kohler products. This does not make her an expert! The landlord does have pictures of damages to a door and the ladder to the attic. Edith admits her cat scratched the door because he was trying to go outside. Not looking for love, she promises he is fixed!  Edith's son says the rung of the ladder was always loose. The landlord cannot keep all of the security deposit, since she is unable to provide proof of the toilet switch! She does get to keep $250.00 for the other damages. Edith's son is very truthful about the internet scam. Many people would have tried to blame someone else. Like his mom, she wanted the landlord to be responsible for their bad decision. Edith needs to learn to protect herself against scam artists. Good luck to Edith and her very honest son!

Please let me know what you think in the comments.  Thank you for joining me today.

Even if you fall on your face, you're still moving forward.

-Victor Kiam

Also, remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings!

People's Court: 7-6-12 ***** A Horse ***** A Theft ** A Rude Plaintiff

Everyday situations present us with unique challenges. We find ourselves dealing with new problems all the time.  In working to resolve these issues people need to behave with integrity. Are they trying to right a wrong or find a bonanza? When these stories wind up in the courtroom, the resolution is fair.

Marion needed to transport a horse to a competition for her granddaughter. The transport company is owned by Chip. When the trailer was opened at the competition, the horse was lying down. The horse was injured during the trip. As soon as Marion learns the horse cannot compete, she finds another horse. Her granddaughter was able to successfully compete. Why are we in court? Marion wants Chip to pay for all of the expenses for both horses, the injured horse and the replacement horse, transport fees and competition fees. She does not have a clear answer when she is asked to explain why Chip should have to pay for the expenses of both horses. Why should she get a bonanza? She is only entitled to the money she can prove she lost because of the negligence of Chip's company. Why should her granddaughter get  a free ride? She feels that Chip's company was negligent while securing the horse in the trailer.  In order to prove this, she needs to have evidence. She has her husband tell the court that a horse would never lay down in a horse trailer. He should know he has transported horses for 15 years. This is not evidence. Now, Chip's daughter explains she has been doing this for years and it can happen. It may not be common, but she has seen horses lay down in the trailer. Chip explains that the chain is left loose, so if the horse does lay down, their neck is not broken. Since Marion cannot prove her case, she does not win.  To Marion's surprise, Chip has countersued for 2 additional transports. Even though Marion was unhappy with him in August, she used his company in October and November. On these two occasions, she did not pay him. She claims she had to use his service since the horse farm only contracts with his company. They did not switch companies when the horse was injured. She was not able to pay because she fell on hard times. She did not make any attempt to make payments on the bill. The court finds that Marion is responsible to pay Chip for the services provided. It makes you wonder if Chip would have brought her to court on his own or if he just took this opportunity to countersue?  Why would Marion think she did not have to pay for any of the services she received? What do you think? For those that are wondering, the horse sustained scrapes to her leg and one of her back legs was swollen.

Christian and Nicole rented an apartment together. They both signed the lease and they shared expenses. Christian is suing Nicole for $2000.00. This amount is for a loan, rent and money that was stolen. Christian had a promissory note signed for the loan, but was unable to find it for court. The rent was from December, that was deferred to January as a birthday gift. Nicole moved out suddenly in January and did not pay the rent for December or January. There was money missing from Christian's room. She is convinced Nicole stole it. Knowing that Christian dd not see Nicole steal the money or have any evidence to prove the theft makes you think she is not going to win this portion of the case. Well, Nicole starts to lie about everything. The answers she gives the Judge contradict the written answers she provided to the court. She does deny that she stole the money. Unfortunately, since she lies about the rent and the loan, she shows her true character. Once someone lies in court, nothing they say can be believed. Christian wins the case, but is very sad to have lost her girlfriend.

Konstantine's car was damaged in an accident. He made the decision to pay for the repair himself and not go through the insurance company. He takes his car to Nakhman's repair shop. After the repairs were done he claims he returned many times since there were still problems with the car. He does not have any documentation for the return visits. According to the owner of the shop, he picked the car up in June and did not complain until October. We also learn he recommended the shop to his uncle. How unhappy was he if he sent his uncle to the shop? Konstantine has paperwork that he generated and had a mechanic sign. It listed old parts that were used for repair and repairs that were not done or done incorrectly. This paperwork was not created by the mechanic. It did not serve as true evidence. The Judge tries to get more information from Konstantine. On several occasions, he talks over her. This is so rude. When he loses, he says it was fun to give Nakhman stress and waste his time in court. It is a shame Konstantine did not take this case more seriously. If he would have paid attention, he might have learned something. 

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

Everything is okay in the end, if it's not okay, it's not the end.

- Unknown

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be included in future blogs!

People's Court: 7-5-12 **** Lawyer **** Dog Bite ** Best Friends

Let's explore the following situations involving strangers, family and friends. Trusting people to do the right thing is an ideal that is not always achieved. When these relationships break down, the courtroom is a neutral place to find a resolution.

Jose is a lawyer who has entered into an agreement to rent a furnished room. He gave Laura $1500.00 to hold the room she was renting. Neither of them agree whether this was the first month's rent or a security deposit. He gave her cash and he did not get a receipt. Thank goodness she does not deny receiving the money. Jose is quick to explain he does have follow-up emails discussing the money did change hands. He is very fortunate these e-mails exist. Laura has even asked him to write up an agreement for the rental. He does not prepare anything for the rental and then he changes his mind about the room. It is clear that Laura is confused, since it appears that he was already moving in, he brought toiletries and bedding to leave in his room. Jose sent Laura an e-mail that he changed his mind and wanted to pick up his belongings and get back his deposit. Laura wants to keep the money because she does not have time to rent the room to someone else. Why do people allow themselves to get into such a situation? Especially Jose, after all, he is a lawyer. Of all people he should have known better. He does not even do his homework before he comes to court. He is totally unprepared. The Judge is not happy with him and tells him he is not a very good lawyer, he does not care. She advises him to use the money on night classes. He is very fortunate to get his money back; he is fortunate the laws in New York support his case. In the hallway, Laura tells us she trusted him because he was a lawyer and now she has learned the law. Jose, the lawyer, tells us that when the law is on your side you do not have to do much, although he does admit he should have done research. We do expect more of a professional and it is a shame Laura left everything to him, he was not concerned with her best interests!

This next case is one of the saddest situations; a family torn apart. Everyone gathered at the home of Ryan and Cindy. Cindy and Isabel are cousins. Isabel had 3 dogs with her; 2 puppies and a dachshund.  This is a very close family, even welcoming the dogs to join them. There were more dogs, but they were not in the yard when the attack occurred. Someone let the 2 puppies into the yard and Isabel bent down to scoop them up. Bullet, a bull terrier, ran towards her and bit her inner thigh. There is no question she was bitten, although Ryan, Bullet's owner, tries to say no one knows which dog bit her. The other dog in the yard was Isabel's dachshund. No one believes her little dog bit her. The neighbors call the police when they hear the commotion. The police think they are responding to a domestic dispute and Cindy is embarrassed. Instead of being embarrassed, she should be worried about Isabel's injuries. They go into the house and look at the wound. The skin is not broken and they do not think it is serious. Over the next few days it gets worse. The pictures of Isabel's leg are truly worth a thousand words. She has developed a huge hematoma. The blood has pooled under the skin and looks really painful. Isabel misses a month of work due to doctor's orders. She needs a medical procedure and gets stitches. So much to go through and it seems the worst part to her is that the family is taking sides over this. Isabel and Cindy have not talked since the incident. Here is an interesting twist, Ryan tells us that when Animal Control comes to the house Bullet is missing. No one has ever been able to locate him. How can this be true? So, not only does he not pay for the medical bills and lost wages for Isabel, he hides his dog! Ryan and Cindy are found responsible and have to pay Isabel. In the hallway, Cindy comments that she misses her family and Isabel tells us if it was handled differently they would not be here. After listening to these people, I hope that Isabel and Cindy can repair their relationship. Ryan should be ashamed of himself for causing such family problems. What do you think happened to Bullet!

Alicia and Ashley have been friends since high school. They decide to move in together and share the expenses of an apartment. Alicia has children, Ashley does not. Alicia pays for the first month's rent and the security deposit. She expects Ashley is going to pay her back when she has the money. Ashley never plans on paying her back. This would have been the perfect time for a written agreement. These two friends do not seem to communicate with each other. Alicia does not ask for the money because she says her friend knows it was a loan. She did not want to keep reminding her to pay her back. Ashley had no idea Alicia was expecting the money back. They both admit it was tense in the apartment, they were both upset over different things. Ashley was upset because she thought Alicia's children and guests damaged her furniture. If these two friends talked with each other, we could have avoided the loss of this friendship. Ashley moves out, still not returning the money. Remember - she still thinks it was a gift. I think she is being selfish expecting her friend to pay her way, but that is Ashley! Alicia does the right thing bringing this to court, she proves her case and she gets her money back. The insight of the hallway interview is the Ashley has no clue and Alicia is a genuinely nice person. It is clear the friendship is over and Alicia handled it very gracefully.

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

All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be used at the end of the blog.

People's Court: 7-4-12 ** Silver Coins *** A Tree *** Allergies

Happy 4th of July!!!!! 

We are responsible for the decisions we make. Hopefully we make these decisions with the best intentions. To blatantly take advantage of someone is inexcusable. To ignore a past relationship is so so sad. And to ignore our surroundings is not always the best idea. The following cases illustrate these situations. 

Finding a great deal at a flea market is a wonderful feeling. Getting taken advantage of is another story. Daniel thought he discovered a deal at a local flea market. A vendor was selling silver coins. He even showed Daniel a book of coins to prove they were real. After the coins were purchased, Daniel took them to have them authenticated. He learned he paid $1100.00 for nothing. These coins had no value. The question is: Did the vendor know this when he sold them? And if he did, why is he taking advantage of someone? If the vendor did not act guilty, leaving the flea market directly after the sale, I would think he did not know the coins did not have any value. This theory is dispelled quickly as the vendor tells his story. He is not believable. He is rude to the Judge, pointing his finger at her and raising his voice. I am surprised she did not throw him out of the courtroom. The more he talked, the guiltier he appeared. He does have to pay the money back. I am so glad it turned out this way. People do not deserve to be taken advantage of. Of course, we all have to do our due diligence to protect ourselves.

Two neighbors in court over a tree. What a shame, these two people were good friends at one time. They have lived next to each other for over 20 years. Why does it wind up this way? Thomas claims that his neighbor, Joan, had one of his trees cut down after the snowstorm last Halloween. There was damage to trees on both properties. Thomas says this particular tree was not damaged. He thinks since it was so close to the property line, when the clean-up was done on Joan's property, they cut this tree down. Joan tells us she paid her friend's cousin $50.00 to clean up 2 damaged trees. If this tree was not damaged, why would someone cut it down. They wouldn't! Thomas should be glad someone did free work for him and instead of dragging his friend into court, he should be thanking her. He does not get the money he is asking for. Joan does not have to pay him over $3000.00 for a tree that was damaged in a snowstorm. What brings us to this point where we can not even talk to each other in a civil manner? We need a courtroom setting to resolve our problems? These two people were friends and that should count for something. In the hallway, they both agree the friendship does not exist anymore.

Denise is highly allergic to animals. She moves into an apartment building that allows animals. After several months she develops such a severe allergic reaction she winds up in the hospital. When she decides to move out without proper notice, she wants her security deposit back. So much of what she says does not make sense. She tells us the apartment manager told her no pets were allowed in the building, yet the lease she signed does not state this information. The lease gives the specifics of the restrictions of having a pet. They have to be approved by management and there are specific rules to follow. Denise also tells us that on at least two occasions she has to deal with dog feces near her door and the entrance to the building. She does not contact management at this point. She does not submit a complaint. She does not give notice to move out. It is not until 5 months later, when she gets sick, she moves out. How does she not see dogs for the entire time she has lived there? Denise does not get back her security deposit. We all need to take responsibility for our lives. Knowing she had a severe allergy, she should have made sure there were no pets in the building. Why put her health at risk? There are many ways to rationalize our behavior. In this case, I am baffled by the decisions that Denise made!

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today!

Happiness will not come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have.

-Unknown

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings!

People's Court: 7-3-12 ** A Cat ** A Truck ** A Dog

People need to be nicer to each other. It is common courtesy to return someone's cat, fix someone's truck or to treat someone else's property with respect. It does not seem that any of these situations should become problematic, but when they do, the courtroom is the  place to resolve them.

Jonathan rescued a cat from a shelter. Since he was home from school for the summer, he was not able to bring the cat home. His plan was to have a friend take care of the cat for the summer and when he returned to school take the cat with him. He asked a co-worker, Amy,  if she would take care of the cat for the summer. She agreed to do this. Jonathan paid her to do this and covered the expenses. There is a discrepancy regarding how much money was agreed upon. The good thing is when things started falling apart, there were e-mails back and forth. The content of the e-mails clears up the amount of money. At the end of the summer Jonathan tried to reach Amy to schedule a time to pick up the cat. She did not return his phone calls, so he e-mailed her. She did correspond with him through e-mail. Did she forget about the e-mails? Jonathan brought the printed e-mails to court. As the Judge reads them we learn the true story. Amy and her family fell in love with the cat. Amy did not want to return the cat so it could live in a dorm room. She was convincing Jonathan to let her keep the cat until she asked for money. This is where everything falls apart. She wanted him to cover the expenses of the cat and she was going to keep the cat. She really could have not have it both ways. She has to return the money Jonathan gave her since she was keeping the cat. I give Jonathan so much credit for making the right decision. He thought of the cat and what would be best for the cat. He knew that Oscar was in a loving home and he wanted the best for him. Amy wanted the money! Hopefully, her family is not as mercenary and Oscar truly is in a loving home.

Larena lent her truck to Jocelyn, the mother of her grandson. It sounded like they had a close relationship. Larena lived with Jocelyn for a period of time. She took care of her grandson. We also find out the Larena has court appointed custody of her grandson. At some point, Jocelyn was going to go into the service. This plan changed when she met someone and had another child. She also stopped seeing her son because the new man in her life was controlling. She allowed this situation to occur and she should step up and be with both of her children. The truck in question is parked in a lot. When Jocelyn's friend leaves it there after using it, the car needs repair. Jocelyn tells Larena she will take care of the truck when she gets back from the Bahamas. When she returns, she decides it is too expensive and does not do anything. Now the fees are accumulating and no one is taking care of the bill. A $300.00 parking bill is now over $1700.00. Larena should not have to be responsible for this bill. She also claims that Jocelyn caused her to have an asthma attack and is suing for pain and suffering. Jocelyn is countersuing for rent, the phone bills and car insurance. Neither of them get everything they asked for. More importantly, in the hallway Jocelyn tells us she has learned not to be nice to family, although Larena is always welcome in her home. Larena is more cynical and bitter and tells us not to trust family or friends, they will stab you in the back. How sad! Hopefully she will continue a relationship with her grandson.

Laura is suing her landlord, Thomas for her security deposit. She has rented a basement apartment for 2 years. When she moves out, she expects her security deposit back. She says she painted and cleaned the 

carpeting. The landlord is keeping the security deposit because there were damages to the apartment. The tenants had a dog and the carpeting was damaged, there was paint spilled on the carpeting, the place was left unclean. He does have pictures to prove what he is saying. He also has a printout of a facebook page from the tenants's daughter telling the world they got a puppy in July. Laura did tell the landlord about the dog but told him it was a temporary situation. She moved out in September and they had the puppy from July. It is not a good idea to lie when your life is chronicled on Facebook. The 15 year old needs to learn to use privacy settings for her Facebook page. The mother seemed surprised about all of this. Really Mom, you need to monitor what your daughter is doing on the computer. Laura also is suing for damages because of the mold. She cannot prove this and the pictures the landlord shows do not help her case at all. She does get back a small portion of the security deposit. The fact that the apartment was illegal when Laura was living there did not help her at all. Neither of them have much to say in the hallway. You wonder if Laura is sorry to have brought this case to court. It was embarrassing and did not seem to be worth it. Why do people want to publicly humiliate themselves?

 Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today. 

If you think sunshine brings you happiness, you have not danced in the rain.

-Unknown

Submit your favorite quotes or sayings to be used at the end of this blog.

People's Court: 7-2-12: Respect

So many times the people in our lives let us down. Whether they are family or strangers we all deserve to be treated with respect. If something occurs and we lose someone's respect, do we then deserve their cruelty?

Maria Elaina is bringing her soon to be ex-husband to court on behalf of her father. When the couple was still together they had a dog. The dog was hit by a car. When Anthony and his father-in-law rushed the dog to the vet, Anthony did not have any money with him. His father-in-law offered his credit card for payment and Anthony agreed to pay the bill. Over $3000.00 was charged to the card. Paying the bill $100.00 a month, lets interest charges accumulate. Four years later, there is still a balance on the card. Anthony is still paying, although now he has moved out. He continues to provide for the dog even though he does not live there anymore. When the dog passes away, he pays for everything, vet bills and the cremation. He even gives Maria Elaina half of the ashes. Now he decides he is not going to pay the remaining balance of almost $500.00. He feels since he has made payments for all of these years, paying almost $7,000.00 (remember the interest charges), Maria Elaina should pay the rest. Unfortunately, he has made the commitment to pay his father-in-law. He is required to pay the balance. Now, what I do not understand is why Maria Elaina has not taken any responsibility to pay half of the expenses for the dog. They owned the dog together. She is so bitter over the break-up, she does not see how ridiculous she looks by not paying her own way. Anthony should sue her for half of the expenses. I do not think he will since he probably wants to move on and not have to deal with Maria Elaina more than he needs to. 

A tenant decides to move out of her apartment after living there for 6 years. Time flies when you are having fun, the landlord says she has lived there for 8 years. The time seemed uneventful until there was a storm that left branches in the driveway and on top of another tenant's car. When she gets up in the morning she could not get her car out of the driveway because of the branches in front of her car.  She wakes up the landlord so he can move the branches. She claims he was very angry when he comes outside. He tells us that he was outside at 1:00 am clearing the branches. There might have been some very small twigs in front of her car. He says he was not happy to be awakened for this, but did not yell or curse at her. She is now scared for her safety because of the anger her directed towards her. She decides to move out. She wants her security deposit back even though she did not give him the proper notice. She brings a printout of his arrest history to prove she had a right to be afraid. She did not call the police at the time of the incident. There is no reason to think he is going to harm her. She does not get her security deposit back. I think it was very cruel to bring up this man's arrest history, it had nothing to do with her situation, even though she said it proved why she would be afraid of him. Why do people have to be cruel to each other?

Marilyn thinks she had a contract to write a script for a movie and then to write a book. She never had a signed proposal or contract. Yet she does research for the project and sends an invoice for the work she has done. The story is about Councilman Davis who was assassinated in 2003 in New York City Hall. A police officer on the first floor sees what has occurred in the balcony and kills the shooter. Councilman Davis's brother wants to educate the public about nonviolence and promote organ donation. He has a mission and to further it has been interviewing several people to write a book based on the documentary he has made. Marilyn thought he had hired her even though there was nothing in writing and they did not discuss payment. When he did not agree to pay the invoice, she sent him a nasty e-mail that referenced his brother. Why do people have to stoop to a low level when they do not get their way? She should have just kept everything about business and not attacked him personally. He obviously thinks highly of his brother to dedicate his life to this mission. This woman does not win her case and continues to fight for her case in the hallway. She felt they had a gentlemen's agreement since they shook hands and hugged. Mr. Davis says he respects the court's decision and will continue with his mission. Again we see the importance of getting an agreement in writing.

Please tell me what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

"Your success and happiness lies in you.Resolve to keep happy, and your joy and you shall form an invincible host against difficulties."- Helen Keller

Remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings! 

People's Court: 6-29-12: Resolutions

When we are spending our hard earned money, we expect to receive value for it. When the service or product is not satisfactory, we feel we should not have to pay for it. Sometimes, you need to pay for part of the service received and renegotiate the rest of the payment. When this is not a  possibility, court is available to resolve the issue.

A couple is being sued for the balance owed for the limo that was rented for their wedding day. The driver arrived late and upset the entire day's schedule.  The bride and her bridal party were almost 30 minutes late to the church and the rest of the day's events were not on schedule. They are not looking for a free ride (see what I did there!). They are willing to pay for the rental, but not give the driver a tip. They feel a tip is for good service and this was not received. When the driver was running late she did call a cell phone number for the bride but did not call the very prominent pick-up number on the contract. When she realized she was lost she should have done everything possible to minimize the problem. At the end of the day, when the balance was due, they did not want to give the driver the tip. The driver would not leave without the check and since the tip was part of the payment, they gave the entire amount. The next day, they called and tried to reason with the owner of the limo company. Getting nowhere, they cancelled payment on the check. The Judge finds they did not receive good service and should not have to pay the tip. What bothers me about this situation is the attitude of the owner of the company. This is the most important day of someone's life. So much planning is involved and his driver did not even know how to get to the bride's house or to the church. The owner did not seem to care, the driver was not available in court to answer questions. Even the most well planned events can have glitches. Sometimes, the mishaps define the day, other times they are just bumps along the way and the day is still enjoyed. For Maureen's wedding, the late limo was a glitch. Hopefully, the day itself will live on in everyone's memory without the late limo being the defining moment. 

Hector has a diningroom set that is very meaningful to him. He received it from his grandmother. It is very very old and he hires Barry to restore it. The work is substandard and Hector wants his money back. It does appear that this is not Barry's best work. There are actually two chairs to look at. It is obvious the chair restored by Barry is not done as well as the chair finished by Frankie. Having the chairs to compare was a great idea. The Judge is able to see details that may not be clear in a picture. Hector does not get all of the money back. Some of the work done did not have to be redone. He gets back part of the money. This is only right. When someone does work they should get paid for it. When you hire someone for a job, you should be satisfied with the work or services provided.

Would you drive two and a half hours one way with a coworker and work all day for free? This is what Domenic would like us to believe. He does not want to pay Michael for work done on his cabin. The problem here is that no one put anything in writing. Michael thought he was going to be paid and Domenic thought he was getting free labor. What did they talk about in the car on the way to the cabin? Why are we so hesitant to put agreements in writing when we are dealing with friends and co-workers? Why do situations escalate to cause a $5000.00 harassment countersuit? After both parties explain what occurred, Michael is awarded half of what he was suing for. Even though he calculated he was owed $1000.00 for his work, he will only get half. These two men work together and hopefully this resolution will make it less awkward for them.

Please let me know what you think.

 Thank you for joining me today!

Remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings!

There are no mistakes in life, only lessons. - a Teacher

People's Court: 6-28-12: Honesty is the Best Policy

Being truthful seems to be a lost art. Remember when our word was our bond, an agreement was sealed with a handshake? Those days are over. Embellishing, exaggerating or outright lying is so common today. Honesty is the best policy, especially in court.

A couple rents a luxury condo for $6000.00 a month. Soon after they move in, the windows leak whenever it rains. They let the landlord know and when the repairs are not done, they decide to pay less rent. The landlord is aware of the problem, she experienced it when she lived there and did contact the builder to say it was happening again. Why wasn't it fixed? This is not made clear. What is made clear is that for 4 months the tenants keep back rent each month. They explain they decided on the amount by calculating how much of the apartment was not habitable. They have a floor plan of the apartment, no pictures of the actual problem. There were pictures taken by the super of the building after the fact. The Judge decides they have exaggerated the situation and decides they do not get back the full security deposit. Also, it is not a good idea to withhold rent without documentation. Clearly stating a problem and proving it has occurred is the best idea when you have to prove it in court.

Best friends for 39 years. Alysa and Lisa have been friends since kindergarten. What a shame it has fallen apart over $1500.00. When Alysa is arrested for violating an order of protection, she calls her best friend to bail her out. She lets Lisa know where to find the money. She even tells her to take some extra for herself. For some reason, when the bail is returned to Lisa, she keeps it. Lisa is not straightforward with the court or with her former friend. First she denies receiving the money, then she says he mother signed and deposited the checks without her knowledge. Another story is that she was supposed to keep it. Why would Alyssa ask for it back if she had told her to keep it? It was not her money to keep. When the checks were sent to her, she should have called her friend. She needs to pay it back. Unfortunately, the damage is done and the friendship is over. Lisa's son has been involved and they are not going to forgive Alyssa for her bad behavior. In the hallway, Lisa's parting words are, "good riddance". So, so sad.

Justin and Brian thought is would be a good idea to trade vehicles without the proper paperwork. Both men had their vehicles posted on Craigslist to sell. They met and decided to make an even trade. Justin did not have a clear title to his vehicle and Brian could not find the title. This should have raised numerous red flags. But the two men forged ahead. Speaking of forging... Justin  provides a work order from his job for repairs needed. He works at this fine establishment and explains he is providing the labor. He has paid half of the $4475.04 and is making payments to his boss to pay off the rest. Brian explains that the car he received from Justin, cannot be put on the road since the title is not clear and it needs major repairs. The Judge calls a recess and when she returns she is very angry. The work order provided by Justin is fabricated and he has not paid any money to his boss. It is a blatant lie. She orders the vehicles switched back. The deal has now been undone! You get the feeling Brian does not want the truck back. He delivers pizzas and does not want a gas-guzzling truck. Justin admits being a liar and should be totally embarrassed and humiliated. Why would someone do this in court on national TV? Your guess is as good as mine.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.

-Unknown Source

Remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings!

People's Court: 6-27-12: Lucky

An announcement - There is something new to the blog! I am asking readers to submit their favorite quotes or sayings. I am looking forward to your submissions.  Check out the end of the blog for this fun addition. Thank you for participating!

The first case is 5 years old. I guess the economy is causing people to go after old debts. If they are credible that would be okay. This case seems very far-fetched. William, a landscaper is suing a couple for the balance due on work he did years ago. There is no written contract to back up any of his claims. He brought in free fill to their property, installed an irrigation system and graded the property. He created berms and feels he made major improvements to their property. The couple sees it differently. I am surprised they did not countersue. They talk about flooding in their basement caused by his irrigation pipe, unclean fill used on their property and the dirt left in piles. They had to pay to have work done to correct the mess he created. He does not win the case and claims he did not even get a chance to tell the entire story. Many people will say this in the hallway. I always wonder why they do not lead with the information they feel would have been essential. This contractor needs to stay on top of his business. He should follow-up in a more timely manner. He should also keep better records in case he needs to take someone to court.

Hurricane Irene strikes again. So many cases are in court because of the damage caused during this hurricane. In this particular case an ice cream freezer was damaged from the flooding in a pizza parlor. Ryan is suing for $500.00, the cost of the freezer. When he removed the damaged freezer he had the store owner sign a promissory note. This should have been enough to get his money. The store owner signed it because he thought his insurance company was going to cover the damages caused by the storm. When the insurance money did not come through, the store owner refused to pay. Is he responsible? In this situation there is a contract. The specifics of the contract state that the store owner is responsible for the cost of the freezer in case of fire, theft or vandalism. It does not mention flooding, acts of god or anything that would describe this occurrence. The store owner is not held responsible for the money, even though he signed the note.  It is a good idea to read and understand anything you are going to sign. In most cases, you will be held to what you sign. This is a very unique situation. The store owner is very lucky.

Two business women hire someone to design a website for them. They do not have a written contract. They are able to show e-mails detailing their progress or lack of. It is helpful for them that they have this information in writing. They discuss deadlines that are not met and specifics they want in the website. When they hired Benite to build the website, they did not know they were not going to own the domain name. They did not understand they were going to have to pay an annual fee to her for the website. Benite explains that this is how a web designer does business and it makes sense. Someone has to pay for the website. Since the two women did not have a clear understanding of the agreement, they were able to get their money back. They were also able to get back the money they spent on promotional materials. It is unfortunate that Benite does not offer a written contract with all of this information. She showed the website she designed for the business and it was really nice. She seems to be good at what she does and should not have to mislead people in order to get customers.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Submit your favorite quotes or sayings and I will include them at the end of the blog.

Nothing messes up your Saturday like realizing it is Wednesday.

- reader submission

Thanks to RedShoesRock

People's Court: 6-26-12: Protect Yourself

We should be able to count on the people in our lives. Whether they are friends, family or strangers we make agreements with, we should be able to feel secure. This is not always the case and we find ourselves going to court.

This is what happened with Gabby. She is a young woman suing her boyfriend, Keith. They were dating for a short time when Keith needed money to fix his car. Gabby lent him the money and they agreed upon a date for him to return the money to her. He tells the story a little differently. He does not remember that he had agreed to pay it back and says he was going to give her some money here and there to help her out. What does this even mean? It seems that he is making it up as he goes along. Did she give him the money by check and write loan on the memo line? No, that would make it way too easy. She did text him about the money, this could help her. Unfortunately, she does not have that cell phone anymore. Keith has the text messages and offers them to the Judge. They do not help him. The text messages reference the agreed upon date for returning the money. Also, Gabby has called his ex-girlfriend and Keith feels this is harassment. It is annoying, but is not harassment. He has countersued for harassment and cannot prove it. He gets nothing and is liable for the money he borrowed. A loan does not turn into a gift because a couple breaks up. Couples need to be careful when they lend each other money and put everything in writing to protect themselves.

Elyse has agreed to rent an apartment. She gives a security deposit, signs a lease agreement and is due to move in on December 15th. On December 13th she finds out the city inspection did not pass. There is a discrepancy regarding the reinspection date, is it going to be done in time for Elyse to move in?  Elyse leaves a message for the landlord and does not hear back. She believes she will not be able to move in on December 15th  and wants her money back. She sends a certified letter to the landlord explaining that she cannot move into an apartment that has failed inspection and wants her money back. The landlord still does not respond. Now they can communicate in court. The landlord failed to send Elyse a certified letter explaining why she was keeping her security deposit. Failure to communicate has become very expensive for the landlord. By law, she is responsible to pay back double the security deposit. People need to learn the law to protect themselves. 

Lula hires a contractor to fix a leaky roof. She just wants it patched. He explains to her that a patch job is not guaranteed. After he does the work, she continues to have leaks. Even though it is not guaranteed, he does go back a few times to try to fix it again. When snow and ice accumulate on the roof, Lula will not pay to have it removed. They explain to her this will be harmful to the roof. She does not change her mind. The contractor has also explained to her that the gutters are a problem. He is telling her a new roof and gutters are needed. She does not want to do anything more than the patch job. The problem is: none of this is in writing. The contractor does have a written agreement that states repair jobs are not guaranteed. He does not have Lula sign this. Why? He needs to have a contract for every job that he does. He needs to protect his contracting business. The good news is that without a written agreement he still wins the case. His business practices are logical and her story is not. In the hallway, Lula lets us know she has put a new roof on the house. The contractor will always make sure he has a signed contract, a very sound business practice! 

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.

Havelock Ellis

People's Court: 6-25-12: Promises

Why do people agree to something and then back out afterwards? This seems to be very common. It is as if their word is not enough. There was a time a handshake was meaningful.

Families are very important. When two people get married it is so nice when the families mesh. This case is about a family torn apart. Traditionally, the bride's family pays for the wedding. The groom's mom paid for the rehearsal dinner and then agrees to pay for the invitations and their family's guests. She denies agreeing to these additional expenses, yet starts making payments after the wedding. After paying back $300.00 she stops making the payments. Her son does not want his new father-in-law to know this, so he continues the payments with his own money. At some point he comes clean and that is when his father-in-law decides to sue for the money. Mother and son do not have the best history. Instead of trying to repair this relationship, these actions are going to further the break. The shame of it is, they do not just make this case about the debt.  Information is brought up about the groom's childhood. This is not necessary to discuss on national TV. The mother is beside herself with emotion. This is so difficult for her. She feels she will never see her grandchildren since her and her son are not talking. She is found liable to pay the balance of what she owes. It is a shame that a family falls apart over $1600.00. I hope this family can get professional counseling and all get along. Do it for the sake of the grandchildren!

A woman lends her ex-boyfriend her car and he gets a parking ticket. Why would she lend her car to someone who has not talked to her for over a month? He calls her out of the blue and tells her a sob story. She falls for it and lends him her car. She has also given him a bus pass to sell. He claims this is a scam but can not prove it. He admits owing her the $20.00 for the bus pass, yet denies that he used her car. He is so unbelievable. He does have to pay her back for the parking ticket, the late fees associated with it and the money for the bus pass. More importantly, this woman needs to stop letting people take advantage of her. She did not hear from this man for over a month and then she lends him her car. He insults her by denying he was ever her boyfriend and describes their relationship as friends with benefits. She needs to protect herself from people like this. Never lend your car to anyone, the consequences can be so much more than parking tickets!

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.

Mahatma Gandhi

People's Court: 6-22-12: True Colors

Everyday brings new experiences for us. When we pay attention, we learn. Being aware of what is around us and embracing this knowledge will keep us informed and safe. 

This case is really about the lack of good judgement. A contractor feels he is being challenged and he acts out. He could have taken the high road and taken his client to court. Instead, he got angry and removed the storm doors from the property. One door had already been installed. There was a physical altercation between the two men, the story of the fight  is not clear. Even though there are two different stories, we know there was a physical fight and the truth is somewhere in between. These two men completely lost all of the common sense they might have had. At the first sign of violence, the police should have been called. Instead, the homeowner was concerned with what the neighbors would think. Who cares? Our well-being is more important than what others would think. This man described a running drill being held to his head. He keeps saying how he needed the job done because he was going away on a trip in ten days. Why would he put his safety aside because of an upcoming trip? What motivates him? Finally, the homeowner calls the police, by the time they arrive, the contractor has left. He does get arrested and spends the night in jail. This might have been the best thing to have happened to him. He needed to know there were consequences to his behavior. In the hallway, he is not happy with the decision, but he does appear subdued. Hopefully, he will learn from this and in the future not take matters into his own hands.

A contract is signed to purchase a hot dog cart. The deposit is given and the balance will be paid upon delivery. The delivery of the cart is planned for December 25th. The cart is not ready by this date. The deposit should be returned. This sounds so straight forward. Why are we here? Well, the first thing I noticed was that the man selling the hot dog cart is treating this as a commercial for his business. He has even brought samples of the material used to build the carts. Is this the reason he let it get this far? Is the cart available now for delivery? Well, it would be, but it is not new anymore, he has been using it! This makes no sense, I am sure he has other carts he could have put into use. Another question: why does he bring his brother with him? He is not a witness and he acts out in court, is thrown out and is completely disrespectful to the Judge. In the hallway, the hot dog cart builder show his true colors, he insults the Judge. If he thought appearing on this show would bring him business, he should have acted much much more professional!

A woman signs a lease for an apartment. She gives the deposit and hopes to move in by a certain date. The landlord continues to delay saying the apartment is not ready. She seems to be very patient, waiting months. Finally, she has had enough and asks for her money back. At first the landlord agrees to give her back whatever she gave him. This is in a text the woman provides to the court. The landlord flounders and says he would give her something back but has not decided how much that would be. He can not come up with a good reason why he is holding onto her money. Of course she deserves her money back. She even is awarded pre-judgement interest! When the landlord leaves the courtroom, he says the outcome is crazy. It is not crazy, it is fair and just.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Happiness is not a goal; it is a by-product.

Eleanor Roosevelt

People's Court: 6-21-12: Impressive

Documentation and evidence are so important.  For all situations we want to prove there needs to be evidence. Without paperwork, it is difficult to win a case. Being truthful and sincere is very much an asset when the evidence does not exist.

In this case a woman sues the cleaners. She is suing for a very large amount of money, $2,000.00. She values 5 bathmat sets, 22 pieces in all, at this price. No one is questioning what was brought in. Unfortunately, someone took the bag she dropped off. The representative for the store does not dispute they are at fault for the missing bag of laundry. what he does point out is the disclaimer on the back of the ticket. This limits the cleaner's responsibility to $75.00. If the woman waits for the Judge's decision she will receive $75.00. The cleaners offers her $250.00. She takes it, but is not happy. She says she will never go back to that cleaners. I was very impressed that the cleaners stepped up and gave her such a generous offer.

A former tenant is being sued for back rent. She has countersued for her security deposit and pain and suffering. She comes to court with proof that the landlord was cited by the city for housing violations. Since she has brought this to the attention of the court, the amount she owes is reduced and then reduced further since she should have gotten her security deposit back. She does not get any money for pain and suffering. This shows how important evidence is. Many people will not bring the proof with them. I was impressed with the tenants that they took the time to prepare for court.

This last case involves no evidence at all. A couple sells a car on Craigslist. The buyer and seller do not even agree on the amount of the sale. The buyer states he paid the full amount, the seller says he still owes $1,000.00. There is no bill of sale. The title is not signed over. Since the car remains in the name of the seller, they receive a call from the police that the car has been abandoned. They retrieve the car and resell it. The buyer wants his money back. He says he never used the car, it was parked on the road in front of his house for 2 months. This is very unbelievable. Since the sellers are sincere, even without paperwork they prove their case and are not responsible to return the money to the buyer. This is why it is important to tell the truth. I was impressed with the sellers, even though they lacked the needed paperwork they were able to win.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

 "If a man does his best, what else is there?"

- General George S. Patton (1885-1945)

People's Court: 6-20-12: Family, Friends, Strangers

Welcome to Summer 2012! 

Everyone has so much to deal with. The last thing we want to think about is being taken advantage of. Whether it is by family, friends or strangers. Why should we allow ourselves to treated poorly by others?

This landlord/tenant case is a good illustration of people treating each other poorly. These two women do not get along. The day to day problems are so toxic that they really need to separate from each other. The landlord needs to pursue an eviction of this particular tenant. She feels that illegal activity is occurring in the apartment. The reason for the suit is because of a flood. The landlord is accusing the tenant of leaving the water running in the tub in the middle of the night. She claims to have proof but does not have it with her. She is in court, this is the time to have the proof. The tenant is countersuing for harassment. Again, there is no proof on her part. If she is not happy with her living arrangements, she should move out. She has pictures of the mold in her apartment. It is a very unhealthy environment and she should not have to live there. She says she has called the city and there are violations that have been cited. She should have sued based on the conditions in the apartment. This environment is toxic on many levels. When the case is over neither party gets any money. The tenant needs to realize, it will not truly be over until she moves out.

This is a case about two friends. One lends the other her credit card to buy a camera. This is a very expensive camera she is going to use to venture into a new business.  She begins to make payments. Then, the camera is stolen. Does she still owe her the money? Of course she does. But, now she calls it an investment. She cannot change the agreement after the fact. She owes the money. Is it really that easy? It should be, but now we have another problem. No one kept track of the payments or paying off the credit card. The money situation is a mess. It is left to the Judge to do " a little rough justice". The friend gets back some of the money, not everything she is asking for. The more important question is: Are they still friends? It seems like the friendship is over. What a shame when her friend was there for her when she needed help.

This is a case about a family that has lost their way. A mother and daughter that have been very close are not talking and the daughter has publicly wished death on her mother. How do things get so bad? The daughter put her mother's car in her name. The mother got several parking tickets. The car gets towed. The mother does not pay the tickets. Why? She claims her daughter owed her money from a cell phone years before.  They must have been close for the daughter to help out her mother with the car. There does not seem to be a relationship at this point. The Judge recommends that they stay away from each other or get family counseling if they want to get back together. They do not seem receptive to the idea of repairing the relationship. The daughter says her mother has nothing to do with any of her grandchildren. Such a shame. I do not think families should sue each other. There should be a way to work things out. It is always a heartbreak to see a family divided.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Anything you're good at contributes to happiness.

Bertrand Russell

People's Court: 6-19-12: Accountability

We all need to take responsibility for our own actions. When we do something or allow something to happen, we need to step up. Of course, if someone is refusing to take ownership of their actions, it is important to be able to address the situation. The person wronged needs to be able to prove what happened. Without proof, there is no way to hold someone accountable for their actions.

This case is so complicated you need a score card to keep track.

1, A woman asks her friend's girlfriend to help her out.

2. She has lived with her previously and asks to move in again.

3.The boyfriend and his girlfriend have violated existing restraining orders.

4. The girlfriend is sent to jail because she has also violated her probation.

5. She is on probation for stabbing the boyfriend.

6. She spends several months in jail.

7. While she is in jail many people have access to her apartment.

The actual case is about the theft of her 62 inch television. She thinks the woman living with her is responsible for the theft.(see #1 and #2) Unfortunately for her, she does not have any proof. Since   so may people have been in and out of the apartment, no one knows what really happened. There is no evidence to find this woman accountable for the theft of the television. 

A woman is walking her dog on a leash. All of a sudden a larger dog runs to them and attacks the small dog. The woman gets bit trying to keep the larger dog from hurting her small dog. A neighbor tries to help, getting the large dog to let go of the smaller dog. The owner of the dog is not home, but her mother realizes the dog has gotten out and goes to see what has happened. The woman who was bit is taken to the emergency room for medical treatment. The small dog was taken to the vet and was lucky to have only superficial wounds. The owner of the larger dog states the woman was bit by her own dog. She does not think she should be responsible for the bills. Also, since her dog is a pitbull mix, she thinks that is why she is being targeted. Since her dog caused the woman to get bit, no matter which dog did it, she would be responsible. The owner of the larger dog has made no effort to find out how her dog got out of their yard. This is not responsible behavior for a dog owner. She is held accountable for the medical and vet bills.

A tow truck driver damages a car while he is delivering it. He admits the accident is his fault, he went down a one way street. For some reason he does not feel he should have to pay for it. He says his employer could have gone through the insurance company. The employer agrees this was an option, but he would have had to fire him to satisfy the insurance company. The decision made is to let the employee keep his job and to have him pay off the damages. He denies this and says he agreed to pay  only the deductible. This does not make any sense. Why would his employer pay for these damages? Why would he think he was not accountable for his actions? And to make matters worse, he quit without notice. There is no question that the tow truck driver caused the damages and is held responsible. 

It is refreshing to watch these cases and see justice served. People should not make accusations without proof, refuse to pay when their own dog causes injuries and shirk their responsibility when they admit they caused an accident. It is time that people are held accountable for their actions.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Believe you can and you are halfway there.  -Theodore Roosevelt