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: 6-26-12: 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: 6-21-12: 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