People's Court Blog - 1 30 2013 - Wednesday

Today's cases include a defective diamond ring, an unprofessional caterer and a landlord that does not follow the rules. In all of these cases the plaintiffs have been wronged and have chosen the forum of small claims court to make it right.

Frank is suing Denise and Oleg for $5000.00. 

Denise and Oleg have a jewelry store. Frank purchased an engagement ring from them. The ring is in court, his new wife is not. They are newly married and she does not come to court to be at her husband's side. She is a schoolteacher and has a work related commitment. **Spoiler alert**: Her absence does not hurt the case! Frank explains that his wife had fallen in love with the ring - it is gorgeous! The problem is the diamonds kept falling out. When they would return to the store, Denise would take the ring back and have it fixed. The replacement diamonds were not as nice as the original diamonds. The entire ring was supposed to have been  replaced the second time it went back. The receipt shown to the Judge states the ring was replaced and the original diamonds were used. WHAT? This does not make sense. That is not a replacement. Frank wants his money back. He has a right to be satisfied with the purchase of the ring. Denise claims the ring has been abused and that is why the diamonds keep falling out. How does a schoolteacher abuse a diamond ring? 

The Judge rules in favor of Frank. Not for $5000.00. He did not pay $5000.00 for the ring. It cost $2300.00 and that is what he gets back.

In the hallway, he expresses disappointment for not being able to keep the ring, after all, it has sentimental value. Are you kidding me? He wants the money and the ring! What world does he live in?

Rhonda and Michael are suing Demetrius for $3100.00.

**Clementine Weather**

What is clementine weather?- stay tuned for the answer!

Demetrius is a distant relative that runs a catering company, Untamed Flavors. When Rhonda and Michael hired Demetrius to cater their wedding they did not expect substandard service. They expected to get good food and professional service. What they received was poorly cooked, pre-made foods served by children. 

Rhonda and Michael have complaints about the quality of the food from their friends and family in writing and in person. The chicken was overcooked and dry, the ribs were undercooked and had little sauce and the potatoes were from a box. Even worse, the boxes from the food were in plain site to the guests. Demetrius defends his foodservice by claiming the weather was bad that day, so the cooking was moved from outside grills to inside. After all, in his contract he has a clause about clementine weather, About what? Yes, you read it correctly! Clementine weather - oh he means inclement weather. This is so funny!!!! It is actually written in the contract as clementine weather!  Now, back to the case...Rhonda and Michael say the weather was fine. Either way, it does not excuse the quality of the food. Demetrius explains the children were a last minute addition because some of his staff did not show. I think Rhonda and Michael have a right to be unhappy about 12 year olds and 16 year olds serving at their wedding. 

Rhonda and Michael win the case. They get back a portion of the payment, $1854.00. 

In the hallway, Demetrius continues to defend his food and claims they are all exaggerating. After all, who can go away unhappy, when there is clementine weather!

Sharday is suing Darin for $1103.88. 

Darin has a countersuit for $1036.09.

Sharday rented one side of a duplex from Darin. At the time she rented it, the other side was unoccupied. Darin told her she could park in the driveway until someone moved in. When the other side was rented, she would have to park on the street. After 2 months, Darin rented the other side. Sharday did not want to park in the street, spoke to Darin and he told her she could move out. Sharday said they dissolved the lease and Darin was going to give her back her $750.00 security deposit. Darin did not return it. He claims Sharday left the apartment unclean and damaged the storm door. He does not have proof of $750.00 worth of expenses. The Judge allows him to keep $75.00. Sharday is happy to get back $675.00.  Darin's countersuit is dismissed because he cannot prove he is out over $1.000.00 in damages and clean-up fees.

In the hallway, Sharday continues to explain that Darin was an unprofessional and incompetent landlord. Darin needs to learn the responsibilities of a landlord and provide an itemized list when he is not returning the security deposit. It is not enough to make up a written list and claim he is out much more. After all, it is about proving your case with evidence in the People's Court!

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

People's Court Blog-9 26 2012-Wednesday

Naomi And The Caterer

Naomi is suing Paul the caterer for $2778.00. Naomi hired Paul to cater her daughter's Sweet Sixteen party. She signed a contract with him and estimated 160 people to attend. Naomi did let Paul know she might have 200 guests at the event. She describes a party where the food ran out early. There was no soda by 10:30 pm and her daughter's friends went out to get fast food. Paul admits he stopped serving food at 9:45 pm. He claims he had backup food. Where was it? Was it in the kitchen at the party? No, it was at his place of business. This does not help anyone. He also admits he cooked food for 145 people. This makes no sense at all. The paperwork he submits to the Judge shows in his writing 203 people. He keeps saying that Naomi only wanted to pay for 120 people not 200. This makes no sense at all. There is not too much that Paul says that makes sense. I find it hard to believe he is a successful caterer. 

Thank goodness the family made the best of it and Naomi's daughter had a fun night. A Sweet Sixteen party is a major event. The Judge finds in favor of Naomi for $1778.00. She is satisfied with the verdict and is glad it is over. Paul admits it was a bad idea to stop serving food to the guests. Hopefully he will learn from this and keep the backup food at the venue! What do you think?

Dennis And The Storage Fees

Dennis is suing Dominick for $5000.00. Dominick is countersuing for $3800. Dennis claims he is out over $15,000.00. He was desperate for storage for 14 cars. He made an agreement with Dominick to keep his cars on his property. They have conflicting stories regarding the fee and the time limit. This is why it is very important to have things in writing. After hearing from both parties the Judge sets a fee. Based on how much Dennis can prove in payments, the verdict is for Dominick for $2500.00. There is a time limit set for the removal of the cars. Dennis needs to remove the cars in this time period. In the hallway, Dennis claims he is going to report the cars stolen. I do not know how this will help him. Why don't people get agreements in writing? It is so easy to document an agreement. Send an e-mail or a text to confirm what has been discussed. This will help to prove what has been talked about. Also, always get a receipt when money changes hands!

Kevin And The Credit Card Charges

Kevin is suing Angela for $1400.00. Angela is his ex-girlfriend and the mother of their daughter. When Kevin was in the process of buying a house he found out about charges on his Macy's credit card. Kevin explains that he removed Angela from the account in 2008. She was an authorized user in 2006. The information that Kevin provides to the court is that Angela used the credit card to purchase $1400.00 in gift cards. Angela says that her mother and her have the same name so it must have been her mother. She completely denies that she used the credit card. This is so interesting since the cards were delivered and signed for by her. Also, Kevin had initiated a custody battle for his daughter before Angela ordered the gift cards. The timing is very suspect! The Judge also informs Angela that there is a warrant out for her arrest and she should consult a lawyer. She does not seem phased by this at all. The Judge finds in favor of Kevin and Angela needs to pay back the entire amount. I hope Angela finds a lawyer right away and takes care of this very important issue of the warrant for her arrest.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

To my readers, I am sorry for the lapse. Once again, life has thrown me a curveball! I am trying to meet the challenges of everyday life and stay on top of my daily blog. Hopefully, next week will be much easier and you will hear from me on a daily basis. Wish me luck!

Try not to become a man of success, but a man of value.

~Albert Einstein

People's Court Blog - 9 7 2012 - Friday

Erika And The Car Accident

Erika is suing Glenda for $5000.00. Glenda is counterclaiming for $3500.00. Both women and Erika's boyfriend were in a terrible car accident. They are all fortunate to have survived this crash. A car hit Glenda's van and she lost control and landed on top of Erika's car. Both cars burst into flames minutes after everyone got out of the vehicles. Why are they both suing each other? Erika did not have collision for her vehicle. Glenda did not have car insurance at all. She had lapsed in her payments. This is a terrible situation for both of them. Both vehicles were totaled. This accident was not the fault of either driver. Neither of them will recover on their lawsuits against each other. 

These three people are very lucky to be alive. The lesson in this case is that life is short and we need to appreciate every moment. No one knows what the day will bring for them. Glenda says that she was thinking of her children when her car spun out of control and flew into Erika's car. She just wanted to see them again. Everyone involved in this accident is conscious of the fact they were lucky to walk away. With that in mind, it is also very important to keep insurance up to date. Keeping proper coverage on our vehicle will provide us with financial protection. The person that caused this accident fled the scene and is the one who is  responsible for all of the financial burdens. What do you think?

Claire / Ivan And The Dow Museum

Claire and Ivan are suing Bernard's hospitality business for $2749.62. This is the amount of the deposit they gave for their wedding reception. Bernard is the exclusive caterer for the Dow Museum. This is in St. Augustine, Florida. The Dow Museum encompasses a group of historic homes that are routinely used for catered events. Both Claire and Ivan had attended a wedding at the Dow Museum and fell in love with it. They wanted to be married there. When they called to inquire about the procedure, they were told to call Bernard. He has the exclusive catering contract for this venue. Claire and Ivan met with Bernard in June 2011, signed a contract, and gave him a deposit for half of the estimated cost. Their wedding date was set for October 20, 2012. In January of this year, Claire and Ivan visited the Dow Museum. They were told the museum was being sold and weddings were being cancelled. They immediately contacted Bernard to find out what was happening with their wedding. 

At first, Bernard said he would give the money back. Then, he changed his mind and wanted to cater the event at another venue. He felt they had a contract and they should not be able to cancel it and get their money back. Bernard is missing the point. Claire and Ivan wanted their wedding at the Dow Museum. They had to hire him as the caterer, since he was the exclusive caterer for the Dow Museum. Claire and Ivan will get back their entire deposit. This is only right. They are so happy and can now continue with their wedding plans. The lesson here is to realize what is right. Bernard had to have known the reason he was hired was because of their desire for the Dow Museum. It would have been the right thing to do to return their deposit when they asked. It would have been the right business decision. What do you think?

Anastasia And Her Cousin

Anastasia is suing her cousin, Donna, for $5000.00. $750.00 is the pay Anastasia was entitled for work. Anastasia worked for Donna at a daycare center for several years. After Donna's mother had an issue with Anastasia, Donna did not want to pay her. Donna's mother felt Anastasia had stolen medicine and money from her. It seemed Donna paid Anastasia cash to avoid paying taxes. Yet after Anastasia stopped working for her, Donna filed a 1099. This seems rather spiteful. Donna admits paying Anastasia $750.00 a pay period. Donna has no way to prove that she has paid Anastasia. She keeps a ledger of payments, but does not include cash payments she is hiding for tax purposes. Anastasia is entitled to her pay. What else is she asking for that adds up to $5000.00? Anastasia wants the money she now has to pay the IRS since Donna filed a 1099. Really! Also she wants pain and suffering. For what? Anastasia claims she is behind on her bills and this has caused her pain and suffering. She is not able to recover this money.

Anastasia does get her $750.00. She is not happy with this and does not feel that inflating the lawsuit was wrong. The lesson here is family and business do not mix well. Also, cheating the government is a really bad idea. Why do people find it so easy to cheat and lie?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Be miserable. Or motivate yourself. Whatever has to be done, it is always your choice.

~ Wayne Dyer