People's Court Blog - 1 16 2013 - Wednesday

Anthony is suing a Furniture Company for $2395.25.

Anthony purchased a leather sectional sofa and a cocktail table for $2395.25 two years ago. The sofa had a one year warranty. When the sofa began to fall apart, Anthony contacted the store. David, the manager offered to repair the problem but Anthony would have to pay for labor. Anthony did not like this solution and is suing for the entire purchase price. In court, David, the manager is explaining the sofa is bonded leather. This is not written on the receipt. On the receipt it only has the model no. of the sofa and does not even list the cost of the cocktail table. David explains that the sofa is not leather and is bonded leather. Except for describing bonded leather as including 17% leather, he does not give a clear description. Anthony thought he was purchasing a leather sofa. He shows pictures of the damage and it is so true that a picture is worth a thousand words. Anthony also brought pieces of the sofa to show how it is falling apart. 

The Judge takes a recess and when she returns reads a  description of bonded leather. According to the leather council this particular material is vinyl and not leather. The Judge finds in favor of Anthony and he receives $1900.00. The cocktail table was valued at $300.00. David needs to pick up the sofa as soon as possible.

It is unethical to advertise a product that is not truly leather and call it leather. It is not stated on any information or advertising from David's furniture store that they sell bonded leather. I am so glad Anthony pursued this and brought it to court. He deserves to get his money back. What do you think?

Susan is suing John's Home Improvement Company for $2163.33

Susan hired John's company to repair her roof. They gave her an estimate after looking at the damage. The damage to her roof was caused by a raccoon. The pictures of the damage are very impressive. Once again, a picture is worth a thousand words! The estimate was for $4000.00. Once they started the work, they realized the damage was much more extensive than they originally thought. It was not until they removed the gutter and the fascia, that they were able to see the extent of the damage. When they brought this to Susan's attention, she just wanted them to do the original work. She signed a document to waive the warranty, since she was not going to have the additional work done. The work was going to resume the next day.

After they left on the first day, Susan had a change of heart. She said she was not happy that no one spoke English. Also, she did not trust they were going to return to finish the job. She went to the bank to stop payment on her check, only to find out it was already cashed. She called to tell John not to come back the next day. 

Since Susan is the one to breach the contract, she does not get her deposit back. She had also included in the lawsuit the extra money she had to pay getting the work done by another company. She does not get this money either. If she did not cancel the job, she probably would have won the case if they did not return to finish the job. The problem is that she did not give them a chance to do the job. I do not understand why she acted this way and then to sue them, it does not make sense. What do you think?

Kelvin is suing Guiseppe and Risa for $271.56

Kelvin was driving past Guiseppe's house and the side window of his car shattered. Since Guiseppe was weedwhacking near the road, Kelvin felt that a stone broke the window. He stopped to talk to Guiseppe and also called the police. 

It is fairly straightforward for a civil case. The Judge explains that the proof only needs to be more likely than not. It makes sense that is could have happened that way. That a stone could have been thrown by the weedwhacker and broke the window. In this type of case, you never know for sure. Since it is more likely than not, Guiseppe and Risa are found responsible for the cost of the damage to the window. 

It is very important when working near the road to be aware of cars passing. Mowing or weedwhacking could cause a stone to be thrown toward the cars. Always stop and wait until the car passes. Also, be aware of cars parked in your own driveway. I know personally of a window being shattered when the lawnmower was operated too closely to a parked car. It is a very expensive mistake!

Thank you for joining me.

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 9 24 2012 - Monday

Thomas And His Soulmate

Thomas is suing Kathleen for $10,000. The two of them met at a singles dance. Thomas loved to dance and he saw Kathleen and asked her to dance with him. They were on the road to becoming soulmates, even though Kathleen finds it difficult to explain what a soulmate is. The two of them had so much in common. They decided to buy homes, renovate them and resell them. Oh and when Thomas says they were going to buy houses, he means Kathleen pays for them and then they  split the profit 50 - 50. Kathleen does not remember it this way. She thought Thomas was helping her because he liked her. Thomas felt his time was worth $8.25. Kathleen never agreed to pay him by the hour. She never agreed to reimburse him for the money he spent on gas for all of the driving he did. After they broke up, Thomas decided he should be paid for all the work he did and all of the money he spent on gas. Since they did not have a contract or an agreement, they Judge decides in favor of Kathleen. 

The really sad thing is that Kathleen was not breaking up with Thomas. The day of the "altercation" as the two of them refer to the breakup day, Kathleen was moving Thomas's belongings from one mobile home to hers. She wanted to sell the mobile home he was staying in. When Thomas returned home from a doctor's appointment, he saw all of his belongings outside of the mobile home. He left and did not speak to her again. If Thomas was delayed that day, none of this would have happened or would it?

Nelson And His Mistress

Nelson is suing Pristine and Clean car wash for $1115.09. This is for the cost of an antennae and a mount for his mustang. He tells us that his friends and family refer to his car as his mistress. Really, is this necessary to tell us? Nelson noticed the mount and the antennae were missing after he returned home from the car wash. Why didn't he check his mistress right away? He went back to the car wash 2 days later. Why didn't he take his mistress back right away? Raul explains that there was video surveillance of the mustang and they did not save it. Why not? So many questions and very few answers! The clincher for this case is that Nelson did not check the car right away and then he waited 2 days to go back to the car wash. This is no way to treat a mistress! Oh well! The Judge finds in favor of the car wash. It is very important to deal with issues right way. Nelson would have had much more credibility if he checked his mistress before he left the car wash or at very least returned immediately after he noticed the antennae and mount were missing!

Leonardo And The Suspended License

Leonardo is suing Ramonita for $3368.81. Ramonita is Leonardo's insurance broker. At the end of December Leonardo went to her office and wrote a check to the insurance ompany for one year coverage on his car. In mid January he received a cancellation of service letter from the state of New York. When he showed the letter to Ramonita she said not to worry about it. Then Leonardo received a second notice and Ramonita gave him a temporary insurance identification card. Since he did not respond to the letters and did not make sure he had car insurance, his driver's license was suspended. He relied on Ramonita's expertise to ensure all was well. This backfired on him. Why would Ramonita lie to him? She says she called the insurance company and verified there was no problem. Getting the letters of cancellation was a very good indication there was a problem. The insurance company went out of business. Ramonita would have found this out when she called them. Leonardo's check was never cashed. He finally put a stop payment on it in April. Leonardo should have realized the check was not cashed and he did not have insurance coverage.

Leonardo wants Ramonita to be responsible for all the expenses he incurred as a result of his suspended license. He has to take some responsibility in this matter. The Judge finds in his favor for some of the expenses. and he receives $1221.81.

The real curious part of this story is why Ramonita did not explain to Leonardo what was happening. She would have known that the insurance company went out of business. She could have sold Leonardo insurance through another company. Someone needs to learn how to do their job. There must have been other clients that were affected by this insurance company going out of business. Hopefully Leonardo will learn from this experience and be more aware of the status of his finances. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Laughter is an instant vacation.

~Milton Berle

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!