People's Court Blog - 9 21 2012 - Friday

James And The Twin Sister

This is one of the saddest cases I have seen. James is suing Elizabeth for $4650.00. James is dating  Veronica, Elizabeth's twin sister. The two girls had a major fight and Veronica moved out over a year ago. The sisters have not talked to each other in all this time. One evening James, Elizabeth, Veronica, and the girls' father all met up in the parking lot where Veronica worked. There was an argument and physical fighting. The father says he tried to break it up. Everyone's stories are different from each other. Something happened that night and James claims that Elizabeth broke his cell phone, ripped his shirt and caused him physical injury. He has also added pain and suffering to his damages. 

The truly sad thing here is that James should be trying to help Veronica make up with her sister. Instead he seems to be fueling the fire. These two girls are so upset, they both find it hard to talk. in court. This is such an emotional case, even the Judge has to hold back tears. James is not helping matters at all by bringing this case to court. What a shame he is not supportive of his girlfriend. Hopefully Veronica realizes this and stands up to him. She needs to have the support to work things out with her sister. Elizabeth describes James as rude, controlling and arrogant. He certainly seems this way when he demanded the dad pay him $900.00 for damages from that night or he would sue. And then when he does sue, the amount increases to over $4000.00. This is not someone trying to help his girlfriend repair the relationship with her twin sister.

Since James has no evidence for anything he is suing for, the Judge rules in favor of Elizabeth. This family needs time and support to be able to work things out. I hope they can get the help they need. Good luck Veronica and Elizabeth. I hope you can be close again!

Kim And The Custody Battle

Kim is suing David for $3000.00. This is for expenses and emotional distress when her son did not come home after a month long visit with his father. Kim and David have a 12 year old son together. Two days before young David was to come home, his dad called and told Kim he was not returning. Kim went to family court and received a court order for the return of her son. She drove from Alabama to Michigan to pick up her son. When she got there, she went to the school and was denied the return of her son. The principal of the school and the police supported this position. Kim drove home without her son. Then Kim filed in court for full custody. Since David did not show up for the hearing, she won. David was given supervised visitation. This is probably a difficult thing to do since they live so far away from each other. David should have showed up for the hearing. He claims he could not afford it, actually he couldn't afford not to go. The custody arrangement might have worked out much differently if he would have showed up. Also, it would have showed his son that he was fighting for him.

Kim has no grounds to sue David for her expenses in trying to retrieve her son. They did not have a custody agreement before this incident occurred. Kim does not get money from David for travel expenses and does not get any money for emotional distress. She has caused this situation by not having a legal custody agreement with her son's father. David had no legal obligation to return young David to his mother. Looking back, he probably would have done things differently. The only person getting hurt in this situation is young David. It is so unfair to a 12 year old to be fought over by his parents in this way. It seems that Kim does not let father and son talk. In court, the Judge asked for young David's cell phone number and gave it to David. David is so happy now that he will be able to call his son. It is important for a father and son to be able to have a relationship. Distance makes this difficult to begin with, but the mother should not stand in the way! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

I no doubt deserved my enemies, but I don't believe I deserved my friends.

~Walt Whitman

People's Court: 6-7-12: Consequences

People do not seem to realize their actions have consequences. A landlord moves around a tenant's belongings. Things are broken and missing. She is responsible since she had no right to touch anything. They have a contract and she does not abide by it. She does not seem to understand that she had no right to be so involved in her tenant's living situation. I felt terrible for the tenant, he was in school and was constantly having his life disrupted.

A man buys a car for the mother of his child. Several years later she takes him to court for child support. It is awarded along with back support. He takes the car back. He is angry that she took him to court and does not admit that is the reason he took back the car. It is very apparent from the timing that he was being spiteful. It is a shame that these people do not get along. They are raising a child together. 

A woman hires a contractor to replace the roof of her garage. She is very happy with the work. He returns some of the materials to Home Depot. For some reason, the store gives her the receipts. She has no right to the extra materials or to the money. The contract she signed was for a set amount, including materials and labor. He did the job and that should have been the end of it. She did not even pay him the full amount. He did not file a countersuit, why? His explanation is lack of time. I think he should still file a countersuit, he did the work and is entitled to the money.

When striking a deal with someone, a written contract is very important. People need to understand what they are getting and what they are providing. Please let me know what you think.

Remember: Today is the first day of the rest of your life!

People's Court 6-5-12: Proof Positive

What have we learned today on People's Court? A few friends are out drinking. A young woman's purse disappears. She is very fortunate that the surveillance tapes show someone picking up the purse and putting it under his jacket. Even with photos with this evidence, the young man who has been identified, claims it was an innocent mistake. He was getting the purse for one of his friends. Why didn't she say it was not hers? Why, when he was arrested, he did not ask his friend for the purse back? He could not answer these questions. Also, he said he was guilty when he was arrested. An innocent person does not plead guilty. Much credit is to be given to the boyfriend. He did his research and found this person on Facebook. The young woman did not get her purse back, but did get reimbursed for the cost and everything in it since she had receipts. It is very important in court to have proof.

The second case is about a woman taking a job as a verification specialist. We learn this is to check properties to see if they are vacant. The pay is based on volume. She was not effective in the job according to the employer, so they stopped giving her work. They did owe her money, but not the amount she was asking for. She wanted them to pay for her car, cell phone, cell phone plan and a gps. She claimed she would not have made these purchases if she did not take the job. The employer never said they would reimburse her for these items. She did get paid for the work she completed. In the hallway, she says it was a good job, but did not pay enough. She knew the pay when she took the job!

The last case was sad. A dad suing his ex for overpaid child support. He found out his daughter was not going back to school and had moved into her own apartment. He checked if this was grounds to terminate support and found out it was. He went to court to have the child support order changed. It was granted and backdated to when the young woman moved out on her own. The interesting aspect of this is that the ex did not feel she had to pay the money back since she turned it over to her daughter. The daughter's parting words was that she should not have to pay it back since it was for her. Really!!! Maybe her dad would help her out if she asked him. She did not even talk to him. That is the sad part. There was no relationship between them. Maintaining a relationship with both parents is so important for a child of divorce. Once they are old enough, they can make their own decision regarding the level of the relationship with their parents. It is sad when the parents make that decision for the child.

Please comment on these situations. I would like to know what you think.

Remember: Everything you can imagine is real - Pablo Picasso