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: 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: 6-22-12: 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:6-12-12: Telling the Truth

The situations we find ourselves in can be very challenging. Going to court to right a wrong is a good idea when you are telling the truth. Holding onto the lie can make you look, well...ridiculous.

Let us look at a rental situation. I wonder who is lying when both the landlord and the tenant claim that the other came onto them. It seems a little suspicious on the part of the landlord that he let the young woman move in without paying first and last month's rent and a security deposit. Any landlord is going to have to wonder where the future rent is coming from when the person has no money to put down. Or, was he looking for something else? The tenant claims the landlord walked in on her while she was sleeping. Did she call the police? No, she did not. Again, you have to wonder why? The underlying story is so full of inconsistencies. The legal issue is that she owes the rent. The moral issue is that this whole situation was far more involved than just business. When the lines get blurred, it it time to get help. 

A young woman graduates and goes out to celebrate with her family and friends. Her car gets towed. She is claiming the tow company damaged her brakes by not completely releasing the emergency brake. She has evidence to back this up and wins the case. The bigger issue here is how the tow companies operate. The spotter saw the young woman in her cap and gown and the Judge wonders why he didn't let her know her car was going to be towed. Do they have a moral obligation to let someone know their car is going to be towed? No, they have families to feed. They are doing a job and to give people a heads up is to take money out of their own pocket. The Judge says that the only people that are hated worse than lawyers are tow companies. She is glad to have them in her courtroom! I give the young woman credit for having the evidence to back up her claim. I give the tow personnel credit for being honest. He did say that they will not charge if they tow a car from a handicapped parking spot and the person is truly handicapped and just forgot to hang the placard. This is very nice to hear and does restore my faith in people.

And now a real shame... A 35 year friendship destroyed by $1500.00. Neither of them seem upset by this, so it makes you wonder how good was the friendship. A friend lends another money. It is to be paid back in one week. When he goes to collect, his friend does not answer his calls. Finally, he receives a check that has insufficient funds. The friend sending the check claims he is returning a finder's fee for a job and not paying back the loan, that it was never a loan. Once again, I stress the importance of getting agreements in writing. The initial loan should have been a check with the word loan written on the memo line. The Judge reminds everyone the memo line on the check is very important. 

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

Remember: Joy is what happens to us when we allow ourselves to recognize how good things really are.

- Marianne Williamson

People's Court: 6-8-12: Contracts

More stories today that make you say - Really!!!!. A woman is buying a car from a family friend. He claims he tries to talk her out of it, yet he still sells it to her. They have a very detailed contract of sale. He retains possession of the car, while she is making payments. She wants to "borrow" it for the weekend, but has no intention of returning it in a timely manner. This does not go well and becomes the beginning of the end... Then she claims that he wanted to trade sexual favors for the car. He denies this also. The contract they have agreed to is binding. Why do they think they can change it now? 

Next there is a lawyer who does not provide a retainer agreement to a client. He tries to bill her for many hours of telephone calls. It seems she was picking his brains so she could file paperwork on her own. They both were wrong and seem to deserve each other. This man should know better since he is an attorney. Why would he do business this way?

The last case seems to be such a waste of everyone's time. A recently purchased used vehicle breaks down. It is still under the warranty. When the young man calls the dealer, he is told they do not pay for nor provide tow service. Why would be wrong in recommending a tow company? What has happened to common courtesy?

Please let me know what you think about these situations.

Thank you for joining me today.

Remember:

Laugh when you can,
apologize when you should,
and let go of what you can't change.
Life's too short to be anything... but happy.
- Anonymous

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!