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 * 12-11-12 * Tuesday Case 2 of 2

This is the second case from 10-29-12.

There Is A Proper Way To Do Business

Steven is suing Dominic for $457.26. Steven hired his uncle's nephew, Rick, to do two roofing jobs for him. One at his personal house and the other at a rental property. Part of the cost of the jobs included dumpsters at each property for the construction debris. Rick contracted with Dominic for the dumpsters. After the jobs were done, Dominic needed payment for removing the dumpsters and disposing of the construction debris. Rick did not pay for the dumpsters and Dominic wanted payment from Steven. When Dominic contacted Steven by phone, they had a very angry exchange.  Steven did not want to pay for something he thought he already paid for. Rick gave money to his helper, Sam, to pay Dominic. Sam did not pay Dominic. Instead of suing Steven or putting a lien on his property, Dominic dumped the debris on his driveway. He says it is the debris from the dumpster, Steven says it was from someone else. Either way, it does not matter, it was illegal for Dominic to dump the debris. He also damaged the basketball hoop when he backed into the driveway. Dominic does not think he did anything wrong and he also is countersuing for $544.00 for the 2 dumpsters. Why does he think he should get paid for removing the dumpsters when he left the debris? Dominic does not have a good answer to this and he does not recover on his countersuit. Steven does get his money for having to remove the debris from his property. Dominic did replace the basketball hoop because the sheriff's officer told him he had 24 hours to replace it. 

What do we learn from this?

Anger has no place in a business proceeding. These two men should have been able to solve this issue without bringing anger into it. There is a legal way to handle a problem of nonpayment. Dominic could have put a lien on the property and should have dealt with Rick, not Steven. Bringing back the garbage and dumping it on Steven's property was not a good idea. Dominic also indicates that he will do it again if he does not get paid for a job. Someone did not learn from going to court. Damaging the basketball hoop almost seemed like an afterthought to Dominic. Who thinks that the only reason he replaced it is because the sheriff's officer told him he had to?  

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A Word To Learn:

Disport: to frolic, amuse or display

People's Court Blog - 10 8 2012 - Monday

Atiya And The Adult Party

Atiya is suing Tangey for $1165.00. This is for the cost of pole dancing lessons and damages to her house. Atiya is a really fun person! For her 35th birthday, she had plans for the most amazing party. Atiya calls it an OPP party. This stands for overnight, passion, pole party. Wow, I would like to be one of her friends. Atiya invited 10 friends over to celebrate her 35th birthday. The party was all women and included sex toy demonstration and pole dancing lessons. Unfortunately, Tangey the pole dancer, did not follow through. Atiya hired her and paid $435.00 for her to give pole dancing lessons at the party. This really sounds like fun! Tangey got to the party late, could not set up the poles in a secure way and disappointed the birthday girl and her friends. Besides causing disappointment she also damaged the ceiling and the floor while she was trying to set up the pole. Not to the tune of $730.00, which is the amount Atiya is asking for. Atiya will get back the cost of the pole lessons and $300.00 for the damages. In total she gets back $735.00. I think Tangey should stick to having parties at the studio. It seems like a major liability to set up the pole in people's homes. What do you think?

Thomas And The Scratched Car

Thomas is suing Rick for $1192.50. This is for the damage to his car while it was parked in Rick's parking lot. This is a parking lot for an airport. Thomas left his car in the lot over Christmas week while he flew home to visit his family. When he returned and picked up his car he noticed scratches to the back door panel. Thomas showed it to someone right away and took pictures of it. This was the right thing to do. Never ever leave the lot before checking the car. If there are damages they need to be shown to someone before leaving. Thomas did this, but Rick still does not believe him. I do not understand this. How else would the damage have occurred? It was not there when Thomas left his car, it was there when he picked it up. Very straightforward. Rick should have done the right thing and paid for the damage when it was brought to his attention. Thomas definitely proves his case and is awarded the entire amount he is suing for. Why don't people do the right thing? Why do they need to be taken to court? I would hope in the future Rick treats his customers better! What do you think?

John And The Ungrateful Girlfriend

John is suing Joella for $487.52. This is for a loan to Joella to help her pay for furniture. These two people have dated on and off for ten years. Joella describes how John has helped her through the years giving her money when she needed it. He never asked for it back. Wow, what a nice guy! Unfortunately this will not be in his favor. He has given money to Joella throughout the years and did not expect it back. Now he wants his money back. Why is this time different? Well, they broke up and Joella moved on. She started dating someone and moved in with the guy, She dated John for ten years on and off and they never lived together. John wants Joella to pay him back. It is not going to happen. The Judge finds in favor of Joella. It does appear that she has taken advantage of this very nice man's generosity. She should pay him back because it is the right thing to do. She is not going to pay him back because legally she does not have to. What a shame!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

You can't start the next chapter of your life, if you keep re-reading the last one.

~Anonymous

People's Court Blog - 9 17 2012 - Monday

What's Willow Watching Special Announcement: Tomorrow's blog will be written by a very special guest! 

Tia And The Wedding Cake

Tia is suing Joe and Stacie for $998.00. This is for the cost of a wedding cake and emotional distress. Tia hired Joe and Stacie to make her wedding cake after meeting them at a wedding show. She actually ordered three cakes, the decorated tiered wedding cake and two sheetcakes. On her wedding day, the most important day of her life, she was so unhappy with the cakes Joe and Stacie provided. The tiered wedding cake was messy, the scrollwork was terrible, the stand provided was shabby and the frosting was smeared. Joe actually tried to hide damage to the cake with flower petals. Tia shows pictures of the cake and it is sad looking, with flowers petals stuck on it haphazardly. Also, the sheetcakes were not delivered at the same time and dropped off later. All three cakes were difficult to cut and were inedible. Everyone thought the cakes had been frozen. Tia also provides a letter from the catering manager at the hall describing the cake. The letter completely confirms what Tia is complaining about. 

Joe denies everything. He loses his credibility when his story differs totally from the catering manager. He even accuses Tia of sabotaging her own cake. This is totally ridiculous. Why on earth would a bride ruin her own wedding? 

Tia shows a shows a video from her wedding of her apologizing to her guests for the lack of cake. She was humiliated in front of her 250 guests. Tia and her husband did not have the usual cake tradition of feeding each other the cake, she did not have cake to serve to her guests and she did not have the top of the cake to save for their first anniversary. Tia gets her money back from the cake and an additional $50.00 to purchase a cake for their first anniversary. Joe and Stacie are directed to pay Tia $643.86. It is a shame that they could not provide the service they were hired for. Tia's wedding day should not have been ruined because of their inability to do their job. Tia was a beautiful bride and should have amazing memories of her wedding day despite the lack of the wedding cake. I wish Tia and her husband much happiness!

Ralph And The Balance Of His Bill

Ralph is suing Amy for $379.97. This is the balance of a bill for work Ralph did for Amy. Ralph is a private detective. Amy's sons were falsely accused of raping a young girl at a party at their house. Amy's sons did have a party at their house when their parents were out of town, but they did not rape the young girl at the party.The lawyer that Amy hired, called Ralph to investigate. Amy and her husband agreed to pay Ralph directly. They initially paid him $500.00 to start his investigation. Ralph investigated and found evidence to support Amy sons' innocence. In total, Ralph was paid $1500.00 for his work. After Amy hired another lawyer, Ralph did additional work for the case. This is what he is suing for. Amy does not deny that she owes him the money. She describes falling on hard times after spending over $30,000 in attorney's fees. This case took 2 years and 6 months before her sons were found not guilty. Amy describes the complete and devastating toll this situation took on the family. Her one son is suffering with depression because of everything he went through. Amy is directed to pay the balance of the bill. This does not come as a surprise to her. Ralph says that her older son hugged him and thanked him for believing in him when he was found not guilty. I have so much empathy for Amy and her family for everything they went through because of this false accusation. I hope this family can get help with the emotional fallout from such a horrible ordeal!

Derek And The Tow Company

Derek is suing a tow company for $397.39. This is for damage done to his car when it was towed. Frankie is in court to represent the tow company. Derek explains that when he bought his new to him used car, he transferred the license plates from his old car. Unfortunately, Derek had accumulated 8 tickets while driving his other car. The tow company has a contract with the city to run license plates and tow cars with over $350 in tickets. Derek had over $600 in tickets! Within the first week of buying his car, it was towed while he was in work. When Derek went to the impound yard to pay the judgement and pick it up, he saw the bumper had scratches on it. Derek showed this damage to the person working at the impound yard and was told that they did not do it. Derek took pictures of the damage. The pictures very clearly show scratches all across the bumper. Frankie says that they did not do this damage. Derek has the best evidence to prove otherwise. Earlier that day, Derek had a photo inspection done by an insurance company!. He shows the pictures and there is no damage to the bumper! Derek was very fortunate to have had the insurance inspection done on the same day he was towed!. Derek wins the case and the tow company has to pay for the damage to his car. In the hallway, Frankie says that things happen and when they do they take care of it. Really! It does not seem this way, since Derek had to bring you to court! Having the insurance photo inspection done on the same day of the tow was the best timing for Derek. Now, we hope that Derek is more careful and pays his tickets on time or better yet, stop getting them! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

Remember: Check back tomorrow for a very special guest blog by a very special guest!

When you become senile, you won't know it.

~Bill Cosby

People's Court - 7 31 2012 - Tuesday

We Met On Pogo!

Barbara and Della met online playing games on Pogo. They chatted for awhile and then met in person. After a whirlwind courtship of a little over a month, they decided to get an apartment together. This is so fast. People do need to know each other better before making such a huge commitment. The two women rented an apartment together in Massachusetts. This was near Barbara's family. Della moved from Kentucky. After 5 days, Della went back home. Barbara describes a fight that seems to be about nothing. I think the bigger picture here, is that they did not know each other well enough to live together. Barbara is suing for back rent, a ring and a plane ticket. Barbara has no proof with her that any of these costs were loans. During a relationship, people spend money on each other. To expect the court to divide these into gifts or loans is asking for too much. Proof needs to be provided in order to make this decision. Barbara does not have the lease with her, she gave the ring as a gift and there was no agreement to be reimbursed for the plane ticket. Barbara seems very bitter about the relationship. When she leaves the courtroom, she is still throwing insults at Della. When Della leaves, she is so sad and is crying over the lost friendship. Why do people insist on moving so quickly with a relationship? Savor the journey! This could have been a very nice friendship that would have blossomed, if they were not in such a hurry! What do you think?

She Curses Like A Sailor!

Rae hired Larry's pool company to repair her 27 year old above ground swimming pool. Larry gives her a price of $1890.00, Rae says she rounded it up to $2000.00, because she is just that kind of person. Larry said there was tax on the original price and the few extra dollars were a tip for Charlie. Charlie elegantly describes his position with the company as, "he's the boss, I'm the horse". I like this, Charlie seems like a really sincere person. When the work was being done on the pool, Rae kept a close eye on the job. She claims she pointed out a few times when things were being done incorrectly. Charlie denies this claim. After the repairs were completed, the pool was filled. Rae said she noticed the sides were buckling and the pool was losing water. She called Larry to let him know the pool was leaking. Charlie came to look at it and realized there were holes in the liner caused by the ladder. Charlie asked if she used a ladder mat to protect the liner. Rae installed the ladder and said a ladder mat was not necessary. This is not what was causing the leak. She knows this because the leak was caused by the inept way the repairs were done. Unfortunately, Rae does not have any proof to show the Judge. She was so upset that she was being charged for a service call, she loses her temper and curses in front of Charlie. Charlie seems genuinely uncomfortable to describe the way Rae cursed after talking to Larry on the phone. His words are bleeped as he recounts the way Rae spoke. She does not deny that she lost her temper. She feels that she overpaid $110 at the beginning and should not have been charged for them to come back out. Larry says he was charging half of the $150.00 service call fee as a courtesy to her. Rae does not see this as a courtesy. Rae did give Charlie the $75.00, even though she was not happy about it. She is suing Larry's pool company for $1500.00. She said this is what another company wants to charge to fix their mistakes. She does not have the estimate with her, describing the new company as clowns. Is there any company out there who could properly fix her pool? Rae is unable to prove her case. She is not pleased as she leaves the courtroom. She says she had more evidence and did not get a chance to show it. Charlie is still shocked as he describes that Rae cursed like a sailor! Why do people resort to such bad behavior if they are not getting their own way? Where is common decency? Why are we so quick to yell and curse at others? Do you feel that respect is a thing of the past? 

Your Plow Damaged My Driveway!

Robert hired Alexander to clear the snow from his driveway. Robert did not actually speak to Alexander. He was in the room when his significant other spoke with him on the phone. This was an emergency snow plow job. Alexander did not have Robert sign a contract for the job. He came out, cleared the driveway and was paid $20.00. Alexander says this is the going rate, it was a 5 minute job. Now, there is a second snowstorm and Alexander is called again to plow the driveway. This time the job does not go smoothly. Alexander has problems and tells Robert he cannot finish the job. Robert says he heard scraping sounds. When the snow melts two days later, Robert sees the damage done by the plow. He gets an estimate for $750.60 to repair these damages. Alexander does not deny that he could have caused the damage. He tells his customers that he would not be responsible for damage and they usually sign a waiver. Robert did not sign this waiver. He said he did not agree to waive responsibility for any damage caused by Alexander. He wants Alexander to repair his driveway. I feel bad for Alexander. I believe he told Robert's significant other the restrictions about what could happen when the driveway is plowed. His only mistake was not having Robert sign a waiver. He is paying dearly for this mistake, as he is found responsible for the $750.60 to fix the driveway. This is a difficult way to start out in business. Alexander has learned a valuable lesson that will save him problems in the future. He will now keep a waiver in his truck, for emergency situations. Good luck Alexander!!!!

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

Don't wait for your ship to come in, swim out to it.

-Unknown

People's Court: 7-24-12

Bedbugs Bit My Baby!

I think this case is about common decency. Albelitza and Raul are suing their landlord for $5000.00 for the items they had to throw away because of bedbugs. Unfortunately, they lost because they could not prove where the bedbugs came from (an impossible task!). The landlord is suing them for 2 months rent, because they broke their lease. They had every right to leave when they did because the landlords did not follow through to exterminate their apartment for bedbugs. The exterminator was there once. They were supposed to come back and never did. When Albelitza called the landlord and asked when the exterminator would be back, she expected action. She did not expect an "I don't care" attitude. She has pictures of her 2 month old baby with bedbug bites on his thighs and face. Oh my goodness, seeing this just breaks my heart. Imagine this little baby getting bit during his sleep. They have every right to move out, to protect themselves. to protect their baby. They did everything they were told to do. If the exterminator had come back for the second treatment, there would have been a different outcome. They threw away so many of their belongings because of the bedbugs. The landlords are not held legally responsible because there is no proof the bedbugs were their fault. On the same note, Albelitza and Raul are not held legally responsible to pay the last two months rent since their apartment was not habitable. The legalities are one thing, but common decency is another. These landlords showed a complete lack of decency towards this family. They should not have had to expose their baby to the bedbugs for such an extended time period. The exterminator did not show up until 6 days after Albelitza reported the problem. After the initial visit, the exterminator never came back. This family should have received better treatment than this. I agree with their decision to move out and I am so glad they did not have to pay the remaining rent. What do you think about this situation?

Who Is Going To Pay For My Windshield?

Tamara is suing Lakisha and Rick for damage to her car. When Lakisha, Rick's mom,  was away, Rick had a party. Things got out of hand and there was fighting in the street. 5 parked cars were damaged.  Windshields were broken, the cars were dented. The police were called and the damage was documented. The next morning, Tamara discovers the damage to her car. Her windshield was broken. A neighbor told her about the party and she holds Lakisha and Rick responsible since the party was at their house. Unfortunately, the police have not identified the responsible party during their investigation. Tamara has no proof who actually broke her windshield, just the information from the neighbor. The neighbor did not even come to court to testify. She wrote a letter and did not even get it notarized. Lakisha explains why she was not at home. She was in court adopting a baby. She made it an extended stay because of her health issues. This has nothing to do with the case, but it gives insight to the character of this family. I really believe that if they thought the people at this party caused the damage, they would have stepped up. The police were called during the party and told Rick to turn down the music. There was no mention of the vandalism to the cars during this police visit. I think that Rick did not know about the damage until the next day. Lakisha did nothing wrong, she is not held responsible for the cost of the damage. She left an adult in charge while she was away. Rick was not held responsible since his only "crime" was having the party. His mother describes his punishment. He actually has been sent to live somewhere else. He is in a different school,  away from his friends and also his immediate family. This seems rather harsh. In the hallway, Tamara expresses her frustration at the system. She leaves us with these parting words, "what comes around, goes around". Rick sums it up with, "bad things happen when you do not have permission". He has definitely learned his lesson. What are your thoughts about this?

Keep It On The Down Low!

Patrick signed a lease with Drew to rent a 4 car garage. Patrick was planning to use it for an auto repair shop. Drew says this is not a commercial zone. Drew knows what Patrick is planning and tells him to keep the noise down, the gate closed and not let the township in. What on earth! What are these two men planning? It probably is good that the deal fell apart when it did. Things could have gotten so much worse. Patrick was supposed to take possession of the space on May 15th. Unfortunately or fortunately, the electric service was not hooked up and there was no bathroom. The bathroom was promised verbally, why wasn't it in the signed written contract? Patrick sent Drew a letter asking for his money back. Another glitch occurs, Patrick only asks for half of his money. He asks for the security deposit and not the first month's rent. Drew sends him a check for the amount he requested, which was only half of the original deposit of $3200.00. Why not just return all of his money? Drew says he is giving him back what he asked for. I am reminded of children on a playground, listening to the two of them talk! Drew has to return the rest of the money, after all the court cannot be expected to enforce an illegal rental. It would be like enforcing the payment of a cocaine purchase. I love when the Judge uses this as an example! After all, we all know if we do not pay for our illegal drugs, we are not going to sue over it!  I think the best part of this entire case is when  Patrick's wife talks in the hallway. She says that she will take care of everything in the future! On a positive note, Drew is pursuing getting the zoning changed. Hopefully, he will be successful and rent his garage legally! What do you think?

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

Stop thinking of what could go wrong and start thinking of what could go right.

-Unknown

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.

Knowing Yourself

Thank you for joining me today...
Family situations on People's Court are so interesting. Such a sad case, a mother suing her daughter. The mother believes her daughter stole her jewelry when she moved out. The daughter says she was kicked out and denies stealing the jewelry. The daughter moved back in when she was pregnant. The family is so shattered, the daughter now lives with the maternal grandmother. No one is speaking to each other. The baby will never know her grandmother. The mother is so angry, she left a text message for her daughter's friend that she hates her daughter and would not even attend the funeral of her own mom when she passes.
How do things get this bad? This family needs counseling, not court.
A woman purchases a pellet stove. The installation is done incorrectly. A fire occurs. No one is hurt, thank goodness.The contractor will not admit there were mistakes, even though it is documented. He continually interrupts the judge and is kicked out of the courtroom. What has happened to respect? He did not like that he had to "just" answer questions and could not explain his case. That is what testifying is - the judge asks, you answer.
A dog in an apartment does damage. The damage is so obvious in the pictures. The tenant continually tries to minimize it. The landlord has pictures. It is so true that a picture is worth a thousand words. The tenant does not get back her security deposit. It is very important to show that you have left the apartment in the same condition you received it. Pictures before and after are essential.
I think the family situations are so sad when they leave the courtroom and it is obvious they are not going to patch things up. This is one of these cases where it would be so nice if there was a family counselor waiting outside. Many times the judge will discuss the future of the family, pushing people in the right direction. In this case, the damage is so deep and raw, she did not even attempt it. Sometimes, there is no possibility of patching things up, People can only take so much and when you are hurt by those that you have spent your life with, it is time to let go. That is a great lesson for today - recognize when it is time to walk away.

Thought for the day:

Be true to yourself.