People's Court Blog - 10 11 2012 - Thursday

Gary And The Disrespectful Veteran

Gary is suing David for $1500.00. This is for rent and miscellaneous bills. Both of these men are veterans. Gary helped David in his time of need. David does not even seem appreciative for the help Gary gave him. He let him move in with him, no money up front. He did this for him because they are both veterans and David believes this is how a veteran should behave. David cries poverty, yet he is dressed to kill. The Judge actually inspects his clothing and details the designer names he is wearing. David is no pauper! Gary has a promissory note signed by David. He will get back the $1100.00 for rent. Unfortunately the money Gary spent renting a U-Haul and moving David's belongings will not be recouped. There was no agreement between the two men for these expenses. Gary did this on his own, out of the kindness of his heart! To add insult to injury, David has a countersuit against Gary for $1100.00. Is he kidding? Maybe if he would have paid his rent in the first place we would not be here! This money is for David's rent in his new apartment. The Judge throws this case out so quickly, if you blink you will miss it! Shame on you David! In the hallway, Gary plays a song called the Winner's Song! What a fun guy he is! It is a shame that David took advantage of him, he should be ashamed of himself! Thank you both for your service, and also thanks to you Gary for being such a honest and caring person!

Sue Ellen And The Dog Attack

Sue Ellen is suing Amy for $515.00. This is for the vet bills to treat her dog, Sonny, after he was attacked by Amy's dog. Sue Ellen was taking Sonny for a walk, a short walk, as she described it. Sonny had on his walking gear, he always dons it prior to leaving the house. It is very apparent that Sue Ellen is devoted to Sonny. While they were walking past Amy's house, a large dog ran towards them and attacked Sonny. Sue Ellen was horrified and could not separate the two large dogs. Amy tried to help and was not successful. Two teenage boys were able to separate the dogs. They should be commended for their bravery. In these type of situations, you never know what could happen. After all, dogs are animals and operate on instincts. One of the teenagers even wrote a letter for the court describing the incident. 

Amy's rendition of the story is so far-fetched. She claims she was sitting on her porch, her dog not on a leash but wearing a harness. When her dog saw Sue Ellen and Sonny, he ran off the porch and Amy held tight to his harness. She was dragged into the road and Sue Ellen let go of Sonny's leash and  her dog was attacked. And then what happened? Did she drop the harness and then try to separate the dogs? This makes no sense at all. Even if it did happen this way and that would be a major  s t  r  e  t  c  h...She still did not have control of her dog. Why on earth would Sue Ellen drop the leash? 

After the two dogs were separated and Sue Ellen got Sonny home, his injuries were not apparent. Within a couple of days, he was shaking his head and not acting right. Sonny had injuries to his ear, required stitches, a drain and the awful embarrassing cone around his neck! Amy is 100% responsible to pay the vet bills. Oh and the lattice panels Amy put up after the fact do not look strong enough to hold in her large dog! Hopefully Sue Ellen and Sonny have devised a new walking route!

Jessica And 44 Missing Items

Jessica is suing a Valet Parking Company for $3880.00. This is for the cost of items in her car that went missing when she had her car valet parked. Andres is representing the Valet Parking Company. Jessica and her family went to dinner at Ruth Chris Steakhouse. She valet parked her car. The next day she realized the bag with her laptop and books was not on the back seat. She reported it to the restaurant. After that she looked in the trunk of her car and it was empty. She had   many valuable items in the trunk, including 35 team softball shirts. She called to add the additional items to the report. In total, she reported 44 items missing from her car. Why would someone leave an expensive laptop in the car when they choose to valet park? It was on the back seat, in plain view. Anyone could have stolen it at anytime. After all, Jessica did not know it was gone until the next day. It could have been stolen from her car while it was parked in her driveway. Jessica did not have any evidence to prove the valet company was responsible for the loss. The valet parking receipt has a disclaimer regarding missing items; of course they are not responsible. Also, how do you not  notice this right away? Jessica loses her case. Hopefully, there are lessons learned here. Granted they are expensive ones, but we all have to learn somehow. Please make sure all valuables are secure when putting your car into the hands of someone else!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Be so good they can't ignore you.

~Steve Martin

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 Blog- 9 3 2012 - Monday

Joseph and The Matchmaker

Joseph is suing Jacqueline for $2227.00. Jacqueline runs a matchmatching business. When Joseph moved to Oregon from Ohio, he signed up for 2 free online dating services. Joseph is very proud to show the reason he moved to Oregon. He has a picture of his 6 year old granddaughter. He is a very proud grandfather! Joseph decided to upgrade his services on Jacqueline's website and paid her $27.00 for a consultation. He then agreed to a platinum service package that cost $2200.00 for 90 days of personal service. He refers to the money as "benjamins" (This is so cute!) Joseph was supposed to receive personal attention for this additional cost. Jacqueline said she does background checks on the potential dates and even conducts personal introductions. Jacqueline had asked Joseph to update his online pictures. He did this, had current pictures taken,  and sent them to Jacqueline. After several weeks, Joseph was not happy with the service. He sent an e-mail to Jacqueline demanding a refund. He felt she was stringing him along. Joseph received an e-mail from a potential date. He was upset because the woman was not a platinum member. He did not know what he was getting for the additional money he paid. When Jacqueline received a complaint from the Better Business Bureau, she suspended Joseph's membership. She did not notify him about this. Jacqueline explains that she did it for his benefit and then admits she did it to protect the company. Either way, when she suspended his service, she breached their contract. Joseph had every right to complain about a service he was not happy with. He was taking the proper steps and going through the right channels. The Judge finds in favor of Joseph. He receives $2200.00, the cost of the platinum package. He does not get back the consultation fee. Jacqueline should never have suspended his membership. Joseph is elated about winning the case. He is also dating the photographer that took his pictures to update his profile. It seems that Joseph is a man of action. He moved to Oregon to spend time with his granddaughter. He is enjoying an active social life! He knows what he wants and is willing to go to court to fight for it! What do you think?

Richard And The Shopping Cart

Richard is suing Jamie for $650.00. This is for damages to his car from a shopping cart. Richard explains that he was parked next to the shopping cart corral. When he came out of the store and approached his car, someone in the parking lot pointed out the damage to his car from a shopping cart. He said the person shoved the cart from across the lane and then pointed to a car that was leaving the parking lot. The car circled around and came back. The passenger in the car told him that her cart hit his car. She gave him her information. The passenger was Jamie. Jamie admits that the cart hit the car instead of going in the cart corral. She says she pushed it from a few inches, not a few feet. She knows it scratched the car. Why shouldn't she pay for the damages? (This is where it gets really interesting!) Jamie says she was an invitee of the supermarket. She was told by a lawyer that she is not responsible for this reason. The Judge explains that as an invitee it does not absolve her of responsibility from consequences of her own actions. Also, the Judge tells Jamie that the legal advice she received was not correct. You get what you pay for! Yes, it is true, Jamie did receive free legal advice! I think it is amazing that Jamie knows she hit Robert's car and was not willing to pay for the damages. Why did she give him her information at the scene? Jamie feels that Robert was threatening and intimidating when he was calling her to ask for the money. It took a lawsuit to show Jamie that she is responsible for her actions. Robert is awarded $544.75. He will get back the cost of his deductible, credit card interest and his court costs. Robert was also suing for the cost of gas, he will not get this because he did not bring proof to court. Robert was fortunate there was a witness to this incident. Jamie should have left her information on Robert's car as soon as she saw the cart had caused damage. I hope Jamie is more responsble in the future and puts the shopping cart directly in the corral. This way she will avoid hitting someone's car! What do you think?

David / Margaret And The Flood

David and Margaret are suing Alex for $3000.00. They explain their neighbor's toilet overflowed and caused flooding in their home. The insurance company hired a restoration company for the clean-up. Alex's company did the initial clean-up, removed the damaged carpeting and padding. They also removed the parts of the walls that had absorbed water. When the contractors started their work, Alex was contacted to store David's and Margaret's belongings. The belongings were packaged in cardboard boxes and Rubbermaid containers and stored in Alex's warehouse. When David and Margaret received their items back, they were very unhappy. They say that everything was moldy and smelled really bad. One of the Rubbermaid containers was cracked. They threw almost everything away. They did save a few items they brought to court with them. They did not take any pictures, they do not have any receipts. They do have a list with the number of boxes and containers removed from their home. This is their only evidence. Alex does not have any paperwork for this transaction. The list also has written on it that 3 rugs were taken to the storage unit. When the items were returned, the rugs could not be found. Alex does have 2 of the rugs in court for this case. He admits that one rug is still missing. The Judge checks the items that David and Margaret brought in with them. She notes they do smell, but is not able to determine whether it is from the flood or from the storage unit. Alex explains the items were packaged and sealed at their home and stored in his warehouse. Everything was still sealed when it was returned on February 2nd. Alex did not know there was a problem with the items until March 28th, when he was notifed about the lawsuit. Since David and Margaret are not able to prove that the storage procedure damaged their belongings, they do not get paid for them. They will receive $200.00 for the missing rug. They also get back the 2 rugs that Alex brought to court. The Judge smelled them and said they were fine. It is a shame what happened to David and Margaret. Having your home flooded with sewage water was a nightmare for them. I do think they should have notified the company as soon as they got back their belongings. It might have made a difference! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.

- Robert Frost