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: 7-26-12

Just Say NO!

Donna is suing Mitchell and Kim for $1109.00. This amount is for the money she is out after Mitchell totaled her car. How did Mitchell, a 17 year old brand new driver wind up driving Donna's car? She gave him the keys at 10:00 pm, so he could drive home to pick something up. Why? This is the question of the day that is never really answered. The legal question of who is responsible for the damages, is straightforward. Mitchell is responsible because he was driving when the accident occurred. The moral issue is who is responsible for Mitchell driving the car. There is no question that Donna is responsible. She handed over the keys. Mitchell only had his license for 11 days. He was not supposed to be driving alone at night. What was she thinking? We will never know because this case was about the legal question. Mitchell was going to sleep over Donna's home. Mitchell is the cousin of Jake, the son of Donna's boyfriend. When they all returned home after dinner, Mitchell asked if he could borrow Donna's car. He told her he needed to get his medicine. He actually wanted his X-box. We never find out what kind of medicine he needed. It is unfortunate that Donna gave Mitchell the keys to her car. Someone could have been killed in the car accident. Why didn't she tell him to call his mother, offer to drive him, find out what he really needed, why he was going alone, etc? There are so many questions that should have been asked. Donna should have said no. There were so many other ways to handle this situation. Ask questions, find out what kind of medicine he needed. Did he need it that night? Can his mother bring it to him? The answers to any of these questions would have lead to a totally different outcome. How could she hand over the keys and not know where he was going? She never asked where he lived. There are so many questions that have nothing to do with the legal issue. The answers to these questions would offer insight into how this accident occurred. Unfortunately, we do not get these answers. Kim, Mitchell's mom is counterclaiming for $1500.00. She feels the stress she endured after her son's accident entitles her money. She has responsibility in this as well. Mitchell called her from the car because he was lost and needed directions. She did not tell him to pull over and stop. She did not offer to come and get him. She knew he was not supposed to be driving at this hour by himself. She knew he was lost, since she was giving him directions. They were on the phone when the accident occurred. Kim heard the accident and rushed to the scene. She feels her experiences and the aftermath entitle her to $1500.00. What is wrong with people? I would like to hear one person admit they were wrong. Finally, Mitchell does admit that since he was driving, he was responsible for the damages. Legal responsibility and moral responsibility are two different things. I am so glad that no one was seriously injured in this accident. Cars are replaceable, people are not. Please let me know what you think.

Walk Away From A Fight!

Ella and Lisa are suing Deborah and Justin for $5000.00. Ella is Lisa's mom. Deborah is Justin's mom. This is for dental bills and pain and suffering after Justin punched Lisa in the face. Why would a 15 year old boy punch a 13 year old girl in the mouth? This is a question that is left to us to speculate on the answer. The two teenagers tell totally different stories. The only fact that is clear to us, is that Deborah and Justin are found legally responsible to pay for the dental bills and pain and suffering. Ella and Lisa do not get the full amount they are asking for. They are awarded $3000.00; the full cost of the dental bills and $600.00 towards pain and suffering. Lisa's story is that when she was walking home afterschool, she passed Justin and a group of kids. She said Justin was being hit and then he punched her as she walked by. She ran home, crying and bleeding. Her mom called 911, the police came, Justin was arrested. One of Lisa's teeth fell out and she needed major dental care. Justin's story is that he was playfighting with a group of friends. Lisa walked up to the group, slapped him and he punched her in the face. The truth is somewhere in the middle. There were witnesses to the incident, yet no one is in court to testify for either side. The two stories make no sense. Why would Lisa walk up to a group and slap Justin? Why would Justin walk up to Lisa and punch her? Either way, the legal responsibility lands on Justin. If Justin's story is true, punching Lisa was an unreasonable reaction to a slap in the face. This could have lead to even more serious consequences than losing a tooth. Justin learned a valuable lesson, punching someone is wrong, especially a girl. I feel that a fifteen year old should already know not to hit someone. Thank goodness Lisa's injuries were not worse. Hopefully they will both come to terms with what really happened, since they are the only two that know the truth. What do you think happened?

 Three Years!

Sharyn is suing Mike for $686.00. This is for the cost of lanterns that were damaged three years ago. Mike owns a rubbish removal company. He was contracted by Sharyn's across the street neighbor. When the dumpster was being removed, the cable broke and there was damage to Sharyn's property. A stone pillar with a lantern and a stonewall were damaged. Mike took responsibility for the damage. He removed the rubble and debris. He had a mason rebuild the pillar and the stonewall. When the work was completed, Sharyn informed Mike that the lantern did not work. She also wanted the working one replaced so they would match. Mike agreed. The story should end here, but it does not. Why?, what went wrong? Sharyn priced lanterns, found out they were more expensive than she originally thought. She did not want to tell Mike it would cost more money. She got tired of looking at lanterns and forgot about it. Now, three years later, she wants her yard to look nice because her son is coming hme from college. Her son is in court, yet Sharyn does not want him to testify. Is anyone of this Mike's fault? He was more than cooperative at the time.  He took responsibility for the damage. He did the repairs right away. He even agreed to replace the working lantern. Three years later, why would he have to replace the lanterns? Sharyn feels that since the statue of limitations has not run out, he should have to pay. If she had evidence, she might have won. She might have been within her right to bring the case, but she still has to prove it. She should not have waited so long to pursue this case. In the hallway, it is clear she does not understand why she lost. Mike is satisfied with the outcome. He knows he did the right thing and is suspicious of the three year wait. It is so important to take care of a situation in a timely manner. What do you think of the outcome of this case?

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

Adventure is worthwhile in itself.

-Amelia Earhart

People's Court: 7-23-12

I Want A Perfect Copy!

Melissa and Adam purchased a designer engagement ring for $6000.00. They took this ring to Dana and Ira's jewelry store to have it copied. They asked if it could be done and the answer was, yes. It would cost them $1712.00. This is a major savings over the designer ring. Melissa was not happy with the copy. After Adam proposed to her, she called the store and wanted changes to the ring. She finally brought the ring into the store in December, 2 months after the proposal. She did not want to leave the ring. Months later, Melissa brings the ring back to the store. She requested several specific changes: four diamonds needed to be changed, one of the prongs needed to be straightened and to even a little bit on the top. When Melissa and Adam returned to the store 3 weeks later, nothing had been done. Adam was very frustrated and voiced his concern about the lack of  repairs. Ira thought he had too much attitude and kicked him out of his store. So many times it is attitude that causes these cases to wind up in court. If everyone could communicate calmly, these issues could be resolved without a lawsuit. Now, Ira will not have a chance to make the repairs he acknowledged. He has to return Melissa and Adam's money. Dana feels that Melissa would never have been satisfied. Even though she won the case, she had to throw a nasty parting remark to Melissa, calling her a bridezilla. This comment was not necessary. The good news is that Melissa and Adam did get other rings for their wedding and will now live happily ever after.

Easy Life!

Eva is suing Kenneth for $2000.00. Eva was visiting her mother's house the weekend before Memorial Day. She noticed the neighbor, Kenneth, was having work done at his house. Kenneth's house is directly behind her mom's house. They each have a backyard fence, with about twelve inches between the fences. Eva noticed the contractor looking at the space between the two fences. She told him not to throw anything between the fences. He told her to talk to the owner. She did not talk to him. She said she had never met him and did not take the time to talk to him. The next day, the contractor gives her a thumbs up. She takes this to mean that he is not going to put anything between the fences. How nice this would have been! Now, she shares the story with her 78 year old mom. The next day, her mom is gardening in the backyard and notices the fence is bulging. There is concrete debris and sand between the fences. Eva looks at this and knows it was not there the day before. She talks to Kenneth and his response is that he does not understand why there is sand. Really! His contractor was doing concrete work, sand is used to mix it. He has to know this. He has his contractor come back and tell Eva's mom that he did not put anything there. Eva's mom says to her, easy life! What does this mean? It means that it was just easier for them to throw the concrete and sand between the fences. Well, they might have taken the easy way out and thought they would get away with it. Kenneth is found responsible for the clean-up. Eva has an estimate for $2,000.00. She explains why it is going to be so expensive. The Judge is satisfied and Eva is awarded the money. 

                                                            All In The Family!

Emanuel is suing Julie for $1000.00. Julie is the mother of his ex-girlfriend. He sold Julie a used car for $2000.00. They had a written contract. He did put in writing that the car needed certain repairs and he also was providing specific parts. Julie claims he also promised to do the repairs for her. These promises were not in writing. This gets to be a problem. When there is a written signed contract, that is where all the promises should be. If someone says something, add it to the contract. Julie is not happy with the deal and is counterclaiming for repair costs and pain and suffering. She does not want to pay the $1000.00 balance and wants him to pay her. This entire case revolves around the signed written contract. Since it was good enough for Julie to sign, the Judge does not find fault with it. She rules for Emanuel, Julie needs to pay the balance. She is not entitled to her counterclaim. Now, we come to the big question, why on earth would Julie buy a used car from the ex-boyfriend of her daughter? Why did either of them feel this was a good idea? Would you buy a used car from a family member or someone that you know?

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

 I have found that if you love life, life will love you back - Arthur Rubinstein.