People's Court Blog - 1 30 2013 - Wednesday

Today's cases include a defective diamond ring, an unprofessional caterer and a landlord that does not follow the rules. In all of these cases the plaintiffs have been wronged and have chosen the forum of small claims court to make it right.

Frank is suing Denise and Oleg for $5000.00. 

Denise and Oleg have a jewelry store. Frank purchased an engagement ring from them. The ring is in court, his new wife is not. They are newly married and she does not come to court to be at her husband's side. She is a schoolteacher and has a work related commitment. **Spoiler alert**: Her absence does not hurt the case! Frank explains that his wife had fallen in love with the ring - it is gorgeous! The problem is the diamonds kept falling out. When they would return to the store, Denise would take the ring back and have it fixed. The replacement diamonds were not as nice as the original diamonds. The entire ring was supposed to have been  replaced the second time it went back. The receipt shown to the Judge states the ring was replaced and the original diamonds were used. WHAT? This does not make sense. That is not a replacement. Frank wants his money back. He has a right to be satisfied with the purchase of the ring. Denise claims the ring has been abused and that is why the diamonds keep falling out. How does a schoolteacher abuse a diamond ring? 

The Judge rules in favor of Frank. Not for $5000.00. He did not pay $5000.00 for the ring. It cost $2300.00 and that is what he gets back.

In the hallway, he expresses disappointment for not being able to keep the ring, after all, it has sentimental value. Are you kidding me? He wants the money and the ring! What world does he live in?

Rhonda and Michael are suing Demetrius for $3100.00.

**Clementine Weather**

What is clementine weather?- stay tuned for the answer!

Demetrius is a distant relative that runs a catering company, Untamed Flavors. When Rhonda and Michael hired Demetrius to cater their wedding they did not expect substandard service. They expected to get good food and professional service. What they received was poorly cooked, pre-made foods served by children. 

Rhonda and Michael have complaints about the quality of the food from their friends and family in writing and in person. The chicken was overcooked and dry, the ribs were undercooked and had little sauce and the potatoes were from a box. Even worse, the boxes from the food were in plain site to the guests. Demetrius defends his foodservice by claiming the weather was bad that day, so the cooking was moved from outside grills to inside. After all, in his contract he has a clause about clementine weather, About what? Yes, you read it correctly! Clementine weather - oh he means inclement weather. This is so funny!!!! It is actually written in the contract as clementine weather!  Now, back to the case...Rhonda and Michael say the weather was fine. Either way, it does not excuse the quality of the food. Demetrius explains the children were a last minute addition because some of his staff did not show. I think Rhonda and Michael have a right to be unhappy about 12 year olds and 16 year olds serving at their wedding. 

Rhonda and Michael win the case. They get back a portion of the payment, $1854.00. 

In the hallway, Demetrius continues to defend his food and claims they are all exaggerating. After all, who can go away unhappy, when there is clementine weather!

Sharday is suing Darin for $1103.88. 

Darin has a countersuit for $1036.09.

Sharday rented one side of a duplex from Darin. At the time she rented it, the other side was unoccupied. Darin told her she could park in the driveway until someone moved in. When the other side was rented, she would have to park on the street. After 2 months, Darin rented the other side. Sharday did not want to park in the street, spoke to Darin and he told her she could move out. Sharday said they dissolved the lease and Darin was going to give her back her $750.00 security deposit. Darin did not return it. He claims Sharday left the apartment unclean and damaged the storm door. He does not have proof of $750.00 worth of expenses. The Judge allows him to keep $75.00. Sharday is happy to get back $675.00.  Darin's countersuit is dismissed because he cannot prove he is out over $1.000.00 in damages and clean-up fees.

In the hallway, Sharday continues to explain that Darin was an unprofessional and incompetent landlord. Darin needs to learn the responsibilities of a landlord and provide an itemized list when he is not returning the security deposit. It is not enough to make up a written list and claim he is out much more. After all, it is about proving your case with evidence in the People's Court!

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 9 28 2012 - Friday

Frank And The Water Leak

Frank is suing Kevin for $5000.00. Frank is the superintendent of Kevin's building. His apartment is underneath Kevin's. Frank explains that he posted notices that the water in the building was going to be turned off due to plumbing repairs. Kevin and his girlfriend did not get the dates correct and when she went to take a shower, there was no water. Kevin called Frank and was reminded that this was the day the repairs were being done. When the repairs were finished and the water was turned back on, Frank noticed a leak in his apartment. He checked the apartments above him and found the water running in Kevin's apartment. Kevin and his girlfriend do not remember closing the drain to the tub and did not think they left the water running. 

Kevin asked Frank on two occasions to see the damage. Frank would not show him unless he was willing to take responsibility for the damages and pay $5000.00. Kevin wanted to see proof. He felt that Frank might be inflating the cost of the damages. In court, Frank does not have any proof for everything he is asking for. He claims the hardwood floor has to be replaced instead of repaired. He wants to be reimbursed for bedding that could be washed. He wants payment for a laptop, a playstation and DVDs and CDs, he claims were damaged. He has no proof, he did not even bring them to court. 

The Judge agrees there was clearly water damage due to the leak. There is no question the water came from Kevin's apartment. Since Frank has no proof of the damage to specific items, the Judge awards him $750.00. This is a major difference from the $5000.00 he was asking for. It is very important to have evidence of damages and the value of the items. Frank realizes this and admits he should have been better prepared for court. Maybe next time...

Delphena And Road Rage 

Delphena is suing Andrew for $2781.91. This is the cost of the damages to her car due to a traffic accident. The only problem with her lawsuit is that the accident was her fault. She tried to pass Andrew's van on the left side, squeezing between him and a parked car. Andrew has pictures for the court showing the position of the cars. Delphena tries to say that Andrew caused the accident, but the pictures tell a different story. Delphena admits that Andrew was driving slowly and she honked at him and passed him. Andrew shows there was one lane and there was not enough room for Delphena to fit. Delphena was very angry and after the accident told Andrew and his passenger to stay away from her or she was going to smack them. Really! This is no way to talk to someone. She also says the accident was not necessary. Well, this is absolutely true since she caused it! Andrew's van suffered minor damage that he was able to fix himself for $15.00. Since Delphena caused the accident, she is not entitled to any money. She continues to accuse Andrew of deliberately hitting her car even as she exits the courtroom. Delphena needs to realize that she caused this accident so she does not do this again in the future. Anger management might be beneficial for Delphena to curtail her road rage! What do you think?

Jamal And The Security Deposit

Jamal is suing Althea, his landlord, for $2500.00. This is for a security deposit and increased electric bills. Jamal has rented an apartment from Althea since 2006. He moved in after his mother moved out. The rent was partially covered by Section 8, a government assistance program. Althea explains that she constantly had to take Jamal to housing court for nonpayment of rent. Jamal says he has had many problems with the apartment and constantly reported them to the city. Althea and Jamal had a court settlement that instructed him to vacate the apartment by January 31, 2012. Jamal admits he did not move out until March 2, 2012. He blames this on Section 8. He claims he could not move out without their approval. He received their approval on February 15th, but did not move out until March 2. Since he did not pay the rent for March, the security deposit would cover that payment. Jamal also wants to be compensated for an increase in the electric bills since the landlord put in a dehumidifier. He is not entitled to this money. He does not get any money back. The landlord describes his behavior as arrogant and intimidating. She went through the proper channels to evict him and he took advantage by ignoring the court settlement. Hopefully he will pay his rent and get along with his new landlord. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

~Albert Einstein