Friday - June 14, 2013: Roach Infestation

Monday's People Court episode had a very interesting case: it is about a roach infestation.

According to Magda, the landlord, who is suing Abe, the exterminator, for $1500.00 - there were ZILLIONS!

Magda has lived in the house for 37 years and said she has only had a roach problem once before. She hired Abe and he treated for the roaches and came back several times. She is not happy because the roaches were not dying. Abe explains that there are two processes for killing roaches: spray -  that is applied every 2 weeks or gel -  that takes 2 weeks to work and has a residual effect. He did not spray in her apartment because her husband was on oxygen and spray would not be safe.  Abe said they returned several times after the initial treatment, he never explains why he stopped going back. Obviously the problem was not solved because Magda had to hire another company to solve the problem. She does not have the written contract with her that she had with the new company but says she paid them $600.00.

Magda said the new company sprayed since her husband was doing better - she was not worried about killing him  - they have been married for 53 years!!!! Wow - that is a really long time!

Magda explains the new company solved the problem. She gets back $750.00 of the $1500.00 paid to Abe.

Very interesting that Magda does not have to show the payment to the new company, yet gets her money back. I think this is because she is very credible in explaining the situation.

Congratulations to Magda for getting rid of the roach infestation. It sounded like a nightmare to have ZILLIONS of roaches in your home. I am surprised she continued to live there until the problem was solved. What do you think?

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

Please visit fundinco.org to help the animal rescue group I support! Thank you!

 

Friday: June 7, 2013: RESPECT

Hi Readers,

Sorry to have been gone for so long. So much is happening and I have not been able to write. I am back and want to share something with you. I am fascinated by the way people treat each other in everyday life. Have you noticed that a certain level of respect for each other is MISSING!!!! How do we get it back? I am perplexed by the decline of everyday communications. Here is an example of a conversation overheard in an office:

Administrative Assistant to IT person as he/she was walking past: Excuse me, I have a stupid question. Can you help me?

IT person: There are no stupid questions, just stupid people that ask them.

Really! Is this an appropriate response to someone who is asking for help? I know the usual response to that question is: There are no stupid questions. Why on earth would the IT person not give the cliche answer or just respond: What can I help you with? The cliche answer puts people at ease. The answer given puts people down. It is insulting. In the workplace we do not expect to be insulted by our coworkers. Is this a sign of the times?

I am having a real problem with this. Please let me know what you think. Also, please share  experiences you have had with the lack of respect that seems to be prevalent in our day to day life.

Thank you for reading! Please visit the following site and help support a worthy animal rescue organization. There are many ways you can help support them with NO COST to you!!!!!!!!!

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/NJ617.html

Let us all return to the GOLDEN RULE:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

People's Court Blog - 1 4 2013 - Friday

Still playing catch-up......

Tyler is suing George for $1396.60. 

This is for back rent and the value of some items that George took. Tyler and George are college students and were friends. It is sad when a friendship is lost over this type of situation. Tyler needed a roommate for the summer, since his current roommate, Albert, was going away for the summer. George agreed to move in.... and this is all everyone agrees to as facts. Tyler says they agreed on $350.00 a month rent and $100.00 towards the utilities. George says this is not true. Unfortunately, George's story keeps changing. At first he says there was no agreement for rent, then he says his medical bills from the car accident were a trade-off. Wait! if you were not supposed to pay rent, why would you trade-off the medical bills.

George's story is all over the place. Also, these two friends think taking belongings from each other serve as collateral, when it is actually stealing!

George needs to pay Tyler for the rent and the utilities. The Judge finds in favor of Tyler for $1350.00. He cannot prove that George stole from him. Also, if George sustained injuries in a car accident, he needs to go through Tyler's insurance for the money.

The shame of all of this is the lost friendship. George should not have expected to live rent free and take advantage of Tyler's friendship. Just because Tyler's dad pays his part of the rent, is no reason to think he was going to pay for George also. Friendships needs to be valued.

James is suing Annette and the housing corporation for $4900. 

James claims his room was broken into and someone stole his belongings. Why on earth would Annette and the housing corporation be responsible for this?  At first he told Annette that 3 items were stolen and then he kept adding to the list. He claimed he did not notice the other items were missing because they were in the closet. Why wouldn't you do a thorough check when you know your room has been broken into?

There was a surveillance camera that showed James leaving his room and then going back in the room. After that, the camera goes dark. The controls for the camera are in his room. This is all very suspect. Also, James lost his job that day. He claims it is because of being late due to the burglary There is proof of issues during his probationary period at the job, lateness, etc.

Annette did offer James $600.00 after he said his possessions were taken. He claims she offered him $1200.00. Either way, it does not matter, since James did not move out when he was asked to, staying an additional 10 days, that was not authorized, he did not receive any money.

James cannot prove he is out $4900 and loses the case. In the hallway, he says he is disappointed and such is life. Annette says she never believed his room was burglarized.

People need to be able to prove their case. Just saying something was stolen or someone offered you money is not good enough for court. It is important to have proof when you go to court. 

Kathleen is suing Alan's gym for $333.00. 

This is for membership fees to a gym. Kathleen claims she asked for her membership to be frozen when she was unable to go to the gym for medical reasons. Kathleen says she showed the person working at the desk a note from her doctor and was told she could freeze her membership. The gym actually has a policy for freezing a membership. Alan explains that someone can freeze their membership for 2 months. Anything longer than that, especially the year Kathleen wanted, would have been handled differently. They would have had her cancel the membership and then reinstate it.

Kathleen seems to be very unorganized. She says she asked for the membership to be frozen for a few months, yet expected it to be frozen for a year. Also, the letter from her doctor states a few months, not a year. She does not seem to understand that a few months is not a year. Also, she continued to pay the membership throughout the year. She states that she did not notice anything because she paid her daughter's membership. The monthly fee would have been different, wouldn't it? The way she found out the membership was not frozen was when she went to return to the gym, asked for it to be unfrozen and was told it had never been frozen, Well, actually it had, for 2 months. Both sides have trouble with record-keeping!!! So complicated!!!!!

Kathleen is very upset after losing the case, yet never mentions if her daughter continues to be a member, I wonder!!!!! Alan says that he offered her perks to stay on as a member, but she was did not accept. I think she should have taken him up on the perks since she is the one who did not handle this properly. What do you think?

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

Stay updated - Subscribe!

Did anyone notice the close-up of the Judge's fingernails? I really liked her manicure. Such a pretty color!!!!!!

People's Court Blog - 10 19 2012 - Friday

October Challenge Check-up: I seem to have set my goals too high. This week has not been a success for the challenge. This is okay. We have to allow ourselves a setback. It is not a failure if you are trying. The success is in the effort. I will continue to strive to meet my goal of posting the blog the day the show is aired. Continuing to reach for my goal is the challenge that I have set for myself. Hopefully you have met your goal that you set for this month or are getting close. If not, keep on trying!

Friends Fighting
Regina is suing Tamika for $5000.00.

Regina and Tamika were friends. Regina knew Tamika's mom for 25 years, When Tamika moved back home, Regina befriended her. These two women went out together, clubbing. They went out for Tamika's birthday, although it was a week early. Tamika celebrates a birthday week! When the club closed at 2:00 am, Tamika did not want to leave. Regina says that at the end of the evening Tamika drank two Long Island Iced Teas before they left. One of them was for Regina and she was the driver! Both of these women sounded unfit for driving. While Regina was driving home, Tamika tried to stop her. As Regina tried to pull over she thinks she hit something, a car? the guardrail? She does not know. Thank goodness it was not a person! Regina says she pulled over and Tamika pulled her hair and hit her head into the steering wheel. Tamika says Regina was upset because she was flirting with someone that Regina liked. She claims Regina ripped her pink leather jacket and hit her several times. Regina has pictures of her injuries and can prove that her hair weave was pulled out. The Judge finds in her favor for $1000.00, for her hair weave and personal injury. She cannot prove the damage to her car. What a shame that a friendship has to end this way! Tamika is not setting a very good example for her her children, ages 20, 17, 10 and 4. Regina should find someone closer to her own age to spend time with. Both women have to stop drinking and driving - so very dangerous! What do you think?

Dog Attack

Michael is suing Ilene for $1307.91.

Michael was walking his Jack Russell Terrier, Jake. When he walked past Ilene's house, two large dogs charged at him. He heard Ilene yell to pick up his dog. He picked up Jake and tried to shield him from the two dogs. One of the dogs bit him and Jake. Ilene ran over to him and tried to get the dogs away. She fell and hit her head on the curb. Ilene really got hurt, She even cracked a rib when she fell. She remembers Michael yelling at her to get up when she fell. Wow! I know he was dealing with a lot, but really have some mercy. Ilene offered to pay for the vet bills. She gave Michael a check but he did not want it. He wanted to be reimbursed for sunglasses that he lost in the confusion of the moment and lost wages. Michael says that even though he got a paid sick day from work he wants to be paid for it. Life does not work that way. He used the sick day and that is what they are for. Ilene is found responsible to pay the vet bill of $562.00. She is fine with this, but she also got a lecture about having too many dogs. It seemed that day the reason the two dogs were running down the street was because the dogs got away from her. As Ilene was putting 2 of the dogs in the house, the third one pushed out and ran down the street with one of the leashed dogs. It does sound like Ilene had a lot going on, but she did the right thing to offer to pay the vet bill. She did not count on Michael being greedy!

Collateral Damage
Mark is suing Michael for $7000.00.

Mark loaned Michael $2000.00. Michael admits that he borrowed the money and gave Mark his climbing equipment as collateral. When he did not get a job and could not pay him back, he told Mark to sell the equipment. Mark should not have to be responsible to sell the equipment. Michael should have sold it to pay off his loan. Even though he had not paid Mark back, Mark says he paid Michael to split firewood. It really is not believable that he would give Michael $400.00 when he is owed $2000.00. It is more believable that the money was deducted from the loan. Then there is the $200.00 that Mark had advanced to Michael for a job he did not have a chance to do. After doing all of the math, Michael owes Mark $1800.00. Why was Mark suing Michael for so much money? He says he wanted to get his attention. It really does not work that way. He should have only sued him for the amount he felt he was owed. I think if he sued Michael for $2200.00 he would have noticed! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.

~Plutarch

People's Court Blog - 9 7 2012 - Friday

Erika And The Car Accident

Erika is suing Glenda for $5000.00. Glenda is counterclaiming for $3500.00. Both women and Erika's boyfriend were in a terrible car accident. They are all fortunate to have survived this crash. A car hit Glenda's van and she lost control and landed on top of Erika's car. Both cars burst into flames minutes after everyone got out of the vehicles. Why are they both suing each other? Erika did not have collision for her vehicle. Glenda did not have car insurance at all. She had lapsed in her payments. This is a terrible situation for both of them. Both vehicles were totaled. This accident was not the fault of either driver. Neither of them will recover on their lawsuits against each other. 

These three people are very lucky to be alive. The lesson in this case is that life is short and we need to appreciate every moment. No one knows what the day will bring for them. Glenda says that she was thinking of her children when her car spun out of control and flew into Erika's car. She just wanted to see them again. Everyone involved in this accident is conscious of the fact they were lucky to walk away. With that in mind, it is also very important to keep insurance up to date. Keeping proper coverage on our vehicle will provide us with financial protection. The person that caused this accident fled the scene and is the one who is  responsible for all of the financial burdens. What do you think?

Claire / Ivan And The Dow Museum

Claire and Ivan are suing Bernard's hospitality business for $2749.62. This is the amount of the deposit they gave for their wedding reception. Bernard is the exclusive caterer for the Dow Museum. This is in St. Augustine, Florida. The Dow Museum encompasses a group of historic homes that are routinely used for catered events. Both Claire and Ivan had attended a wedding at the Dow Museum and fell in love with it. They wanted to be married there. When they called to inquire about the procedure, they were told to call Bernard. He has the exclusive catering contract for this venue. Claire and Ivan met with Bernard in June 2011, signed a contract, and gave him a deposit for half of the estimated cost. Their wedding date was set for October 20, 2012. In January of this year, Claire and Ivan visited the Dow Museum. They were told the museum was being sold and weddings were being cancelled. They immediately contacted Bernard to find out what was happening with their wedding. 

At first, Bernard said he would give the money back. Then, he changed his mind and wanted to cater the event at another venue. He felt they had a contract and they should not be able to cancel it and get their money back. Bernard is missing the point. Claire and Ivan wanted their wedding at the Dow Museum. They had to hire him as the caterer, since he was the exclusive caterer for the Dow Museum. Claire and Ivan will get back their entire deposit. This is only right. They are so happy and can now continue with their wedding plans. The lesson here is to realize what is right. Bernard had to have known the reason he was hired was because of their desire for the Dow Museum. It would have been the right thing to do to return their deposit when they asked. It would have been the right business decision. What do you think?

Anastasia And Her Cousin

Anastasia is suing her cousin, Donna, for $5000.00. $750.00 is the pay Anastasia was entitled for work. Anastasia worked for Donna at a daycare center for several years. After Donna's mother had an issue with Anastasia, Donna did not want to pay her. Donna's mother felt Anastasia had stolen medicine and money from her. It seemed Donna paid Anastasia cash to avoid paying taxes. Yet after Anastasia stopped working for her, Donna filed a 1099. This seems rather spiteful. Donna admits paying Anastasia $750.00 a pay period. Donna has no way to prove that she has paid Anastasia. She keeps a ledger of payments, but does not include cash payments she is hiding for tax purposes. Anastasia is entitled to her pay. What else is she asking for that adds up to $5000.00? Anastasia wants the money she now has to pay the IRS since Donna filed a 1099. Really! Also she wants pain and suffering. For what? Anastasia claims she is behind on her bills and this has caused her pain and suffering. She is not able to recover this money.

Anastasia does get her $750.00. She is not happy with this and does not feel that inflating the lawsuit was wrong. The lesson here is family and business do not mix well. Also, cheating the government is a really bad idea. Why do people find it so easy to cheat and lie?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Be miserable. Or motivate yourself. Whatever has to be done, it is always your choice.

~ Wayne Dyer

People's Court Blog - 8 31 2012 - Friday

Good Luck, Erin!

Vicki is suing Erin for $1260.00. This is for rent, parts for her truck and stolen money. Erin is almost 20 years old and has been on her own since she was 18. When Erin turned 18, she told her parents she wanted to be an adult and live on her own. This is very commendable for Erin. When she had difficulties, her mother would not let her come home. (This is really sad. A parent should always let their child come home). Erin went to live with her aunt. For some reason, this did not work out and Erin wound up with her aunt's friend, Vicki. This sounds crazy, how can you just drop someone off on a doorstep? This is not what this case is about. This is about money that Erin owes Vicki. Erin was supposed to pay rent. Also, Erin borrowed Vicki's truck and had an accident. Vicki bought the parts for the truck and Erin did the repairs. Also, Vicki wants her money back that Erin stole from her. Erin admits stealing money for cigarettes.This is not commendable. Why is Erin stealing from Vicki? Erin needs to realize that other people are not responsible to take care of her. She needs to take responsibility for herself. Erin is hoping to get a job and go to school. She wants to be an auto and diesel technician. Part of getting her life together is to pay her debts. She is found responsible to pay Vicki back the money she owes her. Erin signed a promissory note for $1070.00. Even though Vicki claims she added wrong and the amount is higher, she cannot get more than the agreement. Erin claims she was forced to sign the note because she felt threatened by Vicki. Erin cannot prove that she was threatened and she did sign the agreement. Erin needs to pay Vicki back. This is the beginning to getting her life on track. I wish Erin all the luck in the world. I hope she gets the job she wants and she does well in school. Good luck, Erin!

You Cancelled The Reunion!

Khadija is suing Lisa for $30.00. This money is for 3 tickets to a neighborhood reunion. Every year the neighborhood that Khadija grew up in would hold a reunion. This year it was cancelled. Lisa and several others started a Facebook group to revive the reunion. Khadija wanted to go to the reunion and ordered 3 tickets. She sent a money order to Lisa for $30.00. Two days before the reunion, Lisa decided to cancel it because she did not have enough barbeque grills to cook the food. Lisa promised to return everyone's money. Khadija saw this notice and expected to get her money back. She sent a message to Lisa on the Facebook page regarding her refund. Lisa was upset because she did not inbox her or contact her personally. This is so ridiculous! Lisa cancelled the event and then the next day, messaged that it was back on again. Once the event was cancelled, why would Khadija check the Facebook page again? Lisa is positive she knew the event was back on. Why is she so sure? She says because she wrote to Khadija to reread the message. What? This is such a waste of everyone's time! If Khadija knew the reunion was going to happen, she would have gone. She was looking forward to going to the reunion with her two sons. All she wants is her money back.  This is not too much to ask for, is it? Why would Lisa make Khadija sue her to get back $30.00? According to Lisa, it was to teach her a lesson. Well, Lisa is the one who is learning a lesson. She is ordered to pay Khadija the $30.00 for the tickets. I think that forcing someone to sue you for $30.00 is very spiteful. What do you think?

 

You Rented The Studio - Pay Me!

Matthew is suing Marshaun for $2324.99. Matthew rented  recording studio space to Marshaun for $500.00 a month. One of the conditions to the rental was for the equipment to be upgraded. Matthew paid for the upgrade, now he wants Marshaun to cover that cost, as well as pay the rent for the rest of the contract. In the beginning, everything went well. Marshaun stopped paying rent after a few months and someone broke into the studio. Matthew changed the locks on the studio after the break-in. Matthew claims he tried to contact Marshaun to let him know and to give him new keys. (Really, you are going to give someone keys when they are not paying rent!). Marshaun says he was never notified about the changed locks. When he found himself locked out, he stopped paying rent. Who are we to believe? Matthew has no proof that he notified Marshaun. It would be very easy to verify notification. Text, e-mail, letter mailed return receipt, are all good ways to prove you have notified someone. The Judge explains to Matthew that the lockout was illegal. He has no right to change the locks when he has a tenant. The only money that Matthew is entitled to is the rent money for the month and a half that Marshaun could access the studio. He is not entitled to rent money for the time that Marshaun was locked out or the cost of upgrading the equipment. It is very important when you are a landlord to know your rights and responsibilities. Hopefully, Matthew learned a valuable lesson about being a landlord.

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

We are made strong by the difficulties we face not by those we evade.

-Unknown Source

People's Court Blog - 8 24 2012 - Friday

The Door Was Already Broken!

Anthony is suing Kyle for $1380.00 ($1200.00 for the door, $180.00 for his time). Kyle is Anthony's daughter's former boyfriend. Anthony wants Kyle to pay the replacement cost of a patio sliding door. After Anthony's daughter and Kyle broke up, Kyle decided to come back to the house. He did not have a key, so he broke the sliding patio door to break in. Kyle claims it was already broken. It seemed when he was living there with Anthony's daughter, he used that way to get in when he was locked out. Kyle explains that there used to be a lockbox with a key, but that is not available anymore. It seemed Kyle did not have a key most of the time. Why did Anthony come back to the house after he moved out? There never is a clear answer. His girlfriend said it was for the furniture and then he changed his mind. Kyle said he needed dog food and while he was there he took his cigars and some documents. He also says that all of the furniture belongs to him. Also, he paid his share of the rent for 2 months after he left. Wow, not many people do something like that. He admits to having feelings for his girlfriend, but denies wanting to get back together. She hesitates when the Judge asks if she wants to get back together with him. They broke up because he was cheating on her and those are difficult wounds to heal. There is no doubt that Kyle broke the door, whether it was while he was living there or after he moved out. The timing does not really matter. It seems so sad, these two young people really do act like they still care for each other. They are very young and maybe just need more time. Kyle is found responsible to pay for the door, but not the cost of a new one. He would be responsible for the depreciated value of the door. The Judge estimates this to be $300.00. He has already made a payment of $100.00 to Anthony. In total, Kyle will pay $400.00 for a 30 year old sliding patio door. This seems acceptable to him, although Anthony is not happy about it. On the way out of the courtroom, they both express the desire to stay away from each other. That is a shame, they showed such promise!

My Car Was Impounded!

Myra was on her way to get her car inspected when she was in a car accident. Her car was towed to Anthony's auto repair shop. Myra is suing Anthony for $1128.86. After Myra got her car back from Anthony's shop, it was towed for unpaid parking tickets. Where did all of the parking tickets come from?  Anthony had Myra's car for several months due to insurance issues.  Anthony fixed the car without an appraisal and it took months for the insurance to pay. Since Anthony has limited storage space, he would park Myra's car on the road. The car was ticketed many times. Anthony blames Myra because her inspection sticker was expired. Myra was not able to get the car inspected because it was in the shop. Why would Anthony feel Myra was responsible? Well, Anthony shows a picture of a manila folder used as a sign that says management is not responsible for "expire" stickers. Really, when did he make this sign? It is definitely not a professional sign. All of the other signs shown in the picture are professional signs. The Judge is insulted and offended when she views the evidence that Anthony provides. She actually rips up the pictures! Why would he think the Judge would accept this as proof that his customers are receiving the proper notification? In this case, even if he had provided Myra with proper notification, she would still not be held responsible for the tickets. How could Myra get the car inspected when it was in Anthony's shop. I feel bad that Myra had to deal with her car being towed and getting it out of  the impound yard. Myra is awarded the full amount she is suing for. Too bad she is not able to receive more for aggravation! She would deserve it! What do you think?

It Is All About The Paint!

Bertila and Jimmy are suing Emanuel for $2100.00. This is the security deposit they paid for their house rental several months before. Bertila and Jimmy moved out because of the damage done by Hurricane Irene. Bertila tells about their wedding the day the Hurricane started. They came home after the reception instead of staying at the hotel. The flooding was so bad, their refrigerator floated out of the kitchen. Bertila and Jimmy went back to the hotel. When they returned to their home, the flood waters had started to recede. Because of all of the damage, they decided to move out. The landlord understood and returned $1500.00 of their security deposit. Why are we in court? Is it because the landlord wrongly withheld $600.00 of their security deposit due to Hurricane damage. No, it was because Bertila painted 4 of the rooms with very bright colors. Emanuel, their landlord, explains that he did not give permission for these rooms to be painted. These rooms needed to be repainted and that is the reason for keeping part of the security deposit. He explained all of this in a letter to Bertila and Jimmy when he sent them the check for $1500.00. Bertila and Jimmy did not cash the check because they wanted the entire amount returned. So, here we are in court. After hearing about their wedding, the Hurricane, the flooding, the floating refrigerator, we find out none of this has anything to do with the security deposit money. It is because of the paint! The Judge awards them $1500.00, so we find out that their landlord was fair and just! A breath of fresh air in the landlord tenant business!

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

 

Subscribe to stay updated!

 

If you want to be happy, be.

- Leo Tolstoy

 

 

People's Court - 8 17 2012 - Friday

I Met Them In Church!

Lillian is suing Peter Gary (Lillian calls him Gary) and Theresa for $3000.00. This is for rent, a loan and damages from bedbugs. Lillian met Gary and Theresa in church. Lillian and her husband got a divorce and he moved out. Lillian wanted to help Gary and Theresa and she also needed help with her mortgage. She asked them to move in with her and her two children, ages 5 and 7. Lillian asked them to pay $400.00 a month rent. Initially, they gave her $200.00.  I do not think Lillian should have moved people into her home. It is not a good idea when you have young children. Her ex-husband did not like it either and he took the children away. He wanted Gary and Theresa to move out right away. Lillian's ex-husband did a background check on Gary and found out he had a warrant for his arrest. He did not want his children in the same house as Gary and Theresa. He felt they were a bad influence around the children. Lillian asked them to move out. They found a free house to move to. The house needed some work before they could move in. Lillian gave them back the $200.00, hoping this would get them to move out. Then, Gary and Theresa told Lillian the house needed more work, so she gave them $500.00. Lillian was paying them to move out. The next thing that happened was a bedbug infestation. Lillian had the house exterminated and it seemed the infestation originated form Gary and Theresa's room. Lillian and her present husband took the couple out to dinner and told them they needed to throw away the futon, since it was infested with bedbugs. They also told them they needed to move out. Gary and Theresa deny everything. They claim they were never asked to pay rent. They were going to help with the children and pay the utilities. They said the bedbugs did not come from their furniture. It was from used furniture Lillian brought home. Lillian said the used furniture she brought in was before Gary and Theresa moved in.  Lillian threw away their futon and then they finally moved out. They never paid her towards the utilities, they never helped with the children (the children were with their dad). So, what did they do? Well, Gary and Theresa took advantage of Lillian and had a free place to live. When they did move out, they moved into a fixer upper for free. How do people behave this way? The Judge finds that they owe Lillian 2 months rent and the $500.00 loan. They do not have to pay for the damages from the bedbugs since there is no way to prove they were responsible for the bedbugs. It is such a shame that Gary and Theresa took advantage of Lillian. Although, Lillian did allow this to happen. What was she thinking bringing strangers home to live with her and her children? What do you think?

We Were Friends For 30 Years - What Happened?

Arthur is suing his longtime friend, Kurt, for $5000.00. This is for medical bills, wages from lost work and a tree replacement. What causes two men who have been friends for 30 years part ways? We may never know because their stories are so different. Arthur claims that Kurt attacked him and broke his wrist. Kurt blocked the driveway with his camper all night. In the morning, Kurt left and Arthur was able to go to the hospital for treatment. After that incident, Arthur told Kurt to get his belongings off his property. Kurt keeps some of his belongings, machinery and equipment stored on Arthur's property. The second incident occurred when Arthur was staying at a campground. Arthur says that when Kurt removed his belongings, he cut the lock on the garage. Kurt did leave a new lock in its place. Arthur says that Kurt came to the campground to apologize to him. Kurt was intoxicated and very incoherent. When Arthur left the campground and returned to his mobile home, he heard a chainsaw. When he went to look he saw a tree cut and it was blocking the driveway. Arthur shows a picture of cut trees as evidence. Arthur explains there is more than one tree cut because he cuts trees also. Arthur says he contacted the police and tried to make several police reports but was not able to. He also was not able to get a restraining order. Why would Kurt attack Arthur? Why would he block the driveway? Arthur does not have answers to these questions. Now, it is Kurt's turn to talk. He explains that they are both on the lease for a campground property. When Kurt went to get his seasonal pass for the campground, he found out that Arthur took his name off the lease. This was corrected. Arthur told Kurt to remove his belongings from the property. Kurt removed everything and admits he had to cut the lock to get in the garage. He did leave a new lock with two keys. He denies attacking Arthur and breaking his wrist. Kurt says he heard through the grapevine that Arthur broke his wrist. Kurt denies cutting down the tree and blocking the driveway. Arthur cannot prove his case. He does not have any evidence. What a shame that a 30 year friendship ends over ...what? We really do not know what caused this to happen. Both men tell such different stories, we can only speculate about the answer. What do you think?

Please Don't Hurt Sebastian!

Sheila is suing Willie, her neighbor, for $5000.00. This is for vet bills and pain and suffering from a dog attack. Sheila explains that she and her cousin were getting ready to leave the house. While she was pulling the van out, her cousin, Vincent, had her little dog, Sebastian. Sebastian is a Maltese, a small breed of dog. Vincent explains that while he was walking Sebastian, a Rottweiller came running towards him. He pulled Sebastian up in his arms and the large dog jumped at him. Sebastian wriggled and jumped out of his arms. The Rottweiller grabbed Sebastian and was running away with him. Vincent was chasing him and then, Sheila saw what was happening. She started to chase after them to save her dog. Sheila said there were people watching, but they did not help. Finally, the Rottweiller dropped Sebastian. When Sheila picked up Sebastian, he nipped her on the finger because he was so scared. The Rottweiller started to come back and Vincent kicked him. Sheila took Sebastian to the vet for emergency care. Sheila shows pictures of Sebastian's wounds. He is lucky to have survived such a vicious attack. The neighbors told Sheila the Rottweiller was Junior's dog. Her neighbor Willie is known as Junior and he raises Rotteillers. Willie explains that he was out of state when this occurred. The police called him and told him his dog attacked another dog. Willie called his house and had them check if any of his dogs were missing. Willie says he has 4 Rottweillers, all females. 3 Rottweillers were in the kennel and one of them was not at home. Willie said the other female was not on the property. He takes his females to the male when they are ready to be bred. It does seem suspicious that one of his dogs was missing at the time of the attack. The police did catch a Rottweiller and the dog was taken to the shelter. Willie went to the shelter to identify the dog. Actually, the Animal Control Officer, wanted the dog to identify Willie. The Judge explains that a penned dog will react when they see their owner. Willie said when he stood at the pen, the dog stayed in the corner. Also, this was a male dog and his dogs are all females. Willie does admit that his dogs have gotten out of their kennel and the fenced in yard. He says this has happened several times. How do the dogs get out? Willie says his 9 year old daughter will go in the the kennel to play with the dogs and puppies and sometimes does not close the gates properly. Why would this have to happen several times before he corrects the problem? This particular incident occurred when his daughter was not home. Also, Willie is adamant that the dog was not his. Since there is no proof that the dog belonged to Willie, the Judge calls a recess to contact the Animal Control Officer. She is not able to reach the A.C.O. and makes an interim ruling. At this time, she rules in favor of Willie. The Judge is very clear that she will go to him personally and "slam" him if she finds out he owned the dog. Sheila cannot prove the dog that attacked Sebastian belonged to Willie. It is a shame that no one is held responsible for what happened to Sebastian and to Sheila. They went through a horrible experience. The story does not end there, no one claimed the Rottweiller and he was put to sleep. Someone owned this dog and this is inexcusable to have allowed this to happen. What do you think?

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

We all live with the objective of being happy; our lives are all different,  yet the same.

-Anne Frank

People's Court - 8 16 2012 - Thursday

You Kept Me Out Of Jail - But I Don't Want To Pay You Too Much!

Nicholas is suing John for $850.00. Nicholas was arrested for the possession of heroin and the intent to deliver. John is an attorney recommended to Nicholas by his girlfriend. Nicholas explains that John agreed to represent him for $500.00. John did not have Nicholas sign a retainer agreement. At this point, it is one person's word against the other. Nicholas signed over his bond to John as payment. When Nicholas received his bond back, he would turn it over to John, minus the fees. This would be $1350.00. Nicholas explains that John said he would give him money back from the bond, since he was only charging him $500.00. John denies this. John explains that he went to court with Nicholas 7 times.The first 2 times they went to court, Nicholas was stoned, so John rescheduled the case. He said he told Nicholas he was facing probation or up to 3-7 years in prison. He was going to try to get him in drug school, this did not happen. He would get him supervision, this did not happen. He would get him expungable probation, this did not happen. Nicholas was not happy with his representation. John did get the sentence reduced to probation after a series of court appearances. In order to receive this, Nicholas had to take a plea. John explains it was not an expungable probation because the arrest was an undercover operation. Nicholas seems very upset over the fact he did not receive expungable probation. He is lucky he did not go to prison for this. The problem with the question of the amount of the attorney's fee rests on the lack of a retainer agreement. The reason to have a retainer agreement is so both sides know exactly what to expect. Because John did not provide this to his client, Nicholas wins this case. An attorney cannot keep changing the fee as the case progresses. This is not fair to the client. John says he is too busy to provide the paperwork to his clients. Is he too busy to be taken to court because of payment issues? Was Nicholas unreasonable thinking an attorney would go to court for him 7 times for $500.00? Both parties would have been better off if they were in agreement regarding the payment. Why do people create problems for themselves? What do you think?

I Need My Transmission Rebuilt Every Year!

Susan is suing Vasile for $2300.00. Vasile owns an auto body shop. In 2009, Susan took her car to Vasile's shop and had the transmission rebuilt in her 1998 BMW 740i. Right before the one year warranty expired, she took the car back and had the transmission rebuilt again. Now, it is 2011 and Susan's car is having problems again with the transmission. The mechanic that usually works on her car does not work for Vasile anymore. Does Susan take her car to Vasile's shop where she has the warranty? No, she finds where the mechanic is working and takes her car to him. She wants this mechanic to honor the warranty from Vasile's shop. When Vasile does not provide information about the specifics of the warranty, Susan sues Vasile. This does not make any sense. If she took the car to  Vasile, he would have fixed the car, since it was still under the warranty. Susan does not win her case because the warranty is valid only if she brought the car back to Vasile. Why didn't she take the car to Vasile? Why does Susan need to have the transmission rebuilt every year? Why did Susan think Vasile would have to pay for another rebuilt transmission? What is going on?

I Do Not Want To Pay The Rent!

Albert is suing Jim for $2701.00. This is for back rent. Jim is counterclaiming for $3000.00 because he claims mold in the apartment and the basement made him sick. Albert rented an apartment to Jim and his girlfriend. Jim did not pay rent for part of February, all of March and April. Jim says the reason he did not pay rent is because there was so much mold in the apartment, he suffered from health issues. The bathroom does not have a ventilation fan and this caused a very humid environment. Jim shows pictures of the bathroom and there is mold growth visible. Albert says that Jim made him aware of the problem and he tried to take care of it. Albert hired a mold remediation company. The company tried twice to evaluate the problem. Jim would not let them in. Jim explains that when Albert would call the night before and tell him the company would be there the next day, it was not enough time. If  Jim was so worried about the mold he would have accommodated the mold remediation company. Also, why would Jim continue to live there? If the mold was making him sick, why not look for another place to live? Jim claims he could not find anywhere else to live. I am sure there are other apartments in the area if the conditions were so bad. The Judge finds that Jim does owe back rent. There is a discrepancy over  $800.00, given as a security deposit. Albert cannot prove that it was not rolled over to the new lease. Becasuse of this, Albert is awarded $1726.00, instead of the $2701.00, he is asking for. Jim does not get anything on his counterclaim. He made no attempt to let Albert fix the mold problem. Why do some people think they deserve a free ride? Jim and his girlfriend rented an apartment, they were responsible to pay the rent. They were responsible to let Albert try to fix a problem. It is a waste of everyone's time when people do not abide by their commitment. What is gained by forcing a landlord to go to court to get the rent? What is gained by not letting the landlord fix a problem? What do you think?

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

To the world, you are just one person. To your dog, you are the world.

-reader submission from a bumper sticker

People's Court - 8 10 2012 - Friday

I Want My Money Back Now!

Diane and Constance were good friends. Once again, money gets in the way of a friendship. When are we going to learn that friendship and money do not mix? Diane is suing Constance for $390.00. Diane tries to explain how she came up with $390.00. There is money lent for a plane ticket, there was money given to return to a family member. It is somewhat convoluted how much money was lent and how much money was returned. No one has written anything down, no one has kept track of the money. Diane would lend her friend money and a portion of the money would be returned. Then she would lend her more money. Constance says they were such good friends they would lend each other money all the time. What went wrong? Diane wanted her money back and did not want to wait. Diane left several voicemail messages for Constance. They were not very nice messages. Since they were in a different language, the Judge gets help from someone in the gallery. The Judge swears in a fifteen year old, after he agrees to translate the voicemail messages. He explains that there is cursing and demands of the return of money. What is not included is the amount of money that is owed. Constance says she accidentally erased the message that mentioned the amount of the loan. This is very convenient. Constance said she returned $90.00. She said she gave a check to a friend to give to Diane. It is funny, Constance has not mentioned this in her written response to the complaint. Constance has not made any other attempt to pay the money back. Neither woman is very credible in their testimony. Considering how much money Diane said has been returned to her, the Judge awards her $270, not the $390.00, she is asking for. I am constantly amazed how people allow their friendships to be destroyed over money. Friends should not lend each other money. When money is involved, people seem to forget the value of their friendship. They also find it very easy to be cruel to each other.  It really is a shame that this friendship is over due to money. What do you think?

The Roof  Is Leaking- I Want My Money Back!

Tynesa is suing Donna for $200.00. Tynesa wanted to rent a house from Donna. They agreed to meet at the house on Friday. They met at the house and did a walkthrough. Tynesa signed a lease and gave Donna the money for the deposit to hold the house. This actually was a partial deposit. Tynesa was supposed to give the rest of the deposit in a few days. After Tynesa signed the lease, she changed her mind about the rental. Tynesa says it is because she saw the roof was leaking and the floors were unclean. Donna told Tynesa she would fix everything before she moved in. Tynesa says that Donna told her she would only fix what was required by HUD. This was a government subsidized rental. Tynesa's son has asthma and she did not want him to be exposed to mold. It is interesting she did not see any of these problems before she signed the lease. Tynesa asked Donna for the deposit back. When she refused to return it to her, Tynesa called the police. Tynesa said this all happened on Friday. Donna says this is not how it happened. They met on Friday and then again on Monday. She said Tynesa had called her on Monday to say she changed her mind and wanted her deposit back. Donna explained it was a nonrefundable deposit. She had a signed lease and was not going to return the money. Also, on Monday, Donna received a call from someone who wanted to rent the house. She went to the house and Tynesa was there with a man. Donna says they both demanded Tynesa's money back and were yelling at her. Donna called the police. Tynesa denies this. The Judge gives her a chance to change her testimony. She is adamant that she was there on Friday and not on Monday. The Judge calls a recess to contact the  police department. The Judge returns and now we find out that Tynesa lied. The police were called to the house on Monday. Donna does not have to give back the deposit. Why would Tynesa lie? Did she think it would really help her get her deposit money back? What do you think?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Sylvia is suing Tanya for $800.00. This is for a shed that was damaged during Hurricane Irene. A tree limb from one of Tanya's trees fell on the roof of the shed. When Sylvia saw the damage, she had her landscaper speak with Tanya. The landscaper was going to charge $75.00 or $80.00 (depends on who is telling the story) to remove it. Tanya said this was too expensive. The landscaper offered to take it off the shed and throw it in Tanya's yard for $20.00. Tanya declined this offer also. Sylvia and her son went over to talk to Tanya at a different time. Tanya said she would deal with it on Saturday. When it was not done on Saturday, Sylvia called her. Tanya said she would deal with it on Wednesday. It was not done by Wednesday, and it is still not done. Tanya explains that she called a tree removal service and they were backlogged because of the storm. There was some laughter on the courtroom, when the Judge thought she was saying a tree boo boo company. This really was cute. Tanya said she is still waiting for them to show up. Sylvia did not want to wait and filed this lawsuit. The kicker is that legally Tanya is not responsible to remove the limb from the shed. The tree was not dead, dying or diseased. The limb broke off the tree during the Hurricane and it is considered an act of God. Sylvia wants a new shed, although Tanya says that Sylvia said she did not care about the shed. Sylvia denies saying this. She wants Tanya to replace her shed. This is not going to happen because the Judge rules in favor of Tanya. It is unfortunate that Sylvia was not more patient. If she was, Tanya would have had the tree limb removed from the shed. In the hallway, Tanya says she is still going to have  the tree limb removed from the shed. Do you think she is really going to do this?

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

You are young at any age if you are planning for tomorrow.

-Unknown

People's Court - 8 3 2012 - Friday

The Blue Collar Is Faded!

Ceasia is suing the cleaners for the cost of clothing that she claims they ruined. The clothes were all Ralph Lauren, purchased for a polo party. She has not brought any of the items with her. This is Ceasia's day in court, this is when she should bring the evidence for her case. Because of this oversight, her lawsuit is reduced from $369.50 to $150.00. Dulce is representing the cleaners. She admits that the items brought in, a sweater, a tshirt and the polo shirt were damaged. She fixed the sweater and the tshirt and Ceasia accepted them. The polo shirt is the problem. The blue collar was faded. Dulce explains that the shirt is not going to look brand new after being worn and cleaned. Dulce had offered $60.00 when she was told the shirt was damaged. When she saw the receipt, Dulce said that was too much money. She was not going to pay for it. Ceasia's boyfriend thought Dulce was being disrespectful and he called the police. Why would someone call the police over a polo shirt and disrespect? He explains that he felt he needed to call the police before Dulce called them. I think he should have left the store and then decide how to proceed. I do not think the police need to use their resources responding to someone who is upset over a faded collar. Ceasia's boyfriend wanted it on the record that he was not satisfied with the dry cleaners. Okay, now we get to see the polo shirt. Dulce has brought it with her. The Judge examines the polo shirt and is struggling to see the problems. Looking at the shirt, the Judge says she would have liked to see the other items. It is a shame they are not available for her to look at. Ceasia forgot them. Ceasia's boyfriend says they were damaged, repaired and now the fabric is ruined. Unfortunately, there is no way to confirm this. Ceasia loses the case. In the hallway, her boyfriend says he is going to donate the shirt. Having high expectations is not a bad thing, but we all need to be realistic. Once an item of clothing is worn and cleaned, it will never look brand new. What do you think?

I Am Selling You A Free Boat! 

Marc is suing Bill for $500.00. Bill is counterclaiming for $500.00. Marc has a case, Bill does not. Marc was going to buy a fishing boat from Bill's good friend. He gave Bill a $200.00 deposit, a battery and $100.00 for his time. Marc believes Bill is acting as a broker for the sale. Bill admits he received the $200.00 and the battery from Marc. He said he returned the battery, he even took a picture of where he left the battery. Bill shows the picture of the battery left outside of Marc's garage. Why leave something outside when no one is home? How do you know they are going to get it? Marc says the battery was not left for him. The Judge does not believe him. The bigger issue here is the fact of boat ownership. Marc takes his friend, Robert, to see the boat. Robert is going to go in on the purchase of the boat. When the two men are looking at the boat, someone tells them it is great they are removing the boat from the property. The two men also find out that the boat is being given away for free. This causes a tense moment between the two men, since Robert was going to give Marc money towards buying the boat. You do not have to purchase a free boat. Bill has so much to explain. He was getting the boat for free and was selling it to Marc. He did not tell Marc any of this. Marc thought he was buying the boat from a friend of Bill's. Bill did not remove the boat from the owner's property, he did not transfer the title to his name. Is Bill really the owner of the boat? Can Bill sell the boat? No, he cannot because he does not own the boat. Marc has a letter from Bob, the owner of the boat. In the letter, Bob calls Bill a scamster. Bill says there is no proof the letter is legitimate. He says Bob is his friend and he did not write this letter. The Judge wants to call Bob. Bill should have his phone number since they are friends. Bills says this is a new cell phone and he has Bob's phone number in his rolodex. Do people still use a rolodex for phone numbers? Now, Bill shows a letter that Marc sent to his ex-wife. Bill claims this letter caused tension  between himself and his wife, oops! his ex-wife. He said they are divorced, but live in the same house for financial reasons. This tension is the reason for the counterclaim. He is not able to prove that any tension caused by this letter would be worth any amount of money. On top of that, he needs to pay Marc back the $200.00. Bill denies receiving the extra $100.00, so Marc does not get this money back. Marc did not breach a contract of sale, since Bill was not the actual owner of the boat. Bill had no right to sell a boat that did not belong to him. Beware of deals that are too good to be true! Also, get receipts when money changes hands!

My Diamond Ring is Missing - I Know Who Stole It!

Marita hired David's moving company and is now suing him for $5000.00. This is the value of a ring that was missing after the move. David gave her an estimate of $1600.00 for the move, the actual cost was almost double. The Judge says this is normal for the industry. David tries to defend this practice. The Judge says it is not necessary. This is not an issue, since the case is about a missing ring. Marita claims her diamond ring was missing after the move. She packed her jewelry box and the movers put it into her car. Marita remembers that she carried the box into her house and put it in her bedroom. Initially, she has problems with the movers because they scratched the the floors in her new home. It was beneficial for Marita that she purchased insurance for the move. She put in a claim for the scratched floors and was paid. Ten days after the move, Marita notices her diamond ring is missing. Where can it be? Of course it has to be the movers! I do not understand why Marita is so quick to jump to this conclusion. She says they are the only ones who had access to her bedroom. She did not see anyone actually take the ring. She has no proof. Marita contacted David, he suggested she file a police report and submit to insurance. When the claim was denied by the insurance company, Marita decided to sue David's company. David says that he has never had a problem with theft in the past. His employees have been with him for many years. He has complete trust in his employees. Marita loses her case. In the hallway, Marita says she does not understand why she bought insurance. David says he would like to change the image of moving companies, he is a nice guy! I have a feeling the ring is going to show up, I do not think the movers took it. What do you think?

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

Remember being a success without happiness is meaningless.

-Richard Denny

People's Court - 8 2 2012 - Thursday

I Did Not Damage Your Car!

Peter is suing Frank for $289.13. They were both in the supermarket parking lot. Peter's wife saw a shopping cart hit their car. She confronted the woman that let go of the cart. She told the woman she saw the cart hit the car. The woman cursed at her. Peter confronted the man, told him that his wife hit his car with a cart and asked to exchange information. The man told Peter that the woman was not his wife and they both got in the car and drove away. Peter quickly got the license plate of the fleeing car. Now in court, we find out the man and the woman are, Frank and Janette. Frank says that Janette did not damage the car. When Peter approached him and told him his car was damaged, he denied it. Frank did not see any damage to Peter's car. Janette explains that the cart slipped from her hands, but she was able to catch it before it hit the car. She did not see any damage to Peter's car. Janette denies cursing at Peter's wife. She is very adamant that she did nothing. She says that Peter's wife was yelling at her and she did not understand why. Janette also says that they were not fleeing, they did not know they did anything. Frank says that Peter and his wife were scaring Janette, that is why he left. Peter describes the damage and has the proof of repair. He spent $289.13 to have the scratches and the gouge fixed. Peter does not have any pictures of the damage. Since he has the receipt for the repair and the eyewitness testimony of his wife, he wins. The problem is he is suing Frank not Janette. Frank is not responsible for the damage. The Judge asks Janette if she would be willing to an amended complaint. Janette says yes and she is found responsible for the cost of the damage to Peter's car. In the hallway, Janette says she is a firm believer of honesty. Peter's wife says if Frank and Janette had behaved differently, it would be a different story. I think that means that there might not be a court case. Why can't people just be civil to each other? What ever happened to treating people as you would want to be treated? What has happened to taking responsibility for our actions? What do you think?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Elissia wanted to have a birthday party for her mom. She rented the local VFW hall. She hired Frances, her son's great grandmother, to cater the event. She gave Frances $1000.00 for the food needed for the party. The party was going to be on August 27th. Two days before the event, Elissia received a call from the commander of the VFW hall. He explained to her the hall would be closed due to Hurricane Irene. The governor declared a state of emergency and he was cancelling all upcoming events. Elissia called Frances to let her know. Frances said she had already done most of the shopping and had spent $700.00. Elissia told her she would pick up the remaining cash, groceries and receipts. When Elissia arrived she told Frances she would not accept any food without receipts. Frances did not have receipts for all of the food she had purchased. These two woman could not work this out. It is unfortunate since they are family. Frances explains that she did not save the receipts, since she had quoted Elissia a flat rate of $1400.00. Frances did return some of the food to Sam's Club, to get some of Elissia's money back. Elissia wanted all of her money back since she gave Frances notice about the cancellation of the party. Towards the end of the case, Elissia mentions a contract, a written contract. After all, she watches People's Court and she knows how important a contract is. The Judge is very pleased that Elissia has taken the initiative to write a contract. The Judge rules on the case, since the VFW hall had to close due to the hurricane, Elissia wins the case. In the hallway, Frances said she did offer Elissia an alternate date. Elissia says that she never had a party. Maybe, she would throw a party for her mom's next birthday. Spoiler alert - her mom is standing right next to her! Hopefully, this situation will not affect the family situation. Sometimes it is not a good idea to do business with family. When all goes well, that is great. When there are problems, it can get very complicated. What do you think?

Help Me - My Tenants Won't Pay Their Rent!

Lucia is suing Dennis and John for $5000.00. She hired Dennis's company to find her a tenant. John is an employee of the company. Lucia claims they misrepresented the terms of a contract. They actually did misrepresent what they were able to offer her. The only reason they are not found responsible to pay Lucia, is that the lease they were responsible for is over. They authored a lease for Lucia that was for one year. The tenants were eligible for a government program, Work Advantage. The rent is paid by the government. This was appealing to Lucia, since it is guaranteed rent. Why is there a problem? Lucia  wants $1500.00 a month rent. The government would only be paying $1316.00. Dennis and John provide a side agreement for the tenants to pay the remaining $284.00 directly to Lucia. A side agreement is not allowed through this government program. The Judge calls them on this illegal practice. Hopefully, they stop doing this, since it definitely causes problems. Lucia explains that the tenants no longer are paying  their rent, they are operating a tattoo parlor out of the apartment and they are smoking pot. Lucia explains that she is trying to evict them, but they have an additional year on the lease. The Judge tries to explain to Lucia that since the original lease is over, there should not have been an automatic renewal. Lucia says she retained an attorney and was told she could not do anything for another year. Lucia got rid of this attorney and is pursuing the eviction on her own. Lucia cannot prove that she is out $5000.00. Since the paperwork that Dennis and John provided has expired, they cannot be held responsible for the current conditions. Lucia feel it is wrong that she lost the case. She still continues to talk about a 2 year lease. The two men admit they were embarrassed by what was said in court. They really need to take a close look at their business practices. They might have won the case, but they lost in morality. I hope Lucia can get everything worked out, so she can collect rent for her apartment. Good luck Lucia!

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

Some people grin and bear it; others smile and do it.

-Unknown 

People's Court: 6-28-12: Honesty is the Best Policy

Being truthful seems to be a lost art. Remember when our word was our bond, an agreement was sealed with a handshake? Those days are over. Embellishing, exaggerating or outright lying is so common today. Honesty is the best policy, especially in court.

A couple rents a luxury condo for $6000.00 a month. Soon after they move in, the windows leak whenever it rains. They let the landlord know and when the repairs are not done, they decide to pay less rent. The landlord is aware of the problem, she experienced it when she lived there and did contact the builder to say it was happening again. Why wasn't it fixed? This is not made clear. What is made clear is that for 4 months the tenants keep back rent each month. They explain they decided on the amount by calculating how much of the apartment was not habitable. They have a floor plan of the apartment, no pictures of the actual problem. There were pictures taken by the super of the building after the fact. The Judge decides they have exaggerated the situation and decides they do not get back the full security deposit. Also, it is not a good idea to withhold rent without documentation. Clearly stating a problem and proving it has occurred is the best idea when you have to prove it in court.

Best friends for 39 years. Alysa and Lisa have been friends since kindergarten. What a shame it has fallen apart over $1500.00. When Alysa is arrested for violating an order of protection, she calls her best friend to bail her out. She lets Lisa know where to find the money. She even tells her to take some extra for herself. For some reason, when the bail is returned to Lisa, she keeps it. Lisa is not straightforward with the court or with her former friend. First she denies receiving the money, then she says he mother signed and deposited the checks without her knowledge. Another story is that she was supposed to keep it. Why would Alyssa ask for it back if she had told her to keep it? It was not her money to keep. When the checks were sent to her, she should have called her friend. She needs to pay it back. Unfortunately, the damage is done and the friendship is over. Lisa's son has been involved and they are not going to forgive Alyssa for her bad behavior. In the hallway, Lisa's parting words are, "good riddance". So, so sad.

Justin and Brian thought is would be a good idea to trade vehicles without the proper paperwork. Both men had their vehicles posted on Craigslist to sell. They met and decided to make an even trade. Justin did not have a clear title to his vehicle and Brian could not find the title. This should have raised numerous red flags. But the two men forged ahead. Speaking of forging... Justin  provides a work order from his job for repairs needed. He works at this fine establishment and explains he is providing the labor. He has paid half of the $4475.04 and is making payments to his boss to pay off the rest. Brian explains that the car he received from Justin, cannot be put on the road since the title is not clear and it needs major repairs. The Judge calls a recess and when she returns she is very angry. The work order provided by Justin is fabricated and he has not paid any money to his boss. It is a blatant lie. She orders the vehicles switched back. The deal has now been undone! You get the feeling Brian does not want the truck back. He delivers pizzas and does not want a gas-guzzling truck. Justin admits being a liar and should be totally embarrassed and humiliated. Why would someone do this in court on national TV? Your guess is as good as mine.

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

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.

-Unknown Source

Remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings!