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 - 1 14 2013 - Monday

Alexis is suing Frances for $1480.00.

Frances has a countersuit.

Alexis and her boyfriend were living in an apartment rented by Frances. Even though they were told that smoking was not allowed, they continued to smoke. When Frances smelled marijuana she told them again it was not allowed. When Frances noticed people were coming and going at all hours, she felt that they were dealing drugs. Frances told them to move out. The boyfriend moved out right away but Alexis stayed on. Finally Frances had enough and told Alexis she had to leave. Alexis was upset by this and reported Frances for having an illegal apartment. Alexis was starting to move out and had left furniture behind. Frances took the key back from Alexis. When Alexis wanted to get the rest of the furniture, Frances told her she threw it out. She did this because she  was not happy being reported for the illegal apartment. 

Clearly, these two women were not able to communicate effectively with each other. They were both angry and not dealing with the situation in a business-like manner. After Alexis moved out, she noticed 4 pairs of her shoes had been damaged. The closet they were in had water damage and the shoes were covered with mold. Frances blames Alexis for causing the leak. Both sides are at fault and both sides have to pay the other. After the Judge decides what damages they are entitled to, it results in the landlord receiving $1400.00, not the almost $5000.00 she was countersuing for. The landlord was not entitled to back rent because it was an illegal apartment. She was entitled to the damages she could prove. In the hallway, Alexis claims that some of the damages were caused by them killing bugs. When she was in the courtroom, she never mentioned bugs. The landlord, Frances, feels that the verdict was fair and will never rent again. 

What I find very interesting is that Alexis did not care the apartment was illegal until she wanted to get back at Frances. Why do people need to be so vindictive? Why do they have to become so angry with each other that common sense flies out the window?

Omari is suing Nathaniel for $5000.00.

Omari hired Nathaniel to install an air conditioner unit for his house. He had received several other estimates and each one specified the size of the unit. On the contract from Nathaniel the size of the unit was not on it. After he installed the unit, Omari felt that it did not cool his house. Omari hired an air conditioner specialist to evaluate the situation. He had in writing from the specialist that the air conditioner unit was undersized and that it was not calibrated correctly.

Nathaniel admits he is not licensed to install this type of air conditioner unit. He says he replaced the unit based on the size of the existing one. Unfortunately, when Omari bought the house the air conditioner did not work. Nathaniel did not do sizing calculations and did not realize the existing unit was undersized.

It is very clear that Nathaniel did not do the job correctly. Omari does not receive $5000.00 because of this, he only receives what he paid for the job, $3820.07. Also, Nathaniel needs to pick up the unit from Omari.

It is a shame that the communication broke down between these two men. When Omari initially complained to Nathaniel, there was a negotiation that could have worked out. Unfortunately both men become hostile towards each other and wound up in court. The further shame of this case, is that these two men were friends. Hopefully they can get past this situation and renew their friendship. Friends should not do business with each other, especially if the contract is not clear. It easily can become uncomfortable and awkward. What do you think?

Selena and Omer sue Cesar for $2800.00

Selena and Omer purchased a three piece livingroom set from Cesar's furniture store. They prepaid for the set. When it was delivered, Omer was not happy with the recliner and refused delivery. Omer thought he was buying a power recliner. The recliner was manual, it did not even have a lever. When he called Cesar and was told the recliner did not come in a power model, he decided to sue. Why is he suing for the entire amount of the purchase when he kept the other 2 pieces of the set? This is not clear, except that Omer is focused on the power recliner. The fact that he is so adamant about a power recliner would be a very good reason for it to have been specified on the contract. It is not. Also, when Cesar realized that Omer wanted a power recliner, he called to find out if this model had that feature. He found out it did not and never let Omer know. Cesar needs to learn how to communicate with his customers. 

Omer does not get his money back but he is entitled to get his recliner back. Cesar agrees to deliver the recliner to Omer. At first he said he would make him pick it up and then he agrees to the delivery. The Judge reminds them both to play nice in the hallway!

Once again, effective communication was needed. Hopefully Cesar will learn from this and care about what his customers want. This will serve him well in the future. What do you think? 

Communication is very important in all three of these cases. People need to be very clear about what they want. When you enter into a contract, check the information before signing. This will save everyone headaches and heartaches!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 10 23 2012 - Tuesday

Working For A Living

Deborah is suing Paola for $5000.00. This is for wages, a dinner, check fees, defamation of character and pain and suffering. Deborah worked for Paola taking care of her autistic sister. She also did some bookkeeping for her. When she joined Paola on a business trip, the two women had lunch together. Deborah paid for the dinner and expected Paola to pay her back. Then Deborah lent her $450.00 and the check Paola paid her back with was rubber. After the check bounced, Paola did make good on it but did not pay the bank fees. Then Paola did not pay Deborah for the work she had done. Paola admits she owes Deborah the money for the wages, but denies the money for the lunch. She starts to cry and and says she is going to be sick. Why is this? She starts talking about a friendship between the two of them. This does not make any sense. If they were friends, why wouldn't she pay Deborah. Paola also tried to get Deborah fired. She went to the restaurant where she worked and told her boss that Deborah was stalking her. She said that she waited this long to sue because she was asked to sign a statement at work that she would keep her job if she did not sue Paola. Deborah does not have any proof of this. The only aspects of the case Deborah could prove is the wages and the check fees. She recovers $567.00. Why do people treat each other this way? It seemed like there was a friendship between the two women, yet Paola did not treat Deborah with respect. Deborah did the right thing to sue for what was owed to her. I am sure she was hurt by this experience but cannot get money for that. 

Friends?

Anna is suing Nicole for $1394.50. These two young women were friends and Anna lent Nicole money over and over again. Why would she keep lending her money if it was not being paid back? Anna says she was being nice. It seems she was trying to be nice to a friend. Whenever Nicole needed help Anna was there for her. Wouldn't you value a friend like this? I would. Not only did Nicole not pay her back, but now she denies the loans. Facebook messages prove otherwise. Nicole has to pay Anna back $950.00. The reason Anna does not get all the money back is because she cannot prove all of the loans. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a friend sign a promissory note. If a friend is in need of a loan and they are truly going to pay it back, they will sign an I.O.U. If they do not want to sign, then do not lend the money! 

Permission To Park

Joshua is suing Edward for $1478.99. This is for the cost of repairs to his car and for a rental car. Joshua was visiting his grandfather in a senior retirement village. When he parked his car, he saw Edward outside. Joshua approached him and asked if it was okay to leave his car where he was parked. Edward said yes. Then Edward went to back out of his driveway, forgot Joshua was parked on the street and backed into him. It is refreshing that Edward is honest about this. He is not used to cars being there since it is a no parking zone. The problem occurs when Edward thinks the repair is too expensive. Joshua actually goes to Edward's mechanic. Unfortunately, the mechanic only replaces the taillight and leaves the rest of the repair undone. Joshua does recover the cost of the repair and the cost for a rental car for a total of $1037.18. I think it is unfortunate that Edward forgot the car was there, he still needs to look when he backs up.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

I can, therefore I am.

~Simone Weil

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 - 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 - 7 30 2012 - Monday

The Stamp Collection is Worthless!

James and Andrew were friends for five years. When Andrew needed help with his mortgage payment and his child support payments, he turned to James. His friend had no problem lending him the money to help him out of this predicament. He loaned him $5500.00. Andrew agreed to pay James back the money within one year. They did not have anything in writing, but they both agree the money was a loan and it was supposed to be paid back. What they do not agree on is how the money was going to be paid back. James thought he would get money, Andrew was giving him some cash and items of unknown value. How is he going to know when the debt is paid back? The first item was a watch. James had it appraised at $1400.00. James thought this was being given to him as collateral on the loan. Andrew was giving it to him as payment. The next item was a stamp collection. Neither men had an appraisal done. How did Andrew know how much he was paying back to James? Andrew said the value of the stamp collection would satisfy the loan. How does he know this when he did not have the collection appraised? James did take it to have someone look at it, but did not pay for an appraisal. He does not have anything in writing regarding the value of the collection. He did not want to pay for the appraisal. You really can not blame him. Why should he spend money to find out the value of this item? James watches as Andrew lives a very full life. Andrew went to Africa to get married. He also had an extended honeymoon in Vegas. After that, there was a party at a clubhouse. James felt he should get his money back before Andrew spends it. James even said he would have been okay with a payment plan. When he asks Andrew again for the money, Andrew gets really angry. He thinks he has satisfied the loan with the stamp collection. Andrew explains that his wife has paid for all of the trips and the party. This is the same wife that he has split up with, he says because James has been harassing him for the money. Andrew also believes his wife had a relationship with James. Who really knows what is going on? We do know that Andrew does owe James the money. Since he gave him some cash payments and the watch, the balance is $2350.00. The stamp collection is returned to Andrew since no one can confirm the value. I think it is a shame that Andrew took advantage of his friend. Who will lend someone that amount of money with such relaxed terms of repayment. I really believe that if Andrew would have made some attempt to pay his friend back, they would have remained friends. What do you think?

Who Turned On the Lights?

Casey is suing Jean for $1500.00. They had a written contract for the rental of a ballroom. Casey had planned the wedding reception to be from 8:00 pm to 3:00 am. The wedding planner had approached Casey and said she needed additional time for the setup of the reception hall. He did not agree to changing the time. Unfortunately, he had signed over all decisions to the wedding planner and the mother-in-law. This was not a good idea. He entire case rests on the fact that he was not the final decision maker. He might have said no to the wedding planner, but then he was overruled. Unfortunately, he did not know about the change of plans. At midnight when the lights were turned on, his bride burst into tears. She was so upset that her wedding reception was ruined. By the time Jean was notified about the problem and was doing everything to solve it, the guests were leaving. This is a shame. A woman's wedding day is so important, no one should ruin it. Things happen and they get handled, but this should never have occurred. The wedding planner should have respected Casey's decision. Casey should not have given the final word to anyone else. Because he gave away his authority, Casey loses this case. The Judge encourages him to sue the wedding planner. She gives him advice on how to proceed. I think there comes a time to cut your losses and move on. I do not think he would win since he did give away the decision making. I hope Casey and his bride can remember the fun they had at the reception. His bride says it was ruined, that is not a good memory to have. Her guests must have enjoyed themselves until the lights went on. Remember the fun, forget about the bad stuff. Blaming the mother-in-law for ruining the wedding is not a good way to start a marriage. What do you think? 

The Loan Is Approved - The Loan Is Denied!

Foday and Alhaji, father and son, purchase a used car from Michael. The loan application is filled out by the dad. He says he is the owner of his own business. They leave the lot with the car, pending bank verification of the loan. Michael says this is common practice. Typically, there are no issues with this process. This time there is a problem, a major problem. A week after the purchase, Michael lets them know the bank denied the loan. The car needs to be returned. This should be the end of the story, but it is not. The car had been vandalized two days before the phone call. Someone threw a brick at the car and it broke both the front and back windshields. There is also some minor body damage. There is insurance on the car and everything is covered. The car is repaired. Michael picks up the car from the auto repair shop. Again, the story should end here, but it does not. Why are we in court today? Foday and Alhaji paid $4000.00 for the car, Michael does not want to return the money. He says the car has depreciated by this value because of the damage and the additional mileage. Is he kidding? The car was fixed and he had to know it was going to be driven. It's a car! Michael does not have any evidence of the depreciation. He claims that non standard parts were used for the repair, he cannot prove it.He has  no proof from the bank regarding the reason for the denial. What he lacks in evidence, he makes up in personality. He does have a charismatic smile. He continues to smile while the Judge rules against him. He has to give the money back for the sale of the car. He had no right to keep it. Michael continues to smile as he says, " She's kind of hot!" He leaves the court smiling and glad his customer is happy. 

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

A delay is better than disaster.

-Unknown

People's Court: 7-11-12 **** Friends **** Test Drive **** Invitations

James and Steven are friends. They met in a recovery program. James lent money to Steven to buy a motorcycle. Steven denies the loan. Of course, there is nothing in writing. After the fact, James wants Steven to sign a promissory note. This does not go over well, they get into a physical fight. They both claim the other threw the first punch. Since Steven wants $3000.00 in medical bills, he needs to prove that he was attacked. Witnesses to the fight would make all the difference. Steven claims there were a few people that saw the fight but they do not want to get involved. He has so many excuses, some are elderly, another wears an ankle bracelet and can not be in New York. He also claims James was trying to steal his fiancee. He does not win his counterclaim. Meanwhile, James has a witness to the purchase of the motorcycle. The man that sold the motorcycle tells the court that James handed him the money and Steven rode the motorcycle away and crashed it! Steven does not sound like he is having too much luck. The shame of it is, these two men had a friendship and allowed money and jealously to get in the way. Also, James denies he ever had any desires towards his friend's fiancee. What caused this situation to escalate to physical violence? I believe the money transaction should have been made clear from the beginning. Before the money changed hands, both men should have been agreed on the loan. Also, Steven's fiancee should not have gone to lunch and spent time alone with James. On a happy note, Steven and his fiancee did work out their problems and are now married.

Titus buys a used car without taking it for a test drive. Jeff, the owner of the used car lot says this is common. I do not understand how anyone can buy a car, new or used without taking it for a test drive. Titus tells the court that 15 years ago, he bought a car from the same lot from Jeff's dad. and did not take it for a test drive. Since Jeff's dad was so reputable and he had no problem with that car, he felt he could trust Jeff. It really isn't about trust, it is about the car. What if it is just uncomfortable to drive? After the purchase of the used car, Titus drives the car away and comes back ten minutes later. He says there are problems with the car. Oh my, a test drive would have been a good idea!!!!  Jeff is willing to work with Titus even though there is no warranty on the car. Titus has signed three documents that it is an as-is sale. Titus does not want to take any responsibility for buying a used car without performing his own due diligence. Titus continues to have problems with the car, Jeff keeps telling him to have it checked out. Even after Titus loses the case, Jeff is still willing to work with him to keep him happy. He does not have to do this, but still extends the offer.

Jonelle hires Orrett, a friend of her uncle, to print 120 invitations for a surprise party for her mother. She wants them done quickly to hand out at a family gathering. Orrett agrees to print them for her right away. He should not have made promises he could not keep. He starts the job and then runs out of ink. To save money, he orders ink online. This adds an additional delay. None of this would have happened if he would have gone to a store for the ink. He wants to save a few dollars and now winds up in court and does not even stick to a straight story. First he says he would have the invitations ready, then he says he would try to have them ready. He says he would return the money, he gave Jonelle's uncle a check, then he says he is not returning her money. It is easy to see that Orrett is not believable. He is also counterclaiming for $80.00, even though he did not return Jonelle's money. Now he has to return her money and he is not getting an additional $80.00 for his time printing the invitations he says he threw away. He had an invitation to show the Judge, I guess he did not throw them all away!  Why not just tell the truth? Things happen and we need to be flexible. In a case where time is of the essence, Orrett should have bought the ink locally to avoid  the delay. He should have taken the commitment to the job much more seriously.

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

They can because they think they can.

-Virgil

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be included in future blogs.