People's Court - 8 20 2012 - Monday

How Many Times Do I Have To Return To Your Store?

Valerie is suing her dry cleaners for $400.00 ($100.00 for her dress and the rest is for harassment). Valerie left 10 garments to be cleaned, when she picked them up, one was missing. She was asked to come back. When she returned, she met the owner, Emmanuel. He explained to her that the beads on the dress exploded during the cleaning process. He wanted more time to clean it. Valerie agreed and came back to the store a third time. The dress was still ruined., Valerie wanted $100.00 for the dress. This is what she paid for it, several years ago. Emmanuel offered her $50.00 due to depreciation of the dress. This money was to be used in store credit. Valerie did not want store credit, she wanted to be paid for her ruined dress. Emmanuel said he would think about it and she should come back. Valerie left and came back to the store a fourth time. When she got to the store this time, Emmanuel was waiting on a customer. Valerie waited and finally Emmanuel helped her. He asked her to wait, while he pressed the dress. When he brought the dress out, he hung it up and then asked her to wait again while he called his lawyer. Valerie was tired of waiting, she took the dress and left the store. An employee of the store saw this and told Emmanuel that she was leaving with the dress. Emmanuel ran after her, yelling and then tried to stop her from driving away. He leaned on the back of the car. When another car pulled in, he had the driver block Valerie from leaving. Emmanuel called the police. The police said it was a civil matter and Valerie should take him to court. And here we are....what a major ordeal to make over a dress. I really think the police have better things to do. Although, the way Emmanuel acted, something far worse could have happened. It is never a good idea to try to stop a moving car. Why did Emmanuel have to make Valerie return to the store four times? The first time she returned, he needed to explain to her how the dress was ruined in the dry cleaning process. Emmanuel explains that his staff is not trained to tell customers this type of information. Why didn't Emmanuel call Valerie to explain about the dress? Why make her come back to the store so many times? There is no excuse for this! Valerie is awarded $50.00 for the cost of the dress. She does not get harassment, even though she was very convincing that she almost had a heart attack when Emmanuel chased her when she was trying to drive away! Valerie is satisfied with the outcome, she just wanted Emmanuel to learn that he has to be fair to people. I hope Emmanuel did learn this. I also hopes he trains his staff to explain problems to his customers. This way they do not have to keep coming back to his store unless it is to drop off and pick up clothing. What do you think?

I Want Tony Montana Back!

Tracy is suing Cindy for $1216.70. This is for the value of her cat, rent and damages to window blinds. Tracy rented her second bedroom to Cindy for $170.00 a week, including utiities. Tracy had a dog and a cat. Her Maine Coon cat, Tony Montana, and her dog were the loves of her life. When Tracy went away for a week, she asked Cindy to take care of her pets in exchange for one week's rent. While Tracy was away, she asked her friend, Roger, to keep an eye on everything. Tracy did this because Cindy had recently moved in and she did not know her that well. Why didn't she ask Roger to care for her pets? It would have made sense since Roger was her good friend? During this week, Cindy decided to move out. Tracy said when she found this out she came home early. Cindy says she was gone from Saturday to Saturday, a whole week. When Tracy got home, she said she found a sticky note from Cindy asking Roger to walk the dog. She saw that Cindy was in the process of moving out. Then, Tracy realized that Tony Montana was missing. Where was her cat? Tracy is convinced that Cindy stole her cat. Cindy says she really liked Tony, but she has two cats of her own. Where did the cat go? Maybe through the window that Cindy leaves open in her bedroom. Why does she leave the window open? Cindy says she does not allow Tony in her bedroom. Really, a cat does not try to go where it is not allowed? That is what cats do! Is Cindy responsible for Tony? I believe so, but Tracy is not able to prove that Tony was stolen. Where is Roger, Tracy's good friend? He is not able to be in court, even though he lives locally. Tracy has a recording on her phone from Roger to the Judge. Tracy starts to play it and then the Judge tells her to stop. The Judge is not able to cross-examine a recording. It seems that Roger is making up a story after the fact. If he was so worried about the cat and the dog during the week, he should have done something about it. Does Tracy have any other evidence? She has a series of text messages from herself to Cindy's boyfriend and there is nothing to prove that she knew any of the information that is included in Roger's recording. If anything, the text messages prove that Tracy is a good liar. In her text messages, she says she has two eyewitnesses to Tony's theft. She does not have any witnesses. She is willing to say anything to get her cat back. I understand her frustration, but lying about it, does not help at all. Remember, honesty is always the best policy! Since Tracy has no proof that Cindy stole Tony, she is not awarded the value of the cat. Tracy does get some of the rent money back, since Cindy was not up to date on rent when she moved out.  Tracy is not able to prove that Cindy damaged the blinds, so she has to return the security deposit. This case is not about money. Tracy misses her cat and just wants him back. In the hallway, Cindy's boyfriend says that Tracy did not give the cat attention and he probably left to find a better home. Really, what does this mean? A cat does not leave to find a better home. Does anyone think that Cindy and her boyfriend helped Tony to find a "better" home?

What Happened To My Driveway?

Gary is suing Frank's paving company for $1935.00. Gary hired Frank to repave his asphalt driveway and to seal it. Frank was recommended by a neighbor. When Gary hired Frank, he also got him several more jobs in the neighborhood. Frank did those jobs before he did Gary's. Why? This is never answered. Gary is not happy with the outcome of the job. He shows pictures of the driveway. It is discolored, crumbling and deteriorating. There are even weeds growing through the asphalt. Frank explains this damage is from a snowplow. Gary says he never used a snowplow on the driveway. He only used a snow blower. Why is the driveway a gray color and bumpy looking? Franks says there is only one place in the county to buy asphalt. There is no way to be guaranteed to get the same quality material. The other driveways are perfect. Gary wants his driveway to look like those driveways. Why should he get inferior material? Frank says it is not inferior, it is just different. The weather has so much to do with it. When it is over 75 degrees outside, the asphalt gets soft and and the tires from the car can damage it. This is not the type of damage that is shown in the pictures. Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words. Should Gary have to live with an inferior job? No, he does not. The Judge awards him the $1935.00. In the hallway, Gary says he should have asked for more money. After all, it is going to cost him more to have the driveway removed before it is replaced. I think Gary should have had an estimate from a company for the removal of the driveway. I think he would have won. Whay do you think?

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

The most simple things can bring the most happiness.

- Izabella Scorupco

People's Court - 8 6 2012 - Monday

Put This In Your Pipe And Smoke It!

Douglas is suing David's business for $2314.00. Douglas had 4 grow tents for medical marijuana. Before he could use them, he changed his mind and went into another business. He took the 4 brand new grow tents to David's consignment shop. David sells indoor and outdoor horticultural equipment. Douglas does not have a consignment agreement. For some reason, he never signed one or received one. Douglas does have a claim check to prove he dropped off the 4 tents at David's store at the end of March. In September, Douglas received a call from the manager asking if he would sell 2 of the grow tents  for $2000.00. Douglas agreed. Two days later, Douglas was informed the store had been burglarized and the money was missing. This really should not affect Douglas. The store sold the grow tents, had the money and should pay Douglas. This does not happen. David says the claim check absolves him from his responsibility. The claim check states they are not responsible for lost or missing items. Okay, that is true, except the items were not lost or missing. They were sold and the money was stolen. There is a police report that does not even reference the money. David claims he did not know until 2 days later that the money was missing. How can you overlook a theft of $2000.00? Very, very suspicious. When he realizes the money is missing, he does not call the police to amend the report. Because the theft of the money is not recorded on the police report, David can not submit a claim to his insurance. David's defense is so convoluted, the Judge exclaims to him - put this in your pipe and smoke it - as she rules in favor of Douglas. In the hallway, David claims he did not get a chance to present his case. Douglas is very happy with the outcome. He does not believe David is involved in the theft, he thinks they both know who is responsible. Everyone will be happy to know, that Douglas picked up the remaining 2 grow tents from David's store. These types of cases are very interesting to me. It would seem straight forward that David would have to pay Douglas. Why he would think saying the money was stolen is beyond me. His own paperwork supports the fact that he is responsible to pay Douglas for the sold items. What do you think?

We Are Moving Out - The Mold In The House Is Making Us Sick!

Suzanne and Frank were renting a house from Karin and Mark. They had rented the house since 2005. Frank describes the relationship in favorable terms. Everyone got along. In 2008, Suzanne and Frank started to get sick on a regular basis. Their neighbor, Chris, was an environmental consultant. He brought them a mold kit and then sent it in to a laboratory for analysis. Unfortunately, Suzanne and Frank did not receive the results. Based on a visual inspection prior to sending the mold kit to the lab, Chris told Suzanne and Frank there was mold in the house. They felt this explained their illnesses and decided to move out of the house. Suzanne and Frank claim they gave proper notice. Karin and Mark say they did not get proper notice. Their tenants moved out without paying a full month's rent and also left unpaid water bills. The security deposit is being used to cover these expenses. Suzanne and Frank believe they should get back their security deposit and be paid for heating oil that was left in the oil tank. Frank wrote two notes to their landlords about this. Unfortunately, he quotes different amounts of oil at different prices. His reason for this is that he misread the oil chart. I can understand the amount of oil, but the price of the oil? He knows how much he paid for it. This does not make any sense to me. Regarding the water bills, Suzanne and Frank claim they never paid the water bill during the time they lived in the house. Karin explains that the water bill was in her mother's name and then stumbles over her words as she tries to explain the agreement. She does not have any proof to show the tenants paid the water bill. The Judge awards half of the security deposit to Suzanne and Frank. They also get some money for the heating oil left in the oil tank. Since Karin and Mark have no proof about the water bill, Suzanne and Frank do not have to pay for it. They are able to get back $965.00 of the $1500.00 security deposit. The important lesson in this case, is to document everything you do. Keep important paperwork, correspond by letter or e-mail. Maintaining a paper trail is very essential when you are trying to prove your case! What do you think about this situation?

I Need Evidence For Court?

Barbara is suing James for $1312.89. This is the cost to fix her car after a car accident. Barbara said that James was entering the highway from a ramp and hit the back of her car. After they pulled over and made sure everyone was okay, James told her someone hit him from behind. The impact of the truck hitting him, pushed his car into her car. The police were called and a report was written up. No one at the scene received tickets. James told the police about the truck that hit him, This information is documented in the police report. The damage to the back of James's car is also written on the police report. This is very important, since James came to court completely unprepared. He did not take pictures of the damage to the back of his car. Barbara does not believe there was another vehicle. She said she was moving when James hit her car. James says she was at a standstill. Their stories are so different. Barbara says she did not see a white truck. James says the white truck kept going after it hit him. He did tell Barbara about the truck right away. James also told the police about the truck. The information on the police report about the damage to the back of his vehicle is enough to convince the Judge. Barbara does not win her case. In the hallway, Barbara says the damage to James's car was probably there before the accident. James says he told the truth. I do not think he even realizes how lucky he is. If the police report did not contain the information about the damage to the back of his car, he would not have won the case. It is very important to bring evidence to court. When someone is suing you, honesty and truth are important, but evidence is crucial. 

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

There is no right way to do something wrong.
-Unknown

People's Court - 8 1 2012 - Wednesday

I Am Trying To Save The Kittens!

Debbie is suing Yolanda and Mike for $297.48. This is for the money she has spent on the equipment and veterinary care of six kittens. When Yolanda and Mike called her for assistance, she responded immediately. They had a feral mom cat and six newborn kittens. Debbie asked Yolanda if she would consider a foster situation until the kittens were old enough to be adopted. She would set up a cage in their house, provide them with food, litter and essentials. Debbie also offered to pay for the deworming and vaccinations for the kittens. When it was time to wean the kittens, the mom cat would be spayed and released. The kittens would be socialized by Yolanda's family and be adopted out when old enough. Yolanda understood this to be about 8 weeks. She agreed to this foster situation. Even though she does not like cats, she knew her 5 children would help with the kittens. Several of her children's friends wanted to adopt the kittens. Debbie explained to Yolanda there was an application that needed to be filled out. Four of the six kittens were adopted, Debbie told Yolanda should would be back to pick up the last two kittens. When Yolanda's kids physically fight over the kittens, she decides to get rid of the kittens. Does she call Debbie to come and get the kittens? No, she takes the kittens to the local train station and gives them away to strangers. She claims that she found out Debbie charges an adoption fee. Why would this be a problem? Debbie has paid for all of the expenses involved with the kittens. She is also spending the time to get good homes for the kittens. Debbie explains that the adoption fee covers all care, vet and   future spay/neuter expenses. I would imagine it costs much more than $100.00 each for all of the care provided for the kittens and mom cat. Yolanda thinks Debbie is making money from the adoption fees. She keeps mentioning this fee as if it were wrong. Debbie was doing everything she promised, Yolanda should have kept her end of the bargain. The Judge decides in favor of Debbie, but not for the full amount she is asking. The Judge divides the cost among the kittens and Debbie gets $126.84. Yolanda is counterclaiming for $1000.00. She wants money for carpet cleaning and the labor of fostering the kittens. She has no proof for the cost of the cleaning the carpet and does not get paid for taking care of the kittens. Now, let's talk about giving the kittens away. This was wrong on so many levels. Debbie was keeping her part of the bargain. I am sure she would have rushed over to get the kittens if she knew there was a problem. Debbie obviously is involved in cat rescue because she loves the animals. It is definitely not about the money. What do you think?

This Is A New Crack!!

Alan is suing David's company for $2232.00. This is the cost to repair his driveway. Alan approached David's employees to do work for him. David's employees were doing a job near Alan's house. Alan did not contact David, he wanted the guys to do some side work for him. Right away, we get the feeling this is not a good idea. When they are leaving the job, they backed up onto Alan's lawn. Alan immediately sees this as a way to get them to do additional work for him. When Justin, the supervisor, stops to see what is going on, he tells the workers that David will not be happy about the situation. He does not tell them to leave. He does not call David. This has become a comedy of errors. It continues to get worse. Alan notices a crack in his driveway. He says it was not there before the workers drove their equipment on the driveway. He admits his driveway was not in perfect condition, but this was a new crack. He pays the workers for the job they did, but tells Justin they have to fix the crack. Justin says they are not responsible for it. Alan calls David to tell him about the problem. Alan claims that David tried to offer him sod for his lawn. David denies that he made this offer. David feels that the driveway was in such poor condition, he should not be held responsible. He does admit that his workers should not have been there. He wrote them up, he did not fire them. How can he continue to employ such dishonest workers. They were using company equipment and company time to make a few extra dollars. Alan provides an estimate to the court for the repairs to the driveway. The Judge asks David what he thinks it would cost to fix the crack. He estimates $1300.00 to $1400,00. The Judge awards Alan $1300.00. In the hallway, David says he is mad at his employees and the next time they will be fired. Alan is not happy about the money, but he loves life and says it is fantastic! I believe that Alan is lucky to have won, he brought this upon himself. I feel sorry for David. He seems to be at the mercy of his employees. Hopefully, he has learned from this situation and take better control of his employees. Good luck David!

I Want My Wedding Pictures!

Shane and Amanda hired David to be their wedding photographer. David was paid in full to take pictures during the wedding, 2 pm to 10 pm, and produce three albums. It is now 2 years after the wedding and Shane does not have the pictures. He wants his money back. David tries to explain why he has not provided the pictures after 2 years. He went out of business and claims to have reached out to his clients. When he did not get a reply to his e-mail to Shane, he did not do anything else. Why? He really does not have a good answer to this question. Shane had an attorney send David a letter requesting the pictures. David replied to the attorney and sent the proofs. This does not satisfy the contract they had together. Now, Shane wants all of the pictures and the entire $2700.00 back. He cannot get both. David turns over the wedding pictures and Shane is awarded $1200.00. After all, court is about making you whole, not getting a bonanza. I love when the Judge says this! It is a shame when a business person treats their customer in this fashion. I am so glad that Shane and Amanda finally have their wedding pictures.

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

Life is not a final. It's daily pop quizzes.

-Unknown 

People's Court: 7-27-12

He Stole My Cappuccino Machine!

Kenneth is suing Ronnie for $5000.00. This is for back rent and for jewelry and a cappuccino machine that are missing. Kenneth is a promoter. He knows celebrities and is involved with celebrity events. Ronnie saw Kenneth's website and contacted him. He wanted to meet celebrities. Kenneth wined and dined him. In exchange for introducing him to this exciting life, Ronnie did work on Kenneth's house. When he needed plumbing done, Ronnie was a plumber. When he needed electrical work done, Ronnie was an electrician. Wow, this just seems all too good to be true. Then Kenneth loses his job, his wife leaves him and he needs help with the house. He asks Ronnie and wife, Donna, to move in with him. Kenneth says they were supposed to pay half the mortgage. Ronnie says they were supposed to pay the cable bill, electrical bill and provide food for the house. Kenneth said all went well the first month. It was at the end of the second month that the problems occurred. Ronnie did not pay his half of the mortgage, he moved out without saying anything and he stole jewelry and a cappuccino machine. Ronnie denies all of this except the moving out. He said he was not supposed to pay towards the mortgage. He denies taking the jewelry and cappuccino machine. He remembers that Kenneth's wife had been in the house. I guess this was to give another reason for the missing jewelry and cappuccino machine. Casting suspicion on someone else is a great defense! Ronnie claims he paid the bills, although he does not have any proof. He does admit leaving behind his coffeemaker. He really wants everyone to believe he did not take the cappuccino machine. This must have been a very special machine! Now, Kenneth says he has proof that Ronnie agreed to pay half the mortgage. It is an open and shut case!  Kenneth shows the Judge a signed agreement with Ronnie. This is the agreement for Ronnie to pay half of the mortgage. Ronnie says he never signed it. He shows several examples of his signature, they do not match the signature on the agreement. Kenneth explains this by saying that Ronnie is a con man. This does not make any sense. Showing this document hurts Kenneth's credibility. He has no proof regarding the stolen jewelry or the cappuccino machine. The police have been investigating and Kenneth does not have any answers. Ronnie said the police called him once and he told them he pawned jewelry that belonged to his family. Kenneth claims that Ronnie left a voicemail admitting to the theft. He does not remember the exact words and he does not have the voicemail. This is not evidence. The signed document is not evidence. Kenneth also shows a Facebook message, that does not appear very legitimate. Kenneth can not prove his case. Kenneth tells the court that Ronnie was selling  prescription drugs and his wife was scamming disability. Why on earth would he ask these two people to live with him? If he found out this information after they moved in, why not ask them to leave? Kenneth took a big chance asking two strangers to move in with him. He should be glad they moved out. It is a shame that his jewelry is missing, it sounds like so much of it had sentimental value. Kenneth was not able to prove his case. He leaves the court very disappointed but plans to pursue the case of the stolen goods. Ronnie assures everyone he will still continue to watch the show. He believes he would have been arrested by now if the police had any evidence against him. We all will continue to watch the show and hope to figure out what possesses people to make such poor decisions!

I Tried To Tell You What I Did Not Do!

Michael and Rosemary are suing Robert and Jim. Robert was driving the tow truck for Jim's company.  Jim said Robert is the dispatcher, driver and his friend. Robert was picking up a vehicle at Michael and Rosemary's house. Rosemary's neighbor saw Robert hit her fence with his tow truck. The neighbor called her to tell her to go outside. She ran outside in her pajamas, it was 7:00 am. She watched Robert load the vehicle and as he was leaving, she asked him about the fence. He said it was nothing, started pulling on the fence. He said he could pull it back into place. Robert said he did not hit it, it was loose. Rosemary asked him for his driver license information. She wrote it down and gave it to the police. Robert did not wait for the police to arrive. There is also a question about the validity of his license. Rosemary said it was expired, Robert says it was valid. He shows the Judge a Florida license. I think Rosemary would remember if the drivers license was from out of state. Robert says he has a license in both states. He does not have his other license to show to the Judge. Robert does not sound very believable about any of this information. For some reason, his boss, Jim, believes him. When the Judge is questioning Robert, he says he tried to tell Rosemary before she asked about the gate and the fence. This is the "aha" moment that does not always happen for us. What was Robert trying to tell Rosemary? If Robert did not damage the gate and fence, what was there to say? This is also when Jim realizes that Robert has not been truthful to him. He nods his head in agreement with the Judge. He knows he is responsible to pay the $575.00 for the repair to the gate and fence.  Rosemary is happy to have won the case and will now have her gate and fence fixed. Everything would have been so much better if Robert would have been truthful. Honesty really is the best policy!

I Ordered A Round Bed!

Mary ordered a round bed from Elliot's store. She had it on a layaway plan. When she paid enough to have it delivered, there was a problem. For some reason, Elliot was not able to provide a round base for the round bed. This does not make any sense since Mary ordered a round bed. It is not practical to put a round bed on a square platform. Elliot shows the Judge a signed agreement with Mary. Mary's signature is next to two descriptions. Both descriptions describe the size as a diameter. There is a separate paper with a drawing showing a square base. This paper is not signed by Mary. I do not think Mary would have signed anything that described the shape as square. She is very clear about the shape she wants. Why wouldn't Elliot give Mary her money back when he realized he could not fill the order? His response is that he would not return her money but would make her happy. He would have a platform custom made to accommodate the round bed. He does not tell Mary that the base would be square. When the bed is delivered and put together, Mary is not happy. She wants a bed she can sleep on in comfort. She does not want a bed that is unstable. Elliot is not able to make Mary happy. She wants her money back. Mary is successful in proving her case. She will get her money back. I hope she will be very happy with her new round bed. Elliot needs to learn a basic lesson of customer service - The customer is always right.

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

Adversity is a fact of life. It can't be controlled. What we can control is how we react to it.

-Unknown

People's Court: 7-19-12

Friends with Benefits!

Kim is suing Christopher for $5000.00. She describes their relationship as friends with benefits. It seems that Christopher is the one that benefits from the relationship. Kim says that he was living the fast life. He did not have a job and did not have good credit. Why would she think it was a good idea to cosign on a car loan. If he could not afford a car, then he should do without. She is raising two children and I am sure she can use the money more than Christopher. She said that he constantly asked her about the money. When Kim took out a loan to pay for new windows, she takes out extra to loan to Christopher. She hands over $7000.00 without a promissory note. Let's count the things that Kim is doing wrong. 1. Lending the money 2. Not getting a promissory note signed before she hands over the money. I will never understand why money is lent first and the promissory note thought about second. It needs to be the other way around. When Christopher explains the money, he claims it was a gift. Why on earth would a single mother of two children, borrow money to give to him. He must think he is very special. He has paid her back $2,000.00. He says this was not money towards a loan, instead it was just money to give to her, to help her out. It is very clear from the way he tries to evade answering the question, "Why would someone pay back a gift?", he is responsible to pay the money back. Ladies, please take notice, when a man cannot afford something, has bad credit, does not have a job, do not lend him money! If they cannot afford it, they can go without. Kim seems to have learned her lesson. Next time she might not be so lucky to get her money back.

Why Didn't You Tell Me The Diamond Was Not Real?

Margie took her rings to the local jeweler for repair. She dropped them off, got a receipt and returned the next day to pick them up. There was a major mix-up. When she got to the store, Carlos, the owner asked her to sit down. He had bad news to tell her. She could not believe her jewelry was given to someone else. This was not bad enough, she is also told the diamonds were not real. Why is she hearing about the diamonds being fake at this time? Carlos fixed this ring two years before. He did not tell her at that time about the fake diamonds. He did not tell her when she dropped the rings off this time. Why wouldn't he tell her? He claims he was being nice and did not want to hurt her feelings. Margie says it would not hurt her feelings. The rings have sentimental value because they were from a friend. Knowing the truth would not have changed that. It would have been good business for Carlos to tell her the truth. He says two years ago he did not have a diamond tester. Now that he has one and he tested the diamond, he knew for sure. He has the diamond tester in court and tests it on the Judge's wedding ring. Thank goodness it reads diamond! 

Carlos is truly sorry about the loss of Margie's rings. She did not accept the replacement he offered because she wanted real diamonds. Unfortunately, Margie has no evidence to prove the diamonds were real. The Judge administers a little "rough justice" and Margie receives $500.00. Carlos is satisfied with the verdict. Margie is upset because she was lied to. It really is true that honesty is the best policy.

Your Burger Gave Me Food Poisoning!

Charles ate a  burger at Grandma Susie's Cooking Shack. When he gets sick, four hours later, he is convinced it is from the burger. He is suing Susie for $5000.00. He does not have any evidence that he got sick from the food at her establishment. He ate the burger at 7:30 in the evening, got sick 4 hours later. He was sick throughout the night and went to the hospital in the morning. The paperwork he has from the hospital has a diagnosis of abdominal pain of unknown causes.Yet when he hands the paperwork to the Judge he says it will prove his claim. Yes, he sounds like he suffered terribly with gastrointestinal symptoms. Unfortunately, he cannot prove what caused it. Susie tells us that no one else got sick. The Judge says the industry standard for an investigation is at least two cases. The symptoms he had could have been from the flu, it was not necessarily food poisoning. Also, depending on the type of bacteria, it could take 2 to 5 days for symptoms to appear. Some types of food poisoning from shellfish can take up to 90 days. Charles cannot prove his case, he does not have any evidence. He does not receive $5000.00. In the hallway, he is truly disappointed. Susie admits it was scary to be there to defend her reputation. The important thing to remember is to be open-minded. Charles was convinced it was the burger and would not entertain any other reasons for his illness.

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

The harder you fall, the higher you bounce.

-Unknown  

People's Court: 7-17-12

You Gave Me A Stroke!

Du-en and Latisha are cousins. When Du-en needed help, Latisha was there for him. She had her own family to take care of, yet she let Du-en move in with her. Latisha became the payee on his social security checks as a requirement of his medical condition. Du-en is bi-polar and is on medication. He admits that he talks a lot and definitely proves it in court. One night, Du-en had a friend over and Latisha's friend was also visiting. They were all sitting in the livingroom. Latisha's friend was watching television and Du-en was talking to his friend. He said he was not interested in the show that was playing. Why not go into another room to talk? Latisha's friend asked him to be quiet. Unfortunately, Du-en got into an argument with Latisha's friend. Latisha asked them to calm down. The situation escalated. Latisha told Du-en to move out since he was a bad influence around her children. She cannot tolerate stress. When she is in a stressful situation, she can become dizzy and then she can have a stroke. This has happened two times to her. Well, it was about to happen again. She was starting to get dizzy and she passed out. She said that when she came to, she was in the hospital. She had a small stroke. Latisha was kept in the hospital for three days. So, why are we in court? When Du-en's check arrived, Latisha cashed it and kept the money. She felt that she deserved it for everything her cousin put her through. She had no right to keep the money. She has to pay it back. This is a very sad situation because she was the only one who was there for Du-en when he needed help. She let him move into her home and he did not behave properly. Latisha has her children to think of. She should not have allowed him to move in and disrupt her life. The stress he caused her affected her health. Du-en regrets his behavior and says it is not worth it to lose the support  of his cousin. It is a shame that it worked out this way. We need to rely on others in our times of need. It is unfortunate that Latisha is so soured by this experience, she says she will not help anyone in the future.

The Dog Ate The Paperwork!

Vilma and Reynold bought an Akita puppy from George. They took the puppy to their vet and was told the puppy had entropion. This is a condition where the eyelids grow inward. Sometimes the puppies grow out of it and sometimes they need surgery. The vet said they should wait and see what happens. When the condition continued to get worse, the dog needed the surgery. The vet said the dog should not be used for breeding. When Reynold bought the puppy, he planned to breed him. He paid $2200.00 for the puppy and was looking forward to recouping some of his money. This is not responsible, but that is another story for another day. Reynold said he contacted George and wanted his money back. He claims George agreed to give him half of the money back. Of course, nothing is in writing and George denies this. George seems to deny most of what was said. George says he could not understand Reynold because of his accent. He understood well enough to sell him the puppy. Why behave this way? Why make up such unbelievable answers? Just tell the truth! He should not be selling puppies, he is not a responsible breeder, he calls himself a hobbyist. Again, another story for another day. This is about the sale of the puppy. Reynold's family is love with the puppy and has no plans of letting him be returned to George. The surgery is done to repair the entropion and now the akita is diagnosed with hip dysplasia. Again, George is contacted. And again, George does not have recall of the conversations. He tells Reynold to take the dog to his vet. This is done and the vet agrees that the dog should not be used for breeding. Reynold says that George is telling him to breed the dog. George does not remember any of this, thank goodness the vet records are available. What is not available are contracts, there is no paperwork. Where is the paperwork? The dog ate it! This is an amusing moment, since the Akita is in court and he is big and beautiful. Obviously, he is big enough to reach papers on the table! There is some laughter about this, as we think about the infamous dog ate my homework excuse. The bottom line is that unless Reynold is willing to give the dog back, he cannot get the purchase price back. He is entitled to the money spent on the surgeries. This works out well, since Reynold's family would never give the dog up. They are in love with him and would give Reynold away first! George is not happy about this decision. In the hallway, he says something about intricate decisions and living things and continues on his way. He really needs to stop breeding dogs. He also needs to be more respectful towards people. No one deserves to be insulted and treated in a demeaning manner. This beautiful Akita has a wonderful and loving home. He will continue to be a family pet and not a stud dog.

We Admit We Damaged The Carpeting!

LaToya and Mark are suing their landlord for their security deposit. They think the landlord did not give them proper notice to withhold the security deposit, so they are suing for double the amount. The landlord is able to prove the notice was sent out to meet the requirements of notification. They will not get double back, will they get anything back? Can the landlord prove that she can keep the entire security deposit. She shows the Judge pictures of the carpeting. There is no visible damage. LaToya and Mark are honest. They remember their babysitter doing something that caused the damage to the carpet. I give them so much credit for being honest. It shows character. The landlord also is asking for payment for cleaning the apartment. She is able to prove that this was a necessary cost. She is not able to prove the money she spent on a new floor in the bathroom was justified. The Judge rules that a portion of the security deposit is to be returned to LaToya and Mark.The landlord can only keep the amount for the carpet and the clean-up costs. She is lucky that LaToya and Mark were so honest. In the hallway, the landlord says she will take batter pictures next time. LaToya and Mark leave the court feeling the right thing was done. They still got back more than the landlord wanted to give them. I am so glad to see honesty in court. LaToya and Mark have set a really good example for how people should behave in court and in life.

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

Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does.

-William James

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!

People's Court: 6-25-12: Promises

Why do people agree to something and then back out afterwards? This seems to be very common. It is as if their word is not enough. There was a time a handshake was meaningful.

Families are very important. When two people get married it is so nice when the families mesh. This case is about a family torn apart. Traditionally, the bride's family pays for the wedding. The groom's mom paid for the rehearsal dinner and then agrees to pay for the invitations and their family's guests. She denies agreeing to these additional expenses, yet starts making payments after the wedding. After paying back $300.00 she stops making the payments. Her son does not want his new father-in-law to know this, so he continues the payments with his own money. At some point he comes clean and that is when his father-in-law decides to sue for the money. Mother and son do not have the best history. Instead of trying to repair this relationship, these actions are going to further the break. The shame of it is, they do not just make this case about the debt.  Information is brought up about the groom's childhood. This is not necessary to discuss on national TV. The mother is beside herself with emotion. This is so difficult for her. She feels she will never see her grandchildren since her and her son are not talking. She is found liable to pay the balance of what she owes. It is a shame that a family falls apart over $1600.00. I hope this family can get professional counseling and all get along. Do it for the sake of the grandchildren!

A woman lends her ex-boyfriend her car and he gets a parking ticket. Why would she lend her car to someone who has not talked to her for over a month? He calls her out of the blue and tells her a sob story. She falls for it and lends him her car. She has also given him a bus pass to sell. He claims this is a scam but can not prove it. He admits owing her the $20.00 for the bus pass, yet denies that he used her car. He is so unbelievable. He does have to pay her back for the parking ticket, the late fees associated with it and the money for the bus pass. More importantly, this woman needs to stop letting people take advantage of her. She did not hear from this man for over a month and then she lends him her car. He insults her by denying he was ever her boyfriend and describes their relationship as friends with benefits. She needs to protect herself from people like this. Never lend your car to anyone, the consequences can be so much more than parking tickets!

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

Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.

Mahatma Gandhi

People's Court: 6-21-12: Impressive

Documentation and evidence are so important.  For all situations we want to prove there needs to be evidence. Without paperwork, it is difficult to win a case. Being truthful and sincere is very much an asset when the evidence does not exist.

In this case a woman sues the cleaners. She is suing for a very large amount of money, $2,000.00. She values 5 bathmat sets, 22 pieces in all, at this price. No one is questioning what was brought in. Unfortunately, someone took the bag she dropped off. The representative for the store does not dispute they are at fault for the missing bag of laundry. what he does point out is the disclaimer on the back of the ticket. This limits the cleaner's responsibility to $75.00. If the woman waits for the Judge's decision she will receive $75.00. The cleaners offers her $250.00. She takes it, but is not happy. She says she will never go back to that cleaners. I was very impressed that the cleaners stepped up and gave her such a generous offer.

A former tenant is being sued for back rent. She has countersued for her security deposit and pain and suffering. She comes to court with proof that the landlord was cited by the city for housing violations. Since she has brought this to the attention of the court, the amount she owes is reduced and then reduced further since she should have gotten her security deposit back. She does not get any money for pain and suffering. This shows how important evidence is. Many people will not bring the proof with them. I was impressed with the tenants that they took the time to prepare for court.

This last case involves no evidence at all. A couple sells a car on Craigslist. The buyer and seller do not even agree on the amount of the sale. The buyer states he paid the full amount, the seller says he still owes $1,000.00. There is no bill of sale. The title is not signed over. Since the car remains in the name of the seller, they receive a call from the police that the car has been abandoned. They retrieve the car and resell it. The buyer wants his money back. He says he never used the car, it was parked on the road in front of his house for 2 months. This is very unbelievable. Since the sellers are sincere, even without paperwork they prove their case and are not responsible to return the money to the buyer. This is why it is important to tell the truth. I was impressed with the sellers, even though they lacked the needed paperwork they were able to win.

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

 "If a man does his best, what else is there?"

- General George S. Patton (1885-1945)

People's Court: 6-19-12: Accountability

We all need to take responsibility for our own actions. When we do something or allow something to happen, we need to step up. Of course, if someone is refusing to take ownership of their actions, it is important to be able to address the situation. The person wronged needs to be able to prove what happened. Without proof, there is no way to hold someone accountable for their actions.

This case is so complicated you need a score card to keep track.

1, A woman asks her friend's girlfriend to help her out.

2. She has lived with her previously and asks to move in again.

3.The boyfriend and his girlfriend have violated existing restraining orders.

4. The girlfriend is sent to jail because she has also violated her probation.

5. She is on probation for stabbing the boyfriend.

6. She spends several months in jail.

7. While she is in jail many people have access to her apartment.

The actual case is about the theft of her 62 inch television. She thinks the woman living with her is responsible for the theft.(see #1 and #2) Unfortunately for her, she does not have any proof. Since   so may people have been in and out of the apartment, no one knows what really happened. There is no evidence to find this woman accountable for the theft of the television. 

A woman is walking her dog on a leash. All of a sudden a larger dog runs to them and attacks the small dog. The woman gets bit trying to keep the larger dog from hurting her small dog. A neighbor tries to help, getting the large dog to let go of the smaller dog. The owner of the dog is not home, but her mother realizes the dog has gotten out and goes to see what has happened. The woman who was bit is taken to the emergency room for medical treatment. The small dog was taken to the vet and was lucky to have only superficial wounds. The owner of the larger dog states the woman was bit by her own dog. She does not think she should be responsible for the bills. Also, since her dog is a pitbull mix, she thinks that is why she is being targeted. Since her dog caused the woman to get bit, no matter which dog did it, she would be responsible. The owner of the larger dog has made no effort to find out how her dog got out of their yard. This is not responsible behavior for a dog owner. She is held accountable for the medical and vet bills.

A tow truck driver damages a car while he is delivering it. He admits the accident is his fault, he went down a one way street. For some reason he does not feel he should have to pay for it. He says his employer could have gone through the insurance company. The employer agrees this was an option, but he would have had to fire him to satisfy the insurance company. The decision made is to let the employee keep his job and to have him pay off the damages. He denies this and says he agreed to pay  only the deductible. This does not make any sense. Why would his employer pay for these damages? Why would he think he was not accountable for his actions? And to make matters worse, he quit without notice. There is no question that the tow truck driver caused the damages and is held responsible. 

It is refreshing to watch these cases and see justice served. People should not make accusations without proof, refuse to pay when their own dog causes injuries and shirk their responsibility when they admit they caused an accident. It is time that people are held accountable for their actions.

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

Believe you can and you are halfway there.  -Theodore Roosevelt

People's Court 6-18-12: Honesty

Some of the situations on People's Court are very complicated. The facts of the case are essential. With different stories or no proof, it makes it so much harder to find the truth. Honesty is always the best policy. When it is one person's word against another, a tape recording can be very revealing.

• A car accident occurs. Even though the police are called, the people involved have very different stories. The one driver does not even recall the impact. He claims he did not hear anything because of the rain. When one car hits another, you can feel it. He claims the other car must have hit him, he denies hitting the other car. He also denies what he said at the scene. Enter the tape recording - this was a very good idea! We get to hear part of the conversation. Everything he denied saying, was on the tape. This is so interesting. Why lie about what was said? Does he think it will make him look guilty or stupid or both? It proves he is a liar. How can you believe anything else he says? Since his testimony is so unbelievable, the Judge finds him liable for the damages to the other car. If he would have told the truth, he could have avoided this embarrassment.

• In the next case, a tenant moves out and wants his security deposit back. He has sent the landlord a certified letter requesting the return of his security deposit. The landlord has not responded. When the tenant researches his rights, he find out he is able to receive double his security deposit back. The landlord has not sent him an itemized statement. The landlord does not seem to know his responsibilities. There is no excuse for this. He does not have any proof of the damages he is claiming, he can not keep the security deposit. Also, since he did not provide notification to the tenant, he is required to pay him double. It is so important to know what our rights and responsibilities are. The information is only a click away.

• This situation is very interesting. A management company sends workers into an apartment to paint. There are two workers. The tenant stays home to monitor the activity. She notices one worker walks around the apartment and does not stay in the room where the work is being done. She knows she has put her jewelry on the top of her dresser, she says she took it off because it was too hot! Even though her bedroom door is closed, it is not locked. She did not see the worker go into her bedroom, yet her jewelry is missing. There are so many things she could have done differently.  She could have put the jewelry away or back on. She could have asked him to stop wandering. She could have watched him more closely. She could have asked him to leave. She can not prove he took the jewelry. She claims people have told her this particular worker was a problem. No one has put anything in writing for her. She has no proof. The management company is not found liable for her missing jewelry.

It is important to tell the truth. It is important to know your rights. It is important to protect yourself. If all of these things are in place, the above situations might have turned out differently. Hopefully, all of us, the people involved and the people watching can learn from these experiences.

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

Remember:

The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters.

Audrey Hepburn