People's Court Blog - 9 27 2012 - Thursday

Devon And The Third Floor Store

Devon is suing Gizelle for $800.00. Gizelle is countersuing for $3900.00. Devon rented a room in the building of Gizelle's beauty salon. He thought he would have customers to sell DVDs to. Unfortunately he was on the third floor of the building. The customers that came to the salon did not go past his store. Since he was not able to make enough income to justify the amount of the rent, he moved out. The $800.00 Devon is suing for is the security deposit. The money that Gizelle wants is from unpaid rent for months after Devon moved out and damage done to the room. Yes, you read that correctly. Devon had already moved out. There was no written agreement for this rental. Devon shows the receipts for the monies paid for rent and the security deposit. Gizelle shows pictures of shelves that were installed and glass display cases that were broken. Devon admits to installing the shelves and leaving them there. He claims the glass display cases were broken when he rented the room. He cannot prove they were broken. Also, since there was no written lease, Devon is not responsible to pay rent for months after he had moved out. A verbal agreement does not work in this type of situation. especially when both parties tell different stories. 

The Judge finds that Gizelle is entitled to the damages. Since Gizelle has no proof of value, the Judge assigns a value to these items. Also, after the Judge reviews the payments made to Gizelle, she finds there was $900.00 provided for the security deposit. Gizelle needs to pay Devon $450.00 back. This will satisfy her countersuit. Gizelle says she will never rent to anyone ever again. If she had a written agreement this would not have been so difficult. Also, it is very important to keep track of all payments for security deposit and rent. I do not understand why people make agreements without putting them in writing. Also, why give someone money without documenting the payment. People claim it is because they are too trusting, but is this really the reason? What do you think?

Tatiana And The Car Fire

Tatiana is suing Paul, owner of an auto center, for $4850.00. This is for the cost of a used car she bought from her fiancee and parts and labor for fixing it. After Tatiana purchased the 2000 Audi A6  from her fiancee, she took it to Paul to have work done. After having work done to the tune of $1850.00, she drove it for several days and then parked it in a garage for 2 weeks. The day she took the car out of the garage and drove it, the car caught on fire. Thank goodness, Tatiana pulled over as soon as she noticed the smoke. She got out of the car quickly. The car went up in flames. Tatiana is very lucky to have gotten out of the car quickly. She shows a video of the car on fire. It is really scary to watch. There were good Samaritans who tried to put the fire out. They were lucky not to have gotten hurt, The police and fire departments responded. The fire department put out the fire. Tatiana was told the cause of the fire was electrical. The reason she is suing Paul is because he was the last one to do work on the car. Paul explains that he did not do any electrical work on the car. Since Tatiana has no proof that the work done by Paul could have caused the fire, the Judge finds in favor of Paul.

It is very important to be have evidence to prove someone is responsible for a situation. Tatiana is very fortunate to have gotten out of the car and that no one was hurt by this major fire. Tatiana did suffer nightmares after this happened. She says that she would dream that she died in the car fire. This was such a traumatic event to go through. Sometimes people do need professional help to deal with the aftermath of a near death experience!

Lynn And The Disney Vacation

Lynn is suing Thomas for $491.60. Thomas is Lynn's daughter's, Chrissy,  ex-boyfriend. Lynn and her family were planning a vacation to Disney. Thomas was invited. He agreed to pay his share of the trip, the airline ticket and the hotel room. Lynn fronted the money with the agreement that Thomas would pay her back before the trip. Thomas and Chrissy broke up before the trip. For some reason, Thomas did not feel he needed to pay his share. The airline ticket could still be used by him, but the hotel room had a cancellation fee. Thomas said he was willing to pay for the airline ticket, but did not think he should have to pay the entire cancellation fee for the hotel room since he  was going to be sharing the room with Chrissy. Did Thomas pay for the airline ticket? No, he did not. Did he pay half of the hotel room cancellation? No, he did not. Now in court, he is found responsible to pay for the airline ticket and the entire cancellation fee for the hotel room. The reason he is responsible for paying the entire amount for the hotel room cancellation, is because he chose to cancel. The room was not needed since he was not going on the trip.

It seemed that Thomas was still welcome to go on the trip, even though they had split up. It is possible Chrissy and Thomas might have gotten back together. At this point they both say the breakup was mutual and have both moved on. Good luck in your future relationships!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

Inspiration and genius -- one and the same.

~Victor Hugo

People's Court Blog - 9 20 2012 - Thursday

Matthew And 7 Long Years

Matthew is suing Aneta for $5000.00. This is for the cost of an engagement ring. Matthew and Aneta dated for 2 1/2 years and broke up 7 years ago. Wow! That is a really long time. Matthew does not have a good reason why he waited so long to sue Aneta. He says that for the first year he tried to get the ring back and then...what happened? He never tells the Judge why he waited so long. Aneta tells a different story. She says that she supported Matthew, financially and emotionally. Aneta always worked and there were periods of time when Matthew was unemployed.   Aneta says that when Matthew was addicted to prescription drugs, she was there for him.  They did not have an amicable break-up. Aneta describes an incident when Matthew kicked her out of the car on a deserted road in February. She said it took her 15 - 20 minutes to walk home. You do not do this to someone you love. When they broke up she told him he could pay her back the $6000.00 he owed her or she would keep the ring. He did not have any money, so she kept the ring. She thought that was the end of it. 

Aneta said she could not believe he was suing her for the ring so many years later. Even though  an engagement ring is typically returned when a couple breaks up, the Judge finds in favor of Aneta in this case. It might have been a different story if Matthew had not waited so long to sue. What do you think?

Giusto And The Craigslist Ad

Giusto is suing Amanda for $760.00. This is for the deposit given to Amanda to hold an apartment for rent. There is not too much of this case that makes sense. Amanda advertised on Craigslist for a female roommate with no pets, except maybe a goldfish. Giusto answered the ad, he is not female and he has a Pitbull. Why would Amanda even consider him for a roommate? She does because he is from her school and she knew his girlfriend from one of her classes. She shows him the apartment, explains the rent and living arrangements and takes a deposit. He was supposed to sign the lease when he moved in. Giusto contacts Amanda and says he needs to take some measurements. Then he contacts her and wants the complete spelling of her name and the exact address so he can send her a gift. She tells him to bring it with him when he moves in, he says no he wants to mail it. Amanda thinks this is very strange. Then he contacts her and wants to renegotiate the rent.  Instead of the utilities being included, he wants to split them. He wants to lower the rent. Amanda tells him it is not negotiable. He also makes comments about being more than roommates. He is looking for a friend and a partnership. Amanda just wants a roommate. When Amanda would not change the terms of the rental agreement, Giusto asked for his deposit back. Amanda said that she would not return it. The day before he was due to move in, Amanda texted him to verify he was not coming. He did not respond. Amanda did not hear from him until he sued her.

Giusto claims he should get his money back because Amanda told him the apartment was not available. Amanda told him the apartment was not available to rent to someone else because she was holding it for him. Giusto totally ignores this fact. The Judge rules in favor of Amanda. This worked out for the best for Amanda. If Giusto had moved in, I do not believe it would have lasted. Hopefully Amanda has learned that when she advertises for someone specific, she should stick to it. Amanda wanted a female roommate with a goldfish, not a male friend with a Pitbull!

Bryan And The Spilled Drink

Bryan is suing Kaycie for $755.00. This is for the cost to get his laptop repaired. Bryan and a few friends rented rooms at a hotel to celebrate New Year's Eve in a responsible way. They did not want to drive after a night of celebrating. Bryan put his laptop on top of a dresser to keep it out of the way and safe. He was playing music from it so it was open. When someone started taking pictures, Kaycie did not want to have a drink in her hand. She put the drink on top of the dresser. She says she did not see the laptop, even though it was open. This is so strange. When someone else saw the drink had spilled they tried to save the laptop. They wiped it off and even used a blow dryer to dry it quickly. Bryan said it worked for a few minutes and then stopped. 

Kaycie says she offered Bryan $500.00 after it happened. She said she could not pay him right away because she was not working. Bryan says the offers were always changing. He asked Kaycie to pay for the entire repair because she was responsible for the damage. Why doesn't Kaycie think she should have to pay for it? Kaycie says that Bryan knew the risk and it is ridiculous it went this far. Really? For someone who is responsible enough not to want a drink in her hand in a picture, she should be responsible to pay for the consequences of her actions. Yes, it was an accident. No one is claiming it wasn't. Bryan did the right thing to bring her to court. The Judge finds in favor of Bryan. Unfortunately he has lost a friend over this. Kaycie says she will never speak to him again. What a shame that friends could not have worked this out and the friendship is ruined over $755.00! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

A waffle is like a pancake with a syrup trap.

~Mitch Hedberg

People's Court Blog - 9 12 2012 - Wednesday

Michelle / Josue And The Haunted House

Michelle and Josue are suing their landlord for $3750.00. This is for rent and security deposit they want back. Their landlord is counterclaiming for $15,000. The landlord is represented in court by David. Michelle, and Josue rented a home and moved in on March 1st. Immediately they started experiencing paranormal activity. Items in their closet started falling off the shelves, they heard voices, and they were becoming afraid to be in the house. One evening they called a friend to come over and they conducted a cleansing ritual. It was after this that the friend experienced bruise marks on her legs. During the cleansing activity the cross she was wearing turned over. She could not figure out how this happened. Michelle and Josue were so afraid to be in the house, they moved to the local Holiday Inn. It seems this house was built in an area in New Jersey known as Devil's Woods and they believed it was haunted. They even contacted the media and they ran a story about the house on a local news station. During the filming, voices in the house were recorded. Michelle also has video of a communication picked up on the computer.

Michelle and Josue told the landlord they believed the house was haunted and they had moved out. They wanted their rent and security deposit back. At first, he agreed. He told them he understood. Then he changed his mind and he was holding them to the contract. They were not moving back, they were really afraid to be in the house. David explains the countersuit of $15,000 is for potential losses. Since the story about the house was on the news, the house has not been rented. He asked the Judge to reserve judgement until the actual damages could be determined. The Judge dismisses the case without prejudice, this way he can refile in the future. The Judge asks that if that happens that he and the owner spend a weekend in the house.

Michelle and Josue are not able to recover on their lawsuit. They actually have to pay the landlord additional money because of the terms of their contract. The Judge explains that to find in their favor would be to rule that the house is haunted and they had the right to breach the contract. They believe the house is haunted and the Judge respects their belief. Unfortunately, the proof they provided is not evidence of ghosts, it is evidence of their belief that there are ghosts.

This is such an interesting case. This family truly was frightened to be in this house. They felt that something supernatural was occurring. I can appreciate their fear and concern. They did the right thing to move out and protect themselves. There is a cost to their decision, they had to abide by the contract they signed.

Natasha And Her Aunt

Natasha is suing her Aunt Liz for $3,000.00. This is for the cost of items left in her aunt's apartment. When Natasha needed a place to live, her aunt's apartment was available. Aunt Liz was incarcerated for drug charges. Natasha and her daughter moved to the apartment. After 2 months, Liz was released from jail and Natasha moved out. When Natasha left she did not take her belongings with her. She says she was being nice because Liz did not have any furniture. Liz said the agreement was that Natasha was going take her belongings out and help transport Liz's furniture from another location.

Natasha did not do this and Liz refused to give her back any of the belongings. Then Natasha rented an apartment in Liz's complex. She was demanding her belongings back. Liz returned some of the items but not everything. Liz was holding the furniture hostage. Liz admits she would not return everything because Natasha would not help her move. This close relationship has been destroyed over the cost of a rental truck.

These two women live down the hall from each other and do not speak anymore. How sad that a close relationship can be ruined over something so trivial. On the lawsuit, Natasha is awarded $850.00, not $3,000.00. She did not have any receipts or proof as to the value of her belongings. Liz admitted she was not returning her belongings and even threw some of the things away. What a shame that they are not getting along, especially when they live so close to one another.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

There's no backward and no forward, no day other than this. You fill your cart as you go. 
And that's that.

~John Burnham Schwartz