People's Court Blog - 8 24 2012 - Friday

The Door Was Already Broken!

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

My Car Was Impounded!

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

It Is All About The Paint!

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

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

 

Subscribe to stay updated!

 

If you want to be happy, be.

- Leo Tolstoy

 

 

People's Court: 7-25-12

I Finally Found You After Six Years!

Peggy and Sharon are suing each other for $3,000.00. Peggy attempted to rent a house from Sharon 6 years ago. Peggy explains that so much time has gone by because she has not been able to find Sharon. She happened to be driving behind her one day and recognized her. She followed her, blocked her car in with her own car and called the police. Sharon was able to maneuver her car to get out and drive away. Peggy follows her again and thinks they are going to have a burger together! Sharon had pulled into a parking lot with a McDonald's. She does not want to eat with Peggy! She wants to get away from her. None of this has anything to do with the lawsuit. It does illustrate that Peggy is a very determined lady! Here is the story: Peggy was going to rent a house from Sharon. They met, did a walkthrough and signed a lease. Peggy handed over $1200.00, the security deposit and first month's rent. After this, Sharon tells Peggy that once a month someone is going to inspect the house. Peggy gets upset over this, she did not want someone checking on her, she said she wanted her money back. Peggy was not going to live under those conditions. Sharon offers to give her back half, Peggy wanted it all back. After all, only minutes had passed since signing the lease and giving Sharon the money. Sharon finally tells her that she will not return any of it and she can take her to court. Peggy could not find Sharon to serve papers for a lawsuit and then she sees her! So, here we are, 6 years later in court. The reason Peggy is suing for $3,000.00 and not $1200.00, is to include interest for the past 6 years. So much time has gone by, can Peggy still sue? She is very lucky, the statue of limitations has not run out! Now we hear the landlord's story. She claims that Peggy came to the meeting with her daughter, 3 children and a very big dog. She overheard them talking about fixing up the rooms for the children. She was worried about her property because she was not going to be living nearby. She says she told Peggy about the monthly inspections before the agreement was signed and the money paid. That really does not sound truthful. I do not think Peggy would have agreed to these terms. She said Peggy called her days later and said she found another place. Another statement that does not have the ring of truth. It does not seem to matter that the stories do not match. The monthly inspections do not seem to be unreasonable to the court. I would not want to live with those conditions. Would you want someone conducting monthly inspections of your home? The signed agreement limits Sharon to keep $600.00. She has to return $600.00 to Peggy, since she had no right to keep the entire amount. Her counterclaim for $3,000.00 is dismissed. I do not think the counterclaim makes any sense, she is suing Peggy for breaking the lease. She was already keeping her money, why would she be entitled to receive more money? Legally, she is not entitled. That is a good thing. It is curious that Peggy amended her lawsuit to match the amount of the counterclaim! A coincidence? Something to think about. These two women are like oil and water. Thank goodness Peggy never moved into Sharon's house. There was never anything good that would have come of that relationship. Some things happen for a reason! Let me know what you think.

What Are The Two Best Days Of A Boat Owner's Life?

(The answer to this question will be at the end of this case)

Fred wanted to buy John's boat. John sold his boat to someone else. Fred is suing John for survey costs, financing fees and the difference in the purchase of another boat. Why would he think that John would be responsible to pay these costs? Fred tells us that after he saw the boat, he offered John a deposit to hold it and John refused the check. Fred wanted to have some tests done, a survey and a sea trial, to make sure the boat was worth the $24,000 he was planning to pay for it. He met with John several times to see the boat, drive the boat and have professionals test the boat. On their last meeting, Fred makes up his mind, tells John he is definitely going to buy the boat and offers another deposit check. Fred prepares a written agreement that John signs, and still, no money changes hands. Fred claims that John told him he was a man of his word, he would not sell the boat out from under him. When it seems the deal is well underway, Fred contacts John again for an additional test. Fred says the surveyor e-mailed him regarding another test. John agrees that Fred called him, but said he was going to walk away from the deal because there might be a catastrophic failure. These two men seem to be having entirely two different conversations! Yet, they both appear so truthful. John contacts someone else that was interested in the boat. They meet and the person buys the boat immediately. Fred thinks he is still going to buy the boat and contacts John. Fred is told the boat is sold and he is upset because of all the time and money he has put into the anticipated purchase. Fred purchases another boat that is not as nice as this one and is more expensive. He wants to hold John responsible for these costs. He is not able to prove his case and leaves the court very disappointed. John is very satisfied with the verdict and is still convinced that Fred got cold feet and was not going to buy the boat. This is a good example of getting everything in writing from the beginning of a transaction. If this is not possible, communicate through e-mail so there is proof of intentions. I feel bad for Fred because he seemed so sincere about wanting this boat. He was trying to be a very careful buyer but seemed to be taking too long to make a final decision. What do you think?

(answer: the day he buys the boat and the day he sells it!)

You Ruined My Pants!

Patricia was walking past Ming's chinese restaurant when his employee was cleaning the sidewalk. When she got to work, she noticed her pants had been splattered with bleach. She called the store to let them know. After work, she went into the store and showed the manager the damage to her pants and asked for $78.00, the cost of the pants. Why is she suing for $379.00? She wants to be paid to replace the pants and for her costs of filing the claim. How much did she pay for the pants? $46.41. She received a discount since she opened a store account. This would not be an offer she would be able to get again. Patrica would only be entitled to receive the depreciated value of the pants, even though she wore them for the first time that day. Before she can get anything, we need to know if the store employee is responsible for the damage. The sidewalk is cleaned everyday. The employee puts out yellow markers to block half of the sidewalk. The employee pours a bleach solution and sprays the sidewalk with water. Patricia says she walked on the dry part of the sidewalk and noticed the bleach spots when she got to work. The employee told the owner, she walked on the wet part. He said he remembered her because of where she walked. That is why they were not going to pay for the damage. It does not seem believable that the employee remembered her with all of the people that must walk by in the morning. It does not seem believable that she would walk in the wet area in the direct line of the water spraying from the hose. Because this story is not believable and Patricia's story is believable, Patricia wins. She does not win $379.00, she is awarded $50.00, the depreciated value of the pants. In the hallway, Patricia says it was about the principle. The manager was rude to her and that is why she is here today. Also, she still has to walk in front of the store everyday and she crosses the street when the sidewalk is being cleaned. The owner says his employee is honorable and he continues to believe him. The owner needs to realize, if something does not make sense, it is probably not true. What do you think?

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

Of all the things you wear, your expression is the most important.

-Janet Lane

People's Court: 6-26-12: Protect Yourself

We should be able to count on the people in our lives. Whether they are friends, family or strangers we make agreements with, we should be able to feel secure. This is not always the case and we find ourselves going to court.

This is what happened with Gabby. She is a young woman suing her boyfriend, Keith. They were dating for a short time when Keith needed money to fix his car. Gabby lent him the money and they agreed upon a date for him to return the money to her. He tells the story a little differently. He does not remember that he had agreed to pay it back and says he was going to give her some money here and there to help her out. What does this even mean? It seems that he is making it up as he goes along. Did she give him the money by check and write loan on the memo line? No, that would make it way too easy. She did text him about the money, this could help her. Unfortunately, she does not have that cell phone anymore. Keith has the text messages and offers them to the Judge. They do not help him. The text messages reference the agreed upon date for returning the money. Also, Gabby has called his ex-girlfriend and Keith feels this is harassment. It is annoying, but is not harassment. He has countersued for harassment and cannot prove it. He gets nothing and is liable for the money he borrowed. A loan does not turn into a gift because a couple breaks up. Couples need to be careful when they lend each other money and put everything in writing to protect themselves.

Elyse has agreed to rent an apartment. She gives a security deposit, signs a lease agreement and is due to move in on December 15th. On December 13th she finds out the city inspection did not pass. There is a discrepancy regarding the reinspection date, is it going to be done in time for Elyse to move in?  Elyse leaves a message for the landlord and does not hear back. She believes she will not be able to move in on December 15th  and wants her money back. She sends a certified letter to the landlord explaining that she cannot move into an apartment that has failed inspection and wants her money back. The landlord still does not respond. Now they can communicate in court. The landlord failed to send Elyse a certified letter explaining why she was keeping her security deposit. Failure to communicate has become very expensive for the landlord. By law, she is responsible to pay back double the security deposit. People need to learn the law to protect themselves. 

Lula hires a contractor to fix a leaky roof. She just wants it patched. He explains to her that a patch job is not guaranteed. After he does the work, she continues to have leaks. Even though it is not guaranteed, he does go back a few times to try to fix it again. When snow and ice accumulate on the roof, Lula will not pay to have it removed. They explain to her this will be harmful to the roof. She does not change her mind. The contractor has also explained to her that the gutters are a problem. He is telling her a new roof and gutters are needed. She does not want to do anything more than the patch job. The problem is: none of this is in writing. The contractor does have a written agreement that states repair jobs are not guaranteed. He does not have Lula sign this. Why? He needs to have a contract for every job that he does. He needs to protect his contracting business. The good news is that without a written agreement he still wins the case. His business practices are logical and her story is not. In the hallway, Lula lets us know she has put a new roof on the house. The contractor will always make sure he has a signed contract, a very sound business practice! 

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

All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.

Havelock Ellis