People's Court Blog - 1 28 2013 - Monday

New cases today!

Joan is suing Joseph, her longtime neighbor of 40 years, for $3000.00. 

It seems that Joseph constructed a roof from his shed to the fence along the property line. This caused water to be diverted towards Joan's property. Joan believes this water damaged her shed. The shed is over 20 years old. The damage shown in the pictures does not seem to be caused by water. It could be caused by age. Joan's witness is the person that built her shed and admits he did not get a permit. This is a great example of not throwing stones when you live in a glass house! Joan called the city on Joseph. He did have to remove the roof extension he constructed. Joan is also going to be in trouble with the city, since her shed was built without a permit and is too close to the property line.

Since the structures are illegal, the Judge finds in favor of Joseph. She warns them both that their troubles are not over since they need to comply with the city's regulations. 

What prompts Joan to call the city on her friend and neighbor? She does not like that Joseph walks in her yard and does anything he pleases. Joseph's wife feels Joan is a troublemaker. Such a shame that after all of these years these people do not get along anymore. To know each other for so many years is a relationship to cherish, not destroy! What do you think?

Vita is suing Walter, her husband, for $5000.00. 

This is for rent that she says he owes for the past 6 years. Walter has a countersuit for $5000.00 for harassment and defamation of character. This couple is breaking up and Vita wants Walter to pay back rent for the whole time they have been together. Why would she let him not pay rent for all of that time? Vita says it was an abusive relationship. She did get an order of protection and he has moved out of the rent controlled apartment. They are in the middle of divorce proceedings. 

The Judge tells them both that there are consequences to the decisions they have made. If someone does not pay rent, you do not let it continue for 6 years. Walter's countersuit is because he has suffered mental anguish because he has been sued. Really! 

It is no surprise that Vita and Walter both lose their cases. In the hallway, Vita says life goes on. Walter says he feels decent about the decision. What a shame that these two people have to continue going after each other in court when they just need to end the relationship. There comes a time when a relationship is over and both people just need to cut their losses and move on. What do you think?

Cary is suing Vincent for $2035.00. 

Vincent was going to rent an apartment from Cary. He signed a lease and gave her a check for $2000.00. Before he moved in, he stopped payment on the check. What reason does Vincent give for backing out on the deal and not paying the money? The IRS came after him for a past tax bill for almost $150,000. Vincent does not seem to understand that it is his problem, not Cary's. We would expect Vincent to understand since he is a financial advisor! He admits he is embarrassed to say what he does for a living. He loses the case and admits in the hallway that he looked like an idiot!

Thank you Vincent for being honest! This does not happen enough in the People's Court! Hopefully he will work out his problems with the IRS. Meanwhile, Vincent needs to realize when he signs an agreement he needs to see it through. Good luck to all!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 3 2013 - Thursday

It is time to play catch-up! Here are the cases from January 3, 2013:

Joseph and John are suing Benjamin and his business for $2903.50. 

This includes the cost of a 1986 motorcycle, pain and suffering, mileage and tow costs. When they bought the motorcycle from Benjamin they received a 30 day warranty. Benjamin calls it a guarantee. What is the difference? Benjamin does not know what the difference is and he is the one who gave it!!! 10-12 days after buying the motorcycle, it would not start. When they called Benjamin, he said it would cost $300 to diagnose the problem. This is not the way a warranty or guarantee works. Benjamin claims they wanted to modify the bike, when they were looking to replace the chain and the sprocket. Most of what Benjamin says in response to questions does not make any sense. 

Benjamin needs to learn to sell the motorcycles as-is, if he is not going to honor a warranty or guarantee. He claims he does not run a business, he works out of his garage. He also needs to learn how to speak in court - he called Douglas, pal! That is not proper! 

The good news for Joseph and John is that they win the case. They do not get pain and suffering, it is a contract case! They do get back $1653.50. They are satisfied with the outcome. 

Buying a vehicle, car or motorcycle requires two important steps. One is a test drive, the other is having a mechanic look at the vehicle. Joseph and John did neither. They are very lucky that Benjamin gave them a warranty (guarantee) and breached the contract. Otherwise, they might have been stuck with the purchase of the 1986 motorcycle.

Iris is suing Louis and the Realty Corporation for $2000.00.

Iris wants her security deposit back. Louis, a realty broker showed her an apartment in mid April. She signed a lease and gave Louis $2000.00 out of the $3000.00 required. She could not get the additional money and let Louis know she was trying to get it. Then she called Louis and let him know she was not going to take the apartment. He had given $800.00 to the landlord and kept $1200.00 for his fee. 

Neither party has any paperwork to show the Judge. Iris claims the paperwork stated only $50.00 was non-refundable. Unfortunately, she does not have the paperwork. Louis should have proof, but no, he does not have it either!

How can people come to court so unprepared?

Why would Iris think she should get back her money? She held up the apartment from being rented to someone else. There is a cost to changing your mind! Iris does not get her money back and Louis actually received a brokers fee twice for the rental of the apartment. He does not seem very trustworthy, but he is entitled to the fee. 

People need to realize there are consequences to their actions. You cannot make a decision and not know it does not have an impact. When you put a deposit on an apartment, no one else can rent it. If you do not go through with the deal, then the landlord has lost the opportunity to rent it to someone else. I hope Iris has learned from this experience, it was a very expensive lesson!

Rachel sues Levy for $1643.54.

Rachel lives next to Levy's rental property. After a very severe windstorm, debris from Levy's roof landed on Rachel's car. She took the debris off the car and went to work. When she had a chance to look at her car, she saw it was scratched. She got in touch with Levy to let him know about the damage. Once he found out the amount of the estimate, he said it was an act of God and he was not responsible for the damages. 

How is it that someone would agree that they are responsible until they find out the cost? Scratches on cars are expensive to repair.  Levy keeps saying he never saw the damages and it could have been a different car. Well, it was not a different car, Rachel has pictures! Also, Levy needs to repair his roof. The pictures of the roof show that it is not in very good shape.

Rachel wins the case and gets the amount for the lower estimate, which is $1335.02.

I do not understand why people do not take responsible for their own property. Even losing this case does not seem to enlighten Levy. In the hallway, he is still saying his roof is in good shape. Really!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog- 9 3 2012 - Monday

Joseph and The Matchmaker

Joseph is suing Jacqueline for $2227.00. Jacqueline runs a matchmatching business. When Joseph moved to Oregon from Ohio, he signed up for 2 free online dating services. Joseph is very proud to show the reason he moved to Oregon. He has a picture of his 6 year old granddaughter. He is a very proud grandfather! Joseph decided to upgrade his services on Jacqueline's website and paid her $27.00 for a consultation. He then agreed to a platinum service package that cost $2200.00 for 90 days of personal service. He refers to the money as "benjamins" (This is so cute!) Joseph was supposed to receive personal attention for this additional cost. Jacqueline said she does background checks on the potential dates and even conducts personal introductions. Jacqueline had asked Joseph to update his online pictures. He did this, had current pictures taken,  and sent them to Jacqueline. After several weeks, Joseph was not happy with the service. He sent an e-mail to Jacqueline demanding a refund. He felt she was stringing him along. Joseph received an e-mail from a potential date. He was upset because the woman was not a platinum member. He did not know what he was getting for the additional money he paid. When Jacqueline received a complaint from the Better Business Bureau, she suspended Joseph's membership. She did not notify him about this. Jacqueline explains that she did it for his benefit and then admits she did it to protect the company. Either way, when she suspended his service, she breached their contract. Joseph had every right to complain about a service he was not happy with. He was taking the proper steps and going through the right channels. The Judge finds in favor of Joseph. He receives $2200.00, the cost of the platinum package. He does not get back the consultation fee. Jacqueline should never have suspended his membership. Joseph is elated about winning the case. He is also dating the photographer that took his pictures to update his profile. It seems that Joseph is a man of action. He moved to Oregon to spend time with his granddaughter. He is enjoying an active social life! He knows what he wants and is willing to go to court to fight for it! What do you think?

Richard And The Shopping Cart

Richard is suing Jamie for $650.00. This is for damages to his car from a shopping cart. Richard explains that he was parked next to the shopping cart corral. When he came out of the store and approached his car, someone in the parking lot pointed out the damage to his car from a shopping cart. He said the person shoved the cart from across the lane and then pointed to a car that was leaving the parking lot. The car circled around and came back. The passenger in the car told him that her cart hit his car. She gave him her information. The passenger was Jamie. Jamie admits that the cart hit the car instead of going in the cart corral. She says she pushed it from a few inches, not a few feet. She knows it scratched the car. Why shouldn't she pay for the damages? (This is where it gets really interesting!) Jamie says she was an invitee of the supermarket. She was told by a lawyer that she is not responsible for this reason. The Judge explains that as an invitee it does not absolve her of responsibility from consequences of her own actions. Also, the Judge tells Jamie that the legal advice she received was not correct. You get what you pay for! Yes, it is true, Jamie did receive free legal advice! I think it is amazing that Jamie knows she hit Robert's car and was not willing to pay for the damages. Why did she give him her information at the scene? Jamie feels that Robert was threatening and intimidating when he was calling her to ask for the money. It took a lawsuit to show Jamie that she is responsible for her actions. Robert is awarded $544.75. He will get back the cost of his deductible, credit card interest and his court costs. Robert was also suing for the cost of gas, he will not get this because he did not bring proof to court. Robert was fortunate there was a witness to this incident. Jamie should have left her information on Robert's car as soon as she saw the cart had caused damage. I hope Jamie is more responsble in the future and puts the shopping cart directly in the corral. This way she will avoid hitting someone's car! What do you think?

David / Margaret And The Flood

David and Margaret are suing Alex for $3000.00. They explain their neighbor's toilet overflowed and caused flooding in their home. The insurance company hired a restoration company for the clean-up. Alex's company did the initial clean-up, removed the damaged carpeting and padding. They also removed the parts of the walls that had absorbed water. When the contractors started their work, Alex was contacted to store David's and Margaret's belongings. The belongings were packaged in cardboard boxes and Rubbermaid containers and stored in Alex's warehouse. When David and Margaret received their items back, they were very unhappy. They say that everything was moldy and smelled really bad. One of the Rubbermaid containers was cracked. They threw almost everything away. They did save a few items they brought to court with them. They did not take any pictures, they do not have any receipts. They do have a list with the number of boxes and containers removed from their home. This is their only evidence. Alex does not have any paperwork for this transaction. The list also has written on it that 3 rugs were taken to the storage unit. When the items were returned, the rugs could not be found. Alex does have 2 of the rugs in court for this case. He admits that one rug is still missing. The Judge checks the items that David and Margaret brought in with them. She notes they do smell, but is not able to determine whether it is from the flood or from the storage unit. Alex explains the items were packaged and sealed at their home and stored in his warehouse. Everything was still sealed when it was returned on February 2nd. Alex did not know there was a problem with the items until March 28th, when he was notifed about the lawsuit. Since David and Margaret are not able to prove that the storage procedure damaged their belongings, they do not get paid for them. They will receive $200.00 for the missing rug. They also get back the 2 rugs that Alex brought to court. The Judge smelled them and said they were fine. It is a shame what happened to David and Margaret. Having your home flooded with sewage water was a nightmare for them. I do think they should have notified the company as soon as they got back their belongings. It might have made a difference! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.

- Robert Frost