People's Court Blog * Saturday 4 - 6 - 2013

Hi everyone. I am going to post weekly. During the week there are approximately 15 court cases. I am going to pick my favorites and share my thoughts with you. Please share your thoughts about the cases I write about and other cases also.

It is so interesting to watch everyone interact with each other. There is so much to be learned as people find a way to make the wrong right. Some people are so patient waiting to  be paid or waiting for a service, others are very impatient. Some people treat others with respect, with others the disdain is palatable. 

Even though everyone should be respectful to others, it does not always happen that way. When everyone is in court, we hope they are on their best behavior. Again, this is not always the way it happens. It constantly amazes me when people disrespect the court. The Judge deserves the ultimate in respect. 

The other issue which I find amazing, is the lack of preparation. Some people do not bring any evidence. Where do they think they are going? This is the day they are in court, this is the day they need to prove their case. 

Here is a case from Friday, March 29th. A couple moves and their TV is broken. They submit the claim to their renters insurance and then decide to sue the movers. The couple cannot prove the movers broke the TV because they did not unwrap it right away. There are so many excuses on their part why they waited. When you move and there are expensive electronics, they need to be checked right away. Because they submitted the claim to their renters insurance, it appeared they broke the TV. The woman explains that she did not know how renters insurance works. Really? She also did not know what it meant to send a certified letter. Again, really? It is not that complicated. It was no surprise that they lost the case. 

I hope to hear from you about your favorite cases. Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Please check out this rescue group: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/NJ617.html

They do great work for the animals. Please help support them. 

Shopping Amazon.com? Use this link: http://www.fundinco.org/orghome.php?orgid=301

Thank you for joining me today and thank you for helping the animals!

Please remember to spay or neuter your pet!

People's Court Blog - March 25 2013 - Monday

Hi everyone - I am back.  A new episode today, I am so happy to share my thoughts with you about these cases. 

What did you think about Aries and Wascar moving during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy? That is amazing! They are in court today suing their landlord for $3500.00. This includes their security deposit and the deposit on their new apartment and their moving expenses. WHAT? Why would their landlord be responsible to pay for their moving expenses and a deposit on their new apartment? Aries did not have an answer either!!! They moved out of their apartment because they did not get heat on a regular reliable basis. They have a baby and they did not want the baby subjected to a cold apartment. That is reasonable. I would move out too! What is not reasonable is that they moved out on or after the first of the month. They claim it was the first of the month, their landlord claims it was the 6th of the month. Either way they were there into the month of November and are responsible for the rent for the month. Since the landlord rented the apartment for November 15th, mitigating his damages, they are only responsible for half the month's rent. Also, we all learned something new today - Tenants in New York City do not have to give one month's notice to the landlord. You can tell that Edward, the landlord was surprised by this information. Live and learn!!!!! Aries and Wascar do get back $650.00 which is half of their $1300.00 security deposit. They do not get what they are asking for since it is not their landlord's responsibility to pay towards their moving expenses or their new apartment. It was their choice to move out. Good luck to Aries and Wascar in their new home.

Carol is suing Lateresia and her nephew Kristopher for $100.00. Kristopher damaged Carol's fence when he knocked it down while riding a dirt bike. They had already paid $250.00 towards the $350.00 repair bill. There is no question they are responsible to pay for the damages. They were paying Carol and then just stopped. What a shame Carol had to sue to get the last $100.00! Sometimes it seems like a waste of everyone's time to sue for a small amount of money. After all, there are court costs and the time and expense of coming to court. In this case, I agree with Carol since Kristopher should be help responsible for the cost of the damage. The judge finds in favor of Carol and Kristopher needs to finish paying for the damage he did. Carol will get the $100.00!

Keith loaned his friend of 25 years, $2600.00 for his wedding. William does not deny the loan, but claims he did not borrow that much money and he paid his friend back. Keith has a promissory note signed by William. The promissory note is great evidence for Keith. Thank goodness he has this because si much of the relationship does not make sense. Keith hired William to do electrical work in a house he was renovating. He paid William in full for the work even though William owed him money. Keith explains that there were other people involved and the loan was separate. I think he is lucky that William's testimony seems very shaky. He claims he borrowed $1100.00 and paid it back in full, paying Keith $600.00 on 2 separate dates. This would be $1200.00 and he has no proof of paying it. The Judge finds in favor of Keith for the full amount of $2600.00.  This is a good thing, Keith should get his money back. Unfortunately, the long-term friendship is over! Money, business and friendship do not mix well. 

Thank you for joining me today. Please subscribe and stay updated!

Share your thoughts in the comments.

Please check out this animal rescue group and help them raise money to help the animals.

I support them and their efforts to rescue animals. They do really good work.

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/NJ617.html

People's Court Blog - 10 23 2012 - Tuesday

Working For A Living

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

Friends?

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

Permission To Park

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

I can, therefore I am.

~Simone Weil

People's Court Blog - 10 22 2012 - Monday

Buying A Used Car

Ramona and Stephen are suing David for $10,000.00.

This is about a used car purchase, yet it seems to be about so much more. Ramona and Stephen purchased a used car from David for $4300.00. This was a 12 year old Monte Carlo. Like so many others they did not have a mechanic inspect the car before the purchase. The advertisement David put on Craigslist made certain claims. David has to honor these. When David wrote brand new tires, it is assumed it is all four tires. Ramona has proof that only one tire was new. Also, there were certain things discussed that both parties agree to. This includes fixing the windshield. The item in dispute is the transmission. Ramona claims that David and a mechanic tried to pull a fast one saying the only repair needed was a new cellinoid. After this work was done, the check engine light came on and further inspection found a new transmission was needed. Ramona cannot prove that David had prior knowledge about the condition of the transmission. After all, the car is 12 years old! Why didn't they have a mechanic inspect the car before buying it? The answer of course is money! This costs and no one seems to want to spend the extra money. Yet, the headaches it would avoid...

Ramona tries to make this case about David's character. She shows a YouTube video of David singing and dancing. David does not object to this video being shown in court. Ramona also introduces messages from David's Facebook page. They prove he has fun friends with a sense of humor, but do not prove defamation of character. Ramona and Stephen do recover $490.00, this is for the windshield and the tires. They do not prove their case regarding the transmission or defamation of character. The sale of a used car is as-is. If the owner promises certain things or provides a warranty that is definitely an extra. People need to take responsibility for their decisions. When you purchase a 12 year old car, you have to expect there are going to be repairs needed! Do you agree?

The Missing Coat

Joanne is suing Joseph for $652.89.

Joanne and her family eat at Joseph's restaurant 1-2 times a week. They obviously enjoy the food. On their last visit they were seated in a small booth. They hung their coats on a coat rack located in the center of the restaurant. When they were ready to leave Joanne's coat was missing. Her coat was practically brand new. She had received it as a Christmas present from her husband and only wore it 3 times. When she told the owner what happened, he threw up his arms and said he was not responsible. When she called a few days later to see if her coat had been found Joseph spoke with her. He told her the coat was still missing, but he felt bad about it. After all, she was a very good customer. He offered her gift certificates for the restaurant. Joanne refused and said she would rather have the cash. Joseph was not assuming responsibility for the missing coat. he was trying to do something to make his customer feel better. Joanne cannot prove it is the fault of the restaurant that her coat was stolen. They did not do anything wrong. She hung her coat in an area that other people had access to. Joanne says that there was not a sign regarding a policy on missing items. Why does the store need such a sign? They don't, although Joseph says they now have a sign. The Judge is very clear on personal responsibility. The coat was hanging in an area that anyone had access to. Joanne did not need to read a sign that said the store was not responsible for missing items. She is unable to prove that the restaurant did anything wrong and does not recover the money for her coat. In the hallway, Joseph is still offering the gift certificates. I think Joanne should take him up on the offer. After all, she was a good customer and he acknowledges that. Why should she deny herself and her family a nice time out and an enjoyable meal? What do you think?

The Crooked Contractor

Yvonne is suing Angel for $700.00.

Yvonne hired Angel to do work on her house. She wanted to have several windows boarded up because of drafts. She signed a contract and gave Angel a deposit for $700.00. After Yvonne did this she changed her mind. She contacted Angel and cancelled the work and asked for her money back. In the state of Connecticut, a person has three days to change their mind. She informed Angel of this and expected her deposit back. Angel offered her back $500.00 because he says he already bought some material for the job that he could not return. Why would he do this before the three days? Why wouldn't he return her money? More importantly, why is he working when he is no longer licensed and insured? The contract states that he is licensed and insured. Angel says this is an old contract, he closed his business 3 years ago. Okay, then don't work. Don't take people's money. This is very straightforward. Yvonne gets back her deposit money. Angel shows himself up to be a crooked contractor! Yvonne is very happy as she leaves the courtroom saying Justice is done!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.

~William Faulkner

People's Court Blog - 10 18 2012 - Thursday

Lawn Maintenance

Steven is suing Bruce for $300. Bruce is counterclaimimg for $750.00. Steven has been providing lawn services to Bruce since 2006. His company landscaped the property and has been maintaining it ever since. This past year Steven notified Bruce of a price increase. Bruce did not want to pay the increase but he wanted to decrease the services and the cost. He continued paying Steven and finally in March stopped paying. Steven provided lawn care for March and wants to be paid. Bruce says he did not pay because he was not satisfied with the quality of work, yet he did  not complain. The only issue was about dollarweed that Steven did send an e-mail to Bruce describing the way he was dealing with it. The e-mail was very rude and very unprofessional. Steven needs to rethink his e-mail communications. He is entitled to to be paid for his services. The Judge finds in his favor. Bruce loses on his counterclaim, he does not get any money back. He should have complained about the service at the time and not continue to pay for something he was not happy with!

Parking Tickets

Doris is suing Roach for $838.35. This is for unpaid parking tickets. Doris let Roach register his car in her name. Why would she do this? Roach was her very good friend for over 20 years. Now, Doris goes to buy a new car and learns she cannot get financing because of unpaid parking tickets. Never ever let anyone, friend or family register a car in your name. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. So much could have happened. Doris is fortunate it was parking tickets and not a car accident. The car was impounded because of the numerous parking tickets. Roach wanted Doris to set up a payment plan. He is arrogant and unrepentant. He actually is yelling at the Judge during his testimony. How rude! Roach does not want to pay for the parking tickets because he says some of them are Doris's tickets. He has no proof of this. The Judge finds in Doris's favor. Doris needs to understand the position she could have been in if Roach had a car accident and someone was hurt. What I do not understand is that Roach has written off Doris as a friend yet, Doris says that Roach is still a good friend. What has to happen for her to realize what could have happened? It does not seem like a lesson was learned today! What do you think?

Hot Tub Cover

William is suing Lori for $425.93. This is for a hot tub cover. Lori had rented a room from William from May to August. When she moved out she did not give the proper amount of notice. William notified her about this and she paid the balance. Months later he contacts her about the hot tub cover. William claims she only opened the cover halfway and misused it and damaged it. He did not notice it was damaged until he reopened the hot tub. Lori denies the misuse. William has a notarized statement from his girlfriend describing the misuse. If William or his girlfriend witnessed the misuse of the cover they should have talked to Lori right away. William says he did talk to her because he was worried she would be trapped. Lori denies this. William should have checked the cover to make sure it was not damaged. William cannot prove his case and the Judge finds in favor of Lori. William is surprised by the outcome, he thought it was a slam dunk. Lori is glad it is over. It is very important to deal with issues in a timely manner. When someone is going to move out or has moved out, check everything right away. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The true adventurer goes forth aimless and uncalculating to meet and greet unknown fate.

~O. Henry

People's Court Blog - 10 16 2012 - Tuesday

A 4 Year Old Driver

Linda is suing Andrew for $2554.89. This is for injuries she received as a result of Andrew's 4 year old driving into her with a motorized scooter. Yes, 4 years old! and Andrew is a proud father to say she has been riding since she was 3! Not only that, she is obviously so experienced she does not need adult supervision. Andrew seems fine with the fact his 6 year old was outside with the 4 year old. Linda describes the incident and it is very believable that a 4 year old lost control of a motorized scooter and injured her. Andrew says that his daughter told him that Linda walked out in front of her. Who would you believe? Linda shows the pictures of her injury and also show the scar on her ankle. Andrew does not seem to be concerned at all by Linda's injuries. He did not even check on her after the incident. After all, his kids did come home and tell him the neighbor had been injured. How does he rationalize letting his kids play outside unsupervised and on such dangerous vehicles for kids their age? Well, that is a very good question. We will not get the answer in this forum. The Judge finds in favor of Linda and tells Andrew that he needs to be a better parent. A 4 year old should not be playing unsupervised and should not be driving a motorized scooter! What do you think?

A Yankee Weekend

Andrew and Denis are suing Paul for $3109.40. Paul is counterclaiming for $5000.00, Andrew, Denis and 2 other friends traveled from Boston to New York City to spend the weekend. They wanted to see a Yankee game. They purchased tickets outside the stadium from a scalper for $50.00 each. They were stopped in the line and told the tickets were not valid. They were not counterfeit tickets. Andrew was able to find out where the tickets originated. Paul has a business in Connecticut and sends unsold tickets to the city to be sold. He claims he did not know these tickets had been sold online the Thursday before the game. Andrew contacted Paul and was offered the $200.00 he spent on the tickets. He asked for $600.00 and Paul turned him down. Andrew then called the Yankees to find out if this has happened before. Paul feels this was slander and could hurt his business and that is why he is counterclaiming. Why are they suing Paul for so much money? Well, they want Paul to pay for their entire weekend expenses. This is outrageous! I think they are lucky to have found Paul to begin with and to have the opportunity to get back the $200.00. When you buy tickets on the street, you are really taking a chance. This is exactly the ruling. The Judge finds in their favor for the $200.00. Paul does not recover anything on his counterclaim. He has not lost anything because of the phone call to the Yankees. This should be a wake-up call to Paul to change his business practices. Andrew and Denis should not have expected to get a bonanza of a free weekend in the city because they bought tickets on the street! What do you think?

A Cuban Gold Necklace

Jimmy is suing a pawnbroker for $2400.00. He says this is the value of a gold Cuban necklace the pawnbroker sold. When Jimmy pawned his gold Cuban necklace he received $450.00. He failed to pick it up within the allotted time and to pay the interest payments. The store tried to notify him but did not have the correct address. There is so much that went wrong here on Jimmy's part. He should have made sure he went back to the pawnbroker within the proper amount of time. He should have made sure they had his current address. Why would any of this be the store's responsibility? The store even waited longer than the allotted 4 months to sell the necklace. I feel bad for Jimmy because this necklace seems to mean so much to him, but he really dropped the ball.  Jimmy loses his case because he cannot show that the store did anything wrong. And what was the money for? Jimmy went to Atlantic City! Really! what a shame! Hopefully in the future, Jimmy will make sure information on an application is correct and he pays attention to the calender! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

~Bertrand Russell

People's Court Blog - 10 11 2012 - Thursday

Gary And The Disrespectful Veteran

Gary is suing David for $1500.00. This is for rent and miscellaneous bills. Both of these men are veterans. Gary helped David in his time of need. David does not even seem appreciative for the help Gary gave him. He let him move in with him, no money up front. He did this for him because they are both veterans and David believes this is how a veteran should behave. David cries poverty, yet he is dressed to kill. The Judge actually inspects his clothing and details the designer names he is wearing. David is no pauper! Gary has a promissory note signed by David. He will get back the $1100.00 for rent. Unfortunately the money Gary spent renting a U-Haul and moving David's belongings will not be recouped. There was no agreement between the two men for these expenses. Gary did this on his own, out of the kindness of his heart! To add insult to injury, David has a countersuit against Gary for $1100.00. Is he kidding? Maybe if he would have paid his rent in the first place we would not be here! This money is for David's rent in his new apartment. The Judge throws this case out so quickly, if you blink you will miss it! Shame on you David! In the hallway, Gary plays a song called the Winner's Song! What a fun guy he is! It is a shame that David took advantage of him, he should be ashamed of himself! Thank you both for your service, and also thanks to you Gary for being such a honest and caring person!

Sue Ellen And The Dog Attack

Sue Ellen is suing Amy for $515.00. This is for the vet bills to treat her dog, Sonny, after he was attacked by Amy's dog. Sue Ellen was taking Sonny for a walk, a short walk, as she described it. Sonny had on his walking gear, he always dons it prior to leaving the house. It is very apparent that Sue Ellen is devoted to Sonny. While they were walking past Amy's house, a large dog ran towards them and attacked Sonny. Sue Ellen was horrified and could not separate the two large dogs. Amy tried to help and was not successful. Two teenage boys were able to separate the dogs. They should be commended for their bravery. In these type of situations, you never know what could happen. After all, dogs are animals and operate on instincts. One of the teenagers even wrote a letter for the court describing the incident. 

Amy's rendition of the story is so far-fetched. She claims she was sitting on her porch, her dog not on a leash but wearing a harness. When her dog saw Sue Ellen and Sonny, he ran off the porch and Amy held tight to his harness. She was dragged into the road and Sue Ellen let go of Sonny's leash and  her dog was attacked. And then what happened? Did she drop the harness and then try to separate the dogs? This makes no sense at all. Even if it did happen this way and that would be a major  s t  r  e  t  c  h...She still did not have control of her dog. Why on earth would Sue Ellen drop the leash? 

After the two dogs were separated and Sue Ellen got Sonny home, his injuries were not apparent. Within a couple of days, he was shaking his head and not acting right. Sonny had injuries to his ear, required stitches, a drain and the awful embarrassing cone around his neck! Amy is 100% responsible to pay the vet bills. Oh and the lattice panels Amy put up after the fact do not look strong enough to hold in her large dog! Hopefully Sue Ellen and Sonny have devised a new walking route!

Jessica And 44 Missing Items

Jessica is suing a Valet Parking Company for $3880.00. This is for the cost of items in her car that went missing when she had her car valet parked. Andres is representing the Valet Parking Company. Jessica and her family went to dinner at Ruth Chris Steakhouse. She valet parked her car. The next day she realized the bag with her laptop and books was not on the back seat. She reported it to the restaurant. After that she looked in the trunk of her car and it was empty. She had   many valuable items in the trunk, including 35 team softball shirts. She called to add the additional items to the report. In total, she reported 44 items missing from her car. Why would someone leave an expensive laptop in the car when they choose to valet park? It was on the back seat, in plain view. Anyone could have stolen it at anytime. After all, Jessica did not know it was gone until the next day. It could have been stolen from her car while it was parked in her driveway. Jessica did not have any evidence to prove the valet company was responsible for the loss. The valet parking receipt has a disclaimer regarding missing items; of course they are not responsible. Also, how do you not  notice this right away? Jessica loses her case. Hopefully, there are lessons learned here. Granted they are expensive ones, but we all have to learn somehow. Please make sure all valuables are secure when putting your car into the hands of someone else!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Be so good they can't ignore you.

~Steve Martin

People's Court Blog - 10 8 2012 - Monday

Atiya And The Adult Party

Atiya is suing Tangey for $1165.00. This is for the cost of pole dancing lessons and damages to her house. Atiya is a really fun person! For her 35th birthday, she had plans for the most amazing party. Atiya calls it an OPP party. This stands for overnight, passion, pole party. Wow, I would like to be one of her friends. Atiya invited 10 friends over to celebrate her 35th birthday. The party was all women and included sex toy demonstration and pole dancing lessons. Unfortunately, Tangey the pole dancer, did not follow through. Atiya hired her and paid $435.00 for her to give pole dancing lessons at the party. This really sounds like fun! Tangey got to the party late, could not set up the poles in a secure way and disappointed the birthday girl and her friends. Besides causing disappointment she also damaged the ceiling and the floor while she was trying to set up the pole. Not to the tune of $730.00, which is the amount Atiya is asking for. Atiya will get back the cost of the pole lessons and $300.00 for the damages. In total she gets back $735.00. I think Tangey should stick to having parties at the studio. It seems like a major liability to set up the pole in people's homes. What do you think?

Thomas And The Scratched Car

Thomas is suing Rick for $1192.50. This is for the damage to his car while it was parked in Rick's parking lot. This is a parking lot for an airport. Thomas left his car in the lot over Christmas week while he flew home to visit his family. When he returned and picked up his car he noticed scratches to the back door panel. Thomas showed it to someone right away and took pictures of it. This was the right thing to do. Never ever leave the lot before checking the car. If there are damages they need to be shown to someone before leaving. Thomas did this, but Rick still does not believe him. I do not understand this. How else would the damage have occurred? It was not there when Thomas left his car, it was there when he picked it up. Very straightforward. Rick should have done the right thing and paid for the damage when it was brought to his attention. Thomas definitely proves his case and is awarded the entire amount he is suing for. Why don't people do the right thing? Why do they need to be taken to court? I would hope in the future Rick treats his customers better! What do you think?

John And The Ungrateful Girlfriend

John is suing Joella for $487.52. This is for a loan to Joella to help her pay for furniture. These two people have dated on and off for ten years. Joella describes how John has helped her through the years giving her money when she needed it. He never asked for it back. Wow, what a nice guy! Unfortunately this will not be in his favor. He has given money to Joella throughout the years and did not expect it back. Now he wants his money back. Why is this time different? Well, they broke up and Joella moved on. She started dating someone and moved in with the guy, She dated John for ten years on and off and they never lived together. John wants Joella to pay him back. It is not going to happen. The Judge finds in favor of Joella. It does appear that she has taken advantage of this very nice man's generosity. She should pay him back because it is the right thing to do. She is not going to pay him back because legally she does not have to. What a shame!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

You can't start the next chapter of your life, if you keep re-reading the last one.

~Anonymous

People's Court Blog - 10 4 2012 - Thursday

Chris / Billiejo And The Not So Brand New Refrigerator

Chris and Billiejo are suing for $2694.94. This is for the cost of a refrigerator and various other costs associated with the purchase. Peggy Lee and Carlos were the contact for an ad on Craigslist. Peggy Lee's mother-in-law placed an ad to sell a refrigerator. The refrigerator was advertised as brand new. After Chris and Billiejo purchased the $3000.00 refrigerator for $950.00, they took it home, plugged it in and guess what? It did not work. Chris took the refrigerator to a repair shop and found out it had been repaired. The condenser had been replaced and other work had been done. The repair shop has documented the work done on the refrigerator. It is very obvious this was a scam to sell a used refrigerator as new. Peggy Lee shows that Chris damaged the refrigerator when he transported it on its side in a trailer. This does not matter since the information in the ad was false.

When Chris tries to reach Peggy Lee and Carlos, they do not return his calls. He meets with them using a fake name when he answers another Craigslist ad. The problem is he does not act responsibly and makes himself look like a loose cannon! Now he is doing the right thing to bring them to court. The Judge finds Peggy Lee and Carlos responsible to return the purchase price of the refrigerator, travel expenses and the cost of the repair shop diagnosis. In total, Chris and Billiejo get back $1177.49. Remember if something sounds too good too be true, it probably is! 

Lisa Lynn And Her Pottery Equipment

Lisa Lynn is suing Nicolle and Christopher for $3978.40. This is for pottery equipment that was stored with Nicolle and Christopher. When Lisa Lynn was pregnant in 2008, the father of her baby removed her items from storage and stored them with Nicolle and Chris. In 2010, she tried to get her property back and did not get it. In 2011, Nicolle donated the pottery equipment to a local school. She has a donation receipt to prove this. 

Why does Lisa Lynn wait so long to get her property back? The only answer she has is that she had so much going on in her life. This is not a good excuse. Years went by. She really could not expect for the items to be there forever. Lisa Lynn seems surprised to lose her case. She feels she did not get a chance to tell everything. I cannot imagine what else there could be. She had years to get back her property and she did not make the effort. It was not Nicolle and Chris's responsibility to return it to her. Maybe she is used to everyone doing for her, but not this time. The silver lining is that the pottery equipment went to a school and children are learning the art pf pottery. Lisa Lynn does not see this as a silver lining, she just wanted her belongings back!

Shannon And The Lost Friendship

Shannon is suing his friend for $1032.54. This is for the cost of parking tickets, impound fees, and various other costs. Shannon claims he put a car in his name for his friend, Richard. The reason he gives is that he wanted to help out his friend. Richard denies that Shannon helped him. This is very much a case of he said he said. It all comes down to the most credible person. The winner is Shannon. Richard continues to deny that anything was done for him, but he is so unbelievable. Shannon's story rings true. I am sure it will be a very long time before he lets someone else take advantage of him. Shannon gets back $784.21. The money he does not get back will be a lesson for him. The shame of this situation is that these two men have known each other for 29 years. This is a lifetime. It must be so difficult for Shannon to have been treated this way by a friend he has known for this long. Another question answered. What is the cost of a 29 year friendship? The answer: $1032.54. Good luck Shannon!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe 

Being entirely honest with oneself is a good exercise.

~Sigmund Freud

People's Court Blog-10 3 2012-Wednesday

Ashley And The Lost Friendship

Two friends move in together. Ashley and Christine have been friends for eleven years. Now the friendship is over for good. This is a real shame. What is the cost of an eleven year old friendship? Well, it turns out it is $532.58. This is the cost of the utility bills that Christine did not pay. When these two young women entered into a rental agreement together, they agreed to split the utility bill. Christine paid her half for a few months and then stopped. Why did she stop? Christine claims that she did not feel safe in the apartment so she stayed with her boyfriend. Her defense for not paying her half of the utility bill is that she was not there to use the utilities. Agreements do not work this way. The Judge explains that as long as she had the ability to live in the apartment she was responsible to pay her share. The more important issue here is that this longterm friendship has now ended, Ashley seems very happy to get the money for the utility bill and does not seem to mind that the friendship is over. What a shame! A friendship is something to be valued and not thrown away! Both of these young women will go on with their lives and will most definitely make new friends. Unfortunately you can never replace a friendship that started in the 9th grade. Don't you agree?

Sondra And Her Really Small Mouth

Sondra is suing Ronald, her dentist, for $1567.00. This is the cost of new dentures that Ronald made for her. Sondra explains that she has a very small mouth. She explained this to Ronald and he assured her he could make new dentures that would fit her. Ronald made the dentures for Sondra and she was not happy with the fit. She returned to him 5 times for adjustments. At the last visit, Ronald told her there was nothing more he could do for her. Sondra decided to chalk it up to experience and walked away. A year later she met the nurse from the dental office. The nurse asked Sondra if she was wearing the dentures. Sondra told her that she could not wear them. The nurse said she never liked the forms he used for the molds. This is the reason Sondra decided to sue a year after purchasing the dentures. Sondra should have pursued this sooner. Also, Sondra did not go to another dentist to get an opinion on the dentures. There is no proof that the forms might have been incorrect or the dentures were not fit properly.

Sondra does not recover her money for the dentures. At the end of the case, Ronald offers to continue to help her. Sondra says she will not return to him, she does not want to give him another chance. That is a shame. Ronald is offering, Sondra should take him up on it. What does she have to lose?

Brenda And The Cancelled Skit

Brenda is suing Vinel and Lois for $914.00. These women belong to a fraternal organization. They were participating in a fundraiser that helps kids with their college fees. Part of the fundraiser included a competition of skits. Brenda wrote the skit, organized the rehearsals and was looking forward to participating in the competition. On the night of the fundraiser, Brenda's guests were told the skit was cancelled. Vinel was in charge and decided to cancel the skit. Brenda wants to be compensated for her time and effort for writing and putting on the skit. Brenda needs to review the definition of a volunteer. There was no promise of payment, whether the skit went on or not. It is true that Brenda was embarassed by the last minute cancellation, but you do not get compensated for embarassment! Brenda needs to make sure everyone agrees on terms of payment before she gets involved in a project! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

Faith is taking the first step when you do not see the whole staircase.

~Martin Luther King Jr.

People's Court Blog - 10 2 2012 - Tuesday

Shannon And The Color Purple

Shannon wanted highlights in her hair. She did not like the colors that were put in her hair and is suing for $435.00. This is for the cost of the job and the repair. Shannon describes a process by which she chose colors out of a book for her hair. Kevin says she said she wanted purple. He told her purple would not look good with blonde hair. Shannon denies this. She says she wanted eggplant. Well, Shannon...purple and eggplant are the same color! When Shannon saw the colors of her hair when it was done, she was unhappy. So unhappy that she tipped the hair stylist. She did return to the shop three days later and wanted her money back. She says that Kevin told her to give it the weekend and come back. It is so hard to figure out who to believe. Thank goodness the Judge is really really good at this! The Judge decides in favor of Kevin and Shannon does not get any money. I think a major part of the decision involves Shannon using the word, eggplant. It means purple! Shannon's hair looks good now! She should continue going to her current stylist! The Judge shares that she once had purple hair, I would love to see that! 

Dan And His Beloved Guitar

Dan is suing for $1180.00. This is for the cost of the repair to his beloved guitar. Peter is in court to represent the bar that Dan and his band were playing in.  Dan's band is called "Below Average White Band". They play classic 70's rock. One night they were playing in a bar and Dan took a break and put his guitar on the stand. An intoxicated patron carrying a beer in his hand, stumbled on the stage and knocked over a speaker that hit the guitar and broke its neck. Dan describes his guitar as priceless. Thank goodness it was able to be repaired since the bar now has to pay for that. The Judge finds they are liable for the cost of the repair. Dan was able to prove his case. Peter, the manager is not happy about this. Peter was not there that fateful evening and has nothing to contribute to this case! Dan plays in the hallway for us...http://peoplescourt.warnerbros.com/

Robert And The Very Responsible Driver

Robert is suing Brandon for $189.99. This is for the cost of a lawnmower. Brandon was being a responsible driver. He swerved to avoid hitting a cat. He turned into Robert's driver and ran over his lawnmower and ruined part of his vegetable garden. What is Brandon's reward for not killing a cat? He worked for a half a day on Robert's farm and gave him a replacement lawnmower. Two weeks later Robert decided he did not like this particular lawnmower. He bought a new one. Of course he should not expect Brandon to have to pay for a new lawnmower. The Judge awards Robert $85.00. This is the legal answer. 

The moral answer would have been to reward Brandon's responsible driving with a free pass. I think saving a cat's life is way more important than a lawnmower. Please Brandon remember you did the right thing. It is Robert who needs to look at his behavior a little more closely. Also, no one mentioned who the cat belonged to. Since Robert owned a farm amd the cat was in front of Robert's house, what if? ... 

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.

~Carl Sagan

People's Court Blog - 10 1 2012 - Monday

Welcome October 1, 2012!

The first day of the month. A day to make a resolution, make a change! Resolutions do not have to wait until January 1st. I like to think the first day of each month can be a day for new beginnings. Just as each day can be the first day of the rest of your life, each month can be a time to take stock and set a new goal. My goal for October is to post my blog the same day as the show. Stay with me and keep me on track. I challenge you to set a goal for the month and share it in the comments. We will succeed together!

Latisha And The Hit And Run

Latisha is suing Antoinette and Amy for $2935.27. This is for damages to her car from a hit and run accident. Antoinette and Amy are countersuing for the same amount of money. One night Latisha heard a loud noise in the front of her house. There was a car driving away from her house after hitting her car that, he had to stop and return home. He was able to describe the car as a dark red impala with tinted windows and a  spoiler. He was not able to see the license plate number.

5 days after the accident, Latisha saw the car parked at a house near her home. She called the police. They investigated and determined this was the car that caused the accident. In court, Antoinette, the owner of the car, explains the damage to her car was from a previous accident. She  also has pictures of a car that looked like hers and has body damage. This car was parked at a house in the area. She did not turn this information over to the police since she just saw it the day before court. Hello "My Cousin Vinny"!

The Judge is not able to find in favor of Latisha because there is a chance Antoinette was not responsible. Oh and the countersuit for the exact amount Latisha is suing for...Antoinette claims she was falsely accused and wants to be compensated. She does not get any money. The police investigated and they concluded she was responsible for the accident. Latisha was using the expert opinion of the police to bring Antoinette and Amy to court.

Latisha was trying to find the person responsible for the damage to her car. It is possible it is the owner of the car that Antoinette found. Hopefully she follows up and finds out if that is true. The person responsible should be held accountable for the damage they caused. What do you think?

Thomas And Bella

Thomas is suing Sharon for $1600.00. He purchased a puppy from her and he wants to be compensated for the purchase price and various other expenses. Thomas has "the puppy" in court. She is full grown now and is gorgeous. She is an Old English Bulldog named Bella. I have to say, Bella stole the show. What an amazing face, what a gracious and sweet dog!

They are in court today because Bella has hip dysplasia. Thomas would like the breeder to assume financial responsibility for her condition. There is one big problem, he would have to exchange Bella in order to legally resolve the issue. Thomas is not about to do that. Bella is his constant companion. He is a truck driver and is very proud to tell the court that Bella has been to 27 states with him. He obviously loves Bella very much.

One day Bella may need surgery to correct her condition. When this day comes, Thomas is going to do everything he can for her. He will not get any financial help from the breeder. This is a shame, but it is what is legal for the state Bella is from. Maybe the breeder should step up and work  with him, but to her this is business. To Thomas, Bella is family and he would never give her up! I hope Bella and Thomas have many many long years of travelling the open road together!

Jack And The Concealed Weapon

Jack is suing Julia for $1250.00. This is for a security deposit and additional money for stress. Jack rented a mobile home from Julia for one year. After the year lease was over, Jack rented month to month. When he decided to move out, he let Julia know. He spent 40 hours cleaning the mobile home before the walkthrough. When Julia met him for the walkthrough, she had a gun with her. Why did she bring a gun? She has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Why does she carry a gun? She tells the court, because she can. That is a great answer! Did she think she would need it? She did not get a chance to find out. After she refused to give Jack the security deposit back, she called the police. When they arrived, they took the gun away from her.

Julia claims the mobile home was filthy. She has pictures that show there was some clean-up needed. Jack's pictures showed a clean mobile home. Julia also says that Jack was supposed to maintain the gardens around the mobile home. She is trying to keep $750.00 for cleaning and for weeding. The Judge reviews the pictures and the costs involved and awards her $150.00. Jack gets back $600.00. He does not get an additional $500.00 for stress. If he was that stressed out by the gun he should have left. Instead he stayed and did not leave until the police told him to.

Jack seems very intent to explain that he did not do a good job cleaning because he is a man. Really! I do not think it matters whether you are a man or a woman. Cleaning is cleaning! Jack needs to wake up and smell the coffee and then wipe it up when it spills!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

You may delay, but time will not.

~Benjamin Franklin

People's Court Blog - 9 28 2012 - Friday

Frank And The Water Leak

Frank is suing Kevin for $5000.00. Frank is the superintendent of Kevin's building. His apartment is underneath Kevin's. Frank explains that he posted notices that the water in the building was going to be turned off due to plumbing repairs. Kevin and his girlfriend did not get the dates correct and when she went to take a shower, there was no water. Kevin called Frank and was reminded that this was the day the repairs were being done. When the repairs were finished and the water was turned back on, Frank noticed a leak in his apartment. He checked the apartments above him and found the water running in Kevin's apartment. Kevin and his girlfriend do not remember closing the drain to the tub and did not think they left the water running. 

Kevin asked Frank on two occasions to see the damage. Frank would not show him unless he was willing to take responsibility for the damages and pay $5000.00. Kevin wanted to see proof. He felt that Frank might be inflating the cost of the damages. In court, Frank does not have any proof for everything he is asking for. He claims the hardwood floor has to be replaced instead of repaired. He wants to be reimbursed for bedding that could be washed. He wants payment for a laptop, a playstation and DVDs and CDs, he claims were damaged. He has no proof, he did not even bring them to court. 

The Judge agrees there was clearly water damage due to the leak. There is no question the water came from Kevin's apartment. Since Frank has no proof of the damage to specific items, the Judge awards him $750.00. This is a major difference from the $5000.00 he was asking for. It is very important to have evidence of damages and the value of the items. Frank realizes this and admits he should have been better prepared for court. Maybe next time...

Delphena And Road Rage 

Delphena is suing Andrew for $2781.91. This is the cost of the damages to her car due to a traffic accident. The only problem with her lawsuit is that the accident was her fault. She tried to pass Andrew's van on the left side, squeezing between him and a parked car. Andrew has pictures for the court showing the position of the cars. Delphena tries to say that Andrew caused the accident, but the pictures tell a different story. Delphena admits that Andrew was driving slowly and she honked at him and passed him. Andrew shows there was one lane and there was not enough room for Delphena to fit. Delphena was very angry and after the accident told Andrew and his passenger to stay away from her or she was going to smack them. Really! This is no way to talk to someone. She also says the accident was not necessary. Well, this is absolutely true since she caused it! Andrew's van suffered minor damage that he was able to fix himself for $15.00. Since Delphena caused the accident, she is not entitled to any money. She continues to accuse Andrew of deliberately hitting her car even as she exits the courtroom. Delphena needs to realize that she caused this accident so she does not do this again in the future. Anger management might be beneficial for Delphena to curtail her road rage! What do you think?

Jamal And The Security Deposit

Jamal is suing Althea, his landlord, for $2500.00. This is for a security deposit and increased electric bills. Jamal has rented an apartment from Althea since 2006. He moved in after his mother moved out. The rent was partially covered by Section 8, a government assistance program. Althea explains that she constantly had to take Jamal to housing court for nonpayment of rent. Jamal says he has had many problems with the apartment and constantly reported them to the city. Althea and Jamal had a court settlement that instructed him to vacate the apartment by January 31, 2012. Jamal admits he did not move out until March 2, 2012. He blames this on Section 8. He claims he could not move out without their approval. He received their approval on February 15th, but did not move out until March 2. Since he did not pay the rent for March, the security deposit would cover that payment. Jamal also wants to be compensated for an increase in the electric bills since the landlord put in a dehumidifier. He is not entitled to this money. He does not get any money back. The landlord describes his behavior as arrogant and intimidating. She went through the proper channels to evict him and he took advantage by ignoring the court settlement. Hopefully he will pay his rent and get along with his new landlord. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

~Albert Einstein

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 26 2012-Wednesday

Naomi And The Caterer

Naomi is suing Paul the caterer for $2778.00. Naomi hired Paul to cater her daughter's Sweet Sixteen party. She signed a contract with him and estimated 160 people to attend. Naomi did let Paul know she might have 200 guests at the event. She describes a party where the food ran out early. There was no soda by 10:30 pm and her daughter's friends went out to get fast food. Paul admits he stopped serving food at 9:45 pm. He claims he had backup food. Where was it? Was it in the kitchen at the party? No, it was at his place of business. This does not help anyone. He also admits he cooked food for 145 people. This makes no sense at all. The paperwork he submits to the Judge shows in his writing 203 people. He keeps saying that Naomi only wanted to pay for 120 people not 200. This makes no sense at all. There is not too much that Paul says that makes sense. I find it hard to believe he is a successful caterer. 

Thank goodness the family made the best of it and Naomi's daughter had a fun night. A Sweet Sixteen party is a major event. The Judge finds in favor of Naomi for $1778.00. She is satisfied with the verdict and is glad it is over. Paul admits it was a bad idea to stop serving food to the guests. Hopefully he will learn from this and keep the backup food at the venue! What do you think?

Dennis And The Storage Fees

Dennis is suing Dominick for $5000.00. Dominick is countersuing for $3800. Dennis claims he is out over $15,000.00. He was desperate for storage for 14 cars. He made an agreement with Dominick to keep his cars on his property. They have conflicting stories regarding the fee and the time limit. This is why it is very important to have things in writing. After hearing from both parties the Judge sets a fee. Based on how much Dennis can prove in payments, the verdict is for Dominick for $2500.00. There is a time limit set for the removal of the cars. Dennis needs to remove the cars in this time period. In the hallway, Dennis claims he is going to report the cars stolen. I do not know how this will help him. Why don't people get agreements in writing? It is so easy to document an agreement. Send an e-mail or a text to confirm what has been discussed. This will help to prove what has been talked about. Also, always get a receipt when money changes hands!

Kevin And The Credit Card Charges

Kevin is suing Angela for $1400.00. Angela is his ex-girlfriend and the mother of their daughter. When Kevin was in the process of buying a house he found out about charges on his Macy's credit card. Kevin explains that he removed Angela from the account in 2008. She was an authorized user in 2006. The information that Kevin provides to the court is that Angela used the credit card to purchase $1400.00 in gift cards. Angela says that her mother and her have the same name so it must have been her mother. She completely denies that she used the credit card. This is so interesting since the cards were delivered and signed for by her. Also, Kevin had initiated a custody battle for his daughter before Angela ordered the gift cards. The timing is very suspect! The Judge also informs Angela that there is a warrant out for her arrest and she should consult a lawyer. She does not seem phased by this at all. The Judge finds in favor of Kevin and Angela needs to pay back the entire amount. I hope Angela finds a lawyer right away and takes care of this very important issue of the warrant for her arrest.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

To my readers, I am sorry for the lapse. Once again, life has thrown me a curveball! I am trying to meet the challenges of everyday life and stay on top of my daily blog. Hopefully, next week will be much easier and you will hear from me on a daily basis. Wish me luck!

Try not to become a man of success, but a man of value.

~Albert Einstein

People's Court Blog - 8 31 2012 - Friday

Good Luck, Erin!

Vicki is suing Erin for $1260.00. This is for rent, parts for her truck and stolen money. Erin is almost 20 years old and has been on her own since she was 18. When Erin turned 18, she told her parents she wanted to be an adult and live on her own. This is very commendable for Erin. When she had difficulties, her mother would not let her come home. (This is really sad. A parent should always let their child come home). Erin went to live with her aunt. For some reason, this did not work out and Erin wound up with her aunt's friend, Vicki. This sounds crazy, how can you just drop someone off on a doorstep? This is not what this case is about. This is about money that Erin owes Vicki. Erin was supposed to pay rent. Also, Erin borrowed Vicki's truck and had an accident. Vicki bought the parts for the truck and Erin did the repairs. Also, Vicki wants her money back that Erin stole from her. Erin admits stealing money for cigarettes.This is not commendable. Why is Erin stealing from Vicki? Erin needs to realize that other people are not responsible to take care of her. She needs to take responsibility for herself. Erin is hoping to get a job and go to school. She wants to be an auto and diesel technician. Part of getting her life together is to pay her debts. She is found responsible to pay Vicki back the money she owes her. Erin signed a promissory note for $1070.00. Even though Vicki claims she added wrong and the amount is higher, she cannot get more than the agreement. Erin claims she was forced to sign the note because she felt threatened by Vicki. Erin cannot prove that she was threatened and she did sign the agreement. Erin needs to pay Vicki back. This is the beginning to getting her life on track. I wish Erin all the luck in the world. I hope she gets the job she wants and she does well in school. Good luck, Erin!

You Cancelled The Reunion!

Khadija is suing Lisa for $30.00. This money is for 3 tickets to a neighborhood reunion. Every year the neighborhood that Khadija grew up in would hold a reunion. This year it was cancelled. Lisa and several others started a Facebook group to revive the reunion. Khadija wanted to go to the reunion and ordered 3 tickets. She sent a money order to Lisa for $30.00. Two days before the reunion, Lisa decided to cancel it because she did not have enough barbeque grills to cook the food. Lisa promised to return everyone's money. Khadija saw this notice and expected to get her money back. She sent a message to Lisa on the Facebook page regarding her refund. Lisa was upset because she did not inbox her or contact her personally. This is so ridiculous! Lisa cancelled the event and then the next day, messaged that it was back on again. Once the event was cancelled, why would Khadija check the Facebook page again? Lisa is positive she knew the event was back on. Why is she so sure? She says because she wrote to Khadija to reread the message. What? This is such a waste of everyone's time! If Khadija knew the reunion was going to happen, she would have gone. She was looking forward to going to the reunion with her two sons. All she wants is her money back.  This is not too much to ask for, is it? Why would Lisa make Khadija sue her to get back $30.00? According to Lisa, it was to teach her a lesson. Well, Lisa is the one who is learning a lesson. She is ordered to pay Khadija the $30.00 for the tickets. I think that forcing someone to sue you for $30.00 is very spiteful. What do you think?

 

You Rented The Studio - Pay Me!

Matthew is suing Marshaun for $2324.99. Matthew rented  recording studio space to Marshaun for $500.00 a month. One of the conditions to the rental was for the equipment to be upgraded. Matthew paid for the upgrade, now he wants Marshaun to cover that cost, as well as pay the rent for the rest of the contract. In the beginning, everything went well. Marshaun stopped paying rent after a few months and someone broke into the studio. Matthew changed the locks on the studio after the break-in. Matthew claims he tried to contact Marshaun to let him know and to give him new keys. (Really, you are going to give someone keys when they are not paying rent!). Marshaun says he was never notified about the changed locks. When he found himself locked out, he stopped paying rent. Who are we to believe? Matthew has no proof that he notified Marshaun. It would be very easy to verify notification. Text, e-mail, letter mailed return receipt, are all good ways to prove you have notified someone. The Judge explains to Matthew that the lockout was illegal. He has no right to change the locks when he has a tenant. The only money that Matthew is entitled to is the rent money for the month and a half that Marshaun could access the studio. He is not entitled to rent money for the time that Marshaun was locked out or the cost of upgrading the equipment. It is very important when you are a landlord to know your rights and responsibilities. Hopefully, Matthew learned a valuable lesson about being a landlord.

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

We are made strong by the difficulties we face not by those we evade.

-Unknown Source

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: 6-26-12: 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