People's Court - 8 22 2012 - Wednesday

The Dog Jumped On Me!

Daniel is suing his sister, Lizette, for $1000.00. This is to cover medical costs and pain and suffering caused by Lizette's dog when he scratched Michael, Daniel's son. Daniel's and Lizette's mother was visiting and she was staying with Lizette. One morning Daniel dropped off his two sons for his mom to babysit. About 15 minutes after he dropped off his sons, his mom called him to say the dog, a Boxer, had scratched Michael. Daniel told her to clean it and keep him posted. Lizette's boyfriend called Daniel and said the injury was really bad. Daniel said his wife would pick up Michael and take him to urgent care. Michael was treated for the dog scratch. He received several stitches in his eyelid. When the Judge looks closely at Michael's eyelid, she can clearly see a scar. This 7 year old boy is so cute. He tries to answer the questions and just gets cuter by the minute! After Michael received medical treatment, Daniel called Lizette with the amount of the bill and she said she would pay half. Daniel says that at first, Lizette refused to pay anything. She did not feel she was responsible because she did not know the kids would be at her house. Lizette explains that her mom set everything up without telling her. Even so, this is her dog that jumped on her nephew and hurt him. How does she not feel responsible to pay the bill? You would expect this from strangers, but not from family. She is lucky the injury was not worse. Legally, Lizette is found responsible to pay the bill and the additional pain and suffering. Morally, there should never have been a question. I do not understand what happens to people? Why not take responsibility for something your own dog does in your own home to your 7 year old nephew? What do you think?

There Are Roaches In The Apartment - I Cannot Live There!

Angie is suing Sylvia for $950.00. This is for an apartment that Angie rented from Sylvia. Before Angie moved in her belongings, she wanted to paint the apartment. While she was painting, she saw cockroaches. She notified Sylvia and Sylvia said she would take care of it. Sylvia went to Home Depot and purchased bug bombs. She set them off in the apartment. The next day, Angie continued painting and saw more cockroaches. She called Sylvia and told her she was not staying there. Angie wanted her money back. Sylvia offered her 1/2 the rent and the security deposit back. Angie wanted the entire amount back. Angie should have taken what Sylvia offered her. Legally, Angie is not entitled to any of the money back. The apartment is not unliveable, it was just "icky". A few cockroaches is not an infestation. The landlord was trying to fix the problem. With more time, Sylvia could have resolved the problem. I understand that Angie was not comfortable dealing with cockroaches in the apartment, but this is not a reason to move out and get her money back. It is reason for her to move out, but there is a cost to her decision. What would you have done? Would you have given your landlord time to solve the problem?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Daniel is suing the owners of the property next to his for $2162.13. This is for damage to Daniel's fence, car, flowerpot and his time. When Hurricane Irene hit, the tree next to Daniel's property fell and caused all of this damage. Jake is one of the owners of the property. Daniel has lived in his home for four years. The property next to him is a wooded lot that the owners want to build on. Some of the trees next to Daniel's property are not healthy. Daniel spoke to the owners and they said they are lawyers, not landscapers. That is a very healthy attitude! Maybe as lawyers, they can hire landscapers! Daniel called the town officials about the conditions of the trees. The town cited the owners of the property. There was numerous correspondence from the town to the owners prior to Hurricane Irene. They were sent letters, violations and citations. The only response from the owners was to send a landscaper to the property to take down a tree on the opposite side of the property. Daniel wanted the tree removed that was next to his property. The landscaper was not directed to remove that tree. Since the owners were put on notice about the condition of the tree, they could not use "The Act of God" defense. If they did not know about the condition of the tree, it would have been different. Knowing the tree was unhealthy made them responsible for the damage that was caused when the tree fell. Daniel is awarded $1912.13, the damages caused by the tree. He is not entitled to receive money for his time. All of this could have been avoided if the owners of the property would have removed the tree. I find it very interesting that they ignored the town notices, especially since they want to build a house on that property. They certainly do not seem to be very cooperative. What do you think?

 

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

 

There comes a point in your life when you realize who really matters,

who never did, and who always will.     

- Unknown

 

 

People's Court: 7-16-12

I Want To Live In Peace!

Today we meet Jane and John. They are neighbors in a 4 family townhouse. Jane and John share a common wall. They have also share a love-hate relationship. Their children have played together and they have exchanged gifts at Christmastime. Yet John complains about where Jane parks her car and when her yardwork is done. Jane consults her neighbors when she decides to relocate her trashcans. She says she is trying to keep the peace. John says she parks down the street when she should park in her own driveway. Also, John has issues when Jane's landscaper decides to spread pesticides during a barbeque. There were people and food outside and he thought it should be done at a different time. There is a tense moment in court when John finds the need to describe the landscaper as Mexican. Why does he think this is necessary? It does not endear him to anyone. This case is not about the petty squabbles these two have had through the years. It is about the siding that John decided to put on Jane's portion of the house. He had the exterior of his house renovated and extended it to include Jane's house. The additional siding makes his house look bigger than hers. She wants the siding removed and the stucco replaced on the first level and siding replaced on the second level. This is not an entirely reasonable request. According to an estimate Jane has provided, this job will cost $4000.00. The Judge says this is an overinflated estimate. The siding on the second level does not have to be replaced, it can be painted. The siding on the first level needs to be removed and the stucco replaced. The Judge rules that this should cost $1500.00. In the hallway, John says he still loves Jane and wants to get along. Jane tells us coming to court is not about the money. She wants to live in peace. I do hope they can work out their differences. Living so close to someone is a delicate situation. When you do not get along, it can create so much tension. Everyone should feel comfortable in their own home. 

It Is Time To Put On Your Big Girl Panties!

Jessica and her Aunt Genese are in court suing Chanelle. Chanelle is Jessica's friend. Jessica received a very large amount of money on her food stamp card. She offered the card to Chanelle, but did not specify how much she could use. When Chanelle returned the card with no money left on it, Aunt Genese was upset. Jessica did not care. Jessica does not seem to worry about anything. She is smiling and happy and does not want to sue Chanelle. Her aunt has no legal right to sue. Genese tells us that Chanelle promised to pay back part of the money. Chanelle admits this and then adds that Jessica told her she did not have to pay anything. So she decided not to give Genese any money. Genese is not happy about any of this. She wanted Jessica's food stamp money. It seems everyone wants the food stamp money except Jessica. The Judge tells Jessica it is time to put on her big girl panties. I do not think Jessica understands that the Judge is telling  her to grow up. She needs to take responsibility for what is going on around her. She has a two year old son and needs to be a good parent. The Judge tells Genese she has no right to sue and since Jessica is not pursuing a case against Chanelle, the case is dismissed. Also, Chanelle has a counterclaim against Genese for harassment. This is dismissed also.  Genese was not harassing Chanelle by asking for money that was promised. Aunt Genese did not know that Jessica told Chanelle not to give her any money.  In the hallway, Aunt Genese says Jessica will learn from this. I hope she does learn and realize that her actions have consequences. She needs to provide for herself and her son. Chanelle tells us that she does not have hard feelings towards Jessica. Why would she? Jessica did not even want to be here!

Tow The Car To My House!

Dwight was in a car accident and needed his vehicle towed. He wants everyone to believe the car was to be towed to his house. The tow/repair company towed the car to their yard. An insurance adjuster needed to  see the car. When they find out the insurance company is not going to cover the cost, they bill the owner for the tow and storage fees. Dwight claims he wanted the car back right way. Why does he wait a month to get the car? When he goes to get the car, the bill is over $1,000.00. By the second month, the bill is over $3000.00. The Judge tries to find out why Dwight waited so long. He keeps saying the same thing - I wanted the car towed to my house. Okay, we get it, unfortunately, the car was not brought to his house. Why did Dwight wait so long to get it back? There were delays by the insurance adjuster, there was snow during the winter. Are these reasons to wait a month and then call the police? There is never a clear answer about the timing. We are very clear that Dwight says he wanted the car towed to his house. He did not sign a release at the scene of the accident authorizing the car to go to the tow/repair company's yard. Although, it does make sense that a car that is totaled is not left in a private driveway. Dwight can not prove the repair company did anything wrong. He is responsible to pay the tow and storage bill. The good news for Dwight is that it is not the amount the tow company is asking for. He is found responsible to pay $580.00, not the $3000.00 plus that the tow company is asking for. He also is going to get his car back. I hope this is what he really wants! You know what they say, be careful what you ask for, you might get it! In the hallway, the manager of the repair company does not understand why they did not get paid for the entire time they had the vehicle. The Judge explained it in detail. Yet another person who is not listening in court. There are rules and the Judge is there to enforce them.

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

Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.

-Unknown source

People's Court: 6-27-12: Lucky

An announcement - There is something new to the blog! I am asking readers to submit their favorite quotes or sayings. I am looking forward to your submissions.  Check out the end of the blog for this fun addition. Thank you for participating!

The first case is 5 years old. I guess the economy is causing people to go after old debts. If they are credible that would be okay. This case seems very far-fetched. William, a landscaper is suing a couple for the balance due on work he did years ago. There is no written contract to back up any of his claims. He brought in free fill to their property, installed an irrigation system and graded the property. He created berms and feels he made major improvements to their property. The couple sees it differently. I am surprised they did not countersue. They talk about flooding in their basement caused by his irrigation pipe, unclean fill used on their property and the dirt left in piles. They had to pay to have work done to correct the mess he created. He does not win the case and claims he did not even get a chance to tell the entire story. Many people will say this in the hallway. I always wonder why they do not lead with the information they feel would have been essential. This contractor needs to stay on top of his business. He should follow-up in a more timely manner. He should also keep better records in case he needs to take someone to court.

Hurricane Irene strikes again. So many cases are in court because of the damage caused during this hurricane. In this particular case an ice cream freezer was damaged from the flooding in a pizza parlor. Ryan is suing for $500.00, the cost of the freezer. When he removed the damaged freezer he had the store owner sign a promissory note. This should have been enough to get his money. The store owner signed it because he thought his insurance company was going to cover the damages caused by the storm. When the insurance money did not come through, the store owner refused to pay. Is he responsible? In this situation there is a contract. The specifics of the contract state that the store owner is responsible for the cost of the freezer in case of fire, theft or vandalism. It does not mention flooding, acts of god or anything that would describe this occurrence. The store owner is not held responsible for the money, even though he signed the note.  It is a good idea to read and understand anything you are going to sign. In most cases, you will be held to what you sign. This is a very unique situation. The store owner is very lucky.

Two business women hire someone to design a website for them. They do not have a written contract. They are able to show e-mails detailing their progress or lack of. It is helpful for them that they have this information in writing. They discuss deadlines that are not met and specifics they want in the website. When they hired Benite to build the website, they did not know they were not going to own the domain name. They did not understand they were going to have to pay an annual fee to her for the website. Benite explains that this is how a web designer does business and it makes sense. Someone has to pay for the website. Since the two women did not have a clear understanding of the agreement, they were able to get their money back. They were also able to get back the money they spent on promotional materials. It is unfortunate that Benite does not offer a written contract with all of this information. She showed the website she designed for the business and it was really nice. She seems to be good at what she does and should not have to mislead people in order to get customers.

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

Submit your favorite quotes or sayings and I will include them at the end of the blog.

Nothing messes up your Saturday like realizing it is Wednesday.

- reader submission

Thanks to RedShoesRock