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 - 9 20 2012 - Thursday

Matthew And 7 Long Years

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

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

Giusto And The Craigslist Ad

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

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

Bryan And The Spilled Drink

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

A waffle is like a pancake with a syrup trap.

~Mitch Hedberg

People's Court - 8 13 2012 - Monday

I Will Not Let You Take Advantage Of Me Anymore!

Lisa is suing Steven for $955.55. They dated for several months after meeting online. For some reason, Lisa kept laying out money for Steven, even though he did not pay her back. After they broke up, she tried to get her money back. When she had no luck, she filed this lawsuit. Lisa says the first time she laid out money was for Broadway tickets to Jersey Boys. Steven wanted to get tickets for his sisters. Lisa's mother works in the industry, so she was able to get the tickets. Why would Lisa put the purchase on her credit card? Steven admits he was going to pay her back for the tickets. Why didn't he pay her back right away? He does not have a good answer. He says he kept asking to see a receipt. This is ridiculous. The prices are on the ticket. Also, since Lisa wanted her money back, I am sure she would have provided a receipt for him. Lisa got plane tickets for the two of them with her earned miles. Lisa says she got the tickets because Steven could not afford them. He was running in a half marathon in Virginia Beach. How was he going to get there if Lisa was not around? Steven changed his mind about the marathon and Lisa had to cancel the tickets. It cost $100.00 to restore the used miles. She asked Steven for this money and he told her he was not going to pay her. Is it time for Lisa to dump him? I would think so. The Judge even thinks so. Does Lisa set him free? No, she continues with the relationship. Now, she invites him to a spring training trip along with other friends. Lisa explains that their relationship consisted of meeting at his house and going to bars. Did they go out to dinner? No. Did they go to the movies? No. What kind of relationship was this? Lisa says she broke up with him when she found out he was cheating on her. Good for her. Now she wanted her money back. Steven explains that he would have paid her for the Broadway tickets if he saw a receipt. Good news, Lisa has the proof in court. Steven says he does not owe her the $100.00 for the cancellation of the plane tickets to Virginia Beach. His reason for this, it was her idea. Really! He sent her numerous text messages about paying her back. He never said he did not owe her the money. He said he saved that to say on the phone. What else does he owe Lisa? Lisa says a movie and a wii game. Steven has brought the movie to court with him and returns it to Lisa. He denies having the wii game. He says he has his own, why would he need to take her game? The Judge rules in favor of Lisa for $930.55. She gets almost all of what she was suing for. The Judge takes the opportunity to address Lisa about learning a lesson. The Judge hopes Lisa has learned something from this experience. The real way to learn would be to lose the money she lent to Steven. The law is on her side, so she does get her money back. In the hallway, Lisa does say that she has learned her lesson and will not lend money anymore. I hope she means this. She seems like a really nice person and should not let men take advantage of her. Why are women so quick to lend money to the men in their lives? If their boyfriends cannot afford something, they can wait until they have their own money. Remember ladies, if he cannot afford it, he cannot afford to pay you back!

We Are Here Over $30.00!

Kent is suing Carl and Cynthia for $221.67. Carl brought his laptop to Kent for repair. Kent owns a computer repair shop. Kent agreed to remove the data, wipe the hard drive clean and restore the data. When Carl got home after picking up the computer, he found there was no information on it. This was especially troubling, since he wanted to print pictures of his mom for her memorial service. He called Kent to let him know there was a problem. Kent told him to come bace to the store, he probably forgot to put the data back on. Carl drove the 10-15 minutes back to the store and waited about an hour while Kent restored the information. Carl explains that when he got home, he decided that was not right and stopped payment on the check. He felt that Kent wasted his time. He sent Kent an e-mail explaining that he stopped payment on the check. Carl offered to pay for 30 minutes of labor. The Judge expresses her astonishment regarding the way Carl handled the situation. Carl should have let the check clear and then negotiate with Kent. Carl created a major problem over this situation. When all the charges have been figured out, this case is really over  $30.00. Kent is not so reasonable either. He is trying to explain that Carl should never have stopped payment on the check because he provided a service. Kent feels that when Carl returned to the store it was for a warranty issue. Kent mishandled the job, this is not a warranty issue. Kent was supposed to restore the data and he did not. It is not like there was an additional problem or something he fixed had to be corrected. Kent does not seem to understand that he is also wrong. Both men are at fault in this situation. The Judge rules to give Carl a rebate on the service charge. He will pay $100.00 for the repair of the laptop, instead of $125.00, the original amount. Carl also has to pay the $35.00 stop payment charge. After the decision, the Judge tells both men that they were foolish. I totally agree with this. In the hallway, Carl says that he was not foolish, since he did not initiate the court case. Did he already forget that he stopped payment on the check for a service he received? Kent says that he had to fight him because anyone can write a check and stop payment on it. Did he forget that he wasted this man's time by not doing the job correctly in the first place? It seems to me that both men left the courtroom less informed then when they entered. Neither of them listened to the Judge. Neither of them seemed to learn anything from this experience. What do you think?

I Want My Daughter's Belongings!

This next case is very sad. Sylvia is suing her daughter's friend for $5000.00. Valcharal, her daughter's friend, is countersuing Sylvia for $5000.00. What occurred to bring these two women to court today? Sylvia's daughter passed away. Sylvia wants her daughter's belongings back. The belongings consists of jewelry, laptops, debit cards and a phone. Valcharal has the belongings and claims that Sylvia's daughter, wanted her to keep the belongings from her mother. What occurred to have these two women at odds with each other? Instead of supporting each other after the death of someone close to both of them, they are suing each other. Sylvia explained that she took money to her daughter, so she could have Valcharal deposit it, to pay bills. Her daughter was in a rehab facility and told her mom she was not feeling well. Sylvia told her she should go to the hospital. Her daughter told her she would go the next day. Sylvia explains that she tried to get in touch with her daughter the next day and could not. It seemed that Valcharal took her to the hospital. She was admitted, there were complications and she passed away. Sylvia explains that she was contacted by someone at the hospital. Sylvia is distraught over the loss of her daughter. Valcharal claims that Sylvia's daughter had told her to keep her mother from getting anything that belonged to her. Valcharal has brought a witness to court and an affadavit from a family member. No one has anything nice to say or write about Sylvia. Valcharal even accuses her of doing drugs at her own daughter's funeral. Things can get nasty very quickly. Of course, Valcharal does not have any proof. Just to say such things, is very hurtful. Sylvia's daughter did not leave a will. The Judge dismisses the case without prejudice and explains that they need to go to probate court. Someone has to be appointed administrator of the estate, in order to determine how to distribute the belongings. The Judge directs Valcharal not to touch or throw away any of the belongings. This matter needs to be decided in probate court. The Judge directs Sylvia to call a lawyer to handle the case. Why is Valcharal countersuing for $5000.00?She explains that Sylvia has been calling her and leaving numerous messages. Sylvia even called Valcharal's mother! The Judge rules against Valcharal, explaining to her, this does not make a $5000.00 harassment suit. After the case is over, Sylvia says to Valcharal that her mother smokes crack. Valcharal responds to this by saying, my mother does not smoke crack, only you do. This is so sad. Two of the people who loved someone very much, are attacking each other. During their time of grief, it would be so nice if they could lean on each other. I would hope they could get past this and be a comfort to each other during this time of  great loss. What do you think?

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

Kindness, I've discovered is everything in life.

-Isaac Bashevis Singer