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 19 2012 - Friday

October Challenge Check-up: I seem to have set my goals too high. This week has not been a success for the challenge. This is okay. We have to allow ourselves a setback. It is not a failure if you are trying. The success is in the effort. I will continue to strive to meet my goal of posting the blog the day the show is aired. Continuing to reach for my goal is the challenge that I have set for myself. Hopefully you have met your goal that you set for this month or are getting close. If not, keep on trying!

Friends Fighting
Regina is suing Tamika for $5000.00.

Regina and Tamika were friends. Regina knew Tamika's mom for 25 years, When Tamika moved back home, Regina befriended her. These two women went out together, clubbing. They went out for Tamika's birthday, although it was a week early. Tamika celebrates a birthday week! When the club closed at 2:00 am, Tamika did not want to leave. Regina says that at the end of the evening Tamika drank two Long Island Iced Teas before they left. One of them was for Regina and she was the driver! Both of these women sounded unfit for driving. While Regina was driving home, Tamika tried to stop her. As Regina tried to pull over she thinks she hit something, a car? the guardrail? She does not know. Thank goodness it was not a person! Regina says she pulled over and Tamika pulled her hair and hit her head into the steering wheel. Tamika says Regina was upset because she was flirting with someone that Regina liked. She claims Regina ripped her pink leather jacket and hit her several times. Regina has pictures of her injuries and can prove that her hair weave was pulled out. The Judge finds in her favor for $1000.00, for her hair weave and personal injury. She cannot prove the damage to her car. What a shame that a friendship has to end this way! Tamika is not setting a very good example for her her children, ages 20, 17, 10 and 4. Regina should find someone closer to her own age to spend time with. Both women have to stop drinking and driving - so very dangerous! What do you think?

Dog Attack

Michael is suing Ilene for $1307.91.

Michael was walking his Jack Russell Terrier, Jake. When he walked past Ilene's house, two large dogs charged at him. He heard Ilene yell to pick up his dog. He picked up Jake and tried to shield him from the two dogs. One of the dogs bit him and Jake. Ilene ran over to him and tried to get the dogs away. She fell and hit her head on the curb. Ilene really got hurt, She even cracked a rib when she fell. She remembers Michael yelling at her to get up when she fell. Wow! I know he was dealing with a lot, but really have some mercy. Ilene offered to pay for the vet bills. She gave Michael a check but he did not want it. He wanted to be reimbursed for sunglasses that he lost in the confusion of the moment and lost wages. Michael says that even though he got a paid sick day from work he wants to be paid for it. Life does not work that way. He used the sick day and that is what they are for. Ilene is found responsible to pay the vet bill of $562.00. She is fine with this, but she also got a lecture about having too many dogs. It seemed that day the reason the two dogs were running down the street was because the dogs got away from her. As Ilene was putting 2 of the dogs in the house, the third one pushed out and ran down the street with one of the leashed dogs. It does sound like Ilene had a lot going on, but she did the right thing to offer to pay the vet bill. She did not count on Michael being greedy!

Collateral Damage
Mark is suing Michael for $7000.00.

Mark loaned Michael $2000.00. Michael admits that he borrowed the money and gave Mark his climbing equipment as collateral. When he did not get a job and could not pay him back, he told Mark to sell the equipment. Mark should not have to be responsible to sell the equipment. Michael should have sold it to pay off his loan. Even though he had not paid Mark back, Mark says he paid Michael to split firewood. It really is not believable that he would give Michael $400.00 when he is owed $2000.00. It is more believable that the money was deducted from the loan. Then there is the $200.00 that Mark had advanced to Michael for a job he did not have a chance to do. After doing all of the math, Michael owes Mark $1800.00. Why was Mark suing Michael for so much money? He says he wanted to get his attention. It really does not work that way. He should have only sued him for the amount he felt he was owed. I think if he sued Michael for $2200.00 he would have noticed! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.

~Plutarch

People's Court Blog-10 10 2012-Wednesday

Valeria And The Order Of Protection

Valeria is suing Ralph and Kristine for $5000.00. This is for the cost of a car that was left on their property. Valeria and her husband Joe were tenants of Ralph and Kristine. Joe was arrested and is in jail. Valeria was 8 1/2 months pregnant. Valeria had to move out because Kristine got an order of protection against her. So far, none of this has anything to do with the case. Why are these people in court? Valeria did not take her car when she moved out. She left it in Ralph and Kristine's driveway. The car was getting ticketed for being unregistered and then...it was gone. Where did it go? Ralph says it was towed, stolen or taken. Kristine says it was towed but has no evidence of the tow. She does have a friend that works for the city that confirmed it was towed, but did not provide any evidence for Kristine to bring to court. Wow! Such complications! Valeria has no proof   where the car is. The Judge calls a recess, makes a phone call and finds out! The city towed the car  because it was unregistered. Mystery solved! Valeria could very easily have found out where the car was and got it back. She does not get any money. Even though this case was about the car, the saddest part is that Ralph and Kristine seemed to have found a way around a long drawn out eviction process. The order of protection was instrumental in having Valeria leave the property in a very timely manner. It is never made clear if Valeria is guilty of the violence against Kristine, since this case was about the car!

Bendal And The Impressive Weight Loss

Bendal is suing his sister, Cynthea, for $5000.00. This is for a $3500.00 loan and for slander. Bendal has no proof of the loan, Cynthea says it was a gift. This is a classis case of he said she said. Usually there is some hint of the truth when both sides tell their stories. In this case, not so much. What is very clear is that these two siblings do not get along. What a shame! Family is very important. What is clear is that at some point Bendal gave Cynthea money. The amount is not even agreed upon. Bendal says it was $3500.00, Cynthea says it was $3000.00. Unfortunately there is nothing, not a text, not an e-mail, nothing to tell us whether this was a loan or a gift. What is the slander about? Well, Bendal is very proud to show the jeans from last year that he wore when he weighed over 500 lbs. He had gastric bypass and lost over 300 lbs. Very impressive. He says that Cynthea is very mean and told people he had AIDS. She denies this and once again no proof. Just one person's word against the other. How sad that these this brother and sister are not there for each other. Bendal is unable to prove his case and does not recover any of the money he is asking for. If there is any way these two siblings can mend their problems, I would hope they do and get beyond these differences!

Sade And The Book Club

Sade is suing her cousin, Kerifa, for $240.00. This is for the cost of her share of a trip to Florida. Kerifa started a book club. Sade joined it. Everyone in the book club had planned a trip to Florida. Sade gave Kerifa her share of the money for the trip, $200.00. Everything was going fine and then something very strange happened. Sade received a phone call from Kerifa's sister. She asked Sade if she could take her place on the vacation. Sade thought she as joking and said yes. Sade did not know that Kerifa was with her sister when she made the phone call. Kerifa called Sade and told her that only book club members could go on the trip and she could not give away her part of the trip. Sade told her she was only joking and was not giving it away. Kerifa told her she would give her the money back if she did not want to go. Oh my, this is a real mess! Sade did not go on the trip, Kerifa's sister did not go on the trip. Why are we here? Well. after the trip, Kerifa did not return Sade's money. She told her it was nonrefundable. You can't tell someone you are going to give their money back and then not do it. The Judge rules in favor of Sade for $200.00. The additional $40.00 she was suing for was for the court costs, that she recovers since she won the case. Once again, family is pulled apart over money. Is it really worth $200.00 to lose a relationship with a cousin? I hope these two ladies can work out their differences and resume reading books together!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity;

An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

~Winston Churchill

People's Court Blog - 9 4 2012 - Tuesday

Evita And The Car

Evita is suing Fantasha for $2892.00. This is for several loans, lost wages and the cost to come to court. Evita and Fantasha met through a mutual friend on Facebook. After 2 months Fantasha was staying at Evita's home. Evita helped Fantasha in her search for a used car. Evita is a car mechanic and could check the cars for Fantasha. Another friend of Fantasha's was going to give her money to help her buy a car. When she found the car she wanted with Evita's approval, she did not have the money to buy it. Evita lent her the money, thinking she would get paid back very soon. The car was put in Fantasha's name but left at Evita's home. Fantasha's other friend never gave her the money and she was not able to pay Evita back. Since the car was at Evita's home, she refused to give it to Fantasha until she got her money back. When Fantasha decided she wanted the car, she called the police. Fantasha did not have insurance on the car, so she was  not able to drive it away. She did not want to tow it so she left it at Evita's home. Evita was angry at Fantasha, so she called the police the next day and they towed the car. 

Now the car was impounded and someone needed to pay to get it out. The story is complicated enough and now it gets worse! Evita pays to get the car out of the impound and has Fantasha sign a promissory note for the $500.00. It seems very mean-spirited for Evita to have done this. I understand her frustration at the situation, but this was not the right thing to do. So now Fantasha has the car, Evita is out the car loan plus the costs associated with the impound. What is Evita entitled to? The Judge finds that Evita should get back the car loan, but not the impound costs. She brought that on herself. The two young women are no longer in a relationship and both have so much to learn. Fantasha needs to realize that she cannot expect others to pay her way. Evita should not lend people money unless she knows them better and gets it in writing! What do you think?

Merline And The Fish Tank

Merline is suing Stafford for $2448.60. This is the cost of her furniture damaged by a water leak caused by Stafford's fish tank. Stafford is Merline's upstairs neighbor. He admits that his 90 gallon fish tank sprung a leak. He had to replace it to save his fish. When Merline knocked on his door and said there was water in her apartment, he ignored her. She had to go back several times before he came to her apartment to see the damage. Why did he make her wait so long? Stafford claims he was in his underwear and had to get dressed. It took him a very long time to put his pants on! Stafford does not deny the water from his fish tank caused the damage. Why does Merline have to sue him to get paid? This question is never answered. The facts speak for themselves. The fish tank had a leak, the water damaged Merline's furniture, Stafford is responsible to pay. 

Now the question is how much does he have to pay? The Judge explains that Merline is not entitled to replacement cost. Even though she had to buy a new couch and new items, the original items had a depreciated value. That is what Merline would get. The Judge estimates the depreciated value of the replaced items and Merline's troubles to be $1132.00. Merline is not happy about the entire situation, especially since Stafford still has a huge fish tank above her. She is planning to move to a new apartment. This is a real shame. Merline feels this situation could happen again and does not want to take the chance. I do not understand why Stafford had to make it so difficult for Merline to get her money. It is true that she got less than she was asking for. I believe if Stafford was cooperative they could have worked it out. I hope Merline finds a new home with good neighbors! What do you think?

Mary And The Adoption Fee

Mary is suing Leslee for $180.00. This is the cost of the adoption fee for two kittens. Both ladies do cat rescue. This is very commendable. Mary rescued two kittens and was trying to find a home for them. Mary paid for vet visits, food and litter. Mary's friend, Ellen, was taking care of the kitttens. They were actively trying to get homes for the kittens. They were distributing flyers with the kittens pictures and information. The adoption fee was set for $75.00 each. They were asking everyone they knew. Someone at the vet's office recommended Leslee. She has an animal rescue group called Here Kitty Kitty. Leslee works with a local Petco to show cats and kittens for adoption. Leslee helped Mary to find someone to adopt the kittens. The adoption fee was $180.00. Since Mary paid for all of the expenses for the kittens, she told Leslee she wanted the adoption fee. Leslee agreed to give it to her, but told her she would have to wait for the money. It seems Purina has a program to help seniors with pet adoptions. Purina was paying the $180.00 adoption fee and Mary would have to wait for the check. When Mary did not hear from Leslee, she tried to contact her. Mary went to Petco and confronted Leslee. When she asked for the money, Leslee told her she had to use it on vet emergencies and if she wanted it she could sue her. And here we are. 

It is a shame that these two women could not work this out. They both care about cats and are doing their best to save them. Mary did lay out the money to care for the kittens and should be able to cover some her costs with the adoption fee. Mary needed to discuss this with Leslee right in the beginning. It does seem that the animal rescue people find it difficult to discuss money. Their passion is for the animals and not the money. But there are costs involved and no one can afford to continually pay for the rescue of all of these animals without help. Since these two women did not agree on the terms, the Judge makes the decision for them to split the adoption fee. Both women do excellent work rescuing cats and kittens. I wish them both the best in their future endeavors of cat rescue! 

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

You cannot find peace by avoiding life.

-Virginia Woolf

Peoples's Court - 8 21 2012 - Tuesday

Another Friendship Ruined Over Money!

Vincent is suing his friend, John, for $575.00. John is counterclaiming $3000.00 for pain and suffering. Vincent explains that they lend money back and forth to each other all the time. This is what friends do. In July of 2011, John  called Vincent and asked for help because his house was in foreclosure. Vincent helped his friend by lending him $875.00. John told Vincent he would pay him back in a few days. Vincent said that John  gave him $300.00 back, $100.00 a month for three months. Vincent wanted the rest of his money, so he went to John's house to ask for it. Vincent says that when he was face to face with John, he got closer to John and then John moved back and hit his head against a brick wall. Vincent went home and the police came to his house later that day. There are criminal charges pending against Vincent for the assault on John. When the Judge asks John to explain, he admits borrowing the money. He admits paying some of it back. He shows the Judge two checks that were given to him. One of the checks has "loan" written on the memo line, the other check does not. John explains that the one check was the loan and the other was a gift. John says that for the past two and a half years, he has helped out Vincent in so many ways. He says that Vincent gave him part of the money as a gift for all of his help. He said $400.00 of the $875.00 was a gift. The funny thing is when the Judge is looking at the checks, the word "loan" is written on the memo line of the check for $400.00. This would make the gift the check for $475.00. John did not realize this. Vincent does not remember writing on one memo line and not the other. My question is, why give him two checks? If he was lending him $875.00, why not give one check? John is counterclaiming for pain and suffering because Vincent shoved him and his head hit a brick wall. John did not go to the doctor for the injury. The police report documents a small visible abrasion on his head. The police report also documents that Vincent shoved John. Vincent may deny it now in court, but the police report is the evidence. John does not have any other evidence to support a claim for $3000.00. The Judge does not want Vincent to get away with vigilante justice. She awards him $475.00, the balance of the $875.00 loan after deducting the $300.00 John paid back and $100.00 for the attack on John. There is nothing awarded for the counterclaim. This is another example of friendship ruined over money. Why do people allow this to happen? When a friend asks for money, it is very important to consider this question: Is it worth it?
 

Clueless!

Kenneth and Ann are suing Lindsay for $2374.53. This is for repairs Kenneth did on Lindsay's car. Ann is caught in the middle because Kenneth is her cousin and Lindsay is her friend. Ann operates a yoga studio. Lindsay does work for her in exchange for yoga classes. Over the course of a year, they have become good friends. Lindsay's car was vandalized, sand was put in the gas tank and the side was keyed. The shop it was towed to was going to charge her $3000.00 to fix it. Ann told Lindsay that her cousin, Kenneth, was a mechanic and could fix it for less money. Lindsay had the car towed to Kenneth's house. In order to have her roadside assistance service pay for the tow, Kenneth's house was recorded as a sister shop. Oh what a tangled web we weave... Once someone admits to being less than honest, everything else they say is suspect. Lindsay claims the car was totally repaired and she just wanted Kenneth to look at the car and verify the repairs were done properly. Kenneth says the car still needed repair work. Why would Lindsay have the car towed if it was driveable? Why would Lindsay think Kenneth would look or work on the car for free? The receipt from the body shop shows that the work done on the car cost $1450.00. The car still needed a fuel injector replacement and service. This was the work Kenneth was going to do. He paid $1600.00 for parts and repaired the car. When Lindsay came over to get the car, she offered Kenneth $16.00 for the repair, not $1600.00. Lindsay denies this and says he was checking the car for free. I do not know what world Lindsay lives in, but rarely is anything done for free! Why would Kenneth spend that kind of money and time for someone he does not even know? Kenneth would not release the car to Lindsay without payment. Lindsay came back with her spare set of keys and took the car. Lindsay really does have nerve! Ann felt bad because Kenneth was out money, she claims that she paid him the $1600.00. She has no proof of the payment. Whether she paid him or not, the Judge finds she has no standing to sue Lindsay and dismisses Ann from the case. Kenneth is awarded the full amount that is being sued for. Lindsay needs to pay for the work that was done on the car. Ann and Lindsay are no longer friends. It seems that Ann tried to help someone that justs takes advantage of people. It is very important to know who your friends are. The Judge says it very clearly, if Ann wants to help out people, she should volunteer in a soup kitchen!
 

Splatters Of  Paint Everywhere!

Melissa hired Ron to do construction work at her house. She paid him $1350.00 and wants her money back. She is not happy with the job, feels it was not finished and it was not done properly. Melissa hired Ron to do some repair work and painting. Melissa shows pictures of the work. There was an open paint can with a brush left in the yard. There is wood showing through the paint job. There is paint splattered everywhere, on the porch, the trees, the driveway. The place really looks like Ron left it a mess. Ron denies this and says that Melissa sabotaged the area for the pictures. Why would someone do this? It does not make sense. Ron does not seem to care about the entire situation. It was like he was doing her a favor! He was paid to do a job, it was not charity. Ron comments that he has been in business for 26 years and works on million dollar houses. So what, who cares! Melissa paid him to do a job and he made a mess of it. She deserves to get her money back. She actually will get back part of her money. Ron did some work, so he does need to get paid something. Ron is ordered to return $750.00. Ron states that Melissa got more than her money's worth. Really? We all saw the pictures of the way Ron left Melissa's property. He should just admit that he could have done a better job. I give Melissa credit for bringing Ron to court. No one should have to pay for shoddy workmanship. What do you think?

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

The happiest people do not have the best of everything.

They just make the best of everything.

- Unknown

People's Court: 7-19-12

Friends with Benefits!

Kim is suing Christopher for $5000.00. She describes their relationship as friends with benefits. It seems that Christopher is the one that benefits from the relationship. Kim says that he was living the fast life. He did not have a job and did not have good credit. Why would she think it was a good idea to cosign on a car loan. If he could not afford a car, then he should do without. She is raising two children and I am sure she can use the money more than Christopher. She said that he constantly asked her about the money. When Kim took out a loan to pay for new windows, she takes out extra to loan to Christopher. She hands over $7000.00 without a promissory note. Let's count the things that Kim is doing wrong. 1. Lending the money 2. Not getting a promissory note signed before she hands over the money. I will never understand why money is lent first and the promissory note thought about second. It needs to be the other way around. When Christopher explains the money, he claims it was a gift. Why on earth would a single mother of two children, borrow money to give to him. He must think he is very special. He has paid her back $2,000.00. He says this was not money towards a loan, instead it was just money to give to her, to help her out. It is very clear from the way he tries to evade answering the question, "Why would someone pay back a gift?", he is responsible to pay the money back. Ladies, please take notice, when a man cannot afford something, has bad credit, does not have a job, do not lend him money! If they cannot afford it, they can go without. Kim seems to have learned her lesson. Next time she might not be so lucky to get her money back.

Why Didn't You Tell Me The Diamond Was Not Real?

Margie took her rings to the local jeweler for repair. She dropped them off, got a receipt and returned the next day to pick them up. There was a major mix-up. When she got to the store, Carlos, the owner asked her to sit down. He had bad news to tell her. She could not believe her jewelry was given to someone else. This was not bad enough, she is also told the diamonds were not real. Why is she hearing about the diamonds being fake at this time? Carlos fixed this ring two years before. He did not tell her at that time about the fake diamonds. He did not tell her when she dropped the rings off this time. Why wouldn't he tell her? He claims he was being nice and did not want to hurt her feelings. Margie says it would not hurt her feelings. The rings have sentimental value because they were from a friend. Knowing the truth would not have changed that. It would have been good business for Carlos to tell her the truth. He says two years ago he did not have a diamond tester. Now that he has one and he tested the diamond, he knew for sure. He has the diamond tester in court and tests it on the Judge's wedding ring. Thank goodness it reads diamond! 

Carlos is truly sorry about the loss of Margie's rings. She did not accept the replacement he offered because she wanted real diamonds. Unfortunately, Margie has no evidence to prove the diamonds were real. The Judge administers a little "rough justice" and Margie receives $500.00. Carlos is satisfied with the verdict. Margie is upset because she was lied to. It really is true that honesty is the best policy.

Your Burger Gave Me Food Poisoning!

Charles ate a  burger at Grandma Susie's Cooking Shack. When he gets sick, four hours later, he is convinced it is from the burger. He is suing Susie for $5000.00. He does not have any evidence that he got sick from the food at her establishment. He ate the burger at 7:30 in the evening, got sick 4 hours later. He was sick throughout the night and went to the hospital in the morning. The paperwork he has from the hospital has a diagnosis of abdominal pain of unknown causes.Yet when he hands the paperwork to the Judge he says it will prove his claim. Yes, he sounds like he suffered terribly with gastrointestinal symptoms. Unfortunately, he cannot prove what caused it. Susie tells us that no one else got sick. The Judge says the industry standard for an investigation is at least two cases. The symptoms he had could have been from the flu, it was not necessarily food poisoning. Also, depending on the type of bacteria, it could take 2 to 5 days for symptoms to appear. Some types of food poisoning from shellfish can take up to 90 days. Charles cannot prove his case, he does not have any evidence. He does not receive $5000.00. In the hallway, he is truly disappointed. Susie admits it was scary to be there to defend her reputation. The important thing to remember is to be open-minded. Charles was convinced it was the burger and would not entertain any other reasons for his illness.

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

The harder you fall, the higher you bounce.

-Unknown  

People's Court: 7-11-12 **** Friends **** Test Drive **** Invitations

James and Steven are friends. They met in a recovery program. James lent money to Steven to buy a motorcycle. Steven denies the loan. Of course, there is nothing in writing. After the fact, James wants Steven to sign a promissory note. This does not go over well, they get into a physical fight. They both claim the other threw the first punch. Since Steven wants $3000.00 in medical bills, he needs to prove that he was attacked. Witnesses to the fight would make all the difference. Steven claims there were a few people that saw the fight but they do not want to get involved. He has so many excuses, some are elderly, another wears an ankle bracelet and can not be in New York. He also claims James was trying to steal his fiancee. He does not win his counterclaim. Meanwhile, James has a witness to the purchase of the motorcycle. The man that sold the motorcycle tells the court that James handed him the money and Steven rode the motorcycle away and crashed it! Steven does not sound like he is having too much luck. The shame of it is, these two men had a friendship and allowed money and jealously to get in the way. Also, James denies he ever had any desires towards his friend's fiancee. What caused this situation to escalate to physical violence? I believe the money transaction should have been made clear from the beginning. Before the money changed hands, both men should have been agreed on the loan. Also, Steven's fiancee should not have gone to lunch and spent time alone with James. On a happy note, Steven and his fiancee did work out their problems and are now married.

Titus buys a used car without taking it for a test drive. Jeff, the owner of the used car lot says this is common. I do not understand how anyone can buy a car, new or used without taking it for a test drive. Titus tells the court that 15 years ago, he bought a car from the same lot from Jeff's dad. and did not take it for a test drive. Since Jeff's dad was so reputable and he had no problem with that car, he felt he could trust Jeff. It really isn't about trust, it is about the car. What if it is just uncomfortable to drive? After the purchase of the used car, Titus drives the car away and comes back ten minutes later. He says there are problems with the car. Oh my, a test drive would have been a good idea!!!!  Jeff is willing to work with Titus even though there is no warranty on the car. Titus has signed three documents that it is an as-is sale. Titus does not want to take any responsibility for buying a used car without performing his own due diligence. Titus continues to have problems with the car, Jeff keeps telling him to have it checked out. Even after Titus loses the case, Jeff is still willing to work with him to keep him happy. He does not have to do this, but still extends the offer.

Jonelle hires Orrett, a friend of her uncle, to print 120 invitations for a surprise party for her mother. She wants them done quickly to hand out at a family gathering. Orrett agrees to print them for her right away. He should not have made promises he could not keep. He starts the job and then runs out of ink. To save money, he orders ink online. This adds an additional delay. None of this would have happened if he would have gone to a store for the ink. He wants to save a few dollars and now winds up in court and does not even stick to a straight story. First he says he would have the invitations ready, then he says he would try to have them ready. He says he would return the money, he gave Jonelle's uncle a check, then he says he is not returning her money. It is easy to see that Orrett is not believable. He is also counterclaiming for $80.00, even though he did not return Jonelle's money. Now he has to return her money and he is not getting an additional $80.00 for his time printing the invitations he says he threw away. He had an invitation to show the Judge, I guess he did not throw them all away!  Why not just tell the truth? Things happen and we need to be flexible. In a case where time is of the essence, Orrett should have bought the ink locally to avoid  the delay. He should have taken the commitment to the job much more seriously.

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

They can because they think they can.

-Virgil

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be included in future blogs.

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