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 - 9 14 2012 - Friday

Rest In Peace Polly

Jetta and Tanya are suing James for $1698.75, the cost of their dog, Polly. Tanya hired James to pet-sit their two dogs, Polly and Memar. Polly is a female Bichon Frise / Maltese. Memar is a male Shih Tzu. Tanya was planning a vacation and did not want to put her dogs in a kennel. James was recommended to her by someone at the school where she worked.  James worked at a pet shop and he would do educational programs at the school. While Tanya was away she called to check on the dogs. James told her they were okay. When she got back from vacation, she called James and he said he would bring the dogs to her. When she opened the door, he was holding Memar, the Shih Tzu. He told her Polly was dead. Tanya asked what happened. What James told her then and what he says in court are different stories. He was so sketchy about the facts when he was telling her, that her daughter, Jetta, believed he sold Polly. They did not believe that Polly had died. This is the story James tells in court: On the second night that he was caring for them, he took Memar out for a walk and when he opened the door to put Memar in the house, Polly ran outside and ran away. He chased her for about a mile and then lost her. He went back to the house and got his car to look for her. He found her lying dead against the curb. He threw her body away in the garbage. 

This man is horrible. He should not be allowed to have an animal, let alone work with them. When he is telling the story he refers to Polly as "it", multiple times. I think this is terrible. When he found Polly, he should have taken her to a vet clinic. He did not. He told Jetta that he had her cremated. Now he admits to throwing her away. Jetta and Tanya loved Polly. They do not understand why James behaved the way he did. James says he is a poor man. What is that supposed to mean? Being poor is not an excuse for being cold and heartless! I am sure Tanya would have reimbursed him for any money he spent on Polly. Listen James, her name was Polly, she is not an "it"! 

James is found responsible to pay Jetta and Tanya $1300.00. This is the amount Jetta paid for her as a puppy. Tanya and Jetta miss their dog and no amount of money is going to make the heartache go away. James does not even seem affected at all by the misery he has caused these women. It is such a shame that this tragedy occurred. It is a tremendous responsibility to watch someone's pets. Extra care must be exercised. Having the dogs run loose in the house and be able to run through the front door just shows that James had no idea what he was doing. I hope he does not continue to offer his services to people. I understand that accidents happen, but in this case it is more than that. What James did after Polly was killed is inexcusable! What do you think?

Priscilla And The Process Server

Priscilla is suing Joseph for $75.00. This is for the cost of the service she hired him for. Joseph was supposed to serve a subpoena to the mechanic that Priscilla was suing. Priscilla says he did not serve the paperwork and wants her money back. When the Judge is questioning Priscilla she gives several different stories. She actually seems confused as to the facts of her own case. Joseph says he did his job. He served the paperwork and shows proof of service. Priscilla hired someone else to serve the paperwork. She does not show proof in court as to what was served. Since Priscilla cannot seem to get her facts straight and Joseph proves he did his job, she does not get the money back.

In Priscilla's written complaint to the court, she comments on Joseph's long hair. Why would this even be an issue? I do not understand why Priscilla would sue Joseph for his fee when he obviously did his job. She seems to have wasted much time and resources to bring Joseph to court. It  does not seem to make sense. Sometimes cases like this create more questions than answers! What do you think?

Carlos And The Bounced Check!

Carlos is suing Eddie for $1100.00. This is the amount of a bounced check for the balance on a car sale. Carlos owns a used car dealership. Eddie bought a used car for $1800.00.  He gave a $300.00 deposit and then told Carlos he only had an additional $400.00. He gave Carlos a check for $1100.00. Carlos turned all of the paperwork over to Eddie, including the title. The check bounced.

Why didn't Eddie make good on the bounced check? He claims that he had problems with the car right away. He did not complain about the problems right away. Even so, he should have paid for the car. Why would he think he has the right to keep the car when he did not pay for it? Carlos tried to collect the money from Eddie, he even went to his workplace. Eddie's boss told Carlos to take Eddie to court to get the money. Eddie wants Carlos to make good on the warranty he received for the car. The warranty paper he provides to the court is not even filled out. Also, he has not paid for the car, so why would any warranty be valid? The Judge finds in favor of Carlos to receive the $1100.00.

It is surprising that Carlos gave Eddie the title to the car. Carlos has sold used cars for 22 years and seems very trusting. This is refreshing since we do not always think that used car dealers are honest. Thank you Carlos for restoring our faith in used car dealers! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

He has the most who is most content with the least.

~Diogenes

People's Court - 8 30 2012 - Thurday

Who Is Telling The Truth?

Sheria is suing Clarence for $250.00. This is for the cost of a turn signal broken in her car. Sheria claims that Clarence broke it when he went to get her keys out of the ignition. How on earth could he have broken the turn signal? Sheria says when she asked Clarence how it happened, he put his head down and would not answer her. Clarence has a totally different story. Clarence says they were having sex in the front seat of Sheria's car and her leg hit the turn signal and it broke. Clarence describes their actions in graphic detail. Sheria said this did not happen. She has voicemail messages from Clarence that are supposed to prove her story. Sheria plays the messages and they do not help her case at all. If anything, they support Clarence's story. He professes his love for her over and over. Sheria has a receipt for $250.00 from her father, a mechanic. The receipt is from a store bought receipt book, it does not have a business name on it, it is not from the purchase of the turn signal. The Judge tells Sheria that this is something that anyone can make up. Sheria does not have any other proof for the replacement of the turn signal. At the very end of her testimony, Sheria admits that she had sex with Clarence in the back seat of her car. Too little, too late. Sheria's credibility is shot at this point. It is really important to tell the truth, no matter how embarassing it might be. Sheria cannot be believed. She loses her case. On the way out of the courtroom, Sheria continues to deny having sex in the front seat of her car. She really does protest too much! Clarence says he does not love her enough to pay for the turn signal. Why do people come to court over such trivial matters? Sheria had to know what Clarence would say. Why put yourself in this position on national television? What do you think?

 

Is This A Pitbull Witch Hunt?

Lunique is suing Joanne for $5000.00. This is to cover vet bills, medical bills and pain and suffering. Lunique explains how her and her family have been terrorized by Joanne's dogs. Joanne is her next door neighbor and has a Pitbull and a Rottweiller. Lunique has a Toy Poodle. On 7 occasions, Lunique has called the police because the two large dogs were running loose. On 3 of these occasions, the dogs were not there when the police arrived. On 4 occasions, the dogs were still out. Lunique describes when the dogs chased the police officer into her house. Also, one of the dogs bit a police officer. The Pitbull attacked Lunique's Toy Poodle. In her efforts to keep the Pitbull from killing her dog, Lunique was injured. Her dog was injured and she was injured. What else needs to happen before something is done? How are these dogs getting away with this? After this incident, Joanne was ordered to get rid of one of the dogs. Joanne admits this is true, and she chose to get rid of the Pitbull and keep the Rottweiller. Joannes gave the Pitbull to her daughter's boyfriend. Lunique says that he often visits with the Pitbull, so the dog is not really gone from the neighborhood. Lunique needs to pursue this. If Joanne is violating a court order, something needs to be done.

Joanne explains that this is a large dog friendly neighborhood. What does this mean? Does everyone let their large dogs run loose? Of course not! Joanne says that her dogs only get out when no one is home. Why are they outside when no one is home? It does not sound like the fence and gate keep the dogs in. Joanne says she would pay the vet bill, if it was given to her. She also explains that her insurance paid Lunique's medical bills. This is a very interesting turn of events. Lunique did not know a check for $1500.00 had been sent to her lawyer. The lawyer accepted this settlement check and put it into a trust account. Lunique found this out during a recess. I am sure she will have some choice words for her lawyer. Joanne does not seem concerned that her dogs continually got out of the yard. She did not seem concerned that the Pitbull  attacked Lunique's Toy Poodle or bit a police officer. What needs to happen to have Joanne care about the actions of her dogs? I do not know. I do know that Joanne is found responsible to pay the vet bill, $924.57. Hopefully, she will start to be more responsible for the sake of her neighbors! What do you think?

What Is Leaking?

Camille is suing Elizabeth for $180.00. This is for the damage caused by a water leak. Elizabeth lives in the apartment above Camille. One morning, Camille was awakened by the sound of water. She found water leaking from the ceiling onto her dresser. Camille went upstairs and knocked on the door. No one came to to the door. Camille got her dog and waited on the porch. In about one hour, Elizabeth came out. Camille confronted her and Elizabeth ignored her and walked away. Camille is convinced that the water leak is coming from Elizabeth's air conditioner. Elizabeth denies this and yet, shows pictures of her air conditioner with a bucket underneath it. Really! Where do you think the water goes? Camille shows a video of a water blister on the ceiling of her bedroom. She pokes it and the water comes streaming out! If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth a million! Brown water comes pouring from the ceiling, while we all watch in wonder! Good job, Camille! This is the best evidence. There is nothing more for Elizabeth to say. She tries and tries to deny the leak is from her air conditioner. Nothing doing! The water leaking through Camille's ceiling is from Elizabeth's air conditioner. Elizabeth is found responsible to pay Camille $180.00 for the damage to the ceiling. The next thing is for Elizabeth to change how the air conditioner is set up to prevent further damage. Good luck, Camille!

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

Truly great friends are hard to find, difficult to leave, and impossible to forget.

-Unknown Source



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