People's Court Blog- 9 3 2012 - Monday

Joseph and The Matchmaker

Joseph is suing Jacqueline for $2227.00. Jacqueline runs a matchmatching business. When Joseph moved to Oregon from Ohio, he signed up for 2 free online dating services. Joseph is very proud to show the reason he moved to Oregon. He has a picture of his 6 year old granddaughter. He is a very proud grandfather! Joseph decided to upgrade his services on Jacqueline's website and paid her $27.00 for a consultation. He then agreed to a platinum service package that cost $2200.00 for 90 days of personal service. He refers to the money as "benjamins" (This is so cute!) Joseph was supposed to receive personal attention for this additional cost. Jacqueline said she does background checks on the potential dates and even conducts personal introductions. Jacqueline had asked Joseph to update his online pictures. He did this, had current pictures taken,  and sent them to Jacqueline. After several weeks, Joseph was not happy with the service. He sent an e-mail to Jacqueline demanding a refund. He felt she was stringing him along. Joseph received an e-mail from a potential date. He was upset because the woman was not a platinum member. He did not know what he was getting for the additional money he paid. When Jacqueline received a complaint from the Better Business Bureau, she suspended Joseph's membership. She did not notify him about this. Jacqueline explains that she did it for his benefit and then admits she did it to protect the company. Either way, when she suspended his service, she breached their contract. Joseph had every right to complain about a service he was not happy with. He was taking the proper steps and going through the right channels. The Judge finds in favor of Joseph. He receives $2200.00, the cost of the platinum package. He does not get back the consultation fee. Jacqueline should never have suspended his membership. Joseph is elated about winning the case. He is also dating the photographer that took his pictures to update his profile. It seems that Joseph is a man of action. He moved to Oregon to spend time with his granddaughter. He is enjoying an active social life! He knows what he wants and is willing to go to court to fight for it! What do you think?

Richard And The Shopping Cart

Richard is suing Jamie for $650.00. This is for damages to his car from a shopping cart. Richard explains that he was parked next to the shopping cart corral. When he came out of the store and approached his car, someone in the parking lot pointed out the damage to his car from a shopping cart. He said the person shoved the cart from across the lane and then pointed to a car that was leaving the parking lot. The car circled around and came back. The passenger in the car told him that her cart hit his car. She gave him her information. The passenger was Jamie. Jamie admits that the cart hit the car instead of going in the cart corral. She says she pushed it from a few inches, not a few feet. She knows it scratched the car. Why shouldn't she pay for the damages? (This is where it gets really interesting!) Jamie says she was an invitee of the supermarket. She was told by a lawyer that she is not responsible for this reason. The Judge explains that as an invitee it does not absolve her of responsibility from consequences of her own actions. Also, the Judge tells Jamie that the legal advice she received was not correct. You get what you pay for! Yes, it is true, Jamie did receive free legal advice! I think it is amazing that Jamie knows she hit Robert's car and was not willing to pay for the damages. Why did she give him her information at the scene? Jamie feels that Robert was threatening and intimidating when he was calling her to ask for the money. It took a lawsuit to show Jamie that she is responsible for her actions. Robert is awarded $544.75. He will get back the cost of his deductible, credit card interest and his court costs. Robert was also suing for the cost of gas, he will not get this because he did not bring proof to court. Robert was fortunate there was a witness to this incident. Jamie should have left her information on Robert's car as soon as she saw the cart had caused damage. I hope Jamie is more responsble in the future and puts the shopping cart directly in the corral. This way she will avoid hitting someone's car! What do you think?

David / Margaret And The Flood

David and Margaret are suing Alex for $3000.00. They explain their neighbor's toilet overflowed and caused flooding in their home. The insurance company hired a restoration company for the clean-up. Alex's company did the initial clean-up, removed the damaged carpeting and padding. They also removed the parts of the walls that had absorbed water. When the contractors started their work, Alex was contacted to store David's and Margaret's belongings. The belongings were packaged in cardboard boxes and Rubbermaid containers and stored in Alex's warehouse. When David and Margaret received their items back, they were very unhappy. They say that everything was moldy and smelled really bad. One of the Rubbermaid containers was cracked. They threw almost everything away. They did save a few items they brought to court with them. They did not take any pictures, they do not have any receipts. They do have a list with the number of boxes and containers removed from their home. This is their only evidence. Alex does not have any paperwork for this transaction. The list also has written on it that 3 rugs were taken to the storage unit. When the items were returned, the rugs could not be found. Alex does have 2 of the rugs in court for this case. He admits that one rug is still missing. The Judge checks the items that David and Margaret brought in with them. She notes they do smell, but is not able to determine whether it is from the flood or from the storage unit. Alex explains the items were packaged and sealed at their home and stored in his warehouse. Everything was still sealed when it was returned on February 2nd. Alex did not know there was a problem with the items until March 28th, when he was notifed about the lawsuit. Since David and Margaret are not able to prove that the storage procedure damaged their belongings, they do not get paid for them. They will receive $200.00 for the missing rug. They also get back the 2 rugs that Alex brought to court. The Judge smelled them and said they were fine. It is a shame what happened to David and Margaret. Having your home flooded with sewage water was a nightmare for them. I do think they should have notified the company as soon as they got back their belongings. It might have made a difference! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.

- Robert Frost

People's Court - 8 6 2012 - Monday

Put This In Your Pipe And Smoke It!

Douglas is suing David's business for $2314.00. Douglas had 4 grow tents for medical marijuana. Before he could use them, he changed his mind and went into another business. He took the 4 brand new grow tents to David's consignment shop. David sells indoor and outdoor horticultural equipment. Douglas does not have a consignment agreement. For some reason, he never signed one or received one. Douglas does have a claim check to prove he dropped off the 4 tents at David's store at the end of March. In September, Douglas received a call from the manager asking if he would sell 2 of the grow tents  for $2000.00. Douglas agreed. Two days later, Douglas was informed the store had been burglarized and the money was missing. This really should not affect Douglas. The store sold the grow tents, had the money and should pay Douglas. This does not happen. David says the claim check absolves him from his responsibility. The claim check states they are not responsible for lost or missing items. Okay, that is true, except the items were not lost or missing. They were sold and the money was stolen. There is a police report that does not even reference the money. David claims he did not know until 2 days later that the money was missing. How can you overlook a theft of $2000.00? Very, very suspicious. When he realizes the money is missing, he does not call the police to amend the report. Because the theft of the money is not recorded on the police report, David can not submit a claim to his insurance. David's defense is so convoluted, the Judge exclaims to him - put this in your pipe and smoke it - as she rules in favor of Douglas. In the hallway, David claims he did not get a chance to present his case. Douglas is very happy with the outcome. He does not believe David is involved in the theft, he thinks they both know who is responsible. Everyone will be happy to know, that Douglas picked up the remaining 2 grow tents from David's store. These types of cases are very interesting to me. It would seem straight forward that David would have to pay Douglas. Why he would think saying the money was stolen is beyond me. His own paperwork supports the fact that he is responsible to pay Douglas for the sold items. What do you think?

We Are Moving Out - The Mold In The House Is Making Us Sick!

Suzanne and Frank were renting a house from Karin and Mark. They had rented the house since 2005. Frank describes the relationship in favorable terms. Everyone got along. In 2008, Suzanne and Frank started to get sick on a regular basis. Their neighbor, Chris, was an environmental consultant. He brought them a mold kit and then sent it in to a laboratory for analysis. Unfortunately, Suzanne and Frank did not receive the results. Based on a visual inspection prior to sending the mold kit to the lab, Chris told Suzanne and Frank there was mold in the house. They felt this explained their illnesses and decided to move out of the house. Suzanne and Frank claim they gave proper notice. Karin and Mark say they did not get proper notice. Their tenants moved out without paying a full month's rent and also left unpaid water bills. The security deposit is being used to cover these expenses. Suzanne and Frank believe they should get back their security deposit and be paid for heating oil that was left in the oil tank. Frank wrote two notes to their landlords about this. Unfortunately, he quotes different amounts of oil at different prices. His reason for this is that he misread the oil chart. I can understand the amount of oil, but the price of the oil? He knows how much he paid for it. This does not make any sense to me. Regarding the water bills, Suzanne and Frank claim they never paid the water bill during the time they lived in the house. Karin explains that the water bill was in her mother's name and then stumbles over her words as she tries to explain the agreement. She does not have any proof to show the tenants paid the water bill. The Judge awards half of the security deposit to Suzanne and Frank. They also get some money for the heating oil left in the oil tank. Since Karin and Mark have no proof about the water bill, Suzanne and Frank do not have to pay for it. They are able to get back $965.00 of the $1500.00 security deposit. The important lesson in this case, is to document everything you do. Keep important paperwork, correspond by letter or e-mail. Maintaining a paper trail is very essential when you are trying to prove your case! What do you think about this situation?

I Need Evidence For Court?

Barbara is suing James for $1312.89. This is the cost to fix her car after a car accident. Barbara said that James was entering the highway from a ramp and hit the back of her car. After they pulled over and made sure everyone was okay, James told her someone hit him from behind. The impact of the truck hitting him, pushed his car into her car. The police were called and a report was written up. No one at the scene received tickets. James told the police about the truck that hit him, This information is documented in the police report. The damage to the back of James's car is also written on the police report. This is very important, since James came to court completely unprepared. He did not take pictures of the damage to the back of his car. Barbara does not believe there was another vehicle. She said she was moving when James hit her car. James says she was at a standstill. Their stories are so different. Barbara says she did not see a white truck. James says the white truck kept going after it hit him. He did tell Barbara about the truck right away. James also told the police about the truck. The information on the police report about the damage to the back of his vehicle is enough to convince the Judge. Barbara does not win her case. In the hallway, Barbara says the damage to James's car was probably there before the accident. James says he told the truth. I do not think he even realizes how lucky he is. If the police report did not contain the information about the damage to the back of his car, he would not have won the case. It is very important to bring evidence to court. When someone is suing you, honesty and truth are important, but evidence is crucial. 

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

There is no right way to do something wrong.
-Unknown

People's Court: 6-20-12: Family, Friends, Strangers

Welcome to Summer 2012! 

Everyone has so much to deal with. The last thing we want to think about is being taken advantage of. Whether it is by family, friends or strangers. Why should we allow ourselves to treated poorly by others?

This landlord/tenant case is a good illustration of people treating each other poorly. These two women do not get along. The day to day problems are so toxic that they really need to separate from each other. The landlord needs to pursue an eviction of this particular tenant. She feels that illegal activity is occurring in the apartment. The reason for the suit is because of a flood. The landlord is accusing the tenant of leaving the water running in the tub in the middle of the night. She claims to have proof but does not have it with her. She is in court, this is the time to have the proof. The tenant is countersuing for harassment. Again, there is no proof on her part. If she is not happy with her living arrangements, she should move out. She has pictures of the mold in her apartment. It is a very unhealthy environment and she should not have to live there. She says she has called the city and there are violations that have been cited. She should have sued based on the conditions in the apartment. This environment is toxic on many levels. When the case is over neither party gets any money. The tenant needs to realize, it will not truly be over until she moves out.

This is a case about two friends. One lends the other her credit card to buy a camera. This is a very expensive camera she is going to use to venture into a new business.  She begins to make payments. Then, the camera is stolen. Does she still owe her the money? Of course she does. But, now she calls it an investment. She cannot change the agreement after the fact. She owes the money. Is it really that easy? It should be, but now we have another problem. No one kept track of the payments or paying off the credit card. The money situation is a mess. It is left to the Judge to do " a little rough justice". The friend gets back some of the money, not everything she is asking for. The more important question is: Are they still friends? It seems like the friendship is over. What a shame when her friend was there for her when she needed help.

This is a case about a family that has lost their way. A mother and daughter that have been very close are not talking and the daughter has publicly wished death on her mother. How do things get so bad? The daughter put her mother's car in her name. The mother got several parking tickets. The car gets towed. The mother does not pay the tickets. Why? She claims her daughter owed her money from a cell phone years before.  They must have been close for the daughter to help out her mother with the car. There does not seem to be a relationship at this point. The Judge recommends that they stay away from each other or get family counseling if they want to get back together. They do not seem receptive to the idea of repairing the relationship. The daughter says her mother has nothing to do with any of her grandchildren. Such a shame. I do not think families should sue each other. There should be a way to work things out. It is always a heartbreak to see a family divided.

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

Anything you're good at contributes to happiness.

Bertrand Russell