People's Court Blog - Monday - July 8 2013

The show today is a repeat.

Lizbeth is not happy with the services from Steve, a lawn care specialist. She wants all of her money back from a contract signed with Steve - $3406.00. Lizbeth claims that not only did her lawn not get better, it actually got worse. She is accusing Steve of putting something on the lawn to kill it and grow weeds and then she says she does not think he put anything on the lawn. Besides the fact that her approach does not make sense, she has no proof. Her new lawn care specialists did not provide any information that Steve did not do his job. She does not get her money back. Court is about proof, not just being unhappy with services rendered! What do you think?

Randolph is suing Hugh for $2652.34. Hugh was behind Randolph at an intersection. He admits he is at fault, he "tapped" the back of Randolph's car. Hugh offered Randolph $100.00 on the spot. Randolph refused it but does not call the police. It is very important to call the police when you have a car accident, even if it is just a "fender bender". The two men do exchange insurance information, that was a good idea. Hugh seems to think that Randolph was committing insurance fraud, he accuses him of switching cars. It seems that Randolph sold his car and then registered the car he was driving the day of the accident only the day before. The paperwork takes time to catch up. There was no insurance fraud, but it does seem Randolph is trying to take advantage of the situation. Hugh testifies that Randolph called and wanted $1400.00. The estimate is almost double that amount. The Judge believes that Randolph asked for the $1400.00 and that is the amount he is awarded. It is never a good idea to try to negotiate a settlement and then go to court and ask for more money. What do you think?

Kim is suing Erica for $2521.05. On June 2nd, Erica's 2 dogs jumped out of the window of her car and went after Kim and her little dog. Her dog was not hurt. It costs over $1000.00 to find out all was good with her little dog. Erica admits it is her fault and is willing to pay the vet bill. She did not feel she was responsible to pay for a missed day of work 10 days after the attack and acupuncture treatments. Kim states that she re - injured her back when she was fighting off the dogs. She is also suing for pain and suffering due to nightmares she now has since the attack. The Judge finds in favor of Kim for $447.50, the balance of the vet bill and part of the acupuncture treatments. Kim does not get lost wages and pain and suffering, she is not able to prove these elements. It is never a good idea to drive with the windows open enough for a dog to jump out. The dogs will jump, no matter how well trained they may be. Erica understands she is financially responsible for what her dogs caused. She did not want to pay for all of the "extras". I do not blame her. I feel really bad for her that she now has to fight to get her dogs back. I wish her luck!

Now, please join me as I embark on a weight loss journey. On July 1st, I decided to start eating healthier. I have been trying to lose weight for years. Many attempts at fad diets and weight loss programs. Now, I will try a new approach. Drink lots of water, do not eat after 9 pm, eat healthy snacks and ... I will try to incorporate small changes to my daily lifestyle. Major changes are a road to failure. Small changes are attainable. I am going to continue these changes for this week. I am also reading about intermittent fasting. I want to try it, I just need to find the right time to start...any day now!!!

Week 1 weight loss: 6 lbs - great job!  - keep up the good work - stay motivated!!!!

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 - 1 14 2013 - Monday

Alexis is suing Frances for $1480.00.

Frances has a countersuit.

Alexis and her boyfriend were living in an apartment rented by Frances. Even though they were told that smoking was not allowed, they continued to smoke. When Frances smelled marijuana she told them again it was not allowed. When Frances noticed people were coming and going at all hours, she felt that they were dealing drugs. Frances told them to move out. The boyfriend moved out right away but Alexis stayed on. Finally Frances had enough and told Alexis she had to leave. Alexis was upset by this and reported Frances for having an illegal apartment. Alexis was starting to move out and had left furniture behind. Frances took the key back from Alexis. When Alexis wanted to get the rest of the furniture, Frances told her she threw it out. She did this because she  was not happy being reported for the illegal apartment. 

Clearly, these two women were not able to communicate effectively with each other. They were both angry and not dealing with the situation in a business-like manner. After Alexis moved out, she noticed 4 pairs of her shoes had been damaged. The closet they were in had water damage and the shoes were covered with mold. Frances blames Alexis for causing the leak. Both sides are at fault and both sides have to pay the other. After the Judge decides what damages they are entitled to, it results in the landlord receiving $1400.00, not the almost $5000.00 she was countersuing for. The landlord was not entitled to back rent because it was an illegal apartment. She was entitled to the damages she could prove. In the hallway, Alexis claims that some of the damages were caused by them killing bugs. When she was in the courtroom, she never mentioned bugs. The landlord, Frances, feels that the verdict was fair and will never rent again. 

What I find very interesting is that Alexis did not care the apartment was illegal until she wanted to get back at Frances. Why do people need to be so vindictive? Why do they have to become so angry with each other that common sense flies out the window?

Omari is suing Nathaniel for $5000.00.

Omari hired Nathaniel to install an air conditioner unit for his house. He had received several other estimates and each one specified the size of the unit. On the contract from Nathaniel the size of the unit was not on it. After he installed the unit, Omari felt that it did not cool his house. Omari hired an air conditioner specialist to evaluate the situation. He had in writing from the specialist that the air conditioner unit was undersized and that it was not calibrated correctly.

Nathaniel admits he is not licensed to install this type of air conditioner unit. He says he replaced the unit based on the size of the existing one. Unfortunately, when Omari bought the house the air conditioner did not work. Nathaniel did not do sizing calculations and did not realize the existing unit was undersized.

It is very clear that Nathaniel did not do the job correctly. Omari does not receive $5000.00 because of this, he only receives what he paid for the job, $3820.07. Also, Nathaniel needs to pick up the unit from Omari.

It is a shame that the communication broke down between these two men. When Omari initially complained to Nathaniel, there was a negotiation that could have worked out. Unfortunately both men become hostile towards each other and wound up in court. The further shame of this case, is that these two men were friends. Hopefully they can get past this situation and renew their friendship. Friends should not do business with each other, especially if the contract is not clear. It easily can become uncomfortable and awkward. What do you think?

Selena and Omer sue Cesar for $2800.00

Selena and Omer purchased a three piece livingroom set from Cesar's furniture store. They prepaid for the set. When it was delivered, Omer was not happy with the recliner and refused delivery. Omer thought he was buying a power recliner. The recliner was manual, it did not even have a lever. When he called Cesar and was told the recliner did not come in a power model, he decided to sue. Why is he suing for the entire amount of the purchase when he kept the other 2 pieces of the set? This is not clear, except that Omer is focused on the power recliner. The fact that he is so adamant about a power recliner would be a very good reason for it to have been specified on the contract. It is not. Also, when Cesar realized that Omer wanted a power recliner, he called to find out if this model had that feature. He found out it did not and never let Omer know. Cesar needs to learn how to communicate with his customers. 

Omer does not get his money back but he is entitled to get his recliner back. Cesar agrees to deliver the recliner to Omer. At first he said he would make him pick it up and then he agrees to the delivery. The Judge reminds them both to play nice in the hallway!

Once again, effective communication was needed. Hopefully Cesar will learn from this and care about what his customers want. This will serve him well in the future. What do you think? 

Communication is very important in all three of these cases. People need to be very clear about what they want. When you enter into a contract, check the information before signing. This will save everyone headaches and heartaches!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog * 12-10-12 * MONDAY Case 1 of 2

Hi Everyone. I am back. Thank you for being patient. My family was affected by Hurricane Sandy but not to the extent of many others. We had house damage, property damage and we were without power and water for over a week. This is minor compared to the loss many others experienced. We all need to continue to have compassion for those that lost so much in this terrible storm.

People's Court is still airing repeat episodes. Because of this I am going to catch up on past shows.

The episode that I am posting today is from 10-29-12 when Hurricane Sandy hit us. I was in the process of writing when we lost the power. I am going to review the episodes individually. Today's review is the first case from 10-29-12. Here it is:

This Was Not A Harmless Prank!

Lucinda is suing Leigh and her son Marcus for $852.00. This is for medical bills she has because of what Marcus describes as a harmless prank. What did the 15 year old Marcus do? Well, he was frustrated with the way Lucinda bossed him around at work so he stole her wallet and threw it in the dumpster. Why does Lucinda have medical bills? Lucinda had a panic attack when she realized her wallet was missing. Did Marcus confess right away? No, he waited until he went to the police station and then confessed. His mother is in court and is defending his actions, saying he did the right thing. I understand she is his mother, but Marcus needs to take responsibility for his actions. In court, he does admit he stole money from the wallet. He was not arrested yet, he has to do community service; washing and waxing police cars. His mother is also making him wait until he turns 17 to get his driver's permit. Since he did not confess right away to what he had done he created the situation where Lucinda had a panic attack. The Judge finds him responsible to pay the medical bills. His mother is taken off the lawsuit since she is not responsible for her son's actions. Lucinda tells Marcus that she is not mad at him and hopes there are no hard feelings. In the hallway they all hug and it brings tears to my eyes! Marcus seems to have learned his lesson and hopefully in the future will find a better way to deal with his anger and frustration.

Why do people find it so easy to treat each other with disregard? I know Marcus is young,but he should still have a moral center and should know better. I think it is important to teach our children to have respect for others. The mom should be setting a much better example for her son. What do you think?

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Thank you for joining me! 

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

A Word To Learn:
Tutelary - of or relating to a guardian

People's Court Blog - 9 10 2012 - Monday

The Dog Bit My Penis

I apologize for not having the names for the plaintiff and defendant. Due to technical difficulties I missed the first few minutes of the show.

The plaintiff is suing for $6000.00. This is for the pain and suffering from a dog bite to his penis and his hand. When the plaintiff entered the defendant's home, he was attacked by their dog. The dog first grabbed his private area and latched on. The plaintiff was trying to protect himself and get the dog to let go and then the dog bit his hand. The plaintiff went to the emergency room for treatment. The plaintiff claimed he had puncture wounds in his penis. The Judge read the medical reports and this was not confirmed. The plaintiff claimed his girlfriend would not have sex with him. She was in court to testify and did not confirm this information. She said they had to wait a little bit but then if was okay. The plaintiff claimed he now had permanent injuries to his private area. The medical reports do not confirm this. 

Why did the dog bite him? It seems that the defendant's Labrador does not like unfamiliar people in the house. The adults of the house thought the dog was locked up . According to the defendant, the dog has not bit anyone in the past. The reason for locking up the dog is because he gets aggressive ever since they were robbed. It seems the dog was beaten during one of the robberies. This dog is just acting like a dog. It is up to the owners to keep everyone safe. The plaintiff did suffer bites to his hand, he had to get several stitches. The trauma to his penis was physical as well as emotional. He wants to receive the maximum amount of money he can because of the indignity he suffered. The Judge awards him $2,000.00 since he did experience some pain and suffering. The plaintiff does not feel this is enough for the misery and humiliation he has to suffer for the rest of his life.

I think it is terrible that the plaintiff was attacked. He is very fortunate his injuries were not much worse. The dog owner needs to take responsibility for the dog's actions. Having a dog that behaves in this way in a home with young children is asking for trouble. This dog is unpredictable and cannot be trusted. I would hope the family consults an animal behaviorist as long as they are intent on keeping the dog. There is always the chance this could happen again. What do you think?

I Am Here For My Money!

Brian is suing his cousin, Shawn, for $60.00. Yes, this case is about $60.00, It cost Brian $40.00 to file the lawsuit to get back the $60.00. Usually when this occurs it is about the principle. Someone is trying to prove a point. Not in this case! Brian makes it very clear, he just wants his money back. He is not here to teach anyone a lesson. He is here to entertain. Brian is a very engaging man! He is very good with the one-liners. He says he must be living in an Annie musical. The reason for this is that when he asks Shawn for the money back, he tells him tomorrow, tomorrow! Even the way Shawn got the money was entertaining. It seems that the day before Brian got paid he told his wife that money did not grow on trees. When he cashed his paycheck, he took the money and hung it on a ficus tree in their livingroom. I am sure this was very amusing. That same day Shawn came over and asked to borrow money. Brian could not tell him that he did not have any money since Shawn saw the money tree in the livingroom. Brian told Shawn to take some money off the tree. Shawn took $60.00. Shawn told Brian that his mother would pay him back very soon. 

The best part is that Shawn's mother, Carlene, is in court to testify for Brian. Shawn feels that since his mom is going to testify against him, he does not have a chance. A chance of what? He borrowed the money. Now pay it back. Shawn says he has been unemployed and could not pay Brian back. It is $60.00, pay your cousin back! The day that Shawn started a new job, Brian filed to get his money back. Brian waited a year and a half for his money. His wait is over. Shawn has to pay him back! What a shame that family winds up in court over $60.00. Why does it have to come to this? If someone is nice enough to help you out when you are in need, pay them back! What do you think?

"Happy" New Year!

Annette is suing Jon for $1500.00. Annette hired Jon's company to provide a DJ for her New Year's Eve Party. She paid $300.00 for the DJ. The day before the party, Annette received a call from Jon's company and was told that the DJ was in a car accident. They offered her a refund or she could go with another company for an additional $200.00. Annette told them she would take the refund. Annette also told them she would like an e-mail confirmation. That was the best idea! The e-mail confirmation sinks Jon's testimony. Jon  tells the Judge that Annette cancelled the DJ and this is why she could not get a refund. When he reads the e-mail from his own secretary, he claims that she made up the story. Really! It looks like Jon's company was cancelling the DJ either because they overbooked or they were looking for more money. Jon denies this and maintains that Annette cancelled her party. Maybe he should have brought his secretary to court to tell her side of the story.

It gets better! When Annette contacted her bank regarding this transaction, she was given provisional credit while the bank was investigating. Jon had the nerve to lie to the bank and the provisional credit was reversed. Annette was charged by the bank and she has included these fees in her lawsuit. She is also suing for pain and suffering and the cost of a replacement DJ. Annette has turned a $300.00 lawsuit into a $1500.00 lawsuit! Does she get everything she is asking for? No, but she does get the bank fees, her refund for the DJ and punitive damages. This adds up to $668.00. The punitive damages cover the cost of the replacement DJ since Jon's actions were malicious. I think Jon needs to look into his business practices and have more respect for his customers. Annette was very smart to have requested the confirmation e-mail. This won the case for her! Also, it sounds like the New Year's Eve Party was fun and everyone had a great time bringing in the New Year!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

What's life without whimsy?

- Dr. Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory

People's Court Blog - 8 27 2012 - Monday

He Lives In The Basement!

Alice is suing William for $3200.00. She says this is for rent that William owes her. William is countersuing for $3260; rent, criminal mischief and harassment. These two people know each other for several years. They met when Alice was a foster mother and William was a social worker. They dated briefly. After Alice married someone else and moved to a new home, she decided to rent out the rooms of her original home. She contacted William and asked him if he was interested to rent a bedroom in her house. He said yes. They agreed on the amount of rent and William moved in. There was a problem. Alice did not have the bedroom ready, so Willliam moved into the basement, a family room. This was not a legally permitted space for Alice to rent. That did not seem to bother William, he lived there for several months and paid rent. When Alice posted a "For Sale" sign in front of the house, William stopped paying rent. He claims that when a person is selling their house, they can not collect rent. These are not the facts and the Judge sets him straight. When William moved out, it was from the basement, he never moved upstairs to the bedroom. Since William never moved to the bedroom, Alice is not able to collect rent from him for the months he did not pay. William explains his counterclaim . After he moved out, Alice came to his new home. They got into an altercation in the street. William says she broke his goldchain and the zipper on his jacket. Alice admits to breaking these items, but not because she assaulted him, she was falling in the snow and she grabbed him. As Alice demonstrates these actions, the Judge tells her that it is an insult. How can she expect the Judge to believe such a story? Assaulting someone and grabbing them for support is very different. William gets $20.00 for the damage Alice did to his belongings. Nothing more, he has no case for criminal mischief and harassment. Alice needs to stop renting out her basement, the city  will not issue her a permit for this purpose. The Judge uses the cocaine example to illustrate why the court is not able to support an illegal position. I love this example! It is also a very good idea to know your rights before pursuing a court case. This entire issue came down to $20.00, an amount most people would not sue for. There are some people who would have stayed away from court when they have no proof or are doing something illegal. What do you think?

 

My Virgin Mary Statue Is Ruined!

Martha is suing George for $200.00. This is the value of a Virgin Mary statue, Martha shipped from New Jersey to Florida. George is the agent for the shipping company. Mary explains that her late husband won the statue in a raffle in the 1980's. He paid $20.00 for the raffle ticket. Before her husband passed away, he expressed to Martha, his desire for his son to have the statue. After 5 years, Martha decides to send the statue to her son. She takes it to George's business, he wraps it for free and she insures it for $200.00. The first $100.00 insurance was free and she paid an additional $2.00 for the next $100.00. When the delivery guy left it in Florida, he threw it over a 6 foot fence. Why on earth would he do this when the package was marked fragile? Why on earth would he do this at all? That is not the way to deliver a package. If he is not able to get through the gate, leave the slip, letting the people know they have a package. (This happens to us all the time! - the slip, not the thrown package!) The head of the Virgin Mary was completely cut off. This was very upsetting to the entire family. This statue has great sentimental value, it was even blessed by a priest. George says that no one is denying anything. He agrees the statue was broken because of the method of delivery. His needs proof of the value of the statue for the insurance claim. Martha said she does not have any proof of the value, since it is so old. She did insure it for $200.00 and on the receipt it says that is the declared value. The Judge explains the importance of declared value. When you have an item that has sentimental value, you cannot get more than the value. The exception to this, is when you cannot prove the value, then the declared value becomes very important. Since Martha insured the statue and the receipt says declared value, she gets the $200.00. I am glad that she gets her money. She deserves it, especially since she took the extra step to insure the delivery. What is the purpose of the insurance, if they are not going to pay out? What do you think? The good news: Martha's son fixed the statue and she is looking forward to visiting Florida to see it!

 

The Boat Is Paid For - I Need The Title!

Thomas bought a boat from Mark. After he gave Mark the check, he expected to receive the title. Thomas tells of countless e-mails and phone calls to try to get the title from Mark. When he does not get it, Thomas goes to court to get the title. He paid $375.83 in order to obtain the title. Mark explains that he was told by someone that since he did not have possession of the boat, he could not get the title. When he found out this was not true, he went to the Motor Vehicle to obtain the title, He claims that he scanned it to his computer and promptly mailed it to Thomas. He does not have proof of delivery and Thomas never received it. Thomas sent an e-mail to Mark, giving him a June 1st deadline for the paper title. Mark said he went to the Motor Vehicle again and received a duplicate title and sent that to Thomas. He shows the scanned copy of the title and the duplicate title to the Judge. The scanned copy shows a date of March 8, 2011 and an issue date of January 29, 2009. The duplicate title has a date of June 3, 2011. The boat was sold to Thomas on March 8, 2011. Didn't Mark realize the dates on the titles would prove that he was a liar? Also, Mark is counterclaiming for $415.49 for his time spent obtaining the titles. Really! Well, he does not get it. The good news is that Thomas does get everything he is suing for. He had to do so much extra work to obtain the title to a boat that he bought. Why did Mark have to make this so difficult for Thomas? Mark could have saved everyone so much time and effort, if he would have done the right thing. What do you think?

 



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

 

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

 

This is a wonderful country.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

If it will offend or insult, keep it to yourself.

- Unknown

 

 

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