People's Court Blog - 1 3 2013 - Thursday

It is time to play catch-up! Here are the cases from January 3, 2013:

Joseph and John are suing Benjamin and his business for $2903.50. 

This includes the cost of a 1986 motorcycle, pain and suffering, mileage and tow costs. When they bought the motorcycle from Benjamin they received a 30 day warranty. Benjamin calls it a guarantee. What is the difference? Benjamin does not know what the difference is and he is the one who gave it!!! 10-12 days after buying the motorcycle, it would not start. When they called Benjamin, he said it would cost $300 to diagnose the problem. This is not the way a warranty or guarantee works. Benjamin claims they wanted to modify the bike, when they were looking to replace the chain and the sprocket. Most of what Benjamin says in response to questions does not make any sense. 

Benjamin needs to learn to sell the motorcycles as-is, if he is not going to honor a warranty or guarantee. He claims he does not run a business, he works out of his garage. He also needs to learn how to speak in court - he called Douglas, pal! That is not proper! 

The good news for Joseph and John is that they win the case. They do not get pain and suffering, it is a contract case! They do get back $1653.50. They are satisfied with the outcome. 

Buying a vehicle, car or motorcycle requires two important steps. One is a test drive, the other is having a mechanic look at the vehicle. Joseph and John did neither. They are very lucky that Benjamin gave them a warranty (guarantee) and breached the contract. Otherwise, they might have been stuck with the purchase of the 1986 motorcycle.

Iris is suing Louis and the Realty Corporation for $2000.00.

Iris wants her security deposit back. Louis, a realty broker showed her an apartment in mid April. She signed a lease and gave Louis $2000.00 out of the $3000.00 required. She could not get the additional money and let Louis know she was trying to get it. Then she called Louis and let him know she was not going to take the apartment. He had given $800.00 to the landlord and kept $1200.00 for his fee. 

Neither party has any paperwork to show the Judge. Iris claims the paperwork stated only $50.00 was non-refundable. Unfortunately, she does not have the paperwork. Louis should have proof, but no, he does not have it either!

How can people come to court so unprepared?

Why would Iris think she should get back her money? She held up the apartment from being rented to someone else. There is a cost to changing your mind! Iris does not get her money back and Louis actually received a brokers fee twice for the rental of the apartment. He does not seem very trustworthy, but he is entitled to the fee. 

People need to realize there are consequences to their actions. You cannot make a decision and not know it does not have an impact. When you put a deposit on an apartment, no one else can rent it. If you do not go through with the deal, then the landlord has lost the opportunity to rent it to someone else. I hope Iris has learned from this experience, it was a very expensive lesson!

Rachel sues Levy for $1643.54.

Rachel lives next to Levy's rental property. After a very severe windstorm, debris from Levy's roof landed on Rachel's car. She took the debris off the car and went to work. When she had a chance to look at her car, she saw it was scratched. She got in touch with Levy to let him know about the damage. Once he found out the amount of the estimate, he said it was an act of God and he was not responsible for the damages. 

How is it that someone would agree that they are responsible until they find out the cost? Scratches on cars are expensive to repair.  Levy keeps saying he never saw the damages and it could have been a different car. Well, it was not a different car, Rachel has pictures! Also, Levy needs to repair his roof. The pictures of the roof show that it is not in very good shape.

Rachel wins the case and gets the amount for the lower estimate, which is $1335.02.

I do not understand why people do not take responsible for their own property. Even losing this case does not seem to enlighten Levy. In the hallway, he is still saying his roof is in good shape. Really!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court: 7-18-12

Where Do You Want Me To Start?

There is so much history that leads up to this case, almost 40 years. Lila and Debra's mom met in church almost 40 years ago. They became friends and their lives entwined. Throughout the years, so much happened. They co-signed on the mortgage to the house. At some point, there were changes, so only Lila's name was on the deed. Lila and her family continued to live there, Debra's mom and family moved out. Debra's mom starts to say she was paying rent to Lila, since this is not pertinent to today's case, she does not continue with her part of the story. At some point Debra and her family move in with Lila. Debra claims she has paperwork that shows in the event of the sale of the house, her mom gets part of the proceeds. Lila says this is not true. She does not have that paperwork with her. It is really not what she is in court to pursue. So much going on and it is not for this court to decide on the issues of who the house belongs to or who is entitled to the proceeds of a sale. The lawsuit that brings us here today is about an unpaid loan and unpaid storage fees. The loan appears very straightforward. Debra agrees that Lila lent her $1000.00. She says she is so grateful to Lila for helping her out. Yet, she did not pay her back. Why? Debra claims the $1000.00 is supposed to come out of her mom's share of the proceeds of the sale of the house. The one thing has nothing to do with the other. Why would this be the agreement, when Lila is denying that Debra's mom has claim to the house? The other part of the lawsuit is about storage fees. When Debra moved out of Lila's house, she left her motorcycle in the garage. She does show receipts for $25.00 a month payments. Lila says she owes her $100.00 a week for storing the motorcycle. Unfortunately, they did not have a contract regarding the storage of the motorcycle. Since Debra was paying Lila $25.00 a month, she is responsible to maintain those payments. She also has one month to remove the motorcycle. I would think she would rush over to get it out of there, since it is her baby! She would never even consider selling it to pay her bills. It does not end there. Debra has a $4200.00 counterclaim against Lila. She is suing her for broker's fees, one month's rent and one month's security deposit. Debra claims Lila kicked her out, forcing her to find another place to live. Why on earth would Lila be responsible to pay these expenses? The counterclaim is dismissed. Debra also claims that when she was locked out for three weeks, her fish died. Why didn't she call the police? She says she did not want to make trouble for Lila. This does not make any sense. If she truly had fish that needed care, she should have moved heaven and earth to save them. So dramatic! The sad, sad part of this entire situation is the breakdown of the friendship between Lila and Debra's mom. What a shame that it comes to this! It is not over for them, the ownership of the house is still in question and that case is pending. I wish these two ladies luck in working out this lifelong problem.

We Slept Together! - No, We Didn't!

Randy and Anna are stand-up comics. They are both here today suing each other. I will tell you now, there is nothing funny about these two. They are both mean-spirited and seem to enjoy torturing each other. Also, there is not much of the story they agree upon. Thank goodness they are able to bring their cases to civil court, otherwise it would certainly be criminal. Randy is suing Anna for the cost of the promotional items directly relating to her participation in a play they worked on together. He approached her at a comedy club and suggested they pursue a joint venture based on her "bestselling" book. Anna claims he hired her at $100.00 an hour to write a play based on his failed marriage. Right from the beginning, there is not a meeting of the minds. Needless to say, there is nothing in writing, no contracts, no confirmation e-mails or texts. The saga continues, Randy claims they had an intimate relationship. Anna vehemently denies it and is quite insulting to Randy. She thinks this is her time to do her act, it is not! Randy provides very explicit e-mails that do not leave anything to the imagination. Anna claims someone hacked her e-mail account. She even tries to implicate Randy, claiming he had access to her laptop. For two people that had only a business relationship, they seem to know an awful lot about each other. Anna finally says they were fooling around. What does that mean? She seems to stumble over her words. For someone who performs for a living and has written a book, she did not handle this appearance in a very professional way. She shows such hatred towards Randy, you wonder how involved they really were. There is definitely more to this relationship than meets the eye. What do you think? Randy did manage to go on with the show. He changed the name of the play and found a replacement for Anna. There were certain promotional items that he was not able to use since Anna was not involved in the production. Anna agreed they were supposed to split the costs of the play. She is found responsible to pay Randy back for the promotional items. Now for Anna's counterclaim. She wants $5000.00 for writing a play for Randy. He denies that he offered to pay her anything, let alone $100.00 an hour. Anna cannot prove she had any promise of payment. She loses on her counterclaim. It is a relief when this case is over. It is very painful watching these two people torture each other. Hopefully they will go their separate ways and stay far, far away from each other. Please let me know what you think about the Randy and Anna Show!

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

An obstacle is often a stepping stone.

-Prescott