People's Court Blog - 8 29 2012 - Wednesday

Your Boat Damaged My Wall!

Nancy and Robert are suing Ambrose and Tami for $5000.00. This amount is actually much less than what they have spent when Ambrose and Tami's boat landed on their property. The area where these couples live was hit by Hurricane Irene. Both families had boats and needed to secure them before leaving due to a mandatory evacuation. Nancy and Robert secured their boat by lifting it out of the water and tying it down. When they were able to return home, they found a boat had damaged their retaining wall (bulkhead) and fence. This boat belonged to Ambrose and Tami. This couple explains that they also secured their boat before leaving the area. Ambrose explains that his mechanic helped him secure the boat. Ambrose has pictures of the boat to show the Judge. The pictures do not help his case. The chains and ropes he describes are not visible in the picture. Ambrose does not have the mechanic in court or an affadavit from him. Why doesn't he have any evidence to support his claim? His wife, Tami, does not feel they have to prove anything. After all, there was a hurricane and everyone's property was all over the place. When they got home, they found debris on their property and they are not suing anyone. This is not a defense. Nancy and Robert have a letter from another neighbor explaining that Ambrose and Tami's boat was not secured. There is also a Youtube video of their boat floating by a house. It seems this is a very famous boat! Nancy and Robert were denied by their insurance company, since the bulkhead and the fence were not able to be covered by insurance. They are able to prove that Ambrose and Tami did not secure their boat properly, due to the letter from the neighbor.  Because of this, Ambrose and Tami are found responsible to pay the $5000.00. If they had secured the boat and it still caused the damage, they would not have had to pay. This is the difference between neglect and an Act of God. On the way out of the courtroom, Ambrose admits that he should have brought evidence. Nancy says that it cost her $3000.00, just to have the boat removed. This is a good illustration of the need to do everything possible to prevent something from happening. During extreme weather, everything needs to be tied down or put away to protect it from blowing away.  This would have saved Ambrose and Tami so much money! What do you think?

 

Bring Evidence To Court!

Aisha is suing Laura for $4000.00. This amount is for double her security deposit and the cost of gas and electric. Aisha rented an apartment in a 2-bedroom house from Laura. Aisha believed that Laura lived in the other apartment. Laura says it was empty and she lived in another location. Aisha says there was one meter for electric and one meter for gas. Aisha believed she was paying the utilities for the entire house, not just her own use. Laura says there were meters for each portion of the house. Aisha has a picture of the meters. It shows the two meters, but since it is a close-up, there is no way to tell if there are other meters on the panel. Laura does not have any proof at all. Aisha shows a picture of dog feces on a snowbank. There are no footprints or pawprints in the snow. Aisha says the dog feces was thrown from the other part of the house, the part she believed Laura was living in. Aisha says this is why she moved out, because of the filth and the smell of the dog feces. Aisha sent Laura notice when she decided to move out. Laura claims she did not receive it. Laura only provided a PO Box number on the lease and since Aisha needed to send her notice certified return receipt, Aisha sent the mailing to the house she lived in. Laura says she did not live there, so she did not get the notice. This is not Aisha's fault.

Aisha should get her security deposit back. The question is how much money would that be? How much did she actually pay for the security deposit. According to the lease, she paid $800.00. According to proof of payment, she paid $323.00 towards the security deposit. An agency paid the difference, and Aisha does not get the money back paid by someone else. Since she can only prove payment of $323.00, that is the amount she is awarded. Aisha's pictures do not prove the number of meters on the house, so she is not able  to recover the utility money. Neither the tenant or the landlord came to court prepared with proper evidence. This is the time to bring all paperwork with you. Aisha kept saying that Section 8 was going to fax documents to the Judge. Since this rental was government subsidized, Aisha could have dealt with Section 8 regarding her problems before she moved out. Laura does not seem to be on top of the rights and responsibilities of being a landlord. I think Laura and Aisha should have been better prepared for this case. On their way out of the courtroom, Laura says she respects the decision and Aisha realizes she was not well prepared and is appreciative of what she is getting. What do you think?

A Counterfeit Postal Money Order!

Renna is suing Arnold for $965.00. This is for a counterfeit postal money order that Renna cashed for Arnold. After Renna deposited the check, she withdrew $723.00 from the ATM. She gave that money to Arnold with an additional $100.00. Arnold says he received the postal money order as payment through a sale he made on Ebay. He sold a computer to someone. Arnold says he usually is paid through Paypal, but he accepted the postal money order. Arnold explains that he does not have a local bank account, so he would have had to wait up to 2 weeks to cash it through his account. Arnold did not even wait until the money order cleared before mailing the computer. The bank took the money from Renna's account, when it was determined the postal money order was counterfeit. Arnold seemed not to believe this, since he did not want to return the money to Renna. I do not understand why Renna would cash the money order for Arnold. She did not even know him for very long, they had only met the month before. Why did she do this for him? The only answer Renna keeps giving, is that she did not know a postal money order could be counterfeit. Well, I guess we learn something new everyday! The money order was counterfeit, Arnold should not have involved Renna, and Renna gets back her money. She can prove that she gave Arnold $823.00, so that is the amount she gets back. Also, Arnold has in girlfriend in court with him, why didn't he ask her to cash the money order? Why ask Renna, when he only knew her for a month? What do you think?
 

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.

-Unknown source

People's Court Blog - 8 28 2012 - Tuesday

 

She Cut The Medals Off  My Uniform!

Jonathan is suing Paulette for $4707.68. This is for rent money and also for a broken television. They reconnected through Facebook, had an online relationship and moved in together. When Jonathan was honorably discharged from the military, he rented a 3-bedroom apartment. Paulette moved in with Jonathan with her two sons, ages 4 and 2. The apartment was $1600.00 a month. Jonathan says they were each paying half of the rent. Paulette denies that this was the agreement. Although, she does admit paying half of the rent while they lived together. After living together for 2 months, Paulette told Jonathan she was going to have a girls night sleepover. He left the apartment for the night, so she could have fun with her friends. In the morning, Paulette called Jonathan and asked him to call before he came home. He thought this was suspicious, so he went home unannounced. He found Paulette in bed with another man. When Jonathan asked what she was doing, she assaulted him. He called the police and Paulette was arrested. Jonathan did not let her stay in jail, he got her out and also dropped the charges.Sometimes, people need to learn from their mistakes. 

 

Soon after this incident, there was another one. When Jonathan gets home one day, Paulette is on the phone in the children's room. Paulette's uncle was visiting that day and he is in court to testify. Paulette and Jonathan have another fight. Paulette cuts the medals off of Jonathan's uniform. She also throws something at the television and breaks it. Paulette's uncle broke them apart and kept the fight from escalating. Paulette says that Jonathan broke her television first, she has no proof. Her uncle did not see this. Paulette also says that the television she broke was not Jonathan's, it belonged to the family. She admits that she cut the medals off of his uniform, how horrible! A new kind of low, according to the Judge. It is obvious that Paulette has anger management issues. She really needs to gain control over her anger. Jonathan moved out and Paulette continued to live in the apartment. Jonathan's name was on the lease. Neither of them paid the rent. Paulette lived there five months rent free until she was evicted. The judgement from eviction court for the back rent was against Jonathan. Paulette is found responsible to pay Jonathan the full amount he is asking for in court today. She cannot expect to live somewhere rent free and damage someone's property. She needs to continue to work on managing her anger issues. Cutting the medals off of Jonathan's military uniform is inexcusable. How did she have the audacity to do something so terrible? Jonathan served our country and Paulette should show respect for the uniform. This is definitely a toxic relationship and they are directed by the Judge to move on mentally. They are not together anymore and are both in new relationships. People should not move in with each other so quickly , especially when there are children involved. Why are women so willing to expose their children to these unhealthy relationships? What do you think?

I Do Not Want The Murphy Bed Anymore!

Claudia is suing Tom for $1607.60, the deposit (half of the purchase price), paid for a custom bed. She purchased a Murphy Bed from Tom's company. Tom explains that he is able to advertise the product as a Murphy Bed, since the hardware for the bed is purchased from the Murphy Company. This is a type of bed that folds up in the wall when not in use. Claudia purchased the bed in September 2009, and was going to pay the balance, when the bed was delivered and installed. When Claudia found out she might have to move out of her rent stabilized apartment, she contacted Tom. Claudia wanted to know what the cost would be to relocate the bed if she had to move. She was told the cost would be $1000.00. At that time, she decided to cancel the order. The cancellation fees are listed on the signed contract. Claudia wanted her entire deposit back. So much time had passed that she was not entitled to her deposit back. Tom tried to help her out and offered to try to sell the bed. He would give her the deposit back, if he sold the bed. It could not be this easy! It wasn't!

Hurricane Irene hit the area in New Jersey where the Murphy Bed was stored in Tom's warehouse. The bed was on a pallet on the floor and was water damaged and could not be sold. Claudia said the flyer about the bed lists it as in stock and ready for immediate delivery. Why would it be in a warehouse in New Jersey? It can be delivered from the warehouse when it was purchased. It did not have to be in the showroom to be available for immediate delivery. Keep in mind, this is now almost two years after the original purchase. I would think that Claudia should have had the bed by now or lost her deposit. Tom was being nice to a customer to try to help her after all this time had passed. Claudia is the one who changed her mind about the purchase. She could have had the bed delivered and installed and dealt with the other issue later. The case about her apartment is still pending. While the Judge is ruling on this case, Claudia is trying to interrupt her. This is very rude, Claudia keeps saying she wants to finish. The Judge is quite clear during her ruling, that Claudia is finished and does not get her deposit back. I give Tom so much credit as a businessman to have done everything in his power to help his customer. There were unforseen circumstances called Hurricane Irene. Claudia tries to continue the case in the hallway, this is not the time or the place. If there was some other information she wanted the Judge to know, then she should have said it in the courtroom. Tom describes Claudia as a ridiculous and unreasonable customer. Yet, he tried to help her out for almost 2 years!
Claudia did not want this case aired. She took it to the New York Supreme Court, there were three hearings, yet here we are. Interesting!

 

Who Broke The Window?

Elanna is suing Nancy for $970.00 ($550.00 for rent and $420.00 for moving fees). Nancy runs a trailer park for her parents. Elanna went to look at a trailer after seeing it on Craigslist. Elanna signed a 7 month rental agreement. She was moving in with her two children and a co-worker. Elanna explains that she asked Nancy about the environment in the park. Elanna wanted a drama free environment. She was worried about racial problems because she has 2 biracial children, ages 3 years old and 6 months. Elanna says that Nancy assured her they would be fine. Elanna was also concerned about a pile of trash that a neighbor had stockpiled and Nancy assured her it would be taken care of. Elanna says it never was taken care of and it is still there. Did Nancy have a chance to take care of it? And why would it matter, Elanna moved out after living there for one day.

The first night at the trailer, Elanna said she saw someone running from the trailer after they broke a window. She did not have a phone and was too scared to go ask the neighbors to call the police. In the morning, when her co-worker came home from working the night shift, he called the park office. He told Nancy the window was broken. Perry, Nancy's fiancee, went to fix it. He was not told about someone breaking it and running away. He went inside and found a large rocking recliner near the window. He believes this is the cause of the broken window, since the glass and the screen were on the outside of the trailer. There was no glass on the inside. Perry fixed the window. Elanna moved out this same day, her co-worker still lives there. If Elanna was so frightened why didn't she call the police the next morning? Why not tell Perry to call the police? Why not call the police when she got to work? Elanna does not have answers to these questions. She expects to get money back for changing her mind. The general belief is that she got back together with the father of one of her children. He is in court with her, standing right next to her. Her boyfriend is not there to testify, so why is he there? It appears as if they are back together, even though Elanna denies it. The Judge rules in favor of Nancy. Elanna does not get any money back. It seemed that she changed her mind about her living situation and there are consequences attached. If someone is that afraid for the safety of themselves and their children, they should call the police. What do you think?
 

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

Happiness often sneaks in a door you did not think was open.

- Anonymous

 

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