Showing posts with label peoples court blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peoples court blog. Show all posts

Saturday, August 25, 2012

People's Court Blog - 8 24 2012 - Friday

The Door Was Already Broken!
Anthony is suing Kyle for $1380.00 ($1200.00 for the door, $180.00 for his time). Kyle is Anthony's daughter's former boyfriend. Anthony wants Kyle to pay the replacement cost of a patio sliding door. After Anthony's daughter and Kyle broke up, Kyle decided to come back to the house. He did not have a key, so he broke the sliding patio door to break in. Kyle claims it was already broken. It seemed when he was living there with Anthony's daughter, he used that way to get in when he was locked out. Kyle explains that there used to be a lockbox with a key, but that is not available anymore. It seemed Kyle did not have a key most of the time. Why did Anthony come back to the house after he moved out? There never is a clear answer. His girlfriend said it was for the furniture and then he changed his mind. Kyle said he needed dog food and while he was there he took his cigars and some documents. He also says that all of the furniture belongs to him. Also, he paid his share of the rent for 2 months after he left. Wow, not many people do something like that. He admits to having feelings for his girlfriend, but denies wanting to get back together. She hesitates when the Judge asks if she wants to get back together with him. They broke up because he was cheating on her and those are difficult wounds to heal. There is no doubt that Kyle broke the door, whether it was while he was living there or after he moved out. The timing does not really matter. It seems so sad, these two young people really do act like they still care for each other. They are very young and maybe just need more time. Kyle is found responsible to pay for the door, but not the cost of a new one. He would be responsible for the depreciated value of the door. The Judge estimates this to be $300.00. He has already made a payment of $100.00 to Anthony. In total, Kyle will pay $400.00 for a 30 year old sliding patio door. This seems acceptable to him, although Anthony is not happy about it. On the way out of the courtroom, they both express the desire to stay away from each other. That is a shame, they showed such promise!

My Car Was Impounded!
Myra was on her way to get her car inspected when she was in a car accident. Her car was towed to Anthony's auto repair shop. Myra is suing Anthony for $1128.86. After Myra got her car back from Anthony's shop, it was towed for unpaid parking tickets. Where did all of the parking tickets come from?  Anthony had Myra's car for several months due to insurance issues.  Anthony fixed the car without an appraisal and it took months for the insurance to pay. Since Anthony has limited storage space, he would park Myra's car on the road. The car was ticketed many times. Anthony blames Myra because her inspection sticker was expired. Myra was not able to get the car inspected because it was in the shop. Why would Anthony feel Myra was responsible? Well, Anthony shows a picture of a manila folder used as a sign that says management is not responsible for "expire" stickers. Really, when did he make this sign? It is definitely not a professional sign. All of the other signs shown in the picture are professional signs. The Judge is insulted and offended when she views the evidence that Anthony provides. She actually rips up the pictures! Why would he think the Judge would accept this as proof that his customers are receiving the proper notification? In this case, even if he had provided Myra with proper notification, she would still not be held responsible for the tickets. How could Myra get the car inspected when it was in Anthony's shop. I feel bad that Myra had to deal with her car being towed and getting it out of  the impound yard. Myra is awarded the full amount she is suing for. Too bad she is not able to receive more for aggravation! She would deserve it! What do you think?

It Is All About The Paint!
Bertila and Jimmy are suing Emanuel for $2100.00. This is the security deposit they paid for their house rental several months before. Bertila and Jimmy moved out because of the damage done by Hurricane Irene. Bertila tells about their wedding the day the Hurricane started. They came home after the reception instead of staying at the hotel. The flooding was so bad, their refrigerator floated out of the kitchen. Bertila and Jimmy went back to the hotel. When they returned to their home, the flood waters had started to recede. Because of all of the damage, they decided to move out. The landlord understood and returned $1500.00 of their security deposit. Why are we in court? Is it because the landlord wrongly withheld $600.00 of their security deposit due to Hurricane damage. No, it was because Bertila painted 4 of the rooms with very bright colors. Emanuel, their landlord, explains that he did not give permission for these rooms to be painted. These rooms needed to be repainted and that is the reason for keeping part of the security deposit. He explained all of this in a letter to Bertila and Jimmy when he sent them the check for $1500.00. Bertila and Jimmy did not cash the check because they wanted the entire amount returned. So, here we are in court. After hearing about their wedding, the Hurricane, the flooding, the floating refrigerator, we find out none of this has anything to do with the security deposit money. It is because of the paint! The Judge awards them $1500.00, so we find out that their landlord was fair and just! A breath of fresh air in the landlord tenant business!

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.
 
Subscribe to stay updated!
 
If you want to be happy, be.
- Leo Tolstoy

 
 

Thursday, August 23, 2012

People's Court Blog - 8 23 2012 - Thursday

The Reception Was Ruined!
Jacqueline and James (J & J) are suing the venue that held their wedding reception. Juan represents the business. J & J want $5000.00 back from the $7000.00 spent on the reception. What were the problems they experienced?
 
1. The candy table was set up improperly.
2. Cotton candy was removed from the bag and was unsanitary.
2. Ketchup and steak sauce were on the cake table.
3. There were dead roses on the cake table.
4. The top of the cake was wrapped in aluminum foil instead of being put in a container.
5. The servers dropped several glasses onto the dance floor.
6. Leftover food was packaged in a box from glue board traps for rats.
7. Champagne bottle favors had James's last name as his first name.
    Written on the bottles are the names -  Jackie and Lee, not Jackie and James.
8. There was an ice sculpture that was in the corner of the room, not in a featured spot.
 
Are these problems really worth $5000.00?  I do not think so. Can these problems really have ruined the entire experience? According to J & J, these problems ruined the reception for them and they want to be compensated. Jacqueline explains that she was going to set up the candy table. Since she was 1/2 hour late to the reception, Juan thought he would be nice and set it up for her.  He was trying to do something kind for the bride. Juan also explains that the boxes used for the leftovers are brought in by the clients. These could be boxes used for favors and by the florist. Juan said they do not use rat glue board traps, so they would not have a box like that. J & J have brought the box to court with them. They left the food in the box and saved it for over two months. It was not even refrigerated or frozen, so when they took it out of the plastic bag, it smelled awful. This is evident by the reactions of the people in the front row of the gallery. They looked like they were going to throw up. Why would they bring it to court this way? That was terrible and totally unnecessary. Regarding the favors, Juan explains that James's name was written incorrectly on the contract. No one noticed this mistake. Jacqueline explains that someone called her and asked her to spell James's name. The favors were provided free by the venue because the reception hosted over one hundred people. Even though they were free, they should have been done correctly. It is a shame that these favors were printed with the wrong name. Unfortunately, mistakes happen. The Judge explains that there are little disappointments in everyday life. These disappointments are not grounds for a lawsuit. The Judge does not award J & J any money. Are any of these problems a reason for the entire experience to be ruined? I do not think so. I know this is a very special day and I hope these issues did not truly ruin the day for Jacqueline.
 
The Photo Shoot Was Unprofessional!
Keianna is suing Alicia for $500.00. This is for the cost of a photo shoot and additional money for bad faith. Keianna hired Alicia to take pictures of her for her resume and other uses. Keianna paid Alicia $205.00 for the photos. The photo shoot was held in Alicia's home. Keianna says this was unprofessional and made her feel uncomfortable when Alicia's friend came over. Keianna received the contact sheet within 1-2 days. She was very happy to get this. Even though the pictures were small, she had faith in Alicia to do a good job on them. When she did not receive the finished photos, she contacted Alicia. She noticed on Alicia's Facebook page, other photos being uploaded. Why were her pictures not there? Why wasn't she receiving her photos? Alicia said she was very busy and she did e-mail the photos to Keianna. Why won't she resend the photos? Finally after several phone calls, Facebook messages and e-mails, Alicia does resend the photos. Since Keianna received what she paid for, she does not win her case. Just because she was unhappy with Alicia's attitude and she did not get the photos right away, it does not mean she gets her service for free. Keianna is not happy with this outcome and storms out of the courtroom and does not stop for her hallway interview. Why do these issues have to escalate to the point of coming to court? Why can't people resolve these issues on their own?
 
I Want My Broker's Fee!
Terri is suing Karen for $962.00. This is for her broker's fee and the cost of a bounced check. Karen answered an ad to rent an apartment. Terri showed Karen the apartment. Karen loved it and signed a lease. Terri explained her broker fee and Karen wrote her a check. The apartment was to be available for the first of the month. Karen wanted to move in earlier and the landlord accommodated her. Terri thought it would be a good idea to cash the check right away, since Karen was moving in earlier. The bank could not cash the check because information on it was not legible. Terri called Karen and let her know what happened. Karen wrote another check. She told Terri she was charged $40.00 for a stop payment fee. The second check was for $910.00, instead of $950.00. Terri deposited this check and it bounced. Karen was charged a $12.00 fee from her bank for a bounced check. Why is Karen refusing to pay Terri the broker fee? Karen explains that the apartment was filthy when she looked at it. Did she move in? Yes, she did. Why stop payment on Terri's fee? Karen said that it is an illegal apartment. Does she have proof? No, she does not. Karen said she called the city and it will take a month to get proof. Since she does not have any proof, she cannot justify withholding the broker's fee. Terri wins the case and Karen has to pay the $962.00. I still do not understand why Karen wrote a second check if she had no intention of paying the fee. If she was honest about the reason, things would make more sense. What do you think?
 
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.
Please Subscribe!

You must learn from the mistakes of others.
You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.
-Sam Levenson