People's Court Blog - 1 28 2013 - Monday

New cases today!

Joan is suing Joseph, her longtime neighbor of 40 years, for $3000.00. 

It seems that Joseph constructed a roof from his shed to the fence along the property line. This caused water to be diverted towards Joan's property. Joan believes this water damaged her shed. The shed is over 20 years old. The damage shown in the pictures does not seem to be caused by water. It could be caused by age. Joan's witness is the person that built her shed and admits he did not get a permit. This is a great example of not throwing stones when you live in a glass house! Joan called the city on Joseph. He did have to remove the roof extension he constructed. Joan is also going to be in trouble with the city, since her shed was built without a permit and is too close to the property line.

Since the structures are illegal, the Judge finds in favor of Joseph. She warns them both that their troubles are not over since they need to comply with the city's regulations. 

What prompts Joan to call the city on her friend and neighbor? She does not like that Joseph walks in her yard and does anything he pleases. Joseph's wife feels Joan is a troublemaker. Such a shame that after all of these years these people do not get along anymore. To know each other for so many years is a relationship to cherish, not destroy! What do you think?

Vita is suing Walter, her husband, for $5000.00. 

This is for rent that she says he owes for the past 6 years. Walter has a countersuit for $5000.00 for harassment and defamation of character. This couple is breaking up and Vita wants Walter to pay back rent for the whole time they have been together. Why would she let him not pay rent for all of that time? Vita says it was an abusive relationship. She did get an order of protection and he has moved out of the rent controlled apartment. They are in the middle of divorce proceedings. 

The Judge tells them both that there are consequences to the decisions they have made. If someone does not pay rent, you do not let it continue for 6 years. Walter's countersuit is because he has suffered mental anguish because he has been sued. Really! 

It is no surprise that Vita and Walter both lose their cases. In the hallway, Vita says life goes on. Walter says he feels decent about the decision. What a shame that these two people have to continue going after each other in court when they just need to end the relationship. There comes a time when a relationship is over and both people just need to cut their losses and move on. What do you think?

Cary is suing Vincent for $2035.00. 

Vincent was going to rent an apartment from Cary. He signed a lease and gave her a check for $2000.00. Before he moved in, he stopped payment on the check. What reason does Vincent give for backing out on the deal and not paying the money? The IRS came after him for a past tax bill for almost $150,000. Vincent does not seem to understand that it is his problem, not Cary's. We would expect Vincent to understand since he is a financial advisor! He admits he is embarrassed to say what he does for a living. He loses the case and admits in the hallway that he looked like an idiot!

Thank you Vincent for being honest! This does not happen enough in the People's Court! Hopefully he will work out his problems with the IRS. Meanwhile, Vincent needs to realize when he signs an agreement he needs to see it through. Good luck to all!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 4 2013 - Friday

Still playing catch-up......

Tyler is suing George for $1396.60. 

This is for back rent and the value of some items that George took. Tyler and George are college students and were friends. It is sad when a friendship is lost over this type of situation. Tyler needed a roommate for the summer, since his current roommate, Albert, was going away for the summer. George agreed to move in.... and this is all everyone agrees to as facts. Tyler says they agreed on $350.00 a month rent and $100.00 towards the utilities. George says this is not true. Unfortunately, George's story keeps changing. At first he says there was no agreement for rent, then he says his medical bills from the car accident were a trade-off. Wait! if you were not supposed to pay rent, why would you trade-off the medical bills.

George's story is all over the place. Also, these two friends think taking belongings from each other serve as collateral, when it is actually stealing!

George needs to pay Tyler for the rent and the utilities. The Judge finds in favor of Tyler for $1350.00. He cannot prove that George stole from him. Also, if George sustained injuries in a car accident, he needs to go through Tyler's insurance for the money.

The shame of all of this is the lost friendship. George should not have expected to live rent free and take advantage of Tyler's friendship. Just because Tyler's dad pays his part of the rent, is no reason to think he was going to pay for George also. Friendships needs to be valued.

James is suing Annette and the housing corporation for $4900. 

James claims his room was broken into and someone stole his belongings. Why on earth would Annette and the housing corporation be responsible for this?  At first he told Annette that 3 items were stolen and then he kept adding to the list. He claimed he did not notice the other items were missing because they were in the closet. Why wouldn't you do a thorough check when you know your room has been broken into?

There was a surveillance camera that showed James leaving his room and then going back in the room. After that, the camera goes dark. The controls for the camera are in his room. This is all very suspect. Also, James lost his job that day. He claims it is because of being late due to the burglary There is proof of issues during his probationary period at the job, lateness, etc.

Annette did offer James $600.00 after he said his possessions were taken. He claims she offered him $1200.00. Either way, it does not matter, since James did not move out when he was asked to, staying an additional 10 days, that was not authorized, he did not receive any money.

James cannot prove he is out $4900 and loses the case. In the hallway, he says he is disappointed and such is life. Annette says she never believed his room was burglarized.

People need to be able to prove their case. Just saying something was stolen or someone offered you money is not good enough for court. It is important to have proof when you go to court. 

Kathleen is suing Alan's gym for $333.00. 

This is for membership fees to a gym. Kathleen claims she asked for her membership to be frozen when she was unable to go to the gym for medical reasons. Kathleen says she showed the person working at the desk a note from her doctor and was told she could freeze her membership. The gym actually has a policy for freezing a membership. Alan explains that someone can freeze their membership for 2 months. Anything longer than that, especially the year Kathleen wanted, would have been handled differently. They would have had her cancel the membership and then reinstate it.

Kathleen seems to be very unorganized. She says she asked for the membership to be frozen for a few months, yet expected it to be frozen for a year. Also, the letter from her doctor states a few months, not a year. She does not seem to understand that a few months is not a year. Also, she continued to pay the membership throughout the year. She states that she did not notice anything because she paid her daughter's membership. The monthly fee would have been different, wouldn't it? The way she found out the membership was not frozen was when she went to return to the gym, asked for it to be unfrozen and was told it had never been frozen, Well, actually it had, for 2 months. Both sides have trouble with record-keeping!!! So complicated!!!!!

Kathleen is very upset after losing the case, yet never mentions if her daughter continues to be a member, I wonder!!!!! Alan says that he offered her perks to stay on as a member, but she was did not accept. I think she should have taken him up on the perks since she is the one who did not handle this properly. What do you think?

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

Stay updated - Subscribe!

Did anyone notice the close-up of the Judge's fingernails? I really liked her manicure. Such a pretty color!!!!!!

People's Court Blog - 9 5 2012 - Wednesday

Michael And The Angry Girlfriend

Michael is suing Rosalie for $3000.00. This is for damages to his belongings after they broke up. Rosalie is counterclaiming for $600.00, the cost of a pool cue. Michael and Rosalie met at a pool tournament. They dated for 6-7 weeks and then they broke up. When Michael was out of town his furniture was damaged and DVDs and photo albums stolen. Michael says that Rosalie went in his room, when she drove his friend home. His friend Jimmy wrote a statement to confirm this information. It seems Rosalie was in Michael's room and came out with a duffel bag. Rosalie denies this. She says she drove Jimmy to Michael's and stayed outside. The pictures of the damage to the dressers show scratch marks all over the surface. The Judge describes the damage as that done by an angry woman. Rosalie claims someone else must have done this. Someone that was mad at Michael over a fight. This is not the type of damage an angry man will do. I agree with the Judge. Rosalie continually makes comments directed at Michael  throughout the court case. This is not the time or place for this. Her inability to conduct herself in court does not help her credibility. The Judge finds that Rosalie did the damage to the dressers. Unfortunately, Michael does not have any proof of the value of the furniture or items stolen. Michael does provide an estimate to have the furniture restored. He is awarded $2000.00.

Regarding the counterclaim, Rosalie says that the pool cue was loaned to Michael. She said he broke his pool cue during a tournament and she let him use hers. He said it was a gift. There really is no proof for either side. The Judge finds that the pool cue was a loan and directs Michael to return it to Rosalie. It is a shame that Rosalie damaged the furniture. One of the dressers had belonged to Michael's grandmother and mother. The sentimental value of the dresser is not a factor in the money he can receive. After the verdict, Rosalie had to get in the last word. In the hallway, she  continues to say that everyone has lied for him. Michael feels justice was served and then gives a commercial spot for People's Court. Hopefully they do not frequent the same pool halls! 

Drew/Dorothy And The Super Mint Condition Car!

Drew and Dorothy are suing Anthony for $3284.67. This is for repairs they had done to a used car Drew bought from Anthony. Dorothy is Drew's mom. Drew found the 2001 VW Jetta advertised on Craigslist. Anthony advertised it in super mint condition with a new timing belt. Drew and his mom went to look at the car. They went for a test drive and gave Anthony a deposit to hold the car. Drew was paying for the car himself with money he earned working all summer on a goat farm. What they failed to do was have the car inspected before they purchased it. Dorothy says they had a post purchase inspection done. This does not even make sense. And the best part, they did not take the car to a mechanic for a month after buying it. When they do take the car to a mechanic, they are told there is a piece of wood wedged to hold the timing belt tensioner. The mechanic was so amazed to see this, he took pictures of it with his cell phone. Dorothy shows these pictures to the Judge. It is so true a picture is worth a thousand words. 

Anthony explains that he had the timing belt replaced by a neighborhood mechanic or an alley mechanic as the Judge describes it. Anthony has no proof of the work done on the car. Since he advertised the car with a new timing belt, it is considered a warranty. The other issues that are wrong with the car are not covered by a warranty. The sale of a used car by a private individual is an as-is sale. It is always a good idea to have a used car inspected prior to buying it. Drew and Dorothy do get back some money. They get back $1195.88, the cost of the timing belt. The other problems on the car are on them. Maybe if they had it inspected before they bought it, they could have avoided all of these problems. Also, why wait one month to take it to a mechanic? They are very lucky that Anthony advertised the car with a new timing belt. This is the only reason they were able to get money back. Anthony seemed surprised at the discovery of the piece of wood. I get the feeling he will be following up on this! What do you think?

Wayne And Collecting Double The Debt!

Wayne is suing Michael for $1794.92. This is for rent and damages for an apartment Michael rented from Wayne. Michael and his girlfriend, Pam, were renting the apartment. Pam moved out first when the couple broke up. She had paid the rent up to and including September. Michael moved out at the end of October . He would be responsible to pay that October's rent. Wayne also wanted  rent for November. He claimed that Michael would not let him show the apartment, so he lost a month's rent. Michael said that Wayne would not give him any notice when he wanted to show the apartment and even showed it once when he was not home. Wayne said they damaged the floor and damaged a door. He did not have estimates for this damage because he is only suing for rent. He is suing for damages, they are on the list. Wayne has an itemized list of the money owed to him. He has actually already been paid for the damages. The couple had a $800.00 security deposit they were used to cover any damages. Pam's mom sent Wayne a check for $1054.00. In total, Wayne has received $1854.00. This is more than the amount he is suing for. Why does he think he can receive this money twice? He has no answer for this. The Judge rules in favor of Michael. Wayne cannot collect this money twice! In the hallway, Wayne says he had more to say. Michael says Wayne was unprepared and lied. He also says that the break up with his girlfriend was because they were not getting along. She is in court to testify for him and help him with this case. That was really nice of her. I wish these young people good luck in the future!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

If you can dream it, you can do it.

-Walt Disney

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 15 2012 - Wednesday

I Want My Pay!

Michael is suing for $1500.00. This is for pay he earned as a general manager of a new restaurant and lounge. He is also suing for pain and suffering. Omera is the operations manager of the establishment. She represents the owner in court. Omera is the person who had the most contact with Michael at the restaurant. At first, Michael was hired as a bartender.  He went through a paid orientation for three days. Michael explains that the restaurant had not even opened. He received a call and was asked if he wanted to be the general manager instead of the bartender. Michael agreed because he was being offered $15.00 an hour. Michael worked 43 hours at regular time and 17.75 hours of overtime. During a meeting before the restaurant opened, they were discussing payroll. It was during this meeting that Michael found out he would be making $8.50 an hour, not $15.00. Michael and Omera disagreed, Michael walked out. He explains in court that he would not take the position for only pennies more than he was making as a bartender. Up to this point, Michael had not received any pay. He texted Omera that he was coming to get his check. She responded that the check was being sent certifed mail for legal reasons. Michael did not receive the check and he continued for 2 weeks to ask for his money. Finally, Omera has his check ready and Michael goes to the restaurant to pick it up. It was only for 40 hours,  not the hours he worked. He refused to sign for it and did not take the check. Omera explains that the receipt she has with his hours is not consistent with what he is asking for. She also explains that the receipt does not make sense. This receipt is printed out from the register when Michael would clock in and clock out. Omera also explains that Michael was not making $15.00 an hour. She said that she gave him the promotion and he was supposed to make $8.25 an hour. He was hired at $7.25 and was increased to $8.25. Omera says, she knows this, because she gave him the promotion and the raise. Also, why would Michael make more money than she does. Omera says that she does not even make $15.00 an hour. Omera keeps staring at  Michael when he insists on the amount of money he was supposed to get. At first the Judge laughs, since it is very comical. Omera is putting on quite a show. Everyone in the gallery is laughing. Then, it gets serious, because Omera will not stop. The courtroom is not the place for this type of behavior. It gets so bad, the Judge tells Omera if she does not stop, she will be thrown out. Finally, Omera stops staring at Michael and the courtroom calms down. Michael does not have any proof that he was supposed to receive $15.00 an hour. Also, he cannot receive pain and suffering. The Judge rules that Michael is to receive $500 in wages. When they leave the courtroom, Omera takes the opportunity to trash Michael. She says that no one should hire him, he is not worth $2.00 an hour. Michael says he would not take the position for that pay. This would be the perfect situation to have something in writing. Especially when you are receiving a promotion that doubles your pay. We all have to remember to protect ourselves by having everything in writing. Even a confirming e-mail would be great back-up. What do you think?

I Could Have Been Killed!

Elizabeth is suing for $1117.00. This is for the parts, labor and a new tire. Elizabeth explains she was driving, felt something funny and pulled into the nearest gas station. She had a flat tire and called her  roadside assistance service. Tony was dispatched to change the tire. Tony works for Alan, the owner of a franchise called Pop-A-Lock. Elizabeth explains that it took a very long time for Tony to change the tire. She then drove directly to a Goodyear shop and was surprised by what they found. The manager told her she was lucky to be alive. When the car was put up on the lift, they found that the lug nuts were smashed. Elizabeth has the lug nuts with her as evidence. Elizabeth also has a notarized statement from the manager at Goodyear. Elizabeth is very prepared for court. Now what does Tony have to say? He says when he arrived, Elizabeth's son was already trying to change the tire and having trouble. He said the tire was so shredded, she must have drove on it for awhile before she stopped. He jacked up the car properly, put on the spare donut and Elizabeth drove away. When the Judge shows Alan and Tony the damaged lug nuts, they say that Elizabeth's son must have caused the damage. If that is true, why would Tony use them for the spare donut?  Alan explains that they change 3,000-4,000 tires a year and never have a problem. The equipment they use would never do that type of damage. The way Tony put on the tire caused a condition that was very dangerous. In the statement that Elizabeth has from Goodyear, the manager states that the right rear well was not properly mounted onto the vehicle. The lug nuts were mushroomed and damaged the studs. The manager determined that the improper mounting of the tire caused the damage. Alan is still maintaining that he has no idea what would cause the damage and continues to say that it was because Elizabeth continued to drive on a flat tire. I would think Tony would have noticed the damage to the lug nuts and he would not be able to use them to put on the spare donut. Elizabeth has proven her case with the evidence she has brought to court. She does get $742.00 which does not include the cost of the new tire. Elizabeth explains she included that cost of the new tire because they aggravated her! Court does not compensate you for aggravation! In the hallway, Alan and Tony are still talking about the amount of tires they change every year. Elizabeth is happy with the decision and says she had no idea the tire was going to fall off. Elizabeth is very fortunate that she went directly to Goodyear, otherwise the outcome would have been very different. I wonder what really happened when Tony changed the tire. How could he not know something was wrong. We can only speculate. What do you think? 

Hurricane Irene Damaged My Apartment!

Cerline is suing for $334.10. This is the cost of an entertainment center and a vase. These items were damaged by workers that came to her apartment to do repairs after Hurricane Irene. Cerline is suing Anthony, the owner of the realty company. Anthony is countersuing Cerline for $2600.00 in back rent. After Hurricane Irene, Cerline had damage to her apartment. The ceiling fell in and everything was soaked. Anthony sent 2 men to repair the ceiling, fix part of the floor and paint. They did most of the work and were supposed to return to finish. When they did not come back, Cerline told Anthony. She requested the men come on a specific day, since she did  not want them there when she was away. Unfortunately, Anthony sent them to do the work when Cerline was not home. Cerline feels they entered her apartment without authorization. They damaged the entertainment center and broke a vase when they were working. Cerline is suing Anthony, since he is the one who sent them. The Judge rules that Cerline does not get any money on her lawsuit. She would need to sue the men that actually did the damage. Anthony is not responsible to pay for the damage done by the workers. Now, Anthony has a counterclaim. He says that Cerline owes him for 2 months rent. Cerline decided to move out, so she stopped paying rent. She lived there for an additional 2 months and then moved out. When Cerline moved in she gave Anthony $3900.00. According to Cerline, this covered the security deposit and the first and the last month's rent. Anthony said that it was the security deposit, first month's rent and a fee. What is this fee for? Anthony says it is because Cerline wanted to move in early. The lease does not reflect any of this information. Anthony cannot record the money one way, as rent and security deposit, and then distribute it another way. He did not tell Cerline she was paying him an additional fee. Cerline thought she was in the right, since a legal aid attorney told her she could live out her security deposit. The Judge tells her the legal aid attorney was wrong. That is not what the security deposit is meant for. Because she withheld rent, the Judge rules that Cerline needs to pay Anthony $1300.00, for one month's rent. When they leave the courtroom, Cerline reminds us that she will get her security deposit back. This case took a very interesting turn. Does Anthony always take a fee when he rents an apartment? Is this a common practice? Are the tenants aware they are paying towards a fee and not rent? So many questions and no answers. What do you think?

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

Fantasies are like sand castles. Fun to build, but you can't live in them.

-Ruth Ingrid 

People's Court - 7 31 2012 - Tuesday

We Met On Pogo!

Barbara and Della met online playing games on Pogo. They chatted for awhile and then met in person. After a whirlwind courtship of a little over a month, they decided to get an apartment together. This is so fast. People do need to know each other better before making such a huge commitment. The two women rented an apartment together in Massachusetts. This was near Barbara's family. Della moved from Kentucky. After 5 days, Della went back home. Barbara describes a fight that seems to be about nothing. I think the bigger picture here, is that they did not know each other well enough to live together. Barbara is suing for back rent, a ring and a plane ticket. Barbara has no proof with her that any of these costs were loans. During a relationship, people spend money on each other. To expect the court to divide these into gifts or loans is asking for too much. Proof needs to be provided in order to make this decision. Barbara does not have the lease with her, she gave the ring as a gift and there was no agreement to be reimbursed for the plane ticket. Barbara seems very bitter about the relationship. When she leaves the courtroom, she is still throwing insults at Della. When Della leaves, she is so sad and is crying over the lost friendship. Why do people insist on moving so quickly with a relationship? Savor the journey! This could have been a very nice friendship that would have blossomed, if they were not in such a hurry! What do you think?

She Curses Like A Sailor!

Rae hired Larry's pool company to repair her 27 year old above ground swimming pool. Larry gives her a price of $1890.00, Rae says she rounded it up to $2000.00, because she is just that kind of person. Larry said there was tax on the original price and the few extra dollars were a tip for Charlie. Charlie elegantly describes his position with the company as, "he's the boss, I'm the horse". I like this, Charlie seems like a really sincere person. When the work was being done on the pool, Rae kept a close eye on the job. She claims she pointed out a few times when things were being done incorrectly. Charlie denies this claim. After the repairs were completed, the pool was filled. Rae said she noticed the sides were buckling and the pool was losing water. She called Larry to let him know the pool was leaking. Charlie came to look at it and realized there were holes in the liner caused by the ladder. Charlie asked if she used a ladder mat to protect the liner. Rae installed the ladder and said a ladder mat was not necessary. This is not what was causing the leak. She knows this because the leak was caused by the inept way the repairs were done. Unfortunately, Rae does not have any proof to show the Judge. She was so upset that she was being charged for a service call, she loses her temper and curses in front of Charlie. Charlie seems genuinely uncomfortable to describe the way Rae cursed after talking to Larry on the phone. His words are bleeped as he recounts the way Rae spoke. She does not deny that she lost her temper. She feels that she overpaid $110 at the beginning and should not have been charged for them to come back out. Larry says he was charging half of the $150.00 service call fee as a courtesy to her. Rae does not see this as a courtesy. Rae did give Charlie the $75.00, even though she was not happy about it. She is suing Larry's pool company for $1500.00. She said this is what another company wants to charge to fix their mistakes. She does not have the estimate with her, describing the new company as clowns. Is there any company out there who could properly fix her pool? Rae is unable to prove her case. She is not pleased as she leaves the courtroom. She says she had more evidence and did not get a chance to show it. Charlie is still shocked as he describes that Rae cursed like a sailor! Why do people resort to such bad behavior if they are not getting their own way? Where is common decency? Why are we so quick to yell and curse at others? Do you feel that respect is a thing of the past? 

Your Plow Damaged My Driveway!

Robert hired Alexander to clear the snow from his driveway. Robert did not actually speak to Alexander. He was in the room when his significant other spoke with him on the phone. This was an emergency snow plow job. Alexander did not have Robert sign a contract for the job. He came out, cleared the driveway and was paid $20.00. Alexander says this is the going rate, it was a 5 minute job. Now, there is a second snowstorm and Alexander is called again to plow the driveway. This time the job does not go smoothly. Alexander has problems and tells Robert he cannot finish the job. Robert says he heard scraping sounds. When the snow melts two days later, Robert sees the damage done by the plow. He gets an estimate for $750.60 to repair these damages. Alexander does not deny that he could have caused the damage. He tells his customers that he would not be responsible for damage and they usually sign a waiver. Robert did not sign this waiver. He said he did not agree to waive responsibility for any damage caused by Alexander. He wants Alexander to repair his driveway. I feel bad for Alexander. I believe he told Robert's significant other the restrictions about what could happen when the driveway is plowed. His only mistake was not having Robert sign a waiver. He is paying dearly for this mistake, as he is found responsible for the $750.60 to fix the driveway. This is a difficult way to start out in business. Alexander has learned a valuable lesson that will save him problems in the future. He will now keep a waiver in his truck, for emergency situations. Good luck Alexander!!!!

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

Don't wait for your ship to come in, swim out to it.

-Unknown

People's Court: 7-2-12: Respect

So many times the people in our lives let us down. Whether they are family or strangers we all deserve to be treated with respect. If something occurs and we lose someone's respect, do we then deserve their cruelty?

Maria Elaina is bringing her soon to be ex-husband to court on behalf of her father. When the couple was still together they had a dog. The dog was hit by a car. When Anthony and his father-in-law rushed the dog to the vet, Anthony did not have any money with him. His father-in-law offered his credit card for payment and Anthony agreed to pay the bill. Over $3000.00 was charged to the card. Paying the bill $100.00 a month, lets interest charges accumulate. Four years later, there is still a balance on the card. Anthony is still paying, although now he has moved out. He continues to provide for the dog even though he does not live there anymore. When the dog passes away, he pays for everything, vet bills and the cremation. He even gives Maria Elaina half of the ashes. Now he decides he is not going to pay the remaining balance of almost $500.00. He feels since he has made payments for all of these years, paying almost $7,000.00 (remember the interest charges), Maria Elaina should pay the rest. Unfortunately, he has made the commitment to pay his father-in-law. He is required to pay the balance. Now, what I do not understand is why Maria Elaina has not taken any responsibility to pay half of the expenses for the dog. They owned the dog together. She is so bitter over the break-up, she does not see how ridiculous she looks by not paying her own way. Anthony should sue her for half of the expenses. I do not think he will since he probably wants to move on and not have to deal with Maria Elaina more than he needs to. 

A tenant decides to move out of her apartment after living there for 6 years. Time flies when you are having fun, the landlord says she has lived there for 8 years. The time seemed uneventful until there was a storm that left branches in the driveway and on top of another tenant's car. When she gets up in the morning she could not get her car out of the driveway because of the branches in front of her car.  She wakes up the landlord so he can move the branches. She claims he was very angry when he comes outside. He tells us that he was outside at 1:00 am clearing the branches. There might have been some very small twigs in front of her car. He says he was not happy to be awakened for this, but did not yell or curse at her. She is now scared for her safety because of the anger her directed towards her. She decides to move out. She wants her security deposit back even though she did not give him the proper notice. She brings a printout of his arrest history to prove she had a right to be afraid. She did not call the police at the time of the incident. There is no reason to think he is going to harm her. She does not get her security deposit back. I think it was very cruel to bring up this man's arrest history, it had nothing to do with her situation, even though she said it proved why she would be afraid of him. Why do people have to be cruel to each other?

Marilyn thinks she had a contract to write a script for a movie and then to write a book. She never had a signed proposal or contract. Yet she does research for the project and sends an invoice for the work she has done. The story is about Councilman Davis who was assassinated in 2003 in New York City Hall. A police officer on the first floor sees what has occurred in the balcony and kills the shooter. Councilman Davis's brother wants to educate the public about nonviolence and promote organ donation. He has a mission and to further it has been interviewing several people to write a book based on the documentary he has made. Marilyn thought he had hired her even though there was nothing in writing and they did not discuss payment. When he did not agree to pay the invoice, she sent him a nasty e-mail that referenced his brother. Why do people have to stoop to a low level when they do not get their way? She should have just kept everything about business and not attacked him personally. He obviously thinks highly of his brother to dedicate his life to this mission. This woman does not win her case and continues to fight for her case in the hallway. She felt they had a gentlemen's agreement since they shook hands and hugged. Mr. Davis says he respects the court's decision and will continue with his mission. Again we see the importance of getting an agreement in writing.

Please tell me what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

"Your success and happiness lies in you.Resolve to keep happy, and your joy and you shall form an invincible host against difficulties."- Helen Keller

Remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings! 

People's Court: 6-6-12: Why?

Are people ever going to take responsibility for their own actions?

A woman lends her boyfriend money over and over again. He promises to pay her back and does not. Yet, she still keeps lending him money. Does she deserve to get the money back?

When are people going to learn from their mistakes?

Also, why would he buy a car and put her name on it? None of this makes sense. When they break up, she takes the car because she has the legal right to do it. She trades it in. He does not get anything back, he wanted the deposit he put on the car, He does have to pay back some of the money he borrowed since he admitted to it. These situations get very messy in a relationship. People have to be very careful to understand whether it is a gift or a loan. Remember to also get it in writing.

Then we have a man riding motorcycles with friends through a free range town. A horse runs into him and injures him. The police reports appear to support this theory even though the horse owner says he was speeding and he hit and injured the horse. The horse did need to be seen by a vet. The owner of the horse admits the horse broke out. He has fixed the fence and the gate since the incident. It seems fairly straightforward. For some reason, the owner of the horse keeps saying they were riding Harleys and the injured man says it was a Honda. Why would the type of bike matter? 

A young man moves out of his apartment claiming it was uninhabitable. He did not give notice and does not want to pay what is due. He can not prove that he notified the landlord about any problems. It is very important that all communication with landlords are documented. They need to be given the chance to fix a problem. Why wouldn't he just send an e-mail?

These cases seem to raise even more questions about how people behave.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you.

Remember: Life is good.