Christmas Day 12 25 2012

Hi everyone. I hope everyone is enjoying this Christmas Day. Hopefully after the new year there will be new episodes of People's Court and the blog will resume. I miss writing about the cases. All of the recent repeat episodes have been featured in the blog posts.

 

This is a good week to reflect. I have been thinking about the decisions we make. Do we have other people's interests in mind or just our own? Do we try to be selfless or selfish? Many of the cases do show the selfishness and the mean spirits that motivate people. Are we to believe that people are inherently bad? I do not like to think that way. When we are faced with the senseless tragedy of the Newtown shootings, it does give you pause. Yet, the heroic stories that came from this tragedy give renewed faith in the human spirit.

 

Life is very complicated and we can only try to do our best. If every action is met with the question, " "Will someone be proud of me for doing this?", the outcomes would be so different. People need to start caring about their actions and the effects on others. We do not operate in a vacuum. Everything we do has an effect on someone else. A smile or "Have a nice day" can make all the difference in the world. How many times does it lift your spirits when someone behaves this way?

 

I hope everyone thinks about their effect on others. For every action, there is a reaction. Love, caring and trust mean so much. This is the season we think about family and friends and want the best for everyone. Let us put our differences aside and care about others. It should not take a tragedy to motivate us to commit acts of kindness. Let us try to work that back into our everyday lives.

Wishing Good Health and Happiness to All During The Holiday Season and for 2013!

People's Court Blog * 12-11-12 * Tuesday Case 2 of 2

This is the second case from 10-29-12.

There Is A Proper Way To Do Business

Steven is suing Dominic for $457.26. Steven hired his uncle's nephew, Rick, to do two roofing jobs for him. One at his personal house and the other at a rental property. Part of the cost of the jobs included dumpsters at each property for the construction debris. Rick contracted with Dominic for the dumpsters. After the jobs were done, Dominic needed payment for removing the dumpsters and disposing of the construction debris. Rick did not pay for the dumpsters and Dominic wanted payment from Steven. When Dominic contacted Steven by phone, they had a very angry exchange.  Steven did not want to pay for something he thought he already paid for. Rick gave money to his helper, Sam, to pay Dominic. Sam did not pay Dominic. Instead of suing Steven or putting a lien on his property, Dominic dumped the debris on his driveway. He says it is the debris from the dumpster, Steven says it was from someone else. Either way, it does not matter, it was illegal for Dominic to dump the debris. He also damaged the basketball hoop when he backed into the driveway. Dominic does not think he did anything wrong and he also is countersuing for $544.00 for the 2 dumpsters. Why does he think he should get paid for removing the dumpsters when he left the debris? Dominic does not have a good answer to this and he does not recover on his countersuit. Steven does get his money for having to remove the debris from his property. Dominic did replace the basketball hoop because the sheriff's officer told him he had 24 hours to replace it. 

What do we learn from this?

Anger has no place in a business proceeding. These two men should have been able to solve this issue without bringing anger into it. There is a legal way to handle a problem of nonpayment. Dominic could have put a lien on the property and should have dealt with Rick, not Steven. Bringing back the garbage and dumping it on Steven's property was not a good idea. Dominic also indicates that he will do it again if he does not get paid for a job. Someone did not learn from going to court. Damaging the basketball hoop almost seemed like an afterthought to Dominic. Who thinks that the only reason he replaced it is because the sheriff's officer told him he had to?  

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A Word To Learn:

Disport: to frolic, amuse or display

People's Court - 8 22 2012 - Wednesday

The Dog Jumped On Me!

Daniel is suing his sister, Lizette, for $1000.00. This is to cover medical costs and pain and suffering caused by Lizette's dog when he scratched Michael, Daniel's son. Daniel's and Lizette's mother was visiting and she was staying with Lizette. One morning Daniel dropped off his two sons for his mom to babysit. About 15 minutes after he dropped off his sons, his mom called him to say the dog, a Boxer, had scratched Michael. Daniel told her to clean it and keep him posted. Lizette's boyfriend called Daniel and said the injury was really bad. Daniel said his wife would pick up Michael and take him to urgent care. Michael was treated for the dog scratch. He received several stitches in his eyelid. When the Judge looks closely at Michael's eyelid, she can clearly see a scar. This 7 year old boy is so cute. He tries to answer the questions and just gets cuter by the minute! After Michael received medical treatment, Daniel called Lizette with the amount of the bill and she said she would pay half. Daniel says that at first, Lizette refused to pay anything. She did not feel she was responsible because she did not know the kids would be at her house. Lizette explains that her mom set everything up without telling her. Even so, this is her dog that jumped on her nephew and hurt him. How does she not feel responsible to pay the bill? You would expect this from strangers, but not from family. She is lucky the injury was not worse. Legally, Lizette is found responsible to pay the bill and the additional pain and suffering. Morally, there should never have been a question. I do not understand what happens to people? Why not take responsibility for something your own dog does in your own home to your 7 year old nephew? What do you think?

There Are Roaches In The Apartment - I Cannot Live There!

Angie is suing Sylvia for $950.00. This is for an apartment that Angie rented from Sylvia. Before Angie moved in her belongings, she wanted to paint the apartment. While she was painting, she saw cockroaches. She notified Sylvia and Sylvia said she would take care of it. Sylvia went to Home Depot and purchased bug bombs. She set them off in the apartment. The next day, Angie continued painting and saw more cockroaches. She called Sylvia and told her she was not staying there. Angie wanted her money back. Sylvia offered her 1/2 the rent and the security deposit back. Angie wanted the entire amount back. Angie should have taken what Sylvia offered her. Legally, Angie is not entitled to any of the money back. The apartment is not unliveable, it was just "icky". A few cockroaches is not an infestation. The landlord was trying to fix the problem. With more time, Sylvia could have resolved the problem. I understand that Angie was not comfortable dealing with cockroaches in the apartment, but this is not a reason to move out and get her money back. It is reason for her to move out, but there is a cost to her decision. What would you have done? Would you have given your landlord time to solve the problem?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Daniel is suing the owners of the property next to his for $2162.13. This is for damage to Daniel's fence, car, flowerpot and his time. When Hurricane Irene hit, the tree next to Daniel's property fell and caused all of this damage. Jake is one of the owners of the property. Daniel has lived in his home for four years. The property next to him is a wooded lot that the owners want to build on. Some of the trees next to Daniel's property are not healthy. Daniel spoke to the owners and they said they are lawyers, not landscapers. That is a very healthy attitude! Maybe as lawyers, they can hire landscapers! Daniel called the town officials about the conditions of the trees. The town cited the owners of the property. There was numerous correspondence from the town to the owners prior to Hurricane Irene. They were sent letters, violations and citations. The only response from the owners was to send a landscaper to the property to take down a tree on the opposite side of the property. Daniel wanted the tree removed that was next to his property. The landscaper was not directed to remove that tree. Since the owners were put on notice about the condition of the tree, they could not use "The Act of God" defense. If they did not know about the condition of the tree, it would have been different. Knowing the tree was unhealthy made them responsible for the damage that was caused when the tree fell. Daniel is awarded $1912.13, the damages caused by the tree. He is not entitled to receive money for his time. All of this could have been avoided if the owners of the property would have removed the tree. I find it very interesting that they ignored the town notices, especially since they want to build a house on that property. They certainly do not seem to be very cooperative. What do you think?

 

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

 

There comes a point in your life when you realize who really matters,

who never did, and who always will.     

- Unknown

 

 

People's Court - 8 16 2012 - Thursday

You Kept Me Out Of Jail - But I Don't Want To Pay You Too Much!

Nicholas is suing John for $850.00. Nicholas was arrested for the possession of heroin and the intent to deliver. John is an attorney recommended to Nicholas by his girlfriend. Nicholas explains that John agreed to represent him for $500.00. John did not have Nicholas sign a retainer agreement. At this point, it is one person's word against the other. Nicholas signed over his bond to John as payment. When Nicholas received his bond back, he would turn it over to John, minus the fees. This would be $1350.00. Nicholas explains that John said he would give him money back from the bond, since he was only charging him $500.00. John denies this. John explains that he went to court with Nicholas 7 times.The first 2 times they went to court, Nicholas was stoned, so John rescheduled the case. He said he told Nicholas he was facing probation or up to 3-7 years in prison. He was going to try to get him in drug school, this did not happen. He would get him supervision, this did not happen. He would get him expungable probation, this did not happen. Nicholas was not happy with his representation. John did get the sentence reduced to probation after a series of court appearances. In order to receive this, Nicholas had to take a plea. John explains it was not an expungable probation because the arrest was an undercover operation. Nicholas seems very upset over the fact he did not receive expungable probation. He is lucky he did not go to prison for this. The problem with the question of the amount of the attorney's fee rests on the lack of a retainer agreement. The reason to have a retainer agreement is so both sides know exactly what to expect. Because John did not provide this to his client, Nicholas wins this case. An attorney cannot keep changing the fee as the case progresses. This is not fair to the client. John says he is too busy to provide the paperwork to his clients. Is he too busy to be taken to court because of payment issues? Was Nicholas unreasonable thinking an attorney would go to court for him 7 times for $500.00? Both parties would have been better off if they were in agreement regarding the payment. Why do people create problems for themselves? What do you think?

I Need My Transmission Rebuilt Every Year!

Susan is suing Vasile for $2300.00. Vasile owns an auto body shop. In 2009, Susan took her car to Vasile's shop and had the transmission rebuilt in her 1998 BMW 740i. Right before the one year warranty expired, she took the car back and had the transmission rebuilt again. Now, it is 2011 and Susan's car is having problems again with the transmission. The mechanic that usually works on her car does not work for Vasile anymore. Does Susan take her car to Vasile's shop where she has the warranty? No, she finds where the mechanic is working and takes her car to him. She wants this mechanic to honor the warranty from Vasile's shop. When Vasile does not provide information about the specifics of the warranty, Susan sues Vasile. This does not make any sense. If she took the car to  Vasile, he would have fixed the car, since it was still under the warranty. Susan does not win her case because the warranty is valid only if she brought the car back to Vasile. Why didn't she take the car to Vasile? Why does Susan need to have the transmission rebuilt every year? Why did Susan think Vasile would have to pay for another rebuilt transmission? What is going on?

I Do Not Want To Pay The Rent!

Albert is suing Jim for $2701.00. This is for back rent. Jim is counterclaiming for $3000.00 because he claims mold in the apartment and the basement made him sick. Albert rented an apartment to Jim and his girlfriend. Jim did not pay rent for part of February, all of March and April. Jim says the reason he did not pay rent is because there was so much mold in the apartment, he suffered from health issues. The bathroom does not have a ventilation fan and this caused a very humid environment. Jim shows pictures of the bathroom and there is mold growth visible. Albert says that Jim made him aware of the problem and he tried to take care of it. Albert hired a mold remediation company. The company tried twice to evaluate the problem. Jim would not let them in. Jim explains that when Albert would call the night before and tell him the company would be there the next day, it was not enough time. If  Jim was so worried about the mold he would have accommodated the mold remediation company. Also, why would Jim continue to live there? If the mold was making him sick, why not look for another place to live? Jim claims he could not find anywhere else to live. I am sure there are other apartments in the area if the conditions were so bad. The Judge finds that Jim does owe back rent. There is a discrepancy over  $800.00, given as a security deposit. Albert cannot prove that it was not rolled over to the new lease. Becasuse of this, Albert is awarded $1726.00, instead of the $2701.00, he is asking for. Jim does not get anything on his counterclaim. He made no attempt to let Albert fix the mold problem. Why do some people think they deserve a free ride? Jim and his girlfriend rented an apartment, they were responsible to pay the rent. They were responsible to let Albert try to fix a problem. It is a waste of everyone's time when people do not abide by their commitment. What is gained by forcing a landlord to go to court to get the rent? What is gained by not letting the landlord fix a problem? What do you think?

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

To the world, you are just one person. To your dog, you are the world.

-reader submission from a bumper sticker

People's Court: 7-26-12

Just Say NO!

Donna is suing Mitchell and Kim for $1109.00. This amount is for the money she is out after Mitchell totaled her car. How did Mitchell, a 17 year old brand new driver wind up driving Donna's car? She gave him the keys at 10:00 pm, so he could drive home to pick something up. Why? This is the question of the day that is never really answered. The legal question of who is responsible for the damages, is straightforward. Mitchell is responsible because he was driving when the accident occurred. The moral issue is who is responsible for Mitchell driving the car. There is no question that Donna is responsible. She handed over the keys. Mitchell only had his license for 11 days. He was not supposed to be driving alone at night. What was she thinking? We will never know because this case was about the legal question. Mitchell was going to sleep over Donna's home. Mitchell is the cousin of Jake, the son of Donna's boyfriend. When they all returned home after dinner, Mitchell asked if he could borrow Donna's car. He told her he needed to get his medicine. He actually wanted his X-box. We never find out what kind of medicine he needed. It is unfortunate that Donna gave Mitchell the keys to her car. Someone could have been killed in the car accident. Why didn't she tell him to call his mother, offer to drive him, find out what he really needed, why he was going alone, etc? There are so many questions that should have been asked. Donna should have said no. There were so many other ways to handle this situation. Ask questions, find out what kind of medicine he needed. Did he need it that night? Can his mother bring it to him? The answers to any of these questions would have lead to a totally different outcome. How could she hand over the keys and not know where he was going? She never asked where he lived. There are so many questions that have nothing to do with the legal issue. The answers to these questions would offer insight into how this accident occurred. Unfortunately, we do not get these answers. Kim, Mitchell's mom is counterclaiming for $1500.00. She feels the stress she endured after her son's accident entitles her money. She has responsibility in this as well. Mitchell called her from the car because he was lost and needed directions. She did not tell him to pull over and stop. She did not offer to come and get him. She knew he was not supposed to be driving at this hour by himself. She knew he was lost, since she was giving him directions. They were on the phone when the accident occurred. Kim heard the accident and rushed to the scene. She feels her experiences and the aftermath entitle her to $1500.00. What is wrong with people? I would like to hear one person admit they were wrong. Finally, Mitchell does admit that since he was driving, he was responsible for the damages. Legal responsibility and moral responsibility are two different things. I am so glad that no one was seriously injured in this accident. Cars are replaceable, people are not. Please let me know what you think.

Walk Away From A Fight!

Ella and Lisa are suing Deborah and Justin for $5000.00. Ella is Lisa's mom. Deborah is Justin's mom. This is for dental bills and pain and suffering after Justin punched Lisa in the face. Why would a 15 year old boy punch a 13 year old girl in the mouth? This is a question that is left to us to speculate on the answer. The two teenagers tell totally different stories. The only fact that is clear to us, is that Deborah and Justin are found legally responsible to pay for the dental bills and pain and suffering. Ella and Lisa do not get the full amount they are asking for. They are awarded $3000.00; the full cost of the dental bills and $600.00 towards pain and suffering. Lisa's story is that when she was walking home afterschool, she passed Justin and a group of kids. She said Justin was being hit and then he punched her as she walked by. She ran home, crying and bleeding. Her mom called 911, the police came, Justin was arrested. One of Lisa's teeth fell out and she needed major dental care. Justin's story is that he was playfighting with a group of friends. Lisa walked up to the group, slapped him and he punched her in the face. The truth is somewhere in the middle. There were witnesses to the incident, yet no one is in court to testify for either side. The two stories make no sense. Why would Lisa walk up to a group and slap Justin? Why would Justin walk up to Lisa and punch her? Either way, the legal responsibility lands on Justin. If Justin's story is true, punching Lisa was an unreasonable reaction to a slap in the face. This could have lead to even more serious consequences than losing a tooth. Justin learned a valuable lesson, punching someone is wrong, especially a girl. I feel that a fifteen year old should already know not to hit someone. Thank goodness Lisa's injuries were not worse. Hopefully they will both come to terms with what really happened, since they are the only two that know the truth. What do you think happened?

 Three Years!

Sharyn is suing Mike for $686.00. This is for the cost of lanterns that were damaged three years ago. Mike owns a rubbish removal company. He was contracted by Sharyn's across the street neighbor. When the dumpster was being removed, the cable broke and there was damage to Sharyn's property. A stone pillar with a lantern and a stonewall were damaged. Mike took responsibility for the damage. He removed the rubble and debris. He had a mason rebuild the pillar and the stonewall. When the work was completed, Sharyn informed Mike that the lantern did not work. She also wanted the working one replaced so they would match. Mike agreed. The story should end here, but it does not. Why?, what went wrong? Sharyn priced lanterns, found out they were more expensive than she originally thought. She did not want to tell Mike it would cost more money. She got tired of looking at lanterns and forgot about it. Now, three years later, she wants her yard to look nice because her son is coming hme from college. Her son is in court, yet Sharyn does not want him to testify. Is anyone of this Mike's fault? He was more than cooperative at the time.  He took responsibility for the damage. He did the repairs right away. He even agreed to replace the working lantern. Three years later, why would he have to replace the lanterns? Sharyn feels that since the statue of limitations has not run out, he should have to pay. If she had evidence, she might have won. She might have been within her right to bring the case, but she still has to prove it. She should not have waited so long to pursue this case. In the hallway, it is clear she does not understand why she lost. Mike is satisfied with the outcome. He knows he did the right thing and is suspicious of the three year wait. It is so important to take care of a situation in a timely manner. What do you think of the outcome of this case?

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

Adventure is worthwhile in itself.

-Amelia Earhart

People's Court: 7-13-12 ** Bittersweet ** ****Music Business ** Responsibility ****

This is such a sad family situation. Keith is suing Kara for $2090.00. Kara is married to Keith's stepson, Dan. In 2008, Dan, Kara and their children lived in Missouri. Keith and his wife lived in Florida. Dan was arrested for felony possession of marijuana. The family needed money to get Dan out of this situation. Keith says he does not remember who he spoke when he agreed to lend them the money. Since Kara signed for the money, he is suing her. I do not think Kara is responsible to pay this debt. She had to sign for the money since Dan was in jail. The money was used to pay Dan's fines. When this situation was resolved, Dan and family moved to Florida for a fresh start. They stayed with Keith and his wife while they were trying to get on their feet. This was supposed to be a fresh start for them. Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. Living with the in-laws is a strain to begin with. The loan added tension to the situation. Kara thought that Keith was mean to her children, yelling at them all the time. She said that there were too many rules in the house, it was not fair to the children. They could not even have their snacks when they got home from school. Kara is so emotional, she can hardly tell her story. It is very obvious this entire situation is hard on her. She is trying to be everything to everyone. She has moved out of Keith's house, to try to give her children a better environment. Dan continued to live at his stepfather's house, until he broke curfew. He was kicked out and now sleeps on Kara's livingroom couch. This poor woman seems like she is about to break. Thank goodness, the law is on her side. She is not responsible for this loan. Keith needs to sue Dan for the money. In the hallway, Dan says he will sue his stepson. Kara says she is planning to move to Kansas, to be with her family. I wish her luck. She seems like she is carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders.  I hope everything works out for her and her children.

Yvette is trying to help two teenage friends of her son. She thinks they have musical talent and wants to give them a chance to pursue it. This is not her day job, she is trying to do something nice for them. She hires McAuthor to promote their talent. She gives him $2000.00 for an artist development package. He is a music producer, agent, musician, etc. With all of his expertise, he does not seem to steer Yvette in the right direction. There is a one page contract with little information on it. McAuthor says all of the details are on his website. Yvette is new to this business and does not understand all of the pitfalls that can happen. The major pitfall being the teenagers themselves. She does not get a written contract with the kids and their parents. This becomes a problem because one of the kids drops out. Yvette claims McAuthor tried to steal him away from her. She does not have any proof of this claim. He denies it. This particular young man did drop out of the group. Yvette found someone to take his place. She leaves messages for McAuthor and he avoids her. McAuthor has not upheld his end of the contract and Yvette will get her money back. I hope if Yvette continues in the music business, she learns her way around. I give her credit for wanting to help these kids, but she has to protect herself. Hopefully, this will be a learning experience for her.

A shopping cart rolls into a parked car and causes damage. Who is the responsible party? Tracey would like us to believe the store is responsible because the parking lot is hilly. She spoke to the store manager and finds out that this happens to others all of the time. They would not give her anything in writing. She would like us to believe the wind is responsible. She has weather reports with her in court as proof, it was a very windy day. She would like us to believe it was because she was closing her car after loading up her kids and packages. Okay, this is all very amusing! Fortunately, John was sitting in his car when the shopping cart rolled into it and caused the damage. Tracey looked in the car, said she was sorry and then was going to drive away. John approached her and got her information and has pursued this case. He would like her to pay the $543.13 cost of having the damage repaired. Even after being sued, Tracey still  thinks someone else should be responsible. She checked with her insurance company and found out that John can go through his own insurance company. Really! Why? Tracey really has lost all touch with the reality we call life. How can she truly believe she is not responsible for the damage to John's car? Why is she so quick to blame everyone else? What a great role model she is for her children, remember they were in the car! We are not surprised to find out the verdict, Tracey has to pay for the damage. In the hallway, she finally admits that she was responsible for the mishap. Hopefully, Tracey will change the way she looks at life and realize we all need to take responsibility for our actions. 

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

Think and wonder, wonder and think.

- Dr. Seuss

Submit your favorite sayings and quotes to be included in future blogs.

People's Court: 7-4-12 ** Silver Coins *** A Tree *** Allergies

Happy 4th of July!!!!! 

We are responsible for the decisions we make. Hopefully we make these decisions with the best intentions. To blatantly take advantage of someone is inexcusable. To ignore a past relationship is so so sad. And to ignore our surroundings is not always the best idea. The following cases illustrate these situations. 

Finding a great deal at a flea market is a wonderful feeling. Getting taken advantage of is another story. Daniel thought he discovered a deal at a local flea market. A vendor was selling silver coins. He even showed Daniel a book of coins to prove they were real. After the coins were purchased, Daniel took them to have them authenticated. He learned he paid $1100.00 for nothing. These coins had no value. The question is: Did the vendor know this when he sold them? And if he did, why is he taking advantage of someone? If the vendor did not act guilty, leaving the flea market directly after the sale, I would think he did not know the coins did not have any value. This theory is dispelled quickly as the vendor tells his story. He is not believable. He is rude to the Judge, pointing his finger at her and raising his voice. I am surprised she did not throw him out of the courtroom. The more he talked, the guiltier he appeared. He does have to pay the money back. I am so glad it turned out this way. People do not deserve to be taken advantage of. Of course, we all have to do our due diligence to protect ourselves.

Two neighbors in court over a tree. What a shame, these two people were good friends at one time. They have lived next to each other for over 20 years. Why does it wind up this way? Thomas claims that his neighbor, Joan, had one of his trees cut down after the snowstorm last Halloween. There was damage to trees on both properties. Thomas says this particular tree was not damaged. He thinks since it was so close to the property line, when the clean-up was done on Joan's property, they cut this tree down. Joan tells us she paid her friend's cousin $50.00 to clean up 2 damaged trees. If this tree was not damaged, why would someone cut it down. They wouldn't! Thomas should be glad someone did free work for him and instead of dragging his friend into court, he should be thanking her. He does not get the money he is asking for. Joan does not have to pay him over $3000.00 for a tree that was damaged in a snowstorm. What brings us to this point where we can not even talk to each other in a civil manner? We need a courtroom setting to resolve our problems? These two people were friends and that should count for something. In the hallway, they both agree the friendship does not exist anymore.

Denise is highly allergic to animals. She moves into an apartment building that allows animals. After several months she develops such a severe allergic reaction she winds up in the hospital. When she decides to move out without proper notice, she wants her security deposit back. So much of what she says does not make sense. She tells us the apartment manager told her no pets were allowed in the building, yet the lease she signed does not state this information. The lease gives the specifics of the restrictions of having a pet. They have to be approved by management and there are specific rules to follow. Denise also tells us that on at least two occasions she has to deal with dog feces near her door and the entrance to the building. She does not contact management at this point. She does not submit a complaint. She does not give notice to move out. It is not until 5 months later, when she gets sick, she moves out. How does she not see dogs for the entire time she has lived there? Denise does not get back her security deposit. We all need to take responsibility for our lives. Knowing she had a severe allergy, she should have made sure there were no pets in the building. Why put her health at risk? There are many ways to rationalize our behavior. In this case, I am baffled by the decisions that Denise made!

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today!

Happiness will not come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have.

-Unknown

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings!

People's Court: 6-20-12: Family, Friends, Strangers

Welcome to Summer 2012! 

Everyone has so much to deal with. The last thing we want to think about is being taken advantage of. Whether it is by family, friends or strangers. Why should we allow ourselves to treated poorly by others?

This landlord/tenant case is a good illustration of people treating each other poorly. These two women do not get along. The day to day problems are so toxic that they really need to separate from each other. The landlord needs to pursue an eviction of this particular tenant. She feels that illegal activity is occurring in the apartment. The reason for the suit is because of a flood. The landlord is accusing the tenant of leaving the water running in the tub in the middle of the night. She claims to have proof but does not have it with her. She is in court, this is the time to have the proof. The tenant is countersuing for harassment. Again, there is no proof on her part. If she is not happy with her living arrangements, she should move out. She has pictures of the mold in her apartment. It is a very unhealthy environment and she should not have to live there. She says she has called the city and there are violations that have been cited. She should have sued based on the conditions in the apartment. This environment is toxic on many levels. When the case is over neither party gets any money. The tenant needs to realize, it will not truly be over until she moves out.

This is a case about two friends. One lends the other her credit card to buy a camera. This is a very expensive camera she is going to use to venture into a new business.  She begins to make payments. Then, the camera is stolen. Does she still owe her the money? Of course she does. But, now she calls it an investment. She cannot change the agreement after the fact. She owes the money. Is it really that easy? It should be, but now we have another problem. No one kept track of the payments or paying off the credit card. The money situation is a mess. It is left to the Judge to do " a little rough justice". The friend gets back some of the money, not everything she is asking for. The more important question is: Are they still friends? It seems like the friendship is over. What a shame when her friend was there for her when she needed help.

This is a case about a family that has lost their way. A mother and daughter that have been very close are not talking and the daughter has publicly wished death on her mother. How do things get so bad? The daughter put her mother's car in her name. The mother got several parking tickets. The car gets towed. The mother does not pay the tickets. Why? She claims her daughter owed her money from a cell phone years before.  They must have been close for the daughter to help out her mother with the car. There does not seem to be a relationship at this point. The Judge recommends that they stay away from each other or get family counseling if they want to get back together. They do not seem receptive to the idea of repairing the relationship. The daughter says her mother has nothing to do with any of her grandchildren. Such a shame. I do not think families should sue each other. There should be a way to work things out. It is always a heartbreak to see a family divided.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Anything you're good at contributes to happiness.

Bertrand Russell

People's Court: 6-19-12: Accountability

We all need to take responsibility for our own actions. When we do something or allow something to happen, we need to step up. Of course, if someone is refusing to take ownership of their actions, it is important to be able to address the situation. The person wronged needs to be able to prove what happened. Without proof, there is no way to hold someone accountable for their actions.

This case is so complicated you need a score card to keep track.

1, A woman asks her friend's girlfriend to help her out.

2. She has lived with her previously and asks to move in again.

3.The boyfriend and his girlfriend have violated existing restraining orders.

4. The girlfriend is sent to jail because she has also violated her probation.

5. She is on probation for stabbing the boyfriend.

6. She spends several months in jail.

7. While she is in jail many people have access to her apartment.

The actual case is about the theft of her 62 inch television. She thinks the woman living with her is responsible for the theft.(see #1 and #2) Unfortunately for her, she does not have any proof. Since   so may people have been in and out of the apartment, no one knows what really happened. There is no evidence to find this woman accountable for the theft of the television. 

A woman is walking her dog on a leash. All of a sudden a larger dog runs to them and attacks the small dog. The woman gets bit trying to keep the larger dog from hurting her small dog. A neighbor tries to help, getting the large dog to let go of the smaller dog. The owner of the dog is not home, but her mother realizes the dog has gotten out and goes to see what has happened. The woman who was bit is taken to the emergency room for medical treatment. The small dog was taken to the vet and was lucky to have only superficial wounds. The owner of the larger dog states the woman was bit by her own dog. She does not think she should be responsible for the bills. Also, since her dog is a pitbull mix, she thinks that is why she is being targeted. Since her dog caused the woman to get bit, no matter which dog did it, she would be responsible. The owner of the larger dog has made no effort to find out how her dog got out of their yard. This is not responsible behavior for a dog owner. She is held accountable for the medical and vet bills.

A tow truck driver damages a car while he is delivering it. He admits the accident is his fault, he went down a one way street. For some reason he does not feel he should have to pay for it. He says his employer could have gone through the insurance company. The employer agrees this was an option, but he would have had to fire him to satisfy the insurance company. The decision made is to let the employee keep his job and to have him pay off the damages. He denies this and says he agreed to pay  only the deductible. This does not make any sense. Why would his employer pay for these damages? Why would he think he was not accountable for his actions? And to make matters worse, he quit without notice. There is no question that the tow truck driver caused the damages and is held responsible. 

It is refreshing to watch these cases and see justice served. People should not make accusations without proof, refuse to pay when their own dog causes injuries and shirk their responsibility when they admit they caused an accident. It is time that people are held accountable for their actions.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Believe you can and you are halfway there.  -Theodore Roosevelt

People's Court 6-18-12: Honesty

Some of the situations on People's Court are very complicated. The facts of the case are essential. With different stories or no proof, it makes it so much harder to find the truth. Honesty is always the best policy. When it is one person's word against another, a tape recording can be very revealing.

• A car accident occurs. Even though the police are called, the people involved have very different stories. The one driver does not even recall the impact. He claims he did not hear anything because of the rain. When one car hits another, you can feel it. He claims the other car must have hit him, he denies hitting the other car. He also denies what he said at the scene. Enter the tape recording - this was a very good idea! We get to hear part of the conversation. Everything he denied saying, was on the tape. This is so interesting. Why lie about what was said? Does he think it will make him look guilty or stupid or both? It proves he is a liar. How can you believe anything else he says? Since his testimony is so unbelievable, the Judge finds him liable for the damages to the other car. If he would have told the truth, he could have avoided this embarrassment.

• In the next case, a tenant moves out and wants his security deposit back. He has sent the landlord a certified letter requesting the return of his security deposit. The landlord has not responded. When the tenant researches his rights, he find out he is able to receive double his security deposit back. The landlord has not sent him an itemized statement. The landlord does not seem to know his responsibilities. There is no excuse for this. He does not have any proof of the damages he is claiming, he can not keep the security deposit. Also, since he did not provide notification to the tenant, he is required to pay him double. It is so important to know what our rights and responsibilities are. The information is only a click away.

• This situation is very interesting. A management company sends workers into an apartment to paint. There are two workers. The tenant stays home to monitor the activity. She notices one worker walks around the apartment and does not stay in the room where the work is being done. She knows she has put her jewelry on the top of her dresser, she says she took it off because it was too hot! Even though her bedroom door is closed, it is not locked. She did not see the worker go into her bedroom, yet her jewelry is missing. There are so many things she could have done differently.  She could have put the jewelry away or back on. She could have asked him to stop wandering. She could have watched him more closely. She could have asked him to leave. She can not prove he took the jewelry. She claims people have told her this particular worker was a problem. No one has put anything in writing for her. She has no proof. The management company is not found liable for her missing jewelry.

It is important to tell the truth. It is important to know your rights. It is important to protect yourself. If all of these things are in place, the above situations might have turned out differently. Hopefully, all of us, the people involved and the people watching can learn from these experiences.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me!

Remember:

The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters.

Audrey Hepburn

People's Court: 6-15-12: Being Truthful

Life can become complicated very quickly. One of the ways to simplify a crazy situation is to be truthful.

This is illustrated in the case of a man who witnessed someone falling and getting hurt. She asks him to be a witness for her in a lawsuit. He made it quite clear he would do it for compensation. He was not going to get involved out of the goodness of his heart. The woman is not clear in her story and just keeps saying he lies about everything. She is very fortunate he did not lie about her fall. His testimony enabled her to receive a $62,000 settlement. He is hearing for the first time how much money she received. He cannot believe she would not honor their agreement, considering the amount of money she received. Not only was she refusing to pay him the money to be a witness, she never thanked him for helping her receive such a huge settlement. The Judge awards him the money. I find this so interesting since there is nothing in writing and it really is about who appears truthful. Even in the hallway, the woman is still carrying on about his lies. Because this man was honest about his actions, he was able to receive compensation for his testimony. We also find out this is not illegal as long as there is full disclosure. It seems no one ever asked him if he was receiving anything for his testimony. If they asked, his testimony might not have been held in such high regard or maybe that is why there was a settlement. We will never know.

Now we have a man purchasing a used car. He is given three days to have the car checked out by the dealer. He takes it to an authorized repair shop for the type of car he purchased. They do a visual check and put it on the computer for a diagnostic test. He is provided with a list of repairs needed. The dealer honors this and refunds some of his money. A month later he takes the car back to the repair shop. He keeps saying it was a week later, since that probably sounds better. If the car had problems a week later; why did he wait and why does he think the repair shop should have been able to diagnose it earlier?. Well, it was a month later not a week, according to the receipts. The repair shop cannot be expected to diagnose a problem that had not occurred. Why does this man want to make the repair shop responsible when they are not at fault? He should be going after the dealership if they truly misrepresented the condition of the car. If he had been truthful to himself about the events, he could have sued the dealership and not wasted his time suing the wrong party.

A woman moves into Section 8 housing with her children. She claims the landlord harassed her for back rent and caused her to lose her job. The landlord admits calling her job 2 times about the rent and the noise. The tenant admits she did not pay her portion of the rent for several months. The harassment she is trying to prove does not appear truthful. She does not have hard evidence. The Judge feels the evidence provided could have been manufactured by the tenant. The landlord is entitled to the rent and is not responsible for lost wages that cannot be proven. It would have been refreshing if the tenant would have been truthful about the circumstances. None of the facts back up her story. In the hallway, the landlord states that it was like having a racetrack above her. They must have been very noisy!

Please let me know what you think about these cases. Thank you for joining me today.

Remember:

“For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.” 

― Ralph Waldo Emerson

People's Court: 6-11-12: Voodoo Curse

Another exciting day on People's Court. Three new cases today. Let's get started...

A woman wants a granite countertop in her kitchen. The store she goes to sends a subcontractor to her house to measure. She gives him a check and cash. Not only does she not get a receipt for the payment, she does not fill out the check. She leaves it blank instead of writing the name of the store. Of course, the subcontractor happens to be a thief. He deposits the check and takes the cash. The store owner thinks she is dealing directly with the sub and cutting him out of the picture. When she tries to get her money back, the store owner realizes what has happened and is able to get some of the money back from the sub. He is responsible to pay her the rest of the money. Now he can go after the sub if he chooses to. The woman does realize that she made a mistake, the way she wrote the check, giving the cash and not getting a receipt. She does not think threatening a voodoo curse was a mistake!

The second case involves family. A brother suing his brother. It is a shame to watch a family fall apart right in front of you. The Judge wonders whether the one brother is clueless or evil. She quickly finds out as the brother tells one lie after another. He let his brother sublet his rent controlled apartment when there was a balance due. He collected rent from his brother and pocketed it. He lied about receiving money even though he signed a receipt. He illegally locked his brother out of the apartment. The brother that was taken advantage of won the case and seemed like a really nice guy. There was mention of a sister. She was not in the courtroom. This seems to be common when family members do not want to be caught in the middle. The consensus is that the brother is evil!

The last case is a traffic accident. The young man that caused the accident admits it in court. On his written response to the complaint, he stated he was not at fault. The truth comes out, he admits he is responsible but feels the estimate is too high. He actually obtained two estimates from pictures of the damage to the other vehicle. This does benefit him, since the Judge takes this into consideration. It was very impressive for this young man to get the estimates. 

People do constantly amaze. Sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way. The important thing is to always think about what you are doing. Do not let people take advantage of you.

Please let me know what you think of these situations. Thank you for joining me today.

Remember:

They can't hurt you unless you let them. - Anonymous

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.

People's Court 6-5-12: Proof Positive

What have we learned today on People's Court? A few friends are out drinking. A young woman's purse disappears. She is very fortunate that the surveillance tapes show someone picking up the purse and putting it under his jacket. Even with photos with this evidence, the young man who has been identified, claims it was an innocent mistake. He was getting the purse for one of his friends. Why didn't she say it was not hers? Why, when he was arrested, he did not ask his friend for the purse back? He could not answer these questions. Also, he said he was guilty when he was arrested. An innocent person does not plead guilty. Much credit is to be given to the boyfriend. He did his research and found this person on Facebook. The young woman did not get her purse back, but did get reimbursed for the cost and everything in it since she had receipts. It is very important in court to have proof.

The second case is about a woman taking a job as a verification specialist. We learn this is to check properties to see if they are vacant. The pay is based on volume. She was not effective in the job according to the employer, so they stopped giving her work. They did owe her money, but not the amount she was asking for. She wanted them to pay for her car, cell phone, cell phone plan and a gps. She claimed she would not have made these purchases if she did not take the job. The employer never said they would reimburse her for these items. She did get paid for the work she completed. In the hallway, she says it was a good job, but did not pay enough. She knew the pay when she took the job!

The last case was sad. A dad suing his ex for overpaid child support. He found out his daughter was not going back to school and had moved into her own apartment. He checked if this was grounds to terminate support and found out it was. He went to court to have the child support order changed. It was granted and backdated to when the young woman moved out on her own. The interesting aspect of this is that the ex did not feel she had to pay the money back since she turned it over to her daughter. The daughter's parting words was that she should not have to pay it back since it was for her. Really!!! Maybe her dad would help her out if she asked him. She did not even talk to him. That is the sad part. There was no relationship between them. Maintaining a relationship with both parents is so important for a child of divorce. Once they are old enough, they can make their own decision regarding the level of the relationship with their parents. It is sad when the parents make that decision for the child.

Please comment on these situations. I would like to know what you think.

Remember: Everything you can imagine is real - Pablo Picasso

People's Court: 6-4-12: Responsibility

Watching People's Court is very educational on many levels. The legal aspect of it is very informative. What I find to be fascinating are the people. From all walks of life, the interactions are awesome. I learn so much every single day. I started this blog last week. I enjoy watching the show and I wanted to share my reactions with you. Please join me on this journey of discovery: learning about others and ourselves.


Today's cases all involve people needing to take responsibility for their actions. In the first case, friends move in together to help each other out. It is not a good situation and quickly falls apart. The arrangement explodes and the shenanigans start. The lack of maturity is embarrassing for all of the adults involved. No one has taken responsibility for their actions. 


In the second case a contract is not honored. The photographer does not get paid for his services. Now so much time has passed and the photo provided has been published. The photographer does not feel this was an agreed upon use and wants more money. The contract was not specific to the use of the photo provided. The contract needed to be more specific. Both parties need to take responsibility for the contract they agreed upon. 


The third case involves children. I do not like to see children in the courtroom. The judge makes it very clear that the 7 year old is not responsible for losing the nintendo game. Also, the mother is not responsible for her son's actions. It is unfortunate the parents did not take the responsibility as parents to keep their sons out of a courtroom. The more important issue here is that I hope the mothers put their feelings aside and let the boys remain friends.


Thank you so much for joining me. Please let me know your thoughts on these situations.


    

Remember:

Continue to smile and enjoy your life.

12-12-12 People's Court Blog: Family Blues

What an amazing date - 12-12-12! Every time I wrote it today I felt like it was something special. Life is special and we need to treasure every day and every experience. I do not want to look back and have regrets. 
Since it is a week of repeat episodes, here is a blast from the past. On June 2nd of this year, I wrote this, but did not post it. I do not know why! 
Enjoy!

Thank you for joining me today.

Family members suing each other on People's Court can be so sad. A father buys a car and tells his daughter he will transfer the title after it is paid off. After several late payments, he gets the police involved and takes the license plates off the car. After that he will only talk to his son-in-law and not his daughter. She does not like this and stops talking to her father. She will not let him see his grandchildren. Why must the children suffer when the adults fight? This is a recurring theme and is so so sad. The father and the daughter also exchange vile text messages. He is so immature, even the Judge tells him to grow up and act like an adult.

They seem to reconcile in the hallway, telling each other that they love each other. Hopefully, this is sincere and they can be a family again. The grandchildren should not miss out on a relationship with their grandparents.

The next case is a rental situation. The tenant is renting retail space. He feels threatened by the landlord and does not renew his lease. There was a mix-up with one month's rent being paid twice and the landlord tried to claim this was an automatic renewal of the lease. The lease had some very specific clauses that the tenant followed to the letter. He got back his rent, did not have to renew the lease and even had his attorney's fee reimbursed. This is why it is very important to read the lease and understand it.

The last case was about a friend lending her car to another friend. What amazed me was how the young man who borrowed the car behaved. He totally dismissed his responsibility for the damages, even though he was at fault. The insurance covered the damages and he was being sued for the deductible and the rental car. He was very flippant and did not even care that his friend had laid out the money. His response was that she lent him the keys so she was responsible. He lost - no surprise. It was so sad, in the hallway interview it was so clear the girl had a crush on him and this incident did not seem to have any effect on her. I get the impression she would do this again under similar circumstances. We do need to learn from our mistakes. 

Please let me know what you think about these situations. 

Thought for the day:

We are responsible for our own happiness

More Life Lessons

I am still watching People's Court. There is so much to learn from this show. Adding a co-worker/friend to a cell phone plan. Remember this is a very bad idea. This particular case differed in that the people sounded like they remained friends. It is good to know that going through this situation did not ruin their friendship. Trying to be nice and help people out sometimes ends with the parties not talking to each other. It is always a shame to see friendships ruined, no matter what the reason.

A woman ordered custom sweatshirts for her daughter and son-in-law to be. The artwork on  one of the sweatshirts was not centered on the back. It was off by inches! The owner of the shop would not replace it because he said the customer was rude and obnoxious. What is wrong with people these days? There was an obvious mistake that needed to be corrected and he did not like her attitude. She says she was very nice and who really knows what happened in the shop that day. It should have been resolved quickly at the store, since the item was not what the customer expected. This situation could have been avoided totally. The customer did not check the order before she left the store. When someone orders a custom made item, check it thoroughly before leaving the store. Do not accept something that is not what you ordered.

A college student being sued by the landlord for the rent of the other two roommates. The landlord kicked out the 2 roommates, for good reason. What she did not realize is that her actions had consequences. To expect the remaining roommate to pay the entire rent did not make any sense. He tried to get additional roommates and was not able to. This was a good lesson for landlords. In this case, going to court was very beneficial for the college student.

What we learned today: Once again - do not add anyone to your cell phone plan- always check merchandise before you accept it - if you are sued, go with the flow, if you are in the right, it will benefit you.

Thought for the day:

Keep a positive outlook.

Life Lessons

I am amazed by people.  In our everyday life, so much happens. There is always something to learn. Years ago, someone told me that each day we should strive to learn something new. People-watching is so much fun. Sit on a bench and watch the people go by. Watch them interact with the world or ignore the world around them. Or....watch it unfold on TV from the comfort of your own home. A very interesting show is People's Court. I wonder what motivates people to sue. Some of them are about being cheated, scammed or swindled. Others are families and friends. One thing we should all have learned from court TV is never ever put anyone on your cell phone plan. Unless you do not mind paying their bill, one day something will happen and they will not pay. Hello Judge!!!! 

The most recent People's Court episode I watched had the typical three cases. Two of them were fairly straightforward, one of them gave me pause. A woman rented out her daughter's room to a male friend. They admittedly had an intimate relationship and her biggest worry was that her 19 year old son was becoming friends with this man. She locked this man out of the house because he was drinking. She did not understand that she did not have the right to do this and would not even open the door to the police!

I know times are difficult and we all are looking for a way to pay the bills. What happened to our morals, our scruples, protecting ourselves and our family, and being a role model for our children. Granted her son was an adult, but bringing a virtual stranger into her home - anything could have happened. Bringing this man into their home was her first mistake and then showing her son that dealing with a problem was to ignore the police at the door shows so much more lack of judgement. What are we teaching our children???? What have we been taught? This woman made so many mistakes and she left court unaware of all of them. When the people take something positive from the experience it gives me hope. Those of us watching might not make these same mistakes. I know I will not be renting out any rooms! It is a good day when we have learned something.

Let me leave you with this thought for the day: 

Smile and the whole world smiles with you.