People's Court Blog - 1 3 2013 - Thursday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can people come to court so unprepared?

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

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

Rachel sues Levy for $1643.54.

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court - 8 2 2012 - Thursday

I Did Not Damage Your Car!

Peter is suing Frank for $289.13. They were both in the supermarket parking lot. Peter's wife saw a shopping cart hit their car. She confronted the woman that let go of the cart. She told the woman she saw the cart hit the car. The woman cursed at her. Peter confronted the man, told him that his wife hit his car with a cart and asked to exchange information. The man told Peter that the woman was not his wife and they both got in the car and drove away. Peter quickly got the license plate of the fleeing car. Now in court, we find out the man and the woman are, Frank and Janette. Frank says that Janette did not damage the car. When Peter approached him and told him his car was damaged, he denied it. Frank did not see any damage to Peter's car. Janette explains that the cart slipped from her hands, but she was able to catch it before it hit the car. She did not see any damage to Peter's car. Janette denies cursing at Peter's wife. She is very adamant that she did nothing. She says that Peter's wife was yelling at her and she did not understand why. Janette also says that they were not fleeing, they did not know they did anything. Frank says that Peter and his wife were scaring Janette, that is why he left. Peter describes the damage and has the proof of repair. He spent $289.13 to have the scratches and the gouge fixed. Peter does not have any pictures of the damage. Since he has the receipt for the repair and the eyewitness testimony of his wife, he wins. The problem is he is suing Frank not Janette. Frank is not responsible for the damage. The Judge asks Janette if she would be willing to an amended complaint. Janette says yes and she is found responsible for the cost of the damage to Peter's car. In the hallway, Janette says she is a firm believer of honesty. Peter's wife says if Frank and Janette had behaved differently, it would be a different story. I think that means that there might not be a court case. Why can't people just be civil to each other? What ever happened to treating people as you would want to be treated? What has happened to taking responsibility for our actions? What do you think?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Elissia wanted to have a birthday party for her mom. She rented the local VFW hall. She hired Frances, her son's great grandmother, to cater the event. She gave Frances $1000.00 for the food needed for the party. The party was going to be on August 27th. Two days before the event, Elissia received a call from the commander of the VFW hall. He explained to her the hall would be closed due to Hurricane Irene. The governor declared a state of emergency and he was cancelling all upcoming events. Elissia called Frances to let her know. Frances said she had already done most of the shopping and had spent $700.00. Elissia told her she would pick up the remaining cash, groceries and receipts. When Elissia arrived she told Frances she would not accept any food without receipts. Frances did not have receipts for all of the food she had purchased. These two woman could not work this out. It is unfortunate since they are family. Frances explains that she did not save the receipts, since she had quoted Elissia a flat rate of $1400.00. Frances did return some of the food to Sam's Club, to get some of Elissia's money back. Elissia wanted all of her money back since she gave Frances notice about the cancellation of the party. Towards the end of the case, Elissia mentions a contract, a written contract. After all, she watches People's Court and she knows how important a contract is. The Judge is very pleased that Elissia has taken the initiative to write a contract. The Judge rules on the case, since the VFW hall had to close due to the hurricane, Elissia wins the case. In the hallway, Frances said she did offer Elissia an alternate date. Elissia says that she never had a party. Maybe, she would throw a party for her mom's next birthday. Spoiler alert - her mom is standing right next to her! Hopefully, this situation will not affect the family situation. Sometimes it is not a good idea to do business with family. When all goes well, that is great. When there are problems, it can get very complicated. What do you think?

Help Me - My Tenants Won't Pay Their Rent!

Lucia is suing Dennis and John for $5000.00. She hired Dennis's company to find her a tenant. John is an employee of the company. Lucia claims they misrepresented the terms of a contract. They actually did misrepresent what they were able to offer her. The only reason they are not found responsible to pay Lucia, is that the lease they were responsible for is over. They authored a lease for Lucia that was for one year. The tenants were eligible for a government program, Work Advantage. The rent is paid by the government. This was appealing to Lucia, since it is guaranteed rent. Why is there a problem? Lucia  wants $1500.00 a month rent. The government would only be paying $1316.00. Dennis and John provide a side agreement for the tenants to pay the remaining $284.00 directly to Lucia. A side agreement is not allowed through this government program. The Judge calls them on this illegal practice. Hopefully, they stop doing this, since it definitely causes problems. Lucia explains that the tenants no longer are paying  their rent, they are operating a tattoo parlor out of the apartment and they are smoking pot. Lucia explains that she is trying to evict them, but they have an additional year on the lease. The Judge tries to explain to Lucia that since the original lease is over, there should not have been an automatic renewal. Lucia says she retained an attorney and was told she could not do anything for another year. Lucia got rid of this attorney and is pursuing the eviction on her own. Lucia cannot prove that she is out $5000.00. Since the paperwork that Dennis and John provided has expired, they cannot be held responsible for the current conditions. Lucia feel it is wrong that she lost the case. She still continues to talk about a 2 year lease. The two men admit they were embarrassed by what was said in court. They really need to take a close look at their business practices. They might have won the case, but they lost in morality. I hope Lucia can get everything worked out, so she can collect rent for her apartment. Good luck Lucia!

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

Some people grin and bear it; others smile and do it.

-Unknown