People's Court Blog - March 25 2013 - Monday

Hi everyone - I am back.  A new episode today, I am so happy to share my thoughts with you about these cases. 

What did you think about Aries and Wascar moving during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy? That is amazing! They are in court today suing their landlord for $3500.00. This includes their security deposit and the deposit on their new apartment and their moving expenses. WHAT? Why would their landlord be responsible to pay for their moving expenses and a deposit on their new apartment? Aries did not have an answer either!!! They moved out of their apartment because they did not get heat on a regular reliable basis. They have a baby and they did not want the baby subjected to a cold apartment. That is reasonable. I would move out too! What is not reasonable is that they moved out on or after the first of the month. They claim it was the first of the month, their landlord claims it was the 6th of the month. Either way they were there into the month of November and are responsible for the rent for the month. Since the landlord rented the apartment for November 15th, mitigating his damages, they are only responsible for half the month's rent. Also, we all learned something new today - Tenants in New York City do not have to give one month's notice to the landlord. You can tell that Edward, the landlord was surprised by this information. Live and learn!!!!! Aries and Wascar do get back $650.00 which is half of their $1300.00 security deposit. They do not get what they are asking for since it is not their landlord's responsibility to pay towards their moving expenses or their new apartment. It was their choice to move out. Good luck to Aries and Wascar in their new home.

Carol is suing Lateresia and her nephew Kristopher for $100.00. Kristopher damaged Carol's fence when he knocked it down while riding a dirt bike. They had already paid $250.00 towards the $350.00 repair bill. There is no question they are responsible to pay for the damages. They were paying Carol and then just stopped. What a shame Carol had to sue to get the last $100.00! Sometimes it seems like a waste of everyone's time to sue for a small amount of money. After all, there are court costs and the time and expense of coming to court. In this case, I agree with Carol since Kristopher should be help responsible for the cost of the damage. The judge finds in favor of Carol and Kristopher needs to finish paying for the damage he did. Carol will get the $100.00!

Keith loaned his friend of 25 years, $2600.00 for his wedding. William does not deny the loan, but claims he did not borrow that much money and he paid his friend back. Keith has a promissory note signed by William. The promissory note is great evidence for Keith. Thank goodness he has this because si much of the relationship does not make sense. Keith hired William to do electrical work in a house he was renovating. He paid William in full for the work even though William owed him money. Keith explains that there were other people involved and the loan was separate. I think he is lucky that William's testimony seems very shaky. He claims he borrowed $1100.00 and paid it back in full, paying Keith $600.00 on 2 separate dates. This would be $1200.00 and he has no proof of paying it. The Judge finds in favor of Keith for the full amount of $2600.00.  This is a good thing, Keith should get his money back. Unfortunately, the long-term friendship is over! Money, business and friendship do not mix well. 

Thank you for joining me today. Please subscribe and stay updated!

Share your thoughts in the comments.

Please check out this animal rescue group and help them raise money to help the animals.

I support them and their efforts to rescue animals. They do really good work.

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/NJ617.html

People's Court Blog - 1 30 2013 - Wednesday

Today's cases include a defective diamond ring, an unprofessional caterer and a landlord that does not follow the rules. In all of these cases the plaintiffs have been wronged and have chosen the forum of small claims court to make it right.

Frank is suing Denise and Oleg for $5000.00. 

Denise and Oleg have a jewelry store. Frank purchased an engagement ring from them. The ring is in court, his new wife is not. They are newly married and she does not come to court to be at her husband's side. She is a schoolteacher and has a work related commitment. **Spoiler alert**: Her absence does not hurt the case! Frank explains that his wife had fallen in love with the ring - it is gorgeous! The problem is the diamonds kept falling out. When they would return to the store, Denise would take the ring back and have it fixed. The replacement diamonds were not as nice as the original diamonds. The entire ring was supposed to have been  replaced the second time it went back. The receipt shown to the Judge states the ring was replaced and the original diamonds were used. WHAT? This does not make sense. That is not a replacement. Frank wants his money back. He has a right to be satisfied with the purchase of the ring. Denise claims the ring has been abused and that is why the diamonds keep falling out. How does a schoolteacher abuse a diamond ring? 

The Judge rules in favor of Frank. Not for $5000.00. He did not pay $5000.00 for the ring. It cost $2300.00 and that is what he gets back.

In the hallway, he expresses disappointment for not being able to keep the ring, after all, it has sentimental value. Are you kidding me? He wants the money and the ring! What world does he live in?

Rhonda and Michael are suing Demetrius for $3100.00.

**Clementine Weather**

What is clementine weather?- stay tuned for the answer!

Demetrius is a distant relative that runs a catering company, Untamed Flavors. When Rhonda and Michael hired Demetrius to cater their wedding they did not expect substandard service. They expected to get good food and professional service. What they received was poorly cooked, pre-made foods served by children. 

Rhonda and Michael have complaints about the quality of the food from their friends and family in writing and in person. The chicken was overcooked and dry, the ribs were undercooked and had little sauce and the potatoes were from a box. Even worse, the boxes from the food were in plain site to the guests. Demetrius defends his foodservice by claiming the weather was bad that day, so the cooking was moved from outside grills to inside. After all, in his contract he has a clause about clementine weather, About what? Yes, you read it correctly! Clementine weather - oh he means inclement weather. This is so funny!!!! It is actually written in the contract as clementine weather!  Now, back to the case...Rhonda and Michael say the weather was fine. Either way, it does not excuse the quality of the food. Demetrius explains the children were a last minute addition because some of his staff did not show. I think Rhonda and Michael have a right to be unhappy about 12 year olds and 16 year olds serving at their wedding. 

Rhonda and Michael win the case. They get back a portion of the payment, $1854.00. 

In the hallway, Demetrius continues to defend his food and claims they are all exaggerating. After all, who can go away unhappy, when there is clementine weather!

Sharday is suing Darin for $1103.88. 

Darin has a countersuit for $1036.09.

Sharday rented one side of a duplex from Darin. At the time she rented it, the other side was unoccupied. Darin told her she could park in the driveway until someone moved in. When the other side was rented, she would have to park on the street. After 2 months, Darin rented the other side. Sharday did not want to park in the street, spoke to Darin and he told her she could move out. Sharday said they dissolved the lease and Darin was going to give her back her $750.00 security deposit. Darin did not return it. He claims Sharday left the apartment unclean and damaged the storm door. He does not have proof of $750.00 worth of expenses. The Judge allows him to keep $75.00. Sharday is happy to get back $675.00.  Darin's countersuit is dismissed because he cannot prove he is out over $1.000.00 in damages and clean-up fees.

In the hallway, Sharday continues to explain that Darin was an unprofessional and incompetent landlord. Darin needs to learn the responsibilities of a landlord and provide an itemized list when he is not returning the security deposit. It is not enough to make up a written list and claim he is out much more. After all, it is about proving your case with evidence in the People's Court!

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 29 2013 - Tuesday

Steven is suing Warren for $3270.00. 

Steven does advertising for local businesses. He approached Warren who owns a dry cleaning business. Usually Steven receives 50% upfront and the remainder when the job is completed. For some reason he did not conduct business as usual in this case.

He does the whole job before having Warren sign a contract and receive payment. Warren gives him a check for $400.00 and the check bounces. He lets Warren know and it turns out this account was closed three years ago. Warren does pay the $12.00 bank fee for the bounced check. He does not pay the $400.00 for the job. Warren cancels the job. Steven puts another dry cleaner ad into the advertising project.

When Warren is asked why he signed the contract, he claims he did not know it was a contract! Really! Who is he insulting? Himself or the Judge? He tells the Judge he does not think she is stupid, so that leaves...himself!!!! Warren also says there was another dry cleaner ad, yet this was done after he cancelled the job. 

Steven has added many other expenses into the lawsuit. He is entitled to the money from the advertising job, not beefing it up to have a bonanza. Court is about making a person whole. The Judge finds in favor of Steven for $400.00, court costs and pre-judgement interest. It is a good day for everyone! Warren admits he did not look good and Steven still feels he was entitled to a lot more money.

Sarah is suing Felicia for $800.00. 

This is for the remainder of her security deposit. Sarah entered into a roommate agreement with Felicia. She lived in the apartment for 6 months. Felicia was only there a few times. At the fourth month, Felicia left a note for Sarah, telling her she was not happy with the cleanliness of the apartment and to confirm her move out date. Sarah did not feel the apartment was messy. Her mother was even visiting at the time and confirmed that she was an able housekeeper. Everyone has different standards!

The pictures Felicia shows tell their own story. Once again a picture is worth a thousand words. In the pictures, you see dirt, hairballs (there was no pet!), footprints on the wall!, an unclean stove top and dirty floors. Sarah says she cleaned after this. Why didn't Sarah take pictures? That would have solved the whole dilemma. 

Felicia cannot prove the amount for the cleaning of the apartment. The Judge finds in favor of Sarah but lets Felicia keep some of the security deposit. Sarah gets back $656.00. This is not the total amount she was asking, but is still a nice amount of money. The question is: Is it worth it to humiliate yourself in public for this amount of money? What do you think?

George is suing Nick for $200.00. 

This is for the cost of a door for a Chevy Suburban. Nick owns a junkyard. He sold George several parts for the Chevy Suburban. George wants to use the vehicle as a shed. What difference does it make if the door is dented? When George installed the door on his vehicle, the door would not close. This would be crucial, a shed door would need to close! Nick is not surprised by this problem, since the Suburban had auto body damage. When George brought the door back, he was offered store credit, not a cash refund. Neither of the parties have paperwork to prove the policy of no cash refunds. The Judge calls for a recess to give Nick a chance to get proof of his policy. He shows a picture of a sign in his store, George admits he saw the sign. He is just tired of being taken advantage of. He just wants his money back. He does not want store credit. I feel his frustration, sometimes it just does not seem fair! But, this is about the legality of the situation. George does not get his money back. In the hallway, George says when he is busy shopping, he does not always read the signs.

It is important to know the policies of the store you are in. Be aware of the signage around you and also read your receipt. Many times the receipt will have return policies written on it. Knowledge is power!

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 9 27 2012 - Thursday

Devon And The Third Floor Store

Devon is suing Gizelle for $800.00. Gizelle is countersuing for $3900.00. Devon rented a room in the building of Gizelle's beauty salon. He thought he would have customers to sell DVDs to. Unfortunately he was on the third floor of the building. The customers that came to the salon did not go past his store. Since he was not able to make enough income to justify the amount of the rent, he moved out. The $800.00 Devon is suing for is the security deposit. The money that Gizelle wants is from unpaid rent for months after Devon moved out and damage done to the room. Yes, you read that correctly. Devon had already moved out. There was no written agreement for this rental. Devon shows the receipts for the monies paid for rent and the security deposit. Gizelle shows pictures of shelves that were installed and glass display cases that were broken. Devon admits to installing the shelves and leaving them there. He claims the glass display cases were broken when he rented the room. He cannot prove they were broken. Also, since there was no written lease, Devon is not responsible to pay rent for months after he had moved out. A verbal agreement does not work in this type of situation. especially when both parties tell different stories. 

The Judge finds that Gizelle is entitled to the damages. Since Gizelle has no proof of value, the Judge assigns a value to these items. Also, after the Judge reviews the payments made to Gizelle, she finds there was $900.00 provided for the security deposit. Gizelle needs to pay Devon $450.00 back. This will satisfy her countersuit. Gizelle says she will never rent to anyone ever again. If she had a written agreement this would not have been so difficult. Also, it is very important to keep track of all payments for security deposit and rent. I do not understand why people make agreements without putting them in writing. Also, why give someone money without documenting the payment. People claim it is because they are too trusting, but is this really the reason? What do you think?

Tatiana And The Car Fire

Tatiana is suing Paul, owner of an auto center, for $4850.00. This is for the cost of a used car she bought from her fiancee and parts and labor for fixing it. After Tatiana purchased the 2000 Audi A6  from her fiancee, she took it to Paul to have work done. After having work done to the tune of $1850.00, she drove it for several days and then parked it in a garage for 2 weeks. The day she took the car out of the garage and drove it, the car caught on fire. Thank goodness, Tatiana pulled over as soon as she noticed the smoke. She got out of the car quickly. The car went up in flames. Tatiana is very lucky to have gotten out of the car quickly. She shows a video of the car on fire. It is really scary to watch. There were good Samaritans who tried to put the fire out. They were lucky not to have gotten hurt, The police and fire departments responded. The fire department put out the fire. Tatiana was told the cause of the fire was electrical. The reason she is suing Paul is because he was the last one to do work on the car. Paul explains that he did not do any electrical work on the car. Since Tatiana has no proof that the work done by Paul could have caused the fire, the Judge finds in favor of Paul.

It is very important to be have evidence to prove someone is responsible for a situation. Tatiana is very fortunate to have gotten out of the car and that no one was hurt by this major fire. Tatiana did suffer nightmares after this happened. She says that she would dream that she died in the car fire. This was such a traumatic event to go through. Sometimes people do need professional help to deal with the aftermath of a near death experience!

Lynn And The Disney Vacation

Lynn is suing Thomas for $491.60. Thomas is Lynn's daughter's, Chrissy,  ex-boyfriend. Lynn and her family were planning a vacation to Disney. Thomas was invited. He agreed to pay his share of the trip, the airline ticket and the hotel room. Lynn fronted the money with the agreement that Thomas would pay her back before the trip. Thomas and Chrissy broke up before the trip. For some reason, Thomas did not feel he needed to pay his share. The airline ticket could still be used by him, but the hotel room had a cancellation fee. Thomas said he was willing to pay for the airline ticket, but did not think he should have to pay the entire cancellation fee for the hotel room since he  was going to be sharing the room with Chrissy. Did Thomas pay for the airline ticket? No, he did not. Did he pay half of the hotel room cancellation? No, he did not. Now in court, he is found responsible to pay for the airline ticket and the entire cancellation fee for the hotel room. The reason he is responsible for paying the entire amount for the hotel room cancellation, is because he chose to cancel. The room was not needed since he was not going on the trip.

It seemed that Thomas was still welcome to go on the trip, even though they had split up. It is possible Chrissy and Thomas might have gotten back together. At this point they both say the breakup was mutual and have both moved on. Good luck in your future relationships!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

Inspiration and genius -- one and the same.

~Victor Hugo

People's Court Blog - 9 25 2012 - Tuesday

Tianne And The Irresponsible Landlord

Tianne is suing Frances for $2800. This is for her security deposit from an apartment she rented from Frances. Tianne lived there for 5 years and when she decided to move out gave Frances 2 months notice. At first Frances told her to live out her security deposit, which was 2 months rent. Then Frances changed her mind. Tianne did use the security deposit towards one month's rent. Why wouldn't Frances give her back the rest? Frances claims that Tianne left air conditioners and a TV set in the apartment and she could not rent it. A friend of Tianne's picked up these items within 45 days. Frances says she did not know what to do with the items and she needed to paint the apartment. Really Frances! You couldn't paint the apartment and show it working around window air conditioners units and a TV set? She also says that Tianne broke a window pane. Frances has a receipt for supplies and labor for $70.00. This is no excuse to keep all the money. The Judge is not going to permit Frances to keep it all. She has to return $1230.00 to Tianne. Frances is lucky she does not live in one of the states that has a penalty for landlords that withhold the security deposit without proper notification. She needs to learn her rights and responsibilities as a landlord. Tianne was a good tenant and did not deserve to be treated this way. What do you think?

Anabela And The Need For A Contract

Anabela is suing Mack for $2450.00. She hired Mack and his friend to do some handyman work in her office. Anabela says that Mack did electrical work and she was pleased with the job. Now she needed flooring done, paneling installed and a wall air conditioner covered. They did not have a written contract. This is never a good idea. Especially in this case, since Anabela has very specific ideas about what she wanted done. She is not happy about the work that was done. She says the floor tiles lift up when the floor is vacuumed, the floor is not level and the wind blows through the wall around the air conditioner. The checks for supplies and labor were written out to Mack. He claims he was the helper on the job. He is an electrician and not a carpenter. Mack feels that Anabela should sue his friend Johnny. 

The Judge rules in favor of Anabela since the checks were written out to Mack. He is not able to accept the money for the job and not have responsibility for the quality of the work. Anabela does not get all of the money she is suing for since she cannot prove the exact work she wanted done. Also, she wants $1000.00 to remove the tiles that are so loose they come up with the vacuum. She does get back $1200.00.

This is why it is so important to have a written contract. Showing notes about a transaction does not prove that the other person knew what you wanted done. We all need to learn from this experience. Whatever type of transaction is being conducted - get it in writing!

Andrea / Tylan And The Non-Existent Title

Andrea and Tylan are suing Adrian for $1091.86. This is for various expenses associated with the purchase of a used car. Adrian owns an auto sales business. The car they purchased was a 1990 Honda Accord. They paid $795.00. Unfortunately they never received the title for the vehicle. After several months, Andrea received a salvage title showing Progressive was the owner of the vehicle. She contacted Adrian and to this day has not received the title to the car. Adrian gives an excuse about the title being lost. When he finally received the title from the auction house he submitted it to the DMV. Why wouldn't the person who purchased the car receive the title? It does not seem like a very efficient way to do business. 

Since one of the only consistent warranties of purchasing a used car is to receive the title, Andrea wins the case. She will not get everything she is asking for because they did have the benefit of Tylan driving the car. She does get back $931.86. This is a significant portion of the money she is suing for. The Judge rules this way since Adrian is only able to come up with excuses and not results. 

It is so important to make sure all of the paperwork is in order for the sale of a used car. Adrian of all people should know this since this is his business. Hopefully he will learn from this and conduct business differently in the future! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

My success just evolved from working hard at the business at hand each day.

~Johnny Carson

GUEST WRITER! People's Court -- 9/18/2012 -- Tuesday

Hi all! My name is Carly and I'm from the YouTube Channel WeShouldntSing! I will be writing the People's Court Blog today and herrrreeeee we go!

                                             Here comes trouble, make it double!

Plaintiff- Daniel  ($5,000)
Defendants -- Darla and Anthony ($5,000)

               The Plaintiff (Daniel) is suing for his security deposit, moving fees, and rent he never paid. ($5,000) Already I'm like, what? If he never paid the rent.... this should get interesting.
                He moved to the place so he could be closer to his school. According to the Plaintiff there's 6 students living in the house and they're all renting individual rooms in the house. Daniel says Anthony asked him to move out because he wears too much cologne. Seriously? No sense was made in that argument haha.
                Anthony claims that Daniel would umm... how to put this lightly.... use the restroom at night multiple times and...well.... make the house have an unpleasant odor. The Defendants are also claiming he made the room his own personal storage unit and stacked his belongings to the point where the cleaning lady can't get in. Darla is saying they won't return the security deposit because there was also an unpleasant smell in Daniel's room that they can't get out. She also says they have to paint the room to get the smell out and that is why she is keeping half of the security deposit. The Judge informs the Defendants that they live in a state that requires them to send an itemized letter to the tenant about why they are keeping the security deposit or else they have to pay him back double. The Judge also asks Daniel if he really thinks he's entitled to the money he hasn't paid them. He kind of skirts around it so we can effectively say that part of the lawsuit is       d
  r
    o
      p
        p
          e
            d
   
        Now let's talk about the counterclaim for 5,000! Daniel wrote a statement saying Darla is from the ghetto. He wrote it in a letter to the court about the lawsuit so......... DISMISSED!
         The Defendants have to pay $1,100 DOUBLE his security deposit! BAM JUSTICE haha


                                                          #JusticeServed
Plaintiff--  Tequila ($3,227)
Defendant--  Sheila

     Tequila is suing because Sheila (her employee) was ringing up hair extensions and was using a fraudulent credit card so all the charges got reversed. I'm a little confused right now, so let's watch it and shed some light on this case.
      Tequila owns the salon where Sheila works. Sheila was ringing up extensions for a coworker (from another job) who was using a fraudulent credit card. Sheila says she matched the credit card to the person who was using it. Matched it with her ID and everything, but the magnetic strip was scratched so she had to punch in the credit card number manually. She was really reluctant to say it, and it's fair to say Tequila offered up that information. The second time a fraudulent card is used (December 12th) it is also for one of Sheila's coworkers (from another job). Again the number was typed in. It is really so, so sad that all of Sheila's coworkers have credit cards with the magnetic strips that are scratched off. Sheila has a suppressed smirk on her face like the whole time. Sheila admits she didn't really check the IDs OMG SURPRISE OF THE CENTURY RIGHT THERE! So there are 3 more fraudulent charges, 2 by her other friends and the last one by, HERSELF! She says she paid Tequila in cash for the purchase she made with the card.
     The Judge is getting serious now. She calls Sheila a scam artist and a thief, accuses her of actually stealing the credit card numbers from the salon and that there are no other coworkers, all of these transactions have been Sheila. The Judge used a 2 syllable "puh-leez" she is madddd now. Needless to say, the Plaintiff gets all her money. #JusticeServed.

                                              Sweet Carolyn and the Cougar

Plaintiff-- Carolyn ($2414.50)
Defendant-- Jeffrey
        Just to preface this case, Carolyn bought a lemon (car) from Jeffery. She wants her money back and Jeffrey is like AS IS and it was in fine shape when she bought it.
         The Plaintiff knew the Defendant and they have done business in the past. For this case they bought a 1999 Cougar and the car did not start at the dealership. Jeffery said they would have to pay half of the part he ordered. The Judge is like "he wouldn't give you a refund" and she's like nope and I have no idea why. Jeffery says he would have given her a refund, but she wanted the car. The Defendant states that she agreed to pay for half of the part he put in the car. ---I like the Plaintiff's shirt, by the way.----- According the the Plaintiff with the nice shirt, the car won't start AGAIN. She said the car is making a grinding and funky sound. She plays the video of the humming sounds. It sounds like someone blowing over an empty water jug. She had the car towed to his shop and when she went to get her car he told her he had her car delivered to her house and they keys were in the mailbox. He claims there was nothing wrong with the car when it was brought to his place. Since Carolyn doesn't have any proof that the car was unsafe at the time of sale, she does not get her money back. Oh sweet Carolyn, good times may have never felt so good, but those good times are not today.
 
             

In  lieu of a quote I will leave you with this! If you also enjoy the show General Hospital you will like my channel I do with my best friend. We do General Hospital reactions daily and also daily vlogs about our lives. Check it out here!
http://www.youtube.com/user/WeShouldntSing?feature=g-u-u

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 - 8 8 2012 - Wednesday

My Dog Is Not A Pitbull!

Benjamin is suing Sharon for $264.30. This is amount it cost at the vet, when Sharon's dog attacked his dog. Benjamin has an Italian Greyhound mix and Sharon has a chocolate lab mix. What is her dog mixed with? She says boxer, Benjamin says pitbull. Why do people who own pitbulls or pitbull mixes call them by another name? I don't know, do you? Both Benjamin and Sharon are members of a private dog park. Sharon actually has a counterclaim for 2 years of membership fees. Benjamin explains that Sharon's dog, Liberty, had  contact with his dog, Mister, 2 weeks before the incident in question. Benjamin describes the incident as minor even though Mister was scratched. Benjamin says this was a typical dog park incident and did not report it. This incident was much more serious. Liberty ran after Mister and bit him on the back leg. Benjamin says that Sharon did not even ask how the dog was and did not volunteer her information. Mister needed ten stitches. Benjamin works at the animal hospital and was fortunate to get a discount. Benjamin contacted Sharon and wanted her to pay the bill. She did offer to pay half, Benjamin refused this offer because he wanted the whole amount. He should have taken the offer, because he does not win his case. The Judge explains that there is an assumption of risk in the dog park. Neither owner did anything wrong. The dogs were both off leash, this is not an issue. The dogs were in the correct area, so this is not an issue. The dogs were acting like dogs. The previous minor incident does not factor in, since Benjamin did not report it and he even describes it as a typical dog park incident. Sharon would have needed to have been on notice that her dog was aggressive, to be held responsible for the bill. I understand the legal ruling. What I can not understand is Sharon's attitude. She said that the larger dogs run after the little dogs and grab their back legs to slow them down. This is ludicrous. This is not normal dog behavior. If that is what her dog does, it is a good thing she is banned from the dog park. Benjamin spoke with the owner of the dog park and Sharon was dropped as a member. This is the reason she wants to be compensated for 2 years of membership fees. This does not make any sense, she she has been taking her dog to the park all of that time. She tells the Judge she does not want to pursue the counterclaim and it is dismissed. Dog parks are a nice idea when everyone watches their dogs. After all, dogs will be dogs! What do you think?

I Did Not Break The Windows!

Nicole and Ryan are suing to get their security deposit back. They rented a garage apartment for about a year. When the cable did not work, they called their landlord. After no response, they contacted the cable company. When the cable serviceman came to the apartment, he informed them it was an illegal apartment and removed the cable wire. Nicole and Ryan contacted Tracy, their landlord and gave notice to move out. Tracy and her son, Chris, did the walkthrough with them. At first, Tracy tells Ryan he would be responsible for fixing the windows. They do not open or close because the handle is broken. Ryan says the handle broke off through normal wear. The arm that guides the window to open and close is detached from the track. Because of this the windows do not open and close. Tracy says this is because Ryan climbed through the windows when he constantly locked himself out. Ryan admits to locking himself out, but denies climbing through the window. Tracy had the spare key and he would ask her for it when he locked himself out. Maybe he should have brought his house key with him when he went outside to smoke! It does seem believable to the Judge that Ryan could have climbed through the window. The rest of the security deposit was withheld for the cable. When Tracy told Ryan, he would have to pay $600.00, to have the apartment rewired, he admits to getting angry. Chris did not like the way Ryan spoke to his mother and a fistfight occurred. Ryan admits that he cursed at Tracy and admits hitting Chris. The police were called and there is a police report. No one is denying the fistfight. It is very sad when situations escalate to violence and involving the police. Ryan still believes he should be able to get back the entire security deposit of $1150.00. He is not responsible to rewire the cable and he continues to deny breaking the windows. Tracy's account of the window damage is more believable than Ryan's constant denial. He will have  to pay the $488.81 to have the windows fixed, but does get back the $661.19 balance of the security deposit. Ryan does not have to pay to have the cable rewired. It was not his fault that the cable was removed, it should not have been there in the first place. In the hallway, the landlord says she is happy Ryan is getting back some of the money. Ryan feels it is still not fair, he continues denying the damage to the window. I think it is terrible that a fistfight broke out during the walkthrough. People need to maintain respect for each other. Ryan should have walked away from the situation when he realized they could not come to terms. He was able to get back part of the security deposit and hopefully he will have learned that physical violence does not solve anything. What do you think?

I Bought A Lemon!

David bought a used car from John. David did not test drive the car, he did not take the car to a mechanic. When you are interested in buying a car, used or new, it is important to test drive it. When it is a used car, it is essential to have a mechanic look at it. David says now, he did so much wrong , but this car is a lemon. After David bought the car, he noticed problems with it right away. The next day, the car would not start. David called John and was told he was on his own for having it towed. David's mechanic said the car needed a distributor, John provided a distributor for David's mechanic to install. With that done, the car still did not work. John told David if the car was towed to his mechanic, he would look at it. The car was fixed and ready to be picked up within 2-3 weeks. After David got the car back, he was still not happy with it. He is suing for the purchase price, the towing costs and the cost of repairs. John explains that the car was sold as-is. David signed a release of liability. David claims he forgot about the paperwork he signed. John was under no obligation to help him after the sale. John says he spent over $600.00 when David brought the car back to his mechanic, because he did not want continued grief from this man. David continually texted and called John, and John just wanted him to go away. John even called the police because of David's continued harassment. The sale of the used car was as-is, there was no warranty given and David did sign a release of liability. David does not win this case. I give John so much credit for trying to help even when he did not have to. Unfortunately, it backfired on him. John needs to remember, an as-is sale is final! What do you think?

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

Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.

-Mark Twain

People's Court: 7-3-12 ** A Cat ** A Truck ** A Dog

People need to be nicer to each other. It is common courtesy to return someone's cat, fix someone's truck or to treat someone else's property with respect. It does not seem that any of these situations should become problematic, but when they do, the courtroom is the  place to resolve them.

Jonathan rescued a cat from a shelter. Since he was home from school for the summer, he was not able to bring the cat home. His plan was to have a friend take care of the cat for the summer and when he returned to school take the cat with him. He asked a co-worker, Amy,  if she would take care of the cat for the summer. She agreed to do this. Jonathan paid her to do this and covered the expenses. There is a discrepancy regarding how much money was agreed upon. The good thing is when things started falling apart, there were e-mails back and forth. The content of the e-mails clears up the amount of money. At the end of the summer Jonathan tried to reach Amy to schedule a time to pick up the cat. She did not return his phone calls, so he e-mailed her. She did correspond with him through e-mail. Did she forget about the e-mails? Jonathan brought the printed e-mails to court. As the Judge reads them we learn the true story. Amy and her family fell in love with the cat. Amy did not want to return the cat so it could live in a dorm room. She was convincing Jonathan to let her keep the cat until she asked for money. This is where everything falls apart. She wanted him to cover the expenses of the cat and she was going to keep the cat. She really could have not have it both ways. She has to return the money Jonathan gave her since she was keeping the cat. I give Jonathan so much credit for making the right decision. He thought of the cat and what would be best for the cat. He knew that Oscar was in a loving home and he wanted the best for him. Amy wanted the money! Hopefully, her family is not as mercenary and Oscar truly is in a loving home.

Larena lent her truck to Jocelyn, the mother of her grandson. It sounded like they had a close relationship. Larena lived with Jocelyn for a period of time. She took care of her grandson. We also find out the Larena has court appointed custody of her grandson. At some point, Jocelyn was going to go into the service. This plan changed when she met someone and had another child. She also stopped seeing her son because the new man in her life was controlling. She allowed this situation to occur and she should step up and be with both of her children. The truck in question is parked in a lot. When Jocelyn's friend leaves it there after using it, the car needs repair. Jocelyn tells Larena she will take care of the truck when she gets back from the Bahamas. When she returns, she decides it is too expensive and does not do anything. Now the fees are accumulating and no one is taking care of the bill. A $300.00 parking bill is now over $1700.00. Larena should not have to be responsible for this bill. She also claims that Jocelyn caused her to have an asthma attack and is suing for pain and suffering. Jocelyn is countersuing for rent, the phone bills and car insurance. Neither of them get everything they asked for. More importantly, in the hallway Jocelyn tells us she has learned not to be nice to family, although Larena is always welcome in her home. Larena is more cynical and bitter and tells us not to trust family or friends, they will stab you in the back. How sad! Hopefully she will continue a relationship with her grandson.

Laura is suing her landlord, Thomas for her security deposit. She has rented a basement apartment for 2 years. When she moves out, she expects her security deposit back. She says she painted and cleaned the 

carpeting. The landlord is keeping the security deposit because there were damages to the apartment. The tenants had a dog and the carpeting was damaged, there was paint spilled on the carpeting, the place was left unclean. He does have pictures to prove what he is saying. He also has a printout of a facebook page from the tenants's daughter telling the world they got a puppy in July. Laura did tell the landlord about the dog but told him it was a temporary situation. She moved out in September and they had the puppy from July. It is not a good idea to lie when your life is chronicled on Facebook. The 15 year old needs to learn to use privacy settings for her Facebook page. The mother seemed surprised about all of this. Really Mom, you need to monitor what your daughter is doing on the computer. Laura also is suing for damages because of the mold. She cannot prove this and the pictures the landlord shows do not help her case at all. She does get back a small portion of the security deposit. The fact that the apartment was illegal when Laura was living there did not help her at all. Neither of them have much to say in the hallway. You wonder if Laura is sorry to have brought this case to court. It was embarrassing and did not seem to be worth it. Why do people want to publicly humiliate themselves?

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

If you think sunshine brings you happiness, you have not danced in the rain.

-Unknown

Submit your favorite quotes or sayings to be used at the end of this blog.

People's Court: 6-28-12: Honesty is the Best Policy

Being truthful seems to be a lost art. Remember when our word was our bond, an agreement was sealed with a handshake? Those days are over. Embellishing, exaggerating or outright lying is so common today. Honesty is the best policy, especially in court.

A couple rents a luxury condo for $6000.00 a month. Soon after they move in, the windows leak whenever it rains. They let the landlord know and when the repairs are not done, they decide to pay less rent. The landlord is aware of the problem, she experienced it when she lived there and did contact the builder to say it was happening again. Why wasn't it fixed? This is not made clear. What is made clear is that for 4 months the tenants keep back rent each month. They explain they decided on the amount by calculating how much of the apartment was not habitable. They have a floor plan of the apartment, no pictures of the actual problem. There were pictures taken by the super of the building after the fact. The Judge decides they have exaggerated the situation and decides they do not get back the full security deposit. Also, it is not a good idea to withhold rent without documentation. Clearly stating a problem and proving it has occurred is the best idea when you have to prove it in court.

Best friends for 39 years. Alysa and Lisa have been friends since kindergarten. What a shame it has fallen apart over $1500.00. When Alysa is arrested for violating an order of protection, she calls her best friend to bail her out. She lets Lisa know where to find the money. She even tells her to take some extra for herself. For some reason, when the bail is returned to Lisa, she keeps it. Lisa is not straightforward with the court or with her former friend. First she denies receiving the money, then she says he mother signed and deposited the checks without her knowledge. Another story is that she was supposed to keep it. Why would Alyssa ask for it back if she had told her to keep it? It was not her money to keep. When the checks were sent to her, she should have called her friend. She needs to pay it back. Unfortunately, the damage is done and the friendship is over. Lisa's son has been involved and they are not going to forgive Alyssa for her bad behavior. In the hallway, Lisa's parting words are, "good riddance". So, so sad.

Justin and Brian thought is would be a good idea to trade vehicles without the proper paperwork. Both men had their vehicles posted on Craigslist to sell. They met and decided to make an even trade. Justin did not have a clear title to his vehicle and Brian could not find the title. This should have raised numerous red flags. But the two men forged ahead. Speaking of forging... Justin  provides a work order from his job for repairs needed. He works at this fine establishment and explains he is providing the labor. He has paid half of the $4475.04 and is making payments to his boss to pay off the rest. Brian explains that the car he received from Justin, cannot be put on the road since the title is not clear and it needs major repairs. The Judge calls a recess and when she returns she is very angry. The work order provided by Justin is fabricated and he has not paid any money to his boss. It is a blatant lie. She orders the vehicles switched back. The deal has now been undone! You get the feeling Brian does not want the truck back. He delivers pizzas and does not want a gas-guzzling truck. Justin admits being a liar and should be totally embarrassed and humiliated. Why would someone do this in court on national TV? Your guess is as good as mine.

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

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.

-Unknown Source

Remember to submit your favorite quotes or sayings!

People's Court: 6-22-12: True Colors

Everyday brings new experiences for us. When we pay attention, we learn. Being aware of what is around us and embracing this knowledge will keep us informed and safe. 

This case is really about the lack of good judgement. A contractor feels he is being challenged and he acts out. He could have taken the high road and taken his client to court. Instead, he got angry and removed the storm doors from the property. One door had already been installed. There was a physical altercation between the two men, the story of the fight  is not clear. Even though there are two different stories, we know there was a physical fight and the truth is somewhere in between. These two men completely lost all of the common sense they might have had. At the first sign of violence, the police should have been called. Instead, the homeowner was concerned with what the neighbors would think. Who cares? Our well-being is more important than what others would think. This man described a running drill being held to his head. He keeps saying how he needed the job done because he was going away on a trip in ten days. Why would he put his safety aside because of an upcoming trip? What motivates him? Finally, the homeowner calls the police, by the time they arrive, the contractor has left. He does get arrested and spends the night in jail. This might have been the best thing to have happened to him. He needed to know there were consequences to his behavior. In the hallway, he is not happy with the decision, but he does appear subdued. Hopefully, he will learn from this and in the future not take matters into his own hands.

A contract is signed to purchase a hot dog cart. The deposit is given and the balance will be paid upon delivery. The delivery of the cart is planned for December 25th. The cart is not ready by this date. The deposit should be returned. This sounds so straight forward. Why are we here? Well, the first thing I noticed was that the man selling the hot dog cart is treating this as a commercial for his business. He has even brought samples of the material used to build the carts. Is this the reason he let it get this far? Is the cart available now for delivery? Well, it would be, but it is not new anymore, he has been using it! This makes no sense, I am sure he has other carts he could have put into use. Another question: why does he bring his brother with him? He is not a witness and he acts out in court, is thrown out and is completely disrespectful to the Judge. In the hallway, the hot dog cart builder show his true colors, he insults the Judge. If he thought appearing on this show would bring him business, he should have acted much much more professional!

A woman signs a lease for an apartment. She gives the deposit and hopes to move in by a certain date. The landlord continues to delay saying the apartment is not ready. She seems to be very patient, waiting months. Finally, she has had enough and asks for her money back. At first the landlord agrees to give her back whatever she gave him. This is in a text the woman provides to the court. The landlord flounders and says he would give her something back but has not decided how much that would be. He can not come up with a good reason why he is holding onto her money. Of course she deserves her money back. She even is awarded pre-judgement interest! When the landlord leaves the courtroom, he says the outcome is crazy. It is not crazy, it is fair and just.

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

Happiness is not a goal; it is a by-product.

Eleanor 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