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: 6-26-12: Protect Yourself

We should be able to count on the people in our lives. Whether they are friends, family or strangers we make agreements with, we should be able to feel secure. This is not always the case and we find ourselves going to court.

This is what happened with Gabby. She is a young woman suing her boyfriend, Keith. They were dating for a short time when Keith needed money to fix his car. Gabby lent him the money and they agreed upon a date for him to return the money to her. He tells the story a little differently. He does not remember that he had agreed to pay it back and says he was going to give her some money here and there to help her out. What does this even mean? It seems that he is making it up as he goes along. Did she give him the money by check and write loan on the memo line? No, that would make it way too easy. She did text him about the money, this could help her. Unfortunately, she does not have that cell phone anymore. Keith has the text messages and offers them to the Judge. They do not help him. The text messages reference the agreed upon date for returning the money. Also, Gabby has called his ex-girlfriend and Keith feels this is harassment. It is annoying, but is not harassment. He has countersued for harassment and cannot prove it. He gets nothing and is liable for the money he borrowed. A loan does not turn into a gift because a couple breaks up. Couples need to be careful when they lend each other money and put everything in writing to protect themselves.

Elyse has agreed to rent an apartment. She gives a security deposit, signs a lease agreement and is due to move in on December 15th. On December 13th she finds out the city inspection did not pass. There is a discrepancy regarding the reinspection date, is it going to be done in time for Elyse to move in?  Elyse leaves a message for the landlord and does not hear back. She believes she will not be able to move in on December 15th  and wants her money back. She sends a certified letter to the landlord explaining that she cannot move into an apartment that has failed inspection and wants her money back. The landlord still does not respond. Now they can communicate in court. The landlord failed to send Elyse a certified letter explaining why she was keeping her security deposit. Failure to communicate has become very expensive for the landlord. By law, she is responsible to pay back double the security deposit. People need to learn the law to protect themselves. 

Lula hires a contractor to fix a leaky roof. She just wants it patched. He explains to her that a patch job is not guaranteed. After he does the work, she continues to have leaks. Even though it is not guaranteed, he does go back a few times to try to fix it again. When snow and ice accumulate on the roof, Lula will not pay to have it removed. They explain to her this will be harmful to the roof. She does not change her mind. The contractor has also explained to her that the gutters are a problem. He is telling her a new roof and gutters are needed. She does not want to do anything more than the patch job. The problem is: none of this is in writing. The contractor does have a written agreement that states repair jobs are not guaranteed. He does not have Lula sign this. Why? He needs to have a contract for every job that he does. He needs to protect his contracting business. The good news is that without a written agreement he still wins the case. His business practices are logical and her story is not. In the hallway, Lula lets us know she has put a new roof on the house. The contractor will always make sure he has a signed contract, a very sound business practice! 

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

All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.

Havelock Ellis

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: 6-13-12: Denial

People are very good at denial in the face of the truth. How is it that it is so easy to deny? Telling the truth is the right thing to do. 

The first case is about 2 friends. He is helping his friend fix her motorcycle. She does not let him know the tags are expired and the bike is not insured. He brings the bike from one location to another. After installing a new battery he takes it for a test ride. He said he is moving it around the house. Yet he is on the road when he crashes into the back of a car. He admits the accident is his fault, although he says the bike malfunctioned. He did pay for the damage to the car, but feels she is asking too much for the repairs. They were not able to negotiate the amount on their own, so they find themselves in court. I do not understand why she did not get a proper estimate for the repairs. She provides a receipt for replacement parts. She is awarded part of the money she is asking for. The bigger question is: are they going to remain friends? They have been friends since childhood and it would seem a shame for that to disappear over this incident. The hallway conversation does not give any specific insight into the friendship question. They both seem like they do not care about holding onto the friendship. How sad!

The second case is about a moving company that damages the pedestal to a table. Although they fix it, the owner does not feel it is fixed properly and it will be unsafe to use. After all, he has grandchildren! The owner of the company feels the signed contract absolves him of responsibility. He was being a "good guy" and repaired it, even though he says legally he did not have to. The Judge points out the incorrect and unclear language in the contract. Also, the clients are not signing in the correct places. He is responsible, although not the entire amount that is being asked for. The owner of the table needs to understand he does not receive replacement value, he receives the depreciated value. The Judge lets him know it is the amount the table would sell for at a garage sale. He is not happy at all!

The third case involves an illegal apartment. The owner of the house purchased the house with an existing tenant. He claims he had no idea that it was an illegal apartment. He then builds an additional apartment without permits. Now he would seem to be very aware that the apartments are not legal. One of the tenants starts a fire, fire department comes out, lets everyone know the illegal status of the apartments. What I find so interesting is that the landlord returned the security deposit to the tenant that started the fire and was not returning it to the other tenant. Well, she gets the money she is asking for.

The landlord now has to admit he knows the apartments are illegal and will go through the proper channels.

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

Remember: Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be.  

-Abraham Lincoln

People's Court:6-12-12: Telling the Truth

The situations we find ourselves in can be very challenging. Going to court to right a wrong is a good idea when you are telling the truth. Holding onto the lie can make you look, well...ridiculous.

Let us look at a rental situation. I wonder who is lying when both the landlord and the tenant claim that the other came onto them. It seems a little suspicious on the part of the landlord that he let the young woman move in without paying first and last month's rent and a security deposit. Any landlord is going to have to wonder where the future rent is coming from when the person has no money to put down. Or, was he looking for something else? The tenant claims the landlord walked in on her while she was sleeping. Did she call the police? No, she did not. Again, you have to wonder why? The underlying story is so full of inconsistencies. The legal issue is that she owes the rent. The moral issue is that this whole situation was far more involved than just business. When the lines get blurred, it it time to get help. 

A young woman graduates and goes out to celebrate with her family and friends. Her car gets towed. She is claiming the tow company damaged her brakes by not completely releasing the emergency brake. She has evidence to back this up and wins the case. The bigger issue here is how the tow companies operate. The spotter saw the young woman in her cap and gown and the Judge wonders why he didn't let her know her car was going to be towed. Do they have a moral obligation to let someone know their car is going to be towed? No, they have families to feed. They are doing a job and to give people a heads up is to take money out of their own pocket. The Judge says that the only people that are hated worse than lawyers are tow companies. She is glad to have them in her courtroom! I give the young woman credit for having the evidence to back up her claim. I give the tow personnel credit for being honest. He did say that they will not charge if they tow a car from a handicapped parking spot and the person is truly handicapped and just forgot to hang the placard. This is very nice to hear and does restore my faith in people.

And now a real shame... A 35 year friendship destroyed by $1500.00. Neither of them seem upset by this, so it makes you wonder how good was the friendship. A friend lends another money. It is to be paid back in one week. When he goes to collect, his friend does not answer his calls. Finally, he receives a check that has insufficient funds. The friend sending the check claims he is returning a finder's fee for a job and not paying back the loan, that it was never a loan. Once again, I stress the importance of getting agreements in writing. The initial loan should have been a check with the word loan written on the memo line. The Judge reminds everyone the memo line on the check is very important. 

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

Remember: Joy is what happens to us when we allow ourselves to recognize how good things really are.

- Marianne Williamson