People's Court Blog - 10 18 2012 - Thursday

Lawn Maintenance

Steven is suing Bruce for $300. Bruce is counterclaimimg for $750.00. Steven has been providing lawn services to Bruce since 2006. His company landscaped the property and has been maintaining it ever since. This past year Steven notified Bruce of a price increase. Bruce did not want to pay the increase but he wanted to decrease the services and the cost. He continued paying Steven and finally in March stopped paying. Steven provided lawn care for March and wants to be paid. Bruce says he did not pay because he was not satisfied with the quality of work, yet he did  not complain. The only issue was about dollarweed that Steven did send an e-mail to Bruce describing the way he was dealing with it. The e-mail was very rude and very unprofessional. Steven needs to rethink his e-mail communications. He is entitled to to be paid for his services. The Judge finds in his favor. Bruce loses on his counterclaim, he does not get any money back. He should have complained about the service at the time and not continue to pay for something he was not happy with!

Parking Tickets

Doris is suing Roach for $838.35. This is for unpaid parking tickets. Doris let Roach register his car in her name. Why would she do this? Roach was her very good friend for over 20 years. Now, Doris goes to buy a new car and learns she cannot get financing because of unpaid parking tickets. Never ever let anyone, friend or family register a car in your name. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. So much could have happened. Doris is fortunate it was parking tickets and not a car accident. The car was impounded because of the numerous parking tickets. Roach wanted Doris to set up a payment plan. He is arrogant and unrepentant. He actually is yelling at the Judge during his testimony. How rude! Roach does not want to pay for the parking tickets because he says some of them are Doris's tickets. He has no proof of this. The Judge finds in Doris's favor. Doris needs to understand the position she could have been in if Roach had a car accident and someone was hurt. What I do not understand is that Roach has written off Doris as a friend yet, Doris says that Roach is still a good friend. What has to happen for her to realize what could have happened? It does not seem like a lesson was learned today! What do you think?

Hot Tub Cover

William is suing Lori for $425.93. This is for a hot tub cover. Lori had rented a room from William from May to August. When she moved out she did not give the proper amount of notice. William notified her about this and she paid the balance. Months later he contacts her about the hot tub cover. William claims she only opened the cover halfway and misused it and damaged it. He did not notice it was damaged until he reopened the hot tub. Lori denies the misuse. William has a notarized statement from his girlfriend describing the misuse. If William or his girlfriend witnessed the misuse of the cover they should have talked to Lori right away. William says he did talk to her because he was worried she would be trapped. Lori denies this. William should have checked the cover to make sure it was not damaged. William cannot prove his case and the Judge finds in favor of Lori. William is surprised by the outcome, he thought it was a slam dunk. Lori is glad it is over. It is very important to deal with issues in a timely manner. When someone is going to move out or has moved out, check everything right away. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The true adventurer goes forth aimless and uncalculating to meet and greet unknown fate.

~O. Henry

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 20 2012 - Thursday

Matthew And 7 Long Years

Matthew is suing Aneta for $5000.00. This is for the cost of an engagement ring. Matthew and Aneta dated for 2 1/2 years and broke up 7 years ago. Wow! That is a really long time. Matthew does not have a good reason why he waited so long to sue Aneta. He says that for the first year he tried to get the ring back and then...what happened? He never tells the Judge why he waited so long. Aneta tells a different story. She says that she supported Matthew, financially and emotionally. Aneta always worked and there were periods of time when Matthew was unemployed.   Aneta says that when Matthew was addicted to prescription drugs, she was there for him.  They did not have an amicable break-up. Aneta describes an incident when Matthew kicked her out of the car on a deserted road in February. She said it took her 15 - 20 minutes to walk home. You do not do this to someone you love. When they broke up she told him he could pay her back the $6000.00 he owed her or she would keep the ring. He did not have any money, so she kept the ring. She thought that was the end of it. 

Aneta said she could not believe he was suing her for the ring so many years later. Even though  an engagement ring is typically returned when a couple breaks up, the Judge finds in favor of Aneta in this case. It might have been a different story if Matthew had not waited so long to sue. What do you think?

Giusto And The Craigslist Ad

Giusto is suing Amanda for $760.00. This is for the deposit given to Amanda to hold an apartment for rent. There is not too much of this case that makes sense. Amanda advertised on Craigslist for a female roommate with no pets, except maybe a goldfish. Giusto answered the ad, he is not female and he has a Pitbull. Why would Amanda even consider him for a roommate? She does because he is from her school and she knew his girlfriend from one of her classes. She shows him the apartment, explains the rent and living arrangements and takes a deposit. He was supposed to sign the lease when he moved in. Giusto contacts Amanda and says he needs to take some measurements. Then he contacts her and wants the complete spelling of her name and the exact address so he can send her a gift. She tells him to bring it with him when he moves in, he says no he wants to mail it. Amanda thinks this is very strange. Then he contacts her and wants to renegotiate the rent.  Instead of the utilities being included, he wants to split them. He wants to lower the rent. Amanda tells him it is not negotiable. He also makes comments about being more than roommates. He is looking for a friend and a partnership. Amanda just wants a roommate. When Amanda would not change the terms of the rental agreement, Giusto asked for his deposit back. Amanda said that she would not return it. The day before he was due to move in, Amanda texted him to verify he was not coming. He did not respond. Amanda did not hear from him until he sued her.

Giusto claims he should get his money back because Amanda told him the apartment was not available. Amanda told him the apartment was not available to rent to someone else because she was holding it for him. Giusto totally ignores this fact. The Judge rules in favor of Amanda. This worked out for the best for Amanda. If Giusto had moved in, I do not believe it would have lasted. Hopefully Amanda has learned that when she advertises for someone specific, she should stick to it. Amanda wanted a female roommate with a goldfish, not a male friend with a Pitbull!

Bryan And The Spilled Drink

Bryan is suing Kaycie for $755.00. This is for the cost to get his laptop repaired. Bryan and a few friends rented rooms at a hotel to celebrate New Year's Eve in a responsible way. They did not want to drive after a night of celebrating. Bryan put his laptop on top of a dresser to keep it out of the way and safe. He was playing music from it so it was open. When someone started taking pictures, Kaycie did not want to have a drink in her hand. She put the drink on top of the dresser. She says she did not see the laptop, even though it was open. This is so strange. When someone else saw the drink had spilled they tried to save the laptop. They wiped it off and even used a blow dryer to dry it quickly. Bryan said it worked for a few minutes and then stopped. 

Kaycie says she offered Bryan $500.00 after it happened. She said she could not pay him right away because she was not working. Bryan says the offers were always changing. He asked Kaycie to pay for the entire repair because she was responsible for the damage. Why doesn't Kaycie think she should have to pay for it? Kaycie says that Bryan knew the risk and it is ridiculous it went this far. Really? For someone who is responsible enough not to want a drink in her hand in a picture, she should be responsible to pay for the consequences of her actions. Yes, it was an accident. No one is claiming it wasn't. Bryan did the right thing to bring her to court. The Judge finds in favor of Bryan. Unfortunately he has lost a friend over this. Kaycie says she will never speak to him again. What a shame that friends could not have worked this out and the friendship is ruined over $755.00! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

A waffle is like a pancake with a syrup trap.

~Mitch Hedberg

People's Court Blog - 8 29 2012 - Wednesday

Your Boat Damaged My Wall!

Nancy and Robert are suing Ambrose and Tami for $5000.00. This amount is actually much less than what they have spent when Ambrose and Tami's boat landed on their property. The area where these couples live was hit by Hurricane Irene. Both families had boats and needed to secure them before leaving due to a mandatory evacuation. Nancy and Robert secured their boat by lifting it out of the water and tying it down. When they were able to return home, they found a boat had damaged their retaining wall (bulkhead) and fence. This boat belonged to Ambrose and Tami. This couple explains that they also secured their boat before leaving the area. Ambrose explains that his mechanic helped him secure the boat. Ambrose has pictures of the boat to show the Judge. The pictures do not help his case. The chains and ropes he describes are not visible in the picture. Ambrose does not have the mechanic in court or an affadavit from him. Why doesn't he have any evidence to support his claim? His wife, Tami, does not feel they have to prove anything. After all, there was a hurricane and everyone's property was all over the place. When they got home, they found debris on their property and they are not suing anyone. This is not a defense. Nancy and Robert have a letter from another neighbor explaining that Ambrose and Tami's boat was not secured. There is also a Youtube video of their boat floating by a house. It seems this is a very famous boat! Nancy and Robert were denied by their insurance company, since the bulkhead and the fence were not able to be covered by insurance. They are able to prove that Ambrose and Tami did not secure their boat properly, due to the letter from the neighbor.  Because of this, Ambrose and Tami are found responsible to pay the $5000.00. If they had secured the boat and it still caused the damage, they would not have had to pay. This is the difference between neglect and an Act of God. On the way out of the courtroom, Ambrose admits that he should have brought evidence. Nancy says that it cost her $3000.00, just to have the boat removed. This is a good illustration of the need to do everything possible to prevent something from happening. During extreme weather, everything needs to be tied down or put away to protect it from blowing away.  This would have saved Ambrose and Tami so much money! What do you think?

 

Bring Evidence To Court!

Aisha is suing Laura for $4000.00. This amount is for double her security deposit and the cost of gas and electric. Aisha rented an apartment in a 2-bedroom house from Laura. Aisha believed that Laura lived in the other apartment. Laura says it was empty and she lived in another location. Aisha says there was one meter for electric and one meter for gas. Aisha believed she was paying the utilities for the entire house, not just her own use. Laura says there were meters for each portion of the house. Aisha has a picture of the meters. It shows the two meters, but since it is a close-up, there is no way to tell if there are other meters on the panel. Laura does not have any proof at all. Aisha shows a picture of dog feces on a snowbank. There are no footprints or pawprints in the snow. Aisha says the dog feces was thrown from the other part of the house, the part she believed Laura was living in. Aisha says this is why she moved out, because of the filth and the smell of the dog feces. Aisha sent Laura notice when she decided to move out. Laura claims she did not receive it. Laura only provided a PO Box number on the lease and since Aisha needed to send her notice certified return receipt, Aisha sent the mailing to the house she lived in. Laura says she did not live there, so she did not get the notice. This is not Aisha's fault.

Aisha should get her security deposit back. The question is how much money would that be? How much did she actually pay for the security deposit. According to the lease, she paid $800.00. According to proof of payment, she paid $323.00 towards the security deposit. An agency paid the difference, and Aisha does not get the money back paid by someone else. Since she can only prove payment of $323.00, that is the amount she is awarded. Aisha's pictures do not prove the number of meters on the house, so she is not able  to recover the utility money. Neither the tenant or the landlord came to court prepared with proper evidence. This is the time to bring all paperwork with you. Aisha kept saying that Section 8 was going to fax documents to the Judge. Since this rental was government subsidized, Aisha could have dealt with Section 8 regarding her problems before she moved out. Laura does not seem to be on top of the rights and responsibilities of being a landlord. I think Laura and Aisha should have been better prepared for this case. On their way out of the courtroom, Laura says she respects the decision and Aisha realizes she was not well prepared and is appreciative of what she is getting. What do you think?

A Counterfeit Postal Money Order!

Renna is suing Arnold for $965.00. This is for a counterfeit postal money order that Renna cashed for Arnold. After Renna deposited the check, she withdrew $723.00 from the ATM. She gave that money to Arnold with an additional $100.00. Arnold says he received the postal money order as payment through a sale he made on Ebay. He sold a computer to someone. Arnold says he usually is paid through Paypal, but he accepted the postal money order. Arnold explains that he does not have a local bank account, so he would have had to wait up to 2 weeks to cash it through his account. Arnold did not even wait until the money order cleared before mailing the computer. The bank took the money from Renna's account, when it was determined the postal money order was counterfeit. Arnold seemed not to believe this, since he did not want to return the money to Renna. I do not understand why Renna would cash the money order for Arnold. She did not even know him for very long, they had only met the month before. Why did she do this for him? The only answer Renna keeps giving, is that she did not know a postal money order could be counterfeit. Well, I guess we learn something new everyday! The money order was counterfeit, Arnold should not have involved Renna, and Renna gets back her money. She can prove that she gave Arnold $823.00, so that is the amount she gets back. Also, Arnold has in girlfriend in court with him, why didn't he ask her to cash the money order? Why ask Renna, when he only knew her for a month? What do you think?
 

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.

-Unknown source

People's Court Blog - 8 23 2012 - Thursday

The Reception Was Ruined!

Jacqueline and James (J & J) are suing the venue that held their wedding reception. Juan represents the business. J & J want $5000.00 back from the $7000.00 spent on the reception. What were the problems they experienced?

 

1. The candy table was set up improperly.

2. Cotton candy was removed from the bag and was unsanitary.

2. Ketchup and steak sauce were on the cake table.

3. There were dead roses on the cake table.

4. The top of the cake was wrapped in aluminum foil instead of being put in a container.

5. The servers dropped several glasses onto the dance floor.

6. Leftover food was packaged in a box from glue board traps for rats.

7. Champagne bottle favors had James's last name as his first name.

    Written on the bottles are the names -  Jackie and Lee, not Jackie and James.

8. There was an ice sculpture that was in the corner of the room, not in a featured spot.

 

Are these problems really worth $5000.00?  I do not think so. Can these problems really have ruined the entire experience? According to J & J, these problems ruined the reception for them and they want to be compensated. Jacqueline explains that she was going to set up the candy table. Since she was 1/2 hour late to the reception, Juan thought he would be nice and set it up for her.  He was trying to do something kind for the bride. Juan also explains that the boxes used for the leftovers are brought in by the clients. These could be boxes used for favors and by the florist. Juan said they do not use rat glue board traps, so they would not have a box like that. J & J have brought the box to court with them. They left the food in the box and saved it for over two months. It was not even refrigerated or frozen, so when they took it out of the plastic bag, it smelled awful. This is evident by the reactions of the people in the front row of the gallery. They looked like they were going to throw up. Why would they bring it to court this way? That was terrible and totally unnecessary. Regarding the favors, Juan explains that James's name was written incorrectly on the contract. No one noticed this mistake. Jacqueline explains that someone called her and asked her to spell James's name. The favors were provided free by the venue because the reception hosted over one hundred people. Even though they were free, they should have been done correctly. It is a shame that these favors were printed with the wrong name. Unfortunately, mistakes happen. The Judge explains that there are little disappointments in everyday life. These disappointments are not grounds for a lawsuit. The Judge does not award J & J any money. Are any of these problems a reason for the entire experience to be ruined? I do not think so. I know this is a very special day and I hope these issues did not truly ruin the day for Jacqueline.

 

The Photo Shoot Was Unprofessional!

Keianna is suing Alicia for $500.00. This is for the cost of a photo shoot and additional money for bad faith. Keianna hired Alicia to take pictures of her for her resume and other uses. Keianna paid Alicia $205.00 for the photos. The photo shoot was held in Alicia's home. Keianna says this was unprofessional and made her feel uncomfortable when Alicia's friend came over. Keianna received the contact sheet within 1-2 days. She was very happy to get this. Even though the pictures were small, she had faith in Alicia to do a good job on them. When she did not receive the finished photos, she contacted Alicia. She noticed on Alicia's Facebook page, other photos being uploaded. Why were her pictures not there? Why wasn't she receiving her photos? Alicia said she was very busy and she did e-mail the photos to Keianna. Why won't she resend the photos? Finally after several phone calls, Facebook messages and e-mails, Alicia does resend the photos. Since Keianna received what she paid for, she does not win her case. Just because she was unhappy with Alicia's attitude and she did not get the photos right away, it does not mean she gets her service for free. Keianna is not happy with this outcome and storms out of the courtroom and does not stop for her hallway interview. Why do these issues have to escalate to the point of coming to court? Why can't people resolve these issues on their own?

 

I Want My Broker's Fee!

Terri is suing Karen for $962.00. This is for her broker's fee and the cost of a bounced check. Karen answered an ad to rent an apartment. Terri showed Karen the apartment. Karen loved it and signed a lease. Terri explained her broker fee and Karen wrote her a check. The apartment was to be available for the first of the month. Karen wanted to move in earlier and the landlord accommodated her. Terri thought it would be a good idea to cash the check right away, since Karen was moving in earlier. The bank could not cash the check because information on it was not legible. Terri called Karen and let her know what happened. Karen wrote another check. She told Terri she was charged $40.00 for a stop payment fee. The second check was for $910.00, instead of $950.00. Terri deposited this check and it bounced. Karen was charged a $12.00 fee from her bank for a bounced check. Why is Karen refusing to pay Terri the broker fee? Karen explains that the apartment was filthy when she looked at it. Did she move in? Yes, she did. Why stop payment on Terri's fee? Karen said that it is an illegal apartment. Does she have proof? No, she does not. Karen said she called the city and it will take a month to get proof. Since she does not have any proof, she cannot justify withholding the broker's fee. Terri wins the case and Karen has to pay the $962.00. I still do not understand why Karen wrote a second check if she had no intention of paying the fee. If she was honest about the reason, things would make more sense. What do you think?

 

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

Please Subscribe!

You must learn from the mistakes of others.

You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.

-Sam Levenson

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 9 12 - Thursday

I Had To Punch The Dog In The Head Ten Times!

Joel is suing Nathan for $5000.00. Joel explains that he had his two cocker spaniels tied in his jeep. He was getting ready to go out with the dogs. After he secured them in his jeep, he walked away from his vehicle. Joel realized Nathan's gate was open. All of a sudden, Nathan's large black dog was running up to him and barking. At this time, Joel's two dogs started barking. The neighbor's dogs ran towards the cocker spaniels and attacked one of them. Joel said he was there in a split second, trying to save his dog. The large black dog had his cocker spaniel by the throat. In order to release the hold, Joel had to punch the dog in the head ten times. He seems genuinely upset that it came to this. But, he would have done anything to save his dog. The large black dog released its hold on the cocker spaniel and ran away. Joel took his dog to the veterinarian immediately. The dog needed emergency care and then follow-up visits. The total for the vet bills was $1323.59. Joel is also suing for the damage to his jeep. He shows pictures of scratches to the jeep. Nathan denies that this was from his dog. Nathan also says that the two cocker spaniels were not in the car. He claims they were at large. He has no evidence to back up this claim, since neither he nor his wife, saw what happened. Neither of them were home. They had guests in the house. They try to explain how the dog was sly and snuck out. Interesting, they admit leaving the gate open. The dog did not have to work very hard! What kind of dog do Nathan and his wife own? Nathan's wife very quickly answers, "pitbull". Nathan starts to name a different breed and then says pitbull mix. The Judge responds favorably that they admitted their dog was a pitbull. It seems many people do not because of the prejudice attached to the reputation of a pitbull. The Judge explains that she has no prejudice against pitbulls or their owners. Most pitbull owners feel their dogs are no different than any other dog. If this is true, then why do the majority of the dog attack cases involve pitbulls? Joel is also suing for pain and suffering. He claims that the injury to his hand, from punching the dog, loss of his voice, from screaming at the dog, and time spent nursing his dog, are reasons to receive additional money. Nathan and his wife are found responsible to pay for the vet bill and the car damage, not the pain and suffering. Nathan's wife said she was willing to pay half, except she did not understand the vet bill. Please, if she was going to pay anything at all, she would have done so already. The fact that Joel had to bring them to court, proves there was no intention to pay. Why do dog owners not want to be responsible for what happens? They left the gate open. It is their actions that caused their dog to be able to jump in the jeep and attack the cocker spaniel. We should be glad the cocker spaniel survived this attack. Some dogs are not so lucky! What do you think?

I Just Want My Deductible!

Teai is suing Princess and Antwane for $500.00. This is the amount of the insurance deductible Teai had to pay to get her car repaired. Princess is Antwane's mother. Antwane is the 9 year old riding his bike that day. Somehow Antwane and his bike collided with Teai's car. I say somehow because none of the stories told in court are the same. It is apparent when Antwane tells what occurred on that day, he was coached. This is truly a shame, since accidents happen and we should all be thankful that he did not get seriously injured. Teai explains that when she was driving she felt something and stopped her car. She said the child hit the side of her car, knocking the mirror and denting the side. She immediately took the child home, spoke to the mother, and took them both to the hospital. Her main concern was to make sure Antwane was okay. I give Teai credit for being so  caring  and responsible for Antwane's welfare. Thank goodness, he was fine. The Judge asks Antwane to tell what happened. He says he was on the sidewalk, the car was wiggling and the car hit him. It sounds like Teai was driving on the sidewalk! Princess says Teai backed up  and hit her son. Teai shows pictures of the damages to her car and they match the information on the police report. It is so interesting when everyone tells different stories. It is also a shame that a parent does not encourage their child to tell the truth. It is an important life lesson. Princess also says that Teai is looking to pay for damages that already existed, she insists the side mirror was covered in tape. The Judge explains to Princess that Teai is suing for the deductible, the repairs have been paid for by the insurance company. There is also a counterclaim of $500.00. Princess claims that her son is traumatized and will not go near a bicycle. I think this would be worth more than $500.00. The counterclaim is dismissed. The Judge finds the accident was the child's fault. Teai will receive her $500.00 deductible. The lesson here is that accidents happen. Most importantly, Antwane did not get seriously hurt. I hope he can overcome his fear of bicycles and continue enjoying his childhood!

You Are A Criminal And Apparently So Am I!

Joseph is suing Diane for $3000.00. He wants back his rent money for one month and the rest for pain and suffering. What did Diane do? She rented a room in her mobile home to Joseph without a lease and without a background check. She claims he was not supposed to move in until the 10th of the month, but when he showed up on the 2nd, she let him move in. Diane had accepted a check from Joseph for $550.00 without providing a lease. She explained that she also did not have time to do a background check. When she did check his background she found that he had a criminal matter in his past. Diane said this frightened her and she asked him to leave. She also explains that he ate all of her food, including her spaghetti. Joseph tells a different story. He said Diane liked him right away as a tenant, he paid the rent money and moved in. Joseph explains that Diane provided him with an air mattress and he thought everything was going okay. On the 4th day, Diane's boyfriend threw him out, saying he was too noisy. Either way, Diane does not have a right to keep the rent money. She says she is keeping the money because of damages Joseph caused. Can someone really do $550.00 worth of damage in 4 days? If so, Diane would have to prove it and she has no proof. The Judge tells Diane that she is a cheat, a fraud and that she is stealing Joseph's money. Diane has to return the rent money. She does not have to pay the additional $2450 in pain and suffering. Joseph is not completely happy to get back the rent money, he feels he should have gotten more because of his age and the stress he went through. Life does not work this way! What do you think?

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

Wise sayings often fall on barren ground, but a kind word is never thrown away.

-fortune cookie

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 - 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