People's Court Blog - 10 12 2012 - Friday

October Challenge Check-up: Here it is the end of the second week of the challenge. I hope you are doing much better than I am. Once again I have not met my goal. I will try next week to be successful. Trying is all anyone can ask for! I wish you success in meeting your October Challenge Goal! Wish me luck!

Kira And The Beast In The Basement

Kira and her two daughters, Gail and Marissa are suing Dawn for $5000.00. Kira rented her house to Dawn and a roommate for $2300.00 a month. After 4 months, Maureen, the roommate, moved out. Dawn wanted to continue to live there but needed help in paying the rent. Kira let her try to find a housemate. According to Kira after Dawn placed an ad for a housemate, she installed a kitchen, a woman, a dog and 3 cats in the basement. She actually created a separate apartment for someone. The woman who moved in the basement apartment was Kim, later to be known as the beast in the basement. Wow! What a name for someone and guess what -  it fits! Stay posted, you are going to be shocked! Kim contacted Kira and let her know that Dawn was interviewing for a roommate for upstairs. Kira looks into this and finds a an ad on Craigslist where Dawn is posing as the landlord. Dawn is asked to leave and her security deposit is returned to her. The sad part of this entire story is that Kira got rid of the wrong tenant. Now she had to contend with Kim or as she is now commonly known as "The Beast in the Basement!"

Kim had actually stopped paying rent. She called the police on Kira and her daughters. The police told the Kira and her daughters they were not allowed in the basement. Kim had squatters rights. Kira took Kim to court to evict her. The Judge gave Kim 10 days to leave. After Kim left and Kira went in the basement she was shocked! Kim had put fish on the radiator, turned the heat up to 80 degrees, took all of the switchplates, removed all the lightbulbs, removed the doorknobs and stuffed dirty diapers in the walls This is so disgusting! The Judge is outraged that the local police said this was a civil matter and would not press criminal charges. The Judge calls the Police Chief to inquire about the investigation. Hopefully we will find out that Kim was charged with criminal mischief.

The Judge finds in favor of Dawn for this case. Even though Dawn brought this woman on board as a tenant, Kira had the opportunity to get rid of her. Dawn claims that Kira's husband is the one to renovate the basement. He is not in court to dispute this. Kira does not have any evidence to prove that Dawn is responsible for this situation. She actually was the better tenant and should have not been kicked out. Kira needs to sue "The Beast in the Basement"! What do you think?

Michaele And The Lame Horse

Michaele is suing Bethany for $750.00. This is for the deposit and travel expenses for a horse she was attempting to purchase for her daughter. Michaele was looking for a horse for her daughter who has spina bifida. She needed a very calm horse that would allow her daughter to get on the horse with the use of blocks. Michaele provided a video of her daughter and horse to make sure the owner of the horses knew what she was looking for. After Michaele saw an ad on Craigslist for Bethany's horse, she sent the video. Bethany agreed that her horse would be a good candidate for Michaele's daughter. Michaele paid a deposit of $500.00 and spent $250.00 to transport the horse. When the horse arrived, Michaele contacted a veterinarian because she thought the horse was lame. The vet examined the horse and deemed it unfit for sale. There were specific instructions for Bethany to follow for the horse after she took the horse home. Bethany admits in court that she did not follow all of the vet's instructions. She says all the horse needed was some medicine and rest. After a few days the horse was fine and she she was able to sell it to someone else after Michaele did not want to continue with the purchase. Michaele wants her deposit back and the money spent to transport the horse. 

The Judge finds that Bethany breached the contract when she did not follow the vet's instructions. Michaele will get all of the money she is suing for. What I find so amazing is that someone would buy a horse sight unseen. Why didn't she contact a vet to look at the horse before she purchased him/her? Probably for the same reason that people do not pay to have a mechanic look at a used car! What do you think?

Wendy And The Leased Car

Wendy is suing Vincent for $1427.36. Vincent is the father of her two grandchildren. She leased her car to Vincent to use to be able to go to work in order to pay child support. When her daughter and Vincent had issues she took her car back. There was a signed agreement between Wendy and Vincent for the car. Wendy tells the Judge how she watches the show and loves her and knew to have a written agreement. The Judge is very proud of her for this. The agreement details what Vincent would be responsible for. He paid Wendy $60-$65 a week for the use of the car. Wendy even photocopied the cash he gave her! What Wendy did not take into account was that routine wear and tear on the car was not covered by the agreement. Keep in mind Vincent was paying for the use of the car on a weekly basis. After Wendy took the car back she took it to a mechanic. The mechanic did not refer to any repairs that were not a direct result of Vincent's mishandling of the car. He did not violate their agreement. The Judge finds in Vincent's favor.

What makes this so sad, is that Vincent is really trying to do the best for his children. It is a shame that he and the children's mother cannot get along. Hopefully he will find an affordable vehicle so he can continue to work and pay his bills. Good luck to all!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

~Thomas Edison

People's Court: 7-20-12

We Are Here Over $9.00!

Susan took her Dad's car to Rohon's auto repair shop. She needed tires and was having problems with the fan belt. Rohon operates out of a storefront in Brooklyn. He does not have a yard, his customers have to park on the street. The alternate side of the street parking rules are in effect in this area.There is much talk about double parking, and it being tolerated. Double parking is not legal, it is essential leaving your car in the middle of the street. Susan drops off the car before work, goes into the shop and tells Rohon where the car is parked. She is planning to pick the car up the next day. Unfortunately, her car was not moved in a timely manner and she received a ticket and was towed. She wants Rohon to be responsible for these costs. The funny thing is, he is willing to take care of her repairs for free. This would appear to be a sense of responsibility on his part for the ticket and the tow. The tow ticket shows that the car was still on the street two hours after Susan dropped it off. Rohon should have moved it soon after she left it and none of this would have happened. Offering to do the repairs for free seems to be a reasonable offer. What goes wrong? He asks Susan to pay a $9.00 environmental fee. She refuses and sues him for the cost of the ticket and the tow. Why doesn't she accept his offer? She said he was rude to her and the offer was not enough. Also,her car was never fixed! Why do people get caught up in these situations? For a person like Susan who appears to be very busy, why take the time to come to court? It is always about the principle. It is never about the money. For $9.00, this would have been over, she would have remained a customer and would not have to look for a new mechanic. Rohon is not upset about losing a customer, he feels it is her loss, she is losing a great mechanic. As far as the outcome of the case, they are found equally responsible and split a $300.00 verdict. Susan should have accepted Rohon's initial offer and saved everyone major headaches!

You Killed My Trees!

Edward is suing Thomas for the removal and replacement of 5 trees. Edward is convinced the snow that was pushed against the trees killed them. Thomas admits when he plowed snow at the neighbor's house, he pushed the snow onto Edward's property during one year. Several years went by and Edward says that Thomas is responsible to remove and replace the trees. He has brought evidence. He has some pictures of trees with broken branches.  He has also brought an estimate to have the trees removed and replaced. He does not have a letter from an expert explaining the condition of the trees. Thomas is counterclaiming for the cost of research and preparation for court.  It is true there has been a lot of snow this past winter. Thomas says that after he was asked to stop plowing the snow toward's Edward's property, he stopped. He was not responsible for the snow accumulating against the trees. Can snow build-up next to trees damage and kill them? Wouldn't there be many more dead trees after a bad winter? Edward does not have enough evidence to prove his case. The pictures do not show who is responsible for the damage to the branches. Broken branches do not cause trees to die. If a snowplow hit the tree, that would be a different story. That did not happen. Why would Edward waste everyone's time and resources when he does not have any proof? Why didn't he videotape the damage being done? Why didn't he call the police? This is always the best way to document an injustice. Edward cannot prove his case, he does not win. Thomas has a video of the trees on Edward's property. He identifies the type of trees and show some damage they have sustained. He says this damage could have happened in any storm. He cannot prove his counterclaim. Both men lose their cases. Hopefully. both men have learned something, so it is not a total waste of time. It is really important to have documentation when you want to prove something.

We Have A Leak - Please Fix It!

Daryl is suing Julio and Tom for back rent and utility bills. They rented a laundromat from her. They were already renting another store in the same strip mall. They saw an opportunity for another business. I give them credit for wanting to have another business. Unfortunately, they did not do their homework. The laundromat was not a booming business. They also had problems with a leaking roof. They claimed they called Daryl to let her know and she did not look into the problem. Daryl said she went to the store and the doors were locked. When she contacted Julio and Tom, they said they shut down. In February, the leak was worse and now there was snow and ice built up on the roof. When she finally has a contractor evaluate the problem, the condition of the leak had gotten really bad. The laundromat has been closed for business, so the landlord did not feel an sense of urgency to repair it. The two men had signed a 6 month lease, so they need to abide by the terms of the contract. They do have to pay the utilities and the majority of the rent. The Judge reduces the amount of the rent because of the condition caused by the leak. They are responsible to pay the landlord $2000.00 for the utilities and a portion of the rent. What could Julio and Tom done differently? They could have documented contact with landlord regarding the leak. What could the landlord have done differently? She could have treated Julio and Tom with more respect. Especially since they were already tenants and she had a working relationship with them. People need to treat each other better and communicate when they have problems.

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

 A life without dreams is like a garden without flowers.

-Unknown