People's Court Blog - 1 14 2013 - Monday

Alexis is suing Frances for $1480.00.

Frances has a countersuit.

Alexis and her boyfriend were living in an apartment rented by Frances. Even though they were told that smoking was not allowed, they continued to smoke. When Frances smelled marijuana she told them again it was not allowed. When Frances noticed people were coming and going at all hours, she felt that they were dealing drugs. Frances told them to move out. The boyfriend moved out right away but Alexis stayed on. Finally Frances had enough and told Alexis she had to leave. Alexis was upset by this and reported Frances for having an illegal apartment. Alexis was starting to move out and had left furniture behind. Frances took the key back from Alexis. When Alexis wanted to get the rest of the furniture, Frances told her she threw it out. She did this because she  was not happy being reported for the illegal apartment. 

Clearly, these two women were not able to communicate effectively with each other. They were both angry and not dealing with the situation in a business-like manner. After Alexis moved out, she noticed 4 pairs of her shoes had been damaged. The closet they were in had water damage and the shoes were covered with mold. Frances blames Alexis for causing the leak. Both sides are at fault and both sides have to pay the other. After the Judge decides what damages they are entitled to, it results in the landlord receiving $1400.00, not the almost $5000.00 she was countersuing for. The landlord was not entitled to back rent because it was an illegal apartment. She was entitled to the damages she could prove. In the hallway, Alexis claims that some of the damages were caused by them killing bugs. When she was in the courtroom, she never mentioned bugs. The landlord, Frances, feels that the verdict was fair and will never rent again. 

What I find very interesting is that Alexis did not care the apartment was illegal until she wanted to get back at Frances. Why do people need to be so vindictive? Why do they have to become so angry with each other that common sense flies out the window?

Omari is suing Nathaniel for $5000.00.

Omari hired Nathaniel to install an air conditioner unit for his house. He had received several other estimates and each one specified the size of the unit. On the contract from Nathaniel the size of the unit was not on it. After he installed the unit, Omari felt that it did not cool his house. Omari hired an air conditioner specialist to evaluate the situation. He had in writing from the specialist that the air conditioner unit was undersized and that it was not calibrated correctly.

Nathaniel admits he is not licensed to install this type of air conditioner unit. He says he replaced the unit based on the size of the existing one. Unfortunately, when Omari bought the house the air conditioner did not work. Nathaniel did not do sizing calculations and did not realize the existing unit was undersized.

It is very clear that Nathaniel did not do the job correctly. Omari does not receive $5000.00 because of this, he only receives what he paid for the job, $3820.07. Also, Nathaniel needs to pick up the unit from Omari.

It is a shame that the communication broke down between these two men. When Omari initially complained to Nathaniel, there was a negotiation that could have worked out. Unfortunately both men become hostile towards each other and wound up in court. The further shame of this case, is that these two men were friends. Hopefully they can get past this situation and renew their friendship. Friends should not do business with each other, especially if the contract is not clear. It easily can become uncomfortable and awkward. What do you think?

Selena and Omer sue Cesar for $2800.00

Selena and Omer purchased a three piece livingroom set from Cesar's furniture store. They prepaid for the set. When it was delivered, Omer was not happy with the recliner and refused delivery. Omer thought he was buying a power recliner. The recliner was manual, it did not even have a lever. When he called Cesar and was told the recliner did not come in a power model, he decided to sue. Why is he suing for the entire amount of the purchase when he kept the other 2 pieces of the set? This is not clear, except that Omer is focused on the power recliner. The fact that he is so adamant about a power recliner would be a very good reason for it to have been specified on the contract. It is not. Also, when Cesar realized that Omer wanted a power recliner, he called to find out if this model had that feature. He found out it did not and never let Omer know. Cesar needs to learn how to communicate with his customers. 

Omer does not get his money back but he is entitled to get his recliner back. Cesar agrees to deliver the recliner to Omer. At first he said he would make him pick it up and then he agrees to the delivery. The Judge reminds them both to play nice in the hallway!

Once again, effective communication was needed. Hopefully Cesar will learn from this and care about what his customers want. This will serve him well in the future. What do you think? 

Communication is very important in all three of these cases. People need to be very clear about what they want. When you enter into a contract, check the information before signing. This will save everyone headaches and heartaches!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 9 2013 - Wednesday

HAPPY NEW YEAR! 

I am glad to be back and sharing my thoughts about the cases on People's Court. Today the first case is about a woman trying to move into an apartment she was not renting.

Keturah sues Michael for $1734.54
This is a very interesting case. After Keturah signs a lease, the landlord, Michael, runs a background check. He should have run the background check before having Keturah sign the lease. Michael was not comfortable with the results of of the background check. He contacted Keturah to let her know he was not going to rent the apartment to her. She says she did not know, yet there are voicemail and text messages that say otherwise. Keturah maintains that Michael is a liar, while she changes her testimony from minute to minute. It does seem that Keturah was trying to move into the apartment even though she knew that Michael had changed his mind. Michael says he tried to return her deposit and she refused it. It is clear that Keturah did not show up for a meeting with Michael to discuss the background check. Even though she did not show up, she will get back her deposit because Michael did not do the background check right away. Keturah does not get the money back for the moving van, she should never tried to move in. Michael also has to pay for the stopped payment fee. Keturah claims she gave him checks for first and last month's rent. Michael denies receiving the checks, but there is a stop payment fee. Keturah also receives $100.00 for her time spent cleaning the apartment. She will receive $630.00, not the total amount she was suing for.
I give Michael much credit for being so organized. He kept the voicemail messages and the text messages. This evidence was crucial to the case. For as organized as he is, why did he have Keturah sign a lease before doing the background check and why wait to do it? Also, why is Michael renting an illegal apartment? What do you think?

Edwin and Helen sues Althea for $1120.00

Even though this case is not about irresponsible dogbreeding, I cannot ignore certain facts. The owner of the female dog refused medical attention for the dog. I do not think this woman should be breeding her dog. The case is about two people with pitbulls and they decided to breed them. They did not put anything in writing and neither side know what the terms are. Edwin and Helen thought they were getting 3 puppies for the stud fee. Althea says they were getting one puppy. When Althea's pitbull was giving birth, there were complications. Althea did not want to pay for the dog to have a c-section and not all of the puppies survived. After the puppies were old enough, Althea gave Edwin one puppy. He was so angry he posted Althea's picture and terrible comments about her. She was called in for a random drug test at work. She felt this was because of the comments Edwin posted and she is suing for $2000.00 for harassment. Althea did not lose her job and cannot prove that being accused of using drugs is automatic termination from her job. Because of this she does not win her countersuit. She does have to pay towards the vet bill and the sale price of 2 puppies. Althea has to pay Edwin and Helen $735.00.

People need to agree to terms and have the agreement in writing. Being friends is not a reason not to have a written agreement. Because the result is usually that people do not stay friends after going to court. Now, to discuss the dog breeding. If people are going to breed their dogs they need to be responsible about it. A dog in labor should not be refused medical attention because the owner does not want to spend the money. What do you think?

Ralph sues Pete for $2217.60

This case is very straighforward. Ralph bought a used car. When he was driving it home the check engine light went on. Since he lived really far from the dealership he called them and told them what happened. He was told to have it checked out and call them. Instead Ralph had the car repaired and spent over $2000.00. Now he expects the dealership to pay. He did not give them a chance to fix it themselves. Ralph claims they were so far away he could not be expected to take the car back to them. Ralph is the one who decided to buy the car. Ralph loses the case. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. What do you think?

2013 is going to be a wonderful year. Everyone needs to have positive thoughts about a great year. Making plans, having resolutions, setting challenges are all great ways to strive for positive change.

Good luck to all for this wonderful New Year!

Christmas Day 12 25 2012

Hi everyone. I hope everyone is enjoying this Christmas Day. Hopefully after the new year there will be new episodes of People's Court and the blog will resume. I miss writing about the cases. All of the recent repeat episodes have been featured in the blog posts.

 

This is a good week to reflect. I have been thinking about the decisions we make. Do we have other people's interests in mind or just our own? Do we try to be selfless or selfish? Many of the cases do show the selfishness and the mean spirits that motivate people. Are we to believe that people are inherently bad? I do not like to think that way. When we are faced with the senseless tragedy of the Newtown shootings, it does give you pause. Yet, the heroic stories that came from this tragedy give renewed faith in the human spirit.

 

Life is very complicated and we can only try to do our best. If every action is met with the question, " "Will someone be proud of me for doing this?", the outcomes would be so different. People need to start caring about their actions and the effects on others. We do not operate in a vacuum. Everything we do has an effect on someone else. A smile or "Have a nice day" can make all the difference in the world. How many times does it lift your spirits when someone behaves this way?

 

I hope everyone thinks about their effect on others. For every action, there is a reaction. Love, caring and trust mean so much. This is the season we think about family and friends and want the best for everyone. Let us put our differences aside and care about others. It should not take a tragedy to motivate us to commit acts of kindness. Let us try to work that back into our everyday lives.

Wishing Good Health and Happiness to All During The Holiday Season and for 2013!

People's Court Blog - 10 23 2012 - Tuesday

Working For A Living

Deborah is suing Paola for $5000.00. This is for wages, a dinner, check fees, defamation of character and pain and suffering. Deborah worked for Paola taking care of her autistic sister. She also did some bookkeeping for her. When she joined Paola on a business trip, the two women had lunch together. Deborah paid for the dinner and expected Paola to pay her back. Then Deborah lent her $450.00 and the check Paola paid her back with was rubber. After the check bounced, Paola did make good on it but did not pay the bank fees. Then Paola did not pay Deborah for the work she had done. Paola admits she owes Deborah the money for the wages, but denies the money for the lunch. She starts to cry and and says she is going to be sick. Why is this? She starts talking about a friendship between the two of them. This does not make any sense. If they were friends, why wouldn't she pay Deborah. Paola also tried to get Deborah fired. She went to the restaurant where she worked and told her boss that Deborah was stalking her. She said that she waited this long to sue because she was asked to sign a statement at work that she would keep her job if she did not sue Paola. Deborah does not have any proof of this. The only aspects of the case Deborah could prove is the wages and the check fees. She recovers $567.00. Why do people treat each other this way? It seemed like there was a friendship between the two women, yet Paola did not treat Deborah with respect. Deborah did the right thing to sue for what was owed to her. I am sure she was hurt by this experience but cannot get money for that. 

Friends?

Anna is suing Nicole for $1394.50. These two young women were friends and Anna lent Nicole money over and over again. Why would she keep lending her money if it was not being paid back? Anna says she was being nice. It seems she was trying to be nice to a friend. Whenever Nicole needed help Anna was there for her. Wouldn't you value a friend like this? I would. Not only did Nicole not pay her back, but now she denies the loans. Facebook messages prove otherwise. Nicole has to pay Anna back $950.00. The reason Anna does not get all the money back is because she cannot prove all of the loans. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a friend sign a promissory note. If a friend is in need of a loan and they are truly going to pay it back, they will sign an I.O.U. If they do not want to sign, then do not lend the money! 

Permission To Park

Joshua is suing Edward for $1478.99. This is for the cost of repairs to his car and for a rental car. Joshua was visiting his grandfather in a senior retirement village. When he parked his car, he saw Edward outside. Joshua approached him and asked if it was okay to leave his car where he was parked. Edward said yes. Then Edward went to back out of his driveway, forgot Joshua was parked on the street and backed into him. It is refreshing that Edward is honest about this. He is not used to cars being there since it is a no parking zone. The problem occurs when Edward thinks the repair is too expensive. Joshua actually goes to Edward's mechanic. Unfortunately, the mechanic only replaces the taillight and leaves the rest of the repair undone. Joshua does recover the cost of the repair and the cost for a rental car for a total of $1037.18. I think it is unfortunate that Edward forgot the car was there, he still needs to look when he backs up.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

I can, therefore I am.

~Simone Weil

People's Court Blog - 10 22 2012 - Monday

Buying A Used Car

Ramona and Stephen are suing David for $10,000.00.

This is about a used car purchase, yet it seems to be about so much more. Ramona and Stephen purchased a used car from David for $4300.00. This was a 12 year old Monte Carlo. Like so many others they did not have a mechanic inspect the car before the purchase. The advertisement David put on Craigslist made certain claims. David has to honor these. When David wrote brand new tires, it is assumed it is all four tires. Ramona has proof that only one tire was new. Also, there were certain things discussed that both parties agree to. This includes fixing the windshield. The item in dispute is the transmission. Ramona claims that David and a mechanic tried to pull a fast one saying the only repair needed was a new cellinoid. After this work was done, the check engine light came on and further inspection found a new transmission was needed. Ramona cannot prove that David had prior knowledge about the condition of the transmission. After all, the car is 12 years old! Why didn't they have a mechanic inspect the car before buying it? The answer of course is money! This costs and no one seems to want to spend the extra money. Yet, the headaches it would avoid...

Ramona tries to make this case about David's character. She shows a YouTube video of David singing and dancing. David does not object to this video being shown in court. Ramona also introduces messages from David's Facebook page. They prove he has fun friends with a sense of humor, but do not prove defamation of character. Ramona and Stephen do recover $490.00, this is for the windshield and the tires. They do not prove their case regarding the transmission or defamation of character. The sale of a used car is as-is. If the owner promises certain things or provides a warranty that is definitely an extra. People need to take responsibility for their decisions. When you purchase a 12 year old car, you have to expect there are going to be repairs needed! Do you agree?

The Missing Coat

Joanne is suing Joseph for $652.89.

Joanne and her family eat at Joseph's restaurant 1-2 times a week. They obviously enjoy the food. On their last visit they were seated in a small booth. They hung their coats on a coat rack located in the center of the restaurant. When they were ready to leave Joanne's coat was missing. Her coat was practically brand new. She had received it as a Christmas present from her husband and only wore it 3 times. When she told the owner what happened, he threw up his arms and said he was not responsible. When she called a few days later to see if her coat had been found Joseph spoke with her. He told her the coat was still missing, but he felt bad about it. After all, she was a very good customer. He offered her gift certificates for the restaurant. Joanne refused and said she would rather have the cash. Joseph was not assuming responsibility for the missing coat. he was trying to do something to make his customer feel better. Joanne cannot prove it is the fault of the restaurant that her coat was stolen. They did not do anything wrong. She hung her coat in an area that other people had access to. Joanne says that there was not a sign regarding a policy on missing items. Why does the store need such a sign? They don't, although Joseph says they now have a sign. The Judge is very clear on personal responsibility. The coat was hanging in an area that anyone had access to. Joanne did not need to read a sign that said the store was not responsible for missing items. She is unable to prove that the restaurant did anything wrong and does not recover the money for her coat. In the hallway, Joseph is still offering the gift certificates. I think Joanne should take him up on the offer. After all, she was a good customer and he acknowledges that. Why should she deny herself and her family a nice time out and an enjoyable meal? What do you think?

The Crooked Contractor

Yvonne is suing Angel for $700.00.

Yvonne hired Angel to do work on her house. She wanted to have several windows boarded up because of drafts. She signed a contract and gave Angel a deposit for $700.00. After Yvonne did this she changed her mind. She contacted Angel and cancelled the work and asked for her money back. In the state of Connecticut, a person has three days to change their mind. She informed Angel of this and expected her deposit back. Angel offered her back $500.00 because he says he already bought some material for the job that he could not return. Why would he do this before the three days? Why wouldn't he return her money? More importantly, why is he working when he is no longer licensed and insured? The contract states that he is licensed and insured. Angel says this is an old contract, he closed his business 3 years ago. Okay, then don't work. Don't take people's money. This is very straightforward. Yvonne gets back her deposit money. Angel shows himself up to be a crooked contractor! Yvonne is very happy as she leaves the courtroom saying Justice is done!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.

~William Faulkner

People's Court Blog - 10 19 2012 - Friday

October Challenge Check-up: I seem to have set my goals too high. This week has not been a success for the challenge. This is okay. We have to allow ourselves a setback. It is not a failure if you are trying. The success is in the effort. I will continue to strive to meet my goal of posting the blog the day the show is aired. Continuing to reach for my goal is the challenge that I have set for myself. Hopefully you have met your goal that you set for this month or are getting close. If not, keep on trying!

Friends Fighting
Regina is suing Tamika for $5000.00.

Regina and Tamika were friends. Regina knew Tamika's mom for 25 years, When Tamika moved back home, Regina befriended her. These two women went out together, clubbing. They went out for Tamika's birthday, although it was a week early. Tamika celebrates a birthday week! When the club closed at 2:00 am, Tamika did not want to leave. Regina says that at the end of the evening Tamika drank two Long Island Iced Teas before they left. One of them was for Regina and she was the driver! Both of these women sounded unfit for driving. While Regina was driving home, Tamika tried to stop her. As Regina tried to pull over she thinks she hit something, a car? the guardrail? She does not know. Thank goodness it was not a person! Regina says she pulled over and Tamika pulled her hair and hit her head into the steering wheel. Tamika says Regina was upset because she was flirting with someone that Regina liked. She claims Regina ripped her pink leather jacket and hit her several times. Regina has pictures of her injuries and can prove that her hair weave was pulled out. The Judge finds in her favor for $1000.00, for her hair weave and personal injury. She cannot prove the damage to her car. What a shame that a friendship has to end this way! Tamika is not setting a very good example for her her children, ages 20, 17, 10 and 4. Regina should find someone closer to her own age to spend time with. Both women have to stop drinking and driving - so very dangerous! What do you think?

Dog Attack

Michael is suing Ilene for $1307.91.

Michael was walking his Jack Russell Terrier, Jake. When he walked past Ilene's house, two large dogs charged at him. He heard Ilene yell to pick up his dog. He picked up Jake and tried to shield him from the two dogs. One of the dogs bit him and Jake. Ilene ran over to him and tried to get the dogs away. She fell and hit her head on the curb. Ilene really got hurt, She even cracked a rib when she fell. She remembers Michael yelling at her to get up when she fell. Wow! I know he was dealing with a lot, but really have some mercy. Ilene offered to pay for the vet bills. She gave Michael a check but he did not want it. He wanted to be reimbursed for sunglasses that he lost in the confusion of the moment and lost wages. Michael says that even though he got a paid sick day from work he wants to be paid for it. Life does not work that way. He used the sick day and that is what they are for. Ilene is found responsible to pay the vet bill of $562.00. She is fine with this, but she also got a lecture about having too many dogs. It seemed that day the reason the two dogs were running down the street was because the dogs got away from her. As Ilene was putting 2 of the dogs in the house, the third one pushed out and ran down the street with one of the leashed dogs. It does sound like Ilene had a lot going on, but she did the right thing to offer to pay the vet bill. She did not count on Michael being greedy!

Collateral Damage
Mark is suing Michael for $7000.00.

Mark loaned Michael $2000.00. Michael admits that he borrowed the money and gave Mark his climbing equipment as collateral. When he did not get a job and could not pay him back, he told Mark to sell the equipment. Mark should not have to be responsible to sell the equipment. Michael should have sold it to pay off his loan. Even though he had not paid Mark back, Mark says he paid Michael to split firewood. It really is not believable that he would give Michael $400.00 when he is owed $2000.00. It is more believable that the money was deducted from the loan. Then there is the $200.00 that Mark had advanced to Michael for a job he did not have a chance to do. After doing all of the math, Michael owes Mark $1800.00. Why was Mark suing Michael for so much money? He says he wanted to get his attention. It really does not work that way. He should have only sued him for the amount he felt he was owed. I think if he sued Michael for $2200.00 he would have noticed! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.

~Plutarch

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-10 17 2012-Wednesday

An iPhone And Promise Rings

Tyanna is suing Jennifer for $713.00. This is for an iPhone and a promise ring she bought for Jennifer. Jennifer is counterclaiming for $520.00, the cost of the promise ring she gave to Tyanna. These two women were in an intimate relationship with each other. Tyanna says she loaned Jennifer an iPhone. Jennifer says it was a gift. She says that Tyanna gave her many gifts. She starts taking items out of her purse to show the gifts that Tyanna has given her. Tyanna seems to be a generous person or is she just trying to buy Jennifer's love? Either way, this seems like such a sad situation. Tyanna thought the relationship was serious, Jennifer did not return the sentiment. People do need to realize that to have a cell phone on someone else's account gives them a way to keep track of who you call. There are a series of text messages between the two women. There is nothing in the text messages to prove the iPhone was a loan. Jennifer gets to keep the phone. Neither women recover any money for the promise rings. The Judge tells them to go home and move on. 

Why do people need to be petty when they break up? It is over, move on. You give each other rings, gifts, etc., it is all part of being in a relationship. In any type of relationship there is give and take. It is not easy to separate all of this when there is a breakup. I hope both women can find happiness in their lives. 

Drag Racing Quilts

Patricia is suing Dave for $981.37. This is for the cost of several quilts that Patricia made for Dave.  These quilts are gorgeous. I am sure after this case Patricia will have no problem selling them. The Judge fell in love with them! I fell in love with them! Too bad Dave did not fall in love with them! These quilts were made out of T-shirts that Dave had saved from car racing events. When he met Patricia and found out she made quilts he asked her if she could make quilts from the T- shirts. They discussed it and Patricia made the quilts. Why doesn't Dave want to keep them? He did not like that Patricia put Indy cars on the quilt. His passion is drag racing and he did not like the Indy cars on the quilt. Patricia agreed to give him his money back and take back the quilts. Patricia feels she does not have the right to sell the quilts since they were made with Dave's property. The Judge rules in favor of Dave. Since they reached a settlement when Patricia returned the money to Dave and he returned the quilts, she has the right to sell the quilts. In the hallway, Patricia says she could probably get $500-$600 a piece for these quilts. Dave agrees they should have had a written contract. These quilts are so beautiful, I hope Patricia is able to sell them!

The Chimney Needs a Permit

Felix is suing Neranjohn for $4999.00. This is for costs associated with obtaining a permit for work done 4 years ago. Felix hired Neranjohn to install a chimney for him. Neither man obtained a permit from the city. Felix says he did not know he needed one, Neranjohn said he told him to get one. Even though there was no permit, Neranjohn completed the job. Now, years later Felix is contacted by the city for the lack of a permit. In order to get a permit Felix has to obtain architect's plans, pay the permit fees and pay the fines. He wants Neranjohn to pay for all of this. Why would he be responsible for these fees? Felix should know he would need a permit for this work. He would be responsible for all of the fees in the first place and the fine, well, that is his own fault for not calling the city. And why is the city contacting him years after the job was done? Well, Neranjohn tells the court that Felix called the city on his neighbor for work being done and brought this on himself. Remember - people in glass houses should not throw stones!!!! The Judge finds in favor of Neranjohn. Hopefully, Neranjohn will not compromise his contractor's license in the future doing work without a permit! 

Please share your thoughts in the comments. 

Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Life is half spent before we know what it is.

~George Herbert

People's Court Blog - 10 16 2012 - Tuesday

A 4 Year Old Driver

Linda is suing Andrew for $2554.89. This is for injuries she received as a result of Andrew's 4 year old driving into her with a motorized scooter. Yes, 4 years old! and Andrew is a proud father to say she has been riding since she was 3! Not only that, she is obviously so experienced she does not need adult supervision. Andrew seems fine with the fact his 6 year old was outside with the 4 year old. Linda describes the incident and it is very believable that a 4 year old lost control of a motorized scooter and injured her. Andrew says that his daughter told him that Linda walked out in front of her. Who would you believe? Linda shows the pictures of her injury and also show the scar on her ankle. Andrew does not seem to be concerned at all by Linda's injuries. He did not even check on her after the incident. After all, his kids did come home and tell him the neighbor had been injured. How does he rationalize letting his kids play outside unsupervised and on such dangerous vehicles for kids their age? Well, that is a very good question. We will not get the answer in this forum. The Judge finds in favor of Linda and tells Andrew that he needs to be a better parent. A 4 year old should not be playing unsupervised and should not be driving a motorized scooter! What do you think?

A Yankee Weekend

Andrew and Denis are suing Paul for $3109.40. Paul is counterclaiming for $5000.00, Andrew, Denis and 2 other friends traveled from Boston to New York City to spend the weekend. They wanted to see a Yankee game. They purchased tickets outside the stadium from a scalper for $50.00 each. They were stopped in the line and told the tickets were not valid. They were not counterfeit tickets. Andrew was able to find out where the tickets originated. Paul has a business in Connecticut and sends unsold tickets to the city to be sold. He claims he did not know these tickets had been sold online the Thursday before the game. Andrew contacted Paul and was offered the $200.00 he spent on the tickets. He asked for $600.00 and Paul turned him down. Andrew then called the Yankees to find out if this has happened before. Paul feels this was slander and could hurt his business and that is why he is counterclaiming. Why are they suing Paul for so much money? Well, they want Paul to pay for their entire weekend expenses. This is outrageous! I think they are lucky to have found Paul to begin with and to have the opportunity to get back the $200.00. When you buy tickets on the street, you are really taking a chance. This is exactly the ruling. The Judge finds in their favor for the $200.00. Paul does not recover anything on his counterclaim. He has not lost anything because of the phone call to the Yankees. This should be a wake-up call to Paul to change his business practices. Andrew and Denis should not have expected to get a bonanza of a free weekend in the city because they bought tickets on the street! What do you think?

A Cuban Gold Necklace

Jimmy is suing a pawnbroker for $2400.00. He says this is the value of a gold Cuban necklace the pawnbroker sold. When Jimmy pawned his gold Cuban necklace he received $450.00. He failed to pick it up within the allotted time and to pay the interest payments. The store tried to notify him but did not have the correct address. There is so much that went wrong here on Jimmy's part. He should have made sure he went back to the pawnbroker within the proper amount of time. He should have made sure they had his current address. Why would any of this be the store's responsibility? The store even waited longer than the allotted 4 months to sell the necklace. I feel bad for Jimmy because this necklace seems to mean so much to him, but he really dropped the ball.  Jimmy loses his case because he cannot show that the store did anything wrong. And what was the money for? Jimmy went to Atlantic City! Really! what a shame! Hopefully in the future, Jimmy will make sure information on an application is correct and he pays attention to the calender! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

~Bertrand Russell

People's Court Blog - 10 15 2012 - Monday

Snickers And Scorpio

Cindy is suing Mark for $3826.30. This is a combined total for lost wages and vet bills. Both of these dog owners are guilty of letting their dogs roam free in the neighborhood. There is a leash law in their town, neither of them care. They do  not care if their dogs get lost, stolen or hit by a car. Now they care because someone needs to be responsible for the vet bill. Scorpio, Mark's Chocolate Labrador attacked Snickers, Cindy's Dachshund. The vet bills are $2826.20. Mark offered to pay half because it was near Christmas and he wanted to help Cindy out. Actually Mark, you are going to pay the entire amount because of Florida law on strict liability. Even though both of them were wrong in leaving their dogs roam free, Mark is responsible for the bills. He does not have to pay for the week of work that Cindy chose to miss. She wanted to be home with Snickers while he was recovering. Please both of you put leashes on your dogs! The dogs deserve to be protected from harm. If you cannot be bothered to walk your dog on a leash, do not have dogs! What do you think?

The Harmonica Player 

Elliot is suing Michael for $200.00. He claims Michael hired him to play in a band on Labor Day in at a city sponsored picnic in 2010. Michael denies this. He says he does not even like harmonica players so why would he hire him. Are we to believe that Elliot just walked up to the band and started playing with them? Are we to believe that now Elliot is suing for a job he did not have? Well, it is hard to know what to believe since Elliot is claiming Michael owes him $200.00. Michael says he paid the men in the band $50.00 each. Elliot finally admits that he was hired for $50.00 and now wants more because he had to waste so much time trying to get paid. Elliot does have a letter from one of the men in the band stating that the were paid. Unfortunately, he does not mention the amount. After listening to both sides of the story, The Judge decides that Elliot was hired and he will get paid $50.00 and interest from the past two years! Why did Michael think is was believable that Elliot would sue him if he was not hired? Why did Elliot think that it was believable that he was hired for $200.00? If both men just told the truth it would have been a magical moment! What do you think?

The Pitter Patter Of Little Feet

Lisa is suing George for $5000.00. This is for damages to her apartment and for pain and suffering. Lisa has lived in her apartment for 40 years. In 2008, George moved in above her. She says there were leaks in her apartment caused by George. These problems were resolved. In 2011, he rented to a couple with a 7 year old, 45 lb child. Lisa claims that she has had damage to her ceiling fan light fixture, smoke detector, medicine cabinet and toilet because of the child. She said the child jumps up and down and creates problems. She complained to George on many occasions. He did ask the family to put down rugs and they did. Lisa said it did not help. One day George came in her apartment to see the damage she was complaining about. When Lisa asked him if he could hear the noise, he listened and heard the pitter patter of little feet. That is when he realized this was not going to to be easy to resolve. Lisa was super sensitive to the slightest noise. It does seem that George was trying to mediate the problem. The family was made aware of the complaints. They provided a letter to the court that described how they supervise their child and they even remove their shoes at the door. The family moved out because of this situation. That is really a shame! The child has a right to walk around in his own home. The Judge finds that Lisa cannot prove her case. What a shame that a family had to move out because of this unreasonable woman! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.

~James M. Barrie

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 Blog-10 10 2012-Wednesday

Valeria And The Order Of Protection

Valeria is suing Ralph and Kristine for $5000.00. This is for the cost of a car that was left on their property. Valeria and her husband Joe were tenants of Ralph and Kristine. Joe was arrested and is in jail. Valeria was 8 1/2 months pregnant. Valeria had to move out because Kristine got an order of protection against her. So far, none of this has anything to do with the case. Why are these people in court? Valeria did not take her car when she moved out. She left it in Ralph and Kristine's driveway. The car was getting ticketed for being unregistered and then...it was gone. Where did it go? Ralph says it was towed, stolen or taken. Kristine says it was towed but has no evidence of the tow. She does have a friend that works for the city that confirmed it was towed, but did not provide any evidence for Kristine to bring to court. Wow! Such complications! Valeria has no proof   where the car is. The Judge calls a recess, makes a phone call and finds out! The city towed the car  because it was unregistered. Mystery solved! Valeria could very easily have found out where the car was and got it back. She does not get any money. Even though this case was about the car, the saddest part is that Ralph and Kristine seemed to have found a way around a long drawn out eviction process. The order of protection was instrumental in having Valeria leave the property in a very timely manner. It is never made clear if Valeria is guilty of the violence against Kristine, since this case was about the car!

Bendal And The Impressive Weight Loss

Bendal is suing his sister, Cynthea, for $5000.00. This is for a $3500.00 loan and for slander. Bendal has no proof of the loan, Cynthea says it was a gift. This is a classis case of he said she said. Usually there is some hint of the truth when both sides tell their stories. In this case, not so much. What is very clear is that these two siblings do not get along. What a shame! Family is very important. What is clear is that at some point Bendal gave Cynthea money. The amount is not even agreed upon. Bendal says it was $3500.00, Cynthea says it was $3000.00. Unfortunately there is nothing, not a text, not an e-mail, nothing to tell us whether this was a loan or a gift. What is the slander about? Well, Bendal is very proud to show the jeans from last year that he wore when he weighed over 500 lbs. He had gastric bypass and lost over 300 lbs. Very impressive. He says that Cynthea is very mean and told people he had AIDS. She denies this and once again no proof. Just one person's word against the other. How sad that these this brother and sister are not there for each other. Bendal is unable to prove his case and does not recover any of the money he is asking for. If there is any way these two siblings can mend their problems, I would hope they do and get beyond these differences!

Sade And The Book Club

Sade is suing her cousin, Kerifa, for $240.00. This is for the cost of her share of a trip to Florida. Kerifa started a book club. Sade joined it. Everyone in the book club had planned a trip to Florida. Sade gave Kerifa her share of the money for the trip, $200.00. Everything was going fine and then something very strange happened. Sade received a phone call from Kerifa's sister. She asked Sade if she could take her place on the vacation. Sade thought she as joking and said yes. Sade did not know that Kerifa was with her sister when she made the phone call. Kerifa called Sade and told her that only book club members could go on the trip and she could not give away her part of the trip. Sade told her she was only joking and was not giving it away. Kerifa told her she would give her the money back if she did not want to go. Oh my, this is a real mess! Sade did not go on the trip, Kerifa's sister did not go on the trip. Why are we here? Well. after the trip, Kerifa did not return Sade's money. She told her it was nonrefundable. You can't tell someone you are going to give their money back and then not do it. The Judge rules in favor of Sade for $200.00. The additional $40.00 she was suing for was for the court costs, that she recovers since she won the case. Once again, family is pulled apart over money. Is it really worth $200.00 to lose a relationship with a cousin? I hope these two ladies can work out their differences and resume reading books together!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity;

An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

~Winston Churchill

People's Court Blog - 10 9 2012 - Tuesday

James And Road Rage

James is suing Danielle for $500.00. This is for damage to his car during a road rage incident. Both of these people were wrong wrong wrong for their actions. James and Danielle's stories are slightly different. The damage done to the car is not in dispute. Danielle admits to throwing a grape jelly jar at James's car. She broke the back window. James had 2 car seats in the back seat and they were covered with glass when the window shattered. Thank goodness the kids were not with him. James does admit he would have behaved differently if the kids were in the car. Danielle does not believe there were car seats except that the pictures shown were taken at the scene. What is wrong with these people? James does not get the replacement value for the car seats, so the ruling for him is $431.67. Danielle needs to control her temper, she has a baby on the way. James needs to grow up and be a better role model for his kids. Both of these people need to take stock of themselves and stop the road rage! This could have ended so much differently with two people who do not know how to walk away!

Shantel And The Lost Friendship

Shantel is suing Katisha for $2412.35. This is for the cost of a money order, a loan, bank fees, and pain and suffering. These two women have known each other for years. Shantel describes Katisha as her godsister. Her parents are godparents to Katisha's son. Shantel thought she was helping out Katisha when she cashed a money order for her for $1900.00. This was for work Katisha had done as a mystery shopper. Katisha did not know the company was going out of business and the money orders were fake. Shantel gave Katisha the money and deposited the money orders. They were no good!!! Did Katisha give Shantel the money back? No, she says that they were both victims. I do not know how Katisha was a victim. She has the money, Shantel does not. She also claims that she gave Shantel $600.00 for cashing the money order and then borrowed $100.00 from her. Shantel denies getting $600.00. I believe her. Why on earth would someone pay that kind of money to cash a money order! That does not make any sense! Of course, Katisha has to pay Shantel the money. In total, Shantel recovers $2012.35. She is not entitled to $400.00 for pain and suffering. The really sad part of this is that these two women are not talking to each other anymore. Does anyone know how Katisha can keep saying that Shantel is a victim also? Shantel is an innocent bystander that was trying to be nice and help out a really good friend in her time of need. What do you think?

Lorraine / Vashti And The House In Guyana

Lorraine and Vashti are suing Sugrim for $3487.00. This is for the deposit and fees associated with the purchase of a home. The house is in Guyana. The contract was completed in April of 2006. Sugrim told them it would take three months for the contract to be processed for approval. In Guyana, the government owns the land the house is on. Lorraine claims that she was never given proof of the approval. She tried to contact Sugrim and he did not return his calls. Lorraine sent Sugrim a certified letter. Soon after this  he let her know the contract had been approved. It was a little over three months later. Lorraine told Sugrim she did not want to go through with the sale and claims they had a verbal agreement that she could cancel if the process took over three months. There is nothing in the written contract that references a time limit. At the time Sugrim offered Lorraine half of her $2500.00 deposit back. She refused. Now 6 years later she is suing him. She does not recover any money on her lawsuit. She should have taken him up on his initial offer. AND  why on earth would she wait six years to file a lawsuit? I do not know, do you?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Start Where You Are.

Use What You Have.

Do What You Can.

~Arthur Ashe

People's Court Blog - 10 8 2012 - Monday

Atiya And The Adult Party

Atiya is suing Tangey for $1165.00. This is for the cost of pole dancing lessons and damages to her house. Atiya is a really fun person! For her 35th birthday, she had plans for the most amazing party. Atiya calls it an OPP party. This stands for overnight, passion, pole party. Wow, I would like to be one of her friends. Atiya invited 10 friends over to celebrate her 35th birthday. The party was all women and included sex toy demonstration and pole dancing lessons. Unfortunately, Tangey the pole dancer, did not follow through. Atiya hired her and paid $435.00 for her to give pole dancing lessons at the party. This really sounds like fun! Tangey got to the party late, could not set up the poles in a secure way and disappointed the birthday girl and her friends. Besides causing disappointment she also damaged the ceiling and the floor while she was trying to set up the pole. Not to the tune of $730.00, which is the amount Atiya is asking for. Atiya will get back the cost of the pole lessons and $300.00 for the damages. In total she gets back $735.00. I think Tangey should stick to having parties at the studio. It seems like a major liability to set up the pole in people's homes. What do you think?

Thomas And The Scratched Car

Thomas is suing Rick for $1192.50. This is for the damage to his car while it was parked in Rick's parking lot. This is a parking lot for an airport. Thomas left his car in the lot over Christmas week while he flew home to visit his family. When he returned and picked up his car he noticed scratches to the back door panel. Thomas showed it to someone right away and took pictures of it. This was the right thing to do. Never ever leave the lot before checking the car. If there are damages they need to be shown to someone before leaving. Thomas did this, but Rick still does not believe him. I do not understand this. How else would the damage have occurred? It was not there when Thomas left his car, it was there when he picked it up. Very straightforward. Rick should have done the right thing and paid for the damage when it was brought to his attention. Thomas definitely proves his case and is awarded the entire amount he is suing for. Why don't people do the right thing? Why do they need to be taken to court? I would hope in the future Rick treats his customers better! What do you think?

John And The Ungrateful Girlfriend

John is suing Joella for $487.52. This is for a loan to Joella to help her pay for furniture. These two people have dated on and off for ten years. Joella describes how John has helped her through the years giving her money when she needed it. He never asked for it back. Wow, what a nice guy! Unfortunately this will not be in his favor. He has given money to Joella throughout the years and did not expect it back. Now he wants his money back. Why is this time different? Well, they broke up and Joella moved on. She started dating someone and moved in with the guy, She dated John for ten years on and off and they never lived together. John wants Joella to pay him back. It is not going to happen. The Judge finds in favor of Joella. It does appear that she has taken advantage of this very nice man's generosity. She should pay him back because it is the right thing to do. She is not going to pay him back because legally she does not have to. What a shame!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

You can't start the next chapter of your life, if you keep re-reading the last one.

~Anonymous

People's Court Blog - 8 28 2012 - Tuesday

 

She Cut The Medals Off  My Uniform!

Jonathan is suing Paulette for $4707.68. This is for rent money and also for a broken television. They reconnected through Facebook, had an online relationship and moved in together. When Jonathan was honorably discharged from the military, he rented a 3-bedroom apartment. Paulette moved in with Jonathan with her two sons, ages 4 and 2. The apartment was $1600.00 a month. Jonathan says they were each paying half of the rent. Paulette denies that this was the agreement. Although, she does admit paying half of the rent while they lived together. After living together for 2 months, Paulette told Jonathan she was going to have a girls night sleepover. He left the apartment for the night, so she could have fun with her friends. In the morning, Paulette called Jonathan and asked him to call before he came home. He thought this was suspicious, so he went home unannounced. He found Paulette in bed with another man. When Jonathan asked what she was doing, she assaulted him. He called the police and Paulette was arrested. Jonathan did not let her stay in jail, he got her out and also dropped the charges.Sometimes, people need to learn from their mistakes. 

 

Soon after this incident, there was another one. When Jonathan gets home one day, Paulette is on the phone in the children's room. Paulette's uncle was visiting that day and he is in court to testify. Paulette and Jonathan have another fight. Paulette cuts the medals off of Jonathan's uniform. She also throws something at the television and breaks it. Paulette's uncle broke them apart and kept the fight from escalating. Paulette says that Jonathan broke her television first, she has no proof. Her uncle did not see this. Paulette also says that the television she broke was not Jonathan's, it belonged to the family. She admits that she cut the medals off of his uniform, how horrible! A new kind of low, according to the Judge. It is obvious that Paulette has anger management issues. She really needs to gain control over her anger. Jonathan moved out and Paulette continued to live in the apartment. Jonathan's name was on the lease. Neither of them paid the rent. Paulette lived there five months rent free until she was evicted. The judgement from eviction court for the back rent was against Jonathan. Paulette is found responsible to pay Jonathan the full amount he is asking for in court today. She cannot expect to live somewhere rent free and damage someone's property. She needs to continue to work on managing her anger issues. Cutting the medals off of Jonathan's military uniform is inexcusable. How did she have the audacity to do something so terrible? Jonathan served our country and Paulette should show respect for the uniform. This is definitely a toxic relationship and they are directed by the Judge to move on mentally. They are not together anymore and are both in new relationships. People should not move in with each other so quickly , especially when there are children involved. Why are women so willing to expose their children to these unhealthy relationships? What do you think?

I Do Not Want The Murphy Bed Anymore!

Claudia is suing Tom for $1607.60, the deposit (half of the purchase price), paid for a custom bed. She purchased a Murphy Bed from Tom's company. Tom explains that he is able to advertise the product as a Murphy Bed, since the hardware for the bed is purchased from the Murphy Company. This is a type of bed that folds up in the wall when not in use. Claudia purchased the bed in September 2009, and was going to pay the balance, when the bed was delivered and installed. When Claudia found out she might have to move out of her rent stabilized apartment, she contacted Tom. Claudia wanted to know what the cost would be to relocate the bed if she had to move. She was told the cost would be $1000.00. At that time, she decided to cancel the order. The cancellation fees are listed on the signed contract. Claudia wanted her entire deposit back. So much time had passed that she was not entitled to her deposit back. Tom tried to help her out and offered to try to sell the bed. He would give her the deposit back, if he sold the bed. It could not be this easy! It wasn't!

Hurricane Irene hit the area in New Jersey where the Murphy Bed was stored in Tom's warehouse. The bed was on a pallet on the floor and was water damaged and could not be sold. Claudia said the flyer about the bed lists it as in stock and ready for immediate delivery. Why would it be in a warehouse in New Jersey? It can be delivered from the warehouse when it was purchased. It did not have to be in the showroom to be available for immediate delivery. Keep in mind, this is now almost two years after the original purchase. I would think that Claudia should have had the bed by now or lost her deposit. Tom was being nice to a customer to try to help her after all this time had passed. Claudia is the one who changed her mind about the purchase. She could have had the bed delivered and installed and dealt with the other issue later. The case about her apartment is still pending. While the Judge is ruling on this case, Claudia is trying to interrupt her. This is very rude, Claudia keeps saying she wants to finish. The Judge is quite clear during her ruling, that Claudia is finished and does not get her deposit back. I give Tom so much credit as a businessman to have done everything in his power to help his customer. There were unforseen circumstances called Hurricane Irene. Claudia tries to continue the case in the hallway, this is not the time or the place. If there was some other information she wanted the Judge to know, then she should have said it in the courtroom. Tom describes Claudia as a ridiculous and unreasonable customer. Yet, he tried to help her out for almost 2 years!
Claudia did not want this case aired. She took it to the New York Supreme Court, there were three hearings, yet here we are. Interesting!

 

Who Broke The Window?

Elanna is suing Nancy for $970.00 ($550.00 for rent and $420.00 for moving fees). Nancy runs a trailer park for her parents. Elanna went to look at a trailer after seeing it on Craigslist. Elanna signed a 7 month rental agreement. She was moving in with her two children and a co-worker. Elanna explains that she asked Nancy about the environment in the park. Elanna wanted a drama free environment. She was worried about racial problems because she has 2 biracial children, ages 3 years old and 6 months. Elanna says that Nancy assured her they would be fine. Elanna was also concerned about a pile of trash that a neighbor had stockpiled and Nancy assured her it would be taken care of. Elanna says it never was taken care of and it is still there. Did Nancy have a chance to take care of it? And why would it matter, Elanna moved out after living there for one day.

The first night at the trailer, Elanna said she saw someone running from the trailer after they broke a window. She did not have a phone and was too scared to go ask the neighbors to call the police. In the morning, when her co-worker came home from working the night shift, he called the park office. He told Nancy the window was broken. Perry, Nancy's fiancee, went to fix it. He was not told about someone breaking it and running away. He went inside and found a large rocking recliner near the window. He believes this is the cause of the broken window, since the glass and the screen were on the outside of the trailer. There was no glass on the inside. Perry fixed the window. Elanna moved out this same day, her co-worker still lives there. If Elanna was so frightened why didn't she call the police the next morning? Why not tell Perry to call the police? Why not call the police when she got to work? Elanna does not have answers to these questions. She expects to get money back for changing her mind. The general belief is that she got back together with the father of one of her children. He is in court with her, standing right next to her. Her boyfriend is not there to testify, so why is he there? It appears as if they are back together, even though Elanna denies it. The Judge rules in favor of Nancy. Elanna does not get any money back. It seemed that she changed her mind about her living situation and there are consequences attached. If someone is that afraid for the safety of themselves and their children, they should call the police. What do you think?
 

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

Happiness often sneaks in a door you did not think was open.

- Anonymous

 

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: 6-26-12: 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

12-12-12 People's Court Blog: Family Blues

What an amazing date - 12-12-12! Every time I wrote it today I felt like it was something special. Life is special and we need to treasure every day and every experience. I do not want to look back and have regrets. 
Since it is a week of repeat episodes, here is a blast from the past. On June 2nd of this year, I wrote this, but did not post it. I do not know why! 
Enjoy!

Thank you for joining me today.

Family members suing each other on People's Court can be so sad. A father buys a car and tells his daughter he will transfer the title after it is paid off. After several late payments, he gets the police involved and takes the license plates off the car. After that he will only talk to his son-in-law and not his daughter. She does not like this and stops talking to her father. She will not let him see his grandchildren. Why must the children suffer when the adults fight? This is a recurring theme and is so so sad. The father and the daughter also exchange vile text messages. He is so immature, even the Judge tells him to grow up and act like an adult.

They seem to reconcile in the hallway, telling each other that they love each other. Hopefully, this is sincere and they can be a family again. The grandchildren should not miss out on a relationship with their grandparents.

The next case is a rental situation. The tenant is renting retail space. He feels threatened by the landlord and does not renew his lease. There was a mix-up with one month's rent being paid twice and the landlord tried to claim this was an automatic renewal of the lease. The lease had some very specific clauses that the tenant followed to the letter. He got back his rent, did not have to renew the lease and even had his attorney's fee reimbursed. This is why it is very important to read the lease and understand it.

The last case was about a friend lending her car to another friend. What amazed me was how the young man who borrowed the car behaved. He totally dismissed his responsibility for the damages, even though he was at fault. The insurance covered the damages and he was being sued for the deductible and the rental car. He was very flippant and did not even care that his friend had laid out the money. His response was that she lent him the keys so she was responsible. He lost - no surprise. It was so sad, in the hallway interview it was so clear the girl had a crush on him and this incident did not seem to have any effect on her. I get the impression she would do this again under similar circumstances. We do need to learn from our mistakes. 

Please let me know what you think about these situations. 

Thought for the day:

We are responsible for our own happiness