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!

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 - 9 14 2012 - Friday

Rest In Peace Polly

Jetta and Tanya are suing James for $1698.75, the cost of their dog, Polly. Tanya hired James to pet-sit their two dogs, Polly and Memar. Polly is a female Bichon Frise / Maltese. Memar is a male Shih Tzu. Tanya was planning a vacation and did not want to put her dogs in a kennel. James was recommended to her by someone at the school where she worked.  James worked at a pet shop and he would do educational programs at the school. While Tanya was away she called to check on the dogs. James told her they were okay. When she got back from vacation, she called James and he said he would bring the dogs to her. When she opened the door, he was holding Memar, the Shih Tzu. He told her Polly was dead. Tanya asked what happened. What James told her then and what he says in court are different stories. He was so sketchy about the facts when he was telling her, that her daughter, Jetta, believed he sold Polly. They did not believe that Polly had died. This is the story James tells in court: On the second night that he was caring for them, he took Memar out for a walk and when he opened the door to put Memar in the house, Polly ran outside and ran away. He chased her for about a mile and then lost her. He went back to the house and got his car to look for her. He found her lying dead against the curb. He threw her body away in the garbage. 

This man is horrible. He should not be allowed to have an animal, let alone work with them. When he is telling the story he refers to Polly as "it", multiple times. I think this is terrible. When he found Polly, he should have taken her to a vet clinic. He did not. He told Jetta that he had her cremated. Now he admits to throwing her away. Jetta and Tanya loved Polly. They do not understand why James behaved the way he did. James says he is a poor man. What is that supposed to mean? Being poor is not an excuse for being cold and heartless! I am sure Tanya would have reimbursed him for any money he spent on Polly. Listen James, her name was Polly, she is not an "it"! 

James is found responsible to pay Jetta and Tanya $1300.00. This is the amount Jetta paid for her as a puppy. Tanya and Jetta miss their dog and no amount of money is going to make the heartache go away. James does not even seem affected at all by the misery he has caused these women. It is such a shame that this tragedy occurred. It is a tremendous responsibility to watch someone's pets. Extra care must be exercised. Having the dogs run loose in the house and be able to run through the front door just shows that James had no idea what he was doing. I hope he does not continue to offer his services to people. I understand that accidents happen, but in this case it is more than that. What James did after Polly was killed is inexcusable! What do you think?

Priscilla And The Process Server

Priscilla is suing Joseph for $75.00. This is for the cost of the service she hired him for. Joseph was supposed to serve a subpoena to the mechanic that Priscilla was suing. Priscilla says he did not serve the paperwork and wants her money back. When the Judge is questioning Priscilla she gives several different stories. She actually seems confused as to the facts of her own case. Joseph says he did his job. He served the paperwork and shows proof of service. Priscilla hired someone else to serve the paperwork. She does not show proof in court as to what was served. Since Priscilla cannot seem to get her facts straight and Joseph proves he did his job, she does not get the money back.

In Priscilla's written complaint to the court, she comments on Joseph's long hair. Why would this even be an issue? I do not understand why Priscilla would sue Joseph for his fee when he obviously did his job. She seems to have wasted much time and resources to bring Joseph to court. It  does not seem to make sense. Sometimes cases like this create more questions than answers! What do you think?

Carlos And The Bounced Check!

Carlos is suing Eddie for $1100.00. This is the amount of a bounced check for the balance on a car sale. Carlos owns a used car dealership. Eddie bought a used car for $1800.00.  He gave a $300.00 deposit and then told Carlos he only had an additional $400.00. He gave Carlos a check for $1100.00. Carlos turned all of the paperwork over to Eddie, including the title. The check bounced.

Why didn't Eddie make good on the bounced check? He claims that he had problems with the car right away. He did not complain about the problems right away. Even so, he should have paid for the car. Why would he think he has the right to keep the car when he did not pay for it? Carlos tried to collect the money from Eddie, he even went to his workplace. Eddie's boss told Carlos to take Eddie to court to get the money. Eddie wants Carlos to make good on the warranty he received for the car. The warranty paper he provides to the court is not even filled out. Also, he has not paid for the car, so why would any warranty be valid? The Judge finds in favor of Carlos to receive the $1100.00.

It is surprising that Carlos gave Eddie the title to the car. Carlos has sold used cars for 22 years and seems very trusting. This is refreshing since we do not always think that used car dealers are honest. Thank you Carlos for restoring our faith in used car dealers! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

He has the most who is most content with the least.

~Diogenes

People's Court - 8 14 2012 - Tuesday

I Stole From My Parents To Give To My Boyfriend!

Lindsay is suing Timothy for $1501.75. Lindsay is 19 years old and has been dating Timothy for a year. They are not together anymore. Lindsay explains they broke up when she kicked him and then he punched her. While they were together, Lindsay says that Timothy wanted a new bed. They went shopping together. When it was time to pay, Lindsay took a line of credit at the store. The purchase of the bed was put in her name. Why did she do this? If Timothy wanted a bed, he should pay for it himself. Lindsay's explanation is that she was in love. Next, Lindsay lends Timothy money for a softball team. She also lent him money to get his car fixed, to pay for his car insurance, to pay rent, to pay bills and for a trip to Florida. Where was Lindsay getting all of this money? She was stealing it from her parents savings account. This was an account that Lindsay's mom had many years ago and added Lindsay to the account. Lindsay stole $10,000 from the account. Why would she steal from her parents to give to her boyfriend? Why would her boyfriend allow this to happen? Timothy tries to explain that he thought it was Lindsay's child support money. Even if that was true, why would he be entitled to that money? When Lindsay's mom discovered the withdrawals from the account, she asked Lindsay to return the debit card. Timothy had the debit card. That is so ridiculous that Lindsay would trust him with the debit card. She really had no respect for her parents or even herself. Lindsay's mom explains that she has a $6500.00 lien against a personal injury suit of Timothy's. It seems Lindsay negotiated with Timothy to pay back $6500.00. Lindsay claims this money does not include the money spent on the bed. This is why she is suing him, to get back the money for the bed. Timothy says it does include the money spent on the bed. At first, they agreed on $5500.00. Then Lindsay brought up the payment for the bed. Timothy said he would give her another $1000.00. Lindsay agreed that he offered that amount and that is why the final amount is $6500.00. But, Lindsay says it was not for the bed. This does not make sense, since she brought up the bed, he offered additional money and she agreed. Lindsay also gave him a watch. Timothy has the watch with him and it is returned to Lindsay. What would possess this young woman to act this way? The Judge tells the mom that she is mortified since this is no way for a daughter to behave. Her daughter needs help. Lindsay is not awarded the the $1501.75 for the bed. This money is included in the lien and she cannot recover it twice. Lindsay needs to have more respect for herself. She should not be showering money on a man to keep his attention. This is a very important lesson to learn. Lindsay is young enough to move forward from this experience and not repeat this mistake. Lindsay is working and paying back her parents and I wish her luck in the future.

I Wanted To Go On The Bus Trip - Now Give Me My Money Back!

Amazetta is suing Denise for $105.00. This is for 3 tickets for a bus trip to the casino. Amazetta considers Denise like family. When they were both at a family reunion, Denise asked Amazetta if she wanted to go on a bus trip. Denise explained that she was working with the organizers. Amazetta wanted to go on the bus trip and also asked a friend to go. Amazetta laid out the money for her friend and  Denise's father. She paid Denise $105.00 for the three tickets for the trip that was scheduled for the 27th of the month. On the 27th, Amazetta called the phone number on the ticket, to find out where to meet the bus. The man on the phone would not give her an exact address, he gave her an intersection. He told her the bus leaves from the corner of Purdue and Agler. Amazetta had a friend call the number and found out the man's name was Cliff. Cliff also gave her an exact address. No one told Amazetta that the trip was cancelled. When she found out she wanted her money back. Denise said that Cliff and Juan are responsible to pay her back. Denise gave the money to Juan and he should give it back. The problem is that no one can find Juan or Cliff. Amazetta gave the money to Denise, she wants Denise to pay it back. Since Denise was helping to organize the trip and she admits she was going to travel for free, she is responsible to pay the money back. Denise can now sue Cliff and Juan to get the money from them. I think it is sad that Denise treated Amazetta this way. She let Amazetta pay for a trip and never bothered to let her know it was cancelled. And what about Denise's father? He never paid Amazetta for the ticket. She was nice enough to lay out the money for him. Why do people treat each other this way?

I Just Want The Title To The Car!

Dev is suing Artie for $3000.00. This is for the cost of a used car he bought from Artie. Dev does not want the money, he just wants the title to the car. Artie will not give him the title, since he claims that Dev owes him for the cost of having the car towed. Artie is also countersuing for $640.00, the cost of a lawyer and the cost of the tow. Dev bought a 2001 Kia Sportage from Artie's used car business. When he left the lot, he drove 8-10 miles, the car sputtered and died. He called Artie, was told the car ran out of gas. Artie informed him the gas gauge was broken and he was sending someone with gas for the car. In the meantime, a police officer stopped and called for a tow truck. It seemed Dev's car was blocking a snowplow. When Dev called Artie to tell him the car was being towed, Artie got upset. Artie told Dev to get the mileage on the tow truck. He did not know why Artie wanted this information. The cost of the tow was $140.00, Dev was not going to pay for the tow. He did not feel it was his responsibilty. The driver was going to leave with the car. Artie went inside and got money to pay for the tow. Artie claims that Dev was supposed to pay him back, Dev denies this. Artie put gas in the car and Dev drove away. Did Artie fix the gas gauge? No. Artie says he never said the gas gauge was broken. Did Dev ask him to fix it? No. Dev said he bought a used car and knows the rules. Dev is very calm about this whole situation.  He shows a video of his car, the gas gauge, putting gas in the tank and the gas gauge does not move. Dev says he knows when to put gas in the car. Why won't Artie give him the title to the car? Artie feels Dev should pay for the tow. Well, it does not work out this way. Dev wins his case and gets...the title to the car! I am so happy for him. Dev sounds like he really likes the car and is not bothered about the broken gas gauge. I really think Dev should have also sued for the cost of fixing the gas gauge. He did not know he was buying a car with a broken gas gauge. I admire Dev for the cool, calm, collected way he approaches life. Oh, and Artie loses on his counterclaim. Artie should be more upfront with his customers. Letting someone leave a used car lot with no gas in the tank is not responsible at all! What do you think?

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

Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart.

-Phil Jackson

People's Court: 7-23-12

I Want A Perfect Copy!

Melissa and Adam purchased a designer engagement ring for $6000.00. They took this ring to Dana and Ira's jewelry store to have it copied. They asked if it could be done and the answer was, yes. It would cost them $1712.00. This is a major savings over the designer ring. Melissa was not happy with the copy. After Adam proposed to her, she called the store and wanted changes to the ring. She finally brought the ring into the store in December, 2 months after the proposal. She did not want to leave the ring. Months later, Melissa brings the ring back to the store. She requested several specific changes: four diamonds needed to be changed, one of the prongs needed to be straightened and to even a little bit on the top. When Melissa and Adam returned to the store 3 weeks later, nothing had been done. Adam was very frustrated and voiced his concern about the lack of  repairs. Ira thought he had too much attitude and kicked him out of his store. So many times it is attitude that causes these cases to wind up in court. If everyone could communicate calmly, these issues could be resolved without a lawsuit. Now, Ira will not have a chance to make the repairs he acknowledged. He has to return Melissa and Adam's money. Dana feels that Melissa would never have been satisfied. Even though she won the case, she had to throw a nasty parting remark to Melissa, calling her a bridezilla. This comment was not necessary. The good news is that Melissa and Adam did get other rings for their wedding and will now live happily ever after.

Easy Life!

Eva is suing Kenneth for $2000.00. Eva was visiting her mother's house the weekend before Memorial Day. She noticed the neighbor, Kenneth, was having work done at his house. Kenneth's house is directly behind her mom's house. They each have a backyard fence, with about twelve inches between the fences. Eva noticed the contractor looking at the space between the two fences. She told him not to throw anything between the fences. He told her to talk to the owner. She did not talk to him. She said she had never met him and did not take the time to talk to him. The next day, the contractor gives her a thumbs up. She takes this to mean that he is not going to put anything between the fences. How nice this would have been! Now, she shares the story with her 78 year old mom. The next day, her mom is gardening in the backyard and notices the fence is bulging. There is concrete debris and sand between the fences. Eva looks at this and knows it was not there the day before. She talks to Kenneth and his response is that he does not understand why there is sand. Really! His contractor was doing concrete work, sand is used to mix it. He has to know this. He has his contractor come back and tell Eva's mom that he did not put anything there. Eva's mom says to her, easy life! What does this mean? It means that it was just easier for them to throw the concrete and sand between the fences. Well, they might have taken the easy way out and thought they would get away with it. Kenneth is found responsible for the clean-up. Eva has an estimate for $2,000.00. She explains why it is going to be so expensive. The Judge is satisfied and Eva is awarded the money. 

                                                            All In The Family!

Emanuel is suing Julie for $1000.00. Julie is the mother of his ex-girlfriend. He sold Julie a used car for $2000.00. They had a written contract. He did put in writing that the car needed certain repairs and he also was providing specific parts. Julie claims he also promised to do the repairs for her. These promises were not in writing. This gets to be a problem. When there is a written signed contract, that is where all the promises should be. If someone says something, add it to the contract. Julie is not happy with the deal and is counterclaiming for repair costs and pain and suffering. She does not want to pay the $1000.00 balance and wants him to pay her. This entire case revolves around the signed written contract. Since it was good enough for Julie to sign, the Judge does not find fault with it. She rules for Emanuel, Julie needs to pay the balance. She is not entitled to her counterclaim. Now, we come to the big question, why on earth would Julie buy a used car from the ex-boyfriend of her daughter? Why did either of them feel this was a good idea? Would you buy a used car from a family member or someone that you know?

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

 I have found that if you love life, life will love you back - Arthur Rubinstein.

People's Court: 7-11-12 **** Friends **** Test Drive **** Invitations

James and Steven are friends. They met in a recovery program. James lent money to Steven to buy a motorcycle. Steven denies the loan. Of course, there is nothing in writing. After the fact, James wants Steven to sign a promissory note. This does not go over well, they get into a physical fight. They both claim the other threw the first punch. Since Steven wants $3000.00 in medical bills, he needs to prove that he was attacked. Witnesses to the fight would make all the difference. Steven claims there were a few people that saw the fight but they do not want to get involved. He has so many excuses, some are elderly, another wears an ankle bracelet and can not be in New York. He also claims James was trying to steal his fiancee. He does not win his counterclaim. Meanwhile, James has a witness to the purchase of the motorcycle. The man that sold the motorcycle tells the court that James handed him the money and Steven rode the motorcycle away and crashed it! Steven does not sound like he is having too much luck. The shame of it is, these two men had a friendship and allowed money and jealously to get in the way. Also, James denies he ever had any desires towards his friend's fiancee. What caused this situation to escalate to physical violence? I believe the money transaction should have been made clear from the beginning. Before the money changed hands, both men should have been agreed on the loan. Also, Steven's fiancee should not have gone to lunch and spent time alone with James. On a happy note, Steven and his fiancee did work out their problems and are now married.

Titus buys a used car without taking it for a test drive. Jeff, the owner of the used car lot says this is common. I do not understand how anyone can buy a car, new or used without taking it for a test drive. Titus tells the court that 15 years ago, he bought a car from the same lot from Jeff's dad. and did not take it for a test drive. Since Jeff's dad was so reputable and he had no problem with that car, he felt he could trust Jeff. It really isn't about trust, it is about the car. What if it is just uncomfortable to drive? After the purchase of the used car, Titus drives the car away and comes back ten minutes later. He says there are problems with the car. Oh my, a test drive would have been a good idea!!!!  Jeff is willing to work with Titus even though there is no warranty on the car. Titus has signed three documents that it is an as-is sale. Titus does not want to take any responsibility for buying a used car without performing his own due diligence. Titus continues to have problems with the car, Jeff keeps telling him to have it checked out. Even after Titus loses the case, Jeff is still willing to work with him to keep him happy. He does not have to do this, but still extends the offer.

Jonelle hires Orrett, a friend of her uncle, to print 120 invitations for a surprise party for her mother. She wants them done quickly to hand out at a family gathering. Orrett agrees to print them for her right away. He should not have made promises he could not keep. He starts the job and then runs out of ink. To save money, he orders ink online. This adds an additional delay. None of this would have happened if he would have gone to a store for the ink. He wants to save a few dollars and now winds up in court and does not even stick to a straight story. First he says he would have the invitations ready, then he says he would try to have them ready. He says he would return the money, he gave Jonelle's uncle a check, then he says he is not returning her money. It is easy to see that Orrett is not believable. He is also counterclaiming for $80.00, even though he did not return Jonelle's money. Now he has to return her money and he is not getting an additional $80.00 for his time printing the invitations he says he threw away. He had an invitation to show the Judge, I guess he did not throw them all away!  Why not just tell the truth? Things happen and we need to be flexible. In a case where time is of the essence, Orrett should have bought the ink locally to avoid  the delay. He should have taken the commitment to the job much more seriously.

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

They can because they think they can.

-Virgil

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be included in future blogs.

People's Court: 6-21-12: Impressive

Documentation and evidence are so important.  For all situations we want to prove there needs to be evidence. Without paperwork, it is difficult to win a case. Being truthful and sincere is very much an asset when the evidence does not exist.

In this case a woman sues the cleaners. She is suing for a very large amount of money, $2,000.00. She values 5 bathmat sets, 22 pieces in all, at this price. No one is questioning what was brought in. Unfortunately, someone took the bag she dropped off. The representative for the store does not dispute they are at fault for the missing bag of laundry. what he does point out is the disclaimer on the back of the ticket. This limits the cleaner's responsibility to $75.00. If the woman waits for the Judge's decision she will receive $75.00. The cleaners offers her $250.00. She takes it, but is not happy. She says she will never go back to that cleaners. I was very impressed that the cleaners stepped up and gave her such a generous offer.

A former tenant is being sued for back rent. She has countersued for her security deposit and pain and suffering. She comes to court with proof that the landlord was cited by the city for housing violations. Since she has brought this to the attention of the court, the amount she owes is reduced and then reduced further since she should have gotten her security deposit back. She does not get any money for pain and suffering. This shows how important evidence is. Many people will not bring the proof with them. I was impressed with the tenants that they took the time to prepare for court.

This last case involves no evidence at all. A couple sells a car on Craigslist. The buyer and seller do not even agree on the amount of the sale. The buyer states he paid the full amount, the seller says he still owes $1,000.00. There is no bill of sale. The title is not signed over. Since the car remains in the name of the seller, they receive a call from the police that the car has been abandoned. They retrieve the car and resell it. The buyer wants his money back. He says he never used the car, it was parked on the road in front of his house for 2 months. This is very unbelievable. Since the sellers are sincere, even without paperwork they prove their case and are not responsible to return the money to the buyer. This is why it is important to tell the truth. I was impressed with the sellers, even though they lacked the needed paperwork they were able to win.

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

 "If a man does his best, what else is there?"

- General George S. Patton (1885-1945)

People's Court: 6-15-12: Being Truthful

Life can become complicated very quickly. One of the ways to simplify a crazy situation is to be truthful.

This is illustrated in the case of a man who witnessed someone falling and getting hurt. She asks him to be a witness for her in a lawsuit. He made it quite clear he would do it for compensation. He was not going to get involved out of the goodness of his heart. The woman is not clear in her story and just keeps saying he lies about everything. She is very fortunate he did not lie about her fall. His testimony enabled her to receive a $62,000 settlement. He is hearing for the first time how much money she received. He cannot believe she would not honor their agreement, considering the amount of money she received. Not only was she refusing to pay him the money to be a witness, she never thanked him for helping her receive such a huge settlement. The Judge awards him the money. I find this so interesting since there is nothing in writing and it really is about who appears truthful. Even in the hallway, the woman is still carrying on about his lies. Because this man was honest about his actions, he was able to receive compensation for his testimony. We also find out this is not illegal as long as there is full disclosure. It seems no one ever asked him if he was receiving anything for his testimony. If they asked, his testimony might not have been held in such high regard or maybe that is why there was a settlement. We will never know.

Now we have a man purchasing a used car. He is given three days to have the car checked out by the dealer. He takes it to an authorized repair shop for the type of car he purchased. They do a visual check and put it on the computer for a diagnostic test. He is provided with a list of repairs needed. The dealer honors this and refunds some of his money. A month later he takes the car back to the repair shop. He keeps saying it was a week later, since that probably sounds better. If the car had problems a week later; why did he wait and why does he think the repair shop should have been able to diagnose it earlier?. Well, it was a month later not a week, according to the receipts. The repair shop cannot be expected to diagnose a problem that had not occurred. Why does this man want to make the repair shop responsible when they are not at fault? He should be going after the dealership if they truly misrepresented the condition of the car. If he had been truthful to himself about the events, he could have sued the dealership and not wasted his time suing the wrong party.

A woman moves into Section 8 housing with her children. She claims the landlord harassed her for back rent and caused her to lose her job. The landlord admits calling her job 2 times about the rent and the noise. The tenant admits she did not pay her portion of the rent for several months. The harassment she is trying to prove does not appear truthful. She does not have hard evidence. The Judge feels the evidence provided could have been manufactured by the tenant. The landlord is entitled to the rent and is not responsible for lost wages that cannot be proven. It would have been refreshing if the tenant would have been truthful about the circumstances. None of the facts back up her story. In the hallway, the landlord states that it was like having a racetrack above her. They must have been very noisy!

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

Remember:

“For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.” 

― Ralph Waldo Emerson