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 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 - 8 29 2012 - Wednesday

Your Boat Damaged My Wall!

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

 

Bring Evidence To Court!

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

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

A Counterfeit Postal Money Order!

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

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.

-Unknown source

Peoples's Court - 8 21 2012 - Tuesday

Another Friendship Ruined Over Money!

Vincent is suing his friend, John, for $575.00. John is counterclaiming $3000.00 for pain and suffering. Vincent explains that they lend money back and forth to each other all the time. This is what friends do. In July of 2011, John  called Vincent and asked for help because his house was in foreclosure. Vincent helped his friend by lending him $875.00. John told Vincent he would pay him back in a few days. Vincent said that John  gave him $300.00 back, $100.00 a month for three months. Vincent wanted the rest of his money, so he went to John's house to ask for it. Vincent says that when he was face to face with John, he got closer to John and then John moved back and hit his head against a brick wall. Vincent went home and the police came to his house later that day. There are criminal charges pending against Vincent for the assault on John. When the Judge asks John to explain, he admits borrowing the money. He admits paying some of it back. He shows the Judge two checks that were given to him. One of the checks has "loan" written on the memo line, the other check does not. John explains that the one check was the loan and the other was a gift. John says that for the past two and a half years, he has helped out Vincent in so many ways. He says that Vincent gave him part of the money as a gift for all of his help. He said $400.00 of the $875.00 was a gift. The funny thing is when the Judge is looking at the checks, the word "loan" is written on the memo line of the check for $400.00. This would make the gift the check for $475.00. John did not realize this. Vincent does not remember writing on one memo line and not the other. My question is, why give him two checks? If he was lending him $875.00, why not give one check? John is counterclaiming for pain and suffering because Vincent shoved him and his head hit a brick wall. John did not go to the doctor for the injury. The police report documents a small visible abrasion on his head. The police report also documents that Vincent shoved John. Vincent may deny it now in court, but the police report is the evidence. John does not have any other evidence to support a claim for $3000.00. The Judge does not want Vincent to get away with vigilante justice. She awards him $475.00, the balance of the $875.00 loan after deducting the $300.00 John paid back and $100.00 for the attack on John. There is nothing awarded for the counterclaim. This is another example of friendship ruined over money. Why do people allow this to happen? When a friend asks for money, it is very important to consider this question: Is it worth it?
 

Clueless!

Kenneth and Ann are suing Lindsay for $2374.53. This is for repairs Kenneth did on Lindsay's car. Ann is caught in the middle because Kenneth is her cousin and Lindsay is her friend. Ann operates a yoga studio. Lindsay does work for her in exchange for yoga classes. Over the course of a year, they have become good friends. Lindsay's car was vandalized, sand was put in the gas tank and the side was keyed. The shop it was towed to was going to charge her $3000.00 to fix it. Ann told Lindsay that her cousin, Kenneth, was a mechanic and could fix it for less money. Lindsay had the car towed to Kenneth's house. In order to have her roadside assistance service pay for the tow, Kenneth's house was recorded as a sister shop. Oh what a tangled web we weave... Once someone admits to being less than honest, everything else they say is suspect. Lindsay claims the car was totally repaired and she just wanted Kenneth to look at the car and verify the repairs were done properly. Kenneth says the car still needed repair work. Why would Lindsay have the car towed if it was driveable? Why would Lindsay think Kenneth would look or work on the car for free? The receipt from the body shop shows that the work done on the car cost $1450.00. The car still needed a fuel injector replacement and service. This was the work Kenneth was going to do. He paid $1600.00 for parts and repaired the car. When Lindsay came over to get the car, she offered Kenneth $16.00 for the repair, not $1600.00. Lindsay denies this and says he was checking the car for free. I do not know what world Lindsay lives in, but rarely is anything done for free! Why would Kenneth spend that kind of money and time for someone he does not even know? Kenneth would not release the car to Lindsay without payment. Lindsay came back with her spare set of keys and took the car. Lindsay really does have nerve! Ann felt bad because Kenneth was out money, she claims that she paid him the $1600.00. She has no proof of the payment. Whether she paid him or not, the Judge finds she has no standing to sue Lindsay and dismisses Ann from the case. Kenneth is awarded the full amount that is being sued for. Lindsay needs to pay for the work that was done on the car. Ann and Lindsay are no longer friends. It seems that Ann tried to help someone that justs takes advantage of people. It is very important to know who your friends are. The Judge says it very clearly, if Ann wants to help out people, she should volunteer in a soup kitchen!
 

Splatters Of  Paint Everywhere!

Melissa hired Ron to do construction work at her house. She paid him $1350.00 and wants her money back. She is not happy with the job, feels it was not finished and it was not done properly. Melissa hired Ron to do some repair work and painting. Melissa shows pictures of the work. There was an open paint can with a brush left in the yard. There is wood showing through the paint job. There is paint splattered everywhere, on the porch, the trees, the driveway. The place really looks like Ron left it a mess. Ron denies this and says that Melissa sabotaged the area for the pictures. Why would someone do this? It does not make sense. Ron does not seem to care about the entire situation. It was like he was doing her a favor! He was paid to do a job, it was not charity. Ron comments that he has been in business for 26 years and works on million dollar houses. So what, who cares! Melissa paid him to do a job and he made a mess of it. She deserves to get her money back. She actually will get back part of her money. Ron did some work, so he does need to get paid something. Ron is ordered to return $750.00. Ron states that Melissa got more than her money's worth. Really? We all saw the pictures of the way Ron left Melissa's property. He should just admit that he could have done a better job. I give Melissa credit for bringing Ron to court. No one should have to pay for shoddy workmanship. What do you think?

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

The happiest people do not have the best of everything.

They just make the best of everything.

- Unknown

People's Court - 8 15 2012 - Wednesday

I Want My Pay!

Michael is suing for $1500.00. This is for pay he earned as a general manager of a new restaurant and lounge. He is also suing for pain and suffering. Omera is the operations manager of the establishment. She represents the owner in court. Omera is the person who had the most contact with Michael at the restaurant. At first, Michael was hired as a bartender.  He went through a paid orientation for three days. Michael explains that the restaurant had not even opened. He received a call and was asked if he wanted to be the general manager instead of the bartender. Michael agreed because he was being offered $15.00 an hour. Michael worked 43 hours at regular time and 17.75 hours of overtime. During a meeting before the restaurant opened, they were discussing payroll. It was during this meeting that Michael found out he would be making $8.50 an hour, not $15.00. Michael and Omera disagreed, Michael walked out. He explains in court that he would not take the position for only pennies more than he was making as a bartender. Up to this point, Michael had not received any pay. He texted Omera that he was coming to get his check. She responded that the check was being sent certifed mail for legal reasons. Michael did not receive the check and he continued for 2 weeks to ask for his money. Finally, Omera has his check ready and Michael goes to the restaurant to pick it up. It was only for 40 hours,  not the hours he worked. He refused to sign for it and did not take the check. Omera explains that the receipt she has with his hours is not consistent with what he is asking for. She also explains that the receipt does not make sense. This receipt is printed out from the register when Michael would clock in and clock out. Omera also explains that Michael was not making $15.00 an hour. She said that she gave him the promotion and he was supposed to make $8.25 an hour. He was hired at $7.25 and was increased to $8.25. Omera says, she knows this, because she gave him the promotion and the raise. Also, why would Michael make more money than she does. Omera says that she does not even make $15.00 an hour. Omera keeps staring at  Michael when he insists on the amount of money he was supposed to get. At first the Judge laughs, since it is very comical. Omera is putting on quite a show. Everyone in the gallery is laughing. Then, it gets serious, because Omera will not stop. The courtroom is not the place for this type of behavior. It gets so bad, the Judge tells Omera if she does not stop, she will be thrown out. Finally, Omera stops staring at Michael and the courtroom calms down. Michael does not have any proof that he was supposed to receive $15.00 an hour. Also, he cannot receive pain and suffering. The Judge rules that Michael is to receive $500 in wages. When they leave the courtroom, Omera takes the opportunity to trash Michael. She says that no one should hire him, he is not worth $2.00 an hour. Michael says he would not take the position for that pay. This would be the perfect situation to have something in writing. Especially when you are receiving a promotion that doubles your pay. We all have to remember to protect ourselves by having everything in writing. Even a confirming e-mail would be great back-up. What do you think?

I Could Have Been Killed!

Elizabeth is suing for $1117.00. This is for the parts, labor and a new tire. Elizabeth explains she was driving, felt something funny and pulled into the nearest gas station. She had a flat tire and called her  roadside assistance service. Tony was dispatched to change the tire. Tony works for Alan, the owner of a franchise called Pop-A-Lock. Elizabeth explains that it took a very long time for Tony to change the tire. She then drove directly to a Goodyear shop and was surprised by what they found. The manager told her she was lucky to be alive. When the car was put up on the lift, they found that the lug nuts were smashed. Elizabeth has the lug nuts with her as evidence. Elizabeth also has a notarized statement from the manager at Goodyear. Elizabeth is very prepared for court. Now what does Tony have to say? He says when he arrived, Elizabeth's son was already trying to change the tire and having trouble. He said the tire was so shredded, she must have drove on it for awhile before she stopped. He jacked up the car properly, put on the spare donut and Elizabeth drove away. When the Judge shows Alan and Tony the damaged lug nuts, they say that Elizabeth's son must have caused the damage. If that is true, why would Tony use them for the spare donut?  Alan explains that they change 3,000-4,000 tires a year and never have a problem. The equipment they use would never do that type of damage. The way Tony put on the tire caused a condition that was very dangerous. In the statement that Elizabeth has from Goodyear, the manager states that the right rear well was not properly mounted onto the vehicle. The lug nuts were mushroomed and damaged the studs. The manager determined that the improper mounting of the tire caused the damage. Alan is still maintaining that he has no idea what would cause the damage and continues to say that it was because Elizabeth continued to drive on a flat tire. I would think Tony would have noticed the damage to the lug nuts and he would not be able to use them to put on the spare donut. Elizabeth has proven her case with the evidence she has brought to court. She does get $742.00 which does not include the cost of the new tire. Elizabeth explains she included that cost of the new tire because they aggravated her! Court does not compensate you for aggravation! In the hallway, Alan and Tony are still talking about the amount of tires they change every year. Elizabeth is happy with the decision and says she had no idea the tire was going to fall off. Elizabeth is very fortunate that she went directly to Goodyear, otherwise the outcome would have been very different. I wonder what really happened when Tony changed the tire. How could he not know something was wrong. We can only speculate. What do you think? 

Hurricane Irene Damaged My Apartment!

Cerline is suing for $334.10. This is the cost of an entertainment center and a vase. These items were damaged by workers that came to her apartment to do repairs after Hurricane Irene. Cerline is suing Anthony, the owner of the realty company. Anthony is countersuing Cerline for $2600.00 in back rent. After Hurricane Irene, Cerline had damage to her apartment. The ceiling fell in and everything was soaked. Anthony sent 2 men to repair the ceiling, fix part of the floor and paint. They did most of the work and were supposed to return to finish. When they did not come back, Cerline told Anthony. She requested the men come on a specific day, since she did  not want them there when she was away. Unfortunately, Anthony sent them to do the work when Cerline was not home. Cerline feels they entered her apartment without authorization. They damaged the entertainment center and broke a vase when they were working. Cerline is suing Anthony, since he is the one who sent them. The Judge rules that Cerline does not get any money on her lawsuit. She would need to sue the men that actually did the damage. Anthony is not responsible to pay for the damage done by the workers. Now, Anthony has a counterclaim. He says that Cerline owes him for 2 months rent. Cerline decided to move out, so she stopped paying rent. She lived there for an additional 2 months and then moved out. When Cerline moved in she gave Anthony $3900.00. According to Cerline, this covered the security deposit and the first and the last month's rent. Anthony said that it was the security deposit, first month's rent and a fee. What is this fee for? Anthony says it is because Cerline wanted to move in early. The lease does not reflect any of this information. Anthony cannot record the money one way, as rent and security deposit, and then distribute it another way. He did not tell Cerline she was paying him an additional fee. Cerline thought she was in the right, since a legal aid attorney told her she could live out her security deposit. The Judge tells her the legal aid attorney was wrong. That is not what the security deposit is meant for. Because she withheld rent, the Judge rules that Cerline needs to pay Anthony $1300.00, for one month's rent. When they leave the courtroom, Cerline reminds us that she will get her security deposit back. This case took a very interesting turn. Does Anthony always take a fee when he rents an apartment? Is this a common practice? Are the tenants aware they are paying towards a fee and not rent? So many questions and no answers. What do you think?

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

Fantasies are like sand castles. Fun to build, but you can't live in them.

-Ruth Ingrid 

People's Court - 8 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 - 8 8 2012 - Wednesday

My Dog Is Not A Pitbull!

Benjamin is suing Sharon for $264.30. This is amount it cost at the vet, when Sharon's dog attacked his dog. Benjamin has an Italian Greyhound mix and Sharon has a chocolate lab mix. What is her dog mixed with? She says boxer, Benjamin says pitbull. Why do people who own pitbulls or pitbull mixes call them by another name? I don't know, do you? Both Benjamin and Sharon are members of a private dog park. Sharon actually has a counterclaim for 2 years of membership fees. Benjamin explains that Sharon's dog, Liberty, had  contact with his dog, Mister, 2 weeks before the incident in question. Benjamin describes the incident as minor even though Mister was scratched. Benjamin says this was a typical dog park incident and did not report it. This incident was much more serious. Liberty ran after Mister and bit him on the back leg. Benjamin says that Sharon did not even ask how the dog was and did not volunteer her information. Mister needed ten stitches. Benjamin works at the animal hospital and was fortunate to get a discount. Benjamin contacted Sharon and wanted her to pay the bill. She did offer to pay half, Benjamin refused this offer because he wanted the whole amount. He should have taken the offer, because he does not win his case. The Judge explains that there is an assumption of risk in the dog park. Neither owner did anything wrong. The dogs were both off leash, this is not an issue. The dogs were in the correct area, so this is not an issue. The dogs were acting like dogs. The previous minor incident does not factor in, since Benjamin did not report it and he even describes it as a typical dog park incident. Sharon would have needed to have been on notice that her dog was aggressive, to be held responsible for the bill. I understand the legal ruling. What I can not understand is Sharon's attitude. She said that the larger dogs run after the little dogs and grab their back legs to slow them down. This is ludicrous. This is not normal dog behavior. If that is what her dog does, it is a good thing she is banned from the dog park. Benjamin spoke with the owner of the dog park and Sharon was dropped as a member. This is the reason she wants to be compensated for 2 years of membership fees. This does not make any sense, she she has been taking her dog to the park all of that time. She tells the Judge she does not want to pursue the counterclaim and it is dismissed. Dog parks are a nice idea when everyone watches their dogs. After all, dogs will be dogs! What do you think?

I Did Not Break The Windows!

Nicole and Ryan are suing to get their security deposit back. They rented a garage apartment for about a year. When the cable did not work, they called their landlord. After no response, they contacted the cable company. When the cable serviceman came to the apartment, he informed them it was an illegal apartment and removed the cable wire. Nicole and Ryan contacted Tracy, their landlord and gave notice to move out. Tracy and her son, Chris, did the walkthrough with them. At first, Tracy tells Ryan he would be responsible for fixing the windows. They do not open or close because the handle is broken. Ryan says the handle broke off through normal wear. The arm that guides the window to open and close is detached from the track. Because of this the windows do not open and close. Tracy says this is because Ryan climbed through the windows when he constantly locked himself out. Ryan admits to locking himself out, but denies climbing through the window. Tracy had the spare key and he would ask her for it when he locked himself out. Maybe he should have brought his house key with him when he went outside to smoke! It does seem believable to the Judge that Ryan could have climbed through the window. The rest of the security deposit was withheld for the cable. When Tracy told Ryan, he would have to pay $600.00, to have the apartment rewired, he admits to getting angry. Chris did not like the way Ryan spoke to his mother and a fistfight occurred. Ryan admits that he cursed at Tracy and admits hitting Chris. The police were called and there is a police report. No one is denying the fistfight. It is very sad when situations escalate to violence and involving the police. Ryan still believes he should be able to get back the entire security deposit of $1150.00. He is not responsible to rewire the cable and he continues to deny breaking the windows. Tracy's account of the window damage is more believable than Ryan's constant denial. He will have  to pay the $488.81 to have the windows fixed, but does get back the $661.19 balance of the security deposit. Ryan does not have to pay to have the cable rewired. It was not his fault that the cable was removed, it should not have been there in the first place. In the hallway, the landlord says she is happy Ryan is getting back some of the money. Ryan feels it is still not fair, he continues denying the damage to the window. I think it is terrible that a fistfight broke out during the walkthrough. People need to maintain respect for each other. Ryan should have walked away from the situation when he realized they could not come to terms. He was able to get back part of the security deposit and hopefully he will have learned that physical violence does not solve anything. What do you think?

I Bought A Lemon!

David bought a used car from John. David did not test drive the car, he did not take the car to a mechanic. When you are interested in buying a car, used or new, it is important to test drive it. When it is a used car, it is essential to have a mechanic look at it. David says now, he did so much wrong , but this car is a lemon. After David bought the car, he noticed problems with it right away. The next day, the car would not start. David called John and was told he was on his own for having it towed. David's mechanic said the car needed a distributor, John provided a distributor for David's mechanic to install. With that done, the car still did not work. John told David if the car was towed to his mechanic, he would look at it. The car was fixed and ready to be picked up within 2-3 weeks. After David got the car back, he was still not happy with it. He is suing for the purchase price, the towing costs and the cost of repairs. John explains that the car was sold as-is. David signed a release of liability. David claims he forgot about the paperwork he signed. John was under no obligation to help him after the sale. John says he spent over $600.00 when David brought the car back to his mechanic, because he did not want continued grief from this man. David continually texted and called John, and John just wanted him to go away. John even called the police because of David's continued harassment. The sale of the used car was as-is, there was no warranty given and David did sign a release of liability. David does not win this case. I give John so much credit for trying to help even when he did not have to. Unfortunately, it backfired on him. John needs to remember, an as-is sale is final! What do you think?

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

Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.

-Mark Twain

People's Court - 8 1 2012 - Wednesday

I Am Trying To Save The Kittens!

Debbie is suing Yolanda and Mike for $297.48. This is for the money she has spent on the equipment and veterinary care of six kittens. When Yolanda and Mike called her for assistance, she responded immediately. They had a feral mom cat and six newborn kittens. Debbie asked Yolanda if she would consider a foster situation until the kittens were old enough to be adopted. She would set up a cage in their house, provide them with food, litter and essentials. Debbie also offered to pay for the deworming and vaccinations for the kittens. When it was time to wean the kittens, the mom cat would be spayed and released. The kittens would be socialized by Yolanda's family and be adopted out when old enough. Yolanda understood this to be about 8 weeks. She agreed to this foster situation. Even though she does not like cats, she knew her 5 children would help with the kittens. Several of her children's friends wanted to adopt the kittens. Debbie explained to Yolanda there was an application that needed to be filled out. Four of the six kittens were adopted, Debbie told Yolanda should would be back to pick up the last two kittens. When Yolanda's kids physically fight over the kittens, she decides to get rid of the kittens. Does she call Debbie to come and get the kittens? No, she takes the kittens to the local train station and gives them away to strangers. She claims that she found out Debbie charges an adoption fee. Why would this be a problem? Debbie has paid for all of the expenses involved with the kittens. She is also spending the time to get good homes for the kittens. Debbie explains that the adoption fee covers all care, vet and   future spay/neuter expenses. I would imagine it costs much more than $100.00 each for all of the care provided for the kittens and mom cat. Yolanda thinks Debbie is making money from the adoption fees. She keeps mentioning this fee as if it were wrong. Debbie was doing everything she promised, Yolanda should have kept her end of the bargain. The Judge decides in favor of Debbie, but not for the full amount she is asking. The Judge divides the cost among the kittens and Debbie gets $126.84. Yolanda is counterclaiming for $1000.00. She wants money for carpet cleaning and the labor of fostering the kittens. She has no proof for the cost of the cleaning the carpet and does not get paid for taking care of the kittens. Now, let's talk about giving the kittens away. This was wrong on so many levels. Debbie was keeping her part of the bargain. I am sure she would have rushed over to get the kittens if she knew there was a problem. Debbie obviously is involved in cat rescue because she loves the animals. It is definitely not about the money. What do you think?

This Is A New Crack!!

Alan is suing David's company for $2232.00. This is the cost to repair his driveway. Alan approached David's employees to do work for him. David's employees were doing a job near Alan's house. Alan did not contact David, he wanted the guys to do some side work for him. Right away, we get the feeling this is not a good idea. When they are leaving the job, they backed up onto Alan's lawn. Alan immediately sees this as a way to get them to do additional work for him. When Justin, the supervisor, stops to see what is going on, he tells the workers that David will not be happy about the situation. He does not tell them to leave. He does not call David. This has become a comedy of errors. It continues to get worse. Alan notices a crack in his driveway. He says it was not there before the workers drove their equipment on the driveway. He admits his driveway was not in perfect condition, but this was a new crack. He pays the workers for the job they did, but tells Justin they have to fix the crack. Justin says they are not responsible for it. Alan calls David to tell him about the problem. Alan claims that David tried to offer him sod for his lawn. David denies that he made this offer. David feels that the driveway was in such poor condition, he should not be held responsible. He does admit that his workers should not have been there. He wrote them up, he did not fire them. How can he continue to employ such dishonest workers. They were using company equipment and company time to make a few extra dollars. Alan provides an estimate to the court for the repairs to the driveway. The Judge asks David what he thinks it would cost to fix the crack. He estimates $1300.00 to $1400,00. The Judge awards Alan $1300.00. In the hallway, David says he is mad at his employees and the next time they will be fired. Alan is not happy about the money, but he loves life and says it is fantastic! I believe that Alan is lucky to have won, he brought this upon himself. I feel sorry for David. He seems to be at the mercy of his employees. Hopefully, he has learned from this situation and take better control of his employees. Good luck David!

I Want My Wedding Pictures!

Shane and Amanda hired David to be their wedding photographer. David was paid in full to take pictures during the wedding, 2 pm to 10 pm, and produce three albums. It is now 2 years after the wedding and Shane does not have the pictures. He wants his money back. David tries to explain why he has not provided the pictures after 2 years. He went out of business and claims to have reached out to his clients. When he did not get a reply to his e-mail to Shane, he did not do anything else. Why? He really does not have a good answer to this question. Shane had an attorney send David a letter requesting the pictures. David replied to the attorney and sent the proofs. This does not satisfy the contract they had together. Now, Shane wants all of the pictures and the entire $2700.00 back. He cannot get both. David turns over the wedding pictures and Shane is awarded $1200.00. After all, court is about making you whole, not getting a bonanza. I love when the Judge says this! It is a shame when a business person treats their customer in this fashion. I am so glad that Shane and Amanda finally have their wedding pictures.

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

Life is not a final. It's daily pop quizzes.

-Unknown 

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

Life Lessons Continued

Thank you for joining me on this journey...

The most recent episode of People's Court has new lessons for us. Be careful of contracts. Of course, it is important to have a  contract.  Written is the best, but even a verbal contract is good. A meeting of the minds is what we need to remember. The young woman wants her security deposit back, even though she did not give the proper amount of notice. She had a lease and read into it what she wanted it to say. We often do this, since we want to believe we are in the right. Unfortunately, she did not follow the agreement to the letter and did not get her money back. She understood what the judge explained to her and that will benefit her in the future. Another case, a man rented a Winnebago. Again, there was a written contract. More detail would have been a benefit to both sides. When the vehicle was returned 6 days early, the men should have discussed and documented the condition of the vehicle. Also, if  he was going to get any money back for returning the vehicle early. When people are unhappy with the verdict, they say the judge did not understand. And the woman with the dog, blaming the groomer for a skin condition. She waited six days to take her dog to the vet. The vet did not connect the dog's condition to the recent grooming. Once again, the person bringing the case, did not seem to learn from the experience.

We learned that contracts should be very specific, read before you sign. With rental vehicles, document the condition before and after. When a pet is injured, go to the vet right away.

A heartwarming story on Anderson. Igor, over 7 ft. tall, needs shoes that fit him. They are very expensive and he has reached out to the public to help. Until now, the family did everything themselves. Having proper shoes will enable him to get out of the house. Walking is difficult for him and also the shoes he wears continue to cause him to have additional health problems. Anderson put together people to help him. New shoes, new wardrobe and a new mattress. Igor was genuinely overwhelmed by this generosity. I hope Anderson checks in with Igor in the future, so we can share in his happiness. Please remember in these difficult times, people are kind.

Thought for the day:

Acts of kindness are their own reward.