Surprise Tuesday Blog: RESPECT in the Workplace: June 18, 2013

A familiar theme: Respect.

Why do people feel the need to treat each other poorly in the workplace? 

The workplace: this is somewhere you spend much of your time. You spend more time at the workplace than you do at home. Think about it, your co-workers should become a second family. Maybe they do! Family feels very comfortable to treat each other poorly, we see it all the time. People's Court is a place where we see family suing each other all the time. So why am I surprised that co-workers and bosses have the audacity to treat others with less than RESPECT.

I am at my job for many years. I have always treated my co-workers and superiors with respect and expect the same in return. It does not happen.

What happened to The Golden Rule? Do unto others as you would expect them to do unto you. This is something we learn in kindergarten or before if you have parents that teach it. The practice of public humiliation is not expected in the workplace. Someone who chooses this approach as a way to manage their staff is severely lacking in ... oh so much!

When you have good people working for you, it is time to acknowledge and appreciate them. For over twenty years, I was treated with respect and then ... a change in management. How quickly things can change.

Which brings me to the next question ... Why does someone who gets power and control abuse it?

I am thinking this is an age-old question with many answers and yet, no answers. A study in human nature. What I do know is that we are all people who deserve respect from each other. We need to be at work. We need to feel appreciated on some level. I know, I know, we get a paycheck, we should not expect thanks. But ... we should not get treated poorly. What do you think?

Shout-out  to Megan!

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Maybe together we can figure this out. 

Thank you for joining me today.

Please check out this animal rescue group and find it in your heart to support their efforts. 

Many of the fundraisers are NO COST TO YOU!

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/NJ617.html

Shopping Fundraiser:

 

People's Court Blog - 1 30 2013 - Wednesday

Today's cases include a defective diamond ring, an unprofessional caterer and a landlord that does not follow the rules. In all of these cases the plaintiffs have been wronged and have chosen the forum of small claims court to make it right.

Frank is suing Denise and Oleg for $5000.00. 

Denise and Oleg have a jewelry store. Frank purchased an engagement ring from them. The ring is in court, his new wife is not. They are newly married and she does not come to court to be at her husband's side. She is a schoolteacher and has a work related commitment. **Spoiler alert**: Her absence does not hurt the case! Frank explains that his wife had fallen in love with the ring - it is gorgeous! The problem is the diamonds kept falling out. When they would return to the store, Denise would take the ring back and have it fixed. The replacement diamonds were not as nice as the original diamonds. The entire ring was supposed to have been  replaced the second time it went back. The receipt shown to the Judge states the ring was replaced and the original diamonds were used. WHAT? This does not make sense. That is not a replacement. Frank wants his money back. He has a right to be satisfied with the purchase of the ring. Denise claims the ring has been abused and that is why the diamonds keep falling out. How does a schoolteacher abuse a diamond ring? 

The Judge rules in favor of Frank. Not for $5000.00. He did not pay $5000.00 for the ring. It cost $2300.00 and that is what he gets back.

In the hallway, he expresses disappointment for not being able to keep the ring, after all, it has sentimental value. Are you kidding me? He wants the money and the ring! What world does he live in?

Rhonda and Michael are suing Demetrius for $3100.00.

**Clementine Weather**

What is clementine weather?- stay tuned for the answer!

Demetrius is a distant relative that runs a catering company, Untamed Flavors. When Rhonda and Michael hired Demetrius to cater their wedding they did not expect substandard service. They expected to get good food and professional service. What they received was poorly cooked, pre-made foods served by children. 

Rhonda and Michael have complaints about the quality of the food from their friends and family in writing and in person. The chicken was overcooked and dry, the ribs were undercooked and had little sauce and the potatoes were from a box. Even worse, the boxes from the food were in plain site to the guests. Demetrius defends his foodservice by claiming the weather was bad that day, so the cooking was moved from outside grills to inside. After all, in his contract he has a clause about clementine weather, About what? Yes, you read it correctly! Clementine weather - oh he means inclement weather. This is so funny!!!! It is actually written in the contract as clementine weather!  Now, back to the case...Rhonda and Michael say the weather was fine. Either way, it does not excuse the quality of the food. Demetrius explains the children were a last minute addition because some of his staff did not show. I think Rhonda and Michael have a right to be unhappy about 12 year olds and 16 year olds serving at their wedding. 

Rhonda and Michael win the case. They get back a portion of the payment, $1854.00. 

In the hallway, Demetrius continues to defend his food and claims they are all exaggerating. After all, who can go away unhappy, when there is clementine weather!

Sharday is suing Darin for $1103.88. 

Darin has a countersuit for $1036.09.

Sharday rented one side of a duplex from Darin. At the time she rented it, the other side was unoccupied. Darin told her she could park in the driveway until someone moved in. When the other side was rented, she would have to park on the street. After 2 months, Darin rented the other side. Sharday did not want to park in the street, spoke to Darin and he told her she could move out. Sharday said they dissolved the lease and Darin was going to give her back her $750.00 security deposit. Darin did not return it. He claims Sharday left the apartment unclean and damaged the storm door. He does not have proof of $750.00 worth of expenses. The Judge allows him to keep $75.00. Sharday is happy to get back $675.00.  Darin's countersuit is dismissed because he cannot prove he is out over $1.000.00 in damages and clean-up fees.

In the hallway, Sharday continues to explain that Darin was an unprofessional and incompetent landlord. Darin needs to learn the responsibilities of a landlord and provide an itemized list when he is not returning the security deposit. It is not enough to make up a written list and claim he is out much more. After all, it is about proving your case with evidence in the People's Court!

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 29 2013 - Tuesday

Steven is suing Warren for $3270.00. 

Steven does advertising for local businesses. He approached Warren who owns a dry cleaning business. Usually Steven receives 50% upfront and the remainder when the job is completed. For some reason he did not conduct business as usual in this case.

He does the whole job before having Warren sign a contract and receive payment. Warren gives him a check for $400.00 and the check bounces. He lets Warren know and it turns out this account was closed three years ago. Warren does pay the $12.00 bank fee for the bounced check. He does not pay the $400.00 for the job. Warren cancels the job. Steven puts another dry cleaner ad into the advertising project.

When Warren is asked why he signed the contract, he claims he did not know it was a contract! Really! Who is he insulting? Himself or the Judge? He tells the Judge he does not think she is stupid, so that leaves...himself!!!! Warren also says there was another dry cleaner ad, yet this was done after he cancelled the job. 

Steven has added many other expenses into the lawsuit. He is entitled to the money from the advertising job, not beefing it up to have a bonanza. Court is about making a person whole. The Judge finds in favor of Steven for $400.00, court costs and pre-judgement interest. It is a good day for everyone! Warren admits he did not look good and Steven still feels he was entitled to a lot more money.

Sarah is suing Felicia for $800.00. 

This is for the remainder of her security deposit. Sarah entered into a roommate agreement with Felicia. She lived in the apartment for 6 months. Felicia was only there a few times. At the fourth month, Felicia left a note for Sarah, telling her she was not happy with the cleanliness of the apartment and to confirm her move out date. Sarah did not feel the apartment was messy. Her mother was even visiting at the time and confirmed that she was an able housekeeper. Everyone has different standards!

The pictures Felicia shows tell their own story. Once again a picture is worth a thousand words. In the pictures, you see dirt, hairballs (there was no pet!), footprints on the wall!, an unclean stove top and dirty floors. Sarah says she cleaned after this. Why didn't Sarah take pictures? That would have solved the whole dilemma. 

Felicia cannot prove the amount for the cleaning of the apartment. The Judge finds in favor of Sarah but lets Felicia keep some of the security deposit. Sarah gets back $656.00. This is not the total amount she was asking, but is still a nice amount of money. The question is: Is it worth it to humiliate yourself in public for this amount of money? What do you think?

George is suing Nick for $200.00. 

This is for the cost of a door for a Chevy Suburban. Nick owns a junkyard. He sold George several parts for the Chevy Suburban. George wants to use the vehicle as a shed. What difference does it make if the door is dented? When George installed the door on his vehicle, the door would not close. This would be crucial, a shed door would need to close! Nick is not surprised by this problem, since the Suburban had auto body damage. When George brought the door back, he was offered store credit, not a cash refund. Neither of the parties have paperwork to prove the policy of no cash refunds. The Judge calls for a recess to give Nick a chance to get proof of his policy. He shows a picture of a sign in his store, George admits he saw the sign. He is just tired of being taken advantage of. He just wants his money back. He does not want store credit. I feel his frustration, sometimes it just does not seem fair! But, this is about the legality of the situation. George does not get his money back. In the hallway, George says when he is busy shopping, he does not always read the signs.

It is important to know the policies of the store you are in. Be aware of the signage around you and also read your receipt. Many times the receipt will have return policies written on it. Knowledge is power!

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 28 2013 - Monday

New cases today!

Joan is suing Joseph, her longtime neighbor of 40 years, for $3000.00. 

It seems that Joseph constructed a roof from his shed to the fence along the property line. This caused water to be diverted towards Joan's property. Joan believes this water damaged her shed. The shed is over 20 years old. The damage shown in the pictures does not seem to be caused by water. It could be caused by age. Joan's witness is the person that built her shed and admits he did not get a permit. This is a great example of not throwing stones when you live in a glass house! Joan called the city on Joseph. He did have to remove the roof extension he constructed. Joan is also going to be in trouble with the city, since her shed was built without a permit and is too close to the property line.

Since the structures are illegal, the Judge finds in favor of Joseph. She warns them both that their troubles are not over since they need to comply with the city's regulations. 

What prompts Joan to call the city on her friend and neighbor? She does not like that Joseph walks in her yard and does anything he pleases. Joseph's wife feels Joan is a troublemaker. Such a shame that after all of these years these people do not get along anymore. To know each other for so many years is a relationship to cherish, not destroy! What do you think?

Vita is suing Walter, her husband, for $5000.00. 

This is for rent that she says he owes for the past 6 years. Walter has a countersuit for $5000.00 for harassment and defamation of character. This couple is breaking up and Vita wants Walter to pay back rent for the whole time they have been together. Why would she let him not pay rent for all of that time? Vita says it was an abusive relationship. She did get an order of protection and he has moved out of the rent controlled apartment. They are in the middle of divorce proceedings. 

The Judge tells them both that there are consequences to the decisions they have made. If someone does not pay rent, you do not let it continue for 6 years. Walter's countersuit is because he has suffered mental anguish because he has been sued. Really! 

It is no surprise that Vita and Walter both lose their cases. In the hallway, Vita says life goes on. Walter says he feels decent about the decision. What a shame that these two people have to continue going after each other in court when they just need to end the relationship. There comes a time when a relationship is over and both people just need to cut their losses and move on. What do you think?

Cary is suing Vincent for $2035.00. 

Vincent was going to rent an apartment from Cary. He signed a lease and gave her a check for $2000.00. Before he moved in, he stopped payment on the check. What reason does Vincent give for backing out on the deal and not paying the money? The IRS came after him for a past tax bill for almost $150,000. Vincent does not seem to understand that it is his problem, not Cary's. We would expect Vincent to understand since he is a financial advisor! He admits he is embarrassed to say what he does for a living. He loses the case and admits in the hallway that he looked like an idiot!

Thank you Vincent for being honest! This does not happen enough in the People's Court! Hopefully he will work out his problems with the IRS. Meanwhile, Vincent needs to realize when he signs an agreement he needs to see it through. Good luck to all!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 4 2013 - Friday

Still playing catch-up......

Tyler is suing George for $1396.60. 

This is for back rent and the value of some items that George took. Tyler and George are college students and were friends. It is sad when a friendship is lost over this type of situation. Tyler needed a roommate for the summer, since his current roommate, Albert, was going away for the summer. George agreed to move in.... and this is all everyone agrees to as facts. Tyler says they agreed on $350.00 a month rent and $100.00 towards the utilities. George says this is not true. Unfortunately, George's story keeps changing. At first he says there was no agreement for rent, then he says his medical bills from the car accident were a trade-off. Wait! if you were not supposed to pay rent, why would you trade-off the medical bills.

George's story is all over the place. Also, these two friends think taking belongings from each other serve as collateral, when it is actually stealing!

George needs to pay Tyler for the rent and the utilities. The Judge finds in favor of Tyler for $1350.00. He cannot prove that George stole from him. Also, if George sustained injuries in a car accident, he needs to go through Tyler's insurance for the money.

The shame of all of this is the lost friendship. George should not have expected to live rent free and take advantage of Tyler's friendship. Just because Tyler's dad pays his part of the rent, is no reason to think he was going to pay for George also. Friendships needs to be valued.

James is suing Annette and the housing corporation for $4900. 

James claims his room was broken into and someone stole his belongings. Why on earth would Annette and the housing corporation be responsible for this?  At first he told Annette that 3 items were stolen and then he kept adding to the list. He claimed he did not notice the other items were missing because they were in the closet. Why wouldn't you do a thorough check when you know your room has been broken into?

There was a surveillance camera that showed James leaving his room and then going back in the room. After that, the camera goes dark. The controls for the camera are in his room. This is all very suspect. Also, James lost his job that day. He claims it is because of being late due to the burglary There is proof of issues during his probationary period at the job, lateness, etc.

Annette did offer James $600.00 after he said his possessions were taken. He claims she offered him $1200.00. Either way, it does not matter, since James did not move out when he was asked to, staying an additional 10 days, that was not authorized, he did not receive any money.

James cannot prove he is out $4900 and loses the case. In the hallway, he says he is disappointed and such is life. Annette says she never believed his room was burglarized.

People need to be able to prove their case. Just saying something was stolen or someone offered you money is not good enough for court. It is important to have proof when you go to court. 

Kathleen is suing Alan's gym for $333.00. 

This is for membership fees to a gym. Kathleen claims she asked for her membership to be frozen when she was unable to go to the gym for medical reasons. Kathleen says she showed the person working at the desk a note from her doctor and was told she could freeze her membership. The gym actually has a policy for freezing a membership. Alan explains that someone can freeze their membership for 2 months. Anything longer than that, especially the year Kathleen wanted, would have been handled differently. They would have had her cancel the membership and then reinstate it.

Kathleen seems to be very unorganized. She says she asked for the membership to be frozen for a few months, yet expected it to be frozen for a year. Also, the letter from her doctor states a few months, not a year. She does not seem to understand that a few months is not a year. Also, she continued to pay the membership throughout the year. She states that she did not notice anything because she paid her daughter's membership. The monthly fee would have been different, wouldn't it? The way she found out the membership was not frozen was when she went to return to the gym, asked for it to be unfrozen and was told it had never been frozen, Well, actually it had, for 2 months. Both sides have trouble with record-keeping!!! So complicated!!!!!

Kathleen is very upset after losing the case, yet never mentions if her daughter continues to be a member, I wonder!!!!! Alan says that he offered her perks to stay on as a member, but she was did not accept. I think she should have taken him up on the perks since she is the one who did not handle this properly. What do you think?

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

Stay updated - Subscribe!

Did anyone notice the close-up of the Judge's fingernails? I really liked her manicure. Such a pretty color!!!!!!

People's Court Blog - 1 3 2013 - Thursday

It is time to play catch-up! Here are the cases from January 3, 2013:

Joseph and John are suing Benjamin and his business for $2903.50. 

This includes the cost of a 1986 motorcycle, pain and suffering, mileage and tow costs. When they bought the motorcycle from Benjamin they received a 30 day warranty. Benjamin calls it a guarantee. What is the difference? Benjamin does not know what the difference is and he is the one who gave it!!! 10-12 days after buying the motorcycle, it would not start. When they called Benjamin, he said it would cost $300 to diagnose the problem. This is not the way a warranty or guarantee works. Benjamin claims they wanted to modify the bike, when they were looking to replace the chain and the sprocket. Most of what Benjamin says in response to questions does not make any sense. 

Benjamin needs to learn to sell the motorcycles as-is, if he is not going to honor a warranty or guarantee. He claims he does not run a business, he works out of his garage. He also needs to learn how to speak in court - he called Douglas, pal! That is not proper! 

The good news for Joseph and John is that they win the case. They do not get pain and suffering, it is a contract case! They do get back $1653.50. They are satisfied with the outcome. 

Buying a vehicle, car or motorcycle requires two important steps. One is a test drive, the other is having a mechanic look at the vehicle. Joseph and John did neither. They are very lucky that Benjamin gave them a warranty (guarantee) and breached the contract. Otherwise, they might have been stuck with the purchase of the 1986 motorcycle.

Iris is suing Louis and the Realty Corporation for $2000.00.

Iris wants her security deposit back. Louis, a realty broker showed her an apartment in mid April. She signed a lease and gave Louis $2000.00 out of the $3000.00 required. She could not get the additional money and let Louis know she was trying to get it. Then she called Louis and let him know she was not going to take the apartment. He had given $800.00 to the landlord and kept $1200.00 for his fee. 

Neither party has any paperwork to show the Judge. Iris claims the paperwork stated only $50.00 was non-refundable. Unfortunately, she does not have the paperwork. Louis should have proof, but no, he does not have it either!

How can people come to court so unprepared?

Why would Iris think she should get back her money? She held up the apartment from being rented to someone else. There is a cost to changing your mind! Iris does not get her money back and Louis actually received a brokers fee twice for the rental of the apartment. He does not seem very trustworthy, but he is entitled to the fee. 

People need to realize there are consequences to their actions. You cannot make a decision and not know it does not have an impact. When you put a deposit on an apartment, no one else can rent it. If you do not go through with the deal, then the landlord has lost the opportunity to rent it to someone else. I hope Iris has learned from this experience, it was a very expensive lesson!

Rachel sues Levy for $1643.54.

Rachel lives next to Levy's rental property. After a very severe windstorm, debris from Levy's roof landed on Rachel's car. She took the debris off the car and went to work. When she had a chance to look at her car, she saw it was scratched. She got in touch with Levy to let him know about the damage. Once he found out the amount of the estimate, he said it was an act of God and he was not responsible for the damages. 

How is it that someone would agree that they are responsible until they find out the cost? Scratches on cars are expensive to repair.  Levy keeps saying he never saw the damages and it could have been a different car. Well, it was not a different car, Rachel has pictures! Also, Levy needs to repair his roof. The pictures of the roof show that it is not in very good shape.

Rachel wins the case and gets the amount for the lower estimate, which is $1335.02.

I do not understand why people do not take responsible for their own property. Even losing this case does not seem to enlighten Levy. In the hallway, he is still saying his roof is in good shape. Really!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 16 2013 - Wednesday

Anthony is suing a Furniture Company for $2395.25.

Anthony purchased a leather sectional sofa and a cocktail table for $2395.25 two years ago. The sofa had a one year warranty. When the sofa began to fall apart, Anthony contacted the store. David, the manager offered to repair the problem but Anthony would have to pay for labor. Anthony did not like this solution and is suing for the entire purchase price. In court, David, the manager is explaining the sofa is bonded leather. This is not written on the receipt. On the receipt it only has the model no. of the sofa and does not even list the cost of the cocktail table. David explains that the sofa is not leather and is bonded leather. Except for describing bonded leather as including 17% leather, he does not give a clear description. Anthony thought he was purchasing a leather sofa. He shows pictures of the damage and it is so true that a picture is worth a thousand words. Anthony also brought pieces of the sofa to show how it is falling apart. 

The Judge takes a recess and when she returns reads a  description of bonded leather. According to the leather council this particular material is vinyl and not leather. The Judge finds in favor of Anthony and he receives $1900.00. The cocktail table was valued at $300.00. David needs to pick up the sofa as soon as possible.

It is unethical to advertise a product that is not truly leather and call it leather. It is not stated on any information or advertising from David's furniture store that they sell bonded leather. I am so glad Anthony pursued this and brought it to court. He deserves to get his money back. What do you think?

Susan is suing John's Home Improvement Company for $2163.33

Susan hired John's company to repair her roof. They gave her an estimate after looking at the damage. The damage to her roof was caused by a raccoon. The pictures of the damage are very impressive. Once again, a picture is worth a thousand words! The estimate was for $4000.00. Once they started the work, they realized the damage was much more extensive than they originally thought. It was not until they removed the gutter and the fascia, that they were able to see the extent of the damage. When they brought this to Susan's attention, she just wanted them to do the original work. She signed a document to waive the warranty, since she was not going to have the additional work done. The work was going to resume the next day.

After they left on the first day, Susan had a change of heart. She said she was not happy that no one spoke English. Also, she did not trust they were going to return to finish the job. She went to the bank to stop payment on her check, only to find out it was already cashed. She called to tell John not to come back the next day. 

Since Susan is the one to breach the contract, she does not get her deposit back. She had also included in the lawsuit the extra money she had to pay getting the work done by another company. She does not get this money either. If she did not cancel the job, she probably would have won the case if they did not return to finish the job. The problem is that she did not give them a chance to do the job. I do not understand why she acted this way and then to sue them, it does not make sense. What do you think?

Kelvin is suing Guiseppe and Risa for $271.56

Kelvin was driving past Guiseppe's house and the side window of his car shattered. Since Guiseppe was weedwhacking near the road, Kelvin felt that a stone broke the window. He stopped to talk to Guiseppe and also called the police. 

It is fairly straightforward for a civil case. The Judge explains that the proof only needs to be more likely than not. It makes sense that is could have happened that way. That a stone could have been thrown by the weedwhacker and broke the window. In this type of case, you never know for sure. Since it is more likely than not, Guiseppe and Risa are found responsible for the cost of the damage to the window. 

It is very important when working near the road to be aware of cars passing. Mowing or weedwhacking could cause a stone to be thrown toward the cars. Always stop and wait until the car passes. Also, be aware of cars parked in your own driveway. I know personally of a window being shattered when the lawnmower was operated too closely to a parked car. It is a very expensive mistake!

Thank you for joining me.

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 14 2013 - Monday

Alexis is suing Frances for $1480.00.

Frances has a countersuit.

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

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

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

Omari is suing Nathaniel for $5000.00.

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

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

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

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

Selena and Omer sue Cesar for $2800.00

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 9 2013 - Wednesday

HAPPY NEW YEAR! 

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

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

Edwin and Helen sues Althea for $1120.00

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

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

Ralph sues Pete for $2217.60

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

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

Good luck to all for this wonderful New Year!

People's Court Blog - 10 23 2012 - Tuesday

Working For A Living

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

Friends?

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

Permission To Park

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

I can, therefore I am.

~Simone Weil

People's Court Blog - 10 19 2012 - Friday

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

Friends Fighting
Regina is suing Tamika for $5000.00.

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

Dog Attack

Michael is suing Ilene for $1307.91.

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

Collateral Damage
Mark is suing Michael for $7000.00.

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.

~Plutarch

People's Court Blog - 10 18 2012 - Thursday

Lawn Maintenance

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

Parking Tickets

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

Hot Tub Cover

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

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

~O. Henry

People's Court Blog-10 17 2012-Wednesday

An iPhone And Promise Rings

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

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

Drag Racing Quilts

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

The Chimney Needs a Permit

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

Please share your thoughts in the comments. 

Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Life is half spent before we know what it is.

~George Herbert

People's Court Blog - 10 16 2012 - Tuesday

A 4 Year Old Driver

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

A Yankee Weekend

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

A Cuban Gold Necklace

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

~Bertrand Russell

People's Court Blog - 10 15 2012 - Monday

Snickers And Scorpio

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

The Harmonica Player 

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

The Pitter Patter Of Little Feet

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

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

~James M. Barrie

People's Court Blog - 10 12 2012 - Friday

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

Kira And The Beast In The Basement

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

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

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

Michaele And The Lame Horse

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

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

Wendy And The Leased Car

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

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

~Thomas Edison

People's Court Blog - 10 11 2012 - Thursday

Gary And The Disrespectful Veteran

Gary is suing David for $1500.00. This is for rent and miscellaneous bills. Both of these men are veterans. Gary helped David in his time of need. David does not even seem appreciative for the help Gary gave him. He let him move in with him, no money up front. He did this for him because they are both veterans and David believes this is how a veteran should behave. David cries poverty, yet he is dressed to kill. The Judge actually inspects his clothing and details the designer names he is wearing. David is no pauper! Gary has a promissory note signed by David. He will get back the $1100.00 for rent. Unfortunately the money Gary spent renting a U-Haul and moving David's belongings will not be recouped. There was no agreement between the two men for these expenses. Gary did this on his own, out of the kindness of his heart! To add insult to injury, David has a countersuit against Gary for $1100.00. Is he kidding? Maybe if he would have paid his rent in the first place we would not be here! This money is for David's rent in his new apartment. The Judge throws this case out so quickly, if you blink you will miss it! Shame on you David! In the hallway, Gary plays a song called the Winner's Song! What a fun guy he is! It is a shame that David took advantage of him, he should be ashamed of himself! Thank you both for your service, and also thanks to you Gary for being such a honest and caring person!

Sue Ellen And The Dog Attack

Sue Ellen is suing Amy for $515.00. This is for the vet bills to treat her dog, Sonny, after he was attacked by Amy's dog. Sue Ellen was taking Sonny for a walk, a short walk, as she described it. Sonny had on his walking gear, he always dons it prior to leaving the house. It is very apparent that Sue Ellen is devoted to Sonny. While they were walking past Amy's house, a large dog ran towards them and attacked Sonny. Sue Ellen was horrified and could not separate the two large dogs. Amy tried to help and was not successful. Two teenage boys were able to separate the dogs. They should be commended for their bravery. In these type of situations, you never know what could happen. After all, dogs are animals and operate on instincts. One of the teenagers even wrote a letter for the court describing the incident. 

Amy's rendition of the story is so far-fetched. She claims she was sitting on her porch, her dog not on a leash but wearing a harness. When her dog saw Sue Ellen and Sonny, he ran off the porch and Amy held tight to his harness. She was dragged into the road and Sue Ellen let go of Sonny's leash and  her dog was attacked. And then what happened? Did she drop the harness and then try to separate the dogs? This makes no sense at all. Even if it did happen this way and that would be a major  s t  r  e  t  c  h...She still did not have control of her dog. Why on earth would Sue Ellen drop the leash? 

After the two dogs were separated and Sue Ellen got Sonny home, his injuries were not apparent. Within a couple of days, he was shaking his head and not acting right. Sonny had injuries to his ear, required stitches, a drain and the awful embarrassing cone around his neck! Amy is 100% responsible to pay the vet bills. Oh and the lattice panels Amy put up after the fact do not look strong enough to hold in her large dog! Hopefully Sue Ellen and Sonny have devised a new walking route!

Jessica And 44 Missing Items

Jessica is suing a Valet Parking Company for $3880.00. This is for the cost of items in her car that went missing when she had her car valet parked. Andres is representing the Valet Parking Company. Jessica and her family went to dinner at Ruth Chris Steakhouse. She valet parked her car. The next day she realized the bag with her laptop and books was not on the back seat. She reported it to the restaurant. After that she looked in the trunk of her car and it was empty. She had   many valuable items in the trunk, including 35 team softball shirts. She called to add the additional items to the report. In total, she reported 44 items missing from her car. Why would someone leave an expensive laptop in the car when they choose to valet park? It was on the back seat, in plain view. Anyone could have stolen it at anytime. After all, Jessica did not know it was gone until the next day. It could have been stolen from her car while it was parked in her driveway. Jessica did not have any evidence to prove the valet company was responsible for the loss. The valet parking receipt has a disclaimer regarding missing items; of course they are not responsible. Also, how do you not  notice this right away? Jessica loses her case. Hopefully, there are lessons learned here. Granted they are expensive ones, but we all have to learn somehow. Please make sure all valuables are secure when putting your car into the hands of someone else!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Be so good they can't ignore you.

~Steve Martin

People's Court Blog-10 10 2012-Wednesday

Valeria And The Order Of Protection

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

Bendal And The Impressive Weight Loss

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

Sade And The Book Club

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity;

An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

~Winston Churchill

People's Court Blog - 10 9 2012 - Tuesday

James And Road Rage

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

Shantel And The Lost Friendship

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

Lorraine / Vashti And The House In Guyana

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Start Where You Are.

Use What You Have.

Do What You Can.

~Arthur Ashe