People's Court - 9 11 2012 - Tuesday

Evette And The Essence Magazine

Evette is suing her neighbor, Cynthia, for $2000.00. This is for an unreturned magazine and for being threatened with bodily harm. Cynthia is counterclaiming for $2000.00 for aggravation and harassment. Evettte lent Cynthia an Essence magazine. Evette paid $3.99 plus tax for the magazine. She wants $1000.00 for it. Evette claims there were unique articles about men in love. Of course there were! Cynthia was unable to find the magazine when Evette asked for it to be returned months later. Evette claims that Cynthia threatened to hit her. This sounds like a very drama filled apartment building. They have even called the police when they have been fighting. The police officer told them that if he had to come back he would lock both of them up. This should have been enough for them to stop behaving like children. Unfortunately it was not. 2 days before this court case. Evette called Child Protective Services on Cynthia. Evette claimed that Cynthia's 2 year old baby  never stops crying. Evette's behavior is so malicious that the Judge awards Cynthia the $2000.00. Evette wasted city resources to hurt Cynthia. If Evette was so worried about the welfare of the child she should have called sooner. Instead she waits until right before the court case. This is very calculated. 

Evette does not get any money. Both women are told by the Judge that neither of them is innocent. Evette is crazy to behave this way. Cynthia needs to focus on her family and her miracle baby. In the hallway, Evette does not seem to have been affected by what the Judge told her. Cynthia tells us that she is 46 years old and her baby is a miracle. This is where she needs to spends her time and energy, not fighting with a neighbor. What do you think?

Samuel And The Totaled Truck

Samuel is suing Hilda for $2500.00. This is for the cost of a totaled vehicle. Samuel and Hilda dated on and off for a year. Samuel says that Hilda took his truck one day when he was very sick. He claims he did not give her permission to drive it. Hilda says she drove the truck all the time and Samuel was giving it to her. Hilda plays a voicemail that confirms this information. Hilda should not have been driving the truck because she did not have a driver's license. This did not stop Samuel from promising to give the truck to Hilda. After these two had a major breakup involving a fight and a broken television, Samuel wanted Hilda to pay for the totaled vehicle. Hilda says that Samuel is stalking her. She has a restraining order against him. Samuel was arrested and spent a month in Rikers Island prison. Hilda is afraid of him. She says she is living in a shelter for battered women. The Judge tells Samuel that he has an unhealthy obsession for Hilda. He needs to forget about her and move on. Samuel says he has moved on and is even engaged. The evidence that Hilda has presented is proof that Samuel wanted her to have the truck. He has no basis to ask her after the breakup for payment. Hilda does not have to pay Samuel for the truck. In the hallway, Hilda says she is glad it is over, wants to be left alone and has moved on. I hope she can find peace and happiness in her life. 

Shaniqua And The Parking Tickets

Shaniqua is suing Clarence for $337.04. This is for parking tickets that Clarence got while driving a car that was registered in Shaniqua's name. Clarence is counterclaiming for $1960.00 for the towed and missing car. Shaniqua and Clarence were friends for a very long time. When Clarence bought a car, he was not able to register it. He only had a driver's permit. Clarence asked Shaniqua to register the car in her name. She should have said no. Letting someone else, with only a driver's permit, drive a car in your name is a huge liability. Clarence started getting parking tickets and did not pay them. He did not even tell his very good friend about the tickets. Shaniqua found out when she received a notice in the mail. Shaniqua says it is 3 unpaid tickets, Clarence says it is 1 unpaid ticket. It does not really matter how many unpaid tickets there are. What matters is that there are unpaid tickets. Shaniqua takes the license plates off the car. After one week, Shaniqua had the car towed. During the week when the plates were removed, Clarence did not do anything to resolve the problem. It is Clarence's fault that the car was impounded. Clarence is not able to prove that he paid the tickets. He is found responsible to pay Shaniqua the $337.04 for the outstanding tickets. Since it is Clarence's fault that the car was impounded, he does not get any money on his counterclaim.

These two people were friends for over 19 years. What a shame that it ends over a situation like this. Shaniqua thought she was being a good friend by doing this favor. I hope she learned her lesson and never does this again. Clarence should not have asked Shaniqua to do this for him. It is a huge  responsibility to put yourself in this position. Clarence did not appreciate what Shaniqua was doing for him. If he did, he would have gotten up earlier and moved his car to avoid the parking tickets! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

September 11, 2001 - We will always remember  - We will never forget!

People's Court Blog - 9 10 2012 - Monday

The Dog Bit My Penis

I apologize for not having the names for the plaintiff and defendant. Due to technical difficulties I missed the first few minutes of the show.

The plaintiff is suing for $6000.00. This is for the pain and suffering from a dog bite to his penis and his hand. When the plaintiff entered the defendant's home, he was attacked by their dog. The dog first grabbed his private area and latched on. The plaintiff was trying to protect himself and get the dog to let go and then the dog bit his hand. The plaintiff went to the emergency room for treatment. The plaintiff claimed he had puncture wounds in his penis. The Judge read the medical reports and this was not confirmed. The plaintiff claimed his girlfriend would not have sex with him. She was in court to testify and did not confirm this information. She said they had to wait a little bit but then if was okay. The plaintiff claimed he now had permanent injuries to his private area. The medical reports do not confirm this. 

Why did the dog bite him? It seems that the defendant's Labrador does not like unfamiliar people in the house. The adults of the house thought the dog was locked up . According to the defendant, the dog has not bit anyone in the past. The reason for locking up the dog is because he gets aggressive ever since they were robbed. It seems the dog was beaten during one of the robberies. This dog is just acting like a dog. It is up to the owners to keep everyone safe. The plaintiff did suffer bites to his hand, he had to get several stitches. The trauma to his penis was physical as well as emotional. He wants to receive the maximum amount of money he can because of the indignity he suffered. The Judge awards him $2,000.00 since he did experience some pain and suffering. The plaintiff does not feel this is enough for the misery and humiliation he has to suffer for the rest of his life.

I think it is terrible that the plaintiff was attacked. He is very fortunate his injuries were not much worse. The dog owner needs to take responsibility for the dog's actions. Having a dog that behaves in this way in a home with young children is asking for trouble. This dog is unpredictable and cannot be trusted. I would hope the family consults an animal behaviorist as long as they are intent on keeping the dog. There is always the chance this could happen again. What do you think?

I Am Here For My Money!

Brian is suing his cousin, Shawn, for $60.00. Yes, this case is about $60.00, It cost Brian $40.00 to file the lawsuit to get back the $60.00. Usually when this occurs it is about the principle. Someone is trying to prove a point. Not in this case! Brian makes it very clear, he just wants his money back. He is not here to teach anyone a lesson. He is here to entertain. Brian is a very engaging man! He is very good with the one-liners. He says he must be living in an Annie musical. The reason for this is that when he asks Shawn for the money back, he tells him tomorrow, tomorrow! Even the way Shawn got the money was entertaining. It seems that the day before Brian got paid he told his wife that money did not grow on trees. When he cashed his paycheck, he took the money and hung it on a ficus tree in their livingroom. I am sure this was very amusing. That same day Shawn came over and asked to borrow money. Brian could not tell him that he did not have any money since Shawn saw the money tree in the livingroom. Brian told Shawn to take some money off the tree. Shawn took $60.00. Shawn told Brian that his mother would pay him back very soon. 

The best part is that Shawn's mother, Carlene, is in court to testify for Brian. Shawn feels that since his mom is going to testify against him, he does not have a chance. A chance of what? He borrowed the money. Now pay it back. Shawn says he has been unemployed and could not pay Brian back. It is $60.00, pay your cousin back! The day that Shawn started a new job, Brian filed to get his money back. Brian waited a year and a half for his money. His wait is over. Shawn has to pay him back! What a shame that family winds up in court over $60.00. Why does it have to come to this? If someone is nice enough to help you out when you are in need, pay them back! What do you think?

"Happy" New Year!

Annette is suing Jon for $1500.00. Annette hired Jon's company to provide a DJ for her New Year's Eve Party. She paid $300.00 for the DJ. The day before the party, Annette received a call from Jon's company and was told that the DJ was in a car accident. They offered her a refund or she could go with another company for an additional $200.00. Annette told them she would take the refund. Annette also told them she would like an e-mail confirmation. That was the best idea! The e-mail confirmation sinks Jon's testimony. Jon  tells the Judge that Annette cancelled the DJ and this is why she could not get a refund. When he reads the e-mail from his own secretary, he claims that she made up the story. Really! It looks like Jon's company was cancelling the DJ either because they overbooked or they were looking for more money. Jon denies this and maintains that Annette cancelled her party. Maybe he should have brought his secretary to court to tell her side of the story.

It gets better! When Annette contacted her bank regarding this transaction, she was given provisional credit while the bank was investigating. Jon had the nerve to lie to the bank and the provisional credit was reversed. Annette was charged by the bank and she has included these fees in her lawsuit. She is also suing for pain and suffering and the cost of a replacement DJ. Annette has turned a $300.00 lawsuit into a $1500.00 lawsuit! Does she get everything she is asking for? No, but she does get the bank fees, her refund for the DJ and punitive damages. This adds up to $668.00. The punitive damages cover the cost of the replacement DJ since Jon's actions were malicious. I think Jon needs to look into his business practices and have more respect for his customers. Annette was very smart to have requested the confirmation e-mail. This won the case for her! Also, it sounds like the New Year's Eve Party was fun and everyone had a great time bringing in the New Year!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

What's life without whimsy?

- Dr. Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory

People's Court Blog - 9 7 2012 - Friday

Erika And The Car Accident

Erika is suing Glenda for $5000.00. Glenda is counterclaiming for $3500.00. Both women and Erika's boyfriend were in a terrible car accident. They are all fortunate to have survived this crash. A car hit Glenda's van and she lost control and landed on top of Erika's car. Both cars burst into flames minutes after everyone got out of the vehicles. Why are they both suing each other? Erika did not have collision for her vehicle. Glenda did not have car insurance at all. She had lapsed in her payments. This is a terrible situation for both of them. Both vehicles were totaled. This accident was not the fault of either driver. Neither of them will recover on their lawsuits against each other. 

These three people are very lucky to be alive. The lesson in this case is that life is short and we need to appreciate every moment. No one knows what the day will bring for them. Glenda says that she was thinking of her children when her car spun out of control and flew into Erika's car. She just wanted to see them again. Everyone involved in this accident is conscious of the fact they were lucky to walk away. With that in mind, it is also very important to keep insurance up to date. Keeping proper coverage on our vehicle will provide us with financial protection. The person that caused this accident fled the scene and is the one who is  responsible for all of the financial burdens. What do you think?

Claire / Ivan And The Dow Museum

Claire and Ivan are suing Bernard's hospitality business for $2749.62. This is the amount of the deposit they gave for their wedding reception. Bernard is the exclusive caterer for the Dow Museum. This is in St. Augustine, Florida. The Dow Museum encompasses a group of historic homes that are routinely used for catered events. Both Claire and Ivan had attended a wedding at the Dow Museum and fell in love with it. They wanted to be married there. When they called to inquire about the procedure, they were told to call Bernard. He has the exclusive catering contract for this venue. Claire and Ivan met with Bernard in June 2011, signed a contract, and gave him a deposit for half of the estimated cost. Their wedding date was set for October 20, 2012. In January of this year, Claire and Ivan visited the Dow Museum. They were told the museum was being sold and weddings were being cancelled. They immediately contacted Bernard to find out what was happening with their wedding. 

At first, Bernard said he would give the money back. Then, he changed his mind and wanted to cater the event at another venue. He felt they had a contract and they should not be able to cancel it and get their money back. Bernard is missing the point. Claire and Ivan wanted their wedding at the Dow Museum. They had to hire him as the caterer, since he was the exclusive caterer for the Dow Museum. Claire and Ivan will get back their entire deposit. This is only right. They are so happy and can now continue with their wedding plans. The lesson here is to realize what is right. Bernard had to have known the reason he was hired was because of their desire for the Dow Museum. It would have been the right thing to do to return their deposit when they asked. It would have been the right business decision. What do you think?

Anastasia And Her Cousin

Anastasia is suing her cousin, Donna, for $5000.00. $750.00 is the pay Anastasia was entitled for work. Anastasia worked for Donna at a daycare center for several years. After Donna's mother had an issue with Anastasia, Donna did not want to pay her. Donna's mother felt Anastasia had stolen medicine and money from her. It seemed Donna paid Anastasia cash to avoid paying taxes. Yet after Anastasia stopped working for her, Donna filed a 1099. This seems rather spiteful. Donna admits paying Anastasia $750.00 a pay period. Donna has no way to prove that she has paid Anastasia. She keeps a ledger of payments, but does not include cash payments she is hiding for tax purposes. Anastasia is entitled to her pay. What else is she asking for that adds up to $5000.00? Anastasia wants the money she now has to pay the IRS since Donna filed a 1099. Really! Also she wants pain and suffering. For what? Anastasia claims she is behind on her bills and this has caused her pain and suffering. She is not able to recover this money.

Anastasia does get her $750.00. She is not happy with this and does not feel that inflating the lawsuit was wrong. The lesson here is family and business do not mix well. Also, cheating the government is a really bad idea. Why do people find it so easy to cheat and lie?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Be miserable. Or motivate yourself. Whatever has to be done, it is always your choice.

~ Wayne Dyer

People's Court Blog - 9 6 2012 - Thursday

Michelle And The Rented Room

Michelle is suing Ron for $2917.74. Ron rented a room in his house to Michelle that he advertised on Craigslist. She rented it sight unseen. When she arrived to move in, it was late and she was exhausted. She met Ron and a woman. The next night he had a different woman over. The next night another woman. This made Michelle feel very uncomfortable. Then she noticed Ron had moved her basket of dirty laundry from the laundry room to the kitchen. This really bothered her. Why was it such a big deal? Michelle says the thought of Ron touching her things made her feel uncomfortable. If she thinks that made her feel uncomfortable, now she finds out that Ron had surveillance cameras in the house. Wow, this is really surprising and strange. Ron explains that he had other roommates that he had to watch over. I wondered what Michelle would have done if she knew about the cameras when she lived there! Michelle decided to move out and told Ron. She moved out within the week that she told him. In doing this, she did not give him proper notice. Michelle is not entitled to get her rent money back. Part of the money she is suing for is the security deposit. After she moved out, Ron did not send her an itemized notification of why he was keeping the security deposit. It is a law for a landlord to notify the tenant about the security deposit. Because Ron did not do this, Michelle gets double the security deposit. That is the only money that Michelle can recover in this case. The home was not uninhabitable because Ron had different women sleep over and moved Michelle's dirty laundry. If Ron would have sent the proper notification, Michelle would not have recovered any of her money. Michelle needs to find her own apartment and not be a roommate to anyone. She does not seem flexible to someone else's lifestyle. What do you think?

Octavia And Free Storage

Octavia is suing Henry for $1971.98. This is for two television sets that were stolen from Henry's house. Octavia was going to rent a house from Henry. The first house she looked at would not fit her bedroom furniture. Henry had another house that would be available soon that would be work for Octavia. She agreed to this rental if the house passed a Section 8 inspection. There were corrections that Henry had to make and this was taking time. Octavia asked Henry if she could store her belongings in the house while she waited. She said she could not afford to put the furniture in storage. Henry agreed to let Octavia store her belongings at the house. He let her use one of the bedrooms and the garage. Henry had Robert staying at the house while the work was being done. Robert said he was there for several months and then his friend, Brian, stayed there. One night Brian called and said someone broke in the house. He did not know if anything was stolen. Henry was notified and the police were called.

When Henry found out about the break-in, he called Octavia. Henry had been asking Octavia to move her things out for months. Initially, he set a date of September 1st. Octavia was not able to get her things removed by that date. The break-in was on October 26th. If Octavia had removed everything when Henry had asked, her televisions would not have been stolen. Why would Henry be responsible for the cost of the television sets? There are numerous text messages between Henry and Octavia. Henry kept asking her to remove the items and Octavia kept stalling. The Judge rules that Henry is not responsible for the cost of the television sets. If Octavia had such expensive items, she should have sold something to pay for a storage unit. It is a shame that Octavia would want Henry to pay for the televisions sets. It is her fault that they were in the house at the time of the break-in. Henry was being nice letting her keep her things at the house. He offered her free storage. Henry says in the future, he will get a written agreement when he does something nice for someone. I am glad this incident did not cause Henry to become cynical. It seems like a genuinely nice guy. What do you think?

Allan And The Damaged Bumper

Allan is suing David for $2113.00. Allan's car was damaged when he was parked in front of the Veteran's Hospital. He saw a car parked behind him and compared the damage on both vehicles. The damage matched. Allan took pictures of the damage to his car and the damage to the other car. The other car belonged to David. Allan says he waited for the owner of the other car to come out. of the Veteran's Hospital. When David got in his car, Allan approached him and told him about the damage to his car. David denies hitting Allan's car. David is 89 years old and has been driving for a very long time. He tells the Judge that he drove a school bus for 3 years when they first came out. Wow! That is amazing! David admits he was in a small car accident several weeks earlier and that is why there is damage to his bumper. This damage is in a different area on his car from the damage caused by hitting Allan's car. The pictures show that these two cars definitely collided. David maintains that he did not hit Allan's car. He says there was no witnesses, and wonders how he can be held responsible. The Judge explains to David that the damage on his car matches up to the damage to Allan's car. David is found responsible to pay for the repairs to Allan's car. Hopefully, David will retake the driver's test to assure himself and everyone else that he is fit to drive. It is true that as we get older our reflexes get slower. The Judge tells a personal story about her own father and driving. Her dad is also 89 years old and she is very concerned about his driving. He recently took the driver's test again and passed! No one is going to question his driving ability! This is what David needs to do and all drivers as they get older. There does come a time when elderly drivers need to stop getting behind the wheel. What do yo think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Arriving at one goal is the starting point of another.
~ John Dewey

People's Court Blog - 9 5 2012 - Wednesday

Michael And The Angry Girlfriend

Michael is suing Rosalie for $3000.00. This is for damages to his belongings after they broke up. Rosalie is counterclaiming for $600.00, the cost of a pool cue. Michael and Rosalie met at a pool tournament. They dated for 6-7 weeks and then they broke up. When Michael was out of town his furniture was damaged and DVDs and photo albums stolen. Michael says that Rosalie went in his room, when she drove his friend home. His friend Jimmy wrote a statement to confirm this information. It seems Rosalie was in Michael's room and came out with a duffel bag. Rosalie denies this. She says she drove Jimmy to Michael's and stayed outside. The pictures of the damage to the dressers show scratch marks all over the surface. The Judge describes the damage as that done by an angry woman. Rosalie claims someone else must have done this. Someone that was mad at Michael over a fight. This is not the type of damage an angry man will do. I agree with the Judge. Rosalie continually makes comments directed at Michael  throughout the court case. This is not the time or place for this. Her inability to conduct herself in court does not help her credibility. The Judge finds that Rosalie did the damage to the dressers. Unfortunately, Michael does not have any proof of the value of the furniture or items stolen. Michael does provide an estimate to have the furniture restored. He is awarded $2000.00.

Regarding the counterclaim, Rosalie says that the pool cue was loaned to Michael. She said he broke his pool cue during a tournament and she let him use hers. He said it was a gift. There really is no proof for either side. The Judge finds that the pool cue was a loan and directs Michael to return it to Rosalie. It is a shame that Rosalie damaged the furniture. One of the dressers had belonged to Michael's grandmother and mother. The sentimental value of the dresser is not a factor in the money he can receive. After the verdict, Rosalie had to get in the last word. In the hallway, she  continues to say that everyone has lied for him. Michael feels justice was served and then gives a commercial spot for People's Court. Hopefully they do not frequent the same pool halls! 

Drew/Dorothy And The Super Mint Condition Car!

Drew and Dorothy are suing Anthony for $3284.67. This is for repairs they had done to a used car Drew bought from Anthony. Dorothy is Drew's mom. Drew found the 2001 VW Jetta advertised on Craigslist. Anthony advertised it in super mint condition with a new timing belt. Drew and his mom went to look at the car. They went for a test drive and gave Anthony a deposit to hold the car. Drew was paying for the car himself with money he earned working all summer on a goat farm. What they failed to do was have the car inspected before they purchased it. Dorothy says they had a post purchase inspection done. This does not even make sense. And the best part, they did not take the car to a mechanic for a month after buying it. When they do take the car to a mechanic, they are told there is a piece of wood wedged to hold the timing belt tensioner. The mechanic was so amazed to see this, he took pictures of it with his cell phone. Dorothy shows these pictures to the Judge. It is so true a picture is worth a thousand words. 

Anthony explains that he had the timing belt replaced by a neighborhood mechanic or an alley mechanic as the Judge describes it. Anthony has no proof of the work done on the car. Since he advertised the car with a new timing belt, it is considered a warranty. The other issues that are wrong with the car are not covered by a warranty. The sale of a used car by a private individual is an as-is sale. It is always a good idea to have a used car inspected prior to buying it. Drew and Dorothy do get back some money. They get back $1195.88, the cost of the timing belt. The other problems on the car are on them. Maybe if they had it inspected before they bought it, they could have avoided all of these problems. Also, why wait one month to take it to a mechanic? They are very lucky that Anthony advertised the car with a new timing belt. This is the only reason they were able to get money back. Anthony seemed surprised at the discovery of the piece of wood. I get the feeling he will be following up on this! What do you think?

Wayne And Collecting Double The Debt!

Wayne is suing Michael for $1794.92. This is for rent and damages for an apartment Michael rented from Wayne. Michael and his girlfriend, Pam, were renting the apartment. Pam moved out first when the couple broke up. She had paid the rent up to and including September. Michael moved out at the end of October . He would be responsible to pay that October's rent. Wayne also wanted  rent for November. He claimed that Michael would not let him show the apartment, so he lost a month's rent. Michael said that Wayne would not give him any notice when he wanted to show the apartment and even showed it once when he was not home. Wayne said they damaged the floor and damaged a door. He did not have estimates for this damage because he is only suing for rent. He is suing for damages, they are on the list. Wayne has an itemized list of the money owed to him. He has actually already been paid for the damages. The couple had a $800.00 security deposit they were used to cover any damages. Pam's mom sent Wayne a check for $1054.00. In total, Wayne has received $1854.00. This is more than the amount he is suing for. Why does he think he can receive this money twice? He has no answer for this. The Judge rules in favor of Michael. Wayne cannot collect this money twice! In the hallway, Wayne says he had more to say. Michael says Wayne was unprepared and lied. He also says that the break up with his girlfriend was because they were not getting along. She is in court to testify for him and help him with this case. That was really nice of her. I wish these young people good luck in the future!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

If you can dream it, you can do it.

-Walt Disney

People's Court Blog - 9 4 2012 - Tuesday

Evita And The Car

Evita is suing Fantasha for $2892.00. This is for several loans, lost wages and the cost to come to court. Evita and Fantasha met through a mutual friend on Facebook. After 2 months Fantasha was staying at Evita's home. Evita helped Fantasha in her search for a used car. Evita is a car mechanic and could check the cars for Fantasha. Another friend of Fantasha's was going to give her money to help her buy a car. When she found the car she wanted with Evita's approval, she did not have the money to buy it. Evita lent her the money, thinking she would get paid back very soon. The car was put in Fantasha's name but left at Evita's home. Fantasha's other friend never gave her the money and she was not able to pay Evita back. Since the car was at Evita's home, she refused to give it to Fantasha until she got her money back. When Fantasha decided she wanted the car, she called the police. Fantasha did not have insurance on the car, so she was  not able to drive it away. She did not want to tow it so she left it at Evita's home. Evita was angry at Fantasha, so she called the police the next day and they towed the car. 

Now the car was impounded and someone needed to pay to get it out. The story is complicated enough and now it gets worse! Evita pays to get the car out of the impound and has Fantasha sign a promissory note for the $500.00. It seems very mean-spirited for Evita to have done this. I understand her frustration at the situation, but this was not the right thing to do. So now Fantasha has the car, Evita is out the car loan plus the costs associated with the impound. What is Evita entitled to? The Judge finds that Evita should get back the car loan, but not the impound costs. She brought that on herself. The two young women are no longer in a relationship and both have so much to learn. Fantasha needs to realize that she cannot expect others to pay her way. Evita should not lend people money unless she knows them better and gets it in writing! What do you think?

Merline And The Fish Tank

Merline is suing Stafford for $2448.60. This is the cost of her furniture damaged by a water leak caused by Stafford's fish tank. Stafford is Merline's upstairs neighbor. He admits that his 90 gallon fish tank sprung a leak. He had to replace it to save his fish. When Merline knocked on his door and said there was water in her apartment, he ignored her. She had to go back several times before he came to her apartment to see the damage. Why did he make her wait so long? Stafford claims he was in his underwear and had to get dressed. It took him a very long time to put his pants on! Stafford does not deny the water from his fish tank caused the damage. Why does Merline have to sue him to get paid? This question is never answered. The facts speak for themselves. The fish tank had a leak, the water damaged Merline's furniture, Stafford is responsible to pay. 

Now the question is how much does he have to pay? The Judge explains that Merline is not entitled to replacement cost. Even though she had to buy a new couch and new items, the original items had a depreciated value. That is what Merline would get. The Judge estimates the depreciated value of the replaced items and Merline's troubles to be $1132.00. Merline is not happy about the entire situation, especially since Stafford still has a huge fish tank above her. She is planning to move to a new apartment. This is a real shame. Merline feels this situation could happen again and does not want to take the chance. I do not understand why Stafford had to make it so difficult for Merline to get her money. It is true that she got less than she was asking for. I believe if Stafford was cooperative they could have worked it out. I hope Merline finds a new home with good neighbors! What do you think?

Mary And The Adoption Fee

Mary is suing Leslee for $180.00. This is the cost of the adoption fee for two kittens. Both ladies do cat rescue. This is very commendable. Mary rescued two kittens and was trying to find a home for them. Mary paid for vet visits, food and litter. Mary's friend, Ellen, was taking care of the kitttens. They were actively trying to get homes for the kittens. They were distributing flyers with the kittens pictures and information. The adoption fee was set for $75.00 each. They were asking everyone they knew. Someone at the vet's office recommended Leslee. She has an animal rescue group called Here Kitty Kitty. Leslee works with a local Petco to show cats and kittens for adoption. Leslee helped Mary to find someone to adopt the kittens. The adoption fee was $180.00. Since Mary paid for all of the expenses for the kittens, she told Leslee she wanted the adoption fee. Leslee agreed to give it to her, but told her she would have to wait for the money. It seems Purina has a program to help seniors with pet adoptions. Purina was paying the $180.00 adoption fee and Mary would have to wait for the check. When Mary did not hear from Leslee, she tried to contact her. Mary went to Petco and confronted Leslee. When she asked for the money, Leslee told her she had to use it on vet emergencies and if she wanted it she could sue her. And here we are. 

It is a shame that these two women could not work this out. They both care about cats and are doing their best to save them. Mary did lay out the money to care for the kittens and should be able to cover some her costs with the adoption fee. Mary needed to discuss this with Leslee right in the beginning. It does seem that the animal rescue people find it difficult to discuss money. Their passion is for the animals and not the money. But there are costs involved and no one can afford to continually pay for the rescue of all of these animals without help. Since these two women did not agree on the terms, the Judge makes the decision for them to split the adoption fee. Both women do excellent work rescuing cats and kittens. I wish them both the best in their future endeavors of cat rescue! 

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

You cannot find peace by avoiding life.

-Virginia Woolf

People's Court Blog- 9 3 2012 - Monday

Joseph and The Matchmaker

Joseph is suing Jacqueline for $2227.00. Jacqueline runs a matchmatching business. When Joseph moved to Oregon from Ohio, he signed up for 2 free online dating services. Joseph is very proud to show the reason he moved to Oregon. He has a picture of his 6 year old granddaughter. He is a very proud grandfather! Joseph decided to upgrade his services on Jacqueline's website and paid her $27.00 for a consultation. He then agreed to a platinum service package that cost $2200.00 for 90 days of personal service. He refers to the money as "benjamins" (This is so cute!) Joseph was supposed to receive personal attention for this additional cost. Jacqueline said she does background checks on the potential dates and even conducts personal introductions. Jacqueline had asked Joseph to update his online pictures. He did this, had current pictures taken,  and sent them to Jacqueline. After several weeks, Joseph was not happy with the service. He sent an e-mail to Jacqueline demanding a refund. He felt she was stringing him along. Joseph received an e-mail from a potential date. He was upset because the woman was not a platinum member. He did not know what he was getting for the additional money he paid. When Jacqueline received a complaint from the Better Business Bureau, she suspended Joseph's membership. She did not notify him about this. Jacqueline explains that she did it for his benefit and then admits she did it to protect the company. Either way, when she suspended his service, she breached their contract. Joseph had every right to complain about a service he was not happy with. He was taking the proper steps and going through the right channels. The Judge finds in favor of Joseph. He receives $2200.00, the cost of the platinum package. He does not get back the consultation fee. Jacqueline should never have suspended his membership. Joseph is elated about winning the case. He is also dating the photographer that took his pictures to update his profile. It seems that Joseph is a man of action. He moved to Oregon to spend time with his granddaughter. He is enjoying an active social life! He knows what he wants and is willing to go to court to fight for it! What do you think?

Richard And The Shopping Cart

Richard is suing Jamie for $650.00. This is for damages to his car from a shopping cart. Richard explains that he was parked next to the shopping cart corral. When he came out of the store and approached his car, someone in the parking lot pointed out the damage to his car from a shopping cart. He said the person shoved the cart from across the lane and then pointed to a car that was leaving the parking lot. The car circled around and came back. The passenger in the car told him that her cart hit his car. She gave him her information. The passenger was Jamie. Jamie admits that the cart hit the car instead of going in the cart corral. She says she pushed it from a few inches, not a few feet. She knows it scratched the car. Why shouldn't she pay for the damages? (This is where it gets really interesting!) Jamie says she was an invitee of the supermarket. She was told by a lawyer that she is not responsible for this reason. The Judge explains that as an invitee it does not absolve her of responsibility from consequences of her own actions. Also, the Judge tells Jamie that the legal advice she received was not correct. You get what you pay for! Yes, it is true, Jamie did receive free legal advice! I think it is amazing that Jamie knows she hit Robert's car and was not willing to pay for the damages. Why did she give him her information at the scene? Jamie feels that Robert was threatening and intimidating when he was calling her to ask for the money. It took a lawsuit to show Jamie that she is responsible for her actions. Robert is awarded $544.75. He will get back the cost of his deductible, credit card interest and his court costs. Robert was also suing for the cost of gas, he will not get this because he did not bring proof to court. Robert was fortunate there was a witness to this incident. Jamie should have left her information on Robert's car as soon as she saw the cart had caused damage. I hope Jamie is more responsble in the future and puts the shopping cart directly in the corral. This way she will avoid hitting someone's car! What do you think?

David / Margaret And The Flood

David and Margaret are suing Alex for $3000.00. They explain their neighbor's toilet overflowed and caused flooding in their home. The insurance company hired a restoration company for the clean-up. Alex's company did the initial clean-up, removed the damaged carpeting and padding. They also removed the parts of the walls that had absorbed water. When the contractors started their work, Alex was contacted to store David's and Margaret's belongings. The belongings were packaged in cardboard boxes and Rubbermaid containers and stored in Alex's warehouse. When David and Margaret received their items back, they were very unhappy. They say that everything was moldy and smelled really bad. One of the Rubbermaid containers was cracked. They threw almost everything away. They did save a few items they brought to court with them. They did not take any pictures, they do not have any receipts. They do have a list with the number of boxes and containers removed from their home. This is their only evidence. Alex does not have any paperwork for this transaction. The list also has written on it that 3 rugs were taken to the storage unit. When the items were returned, the rugs could not be found. Alex does have 2 of the rugs in court for this case. He admits that one rug is still missing. The Judge checks the items that David and Margaret brought in with them. She notes they do smell, but is not able to determine whether it is from the flood or from the storage unit. Alex explains the items were packaged and sealed at their home and stored in his warehouse. Everything was still sealed when it was returned on February 2nd. Alex did not know there was a problem with the items until March 28th, when he was notifed about the lawsuit. Since David and Margaret are not able to prove that the storage procedure damaged their belongings, they do not get paid for them. They will receive $200.00 for the missing rug. They also get back the 2 rugs that Alex brought to court. The Judge smelled them and said they were fine. It is a shame what happened to David and Margaret. Having your home flooded with sewage water was a nightmare for them. I do think they should have notified the company as soon as they got back their belongings. It might have made a difference! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.

- Robert Frost