People's Court Blog - 9 14 2012 - Friday

Rest In Peace Polly

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

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

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

Priscilla And The Process Server

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

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

Carlos And The Bounced Check!

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

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

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

~Diogenes

People's Court - 9 13 2012 - Thursday

Diego And The Linked Computers

Diego  is suing Stephanie for $1830.70. This is for  rent, utility expenses, food expenses, a diamond ring, and the replacement cost of a refrigerator door. Diego and Stephanie dated for 4 1/2 years and moved in together. This lasted 8 months. Diego thinks the problems started when they linked their computers together. Diego says they did this to share movies. Whatever the reason, it is a very bad idea. Diego admits curiosity got the best of him. He read documents that were essentially Stephanie's journal. She wrote about being unhappy in her relationship with him and feeling sexual tension with someone else. Stephanie admits to reading Diego's journal. They were writing about the same topic, being unhappy in their relationship with each other. Diego said this started a huge fight. Stephanie threw a small Buddha statue at him and hit the refrigerator instead. She also threw his guitar. Both of them left the apartment in order to diffuse the fight. Diego came back that night, Stephanie did not. When Diego came back he put all of Stephanie's belongings in trash bags and changed the locks. He texted her the next day to pick up her stuff and asked for the money she owed. Diego said she owed him money for the rent, utilities, and food expenses. Now is is also suing for the cost to repair the refrigerator door. 

Stephanie came the next day to pick up her stuff. She called the police and had Diego arrested for harassing text messages. He also had done an illegal lockout. Diego had no right to lock Stephanie out of the apartment. Stephanie admits that she owes the money for the rent. She does not feel she should have to pay the utilities. She says she always paid for the food. She denies damaging the refrigerator door. The diamond ring was a gift, not an engagement ring.

The Judge finds that Stephanie is required to pay her share of the rent, the utilities and the repair to the refrigerator door. Her denial of the damage to the door is not believed. She does get to keep the diamond ring. Diego gets a total of $1192.62.

These two people really need to move on and find healthier relationships. Hopefully they will learn from the mistakes in this relationship. I would hope in future relationships they do not link personal computers together! What do you think?

Michael And The Lawyer Fee

Michael is suing Carie, a former client, for $604.64. Carie hired Michael to represent her in a very complicated case. She chose Michael because she has known him since she was in the first grade. Carie went to school with Michael's son. Carie says that Michael guaranteed he would win the case. There are no guarantees in life, Carie should know that! Michael's representation for Carie cost over $7,000.00. This seems very silly for a $5000.00 case. Carie withheld the balance of the bill because she dismissed Michael as her lawyer. After the case went to arbitration and Carie lost, she appealed the decision and won. Carie ignored the bill for the balance of her bill to Michael. Because she ignored it, Michael brought her to court. The Judge wants to know why he didn't just forget about it. He says because she ignored the bill and also had told him her father would pay the bill. This was a business transaction and Carie signed a retainer agreement. Michael did the work. Just because she was unhappy with the outcome is no reason to withhold payment. 

The Judge finds in favor of Michael and Carie has to pay him. This is only right since there was an agreement. The history they might have had should not factor in a business deal. Michael is very matter of fact in his presentation of the case - just the facts! There was nothing personal about the lawsuit, he did the work and should get paid for it. What do you think?

Tobias And The Lost Pair Of Pants

Tobias is suing Ken, his dry cleaner for $500.00. This is the cost of a pair of pants from a Hickey Freeman designer suit. Ken admits to losing the pants. The policy of the store is to reimburse a customer 10 times the cost of the dry cleaning when an item is lost. This would have come to $137.50. Ken also offered Tobias an additional $50.00 in store credit. Tobias refused this offer, he wanted $300-$350 for the pants. Ken was not going to pay this amount, he had a store policy in place. Ken is responsible to pay Ken the $137.50. Tobias is not happy with this because he still does not have pants for his suit. 

This is a very straight forward case. The store policy is very clearly stated on the back of the receipt. Since Tobias is a regular customer, he has been given the receipt on many occasions. What I do not understand is why dry clean only the pants of a suit. Wouldn't the pants and jacket wind up being different colors through time and not match? Please Tobias, if you read this, let me know why you did not take the complete suit to the cleaners? I would think you would want the suit to match! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A house is just a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get more stuff.
~George Carlin

People's Court Blog - 9 12 2012 - Wednesday

Michelle / Josue And The Haunted House

Michelle and Josue are suing their landlord for $3750.00. This is for rent and security deposit they want back. Their landlord is counterclaiming for $15,000. The landlord is represented in court by David. Michelle, and Josue rented a home and moved in on March 1st. Immediately they started experiencing paranormal activity. Items in their closet started falling off the shelves, they heard voices, and they were becoming afraid to be in the house. One evening they called a friend to come over and they conducted a cleansing ritual. It was after this that the friend experienced bruise marks on her legs. During the cleansing activity the cross she was wearing turned over. She could not figure out how this happened. Michelle and Josue were so afraid to be in the house, they moved to the local Holiday Inn. It seems this house was built in an area in New Jersey known as Devil's Woods and they believed it was haunted. They even contacted the media and they ran a story about the house on a local news station. During the filming, voices in the house were recorded. Michelle also has video of a communication picked up on the computer.

Michelle and Josue told the landlord they believed the house was haunted and they had moved out. They wanted their rent and security deposit back. At first, he agreed. He told them he understood. Then he changed his mind and he was holding them to the contract. They were not moving back, they were really afraid to be in the house. David explains the countersuit of $15,000 is for potential losses. Since the story about the house was on the news, the house has not been rented. He asked the Judge to reserve judgement until the actual damages could be determined. The Judge dismisses the case without prejudice, this way he can refile in the future. The Judge asks that if that happens that he and the owner spend a weekend in the house.

Michelle and Josue are not able to recover on their lawsuit. They actually have to pay the landlord additional money because of the terms of their contract. The Judge explains that to find in their favor would be to rule that the house is haunted and they had the right to breach the contract. They believe the house is haunted and the Judge respects their belief. Unfortunately, the proof they provided is not evidence of ghosts, it is evidence of their belief that there are ghosts.

This is such an interesting case. This family truly was frightened to be in this house. They felt that something supernatural was occurring. I can appreciate their fear and concern. They did the right thing to move out and protect themselves. There is a cost to their decision, they had to abide by the contract they signed.

Natasha And Her Aunt

Natasha is suing her Aunt Liz for $3,000.00. This is for the cost of items left in her aunt's apartment. When Natasha needed a place to live, her aunt's apartment was available. Aunt Liz was incarcerated for drug charges. Natasha and her daughter moved to the apartment. After 2 months, Liz was released from jail and Natasha moved out. When Natasha left she did not take her belongings with her. She says she was being nice because Liz did not have any furniture. Liz said the agreement was that Natasha was going take her belongings out and help transport Liz's furniture from another location.

Natasha did not do this and Liz refused to give her back any of the belongings. Then Natasha rented an apartment in Liz's complex. She was demanding her belongings back. Liz returned some of the items but not everything. Liz was holding the furniture hostage. Liz admits she would not return everything because Natasha would not help her move. This close relationship has been destroyed over the cost of a rental truck.

These two women live down the hall from each other and do not speak anymore. How sad that a close relationship can be ruined over something so trivial. On the lawsuit, Natasha is awarded $850.00, not $3,000.00. She did not have any receipts or proof as to the value of her belongings. Liz admitted she was not returning her belongings and even threw some of the things away. What a shame that they are not getting along, especially when they live so close to one another.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

There's no backward and no forward, no day other than this. You fill your cart as you go. 
And that's that.

~John Burnham Schwartz

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