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!

Christmas Day 12 25 2012

Hi everyone. I hope everyone is enjoying this Christmas Day. Hopefully after the new year there will be new episodes of People's Court and the blog will resume. I miss writing about the cases. All of the recent repeat episodes have been featured in the blog posts.

 

This is a good week to reflect. I have been thinking about the decisions we make. Do we have other people's interests in mind or just our own? Do we try to be selfless or selfish? Many of the cases do show the selfishness and the mean spirits that motivate people. Are we to believe that people are inherently bad? I do not like to think that way. When we are faced with the senseless tragedy of the Newtown shootings, it does give you pause. Yet, the heroic stories that came from this tragedy give renewed faith in the human spirit.

 

Life is very complicated and we can only try to do our best. If every action is met with the question, " "Will someone be proud of me for doing this?", the outcomes would be so different. People need to start caring about their actions and the effects on others. We do not operate in a vacuum. Everything we do has an effect on someone else. A smile or "Have a nice day" can make all the difference in the world. How many times does it lift your spirits when someone behaves this way?

 

I hope everyone thinks about their effect on others. For every action, there is a reaction. Love, caring and trust mean so much. This is the season we think about family and friends and want the best for everyone. Let us put our differences aside and care about others. It should not take a tragedy to motivate us to commit acts of kindness. Let us try to work that back into our everyday lives.

Wishing Good Health and Happiness to All During The Holiday Season and for 2013!

People's Court Blog * 12-11-12 * Tuesday Case 2 of 2

This is the second case from 10-29-12.

There Is A Proper Way To Do Business

Steven is suing Dominic for $457.26. Steven hired his uncle's nephew, Rick, to do two roofing jobs for him. One at his personal house and the other at a rental property. Part of the cost of the jobs included dumpsters at each property for the construction debris. Rick contracted with Dominic for the dumpsters. After the jobs were done, Dominic needed payment for removing the dumpsters and disposing of the construction debris. Rick did not pay for the dumpsters and Dominic wanted payment from Steven. When Dominic contacted Steven by phone, they had a very angry exchange.  Steven did not want to pay for something he thought he already paid for. Rick gave money to his helper, Sam, to pay Dominic. Sam did not pay Dominic. Instead of suing Steven or putting a lien on his property, Dominic dumped the debris on his driveway. He says it is the debris from the dumpster, Steven says it was from someone else. Either way, it does not matter, it was illegal for Dominic to dump the debris. He also damaged the basketball hoop when he backed into the driveway. Dominic does not think he did anything wrong and he also is countersuing for $544.00 for the 2 dumpsters. Why does he think he should get paid for removing the dumpsters when he left the debris? Dominic does not have a good answer to this and he does not recover on his countersuit. Steven does get his money for having to remove the debris from his property. Dominic did replace the basketball hoop because the sheriff's officer told him he had 24 hours to replace it. 

What do we learn from this?

Anger has no place in a business proceeding. These two men should have been able to solve this issue without bringing anger into it. There is a legal way to handle a problem of nonpayment. Dominic could have put a lien on the property and should have dealt with Rick, not Steven. Bringing back the garbage and dumping it on Steven's property was not a good idea. Dominic also indicates that he will do it again if he does not get paid for a job. Someone did not learn from going to court. Damaging the basketball hoop almost seemed like an afterthought to Dominic. Who thinks that the only reason he replaced it is because the sheriff's officer told him he had to?  

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A Word To Learn:

Disport: to frolic, amuse or display

People's Court Blog * 12-10-12 * MONDAY Case 1 of 2

Hi Everyone. I am back. Thank you for being patient. My family was affected by Hurricane Sandy but not to the extent of many others. We had house damage, property damage and we were without power and water for over a week. This is minor compared to the loss many others experienced. We all need to continue to have compassion for those that lost so much in this terrible storm.

People's Court is still airing repeat episodes. Because of this I am going to catch up on past shows.

The episode that I am posting today is from 10-29-12 when Hurricane Sandy hit us. I was in the process of writing when we lost the power. I am going to review the episodes individually. Today's review is the first case from 10-29-12. Here it is:

This Was Not A Harmless Prank!

Lucinda is suing Leigh and her son Marcus for $852.00. This is for medical bills she has because of what Marcus describes as a harmless prank. What did the 15 year old Marcus do? Well, he was frustrated with the way Lucinda bossed him around at work so he stole her wallet and threw it in the dumpster. Why does Lucinda have medical bills? Lucinda had a panic attack when she realized her wallet was missing. Did Marcus confess right away? No, he waited until he went to the police station and then confessed. His mother is in court and is defending his actions, saying he did the right thing. I understand she is his mother, but Marcus needs to take responsibility for his actions. In court, he does admit he stole money from the wallet. He was not arrested yet, he has to do community service; washing and waxing police cars. His mother is also making him wait until he turns 17 to get his driver's permit. Since he did not confess right away to what he had done he created the situation where Lucinda had a panic attack. The Judge finds him responsible to pay the medical bills. His mother is taken off the lawsuit since she is not responsible for her son's actions. Lucinda tells Marcus that she is not mad at him and hopes there are no hard feelings. In the hallway they all hug and it brings tears to my eyes! Marcus seems to have learned his lesson and hopefully in the future will find a better way to deal with his anger and frustration.

Why do people find it so easy to treat each other with disregard? I know Marcus is young,but he should still have a moral center and should know better. I think it is important to teach our children to have respect for others. The mom should be setting a much better example for her son. What do you think?

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Thank you for joining me! 

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

A Word To Learn:
Tutelary - of or relating to a guardian