People's Court Blog * Saturday 4 - 6 - 2013

Hi everyone. I am going to post weekly. During the week there are approximately 15 court cases. I am going to pick my favorites and share my thoughts with you. Please share your thoughts about the cases I write about and other cases also.

It is so interesting to watch everyone interact with each other. There is so much to be learned as people find a way to make the wrong right. Some people are so patient waiting to  be paid or waiting for a service, others are very impatient. Some people treat others with respect, with others the disdain is palatable. 

Even though everyone should be respectful to others, it does not always happen that way. When everyone is in court, we hope they are on their best behavior. Again, this is not always the way it happens. It constantly amazes me when people disrespect the court. The Judge deserves the ultimate in respect. 

The other issue which I find amazing, is the lack of preparation. Some people do not bring any evidence. Where do they think they are going? This is the day they are in court, this is the day they need to prove their case. 

Here is a case from Friday, March 29th. A couple moves and their TV is broken. They submit the claim to their renters insurance and then decide to sue the movers. The couple cannot prove the movers broke the TV because they did not unwrap it right away. There are so many excuses on their part why they waited. When you move and there are expensive electronics, they need to be checked right away. Because they submitted the claim to their renters insurance, it appeared they broke the TV. The woman explains that she did not know how renters insurance works. Really? She also did not know what it meant to send a certified letter. Again, really? It is not that complicated. It was no surprise that they lost the case. 

I hope to hear from you about your favorite cases. Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Please check out this rescue group: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/NJ617.html

They do great work for the animals. Please help support them. 

Shopping Amazon.com? Use this link: http://www.fundinco.org/orghome.php?orgid=301

Thank you for joining me today and thank you for helping the animals!

Please remember to spay or neuter your pet!

People's Court Blog - March 25 2013 - Monday

Hi everyone - I am back.  A new episode today, I am so happy to share my thoughts with you about these cases. 

What did you think about Aries and Wascar moving during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy? That is amazing! They are in court today suing their landlord for $3500.00. This includes their security deposit and the deposit on their new apartment and their moving expenses. WHAT? Why would their landlord be responsible to pay for their moving expenses and a deposit on their new apartment? Aries did not have an answer either!!! They moved out of their apartment because they did not get heat on a regular reliable basis. They have a baby and they did not want the baby subjected to a cold apartment. That is reasonable. I would move out too! What is not reasonable is that they moved out on or after the first of the month. They claim it was the first of the month, their landlord claims it was the 6th of the month. Either way they were there into the month of November and are responsible for the rent for the month. Since the landlord rented the apartment for November 15th, mitigating his damages, they are only responsible for half the month's rent. Also, we all learned something new today - Tenants in New York City do not have to give one month's notice to the landlord. You can tell that Edward, the landlord was surprised by this information. Live and learn!!!!! Aries and Wascar do get back $650.00 which is half of their $1300.00 security deposit. They do not get what they are asking for since it is not their landlord's responsibility to pay towards their moving expenses or their new apartment. It was their choice to move out. Good luck to Aries and Wascar in their new home.

Carol is suing Lateresia and her nephew Kristopher for $100.00. Kristopher damaged Carol's fence when he knocked it down while riding a dirt bike. They had already paid $250.00 towards the $350.00 repair bill. There is no question they are responsible to pay for the damages. They were paying Carol and then just stopped. What a shame Carol had to sue to get the last $100.00! Sometimes it seems like a waste of everyone's time to sue for a small amount of money. After all, there are court costs and the time and expense of coming to court. In this case, I agree with Carol since Kristopher should be help responsible for the cost of the damage. The judge finds in favor of Carol and Kristopher needs to finish paying for the damage he did. Carol will get the $100.00!

Keith loaned his friend of 25 years, $2600.00 for his wedding. William does not deny the loan, but claims he did not borrow that much money and he paid his friend back. Keith has a promissory note signed by William. The promissory note is great evidence for Keith. Thank goodness he has this because si much of the relationship does not make sense. Keith hired William to do electrical work in a house he was renovating. He paid William in full for the work even though William owed him money. Keith explains that there were other people involved and the loan was separate. I think he is lucky that William's testimony seems very shaky. He claims he borrowed $1100.00 and paid it back in full, paying Keith $600.00 on 2 separate dates. This would be $1200.00 and he has no proof of paying it. The Judge finds in favor of Keith for the full amount of $2600.00.  This is a good thing, Keith should get his money back. Unfortunately, the long-term friendship is over! Money, business and friendship do not mix well. 

Thank you for joining me today. Please subscribe and stay updated!

Share your thoughts in the comments.

Please check out this animal rescue group and help them raise money to help the animals.

I support them and their efforts to rescue animals. They do really good work.

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

Sorry for the long absence!!!!!!

I will be back as soon as there are new episodes.
I am so sorry for being away for so long.
There has been so much happening and then the show had repeat episodes.
I miss writing about the show and I miss my readers!
Check back soon!

People's Court Blog - 1 30 2013 - Wednesday

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

Frank is suing Denise and Oleg for $5000.00. 

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

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

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

Rhonda and Michael are suing Demetrius for $3100.00.

**Clementine Weather**

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

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

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

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

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

Sharday is suing Darin for $1103.88. 

Darin has a countersuit for $1036.09.

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 29 2013 - Tuesday

Steven is suing Warren for $3270.00. 

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

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

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

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

Sarah is suing Felicia for $800.00. 

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

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

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

George is suing Nick for $200.00. 

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

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

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 28 2013 - Monday

New cases today!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cary is suing Vincent for $2035.00. 

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

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

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 1 4 2013 - Friday

Still playing catch-up......

Tyler is suing George for $1396.60. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kathleen is suing Alan's gym for $333.00. 

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

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

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

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

Stay updated - Subscribe!

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