People's Court - 8 13 2012 - Monday

I Will Not Let You Take Advantage Of Me Anymore!

Lisa is suing Steven for $955.55. They dated for several months after meeting online. For some reason, Lisa kept laying out money for Steven, even though he did not pay her back. After they broke up, she tried to get her money back. When she had no luck, she filed this lawsuit. Lisa says the first time she laid out money was for Broadway tickets to Jersey Boys. Steven wanted to get tickets for his sisters. Lisa's mother works in the industry, so she was able to get the tickets. Why would Lisa put the purchase on her credit card? Steven admits he was going to pay her back for the tickets. Why didn't he pay her back right away? He does not have a good answer. He says he kept asking to see a receipt. This is ridiculous. The prices are on the ticket. Also, since Lisa wanted her money back, I am sure she would have provided a receipt for him. Lisa got plane tickets for the two of them with her earned miles. Lisa says she got the tickets because Steven could not afford them. He was running in a half marathon in Virginia Beach. How was he going to get there if Lisa was not around? Steven changed his mind about the marathon and Lisa had to cancel the tickets. It cost $100.00 to restore the used miles. She asked Steven for this money and he told her he was not going to pay her. Is it time for Lisa to dump him? I would think so. The Judge even thinks so. Does Lisa set him free? No, she continues with the relationship. Now, she invites him to a spring training trip along with other friends. Lisa explains that their relationship consisted of meeting at his house and going to bars. Did they go out to dinner? No. Did they go to the movies? No. What kind of relationship was this? Lisa says she broke up with him when she found out he was cheating on her. Good for her. Now she wanted her money back. Steven explains that he would have paid her for the Broadway tickets if he saw a receipt. Good news, Lisa has the proof in court. Steven says he does not owe her the $100.00 for the cancellation of the plane tickets to Virginia Beach. His reason for this, it was her idea. Really! He sent her numerous text messages about paying her back. He never said he did not owe her the money. He said he saved that to say on the phone. What else does he owe Lisa? Lisa says a movie and a wii game. Steven has brought the movie to court with him and returns it to Lisa. He denies having the wii game. He says he has his own, why would he need to take her game? The Judge rules in favor of Lisa for $930.55. She gets almost all of what she was suing for. The Judge takes the opportunity to address Lisa about learning a lesson. The Judge hopes Lisa has learned something from this experience. The real way to learn would be to lose the money she lent to Steven. The law is on her side, so she does get her money back. In the hallway, Lisa does say that she has learned her lesson and will not lend money anymore. I hope she means this. She seems like a really nice person and should not let men take advantage of her. Why are women so quick to lend money to the men in their lives? If their boyfriends cannot afford something, they can wait until they have their own money. Remember ladies, if he cannot afford it, he cannot afford to pay you back!

We Are Here Over $30.00!

Kent is suing Carl and Cynthia for $221.67. Carl brought his laptop to Kent for repair. Kent owns a computer repair shop. Kent agreed to remove the data, wipe the hard drive clean and restore the data. When Carl got home after picking up the computer, he found there was no information on it. This was especially troubling, since he wanted to print pictures of his mom for her memorial service. He called Kent to let him know there was a problem. Kent told him to come bace to the store, he probably forgot to put the data back on. Carl drove the 10-15 minutes back to the store and waited about an hour while Kent restored the information. Carl explains that when he got home, he decided that was not right and stopped payment on the check. He felt that Kent wasted his time. He sent Kent an e-mail explaining that he stopped payment on the check. Carl offered to pay for 30 minutes of labor. The Judge expresses her astonishment regarding the way Carl handled the situation. Carl should have let the check clear and then negotiate with Kent. Carl created a major problem over this situation. When all the charges have been figured out, this case is really over  $30.00. Kent is not so reasonable either. He is trying to explain that Carl should never have stopped payment on the check because he provided a service. Kent feels that when Carl returned to the store it was for a warranty issue. Kent mishandled the job, this is not a warranty issue. Kent was supposed to restore the data and he did not. It is not like there was an additional problem or something he fixed had to be corrected. Kent does not seem to understand that he is also wrong. Both men are at fault in this situation. The Judge rules to give Carl a rebate on the service charge. He will pay $100.00 for the repair of the laptop, instead of $125.00, the original amount. Carl also has to pay the $35.00 stop payment charge. After the decision, the Judge tells both men that they were foolish. I totally agree with this. In the hallway, Carl says that he was not foolish, since he did not initiate the court case. Did he already forget that he stopped payment on the check for a service he received? Kent says that he had to fight him because anyone can write a check and stop payment on it. Did he forget that he wasted this man's time by not doing the job correctly in the first place? It seems to me that both men left the courtroom less informed then when they entered. Neither of them listened to the Judge. Neither of them seemed to learn anything from this experience. What do you think?

I Want My Daughter's Belongings!

This next case is very sad. Sylvia is suing her daughter's friend for $5000.00. Valcharal, her daughter's friend, is countersuing Sylvia for $5000.00. What occurred to bring these two women to court today? Sylvia's daughter passed away. Sylvia wants her daughter's belongings back. The belongings consists of jewelry, laptops, debit cards and a phone. Valcharal has the belongings and claims that Sylvia's daughter, wanted her to keep the belongings from her mother. What occurred to have these two women at odds with each other? Instead of supporting each other after the death of someone close to both of them, they are suing each other. Sylvia explained that she took money to her daughter, so she could have Valcharal deposit it, to pay bills. Her daughter was in a rehab facility and told her mom she was not feeling well. Sylvia told her she should go to the hospital. Her daughter told her she would go the next day. Sylvia explains that she tried to get in touch with her daughter the next day and could not. It seemed that Valcharal took her to the hospital. She was admitted, there were complications and she passed away. Sylvia explains that she was contacted by someone at the hospital. Sylvia is distraught over the loss of her daughter. Valcharal claims that Sylvia's daughter had told her to keep her mother from getting anything that belonged to her. Valcharal has brought a witness to court and an affadavit from a family member. No one has anything nice to say or write about Sylvia. Valcharal even accuses her of doing drugs at her own daughter's funeral. Things can get nasty very quickly. Of course, Valcharal does not have any proof. Just to say such things, is very hurtful. Sylvia's daughter did not leave a will. The Judge dismisses the case without prejudice and explains that they need to go to probate court. Someone has to be appointed administrator of the estate, in order to determine how to distribute the belongings. The Judge directs Valcharal not to touch or throw away any of the belongings. This matter needs to be decided in probate court. The Judge directs Sylvia to call a lawyer to handle the case. Why is Valcharal countersuing for $5000.00?She explains that Sylvia has been calling her and leaving numerous messages. Sylvia even called Valcharal's mother! The Judge rules against Valcharal, explaining to her, this does not make a $5000.00 harassment suit. After the case is over, Sylvia says to Valcharal that her mother smokes crack. Valcharal responds to this by saying, my mother does not smoke crack, only you do. This is so sad. Two of the people who loved someone very much, are attacking each other. During their time of grief, it would be so nice if they could lean on each other. I would hope they could get past this and be a comfort to each other during this time of  great loss. What do you think?

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

Kindness, I've discovered is everything in life.

-Isaac Bashevis Singer

People's Court - 8 10 2012 - Friday

I Want My Money Back Now!

Diane and Constance were good friends. Once again, money gets in the way of a friendship. When are we going to learn that friendship and money do not mix? Diane is suing Constance for $390.00. Diane tries to explain how she came up with $390.00. There is money lent for a plane ticket, there was money given to return to a family member. It is somewhat convoluted how much money was lent and how much money was returned. No one has written anything down, no one has kept track of the money. Diane would lend her friend money and a portion of the money would be returned. Then she would lend her more money. Constance says they were such good friends they would lend each other money all the time. What went wrong? Diane wanted her money back and did not want to wait. Diane left several voicemail messages for Constance. They were not very nice messages. Since they were in a different language, the Judge gets help from someone in the gallery. The Judge swears in a fifteen year old, after he agrees to translate the voicemail messages. He explains that there is cursing and demands of the return of money. What is not included is the amount of money that is owed. Constance says she accidentally erased the message that mentioned the amount of the loan. This is very convenient. Constance said she returned $90.00. She said she gave a check to a friend to give to Diane. It is funny, Constance has not mentioned this in her written response to the complaint. Constance has not made any other attempt to pay the money back. Neither woman is very credible in their testimony. Considering how much money Diane said has been returned to her, the Judge awards her $270, not the $390.00, she is asking for. I am constantly amazed how people allow their friendships to be destroyed over money. Friends should not lend each other money. When money is involved, people seem to forget the value of their friendship. They also find it very easy to be cruel to each other.  It really is a shame that this friendship is over due to money. What do you think?

The Roof  Is Leaking- I Want My Money Back!

Tynesa is suing Donna for $200.00. Tynesa wanted to rent a house from Donna. They agreed to meet at the house on Friday. They met at the house and did a walkthrough. Tynesa signed a lease and gave Donna the money for the deposit to hold the house. This actually was a partial deposit. Tynesa was supposed to give the rest of the deposit in a few days. After Tynesa signed the lease, she changed her mind about the rental. Tynesa says it is because she saw the roof was leaking and the floors were unclean. Donna told Tynesa she would fix everything before she moved in. Tynesa says that Donna told her she would only fix what was required by HUD. This was a government subsidized rental. Tynesa's son has asthma and she did not want him to be exposed to mold. It is interesting she did not see any of these problems before she signed the lease. Tynesa asked Donna for the deposit back. When she refused to return it to her, Tynesa called the police. Tynesa said this all happened on Friday. Donna says this is not how it happened. They met on Friday and then again on Monday. She said Tynesa had called her on Monday to say she changed her mind and wanted her deposit back. Donna explained it was a nonrefundable deposit. She had a signed lease and was not going to return the money. Also, on Monday, Donna received a call from someone who wanted to rent the house. She went to the house and Tynesa was there with a man. Donna says they both demanded Tynesa's money back and were yelling at her. Donna called the police. Tynesa denies this. The Judge gives her a chance to change her testimony. She is adamant that she was there on Friday and not on Monday. The Judge calls a recess to contact the  police department. The Judge returns and now we find out that Tynesa lied. The police were called to the house on Monday. Donna does not have to give back the deposit. Why would Tynesa lie? Did she think it would really help her get her deposit money back? What do you think?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Sylvia is suing Tanya for $800.00. This is for a shed that was damaged during Hurricane Irene. A tree limb from one of Tanya's trees fell on the roof of the shed. When Sylvia saw the damage, she had her landscaper speak with Tanya. The landscaper was going to charge $75.00 or $80.00 (depends on who is telling the story) to remove it. Tanya said this was too expensive. The landscaper offered to take it off the shed and throw it in Tanya's yard for $20.00. Tanya declined this offer also. Sylvia and her son went over to talk to Tanya at a different time. Tanya said she would deal with it on Saturday. When it was not done on Saturday, Sylvia called her. Tanya said she would deal with it on Wednesday. It was not done by Wednesday, and it is still not done. Tanya explains that she called a tree removal service and they were backlogged because of the storm. There was some laughter on the courtroom, when the Judge thought she was saying a tree boo boo company. This really was cute. Tanya said she is still waiting for them to show up. Sylvia did not want to wait and filed this lawsuit. The kicker is that legally Tanya is not responsible to remove the limb from the shed. The tree was not dead, dying or diseased. The limb broke off the tree during the Hurricane and it is considered an act of God. Sylvia wants a new shed, although Tanya says that Sylvia said she did not care about the shed. Sylvia denies saying this. She wants Tanya to replace her shed. This is not going to happen because the Judge rules in favor of Tanya. It is unfortunate that Sylvia was not more patient. If she was, Tanya would have had the tree limb removed from the shed. In the hallway, Tanya says she is still going to have  the tree limb removed from the shed. Do you think she is really going to do this?

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

You are young at any age if you are planning for tomorrow.

-Unknown

People's Court - 8 9 12 - Thursday

I Had To Punch The Dog In The Head Ten Times!

Joel is suing Nathan for $5000.00. Joel explains that he had his two cocker spaniels tied in his jeep. He was getting ready to go out with the dogs. After he secured them in his jeep, he walked away from his vehicle. Joel realized Nathan's gate was open. All of a sudden, Nathan's large black dog was running up to him and barking. At this time, Joel's two dogs started barking. The neighbor's dogs ran towards the cocker spaniels and attacked one of them. Joel said he was there in a split second, trying to save his dog. The large black dog had his cocker spaniel by the throat. In order to release the hold, Joel had to punch the dog in the head ten times. He seems genuinely upset that it came to this. But, he would have done anything to save his dog. The large black dog released its hold on the cocker spaniel and ran away. Joel took his dog to the veterinarian immediately. The dog needed emergency care and then follow-up visits. The total for the vet bills was $1323.59. Joel is also suing for the damage to his jeep. He shows pictures of scratches to the jeep. Nathan denies that this was from his dog. Nathan also says that the two cocker spaniels were not in the car. He claims they were at large. He has no evidence to back up this claim, since neither he nor his wife, saw what happened. Neither of them were home. They had guests in the house. They try to explain how the dog was sly and snuck out. Interesting, they admit leaving the gate open. The dog did not have to work very hard! What kind of dog do Nathan and his wife own? Nathan's wife very quickly answers, "pitbull". Nathan starts to name a different breed and then says pitbull mix. The Judge responds favorably that they admitted their dog was a pitbull. It seems many people do not because of the prejudice attached to the reputation of a pitbull. The Judge explains that she has no prejudice against pitbulls or their owners. Most pitbull owners feel their dogs are no different than any other dog. If this is true, then why do the majority of the dog attack cases involve pitbulls? Joel is also suing for pain and suffering. He claims that the injury to his hand, from punching the dog, loss of his voice, from screaming at the dog, and time spent nursing his dog, are reasons to receive additional money. Nathan and his wife are found responsible to pay for the vet bill and the car damage, not the pain and suffering. Nathan's wife said she was willing to pay half, except she did not understand the vet bill. Please, if she was going to pay anything at all, she would have done so already. The fact that Joel had to bring them to court, proves there was no intention to pay. Why do dog owners not want to be responsible for what happens? They left the gate open. It is their actions that caused their dog to be able to jump in the jeep and attack the cocker spaniel. We should be glad the cocker spaniel survived this attack. Some dogs are not so lucky! What do you think?

I Just Want My Deductible!

Teai is suing Princess and Antwane for $500.00. This is the amount of the insurance deductible Teai had to pay to get her car repaired. Princess is Antwane's mother. Antwane is the 9 year old riding his bike that day. Somehow Antwane and his bike collided with Teai's car. I say somehow because none of the stories told in court are the same. It is apparent when Antwane tells what occurred on that day, he was coached. This is truly a shame, since accidents happen and we should all be thankful that he did not get seriously injured. Teai explains that when she was driving she felt something and stopped her car. She said the child hit the side of her car, knocking the mirror and denting the side. She immediately took the child home, spoke to the mother, and took them both to the hospital. Her main concern was to make sure Antwane was okay. I give Teai credit for being so  caring  and responsible for Antwane's welfare. Thank goodness, he was fine. The Judge asks Antwane to tell what happened. He says he was on the sidewalk, the car was wiggling and the car hit him. It sounds like Teai was driving on the sidewalk! Princess says Teai backed up  and hit her son. Teai shows pictures of the damages to her car and they match the information on the police report. It is so interesting when everyone tells different stories. It is also a shame that a parent does not encourage their child to tell the truth. It is an important life lesson. Princess also says that Teai is looking to pay for damages that already existed, she insists the side mirror was covered in tape. The Judge explains to Princess that Teai is suing for the deductible, the repairs have been paid for by the insurance company. There is also a counterclaim of $500.00. Princess claims that her son is traumatized and will not go near a bicycle. I think this would be worth more than $500.00. The counterclaim is dismissed. The Judge finds the accident was the child's fault. Teai will receive her $500.00 deductible. The lesson here is that accidents happen. Most importantly, Antwane did not get seriously hurt. I hope he can overcome his fear of bicycles and continue enjoying his childhood!

You Are A Criminal And Apparently So Am I!

Joseph is suing Diane for $3000.00. He wants back his rent money for one month and the rest for pain and suffering. What did Diane do? She rented a room in her mobile home to Joseph without a lease and without a background check. She claims he was not supposed to move in until the 10th of the month, but when he showed up on the 2nd, she let him move in. Diane had accepted a check from Joseph for $550.00 without providing a lease. She explained that she also did not have time to do a background check. When she did check his background she found that he had a criminal matter in his past. Diane said this frightened her and she asked him to leave. She also explains that he ate all of her food, including her spaghetti. Joseph tells a different story. He said Diane liked him right away as a tenant, he paid the rent money and moved in. Joseph explains that Diane provided him with an air mattress and he thought everything was going okay. On the 4th day, Diane's boyfriend threw him out, saying he was too noisy. Either way, Diane does not have a right to keep the rent money. She says she is keeping the money because of damages Joseph caused. Can someone really do $550.00 worth of damage in 4 days? If so, Diane would have to prove it and she has no proof. The Judge tells Diane that she is a cheat, a fraud and that she is stealing Joseph's money. Diane has to return the rent money. She does not have to pay the additional $2450 in pain and suffering. Joseph is not completely happy to get back the rent money, he feels he should have gotten more because of his age and the stress he went through. Life does not work this way! What do you think?

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

Wise sayings often fall on barren ground, but a kind word is never thrown away.

-fortune cookie

People's Court - 8 8 2012 - Wednesday

My Dog Is Not A Pitbull!

Benjamin is suing Sharon for $264.30. This is amount it cost at the vet, when Sharon's dog attacked his dog. Benjamin has an Italian Greyhound mix and Sharon has a chocolate lab mix. What is her dog mixed with? She says boxer, Benjamin says pitbull. Why do people who own pitbulls or pitbull mixes call them by another name? I don't know, do you? Both Benjamin and Sharon are members of a private dog park. Sharon actually has a counterclaim for 2 years of membership fees. Benjamin explains that Sharon's dog, Liberty, had  contact with his dog, Mister, 2 weeks before the incident in question. Benjamin describes the incident as minor even though Mister was scratched. Benjamin says this was a typical dog park incident and did not report it. This incident was much more serious. Liberty ran after Mister and bit him on the back leg. Benjamin says that Sharon did not even ask how the dog was and did not volunteer her information. Mister needed ten stitches. Benjamin works at the animal hospital and was fortunate to get a discount. Benjamin contacted Sharon and wanted her to pay the bill. She did offer to pay half, Benjamin refused this offer because he wanted the whole amount. He should have taken the offer, because he does not win his case. The Judge explains that there is an assumption of risk in the dog park. Neither owner did anything wrong. The dogs were both off leash, this is not an issue. The dogs were in the correct area, so this is not an issue. The dogs were acting like dogs. The previous minor incident does not factor in, since Benjamin did not report it and he even describes it as a typical dog park incident. Sharon would have needed to have been on notice that her dog was aggressive, to be held responsible for the bill. I understand the legal ruling. What I can not understand is Sharon's attitude. She said that the larger dogs run after the little dogs and grab their back legs to slow them down. This is ludicrous. This is not normal dog behavior. If that is what her dog does, it is a good thing she is banned from the dog park. Benjamin spoke with the owner of the dog park and Sharon was dropped as a member. This is the reason she wants to be compensated for 2 years of membership fees. This does not make any sense, she she has been taking her dog to the park all of that time. She tells the Judge she does not want to pursue the counterclaim and it is dismissed. Dog parks are a nice idea when everyone watches their dogs. After all, dogs will be dogs! What do you think?

I Did Not Break The Windows!

Nicole and Ryan are suing to get their security deposit back. They rented a garage apartment for about a year. When the cable did not work, they called their landlord. After no response, they contacted the cable company. When the cable serviceman came to the apartment, he informed them it was an illegal apartment and removed the cable wire. Nicole and Ryan contacted Tracy, their landlord and gave notice to move out. Tracy and her son, Chris, did the walkthrough with them. At first, Tracy tells Ryan he would be responsible for fixing the windows. They do not open or close because the handle is broken. Ryan says the handle broke off through normal wear. The arm that guides the window to open and close is detached from the track. Because of this the windows do not open and close. Tracy says this is because Ryan climbed through the windows when he constantly locked himself out. Ryan admits to locking himself out, but denies climbing through the window. Tracy had the spare key and he would ask her for it when he locked himself out. Maybe he should have brought his house key with him when he went outside to smoke! It does seem believable to the Judge that Ryan could have climbed through the window. The rest of the security deposit was withheld for the cable. When Tracy told Ryan, he would have to pay $600.00, to have the apartment rewired, he admits to getting angry. Chris did not like the way Ryan spoke to his mother and a fistfight occurred. Ryan admits that he cursed at Tracy and admits hitting Chris. The police were called and there is a police report. No one is denying the fistfight. It is very sad when situations escalate to violence and involving the police. Ryan still believes he should be able to get back the entire security deposit of $1150.00. He is not responsible to rewire the cable and he continues to deny breaking the windows. Tracy's account of the window damage is more believable than Ryan's constant denial. He will have  to pay the $488.81 to have the windows fixed, but does get back the $661.19 balance of the security deposit. Ryan does not have to pay to have the cable rewired. It was not his fault that the cable was removed, it should not have been there in the first place. In the hallway, the landlord says she is happy Ryan is getting back some of the money. Ryan feels it is still not fair, he continues denying the damage to the window. I think it is terrible that a fistfight broke out during the walkthrough. People need to maintain respect for each other. Ryan should have walked away from the situation when he realized they could not come to terms. He was able to get back part of the security deposit and hopefully he will have learned that physical violence does not solve anything. What do you think?

I Bought A Lemon!

David bought a used car from John. David did not test drive the car, he did not take the car to a mechanic. When you are interested in buying a car, used or new, it is important to test drive it. When it is a used car, it is essential to have a mechanic look at it. David says now, he did so much wrong , but this car is a lemon. After David bought the car, he noticed problems with it right away. The next day, the car would not start. David called John and was told he was on his own for having it towed. David's mechanic said the car needed a distributor, John provided a distributor for David's mechanic to install. With that done, the car still did not work. John told David if the car was towed to his mechanic, he would look at it. The car was fixed and ready to be picked up within 2-3 weeks. After David got the car back, he was still not happy with it. He is suing for the purchase price, the towing costs and the cost of repairs. John explains that the car was sold as-is. David signed a release of liability. David claims he forgot about the paperwork he signed. John was under no obligation to help him after the sale. John says he spent over $600.00 when David brought the car back to his mechanic, because he did not want continued grief from this man. David continually texted and called John, and John just wanted him to go away. John even called the police because of David's continued harassment. The sale of the used car was as-is, there was no warranty given and David did sign a release of liability. David does not win this case. I give John so much credit for trying to help even when he did not have to. Unfortunately, it backfired on him. John needs to remember, an as-is sale is final! What do you think?

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

Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.

-Mark Twain

People's Court - 8 7 2012 - Tuesday

My Cat Almost Died!

Jill is suing Juan for $5000.00. Juan owns a pest control company. Jill received a lovely gift from one of her cats. He left a mouse on her pillow. Jill called Juan to take care of the problem. She had a contract with his company for termite control. Jill said she told Juan what the problem was and left the doors unlocked for him. About one month later, one of her two cats started to act lethargic. Jill's daughter took the cat to the vet. She brought him home with instructions to give him the prescribed medicine. The next day, the cat was worse. Jill rushed him to critical care. He was being poisoned by a rodenticide, a poison used to kill the mice. Jill found bags of poison in the basement. These bags have instructions on them to keep out of reach of children or animals. Juan claims these bags were used years before when the basement was separated by a wall. He used a different type of pest control for this occurrence, because he did not want the cats to have access to the poison. Juan says he used bait boxes in the basement. He claims the cat got sick from eating a mouse that ate the poison. So either type of approach would have caused the cat to get sick. Jill did not mention finding bait boxes in the basement. It is very clear from the cat food and the litter boxes, the cats spent a lot of time in the basement. The Judge finds that Jill can not prove her case. There is no proof of when the bags of poison were put in the basement. There is no proof of how the cat ingested the poison. For these reasons, Juan is not responsible to pay the vet bills. The good news - the cat survived and is enjoying life. In the hallway, Jill said she is happy that her cat is fine. Juan said he would have done it differently if he knew there were cats in the house. Wait a minute...Juan knew there were cats in the house. Jill told him her cat brought her the mouse, also the cat food and litter box were in the basement. What would he have done differently? Maybe he wouldn't have used poison at all. There are other ways to remove mice from a home without using poison. Hopefully, Juan will approach his job with a more humane approach towards the animal residents of a house. What do you think?

I Want My Guccis!

Samuel has been going to Ed's optical shop for many years. This most recent visit was not a happy one. Samuel had his eye exam and had his lenses upgraded. At this same visit, Samuel asked Ed to adjust his sunglasses. When Ed worked on the adjustment, he broke the temple (arm) of the Gucci sunglasses. Ed tried to locate a replacement arm, but could not. The frames were six years old. Samuel wanted replacement frames. He says that Ed has many Gucci frames in the store. Ed did replace the frames with a comparable frame. The frames were not the Gucci brand, just comparable in shape and color. Ed explains there are signs in the store explaining the store is not responsible when customers provide their own frames. He says that Samuel routinely brings his own frames. Samuel returned to the store two weeks later, and demanded replacement Gucci frames. The manager spoke to him in the back room since Samuel was being very disruptive. He was offered a solution and left the store, only to file a lawsuit. Samuel says there is a gap between the lense and the frame where light comes through. The Judge agrees with him after examining the sunglasses. The solution to this problem is that Ed is found responsible to pay the depreciated value of the six year old Gucci sunglasses. This amounts to $255.00. Samuel is suing for $5000.00. The rest of the money is for pain and suffering. Samuel is not able to prove that he had pain or that he suffered by not being able to wear Gucci sunglasses. In the hallway, he says that if he had walked into a train because he could not see, there would have been pain and suffering. He also says that he likes Ed's store and he will definitely go back. Oh lucky day for Ed! 

Never Lie To the Judge!

James, a photographer. is suing Jim, for copyright infringement. James has a verbal agreement with the owner of a nightclub. One night a week he took pictures for the nightclub's Facebook page. He was paid $50.00 for the one night a week. The nightclub is out of business. James does not have any proof from the owner about the agreement they had. Jim has a website that promotes local businesses. The nightclub is listed as an out of business venue. Pictures from the nightclub are still available on this site. James believes Jim is selling the pictures and is making money from his work. Jim explains that a third party actually sells the pictures. Jim also says that he made $38.00 in commissions from the sale of the pictures. None of the pictures that were purchased were James's pictures from the now closed nightclub. Now, it is time for James to show proof of his copyright. He hands the Judge a paper when she asks if he has a copyright on the pictures. He says yes, but he does not have a copyright. Why did he lie in court? He says his attorney says he does not need a copyright in order to sue. Yet, he is suing based on copyright infringement. It is a shame that James received such bad advice. Yet, it was his choice to lie to the Judge. It is always better to be honest. Remember - honesty is the best policy. James does not prove his case, he does not get $5000.00. In the hallway, James says he will now get the copyright and sue again. Jim says that James is suing him personally and should have sued the company. Hopefully, James will not sue Jim again. It is time to move on. What do you think?

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

Sometimes all you can do is walk away, hide your tears, and pretend you're okay.

-Unknown

People's Court - 8 6 2012 - Monday

Put This In Your Pipe And Smoke It!

Douglas is suing David's business for $2314.00. Douglas had 4 grow tents for medical marijuana. Before he could use them, he changed his mind and went into another business. He took the 4 brand new grow tents to David's consignment shop. David sells indoor and outdoor horticultural equipment. Douglas does not have a consignment agreement. For some reason, he never signed one or received one. Douglas does have a claim check to prove he dropped off the 4 tents at David's store at the end of March. In September, Douglas received a call from the manager asking if he would sell 2 of the grow tents  for $2000.00. Douglas agreed. Two days later, Douglas was informed the store had been burglarized and the money was missing. This really should not affect Douglas. The store sold the grow tents, had the money and should pay Douglas. This does not happen. David says the claim check absolves him from his responsibility. The claim check states they are not responsible for lost or missing items. Okay, that is true, except the items were not lost or missing. They were sold and the money was stolen. There is a police report that does not even reference the money. David claims he did not know until 2 days later that the money was missing. How can you overlook a theft of $2000.00? Very, very suspicious. When he realizes the money is missing, he does not call the police to amend the report. Because the theft of the money is not recorded on the police report, David can not submit a claim to his insurance. David's defense is so convoluted, the Judge exclaims to him - put this in your pipe and smoke it - as she rules in favor of Douglas. In the hallway, David claims he did not get a chance to present his case. Douglas is very happy with the outcome. He does not believe David is involved in the theft, he thinks they both know who is responsible. Everyone will be happy to know, that Douglas picked up the remaining 2 grow tents from David's store. These types of cases are very interesting to me. It would seem straight forward that David would have to pay Douglas. Why he would think saying the money was stolen is beyond me. His own paperwork supports the fact that he is responsible to pay Douglas for the sold items. What do you think?

We Are Moving Out - The Mold In The House Is Making Us Sick!

Suzanne and Frank were renting a house from Karin and Mark. They had rented the house since 2005. Frank describes the relationship in favorable terms. Everyone got along. In 2008, Suzanne and Frank started to get sick on a regular basis. Their neighbor, Chris, was an environmental consultant. He brought them a mold kit and then sent it in to a laboratory for analysis. Unfortunately, Suzanne and Frank did not receive the results. Based on a visual inspection prior to sending the mold kit to the lab, Chris told Suzanne and Frank there was mold in the house. They felt this explained their illnesses and decided to move out of the house. Suzanne and Frank claim they gave proper notice. Karin and Mark say they did not get proper notice. Their tenants moved out without paying a full month's rent and also left unpaid water bills. The security deposit is being used to cover these expenses. Suzanne and Frank believe they should get back their security deposit and be paid for heating oil that was left in the oil tank. Frank wrote two notes to their landlords about this. Unfortunately, he quotes different amounts of oil at different prices. His reason for this is that he misread the oil chart. I can understand the amount of oil, but the price of the oil? He knows how much he paid for it. This does not make any sense to me. Regarding the water bills, Suzanne and Frank claim they never paid the water bill during the time they lived in the house. Karin explains that the water bill was in her mother's name and then stumbles over her words as she tries to explain the agreement. She does not have any proof to show the tenants paid the water bill. The Judge awards half of the security deposit to Suzanne and Frank. They also get some money for the heating oil left in the oil tank. Since Karin and Mark have no proof about the water bill, Suzanne and Frank do not have to pay for it. They are able to get back $965.00 of the $1500.00 security deposit. The important lesson in this case, is to document everything you do. Keep important paperwork, correspond by letter or e-mail. Maintaining a paper trail is very essential when you are trying to prove your case! What do you think about this situation?

I Need Evidence For Court?

Barbara is suing James for $1312.89. This is the cost to fix her car after a car accident. Barbara said that James was entering the highway from a ramp and hit the back of her car. After they pulled over and made sure everyone was okay, James told her someone hit him from behind. The impact of the truck hitting him, pushed his car into her car. The police were called and a report was written up. No one at the scene received tickets. James told the police about the truck that hit him, This information is documented in the police report. The damage to the back of James's car is also written on the police report. This is very important, since James came to court completely unprepared. He did not take pictures of the damage to the back of his car. Barbara does not believe there was another vehicle. She said she was moving when James hit her car. James says she was at a standstill. Their stories are so different. Barbara says she did not see a white truck. James says the white truck kept going after it hit him. He did tell Barbara about the truck right away. James also told the police about the truck. The information on the police report about the damage to the back of his vehicle is enough to convince the Judge. Barbara does not win her case. In the hallway, Barbara says the damage to James's car was probably there before the accident. James says he told the truth. I do not think he even realizes how lucky he is. If the police report did not contain the information about the damage to the back of his car, he would not have won the case. It is very important to bring evidence to court. When someone is suing you, honesty and truth are important, but evidence is crucial. 

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

There is no right way to do something wrong.
-Unknown

People's Court - 8 3 2012 - Friday

The Blue Collar Is Faded!

Ceasia is suing the cleaners for the cost of clothing that she claims they ruined. The clothes were all Ralph Lauren, purchased for a polo party. She has not brought any of the items with her. This is Ceasia's day in court, this is when she should bring the evidence for her case. Because of this oversight, her lawsuit is reduced from $369.50 to $150.00. Dulce is representing the cleaners. She admits that the items brought in, a sweater, a tshirt and the polo shirt were damaged. She fixed the sweater and the tshirt and Ceasia accepted them. The polo shirt is the problem. The blue collar was faded. Dulce explains that the shirt is not going to look brand new after being worn and cleaned. Dulce had offered $60.00 when she was told the shirt was damaged. When she saw the receipt, Dulce said that was too much money. She was not going to pay for it. Ceasia's boyfriend thought Dulce was being disrespectful and he called the police. Why would someone call the police over a polo shirt and disrespect? He explains that he felt he needed to call the police before Dulce called them. I think he should have left the store and then decide how to proceed. I do not think the police need to use their resources responding to someone who is upset over a faded collar. Ceasia's boyfriend wanted it on the record that he was not satisfied with the dry cleaners. Okay, now we get to see the polo shirt. Dulce has brought it with her. The Judge examines the polo shirt and is struggling to see the problems. Looking at the shirt, the Judge says she would have liked to see the other items. It is a shame they are not available for her to look at. Ceasia forgot them. Ceasia's boyfriend says they were damaged, repaired and now the fabric is ruined. Unfortunately, there is no way to confirm this. Ceasia loses the case. In the hallway, her boyfriend says he is going to donate the shirt. Having high expectations is not a bad thing, but we all need to be realistic. Once an item of clothing is worn and cleaned, it will never look brand new. What do you think?

I Am Selling You A Free Boat! 

Marc is suing Bill for $500.00. Bill is counterclaiming for $500.00. Marc has a case, Bill does not. Marc was going to buy a fishing boat from Bill's good friend. He gave Bill a $200.00 deposit, a battery and $100.00 for his time. Marc believes Bill is acting as a broker for the sale. Bill admits he received the $200.00 and the battery from Marc. He said he returned the battery, he even took a picture of where he left the battery. Bill shows the picture of the battery left outside of Marc's garage. Why leave something outside when no one is home? How do you know they are going to get it? Marc says the battery was not left for him. The Judge does not believe him. The bigger issue here is the fact of boat ownership. Marc takes his friend, Robert, to see the boat. Robert is going to go in on the purchase of the boat. When the two men are looking at the boat, someone tells them it is great they are removing the boat from the property. The two men also find out that the boat is being given away for free. This causes a tense moment between the two men, since Robert was going to give Marc money towards buying the boat. You do not have to purchase a free boat. Bill has so much to explain. He was getting the boat for free and was selling it to Marc. He did not tell Marc any of this. Marc thought he was buying the boat from a friend of Bill's. Bill did not remove the boat from the owner's property, he did not transfer the title to his name. Is Bill really the owner of the boat? Can Bill sell the boat? No, he cannot because he does not own the boat. Marc has a letter from Bob, the owner of the boat. In the letter, Bob calls Bill a scamster. Bill says there is no proof the letter is legitimate. He says Bob is his friend and he did not write this letter. The Judge wants to call Bob. Bill should have his phone number since they are friends. Bills says this is a new cell phone and he has Bob's phone number in his rolodex. Do people still use a rolodex for phone numbers? Now, Bill shows a letter that Marc sent to his ex-wife. Bill claims this letter caused tension  between himself and his wife, oops! his ex-wife. He said they are divorced, but live in the same house for financial reasons. This tension is the reason for the counterclaim. He is not able to prove that any tension caused by this letter would be worth any amount of money. On top of that, he needs to pay Marc back the $200.00. Bill denies receiving the extra $100.00, so Marc does not get this money back. Marc did not breach a contract of sale, since Bill was not the actual owner of the boat. Bill had no right to sell a boat that did not belong to him. Beware of deals that are too good to be true! Also, get receipts when money changes hands!

My Diamond Ring is Missing - I Know Who Stole It!

Marita hired David's moving company and is now suing him for $5000.00. This is the value of a ring that was missing after the move. David gave her an estimate of $1600.00 for the move, the actual cost was almost double. The Judge says this is normal for the industry. David tries to defend this practice. The Judge says it is not necessary. This is not an issue, since the case is about a missing ring. Marita claims her diamond ring was missing after the move. She packed her jewelry box and the movers put it into her car. Marita remembers that she carried the box into her house and put it in her bedroom. Initially, she has problems with the movers because they scratched the the floors in her new home. It was beneficial for Marita that she purchased insurance for the move. She put in a claim for the scratched floors and was paid. Ten days after the move, Marita notices her diamond ring is missing. Where can it be? Of course it has to be the movers! I do not understand why Marita is so quick to jump to this conclusion. She says they are the only ones who had access to her bedroom. She did not see anyone actually take the ring. She has no proof. Marita contacted David, he suggested she file a police report and submit to insurance. When the claim was denied by the insurance company, Marita decided to sue David's company. David says that he has never had a problem with theft in the past. His employees have been with him for many years. He has complete trust in his employees. Marita loses her case. In the hallway, Marita says she does not understand why she bought insurance. David says he would like to change the image of moving companies, he is a nice guy! I have a feeling the ring is going to show up, I do not think the movers took it. What do you think?

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

Remember being a success without happiness is meaningless.

-Richard Denny