People's Court Blog - 10 23 2012 - Tuesday

Working For A Living

Deborah is suing Paola for $5000.00. This is for wages, a dinner, check fees, defamation of character and pain and suffering. Deborah worked for Paola taking care of her autistic sister. She also did some bookkeeping for her. When she joined Paola on a business trip, the two women had lunch together. Deborah paid for the dinner and expected Paola to pay her back. Then Deborah lent her $450.00 and the check Paola paid her back with was rubber. After the check bounced, Paola did make good on it but did not pay the bank fees. Then Paola did not pay Deborah for the work she had done. Paola admits she owes Deborah the money for the wages, but denies the money for the lunch. She starts to cry and and says she is going to be sick. Why is this? She starts talking about a friendship between the two of them. This does not make any sense. If they were friends, why wouldn't she pay Deborah. Paola also tried to get Deborah fired. She went to the restaurant where she worked and told her boss that Deborah was stalking her. She said that she waited this long to sue because she was asked to sign a statement at work that she would keep her job if she did not sue Paola. Deborah does not have any proof of this. The only aspects of the case Deborah could prove is the wages and the check fees. She recovers $567.00. Why do people treat each other this way? It seemed like there was a friendship between the two women, yet Paola did not treat Deborah with respect. Deborah did the right thing to sue for what was owed to her. I am sure she was hurt by this experience but cannot get money for that. 

Friends?

Anna is suing Nicole for $1394.50. These two young women were friends and Anna lent Nicole money over and over again. Why would she keep lending her money if it was not being paid back? Anna says she was being nice. It seems she was trying to be nice to a friend. Whenever Nicole needed help Anna was there for her. Wouldn't you value a friend like this? I would. Not only did Nicole not pay her back, but now she denies the loans. Facebook messages prove otherwise. Nicole has to pay Anna back $950.00. The reason Anna does not get all the money back is because she cannot prove all of the loans. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a friend sign a promissory note. If a friend is in need of a loan and they are truly going to pay it back, they will sign an I.O.U. If they do not want to sign, then do not lend the money! 

Permission To Park

Joshua is suing Edward for $1478.99. This is for the cost of repairs to his car and for a rental car. Joshua was visiting his grandfather in a senior retirement village. When he parked his car, he saw Edward outside. Joshua approached him and asked if it was okay to leave his car where he was parked. Edward said yes. Then Edward went to back out of his driveway, forgot Joshua was parked on the street and backed into him. It is refreshing that Edward is honest about this. He is not used to cars being there since it is a no parking zone. The problem occurs when Edward thinks the repair is too expensive. Joshua actually goes to Edward's mechanic. Unfortunately, the mechanic only replaces the taillight and leaves the rest of the repair undone. Joshua does recover the cost of the repair and the cost for a rental car for a total of $1037.18. I think it is unfortunate that Edward forgot the car was there, he still needs to look when he backs up.

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

I can, therefore I am.

~Simone Weil

People's Court Blog - 10 22 2012 - Monday

Buying A Used Car

Ramona and Stephen are suing David for $10,000.00.

This is about a used car purchase, yet it seems to be about so much more. Ramona and Stephen purchased a used car from David for $4300.00. This was a 12 year old Monte Carlo. Like so many others they did not have a mechanic inspect the car before the purchase. The advertisement David put on Craigslist made certain claims. David has to honor these. When David wrote brand new tires, it is assumed it is all four tires. Ramona has proof that only one tire was new. Also, there were certain things discussed that both parties agree to. This includes fixing the windshield. The item in dispute is the transmission. Ramona claims that David and a mechanic tried to pull a fast one saying the only repair needed was a new cellinoid. After this work was done, the check engine light came on and further inspection found a new transmission was needed. Ramona cannot prove that David had prior knowledge about the condition of the transmission. After all, the car is 12 years old! Why didn't they have a mechanic inspect the car before buying it? The answer of course is money! This costs and no one seems to want to spend the extra money. Yet, the headaches it would avoid...

Ramona tries to make this case about David's character. She shows a YouTube video of David singing and dancing. David does not object to this video being shown in court. Ramona also introduces messages from David's Facebook page. They prove he has fun friends with a sense of humor, but do not prove defamation of character. Ramona and Stephen do recover $490.00, this is for the windshield and the tires. They do not prove their case regarding the transmission or defamation of character. The sale of a used car is as-is. If the owner promises certain things or provides a warranty that is definitely an extra. People need to take responsibility for their decisions. When you purchase a 12 year old car, you have to expect there are going to be repairs needed! Do you agree?

The Missing Coat

Joanne is suing Joseph for $652.89.

Joanne and her family eat at Joseph's restaurant 1-2 times a week. They obviously enjoy the food. On their last visit they were seated in a small booth. They hung their coats on a coat rack located in the center of the restaurant. When they were ready to leave Joanne's coat was missing. Her coat was practically brand new. She had received it as a Christmas present from her husband and only wore it 3 times. When she told the owner what happened, he threw up his arms and said he was not responsible. When she called a few days later to see if her coat had been found Joseph spoke with her. He told her the coat was still missing, but he felt bad about it. After all, she was a very good customer. He offered her gift certificates for the restaurant. Joanne refused and said she would rather have the cash. Joseph was not assuming responsibility for the missing coat. he was trying to do something to make his customer feel better. Joanne cannot prove it is the fault of the restaurant that her coat was stolen. They did not do anything wrong. She hung her coat in an area that other people had access to. Joanne says that there was not a sign regarding a policy on missing items. Why does the store need such a sign? They don't, although Joseph says they now have a sign. The Judge is very clear on personal responsibility. The coat was hanging in an area that anyone had access to. Joanne did not need to read a sign that said the store was not responsible for missing items. She is unable to prove that the restaurant did anything wrong and does not recover the money for her coat. In the hallway, Joseph is still offering the gift certificates. I think Joanne should take him up on the offer. After all, she was a good customer and he acknowledges that. Why should she deny herself and her family a nice time out and an enjoyable meal? What do you think?

The Crooked Contractor

Yvonne is suing Angel for $700.00.

Yvonne hired Angel to do work on her house. She wanted to have several windows boarded up because of drafts. She signed a contract and gave Angel a deposit for $700.00. After Yvonne did this she changed her mind. She contacted Angel and cancelled the work and asked for her money back. In the state of Connecticut, a person has three days to change their mind. She informed Angel of this and expected her deposit back. Angel offered her back $500.00 because he says he already bought some material for the job that he could not return. Why would he do this before the three days? Why wouldn't he return her money? More importantly, why is he working when he is no longer licensed and insured? The contract states that he is licensed and insured. Angel says this is an old contract, he closed his business 3 years ago. Okay, then don't work. Don't take people's money. This is very straightforward. Yvonne gets back her deposit money. Angel shows himself up to be a crooked contractor! Yvonne is very happy as she leaves the courtroom saying Justice is done!

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.

~William Faulkner

People's Court Blog - 10 19 2012 - Friday

October Challenge Check-up: I seem to have set my goals too high. This week has not been a success for the challenge. This is okay. We have to allow ourselves a setback. It is not a failure if you are trying. The success is in the effort. I will continue to strive to meet my goal of posting the blog the day the show is aired. Continuing to reach for my goal is the challenge that I have set for myself. Hopefully you have met your goal that you set for this month or are getting close. If not, keep on trying!

Friends Fighting
Regina is suing Tamika for $5000.00.

Regina and Tamika were friends. Regina knew Tamika's mom for 25 years, When Tamika moved back home, Regina befriended her. These two women went out together, clubbing. They went out for Tamika's birthday, although it was a week early. Tamika celebrates a birthday week! When the club closed at 2:00 am, Tamika did not want to leave. Regina says that at the end of the evening Tamika drank two Long Island Iced Teas before they left. One of them was for Regina and she was the driver! Both of these women sounded unfit for driving. While Regina was driving home, Tamika tried to stop her. As Regina tried to pull over she thinks she hit something, a car? the guardrail? She does not know. Thank goodness it was not a person! Regina says she pulled over and Tamika pulled her hair and hit her head into the steering wheel. Tamika says Regina was upset because she was flirting with someone that Regina liked. She claims Regina ripped her pink leather jacket and hit her several times. Regina has pictures of her injuries and can prove that her hair weave was pulled out. The Judge finds in her favor for $1000.00, for her hair weave and personal injury. She cannot prove the damage to her car. What a shame that a friendship has to end this way! Tamika is not setting a very good example for her her children, ages 20, 17, 10 and 4. Regina should find someone closer to her own age to spend time with. Both women have to stop drinking and driving - so very dangerous! What do you think?

Dog Attack

Michael is suing Ilene for $1307.91.

Michael was walking his Jack Russell Terrier, Jake. When he walked past Ilene's house, two large dogs charged at him. He heard Ilene yell to pick up his dog. He picked up Jake and tried to shield him from the two dogs. One of the dogs bit him and Jake. Ilene ran over to him and tried to get the dogs away. She fell and hit her head on the curb. Ilene really got hurt, She even cracked a rib when she fell. She remembers Michael yelling at her to get up when she fell. Wow! I know he was dealing with a lot, but really have some mercy. Ilene offered to pay for the vet bills. She gave Michael a check but he did not want it. He wanted to be reimbursed for sunglasses that he lost in the confusion of the moment and lost wages. Michael says that even though he got a paid sick day from work he wants to be paid for it. Life does not work that way. He used the sick day and that is what they are for. Ilene is found responsible to pay the vet bill of $562.00. She is fine with this, but she also got a lecture about having too many dogs. It seemed that day the reason the two dogs were running down the street was because the dogs got away from her. As Ilene was putting 2 of the dogs in the house, the third one pushed out and ran down the street with one of the leashed dogs. It does sound like Ilene had a lot going on, but she did the right thing to offer to pay the vet bill. She did not count on Michael being greedy!

Collateral Damage
Mark is suing Michael for $7000.00.

Mark loaned Michael $2000.00. Michael admits that he borrowed the money and gave Mark his climbing equipment as collateral. When he did not get a job and could not pay him back, he told Mark to sell the equipment. Mark should not have to be responsible to sell the equipment. Michael should have sold it to pay off his loan. Even though he had not paid Mark back, Mark says he paid Michael to split firewood. It really is not believable that he would give Michael $400.00 when he is owed $2000.00. It is more believable that the money was deducted from the loan. Then there is the $200.00 that Mark had advanced to Michael for a job he did not have a chance to do. After doing all of the math, Michael owes Mark $1800.00. Why was Mark suing Michael for so much money? He says he wanted to get his attention. It really does not work that way. He should have only sued him for the amount he felt he was owed. I think if he sued Michael for $2200.00 he would have noticed! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.

~Plutarch

People's Court Blog - 10 18 2012 - Thursday

Lawn Maintenance

Steven is suing Bruce for $300. Bruce is counterclaimimg for $750.00. Steven has been providing lawn services to Bruce since 2006. His company landscaped the property and has been maintaining it ever since. This past year Steven notified Bruce of a price increase. Bruce did not want to pay the increase but he wanted to decrease the services and the cost. He continued paying Steven and finally in March stopped paying. Steven provided lawn care for March and wants to be paid. Bruce says he did not pay because he was not satisfied with the quality of work, yet he did  not complain. The only issue was about dollarweed that Steven did send an e-mail to Bruce describing the way he was dealing with it. The e-mail was very rude and very unprofessional. Steven needs to rethink his e-mail communications. He is entitled to to be paid for his services. The Judge finds in his favor. Bruce loses on his counterclaim, he does not get any money back. He should have complained about the service at the time and not continue to pay for something he was not happy with!

Parking Tickets

Doris is suing Roach for $838.35. This is for unpaid parking tickets. Doris let Roach register his car in her name. Why would she do this? Roach was her very good friend for over 20 years. Now, Doris goes to buy a new car and learns she cannot get financing because of unpaid parking tickets. Never ever let anyone, friend or family register a car in your name. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. So much could have happened. Doris is fortunate it was parking tickets and not a car accident. The car was impounded because of the numerous parking tickets. Roach wanted Doris to set up a payment plan. He is arrogant and unrepentant. He actually is yelling at the Judge during his testimony. How rude! Roach does not want to pay for the parking tickets because he says some of them are Doris's tickets. He has no proof of this. The Judge finds in Doris's favor. Doris needs to understand the position she could have been in if Roach had a car accident and someone was hurt. What I do not understand is that Roach has written off Doris as a friend yet, Doris says that Roach is still a good friend. What has to happen for her to realize what could have happened? It does not seem like a lesson was learned today! What do you think?

Hot Tub Cover

William is suing Lori for $425.93. This is for a hot tub cover. Lori had rented a room from William from May to August. When she moved out she did not give the proper amount of notice. William notified her about this and she paid the balance. Months later he contacts her about the hot tub cover. William claims she only opened the cover halfway and misused it and damaged it. He did not notice it was damaged until he reopened the hot tub. Lori denies the misuse. William has a notarized statement from his girlfriend describing the misuse. If William or his girlfriend witnessed the misuse of the cover they should have talked to Lori right away. William says he did talk to her because he was worried she would be trapped. Lori denies this. William should have checked the cover to make sure it was not damaged. William cannot prove his case and the Judge finds in favor of Lori. William is surprised by the outcome, he thought it was a slam dunk. Lori is glad it is over. It is very important to deal with issues in a timely manner. When someone is going to move out or has moved out, check everything right away. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The true adventurer goes forth aimless and uncalculating to meet and greet unknown fate.

~O. Henry

People's Court Blog-10 17 2012-Wednesday

An iPhone And Promise Rings

Tyanna is suing Jennifer for $713.00. This is for an iPhone and a promise ring she bought for Jennifer. Jennifer is counterclaiming for $520.00, the cost of the promise ring she gave to Tyanna. These two women were in an intimate relationship with each other. Tyanna says she loaned Jennifer an iPhone. Jennifer says it was a gift. She says that Tyanna gave her many gifts. She starts taking items out of her purse to show the gifts that Tyanna has given her. Tyanna seems to be a generous person or is she just trying to buy Jennifer's love? Either way, this seems like such a sad situation. Tyanna thought the relationship was serious, Jennifer did not return the sentiment. People do need to realize that to have a cell phone on someone else's account gives them a way to keep track of who you call. There are a series of text messages between the two women. There is nothing in the text messages to prove the iPhone was a loan. Jennifer gets to keep the phone. Neither women recover any money for the promise rings. The Judge tells them to go home and move on. 

Why do people need to be petty when they break up? It is over, move on. You give each other rings, gifts, etc., it is all part of being in a relationship. In any type of relationship there is give and take. It is not easy to separate all of this when there is a breakup. I hope both women can find happiness in their lives. 

Drag Racing Quilts

Patricia is suing Dave for $981.37. This is for the cost of several quilts that Patricia made for Dave.  These quilts are gorgeous. I am sure after this case Patricia will have no problem selling them. The Judge fell in love with them! I fell in love with them! Too bad Dave did not fall in love with them! These quilts were made out of T-shirts that Dave had saved from car racing events. When he met Patricia and found out she made quilts he asked her if she could make quilts from the T- shirts. They discussed it and Patricia made the quilts. Why doesn't Dave want to keep them? He did not like that Patricia put Indy cars on the quilt. His passion is drag racing and he did not like the Indy cars on the quilt. Patricia agreed to give him his money back and take back the quilts. Patricia feels she does not have the right to sell the quilts since they were made with Dave's property. The Judge rules in favor of Dave. Since they reached a settlement when Patricia returned the money to Dave and he returned the quilts, she has the right to sell the quilts. In the hallway, Patricia says she could probably get $500-$600 a piece for these quilts. Dave agrees they should have had a written contract. These quilts are so beautiful, I hope Patricia is able to sell them!

The Chimney Needs a Permit

Felix is suing Neranjohn for $4999.00. This is for costs associated with obtaining a permit for work done 4 years ago. Felix hired Neranjohn to install a chimney for him. Neither man obtained a permit from the city. Felix says he did not know he needed one, Neranjohn said he told him to get one. Even though there was no permit, Neranjohn completed the job. Now, years later Felix is contacted by the city for the lack of a permit. In order to get a permit Felix has to obtain architect's plans, pay the permit fees and pay the fines. He wants Neranjohn to pay for all of this. Why would he be responsible for these fees? Felix should know he would need a permit for this work. He would be responsible for all of the fees in the first place and the fine, well, that is his own fault for not calling the city. And why is the city contacting him years after the job was done? Well, Neranjohn tells the court that Felix called the city on his neighbor for work being done and brought this on himself. Remember - people in glass houses should not throw stones!!!! The Judge finds in favor of Neranjohn. Hopefully, Neranjohn will not compromise his contractor's license in the future doing work without a permit! 

Please share your thoughts in the comments. 

Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Life is half spent before we know what it is.

~George Herbert

People's Court Blog - 10 16 2012 - Tuesday

A 4 Year Old Driver

Linda is suing Andrew for $2554.89. This is for injuries she received as a result of Andrew's 4 year old driving into her with a motorized scooter. Yes, 4 years old! and Andrew is a proud father to say she has been riding since she was 3! Not only that, she is obviously so experienced she does not need adult supervision. Andrew seems fine with the fact his 6 year old was outside with the 4 year old. Linda describes the incident and it is very believable that a 4 year old lost control of a motorized scooter and injured her. Andrew says that his daughter told him that Linda walked out in front of her. Who would you believe? Linda shows the pictures of her injury and also show the scar on her ankle. Andrew does not seem to be concerned at all by Linda's injuries. He did not even check on her after the incident. After all, his kids did come home and tell him the neighbor had been injured. How does he rationalize letting his kids play outside unsupervised and on such dangerous vehicles for kids their age? Well, that is a very good question. We will not get the answer in this forum. The Judge finds in favor of Linda and tells Andrew that he needs to be a better parent. A 4 year old should not be playing unsupervised and should not be driving a motorized scooter! What do you think?

A Yankee Weekend

Andrew and Denis are suing Paul for $3109.40. Paul is counterclaiming for $5000.00, Andrew, Denis and 2 other friends traveled from Boston to New York City to spend the weekend. They wanted to see a Yankee game. They purchased tickets outside the stadium from a scalper for $50.00 each. They were stopped in the line and told the tickets were not valid. They were not counterfeit tickets. Andrew was able to find out where the tickets originated. Paul has a business in Connecticut and sends unsold tickets to the city to be sold. He claims he did not know these tickets had been sold online the Thursday before the game. Andrew contacted Paul and was offered the $200.00 he spent on the tickets. He asked for $600.00 and Paul turned him down. Andrew then called the Yankees to find out if this has happened before. Paul feels this was slander and could hurt his business and that is why he is counterclaiming. Why are they suing Paul for so much money? Well, they want Paul to pay for their entire weekend expenses. This is outrageous! I think they are lucky to have found Paul to begin with and to have the opportunity to get back the $200.00. When you buy tickets on the street, you are really taking a chance. This is exactly the ruling. The Judge finds in their favor for the $200.00. Paul does not recover anything on his counterclaim. He has not lost anything because of the phone call to the Yankees. This should be a wake-up call to Paul to change his business practices. Andrew and Denis should not have expected to get a bonanza of a free weekend in the city because they bought tickets on the street! What do you think?

A Cuban Gold Necklace

Jimmy is suing a pawnbroker for $2400.00. He says this is the value of a gold Cuban necklace the pawnbroker sold. When Jimmy pawned his gold Cuban necklace he received $450.00. He failed to pick it up within the allotted time and to pay the interest payments. The store tried to notify him but did not have the correct address. There is so much that went wrong here on Jimmy's part. He should have made sure he went back to the pawnbroker within the proper amount of time. He should have made sure they had his current address. Why would any of this be the store's responsibility? The store even waited longer than the allotted 4 months to sell the necklace. I feel bad for Jimmy because this necklace seems to mean so much to him, but he really dropped the ball.  Jimmy loses his case because he cannot show that the store did anything wrong. And what was the money for? Jimmy went to Atlantic City! Really! what a shame! Hopefully in the future, Jimmy will make sure information on an application is correct and he pays attention to the calender! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

~Bertrand Russell

People's Court Blog - 10 15 2012 - Monday

Snickers And Scorpio

Cindy is suing Mark for $3826.30. This is a combined total for lost wages and vet bills. Both of these dog owners are guilty of letting their dogs roam free in the neighborhood. There is a leash law in their town, neither of them care. They do  not care if their dogs get lost, stolen or hit by a car. Now they care because someone needs to be responsible for the vet bill. Scorpio, Mark's Chocolate Labrador attacked Snickers, Cindy's Dachshund. The vet bills are $2826.20. Mark offered to pay half because it was near Christmas and he wanted to help Cindy out. Actually Mark, you are going to pay the entire amount because of Florida law on strict liability. Even though both of them were wrong in leaving their dogs roam free, Mark is responsible for the bills. He does not have to pay for the week of work that Cindy chose to miss. She wanted to be home with Snickers while he was recovering. Please both of you put leashes on your dogs! The dogs deserve to be protected from harm. If you cannot be bothered to walk your dog on a leash, do not have dogs! What do you think?

The Harmonica Player 

Elliot is suing Michael for $200.00. He claims Michael hired him to play in a band on Labor Day in at a city sponsored picnic in 2010. Michael denies this. He says he does not even like harmonica players so why would he hire him. Are we to believe that Elliot just walked up to the band and started playing with them? Are we to believe that now Elliot is suing for a job he did not have? Well, it is hard to know what to believe since Elliot is claiming Michael owes him $200.00. Michael says he paid the men in the band $50.00 each. Elliot finally admits that he was hired for $50.00 and now wants more because he had to waste so much time trying to get paid. Elliot does have a letter from one of the men in the band stating that the were paid. Unfortunately, he does not mention the amount. After listening to both sides of the story, The Judge decides that Elliot was hired and he will get paid $50.00 and interest from the past two years! Why did Michael think is was believable that Elliot would sue him if he was not hired? Why did Elliot think that it was believable that he was hired for $200.00? If both men just told the truth it would have been a magical moment! What do you think?

The Pitter Patter Of Little Feet

Lisa is suing George for $5000.00. This is for damages to her apartment and for pain and suffering. Lisa has lived in her apartment for 40 years. In 2008, George moved in above her. She says there were leaks in her apartment caused by George. These problems were resolved. In 2011, he rented to a couple with a 7 year old, 45 lb child. Lisa claims that she has had damage to her ceiling fan light fixture, smoke detector, medicine cabinet and toilet because of the child. She said the child jumps up and down and creates problems. She complained to George on many occasions. He did ask the family to put down rugs and they did. Lisa said it did not help. One day George came in her apartment to see the damage she was complaining about. When Lisa asked him if he could hear the noise, he listened and heard the pitter patter of little feet. That is when he realized this was not going to to be easy to resolve. Lisa was super sensitive to the slightest noise. It does seem that George was trying to mediate the problem. The family was made aware of the complaints. They provided a letter to the court that described how they supervise their child and they even remove their shoes at the door. The family moved out because of this situation. That is really a shame! The child has a right to walk around in his own home. The Judge finds that Lisa cannot prove her case. What a shame that a family had to move out because of this unreasonable woman! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.

~James M. Barrie