Texas Justice, Judge Joe Brown and Judge Judy. These people are stupid for letting someone sue them for a couple hundred bucks. I saw a show recently where a dude got sued because he broke a ladys car window throwing a baseball with his son. She sued him because he refused to pay saying she shouldn't have been parked where she was. Of course he lost, but now he has a silly judgement for $117 dollars on his credit report. The lady's car was parked on in the driveway of the defendants neighbor (she was visiting a friend). However, her car was parked just far enough up the driveway to keep the rear out of the street. She parked with her door at the sidewalk because she was only gonna be a few minutes. The defendant and his son were in front of his house on the sidwalk playing catch and the boy missed a throw and that's how the car window got smashed. Would you say she was at fault for parking the way she was or is the defendant responsible regardless of that fact. I agree with the ruling, but I feel bad that the dude has a stupid judgement on his report for $117. I just new the Judge was gonna say the plaintiff was half at fault for parking that way but he didn't. Oh well...see ya.
Actually I don't think the cases are real. All the participants on the TV courts are actually involved in binding arbitration.
I believe they are real. I remember seeing a dateline or 60 minutes type program on these and it was saying how they go about choosing the cases etc... Some people actually contact the show directly but others they actually review the pending cases of small claims courts and pick ones that interest them. There was one from Judge Judy where one of the people (don't recall if it was plaintiff or defendant) tried to have it overturned and sue again and they were denied saying the judgements were binding. Also, and I'm not sure of this either. I believe it doesn't go on your report unless you don't pay. Then you have to go back to court to get the judgement of whatever so you can go after their assets and then it would end up on their credit. This I'm not sure about. I just remember a friend of mine suing a carpet company. He won the case (because they never showed) but didn't pay him. He had to go back to court to get something else so he could attach their account or something. On these TV cases though, I believe the judgements are paid, or partially paid out of a fund. They also have to abide by the laws of whatever state the case was initially filed (or would have been filed). Such as different states have different laws for return of engagement rings when an engagement is called off. Some states say the person that broke it off, or caused it to be broken off does not get the ring. Some states say that it is a contract and if, for whatever reason, the contract is not followed through, then the ring is returned to the giver. Also, states have different maximum amounts. Most are 5,000.00 but some are 3,000.00 and such.
Actually dixie is right on this one. The people who appear on these shows have to sign a binding arbitration agreement basically stating that whatever Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown Judge Schmoe decides they must abide by their decisions. I don't know this for a fact but I think people get paid to go on the shows. I always have thought that is the reason the losers never seem so upset. But I could be wrong. Oh well it wouldn't be the first time..lol. clc
I know that a couple of years ago, there was a fund of $5000.00 (which was the maximum that they could sue for) that was used for each case. If you won say $2500, then you got that off of the top, and then the remaining $2500.00 was split between the defendant and plaintiff. So, the winner would get $3750.00 and the loser would get $1250.00. Hope that helps.
they want landlords to come on the air they told a landlord i know that they would pay or any repairs the court decided, if only she would come on the air. they want to be the peoples court, and so to gain popular approval and ratings, they want cases where its the rich guy vs the poor guy....
