The People’s Court Podcast

First, the plaintiff took her vehicle to the defendant's shop for a paint job, but it turned out to be the wrong color, so the plaintiff is suing. The defendant says the plaintiff's insurance company paid to paint the panel, not blend it in. He was just contracted to do what he did.

Then, the plaintiff gave the defendant, a bail bondsman, money to get her boyfriend out of jail. However, the defendant owes the plaintiff money for the remaining bail, so she's suing. The defendant argues he is well within his rights to keep the money the plaintiff is suing for.

Plus, the plaintiff moved in with the defendant and rented a room in his house. However, the defendant demanded the plaintiff move out and onto the street, so the plaintiff is suing. The defendant insists the plaintiff snuck out of the house in the middle of the night and didn't even say he was leaving.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

First, the plaintiff says she hired the defendant to handle a roach infestation in her home, and while he showed up three or four times, the problem wasn’t fixed. He reportedly stopped answering her calls and now her home is infested again. She is suing him for the money she paid to put it toward another company to fix the problem. The defendant says he was ready and willing to fulfil their contract and even did the work. The plaintiff was impatient and wouldn’t give his job time to work. Just because she found someone cheaper doesn’t mean she’s owed a refund.

Then, the plaintiff claims that the defendant, her ex-boyfriend, deposited two bad checks into her bank account, and now that they’ve split, he’s refusing to pay her back. She’s suing him for the money she deserves. The defendant claims he was asked to deposit the checks by the plaintiff, so she’s the one at fault for having faulty checks. He even says she told him to withdraw $600 for himself. He claims she’s only suing him because he broke up with her.

Plus, the plaintiff hired the defendant to refinish his classic car, but when he went to pick it up, he found a piece missing and the rest of the job done incorrectly. The defendant made no attempt to correct the issue, so the plaintiff is suing for the money he spent. The defendant claims the plaintiff took one look at the job and left with the car, never giving a single complaint about the job done. He also says the lawsuit is odd because parts are not as expensive as the plaintiff is claiming.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

First, the plaintiffs rented a house from the defendant and soon had the defendant’s family wandering in and out as if they lived there. The plaintiffs moved and have yet to be given their security deposit back, much less a reason why it’s been withheld. They are suing for the return of their security. The defendants say they had painted the unit with the understanding the plaintiffs would be staying a year, but instead they up and left only six weeks after moving in. The defendants are keeping the deposit to cover the cost of the paint job.

Then, the plaintiff says the defendant, his taxman, made a mistake on his tax return forms, causing him to pay more in interest than he should have. He has no problem paying what he owes to the IRS but doesn’t think he should pay for the additional $900 in interest from the mistake. He is suing the defendant as a result to get his money back. The defendant argues that the mistake was not his but the government’s, and the plaintiff really has an issue with them.

Plus, the plaintiff took his truck to the defendant to have the heater repaired, but when he got it back, the signal lights and brake lights didn’t work. He took it back to the defendant, and the second time he picked it up, he found his emergency lights would turn on when he signaled turning right. He is suing for the cost of getting his wiring redone. The defendant says he tested everything to make sure it was working, and it was. The complaints were for electrical issues, which he doesn’t even do. He’s innocent of any issues caused.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

First, the plaintiff says she had agreed to rent an apartment from the defendant, who promised the current tenant had been evicted and the place was ready on January 1. When the plaintiff went to pick up her keys at the end of December, she found the previous tenant was still there and refusing to leave. The plaintiff is standing up for her rights and suing for the return of the rent she paid. The defendant says she thought the plaintiff would be a perfect fit for her unit but was mistaken. She says the plaintiff is crazy and has been making wild accusations against her for a while. Since no money was exchanged, she doesn’t owe the plaintiff anything.

Then, the plaintiff says the defendant is a scoundrel who sold him a car with a fried engine and is suing to get his money back. The defendant says the plaintiff took the car for a test drive and liked it, so he put down a deposit. All he knows is he sold the plaintiff a perfectly fine car, and nothing was wrong at the time of sale.

Plus, the plaintiff has been using the defendant’s shipping company for a year, and one of his packages has gone missing. The defendant supposedly handles many packages a day and didn’t have time to check delivery on just the one. The plaintiff wants to be reimbursed for the lost merchandise and is suing. The defendant says he has packages delivered to his store for clients all the time and has records of each one. The “missing package” was never logged in his books, despite the plaintiff saying it had been delivered, so he says he’s not at fault for a shipping mistake.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

First, the plaintiff was driving home in a camper when the defendant slammed into her. The defendant sped off, so the plaintiff is suing for damages. The defendant insists the plaintiff is the one who caused the accident. The defendant is countersuing for damages.

Then, the plaintiff rented an apartment from the defendant, but he hasn't returned her security, so she's suing. The defendant says the plaintiff seemed like the perfect tenant, but her boyfriend came over late at night. The defendant believes if anyone is owed money, it's him. The defendant is countersuing for past due rent.

Plus, the plaintiff spoke with the defendant, a lawyer, about some trouble her son got into. The defendant charged her but didn't do anything, so the plaintiff is suing for a refund. The defendant argues he was hired by the plaintiff and drafted a letter to the cops.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices