speed-racer
New Contributor
Hello.
I saw this story on one of the judge shows a couple of months ago and I haven't been able to get it out of my head. Here goes...
One sister (lets refer to her as sister#1) was so called 'trying to get her life back on track' after using drugs, hanging in the streets, etc. so she asked her sister (let's refer to her as sister#2) if she could come and stay with her for some time period (I don't remember exactly but like a month or two) and she was going to find a job. She agreed that she was going to pay her sister $200/month as soon as she could. So sister#2 wanted to give her sister the opportunity to turn her life around so she reluctantly agreed.
Well, as most know where this was going: sister#1 was there 3 months and didn't have a job nor did she pay the agreed-upon $200/month plus she was not behaving as she should so sister#2 gave her a week to move out. So, sister#1 left.
In an attempt for sister#2 to try to get her money, she sued her sister for 3 months back rent which amounted to $600. It looked like she was going to win the case at first, but then, near the end of the segment, the case took a turn.
In her state, because the sisters had made a 'rental' agreement although verbal, it was legally binding. Even though no money exchanged hands, sister#1 was legally covered by tenant laws. So not only did sister#2 not get her $600, she had to pay sister#1 triple damages ($1800) because she was mandated by law to give her sister 30 days to vacate the premises, so therefore sister#2 broke tenant laws.
Go figure!
What do you think about those apples? Do you think that was fair to sister#2 who tried to do the right thing by her sister and then had to end up paying sister#1?
I saw this story on one of the judge shows a couple of months ago and I haven't been able to get it out of my head. Here goes...
One sister (lets refer to her as sister#1) was so called 'trying to get her life back on track' after using drugs, hanging in the streets, etc. so she asked her sister (let's refer to her as sister#2) if she could come and stay with her for some time period (I don't remember exactly but like a month or two) and she was going to find a job. She agreed that she was going to pay her sister $200/month as soon as she could. So sister#2 wanted to give her sister the opportunity to turn her life around so she reluctantly agreed.
Well, as most know where this was going: sister#1 was there 3 months and didn't have a job nor did she pay the agreed-upon $200/month plus she was not behaving as she should so sister#2 gave her a week to move out. So, sister#1 left.
In an attempt for sister#2 to try to get her money, she sued her sister for 3 months back rent which amounted to $600. It looked like she was going to win the case at first, but then, near the end of the segment, the case took a turn.
In her state, because the sisters had made a 'rental' agreement although verbal, it was legally binding. Even though no money exchanged hands, sister#1 was legally covered by tenant laws. So not only did sister#2 not get her $600, she had to pay sister#1 triple damages ($1800) because she was mandated by law to give her sister 30 days to vacate the premises, so therefore sister#2 broke tenant laws.
Go figure!
What do you think about those apples? Do you think that was fair to sister#2 who tried to do the right thing by her sister and then had to end up paying sister#1?
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
