 |
|
 |
|
Next: Labrador rescue dog?
|
| Author |
Message |
External

Since: Jan 16, 2004 Posts: 1927
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:28 am
Post subject: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) Archived from groups: rec>pets>cats>anecdotes (more info?)
|
|
|
Occasionally I watch those silly judge shows because they can be
entertaining. I caught one this morning (Judge Maria Lopez) that was
disturbing on two levels.
The plaintiff was a woman who left her dog and a cockatiel with the owners
of a grooming business/retail pet shop (the defendants) until she could find
an apartment. Apparently she was reduced to living on disability checks
after an injury and couldn't afford her current place. I know that can be a
pitifully poor amount of money, so it makes sense. Maybe she was being
evicted; maybe her lease had expired and she couldn't afford a rent
increase. I don't know.
Ostensibly the defendants agreed to keep her pets for a week until she could
find another apartment. But the week stretched into *4-5 weeks*. She
wasn't paying them to provide room & board for her pets. The arrangement
was she would come in and clean the shop. The defendants said it was to be
every day, sweeping up, simple stuff like that. The plaintiff said it was
supposed to be 3 times a week. The defendants said she showed up 4 times
total during the entire month. The plaintiff said she couldn't remember how
many times it was.
The defendants said they kept calling her, saying they couldn't keep her
pets, she needed to come get them. She claimed they never called her. A
shop employee testified she, too, had left messages saying they've been good
enough to keep your pets free of charge but this can't continue.
They claimed when they did speak to her she kept saying she was "this close"
to moving into a new apartment. Apparently she said this a number of times.
It started sounding like excuses and delaying tactics. (There was no
mention of where she was actually living while all this was going on.)
After a month, the shop owners finally said enough was enough. Pick them up
in 3 days or we will find homes for them. She didn't, and they did.
The plaintiff was suing them for an ungodly amount of money, over $4000.
She got hysterical because they gave away "her babies". She claimed she
didn't abandon them. Maybe that wasn't her intention. But she sure was
taking advantage of their good nature, wasn't she? And if they were so
important to her, why didn't she uphold her end of the bargain? Why only
come in 3-4 times in a month? She wasn't even coming in to visit "her
babies".
The judge was sympathetic to her plight but agreed with the defendants. It
wasn't their place to take care of her pets until she found it convenient to
come get them.
But here's the other thing that disturbed me. The judge, while expressing
sympathy to the plaintiff (while ruling against her) said, "Get another
pet." GRRRRR! I hate when people say things like this! When my sweet dog
Sampson died in 1999 I called my apartment manager about removing the
monthly pet rent. She replied, "So get another dog." *Only* people who are
not pet lovers could say such a thing. There may be some people who rush
right out and get another pet. I don't know anyone who has ever done that.
Replacing pets isn't like replacing a worn out chair. They are living,
loving creatures.
Obviously she lost her case, despite all her tears and histrionics. She had
no legal basis for suing them when they'd cared for, fed and housed the dog
and the bird for a month. But the judge shouldn't have said, "Get another
pet."
NOTE: There are apartment and house leasing firms across the U.S. (probably
all over the world!) that will show you listings of apartments, free of
charge. I've used a firm like that twice myself. It doesn't take 4-5 weeks
to find another place. Sure, it may not be exactly the place you want. But
if you *have* to go somewhere, look at what they have listed. You generally
don't have to sign an extended lease. I can't speak to other countries but
my apartment complex offers either a month to month tenancy (bad idea,
IMHO). If you don't do that, they also offer a 3, 6 or 12 month lease.
Move in with a short lease. Then continue looking for another place when
you can take your time about it. And have your pets with you. Know what I
mean?
Jill >> Stay informed about: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Dec 01, 2006 Posts: 1874
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:45 pm
Post subject: Re: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
That judge can be a flak at times. I stopped watching her and Judge Judy
due to their weirdness. I just checked the TV guide it is coming on now. I
am going to watch it for the heck of it.
The plaintiff could have been counter sued for the cost of the feeding the
animals.
People scare me sometimes. If they were here babies she would have been
there more and would have been doing what ever she could to keep those"
babies" taken care off.
"jmcquown" wrote in message
> Occasionally I watch those silly judge shows because they can be
> entertaining. I caught one this morning (Judge Maria Lopez) that was
> disturbing on two levels.
>
> The plaintiff was a woman who left her dog and a cockatiel with the owners
> of a grooming business/retail pet shop (the defendants) until she could
> find
> an apartment. Apparently she was reduced to living on disability checks
> after an injury and couldn't afford her current place. I know that can be
> a
> pitifully poor amount of money, so it makes sense. Maybe she was being
> evicted; maybe her lease had expired and she couldn't afford a rent
> increase. I don't know.
>
> Ostensibly the defendants agreed to keep her pets for a week until she
> could
> find another apartment. But the week stretched into *4-5 weeks*. She
> wasn't paying them to provide room & board for her pets. The arrangement
> was she would come in and clean the shop. The defendants said it was to
> be
> every day, sweeping up, simple stuff like that. The plaintiff said it was
> supposed to be 3 times a week. The defendants said she showed up 4 times
> total during the entire month. The plaintiff said she couldn't remember
> how
> many times it was.
>
> The defendants said they kept calling her, saying they couldn't keep her
> pets, she needed to come get them. She claimed they never called her. A
> shop employee testified she, too, had left messages saying they've been
> good
> enough to keep your pets free of charge but this can't continue.
>
> They claimed when they did speak to her she kept saying she was "this
> close"
> to moving into a new apartment. Apparently she said this a number of
> times.
> It started sounding like excuses and delaying tactics. (There was no
> mention of where she was actually living while all this was going on.)
> After a month, the shop owners finally said enough was enough. Pick them
> up
> in 3 days or we will find homes for them. She didn't, and they did.
>
> The plaintiff was suing them for an ungodly amount of money, over $4000.
> She got hysterical because they gave away "her babies". She claimed she
> didn't abandon them. Maybe that wasn't her intention. But she sure was
> taking advantage of their good nature, wasn't she? And if they were so
> important to her, why didn't she uphold her end of the bargain? Why only
> come in 3-4 times in a month? She wasn't even coming in to visit "her
> babies".
>
> The judge was sympathetic to her plight but agreed with the defendants.
> It
> wasn't their place to take care of her pets until she found it convenient
> to
> come get them.
>
> But here's the other thing that disturbed me. The judge, while expressing
> sympathy to the plaintiff (while ruling against her) said, "Get another
> pet." GRRRRR! I hate when people say things like this! When my sweet
> dog
> Sampson died in 1999 I called my apartment manager about removing the
> monthly pet rent. She replied, "So get another dog." *Only* people who
> are
> not pet lovers could say such a thing. There may be some people who rush
> right out and get another pet. I don't know anyone who has ever done
> that.
> Replacing pets isn't like replacing a worn out chair. They are living,
> loving creatures.
>
> Obviously she lost her case, despite all her tears and histrionics. She
> had
> no legal basis for suing them when they'd cared for, fed and housed the
> dog
> and the bird for a month. But the judge shouldn't have said, "Get another
> pet."
>
> NOTE: There are apartment and house leasing firms across the U.S.
> (probably
> all over the world!) that will show you listings of apartments, free of
> charge. I've used a firm like that twice myself. It doesn't take 4-5
> weeks
> to find another place. Sure, it may not be exactly the place you want.
> But
> if you *have* to go somewhere, look at what they have listed. You
> generally
> don't have to sign an extended lease. I can't speak to other countries
> but
> my apartment complex offers either a month to month tenancy (bad idea,
> IMHO). If you don't do that, they also offer a 3, 6 or 12 month lease.
> Move in with a short lease. Then continue looking for another place when
> you can take your time about it. And have your pets with you. Know what
> I
> mean?
>
> Jill
>
> >> Stay informed about: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jan 16, 2004 Posts: 1927
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:45 pm
Post subject: Re: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Matthew wrote:
> That judge can be a flak at times. I stopped watching her and Judge
> Judy due to their weirdness. I just checked the TV guide it is
> coming on now. I am going to watch it for the heck of it.
>
> The plaintiff could have been counter sued for the cost of the
> feeding the animals.
>
But they didn't, which says something about their character and their
intentions (IMHO). They were trying to give her a break. But we all know
pets aren't cheap. Even assuming neither one needed vet care, which wasn't
brought up in testimony, they do have to eat. And dogs have to be walked or
at least have a run where they can move around rather than being stuck in a
small cage. Birds are quite different and need things non-bird owners can't
even imagine. I can tell you it's not just a cup full of seed.
> People scare me sometimes. If they were here babies she would have
> been there more and would have been doing what ever she could to keep
> those" babies" taken care off.
>
No joke! Or finding them a temporary home with a friend or at least someone
who understood her circumstances. Their job isn't to take care of this
woman's pets while she wiles away the time trying to find an apartment. And
again, it's not that hard to find one. And she should have held up her end
of the bargain, come in and swept up the shop and visited her "babies". I
can't imagine that would have taken more than a couple of hours a day.
We're not talking PetCo here.
Not to mention keeping them accurately apprised of her situation. Sounded
like a lot of prevaricating on her part to me. But maybe that's just me.
Report back, please? I'd be curious to get your impressions.
Jill
>
> "jmcquown" wrote in message
>
>> Occasionally I watch those silly judge shows because they can be
>> entertaining. I caught one this morning (Judge Maria Lopez) that was
>> disturbing on two levels.
>>
>> The plaintiff was a woman who left her dog and a cockatiel with the
>> owners of a grooming business/retail pet shop (the defendants) until
>> she could find
>> an apartment. Apparently she was reduced to living on disability
>> checks after an injury and couldn't afford her current place. I
>> know that can be a
>> pitifully poor amount of money, so it makes sense. Maybe she was
>> being evicted; maybe her lease had expired and she couldn't afford a
>> rent increase. I don't know.
>>
>> Ostensibly the defendants agreed to keep her pets for a week until
>> she could
>> find another apartment. But the week stretched into *4-5 weeks*.
>> She wasn't paying them to provide room & board for her pets. The
>> arrangement was she would come in and clean the shop. The
>> defendants said it was to be
>> every day, sweeping up, simple stuff like that. The plaintiff said
>> it was supposed to be 3 times a week. The defendants said she
>> showed up 4 times total during the entire month. The plaintiff said
>> she couldn't remember how
>> many times it was.
>>
>> The defendants said they kept calling her, saying they couldn't keep
>> her pets, she needed to come get them. She claimed they never
>> called her. A shop employee testified she, too, had left messages
>> saying they've been good
>> enough to keep your pets free of charge but this can't continue.
>>
>> They claimed when they did speak to her she kept saying she was "this
>> close"
>> to moving into a new apartment. Apparently she said this a number of
>> times.
>> It started sounding like excuses and delaying tactics. (There was no
>> mention of where she was actually living while all this was going
>> on.) After a month, the shop owners finally said enough was enough.
>> Pick them up
>> in 3 days or we will find homes for them. She didn't, and they did.
>>
>> The plaintiff was suing them for an ungodly amount of money, over
>> $4000. She got hysterical because they gave away "her babies". She
>> claimed she didn't abandon them. Maybe that wasn't her intention.
>> But she sure was taking advantage of their good nature, wasn't she?
>> And if they were so important to her, why didn't she uphold her end
>> of the bargain? Why only come in 3-4 times in a month? She wasn't
>> even coming in to visit "her babies".
>>
>> The judge was sympathetic to her plight but agreed with the
>> defendants. It
>> wasn't their place to take care of her pets until she found it
>> convenient to
>> come get them.
>>
>> But here's the other thing that disturbed me. The judge, while
>> expressing sympathy to the plaintiff (while ruling against her)
>> said, "Get another pet." GRRRRR! I hate when people say things
>> like this! When my sweet dog
>> Sampson died in 1999 I called my apartment manager about removing the
>> monthly pet rent. She replied, "So get another dog." *Only* people
>> who are
>> not pet lovers could say such a thing. There may be some people who
>> rush right out and get another pet. I don't know anyone who has
>> ever done that.
>> Replacing pets isn't like replacing a worn out chair. They are
>> living, loving creatures.
>>
>> Obviously she lost her case, despite all her tears and histrionics.
>> She had
>> no legal basis for suing them when they'd cared for, fed and housed
>> the dog
>> and the bird for a month. But the judge shouldn't have said, "Get
>> another pet."
>>
>> NOTE: There are apartment and house leasing firms across the U.S.
>> (probably
>> all over the world!) that will show you listings of apartments, free
>> of charge. I've used a firm like that twice myself. It doesn't
>> take 4-5 weeks
>> to find another place. Sure, it may not be exactly the place you
>> want. But
>> if you *have* to go somewhere, look at what they have listed. You
>> generally
>> don't have to sign an extended lease. I can't speak to other
>> countries but
>> my apartment complex offers either a month to month tenancy (bad
>> idea, IMHO). If you don't do that, they also offer a 3, 6 or 12
>> month lease. Move in with a short lease. Then continue looking for
>> another place when you can take your time about it. And have your
>> pets with you. Know what I
>> mean?
>>
>> Jill >> Stay informed about: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Dec 01, 2006 Posts: 1874
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:38 pm
Post subject: Re: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"jmcquown" wrote in message
> Matthew wrote:
>> That judge can be a flak at times. I stopped watching her and Judge
>> Judy due to their weirdness. I just checked the TV guide it is
>> coming on now. I am going to watch it for the heck of it.
>>
>> The plaintiff could have been counter sued for the cost of the
>> feeding the animals.
>>
> But they didn't, which says something about their character and their
> intentions (IMHO). They were trying to give her a break. But we all know
> pets aren't cheap. Even assuming neither one needed vet care, which
> wasn't
> brought up in testimony, they do have to eat. And dogs have to be walked
> or
> at least have a run where they can move around rather than being stuck in
> a
> small cage. Birds are quite different and need things non-bird owners
> can't
> even imagine. I can tell you it's not just a cup full of seed.
>
>> People scare me sometimes. If they were here babies she would have
>> been there more and would have been doing what ever she could to keep
>> those" babies" taken care off.
>>
> No joke! Or finding them a temporary home with a friend or at least
> someone
> who understood her circumstances. Their job isn't to take care of this
> woman's pets while she wiles away the time trying to find an apartment.
> And
> again, it's not that hard to find one. And she should have held up her
> end
> of the bargain, come in and swept up the shop and visited her "babies". I
> can't imagine that would have taken more than a couple of hours a day.
> We're not talking PetCo here.
>
> Not to mention keeping them accurately apprised of her situation. Sounded
> like a lot of prevaricating on her part to me. But maybe that's just me.
> Report back, please? I'd be curious to get your impressions.
>
> Jill
>
>>
>> "jmcquown" wrote in message
>>
>>> Occasionally I watch those silly judge shows because they can be
>>> entertaining. I caught one this morning (Judge Maria Lopez) that was
>>> disturbing on two levels.
>>>
>>> The plaintiff was a woman who left her dog and a cockatiel with the
>>> owners of a grooming business/retail pet shop (the defendants) until
>>> she could find
>>> an apartment. Apparently she was reduced to living on disability
>>> checks after an injury and couldn't afford her current place. I
>>> know that can be a
>>> pitifully poor amount of money, so it makes sense. Maybe she was
>>> being evicted; maybe her lease had expired and she couldn't afford a
>>> rent increase. I don't know.
>>>
>>> Ostensibly the defendants agreed to keep her pets for a week until
>>> she could
>>> find another apartment. But the week stretched into *4-5 weeks*.
>>> She wasn't paying them to provide room & board for her pets. The
>>> arrangement was she would come in and clean the shop. The
>>> defendants said it was to be
>>> every day, sweeping up, simple stuff like that. The plaintiff said
>>> it was supposed to be 3 times a week. The defendants said she
>>> showed up 4 times total during the entire month. The plaintiff said
>>> she couldn't remember how
>>> many times it was.
>>>
>>> The defendants said they kept calling her, saying they couldn't keep
>>> her pets, she needed to come get them. She claimed they never
>>> called her. A shop employee testified she, too, had left messages
>>> saying they've been good
>>> enough to keep your pets free of charge but this can't continue.
>>>
>>> They claimed when they did speak to her she kept saying she was "this
>>> close"
>>> to moving into a new apartment. Apparently she said this a number of
>>> times.
>>> It started sounding like excuses and delaying tactics. (There was no
>>> mention of where she was actually living while all this was going
>>> on.) After a month, the shop owners finally said enough was enough.
>>> Pick them up
>>> in 3 days or we will find homes for them. She didn't, and they did.
>>>
>>> The plaintiff was suing them for an ungodly amount of money, over
>>> $4000. She got hysterical because they gave away "her babies". She
>>> claimed she didn't abandon them. Maybe that wasn't her intention.
>>> But she sure was taking advantage of their good nature, wasn't she?
>>> And if they were so important to her, why didn't she uphold her end
>>> of the bargain? Why only come in 3-4 times in a month? She wasn't
>>> even coming in to visit "her babies".
>>>
>>> The judge was sympathetic to her plight but agreed with the
>>> defendants. It
>>> wasn't their place to take care of her pets until she found it
>>> convenient to
>>> come get them.
>>>
>>> But here's the other thing that disturbed me. The judge, while
>>> expressing sympathy to the plaintiff (while ruling against her)
>>> said, "Get another pet." GRRRRR! I hate when people say things
>>> like this! When my sweet dog
>>> Sampson died in 1999 I called my apartment manager about removing the
>>> monthly pet rent. She replied, "So get another dog." *Only* people
>>> who are
>>> not pet lovers could say such a thing. There may be some people who
>>> rush right out and get another pet. I don't know anyone who has
>>> ever done that.
>>> Replacing pets isn't like replacing a worn out chair. They are
>>> living, loving creatures.
>>>
>>> Obviously she lost her case, despite all her tears and histrionics.
>>> She had
>>> no legal basis for suing them when they'd cared for, fed and housed
>>> the dog
>>> and the bird for a month. But the judge shouldn't have said, "Get
>>> another pet."
>>>
>>> NOTE: There are apartment and house leasing firms across the U.S.
>>> (probably
>>> all over the world!) that will show you listings of apartments, free
>>> of charge. I've used a firm like that twice myself. It doesn't
>>> take 4-5 weeks
>>> to find another place. Sure, it may not be exactly the place you
>>> want. But
>>> if you *have* to go somewhere, look at what they have listed. You
>>> generally
>>> don't have to sign an extended lease. I can't speak to other
>>> countries but
>>> my apartment complex offers either a month to month tenancy (bad
>>> idea, IMHO). If you don't do that, they also offer a 3, 6 or 12
>>> month lease. Move in with a short lease. Then continue looking for
>>> another place when you can take your time about it. And have your
>>> pets with you. Know what I
>>> mean?
>>>
>>> Jill
>
I thought the woman was faking the tears. I got the feeling she wanted a
free ride and something put in her pocket.
As I said before the judge I don't like sometimes she needs a slap of
reality >> Stay informed about: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Mar 23, 2007 Posts: 850
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:46 pm
Post subject: Re: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
You hear of people leaveing kids for "a few days" and it going on for
months. Then, when they do return they whine because DCFS or someone is
taking them to court. If children are disposable, why are we surprised when
people look at pets that way.
People who have the loss of a cat seldom go looking. Somehow, a new one
finds their own way to a persons door!!
"jmcquown" wrote in message
> Occasionally I watch those silly judge shows because they can be
> entertaining. I caught one this morning (Judge Maria Lopez) that was
> disturbing on two levels.
>
> The plaintiff was a woman who left her dog and a cockatiel with the owners
> of a grooming business/retail pet shop (the defendants) until she could
> find
> an apartment. Apparently she was reduced to living on disability checks
> after an injury and couldn't afford her current place. I know that can be
> a
> pitifully poor amount of money, so it makes sense. Maybe she was being
> evicted; maybe her lease had expired and she couldn't afford a rent
> increase. I don't know.
>
> Ostensibly the defendants agreed to keep her pets for a week until she
> could
> find another apartment. But the week stretched into *4-5 weeks*. She
> wasn't paying them to provide room & board for her pets. The arrangement
> was she would come in and clean the shop. The defendants said it was to
> be
> every day, sweeping up, simple stuff like that. The plaintiff said it was
> supposed to be 3 times a week. The defendants said she showed up 4 times
> total during the entire month. The plaintiff said she couldn't remember
> how
> many times it was.
>
> The defendants said they kept calling her, saying they couldn't keep her
> pets, she needed to come get them. She claimed they never called her. A
> shop employee testified she, too, had left messages saying they've been
> good
> enough to keep your pets free of charge but this can't continue.
>
> They claimed when they did speak to her she kept saying she was "this
> close"
> to moving into a new apartment. Apparently she said this a number of
> times.
> It started sounding like excuses and delaying tactics. (There was no
> mention of where she was actually living while all this was going on.)
> After a month, the shop owners finally said enough was enough. Pick them
> up
> in 3 days or we will find homes for them. She didn't, and they did.
>
> The plaintiff was suing them for an ungodly amount of money, over $4000.
> She got hysterical because they gave away "her babies". She claimed she
> didn't abandon them. Maybe that wasn't her intention. But she sure was
> taking advantage of their good nature, wasn't she? And if they were so
> important to her, why didn't she uphold her end of the bargain? Why only
> come in 3-4 times in a month? She wasn't even coming in to visit "her
> babies".
>
> The judge was sympathetic to her plight but agreed with the defendants.
> It
> wasn't their place to take care of her pets until she found it convenient
> to
> come get them.
>
> But here's the other thing that disturbed me. The judge, while expressing
> sympathy to the plaintiff (while ruling against her) said, "Get another
> pet." GRRRRR! I hate when people say things like this! When my sweet
> dog
> Sampson died in 1999 I called my apartment manager about removing the
> monthly pet rent. She replied, "So get another dog." *Only* people who
> are
> not pet lovers could say such a thing. There may be some people who rush
> right out and get another pet. I don't know anyone who has ever done
> that.
> Replacing pets isn't like replacing a worn out chair. They are living,
> loving creatures.
>
> Obviously she lost her case, despite all her tears and histrionics. She
> had
> no legal basis for suing them when they'd cared for, fed and housed the
> dog
> and the bird for a month. But the judge shouldn't have said, "Get another
> pet."
>
> NOTE: There are apartment and house leasing firms across the U.S.
> (probably
> all over the world!) that will show you listings of apartments, free of
> charge. I've used a firm like that twice myself. It doesn't take 4-5
> weeks
> to find another place. Sure, it may not be exactly the place you want.
> But
> if you *have* to go somewhere, look at what they have listed. You
> generally
> don't have to sign an extended lease. I can't speak to other countries
> but
> my apartment complex offers either a month to month tenancy (bad idea,
> IMHO). If you don't do that, they also offer a 3, 6 or 12 month lease.
> Move in with a short lease. Then continue looking for another place when
> you can take your time about it. And have your pets with you. Know what
> I
> mean?
>
> Jill
>
> >> Stay informed about: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jun 04, 2007 Posts: 240
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:07 pm
Post subject: Re: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Oct 23, 12:28 pm, "jmcquown" wrote:
> Occasionally I watch those silly judge shows because they can be
> entertaining. I caught one this morning (Judge Maria Lopez) that was
> disturbing on two levels.
>
> The plaintiff was a woman who left her dog and a cockatiel with the owners
> of a grooming business/retail pet shop (the defendants) until she could find
> an apartment. Apparently she was reduced to living on disability checks
> after an injury and couldn't afford her current place. I know that can be a
> pitifully poor amount of money, so it makes sense. Maybe she was being
> evicted; maybe her lease had expired and she couldn't afford a rent
> increase. I don't know.
>
> Ostensibly the defendants agreed to keep her pets for a week until she could
> find another apartment. But the week stretched into *4-5 weeks*. She
> wasn't paying them to provide room & board for her pets. The arrangement
> was she would come in and clean the shop. The defendants said it was to be
> every day, sweeping up, simple stuff like that. The plaintiff said it was
> supposed to be 3 times a week. The defendants said she showed up 4 times
> total during the entire month. The plaintiff said she couldn't remember how
> many times it was.
>
> The defendants said they kept calling her, saying they couldn't keep her
> pets, she needed to come get them. She claimed they never called her. A
> shop employee testified she, too, had left messages saying they've been good
> enough to keep your pets free of charge but this can't continue.
>
> They claimed when they did speak to her she kept saying she was "this close"
> to moving into a new apartment. Apparently she said this a number of times.
> It started sounding like excuses and delaying tactics. (There was no
> mention of where she was actually living while all this was going on.)
> After a month, the shop owners finally said enough was enough. Pick them up
> in 3 days or we will find homes for them. She didn't, and they did.
>
> The plaintiff was suing them for an ungodly amount of money, over $4000.
> She got hysterical because they gave away "her babies". She claimed she
> didn't abandon them. Maybe that wasn't her intention. But she sure was
> taking advantage of their good nature, wasn't she? And if they were so
> important to her, why didn't she uphold her end of the bargain? Why only
> come in 3-4 times in a month? She wasn't even coming in to visit "her
> babies".
>
> The judge was sympathetic to her plight but agreed with the defendants. It
> wasn't their place to take care of her pets until she found it convenient to
> come get them.
>
> But here's the other thing that disturbed me. The judge, while expressing
> sympathy to the plaintiff (while ruling against her) said, "Get another
> pet." GRRRRR! I hate when people say things like this! When my sweet dog
> Sampson died in 1999 I called my apartment manager about removing the
> monthly pet rent. She replied, "So get another dog." *Only* people who are
> not pet lovers could say such a thing. There may be some people who rush
> right out and get another pet. I don't know anyone who has ever done that.
> Replacing pets isn't like replacing a worn out chair. They are living,
> loving creatures.
>
> Obviously she lost her case, despite all her tears and histrionics. She had
> no legal basis for suing them when they'd cared for, fed and housed the dog
> and the bird for a month. But the judge shouldn't have said, "Get another
> pet."
>
> NOTE: There are apartment and house leasing firms across the U.S. (probably
> all over the world!) that will show you listings of apartments, free of
> charge. I've used a firm like that twice myself. It doesn't take 4-5 weeks
> to find another place. Sure, it may not be exactly the place you want. But
> if you *have* to go somewhere, look at what they have listed. You generally
> don't have to sign an extended lease. I can't speak to other countries but
> my apartment complex offers either a month to month tenancy (bad idea,
> IMHO). If you don't do that, they also offer a 3, 6 or 12 month lease.
> Move in with a short lease. Then continue looking for another place when
> you can take your time about it. And have your pets with you. Know what I
> mean?
>
> Jill
If said coldly, "get another pet" is callous and unkind. However, it
is awfully good advice most of the time. It is just hard to do right
away.
Will in New Haven
-- >> Stay informed about: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Oct 24, 2007 Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:27 am
Post subject: Re: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:04:31 -0500, "jmcquown"
wrote:
>Persia showed up on January 6, 2001. It was just a year and a few months
>after my dog Sampson had died. Most people here know, I didn't want a cat.
>I'd never been around cats. She wouldn't go away, though. She knew best :)
>And now there's absolutely *no way* I'd ever consider just leaving her with
>some people in a shop, no matter what my circumstances. And if I did, I'd
>certainly uphold my end of the bargain to ensure they took care of her. If
>I needed it to be a month, I'd tell them. (Still don't understand that part
>of things.)
Don't know about the rest of you, the part I don't get is not at least
stopping in for a visit. For me, even the 2 or 3 times a WEEK that she
supposedly agreed to wouldn't seem enough for me, much less a MONTH.
The only times I've had one boarded was with Rocky (RB). Twice he had
to spent 3 days at TEDs, and I was stopping by 2 or 3 days a day. The
first time was before I had realized he was MY cat. I was having him
neutered before taking him to become a barn cat. Because of scheduling
problems he didn't get the snip when he was supposed to and had to
stay longer than planned. The second day the staff was joking that
whether I realized it or not, he WAS my cat. When I was finally able
to bring him I knew they were right. >> Stay informed about: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jan 16, 2004 Posts: 1927
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:20 am
Post subject: Re: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Steve Touchstone wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:04:31 -0500, "jmcquown"
> wrote:
>
>> Persia showed up on January 6, 2001. It was just a year and a few
>> months after my dog Sampson had died. Most people here know, I
>> didn't want a cat. I'd never been around cats. She wouldn't go
>> away, though. She knew best :) And now there's absolutely *no way*
>> I'd ever consider just leaving her with some people in a shop, no
>> matter what my circumstances. And if I did, I'd certainly uphold my
>> end of the bargain to ensure they took care of her. If I needed it
>> to be a month, I'd tell them. (Still don't understand that part of
>> things.)
>
> Don't know about the rest of you, the part I don't get is not at least
> stopping in for a visit. For me, even the 2 or 3 times a WEEK that she
> supposedly agreed to wouldn't seem enough for me, much less a MONTH.
I believe the 2-3 times a week was her understanding of cleaning their shop
in exchange for them boarding her pets. Apparently she didn't even bother
doing that. Then she had the nerve to be upset, after all that time, when
they simply couldn't care for them anymore. They were doing her a huge
favour without charging her for it. She wasn't doing a damn thing in
return.
When I board Persia and Peaches at the vet for my trips out of town, I call
their office at least every other day just to see how they are. They
certainly know how to reach me in case of an emergency. In fact, they did
when they determined she needed surgery in 2004 while I was in Minneapolis.
This woman claimed they never called her. Even if that were true, and I
don't believe it is, she should have *at the very least* been calling them.
She was absolutely without credibility in this case.
> The only times I've had one boarded was with Rocky (RB). Twice he had
> to spent 3 days at TEDs, and I was stopping by 2 or 3 days a day. The
> first time was before I had realized he was MY cat. I was having him
> neutered before taking him to become a barn cat. Because of scheduling
> problems he didn't get the snip when he was supposed to and had to
> stay longer than planned. The second day the staff was joking that
> whether I realized it or not, he WAS my cat. When I was finally able
> to bring him I knew they were right.
Funny how that happens, eh? :)
Jill >> Stay informed about: A Judge Show (somewhat disturbing and long) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
| Related Topics: | The Bluff City Cat Show was FUN :) (LONG) - How could it not be? :) I've never been to a cat show before so it was a real treat. Hundreds of cats in big fancy kennels in an auditorium at the community college less than 3 miles down the street. The only problem was I couldn't last more than 3..
Disturbing message at work today - Late this afternoon there was a message from our IT department to everyone in our building saying this: "If anyone here drives a gray Toyota, license plate # <blah blah>, someone has reported that there is a cat stuck in your car engine. Plea...
Cat Show! - I was flipping through my issue of Cat Fancy and came across a list of events in February. I thought to myself, "Of course there won't be anything remotely near me" (meaning, not even in the city of Memphis). Not only was I wrong but it's les...
Going to the Cat Show! - Okay, the long awaited weekend has arrived. The Bluff City Cat Fanciers show (as mentioned in Cat Fancy magazine). I didn't feel like getting out yesterday but I'll be jumping in the shower (not literally!) in a few minutes and heading on over. The we...
Jerk with cat on TV show "Airline" - Did anyone catch this segment on the show "Airline" (A&E channel)? This guy checked his cat in a duffle bag and was going to let it fly as baggage. Someone at Southwest happened to see the bag moving, opened it, and found a cute Torbie nam... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You can edit your posts in this forum You can delete your posts in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|