Resolving stolen property

[Maiotung]

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This is about a case that had a resolution prior to judgement, after 30 days if this resolution has not been resolved, the judgment will be made. The resolution was from the party to get a tv with the same specs, same brand etc., when I asked before the judge including serial number, the other party had not responded, then the judge had intervened and said "that won't be possible since serial numbers are the same." He had laughed and agreed with the judge. The judge have us 30 days before judgment rules in my favor

I had contacted the party about the purchase of a new tv through a text message with a link to buy the TV, he had completely denied the request to buy the television. Instead he contacts me and admits he still has the TV and wants to return the tv to me otherwise he threatened to devalue the worth of the TV and we could go back to court.

I am unsure what to do, because I don't know if the TV is in working condition and was still in the same shape I left it. Should I demand for a new TV?

Thank you for your time.

 

[Zigner]

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This is about a case that had a resolution prior to judgement, after 30 days if this resolution has not been resolved, the judgment will be made. The resolution was from the party to get a tv with the same specs, same brand etc., when I asked before the judge including serial number, the other party had not responded, then the judge had intervened and said "that won't be possible since serial numbers are the same." He had laughed and agreed with the judge. The judge have us 30 days before judgment rules in my favor

I had contacted the party about the purchase of a new tv through a text message with a link to buy the TV, he had completely denied the request to buy the television. Instead he contacts me and admits he still has the TV and wants to return the tv to me otherwise he threatened to devalue the worth of the TV and we could go back to court.

I am unsure what to do, because I don't know if the TV is in working condition and was still in the same shape I left it. Should I demand for a new TV?

Thank you for your time.

I really don't understand what has occurred in this matter. You'll have to do a better job explaining.

 

[quincy]

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This is about a case that had a resolution prior to judgement, after 30 days if this resolution has not been resolved, the judgment will be made. The resolution was from the party to get a tv with the same specs, same brand etc., when I asked before the judge including serial number, the other party had not responded, then the judge had intervened and said "that won't be possible since serial numbers are the same." He had laughed and agreed with the judge. The judge have us 30 days before judgment rules in my favor

I had contacted the party about the purchase of a new tv through a text message with a link to buy the TV, he had completely denied the request to buy the television. Instead he contacts me and admits he still has the TV and wants to return the tv to me otherwise he threatened to devalue the worth of the TV and we could go back to court.

I am unsure what to do, because I don't know if the TV is in working condition and was still in the same shape I left it. Should I demand for a new TV?

Thank you for your time.

I agree with Zigner. Clarification is needed.

Did you sue someone for the return of your TV or the cost to replace it?

 

[LdiJ]

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This is about a case that had a resolution prior to judgement, after 30 days if this resolution has not been resolved, the judgment will be made. The resolution was from the party to get a tv with the same specs, same brand etc., when I asked before the judge including serial number, the other party had not responded, then the judge had intervened and said "that won't be possible since serial numbers are the same." He had laughed and agreed with the judge. The judge have us 30 days before judgment rules in my favor

I had contacted the party about the purchase of a new tv through a text message with a link to buy the TV, he had completely denied the request to buy the television. Instead he contacts me and admits he still has the TV and wants to return the tv to me otherwise he threatened to devalue the worth of the TV and we could go back to court.

I am unsure what to do, because I don't know if the TV is in working condition and was still in the same shape I left it. Should I demand for a new TV?

Thank you for your time.

Get the TV back, if there is something wrong with it go to court.

 

[Maiotung]

I agree with Zigner. Clarification is needed.

Did you sue someone for the return of your TV or the cost to replace it?

Sorry if I was not clear!

I sued for the worth of the television.

I went to small claims court to sue for a television that was stolen. They gave us mediation prior to small claims to see if we can resolve the case before trial, all I wanted was the television back and he had lied and said he does not have the tv in his possession.

After mediation they had sent us both back to trial. When we went to trial he claimed that I still had the TV in my possesion. In my case, I proved that the TV was not in my possession and the judge ruled in my favor For the value of the television.

Shortly after the ruling, the defendant had offered to get a television with The same specs and same brand, etc. I replied back to the defendant "with the same serial number?" He did not respond, then the judge said "the tv cannot have the same serial number." Then the defendant had laughed and agreed.

I accepted the defendant's offer, then the judge said, if I am not satisfied, he can give the judgement after 30 days and would both have to appear in court again.

I contacted the defendant to buy the TV to call it even. He had declined to do so and then had admited to having the same television. He then said the way i see it, you can take it or we can go back to court and I will prove that the value was too high for what the judge ruled. He also wants me to sign receiving my television back from him.

I didn't lie about the value of when I bought the TV from having a reciept, I am unsure whether to accept his offer or go back to the courthouse.

I hope that makes more sense, thanks for your time!

 

[Zigner]

Sorry if I was not clear!

I sued for the worth of the television.

I went to small claims court to sue for a television that was stolen. They gave us mediation prior to small claims to see if we can resolve the case before trial, all I wanted was the television back and he had lied and said he does not have the tv in his possession.

After mediation they had sent us both back to trial. When we went to trial he claimed that I still had the TV in my possesion. In my case, I proved that the TV was not in my possession and the judge ruled in my favor For the value of the television.

Shortly after the ruling, the defendant had offered to get a television with The same specs and same brand, etc. I replied back to the defendant "with the same serial number?" He did not respond, then the judge said "the tv cannot have the same serial number." Then the defendant had laughed and agreed.

I accepted the defendant's offer, then the judge said, if I am not satisfied, he can give the judgement after 30 days and would both have to appear in court again.

I contacted the defendant to buy the TV to call it even. He had declined to do so and then had admited to having the same television. He then said the way i see it, you can take it or we can go back to court and I will prove that the value was too high for what the judge ruled. He also wants me to sign receiving my television back from him.

I didn't lie about the value of when I bought the TV from having a reciept, I am unsure whether to accept his offer or go back to the courthouse.

I hope that makes more sense, thanks for your time!

Was the TV brand new when he got it? If not, then he's got a point about the wrong valuation being used.

 

[LdiJ]

Sorry if I was not clear!

I sued for the worth of the television.

I went to small claims court to sue for a television that was stolen. They gave us mediation prior to small claims to see if we can resolve the case before trial, all I wanted was the television back and he had lied and said he does not have the tv in his possession.

After mediation they had sent us both back to trial. When we went to trial he claimed that I still had the TV in my possesion. In my case, I proved that the TV was not in my possession and the judge ruled in my favor For the value of the television.

Shortly after the ruling, the defendant had offered to get a television with The same specs and same brand, etc. I replied back to the defendant "with the same serial number?" He did not respond, then the judge said "the tv cannot have the same serial number." Then the defendant had laughed and agreed.

I accepted the defendant's offer, then the judge said, if I am not satisfied, he can give the judgement after 30 days and would both have to appear in court again.

I contacted the defendant to buy the TV to call it even. He had declined to do so and then had admited to having the same television. He then said the way i see it, you can take it or we can go back to court and I will prove that the value was too high for what the judge ruled. He also wants me to sign receiving my television back from him.

I didn't lie about the value of when I bought the TV from having a reciept, I am unsure whether to accept his offer or go back to the courthouse.

I hope that makes more sense, thanks for your time!

Again, get the television back, do not sign anything until you confirm that it is in good working order. If you are not satisfied go back to court like the judge suggested.

 

[Maiotung]

Tv value

The judge estimated on the depreciation of the television, so should I just get the TV back?

 

[Maiotung]

Okay

Okay I will get the TV back, thank you all for your help.

 

[Maiotung]

update to this dreaded story.

I was also countersued in small claims but the judge practically dismissed the case because i was wrongfully evicted without proper paperwork and admitted to missing rent once of 500 dollars.


So i asked for the TV, Now the party is claiming he does not have the TV, he claimed he saw an ad on craigslist for the television. So i asked him to buy the new television and he refused and demanded a 500 dollar money order for rent otherwise we will go back to court.

My question is, after the continuance, is there still a trial or will there just be a ruling and what should I do?

Thank you

 

[HighwayMan]

I was also countersued in small claims but the judge practically dismissed the case

What does THAT mean? Was it dismissed or wasn't it? What does it have to do with you case?

My question is, after the continuance, is there still a trial or will there just be a ruling and what should I do?

You tell us. Did you ask for a trial? Maybe you should just wait to see what happens.

 

[Maiotung]

What does THAT mean? Was it dismissed or wasn't it? What does it have to do with you case?

It has to do with the case because I was wrongfully evicted. Due to his lack of evidence and not having a proper eviction notice, the judge told him that , since everything was orally agreed and nothing was written, he could not do anything.

The defendant also lied under oath, will that go negatively in the upcoming court date?

You tell us. Did you ask for a trial? Maybe you should just wait to see what happens.

No I did not ask for a trial, the judge said he can give us time to resolve the matter and if I am dissatisfied, we can continue the case. Originally the judge awarded me depreciation value of the tv plus court cost and only subtracted one months rent.

The defendant was very nasty in his text demanding money instead of dealing with a resolution of purchasing a television and again degraded the value of the television.

Should I also prepare for the countersuit I'd it's brought up again?

Thanks again for all your help

 

[HighwayMan]

Should I also prepare for the countersuit I'd it's brought up again?

You never answered the question the first time - what does "practically dismissed" mean? Was it dismissed or wasn't it?

 

[Maiotung]

I believe it was dismissed.

 

[Zigner]

Look - you really need to get all of your information together. Nothing we tell you here matters if you aren't giving us accurate information.