MovieChat Forums > The People's Court (1997) Discussion > RETURN the Dogs? Since When?

RETURN the Dogs? Since When?

posted 9 years ago by LittleBrother55
3 replies | jump to latest

I was pleasantly surprised during Friday's episode.

The first case involved a plaintiff suing the defendant for keeping three dogs that the defendant was only supposed to be temporarily "fostering".

The defendant made a lot of bogus claims about the plaintiff being a totally crazy split-personality, and claimed that plaintiff eventually gave her the dogs "for keeps", but fortunately Judge Milian wasn't buying it.

The pleasant surprise was that Milian ordered the defendant to return the stolen dogs, cut-and-dried with no discussion or objections from the defendant, and according to Harvey this is what happened.

This is the first time I've seen TPC rule for "specific performance", which (per Wikipedia) means:

... an order of a court which requires a party to perform a specific act, usually what is stated in a contract. It is an alternative to awarding damages, and is classed as an equitable remedy commonly used in the form of injunctive relief concerning confidential information or real property.

In the past, at least on TPC, the judges always stated that they didn't have the power to order return of property (in this case, pets)-- so the best they could do was award the winner monetary damages.

Frankly, the defendant didn't come across as trustworthy at all. So if she'd "voluntarily" agreed to return the dogs I would expect her to renege on her word as soon as she left the courtroom.

But I notice that there wasn't even any discussion about whether the defendant "wanted to" return the dogs; Milian didn't even press her for assurances that she would.

I always wondered over the years about the judges' disclaimer. Even if it's true that real small claims courts don't do "specific performance", it seems to me that TV courts could require litigants to agree to specific performance rulings as a condition of appearing on the show.

This option is obviously a crowd-pleaser, since people would rather see the winner get the pet(s) or prized property back rather than just getting a payoff. Also, people hate to see litigants getting unfairly (if not "unjustly") rewarded because of so-called "legal technicalities" even when it's shown they behaved wrongly.

So it's about time. But when did this change? Did I miss an episode where this change was explained? Or was it a one-off fluke?

[–] nyctc7 9 years ago

I would say that whether a small claims court has the power to order specific performance varies from state to state.

I don't know what the difference is between ordering the return of a dog and the returning of other items of personal property such as engagement rings or items that the ex-girlfriend left behind in the ex-boyfriend's apartment and now wants back, which is not uncommon on these TV judge shows.

But these shows aren't really small claims court. It's binding arbitration, and the litigants sign such an agreement before appearing on the show.

[–] LittleBrother55 9 years ago

Thanks for the response. I was really only wondering about what changed at TPC.

Now that you mention it, it's true enough that judges in TV courts (FWIW, TPC is the only one I watch regularly) routinely order the return of disputed property, and the litigants comply.

But in a lot of those cases, the litigants seem willing, or at least prepared, to voluntarily surrender the disputed property. It's stuff they were holding hostage because of an underlying financial dispute, or stuff they only kept (they claim) because for various reasons they didn't have an opportunity to return it. In short, stuff they'd rather give up than pay for via monetary damages.

I'm only saying that in the past, where dogs or other animals are involved, and the party in possession of the critters is unwilling to give it/them up even when the judge rules against them, the judge states that they have no authority to order the litigant to return them.

I clearly remember TPC judges giving this speech, back to the Wapner era. In fact, I learned about the legal concept of "specific performance" from Judge Wapner.

So, something changed, and for the better. Since, as you point out, TPC/TV courts amount to binding arbitration, they should've been doing this all along.

[–] nyctc7 9 years ago

I recall as well Harvey Levin talking about no specific performance, and I never really got it because you can't make a blanket statement like that. But I believe it is true that specific performance is unusual in small claims, and probably doesn't exist in some states. Maybe now that the statutory amount that one can sue for in small claims has gone up in many states (in California I think it is now $7,500) since these shows started, specific performance will be sought more often, I don't know. For example the legislature didn't want small claims courts to get bogged down in issuing orders (and the manpower necessary to enforce the orders) to return a unique item that only has a small intrinsic value, but if the thing is worth thousands of dollars, it seems fair to do it.

As to the returning of items, yes sometimes the litigants agree but there have been plenty of times they do not, and the judge will say something to a litigant like have a marshal or the police officer there and say to the other side you better not mess with the item. Often happens when it involves a car. The judge will command that the litigant sign over the car. That's not money damages.