i have heard that the people who lose on the people’s court tv show (and others of that ilk) don’t actually have to pay money, but that they get paid a certain amount and the judge’s decision affects how much of that amount they get. something like that. anyone know the truth?
There is text at the end of each show that says the judgement (if any) is paid from a fund and the remainder of the fund is split between the two parties.
The credits do say they are paid. I want to know if the case is dismissed do they get the money.
Is a decision from the show binding? Suppose I was a participant and collected whatever money I could from the show. What keeps me from turning around and filing a lawsuit against the same person in a real court?
I cannot speak to this particular show, but it’s my understanding that (a) the cases and judges are real, (b) the litigants agree to submit to binding arbitration by a judge, as a part of their contract, and © they get a contractually agreed fee for agreeing to be on the show.
I would presume that if the decision is a $1,000 award in favor of plaintiff, and they get $2,000 for appearing, the plaintiff gets $3,000 (his $2,000 fee plus the $1,000 decision) and the respondent gets $1,000 (his $2,000 fee less the $1,000 award in aribtration). (All figures are top-of-head, not based on knowledge of what the show actually pays.)
The one I saw mentioned each was paid $5000, but that means nothing for the other ones.
No, Polycarp, the loser does not have the amount of the decision subtracted from his appearance fee.
A certain pot of money is allocated for each case. If the judge decides for the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s award money comes out of the pot, and the remainder is split equally between the plaintiff and the defendant. The total money allocated to each case is always higher than the maximum award limit allowed in small claims cases, so each party always goes home with some money.
IANJW* but I think you’d loose. When you appear on the show you agree to the judgement which then becomes a contract between the two parties. The Peoples Court may or may not be a proper government court, but if you sign papers that say you’ve made an agreement and the agreement has been settled, it is done with.
Think of it this way. Bob owes you $400. You and Bob write up a contract that says Bob’s mom will pay you $50 to settle the dept. Bob’s mom pays you and you accept the money. You couldn’t take Bob to court for the other $350 because he’d just pull the agreement the pair of you signed. The judge would rule in his favour.
*I am not Judge Wapner
The way the People’s Court works is they go through the filings at the L.A. small-claims court. They select interesting cases and ask the parties from those cases to appear on the show. If they both agree, the plaintiff then withdraws the suit from small claims court, and they appear on TPC.
I saw an article some years back explaining the process, and my parents appeared about 20 or so years ago. Basically, TPC is binding arbitration. Neither party can sue again afterwards.
Robin
Please, nobody be offended by this, but…
As a non-American, I find this whole concept a bit … I’ll hesitate to say ‘sick’, but it’s certainly weird. I’m used to a court system that is all wigs, pomp, strict procedure, and where TV cameras aren’t even allowed in, let alone have peolple paid to appear on television shows.
Are there Americans who also feel a bit weirded out by this? I suspect there are a lot, but I’ve learned never to guess on these boards.
In the United States, we have something called a “small claims court”. These courts are designed to be informal; generally, lawyers are not part of the proceeding (at least not as advocates, although they may sue or be sued), and the damages are typically small. TPC is based on the small claims court in Los Angeles County, California.
The fact that proceedings are so informal lends itself to (and I use this term loosely) great television. I don’t care for them personally, but they’re popular on daytime TV because they’re cheap for stations to buy and they deliver decent ratings.
Robin
I basically never watch these shows (I watch a lot of trash but not this particular trash). But last summer I was getting my car repaired and the Judge Judy show was on in the waiting room. I was trying to read but that woman is too loud to ignore. So anyway the case was about some girl who had borrowed her grandparent’s car to go to a party and the car got damaged. Should she pay for the damage?
Now a real judge might decide based on who caused the damage and whether the girl had permission to borrow the car and whether she had taken reasonable care fo the vehicle.
But Judge Judy found out the girl had a baby. And she had left the baby in her grandparent’s care while she went to the party. And Judge Judy was outraged - “Your grandparents are old and they already raised their kids. You shouldn’t be going to a party at night. You should be staying home and raising your own child.” So Judge Judy found against the girl and gave the grandparents all the money.
So in conclusion, Judge Judy is a dingbat. She ignored any legal principles involved in the case before her and based her decision on her own prejudices about how people should be living their lives. How she hasn’t been named to the Supreme Court I can’t imagine.
But suppose I was stupid enough to put my life in her hands. I have some valid complaint, I agree to arbitration, I present my case, and Judge Fruitloop decides that I look like her ex-husband and says that people like me are what’s wrong with this country and gives everything to my opponent. I then say that I agreed to a competent and unbiased arbitration not to this nutcase, so I now want to go to a real court.
So say you get the arbitration reversed, and you get your case transferred back to small claims court or another arbitrator, who rules for you. Before you lost, but were nevertheless being paid for losing. Now you’ve won, but you don’t get anything for winning. Why do that?
I remember a People’s Court case from the 1980s. One participant acted like such a jerk Wapner ordered his share of the pot forfeited, and commented if he were a real judge the litigant would have been jailed for contempt. They then added at the end a latter statement from Wapner he reviewed the arbitration agreement and it didn’t allow him to order such a forfeit. The rules may have been rewritten to allow such forfeiture today.