How do these work? Are the judge’s decisions legally binding? Are the defendants “covered” for the amount that they have to pay if they lose?
*“Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop to look around once in a while you could miss it.” - Ferris Bueller
*
the decisions are binding. People’s Court shares $3,000 appearence monies. So, if you won a judgment of $2000, the other person would only get $1000. I think from the credits.
I wish it would have worked that way when I was on *People’s Court in 1986, as a plaintiff. Judge Wapner dismissed my claim, so I split $500 with the defendant.
Legally, they are “binding arbitration.” You agree to accept the decision of the faux judge. no matter what it is. If you don’t, they can presumably sue you in real court for compliance.
Although I seem to recall hearing that Judge Judy was “reversed” recently - that is, someone refused her order and the real court sided with the person.
Good.
Does anyone have any specific numbers for each show? Is there an upper limit for awards?
$5000 calif. $3000 New york. Dunno if you want to look, but they have web sites,
judgejudy.com peoplescourt.com
Warning, this thread is about to be hijacked for a personal opinion:
Those shows are junk. Real law is boring and complicated and usually handled much better.
We now return you to your chat about the self-rightious Judy-in-robes. 
No surprise here, perhaps, but I agree completely, DS.
I think they’ve gone from fair, to bad, to abysmal over the years. When Judge Wapner had People’s Court, his decisions were based on California law. I could easily have imagined being in a real small claims court.
When Judge Judy hit the airwaves, I was appalled. As much as I’ve wanted to scream at thick-headed clients, it’s an impulse that doesn’t further the dignity of the legal process, nor its ends. And from a judge??
Then I saw Divorce Court. This show is a blight. Gone is any semblence of impartiality from the bench; this “judge” eggs the litigants on.
::shudder::
Oh, c’mon, it’s entertainment. Television has nothing to do with dignity.
*“Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop to look around once in a while you could miss it.” - Ferris Bueller
*
Don’t you still have the right to appeal? Or, is that what you mean by “faux court”? Appealing would equate to noncompliance to the faux judge’s decision, maybe?
“They’re coming to take me away ha-ha, ho-ho, hee-hee, to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time… :)” - Napoleon IV
You don’t have the right of appeal, as that word is usually used in the legal system.
Before appearing on the show, you agree to accept the “judge”'s decision as final, no matter how capricious, arbitrary, or flat-out wrong it is.
So if you fail to satisfy it, the show sues you in real court… not for the merits of your original complaint, whatever it was, but for failing to honor your agreement with them. And they will likely win.
I have a question, brought on by Bricker’s post:
I seem to recall that Divorce Court was fictional, that everyone was an actor (except possibly the judge, who may have been an actual retired judge–but since the entire case was fictional anyway, that’d probably make the judge an actor, too). Assuming I’m not confusing it with some other court show, how would it be any more of a blight on actual courtrooms than Night Court, L.A. Law or Ally McBeal?
http://www.DivorceCourt.com/be_a_litigant.asp
Lets you be a litigant.
I think that its funny the way the judges dig up all the dirt on people for no use whatsoever.
Kat: The original Divorce Court was fictional, but when they brought it back, they decided that to compete with all the “reality” based programming they had to have real cases.
The "original"Divorce Court? Do you mean the one in the 60s with the (late) Voltaire Perkins, or the one in the 80s with Judge William Keene?
I saw both, and told a lawyer who taught a Tort Law course I took about a lawyer on Perkins’ show who (description followed). The lawyer said the description rang a bell; the lawyer, he said, was still in practice in Manhattan Beach, CA. So this suggests that on Perkin’s show they were lawyers; they were also lawyers on Keene’s show–with the possible exception of Stuart Nisbet, who appeared as a lawyer in a “miniseries” of Keene’s show; I recognized Nisbet as an actor in Dragnet of the 60s–but who knows, he may have passed the bar himself.
I miss Keene’s show. He was the judge in the Charles Manson murder trial for seven months and, like Judge Judy, he was lord and master in his courtroom and wouldn’t take guff from obnoxious lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, or witnesses, or anybody else. And he never read the script–he rendered his decisions without anyone’s prompting, which is as it should be.