Wish Me Luck!

[Breakfast Diva]

Well done, and I hope you win, but what every B&B has to think about as well as "win or lose" is do you have the time to put into fighting it. I am glad you did, I see your point. In my case as a single Innkeeper with a 2nd job and no money to pay an attorney, the time and effort would not have been worth it for me
Don't get me wrong I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU DID, I am just saying if Inn's DON'T fight every case don't come down on those Inns for backing down, there may be reasons they could not go as far as you have..

This was an EXTREME case. I would never pass judgement on another innkeeper for choosing not to take this action. I do think it's important though to let innkeepers know that just because they lose the charge back, that it doesn't necessarily mean that there is no other recourse.
By the way, you don't have to have money for an attorney in small claims court. You are not allowed to bring one on your behalf. This case was not just about money. It was about standing up and not allowing unreasonable people to take advantage of us. You better believe that the next time they book a b&b, they'll be checking out their pet policy. $650 dollars plus an additional $100 because we were not able to settle in mediation and took it to the judge will make these folks know that what they did was wrong and hopefully the next time they will see that compromise is a 2 way street.

 

[Highlands John]

UPDATE:
I don't know if this happens in all small claims cases, but the first thing we had to do this morning was to agree or disagree to do a mediation hearing. I didn't want to seem unreasonable, so I agreed. We all sat in a room, I told my story to 2 mediators, then the DP (dog people) told their lies. 45 minutes later, the DP offered up a settlement of only the 1 night deposit. I refused. Mediation was a big waste of time.
Next, we all went into the 'real' courtroom with a judge. I plead our case, offered up all the proof of our policies on both the website and confirmation letter the CP claim they didn't get. At one point I started to explain how things turned bad once we realized they had their animals. The judge didn't care about anything that was said between the parties or any details that night except for what our policies were.
The DP got SHUT DOWN BIG TIME by the judge! At one point he said "you broke the contract". When they said they didn't know that they couldn't have their dogs in the car, the judge said "the policies were published. The judge became very irritated at the DP, especially when the male said that there was an innkeeping law that states the innkeeper needs to provide a safe environment (they felt unsafe they claim) and the judge harshly said "where's the statute?" They didn't have it and the judge said again harsly "so you didn't do your research?" When they asked him a question about it he harshly replied "I'm not your lawyer".
When the DP started to tell the judge about emotional or personal info that happened that night, the judge said "this is a contracts case, just the legal facts will be heard".
When they stated they felt unsafe and threatened by the situation, the judge again harshly asked if they filed a police report or called the police. Of course, the answer was NO.
At the end of it all, we were told that the court would mail the judgment to us in 1-2 weeks.
I am 99.999999999% sure that the case will be judged in our favor! I left very happy and the DP left very upset.
I'll let you know in a week or so what the offical verdict is, but right now, we're doing the happy dance!!!!
As happy as I am about our probable win, I'm still saddened that it took this turn. These were two very unreasonable people and I never imagined that I would ever have to take someone to court. But it's good to know that legally, the phone reservation along with our posted policy with or without the confirmation letter is a legal contract..

It's good to see that in an age where everyone seems to be seeking compensation for hurt feeling and so called "stress" that this judge completely cut through all this rubbish to the point of the matter.

 

[EmptyNest]

UPDATE:
I don't know if this happens in all small claims cases, but the first thing we had to do this morning was to agree or disagree to do a mediation hearing. I didn't want to seem unreasonable, so I agreed. We all sat in a room, I told my story to 2 mediators, then the DP (dog people) told their lies. 45 minutes later, the DP offered up a settlement of only the 1 night deposit. I refused. Mediation was a big waste of time.
Next, we all went into the 'real' courtroom with a judge. I plead our case, offered up all the proof of our policies on both the website and confirmation letter the CP claim they didn't get. At one point I started to explain how things turned bad once we realized they had their animals. The judge didn't care about anything that was said between the parties or any details that night except for what our policies were.
The DP got SHUT DOWN BIG TIME by the judge! At one point he said "you broke the contract". When they said they didn't know that they couldn't have their dogs in the car, the judge said "the policies were published. The judge became very irritated at the DP, especially when the male said that there was an innkeeping law that states the innkeeper needs to provide a safe environment (they felt unsafe they claim) and the judge harshly said "where's the statute?" They didn't have it and the judge said again harsly "so you didn't do your research?" When they asked him a question about it he harshly replied "I'm not your lawyer".
When the DP started to tell the judge about emotional or personal info that happened that night, the judge said "this is a contracts case, just the legal facts will be heard".
When they stated they felt unsafe and threatened by the situation, the judge again harshly asked if they filed a police report or called the police. Of course, the answer was NO.
At the end of it all, we were told that the court would mail the judgment to us in 1-2 weeks.
I am 99.999999999% sure that the case will be judged in our favor! I left very happy and the DP left very upset.
I'll let you know in a week or so what the offical verdict is, but right now, we're doing the happy dance!!!!
As happy as I am about our probable win, I'm still saddened that it took this turn. These were two very unreasonable people and I never imagined that I would ever have to take someone to court. But it's good to know that legally, the phone reservation along with our posted policy with or without the confirmation letter is a legal contract..

Sounds like you got a "judge judy" type...YEAH For you! Hope it all works out for you. Puts the faith back into the judicial system.

 

[Breakfast Diva]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that.

 

[Arks]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Excellent! Just excellent!

 

[Penelope]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Congratulations!

 

[EmptyNest]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

HIP HIP HURRAY FOR YOU! Justice is sweet

 

[BBBBoB]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Defendants breached the contract, .....

Clearly having a concise and clear policy keeps everyone on the same page, even if they chose not to abide by it. Congratulations on your hard fought victory.

BBBBob

 

[Flower]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Lesson here you must read what is on your policy both web and confirmation. It is a contract people. I hope the DP learned a lesson or two. And hope they spread the word.
Great news BD! Congradulations A fight was well worth all you put into it. Justice does work even if your not rich.
I like to say thank you BD.

 

[Generic]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!!...

Woohoo! When you get the money, time for a celebratory dinner... on them!

 

[birdwatcher]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Good for you!!!!

 

[Arks]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Let's just hope you've heard the last of them. You know how it goes with folks on a TA vendetta. The court ruling should help, though, if you have to fight this later with our masters at TA (if you can get them to pay any attention).

 

[EmptyNest]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Let's just hope you've heard the last of them. You know how it goes with folks on a TA vendetta. The court ruling should help, though, if you have to fight this later with our masters at TA (if you can get them to pay any attention).
.

These people would be idiots to post anything on T A. She has a great management response which she can post and people will listen to it!

 

[virginia]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Good for you!
Do you think the same applies if a guest shows up with a toddler in tow when the contract says "Children over 12 years welcome"?

 

[Breakfast Diva]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Good for you!
Do you think the same applies if a guest shows up with a toddler in tow when the contract says "Children over 12 years welcome"?
.

Yes Virginia, I do think it would apply for the children over 12 rule, but only if you in a state that allows it. Some states such as CA have a law that you can't discriminate against any age.

 

[Breakfast Diva]

I really want to thank all of you for your encouragement since the beginning of this drama. With the collective thought here that we had been wronged and it wasn't just us being emotional or greedy, it really helped us to know that we were doing the right thing by following through.
We haven't told any innkeepers in our state what has been happening. One of the great things about this forum is we can spout off and run different scenarios without our local collegues knowing what we're going through. I think now that it's over and we have the official judgement, I'll write a note to our state association telling them what happened. As I said in a previous post, whether or not an innkeeper decides to take it to this level, it's important to know that your website and policies ARE a legal contract, whether or not they click to agree. I'm sure we got into this situation only because it was a phone reservation and not an online reservation. We also have taken measures to make sure that now phone reservations click and agree to our policies so we never have this problem again.
Again, thank all of you for your help and support!

 

[Breakfast Diva]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Let's just hope you've heard the last of them. You know how it goes with folks on a TA vendetta. The court ruling should help, though, if you have to fight this later with our masters at TA (if you can get them to pay any attention).
.

I've thought of that too Arky, but now that I have a judgment, it wouldn't be liable or slander if I used their real names on FB, blog, TA etc. How foolish would they have to be to mess with that???

 

[Arks]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Let's just hope you've heard the last of them. You know how it goes with folks on a TA vendetta. The court ruling should help, though, if you have to fight this later with our masters at TA (if you can get them to pay any attention).
.

I've thought of that too Arky, but now that I have a judgment, it wouldn't be liable or slander if I used their real names on FB, blog, TA etc. How foolish would they have to be to mess with that???
.

In a real TA vendetta they'd give bad reviews from multiple computers and TA accounts without you being able to pin down that it was them giving them, and encourange friends and family to do the same. It's a lot of trouble, but if they're determined enough they could give you some headaches.
Let's just hope that they've had enough and want to put it behind them.

 

[Joey Camb]

JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!! Just got the verdict in the mail. They are now going to have to pay $682 instead of what we had offered that night which was to just keep their deposit of $170.
The ruling states:
It was determined that contract law applies. "The room was advertised at the set rate. Defendants called and made reservations, which also called for a one night deposit. Defendants brought pets, which was contrary to the published conditions and advertised status of the room. Defendants did not seek to mitigate the damages to plaintiff, by trying to find alternative tenants. Defendants breached the contract, and are liable for all three nights' lodging".
They do have a chance to appeal, but it would cost them and additional filing fee of $189, so I seriously doubt they will do that..

Let's just hope you've heard the last of them. You know how it goes with folks on a TA vendetta. The court ruling should help, though, if you have to fight this later with our masters at TA (if you can get them to pay any attention).
.

I've thought of that too Arky, but now that I have a judgment, it wouldn't be liable or slander if I used their real names on FB, blog, TA etc. How foolish would they have to be to mess with that???
.

In a real TA vendetta they'd give bad reviews from multiple computers and TA accounts without you being able to pin down that it was them giving them, and encourange friends and family to do the same. It's a lot of trouble, but if they're determined enough they could give you some headaches.
Let's just hope that they've had enough and want to put it behind them.
.

on the plus side they seem pretty dumb and hopefully havn't the brains to figure anything that complex out.

 

[Breakfast Diva]

It's finally over! We received payment today in the mail from the DP along with a letter stating that we didn't have to worry about any further public reviews from them. Of course, she had to get the last dig in, but it's alright, it's now over.
We've learned a lot over this incident. I sincerely doubt that we'll ever be faced with this type of situation again, especially since we've changed how we do phone reservations. I never want to go through this again, but I'm glad we did it this one time with these specific people.
THE END