Bazinga

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 31, that was originally aired October 16, 2017. Discussion Link: "Shared Driveway Dilemma" Case titles: 1) Not Sharing; 2) Unloading A Poor Puppy; 3) Handing Off A Hoopty. Google's case summaries: "A crumbling shared driveway becomes the focus of a neighbour dispute. Then, a couple sue a dog breeder after they buy a puppy with what they believe to be existing health problems." Thank you for next week's listings, CrazyInAlabama. Have a nice weekend, everyone.

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 30, that was originally aired October 13, 2017. Discussion Link: "Dog Fight Fiasco" Case titles: 1) A Doggie Dust Up; 2) Refusing To Give A Refund; 3) Tripping Out On A Tran-ny. Google's title case summary: "A man claims a woman's unleashed dog began fighting with his dog, which led to ligament damage. She says the two dogs never had any contact." Warning #1 - Case 1 is another dog attack case. Warning #2 - NYGirl wrote the following: "Today's cases were so boring."

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 29, that was originally aired October 12, 2017. Discussion Link: "Truck Driver Tussel" Case titles: 1) Trucking Around With A Driver; 2) Taking His Sweet Time; 3) Not Getting It Right. Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims he was hired to drive a truck for the defendant and hasn't been paid, but the defendant says that on the first delivery the goods were damaged and on the second the driver disappeared for three days."

It is easier to know which episode will air when the episodes are shown in order. Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 28, that was originally aired October 11, 2017. Discussion Link: "Victim of a Vicious Dog" Case titles: 1) My Dog Did Nothing; 2) Fleas, Fleas, Everywhere Fleas; 3) Weaseling Out Of A Deal. Google's title case summary: "A woman sues for money she believes she's owed for vet bills following a dog attack. The defendant says there were no witnesses of any attack and he's never seen a vet bill." Warning - If the title and summary didn't clue you in, case 1 is a dog attack case.

Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 27, that was originally aired October 10, 2017. Discussion Link: "Beer Can Battle" Case titles: 1) Charging For A Beer Brigade; 2) Not Getting The Picture; 3) What A Couple Of Lug Nuts. Google's case summaries: "David takes Bill to court when his rental security deposit is not returned to him. Then, Dawn takes video editor Michael to court, for outstanding costs after she was forced to redo his work." Thank you for the listings, CrazyInAlabama.

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 26, that was originally aired October 9, 2017. Discussion Link: "Phone Fight Ends Friendship" Case titles: 1) A Phoner Fight; 2) Not Giving Anything Back; 3) Being A Drag. Google's case summaries: "Tyler is taken to court by Kayla, for an unpaid loan, and a replacement phone. Then, Paul sues his former landlords for not returning his property or security deposit." Have a good weekend, everyone.

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 25, that was originally aired October 6, 2017. Discussion Link: "Taking Out an Opponent" Case titles: 1) Taking Him Out; 2) An Embroidery Error; 3) Not Fixing Things Right. Google's case summaries: "Mike decides to sue his opponent in a soccer match, for a malicious physical assault. Then, James takes Joseph to court for ruining his shirts when adding monograms to them."

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 24, that was originally aired October 5, 2017. Discussion Link: "Playing Dirty" Case titles: 1) Playing Dirty; 2) Taking A Fall; 3) Unloading On A Friend. Google's case summaries: "Jason sues a customer of his mobile detailing company, for unpaid services. Then, a woman is sued four outstanding payments after purchasing a boxing club."

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 23, that was originally aired October 4, 2017. Discussion Link: "Exes Bicker Over Belongings" Case titles: 1) Give Me My Stuff Back; 2) Wrecking The Joint; 3) Taking Advantage Of A Brit. Google's case summaries: "A couple has a disagreement about their belongings, after a friend interferes in their relationship. Then, a woman sues her tenant for unpaid fees."

Thank you for the week's listings, CrazyInAlabama. Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 22, that was originally aired October 3, 2017. Discussion Link: "Model Mayhem" Case titles: 1) Not Snapping Enough Pictures; 2) A Canine Caper; 3)Misrepresenting. Warning - Case 2 is a dog attack case.

Yes, the request for attorney fees was denied because she was her own lawyer. My point was that JM's original intent was to award the plaintiffs attorney fees. But car owners didn't get the requested fees and JM was acting like they were overreaching even though two cars were totaled. Alternatively, the stepfather was awarded attorney fees. Why two plaintiffs got/or were going to be awarded attorney fees and the third request was denied? The outlier reason was that JM did not think the car owners needed to hire an attorney but I don't see why stepfather and furniture owner needed to hire attorneys. I see this as inconsistency; just my opinion. As an aside regarding your accurate comparison to landlords doing repairs themselves, I think landlords forced to repair and clean up after tenants do deserve to be compensated for their time and effort but Judge Milian and Judge Judy disagree. Yes, I remember the dog cases. They made no sense, either.

I hate MM's inconsistencies, especially with similar cases, particularly those shown close in time. We have three recent cases with different results as to attorney fees. Case 1, the sort of stepdaughter a few days ago, who was willing to pay back the loan to the sort of stepfather until the plaintiff charged her with late fees, also had to pay plaintiff's attorney fees when plaintiff hired a lawyer to write her a threatening letter. He knew her and could have just spoke to her about the situation instead of going to the mattresses. Why did he deserve attorney's fees? In my experience, unless the original loan agreement allows for attorney fees, like in mortgage documents allowing the bank to charge attorney fees for foreclosure proceedings, the plaintiff does not recover attorney fees. Obviously, this was a person to person loan and no way she would have agreed to pay attorney fees when she borrowed the money. Same reason she was objecting to the late fees; he knew her and was not an institution like a bank for him to be charging late fees in the stepdaughter's opinion. The ruling as to attorney fees bothered me then and bothers me in comparison to the two cases shown yesterday. Case 2, the couch case, JM was willing to award the plaintiff's attorney fee until the attorney in question turned out to be the wife. Case 3, the car accident case, JM blew off the plaintiff's request for attorney fees because she decided he didn't need an attorney to respond to the court documents he received. The judge barely bothered to understand what papers led plaintiff to think he needed a lawyer, somehow concluding that since he initiated the lawsuit, he didn't need a lawyer; easy for a lawyer to say. Why would the criteria for awarding attorney fees be whether the plaintiff needed to hire the attorney rather than the fact that the plaintiff hired and paid for an attorney? Did the stepfather really need to hire an attorney to write a $500 letter to his own stepdaughter? I don't think so, especially as she was willing to pay the original loan and was only objecting to his tacking on late fees. Did the original loan agreement provide for attorney fees? I doubt it. Was whatever the wife did in the couch case not something that could be done by a non-attorney? Yet JM was willing to grant them attorney fees. Were the car accident victims, faced with daunting legal papers about depositions, discovery and, though JM didn't care to listen, the wife said language about plaintiff having to pay defendant's attorney fees, really not justified in hiring an attorney, just as stepfather and couch couple were justified according to JM? I just don't like inconsistencies in the judge's rulings (and treatment of certain litigants*, too). *Compare the way JM treated the innocent car owners, the actual victims, to the teen who most likely was reckless in causing an accident that damaged three cars, could have killed himself and his passenger. JM was annoyed the plaintiff, in anger at his parked cars being damaged, called the defendant an a$$hole. She was so defensive of the defendant that she even tried and failed to show the plaintiff's daughter had a car accident because accidents happen and it is not really the poor defendant's fault.

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 21, that was originally aired October 2, 2017. Discussion Link: "Greedy Girlfriend" Case titles: 1) You're Outta Here; 2) Taking Shoddy Shots; 3) Misleading A Mitsubishi Buyer.

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 20, that was originally aired September 29, 2017. Discussion Link: "Couch Catastrophe" Case titles: 1) Couching The Issue; 2) Cracking Up; 3) Cooling Off A Tenant.

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 19, that was originally aired September 28, 2017. Discussion Link: "Romance Rent Rage" Case titles: 1) Skipping Out; 2) Cleaning Up; 3) Cracking A Guy Up.

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 18, that was originally aired September 27, 2017. Discussion Link: "Hospitalized After Dog Bite" Case titles: 1) Ouch; 2) A Back-Up Crack-Up; 3) Being Too Nosey.

If you are not eclipse preempted, Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 17, that was originally aired September 26, 2017. Discussion Link: "Bail Bond Blow-Up" Case titles: 1) Bailing On A Loan; 2) Stepping Up Against Her Step-Father; 3) Unloading A Lumina. Thank you for the listings, CrazyInAlabama.

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 16, that was originally aired September 25, 2017. Discussion Link: "Tile Tussel" Case titles: 1) A Tile Tantrum; 2) Cooking Up A Lawsuit; 3) Bugging A Tenant.

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 15, that was originally aired September 22, 2017. Discussion Link: "If You Cook for Me, I'll Get You a Cell Phone" Case titles: 1) Being A Phoner Phony; 2) Flubbing A Film; 3) Running Out On A Sick House.

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 14, that was originally aired September 21, 2017. Discussion Link: "Furious Over Getting Fleeced!" Case titles: 1) Clipping A Groomer; 2) Losing It But Good; 3) Fungus In The Fridge.

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 13, that was originally aired September 20, 2017. Discussion Link: "Livid at a Landlord" Case titles: 1) A Rent Refusal; 2) Taking The Money; 3) Getting It Wrong.

Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 12, that was originally aired September 19, 2017. Discussion Link: "Wedding Dress Disaster" Case titles: 1) A Dress Disaster; 2) Rotten Room Renting; 3) Not Paying It Up.

I remembered the plaintiff. I loved his body language at the bench when MM was not understanding his explanation of the problem. Also loved how he did not button the collar buttons on his ill-fitting shirt. Strip away some of the details of this case and it is the same as the case from last week with handyman Kevin having to pay for the plaintiff's new boiler installation. Here, plaintiff wanted plumber to install copper pipes and plumber, for his own reasons (felt not necessary), did not complete the job, just like Kevin did not complete the job for his own reasons (plaintiff's behaviors toward him). In both cases the defendants' repairs were enough to get the problem solved-the water pressure corrected here and hot water for plaintiff in an emergency situation in last week's case-but complete services were not rendered. Here JM intended to refund part of the fee plaintiff paid, $200, since defendant did not do the complete job he had been contracted to complete by not installing the copper pipes. She did not rule that defendant had to pay whatever someone else might charge to install the copper pipes plaintiff still felt he needed. In neither case was there testimony that the defendants' made the situation worse. In today's case, JM made a distinction that the defendant unilaterally created a new deal in digging up and turning on the water main and not installing the pipes, as plaintiff wanted and charging $1,500. Kevin did not complete the job because of claimed issues with plaintiff's behavior. So, again, why did Kevin the handyman have to pay for the plaintiff's boiler installation and Joe the plumber only had to refund $200 of the $1,500 payment he had already been paid? My answer to that question is that Judge Milian is inconsistent and was totally wrong in the handyman case in awarding plaintiff the cost of having the boiler installed by someone else and not just awarding plaintiff a full or partial refund. The only other differences I can spot are that Joe the Plumber, as hard as it is to believe, was better at defending himself and his reason for not completing the job seems more reasonable than Kevin, who had vague, unsupported reasons for just quitting the job. But the end result was that both defendants' did not complete the job they were contracted to do, yet the decisions were very different. Happy Easter!

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 11, that was originally aired September 15, 2017. Discussion Link: "Getting Steamed!" Case titles: 1) Getting Soaked; 2) Mucking Up A Motorcycle; 3) Bailing On Bail. Thank you, CrazyInAlabama. Happy Easter, everyone!

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 10, that was originally aired September 15, 2017. Discussion Link: "Rent Riot" Case titles: 1) Leaving High & Dry; 2) Doggie Drama; 3) The Problematic Pontiac. Case 2 is a dog bite case. Limited discussion of this episode - SRTouch's recap and one AngelaHunter post; the prior day's episode consumes the conversation.