Bazinga

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.

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 9, that was originally aired September 14, 2017. Discussion Link: "Battle Over a Band" Case titles: 1) Still Not Finding What He's Looking For; 2) A Cell Phone Disaster; 3) Pretending.

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 8, that was originally aired September 13, 2017. Discussion Link: "Exes Battle Over Mortgage" Case titles: 1) Hitting A Husband Where It Hurts; 2) Not Strutting His Stuff; 3) Stealing Security.

AngelaHunter, Judge Milian's stated reason was that the plaintiff gets the benefit of her bargain; the installation for $300, with the defendant paying the difference. To both of us this does not make sense, though we have seen it a few times in the past, the regular recovery in such cases has been the return of the payment made to the incompetent tradesman who did not do the job and even then, sometimes she has allowed the defendant to keep partial payment. The only reason I can see the defendant had to pay "the bundle of money" is if he made the situation worse by his actions and there wasn't testimony in this direction and, if it was the reason for the decision, a bigger deal should have been made about that issue than there was. Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 7, that was originally aired September 12, 2017. Discussion Link: Friendship Ruined Over a Loan Case titles: 1) Turning A Guy Down; 2) Cutting A Landscaper Down; 3) Crashing And Dashing.

AngelaHunter, as a lawyer, I agree with you. This was the typical JM "cheap comes out expensive" case. Plaintiff knew she was hiring a handyman, not someone with a plumbing license and then acts aggrieved when the shit hits the fan. SHE deserved to get punished for that. Plaintiff hired incompetent and got incompetent. A case of you get what you pay for if there ever was one. Who thinks hiring someone you need to buy tools for is a good idea? I also think plaintiff probably did agree to give the handyman the tools that were bought for the job, as she wouldn't need them and this was an added incentive for the defendant who was being paid a pittance. JM pointed out that the plaintiff tried to "double dip" by suing for the payment made to the defendant plus the payment to the qualified plumber and electrician (what JM called "the bunch of money" she paid the qualified tradespeople). JM pointed out, correctly, that this would be a bonanza for her. Where JM wavered from her usual, was in ordering the defendant to pay the cost to do this right JM said that the plaintiff gets the benefit of her bargain - installation for $300. But, we have seen similar cases and the usual damages were just the payment made to the incompetent repair person being returned. She would be whole, as you are pointing out, and then need to do what she should have done in the first place, hire licensed, competent tradesmen and pay them what the job is worth. Nowhere was there evidence that the handyman made the job worse. The letter (and suddenly letters are OK as evidence) from the inspector with opinions about things that were way beyond his purview - cursing, belligerence of the handyman, tools not needed for the job - seemed very one sided toward following what the plaintiff told him but since he is an "official" it is to be deemed accurate. Plaintiff knowingly hired incompetent, got incompetent and then gets to only pay the fee quoted by the incompetent for quality work. That, too, is a bonanza. Ridiculous and inconsistent from JM, in both our opinions. I really did not like the plaintiff. She was obviously lying about a lot of what happened (I might have had one drink; throwing in they smoked a joint together to make him look bad; I never said anything about the dead wife - I don't believe her) and I do think the defendant was basically truthful in that he wasn't smart enough to come up with good lies. The problem was that he had no defense for leaving the job and he was not good at speaking and representing himself, but, no, he should not have to pay for her boiler installation minus the $300 he gets for his trouble, which now seems to include the city going after him. He should have had to return the payment and that is it, in my opinion. Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 6, that was originally aired September 11, 2017. Discussion Link: "Exes Wedding War" Case titles: 1) Wrecking A Wedding; 2) Causing A Canine Injury; 3) Insurance Fraud.

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 5, that was originally aired September 8, 2017. Discussion Link: "Harassing a Handyman" Case titles: 1) Not Getting It Done; 2) You Crook; 3) Playing Around With A Customer.

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 4, that was originally aired September 7, 2017. Discussion Link: "Roommate Rent Riot" Case titles: 1) Running Out On The Rent; 2) Being Doggone Careless; 3) Dumping A Truck.

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 3, that was originally aired September 6, 2017. Discussion Link: "Livid Over a Loan" Case titles: 1) Not Making A Payback; 2) Letting His Dog Get Away; 3) Being Strict Landlords. Case two is a dog attack case.

Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 2, that was originally aired September 5, 2017. Discussion Link: "Your Cat Peed on My Rug!" Case titles: 1) Smelling Up The Joint; 2) Not Fixing Things Right; 3) Causing A Scratch.

My upcoming listings are very different than CrazyInAlabama (TY, though). My listing for Friday's episode is Season 21 (a new old season!), Episode 1, that was originally aired September 4, 2017. I am following that as it runs consecutively with what I have listed for next week. I am not sure if this is going to be accurate, but here goes. Discussion Link: "Friend Loan Fireworks" Case titles: 1) Failing A Friend; 2) Fix Up this House ASAP; 3) A Rear Ender.

Thursday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 150, that was originally aired June 23, 2017. Discussion Link: "I'm Livid You Sold Me A Lemon" Case titles: 1) Letting A Lemon Go; 2) I Took Nothing; 3) Horsing Around. Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff accuses the defendant of selling them a faulty car. However, the defendant denies the accusation and says the plaintiff resorted to violence."

Wednesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 149, that was originally aired June 22, 2017. Discussion Link: "Truck Fire Fiasco" Case titles: 1) Fanning The Flames; 2) Selling A Dirty Bed; 3) An Uber-Boo-Boo. Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff is suing the defendant for the damages to his truck, after the vehicle catches fire shortly after going through the car wash."

Tuesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 148, that was originally aired June 21, 2017. Discussion Link: "Pooping Out On A Puppy" Case titles: 1) Pooping Out On Puppy Payments; 2) A Back-Up Crack-Up; 3) Standing Firm. Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff is suing the defendant after she fails to pay after purchasing puppies from him. Meanwhile, the defendant says the plaintiff got violent."

Monday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 147, that was originally aired June 20, 2017. Discussion Link: "Restraining Order Ruined Our Friendship" Case titles: 1) De-Friending A Friend; 2) Cracking It Up; 3) Cracking Up. Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff is suing her former friend for the loss of her belongings after claiming that moving in destroyed their friendship."

Thank you for next week, CrazyInAlabama. Friday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 146, that was originally aired June 19, 2017. Discussion Link: "The Wedding Is Off!" Case titles: 1) Letting The Music Die; 2) Giving A Customer The Big Brush Off; 3) Not Paying Off Her Relatives. Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims she gave the defendant a deposit to DJ at her wedding and wants a refund now that her nuptials won't be going ahead, but the defendant argues that he owes her nothing."

Thursday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 145, that was originally aired June 16, 2017. Discussion Link: "Bail Loan Blowup" Case titles: 1) Skipping Out; 2) Turning On A Tenant; 3) Rear Ending A Guy. Google's title case summary: "The plaintiffs claims they provided their son's ex-girlfriend with a loan, but she refuses to pay now that the couple has separated."

Wednesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 144, that was originally aired June 15, 2017. Discussion Link: "Sizzling Mad Over a Shattered Window" Case titles: 1) Being A Snow Blower; 2) Give Me Back My Deposit; 3) Being Out Of Juice. Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims that a rock broke her window, but that the man responsible never paid her for the damage. The defendant argues that her house itself was to blame, not him."