Okay, today's first case, tenant who didn't get out by the end of the month as required. I am confused, seems to me that these court shows have told me over the years and repeatedly that if your stuff is still in the apartment, you are still there, and that if you are there any part of the month, you owe for the month unless you can show that the landlord re-rented before the end of the month. I also did not like the way they pulled a "heads I win, tails you lose" move on the property manager. They suggested that he had no way to know if he would get the unit re-rented immediately (therefore no loss from the over stay) in order to get him to explain that his units re-rented almost immediately. Once they extracted that admission, they then used that to say that he wouldn't really have any loss so nothing for the month with the tenant's stuff still there (not even pro-rated). Plus they were indignant about using the security deposit for the rent that the manager believed was owed; judges have frequently allowed tenants being sued for unpaid rent to be credited with the security deposit in lieu of rent owed. Maybe I am just having a senior moment, or it is a new season and all of the previous seasons were just a dream (referring to Dallas I think, where they started off a new season showing that a major plot element (someone died) was really just one of the character's dream).