Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

SRTouch

Member
  • Content Count

    2.6k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

9.2k Excellent
  1. Watched 1st two cases from kitchen while making/eating lunch. Neither worth rewinding to do verbose recap. family feud: big bro suing younger bro over 3 grand loan he made a year or two earlier when young bro's wife kicked him to curb. Younger bro says big brother never loaned him any money - says he has good job and if money was ever needed it would be him loaning big bro money - Lil bro says this case is over a car wreck Big bro(P) had in Lil bro (D)'s gf's car..... hmmmmm, not sure when lil bro hooked up with gf - mayhap that was WHY he was kicked out..... seems P had the accident, returned damaged car with other driver's info, and refuses to pay anything toward repair, saying accident not his fault, so lil bro and gf should go after other driver....... . D's gf sued Big bro, and week later lil bro is served with papers for this case....... car case has nothing to do with this case except as possible motive for filing this suit.......both this brothers are highly irritating and macho macho - Lil bro is cautioned a couple times right out the gate for standing to the side gesturing while big bro states his case..... Lil bro dressed for backyard bbq, while big bro ready for church in Sunday best....... P may look like a litigant, but boy, he sure doesn't act the part - he's one of those people I swear must be hard of hearing because of the decibels they've been around all their life - in his case the decibels are coming from his shouting - everything he says today comes out at #9 on the volume control - also, spent almost whole time looking doen looking for something in wallet and papers -so, this case is about 3 grand prize says he loaned D, but D says he never needed or received - P says he has evidence - a mystery witness who couldn't make the trip, but he has a statement - MM not happy with statement, wants to give mystery witness a call, but P doesn't have his number - MM not happy with THAT either - says you were able to track guy down and get a statement but no phone number....... P wants to shout about the car case, reminded again that is for an upcoming hearing, not this one - case dismissed. Employee not paid: P says he left old job where he was making better money to come work for his godfather's brother - couple more guys who make terrible litigants...... if I heard right, claims he was making 2-3000 in old job and went down to $200...... MM catches P lying before he really gets started - he's talking like he left a better paying job to work for almost-family, but actual truth is he was laid off and desperate....... D is godfather's brother and a macho man all about RESPECT - but he's one of those who thinks respect goes one way, he demands respect, but treats others/employees like crap....... P was on job, installing/repairing AC in hot attic - when he discovers he doesn't have needed part - he calls boss man, who begins profane harangue to employee who is already hot and stressed out - also an employee who he knows is a vet whose PTSD is triggered by stress (D also a vet, but he makes comment suggesting he looks down on anyone with P's diagnosis)...... so, P doesn't have part to complete job, and gets yelled out when he reports to boss hoping they can spend someone with part - so he calls it a day and heads back to office....... hey, it was payday and his electric had already been shut off because of $150 past due bill....... ah, but when he gets to office boss says he is waiting on a checks from clients and can't make payroll - boss knew employee's lights had been shut off, but by gosh and golly, P had disrespected him by hanging up on him and leaving jobsite, so P can't just wait til Monday to get paid - this was Friday afteroon, so I'm thinking P hoped to get paycheck and get lights turned back on before weekend - MM suggests a GOOD boss would have, at least, given P enough to get lights on, but no, P had been DISRESPECTFUL - besides he already knew P's family had a place to stay with power - so no biggy, it'll teach P a lesson of who'da'boss, P goes home to no power, and scrambles around to raise money over the weekend - come Monday he calls in on strike (not what he calls it) - not coming back til he's paid - he's also checked around with other employees, and apparently others were paid Friday, just not dude who has past due bills with no electricity - a couple more things about D's campaign demanding respect - seems when he learned office manager had talked about others who were she was fired - also he heard P in his brother's (not godfather brother) office complaining about not being paid, so D goes over and throws 'nother straw throw on the back - P quits and wants to be paid for work he's done........ oh my, just when I thought D was an a$$hole, he proves to be an even bigger one........ seems he knows he has to pay P, but claiming he talked to someone at labor board, and he retroactively cuts P pay rate from AC installer to gofer/minimum wage (?)......... uh, no, MM is not buying someone at labor board told him that........ anybody catch where these people are? I ask because this type of situation is where a union could shine. I'll agree with those who say some unions have gotten TOO powerful and sometimes hurt instead of members in the long haul, but, like I said, this type situation is why unions came about........ ok, time to talk damages....... P definitely deserves to be paid, but he really piled stuff onto his claim - like he wants to be paid for the Monday even though he admits he called/texted and took the day off - he also wants to be paid for bills being paid late and being threatened with eviction - I MIGHT have been more sympathetic to some of that except we know, at very least, his electric was past due before payday - ok, P owed $200 from late/reduced paycheck, but with all the add ons he now wants 2 grand -no surprise, that doesn't happen......... P awarded $204.96........ not TOO sorry he didn't get more, sure D was an A$$, but not only did P start case with a lie and try for more than he should have, he contributed quite a bit to his money woes....... course, D goes off a bit on Doug of the Hallway - he claims MM wouldn't listen to his evidence, says only got to say, maybe 20 words, just check the tape, he says - the law doesn't matter on TPC etc.... auto shop repair fail: silly case which, from intro, sounds like we won't be hearing any interesting legal question from any of the cases today. Little old lady took her hoopty to D - engine shot - been over a year ..... his intro says to find a replacement - intro doesn't say if he ever fixed her truck - wants full 5 grand max...... if intro clown intro is right - I know, what are the chances of that?...... his defense consists of 3 parts: 1) he couldn't find an affordable rebuilt or motor he could take parts from that would work; 2) he gave her a loaner; and 3) p has such a potty mouth and harrassed him so much his blood pressure went up and he ended up in hospital for a week - sooooooo, problem with his defense is --- uh, still waiting to hear his defense......... oh, problem with P's case is her damage claim - haven't heard make/model/year yet, but, if it's the usual hoopty who can register to vote (or even buy booze), she can buy 5 comparable hooptys if awarded her asked for 5 grand - yes, given that we KNOW she brought him a body and worthless engine, I'm being pretty generous and a comparable vehicle would be sent straight to junkyard as scrap - but P is a little old lady, which is almost always good for something on TPC....... oh my, preview going to commercial we learn granny met mechanic in Auto Zone parking lot - she says he has no shop, but he says he does - any bets on whether shop is shed behind house or that big shade tree in the front yard....... ok, truck quit running Nov 2018, and she got quote from mechanic of 2 grand - no way could she afford that, so shopped around for alley mechanic, neighbor recommended D, and his quote was $900........ hmmmmmm sounds like he made his estimate over phone - never good idea, whether reno-ing a building or repairing hoopty - you never know what else could need repairs - sure he may not be able to tell everything that might needs repair, but he cross some things off the list by checking brakes, suspension etc (heck, even just looking at wear pattern of tires can tell a mechanic quite alot)...... ok, 2nd case in a row where first thing litigant tells MM turns out wrong - she asks D if he had a shop - yes, he says, P says no he didn't, and after some digging we find out he did NOT have a shop for another couple months........ uh, foolish P paid full amount, $900, upfront right there at 1st meeting at Auto Zone - uh, here's a thought, much smaller amount upfront, make sure he has money to get engine when he finds it, and rest of money when he completes work........ uhhhhh, and P gave him full amount and promptly heads to California for daughter's wedding, after being promised engine would be installed when she returned in two weeks....... oops, guess I was wrong - shop neither the shed nor the front yard - their city won't let people work on junkers in the yard, so he took it 'out in the forest' somewhere according to P, but he just says 'in the country'........ ok, these two both pretty dim - MM asks P what city they're from - P isn't sure, hasn't lived there long - maybe, uhhh, Arkansas??....... turning to D and he can at least pin it down to Little Rock - he also gets around to telling up this isn't an ancient hoopty by TPC hoopty standards, why this thing is practically new, a '06 - country bumpkin then goes through all the trials and tribulations he suffered through trying to explain why he has had her vehicle a year and has yet to replace engine........ oh, yeah, that loaner car he provided - well he did provide a loaner, but as P was driving home she realized she had no paperwork proving it was legal to drive - she says she took it right back, changes that to maybe a week and a half, and D says probably more like 3 weeks - but, dude, that still means you did NOT provide her a loaner for almost a year........... D has yet to provide a defense, and his three attempt at a defense have been trashed (his bit about her cussing him out had MM saying, well, yeah, after a year and a half she is no closer to having her vehicle running, and she paid in full upfront expecting it back in 2 weeks - don't know if she really cussed him out, but if she did it was understandable........ Ok, never any real questioned P going to win, but don't think she'll be that happy - way I see it, she gets back her non-running junker and her $900 - hoping MM finds a way to award a little extra cuz D really did her wrong....... ok, seems California daughter found out about mess about 9 months in, she tried to call and kick start process, but D only took her call once before he blocked her....... also, seems after his blood pressure scare, D hasn't worked last 4 months........ MM ready to talk damages - P another of those who hang onto paperwork - she has original purchase papers from when she bought truck, along with pics of what it looks like today - seems while he had it parked in the woods, some other bumpkin(s) found it and started using it for parts......... Wellllllll so truck only needed an engine when he took procession and now it's been used for parts and cannibalized - dude needs to give her kbb for truck, plus $900 he took for replacing engine, and hopefully a grand or two for kerning her around....... heck, make him pay for daughter's plane ticket from California..... can ya tell I don't like this guy - this guy gives country bumpkins everywhere a bad name...... awwwwww, another time MM does the probably legal thing instead of going with gut emotions - she decides non-running vehicle only worth $1200 - returns the $900 - and gives nothing for hassle of of dealing with bumpkin for a year........ total award $2100 SIDE NOTE: I come from families who migrated to California during the depression and after WWII. I have family who were originally in Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri and Arkansas, and they all had family that didn't make the move west. Some of my grandfather's generation, and my older aunts/uncles returned to those States after retiring because of cheaper cost of living....... sort of long-winded, but looking and listening to P on last case really had me thinking of my olds folks......... would not be at all surprised if P has a cedar chest full of quilts she's made - she really had me remembering one of my favorites, Great Aunt Minnie - for most of my life she quioted, and as children moved out one new room became dedicated to quilting bees.
  2. I've had this discussion with a RL friend who often discusses the 3 court shows I watch regularly (JJ, Hot Bench & TPC). I think all three are edited to a degree, but are about as 'real' as can be expected on an entertainment show. BTW, JJ is the judge we find least 'real' as she is most apt to make off the wall rulings to meet her America. as far as the calls made by both JJ and MM - we stop short of declaring them fake, but neither of us believe they happen as shown. If they were 100% real, more often than not we'd hear "stop f*ing with me.... click" & "who is these really?" As far as whether or not an actual CSR respond as shown..... we know the judges are given access to records/statements etc before coming out to film - we also know that there are big staffs off camera who research cases (I think I heard/read somewhere JJ has around 60 staffers who research, brief her, help her get ready etc) - my point here is that she probably knows long before actually taping that she might be calling ACME Insurance, and she has the staff on hand to get signed permission from litigant and to ACME prior to taping, and have staff phone ahead and have an agent who already has signed permission from client who has had time to pull & review files, and probably has list of questions JJ will be asking before JJ picks up her phone. OTOH, since we never hear other end of JJ calls they coulld be totally bogus and the staff already made the call and have given her herm answers. Fake or real? Well, fake as in call we see is not happening as shown. But, also the information JJ gathers in the phone conversation may be real. Even though what we see may be a reenactment of call staffers made week before. MM is more real when she makes calls from bench, we hear both sides, and at times she either doesn't get through or gets unexpected answer...... not totally real though, as sometimes, we hear professionals answering questions you KNOW would NOT be answered. Really, the amazing thing is when we learn of cases where litigants have managed to fake out the staffers........ remember the case where big sis is suing deadbeat daddy for not paying debt/rent/whatever and she couldn't afford Christmas for her younger brothers........IIRC, she got caught in her lies by JJ when JJ had boys wait outside, then when Byrd called them in the brothers forgot their lines and told JJ what presents sis hot them - sis got nothing from JJ, but then appeared without brothers on TPC and won........ that's not the only time litigants have faked a case, but most memorable in my mind
  3. Sometimes only thing that makes a weed a weed is location 😉 Before I bought this trailer I lived in same apartment for 10 years. I got permission to take over one flowerbed and create another small 3 or 4 square foot area between my patio and the sidewalk into a bed. (I also had contract for landscaping the complex most of the time I lived there.) I ended up with raised beds, planted roses and annuals spring and fall and had a couple tomato plants and strawberries - this was when I learned those two should not really be planted near each other. I have a couple stories about those beds...... once I had good group of strawberries going, and I heard a timid, very soft knock on my door. I opened door to little girl, with neighbor looking on. Seems a granddaughter came to visit my neighbor. She picked all the berries, even though none were ready. She got in trouble once grand mom found out, and grandmom told her to go apologize and give me what she had picked. Couldn't be mad, little girl didn't know any better. Other story not so cute, as it was (different) adult neighbor taking several tomatos over the season. One day I'd have tomato almost ready, then it'd be gone. He may not have known I planted them, but knew I watered/weeded bed and that HE didn't plant them. Way I found out was that bedroom window looked out over bed and I caught him in the act. Other thing that upset me, he lived upstairs and didn't even walk down the sidewalk by those beds to his apartment. Nooooo, he saw them from the stairs and came and helped himself - several times. Hmmmmmm dude would be perfect for court tv with his attitude of entitlement.
  4. Years back I worked landscaping - before I went out on my own I worked with a handicaped kid with extreme attention deficit. You'd never know just talking to him. He wasn't stupid, and in fact very knowledgeable about his collection of of collectible toys. Also knew all about different makes/models of cars. One of the factory complexes we worked was an hours drive west. Even though he never had a license to drive, I learned never to challenge him on his recognition of cars. He recognized cars WAY before I did on the drive. Problem is that when he started a job his mind would wander. I worked with him two days a week on a couple big jobs every summer for a couple years. Our boss was friends with his family. Every week, even though he was assigned same tasks each week, you would need to go to area he was going to mow and point out boundaries of his area. Boss would sometimes unload the riding mower he was going to be using, tell kid to meet him up at field he was assigning the kid. Then boss would go mow a circle around the area he wanted mowed and tell him to mow the grass inside the circle...... Also, you had to check up on him every so often. If he had a problem - like an equipment break down or running out of gas - he wouldn't always come looking for help. Instead, he'd wait until the boss or I came to check on his progress. I blame other workers he had worked with in the past for that. Some people would go off and berate him, so he was afraid to report problems. He learned I wouldn't, so he would walk past other workers to come ask me for help - even though I might be half a mile away in another area...... I liked him, and still stop and talk to him every so often even though it's probably been over 10 years since I worked with him.
  5. Ah, this is how it's SUPPOSED to be - furnace issue resolved - cold outside but nice and cozy in here where I'm watching TPC, drinking coffee, and have my 19yo Spotty in my lap purring........ while waiting for MM, see Shaq and the General commercial where Shaq tells driver driving without insurance is like having a skunk farm in backyard........ Murderous landscaper attack: oh my, not sure what intro clown clown is yakking about at first as he talks about a murderous landscaper - turns out dude took weedeater to P's prized flowers - WTH, for that P wants 5 grand?!...... D says his worker was doing job when P physically attacked him (should note this sounds like D is boss and worker with first hand knowledge not here to testify..... ok, lots of times in this type work employees are day laborers, but who wants to bet this is a regular employee) - anyway, says lady when nutso, and cops had to calm her down...... ok, some type of lilie's were whacked off, but would that actually kill the plant - uh, no, - OTOH, IIRC lilies only bloom once a year, so lady may have been waiting since last autumn when she put bulbs in ground and been excited to finally have flowers bloom - still, these had better be some ultra rare lilies (or maybe worker salted the ground after whacking her flowers) if she's after 5 grand....... ok, talking asiatic black wizard lilies, so not ultra rare/expensive - according to Google they're the darkest lily, a perennial, a mid summer bloomer, and you get 10-15 flowers from each bulb - P says rare, but not really, as I see sites that sell them ($30 for 2 pack on Amazon - but restricted from being sold in some states, so maybe an invasive plant?) still, maybe rare where she lives - ah, ok, very sentimental about her flowers her friend planted - has little book of pix...... uh huh, now MM asks, so we know these plants were not even planted on P's property - she lives with a home owners association and these were in area owned/maintained by the HOA - D was hired by HOA - when she heard worker outside she says she ran out in her pj's to stop him from whacking her plants (landscapers had been guilty of indiscriminate whacking previous year) - sooooo, she doesn't make it in time to stop him from whacking some plants, so she's yelling at worker telling him to go to library and ask somebody to teach him difference between weeds and flowers...... I sort of get her frustration if this is second year in row landscapers whacked her prize flowers, but, despite fact she's on best behavior in court, obvious to me that she was probably pretty out of control and insulting to landscaper - also, she dances around answering MM when asked about the incident - yeah, sure she was yelling, she says, but worker was holding a running weedeater, ok, yeah maybe she she threw a flower towards dude, but not really at him, and besides she missed and it never touched him - 'sides, he whacked her lilies, but left the weeds (probably cuz he stopped working in area with crazy lady in pajamas while waiting for cops, cops probably told her to go back inside and told worker to go whacking somewhere else)........ ok, her whole case kind of shaky, her plants, but not on her property, HOA employee (or contractor) whacked the flowers previous year, so if stalks really that high, why hadn't she gone out earlier in season to point out the plants and ask (ask, not scream about going to library and researching on how to spot a weed) landscaper to be careful - not liking her a tiny bit, especially as I remember her 5 grand damage claim...... over to D - and yeah, hearsay about what missing employee told him about incident - according to D, employee said first he knew nutty shrew was there was when she pushed him from behind - says he put trimmer down to talk to woman - may or may not have turned it off - which is why it's best to have actual employee here instead of guy who heard about incident later - ok, yeah, according to the hearsay, woman yelling and insulting, along with potty mouth - D does produce text from employee, but of course employee's text doesn't carry same weight as witness standing there who can be questioned over discrepancies with P's testimony..... when D gets employee's text, he calls cops - even has police report, so guess since report is admissible he can repeat what'she on it - well, he says 'we' called police, so either he's royalty or he has a "service" mouse in his pocket)....... ok, not really liking D here, either, but getting feeling employee may be a tad 'slow' or just inexperienced and before end of case hear employee called 'kid by D, P and D's office person ....... after commercial it's back to P, who protests her innocence, insists she doesn't have a potty mouth, never pushed employee, yada yada, not buying it, ready for case to be dismissed as frivolous even though I really haven't heard a defense once I subtract the hearsay testimony - only real evidence, so far, proves employee whacked the lilies, and that P really ought to have considering things more carefully before moving someplace where she doesn't control/own her garden...... ok, maybe some actual first hand testimony from D when he talks of multiple - how many - maybe 4-5 times in short period of time - calls from D, where she gets verbally abusive, threatening to take the weedeater to cut HIM down, etc, before he stopped accepting her calls and called cops...... welllll, then again, maybe more hearsay, as he produces a paper from office manager documenting P's calls to office - I'm really not sure when this guy testifies if it's hearsay, the royal 'we' or first hand testimony - about only thing I AM sure of is P is nutty, but lost her property (lilies) that she had in an area maintained by HOA, everybody agrees employee whacked the lilies, and that she has priced an absurd value on lilies in her damage claim - oh, and also sure I'm ready for next case...... ok, more evidence from D, this time purportedly from office person, but could just as well be something he printed up off his home 'puter before making trip - yep, another employee who apparently had something to testify to who couldn't make trip....... okkkkkk and we just learned that there's yet another person between P and D - she's a renter who pays a landlord who pays an HOA who pays D who pays the 'kid who whacked the lily' - really, can't make this 💩 up - oh, and the lilies were worth 5 grand........ D finally produces some real evidence, his contract with the HOA saying he is to maintain P's flowerbeds...... yakkedy yak yak......... finally, MM ready to ask about damage claim - but P doing more two step and won't answer - MM gets loud - when P finally ready to answer WHY she suing for 5 grand she starts with D trying to ruin her reputation - BY CALLING POLICE when his employee reports she pushed him and is yelling/calling him dumb/stupid, says MM - ok, P wants to go back to beginning of case and start testimony from square one - actually kind of early in case, timewise, but I'm ready for decision (think I said that 5 minutes ago) - breaking down her claim - she wants a grand for the flowers, 2 grand for harrassment........ this is actually funny, as MM asks why P is suing for harrassment and P can't explain what D did to harrass her - MM backs up and starts over - you want $1000 for the flowers, how are they worth a grand - And now P argues with her own claim, no the flowers weren't worth a grand she just.... MM is fed up and cuts her off..... back to ridiculous breakdown of damages and next grand is for defamation - but when asked she's not talking about anything D may said or done, since D called police and pay kid, she figures anything plice put in report that kid said means D is responsible - so what police put in report is what employee told them, but employee lied, and employer therefore nothing but a big liar liar - my math may be off, or maybe MM is frustrated and not going to keep going down P's list of damages (I have $1000 for flowers, 2 grand for harrassment, and 1 grand defamation = 4 grand, but P suing for 5grand (not worth going back and seeing where missing grand comes in...... ok, MM in middle of dismissing case and attempts to toss P a bone by saying P MIGHT be due something if landscaper keep repeating mistake - P interrupts with her plants were whacked 2 years in a row but is told to shut it, lady in black robe in middle of sentence - offer of a bone retracted as MM explains P acted like a whacko because kid with the whacker whacked her lilies...... ok, nuf that, comes down to P has no case against D - she might have - against HOA - but HOA would have to sue D, not her....... hmmmm - more ridiculousness from me - wouldn't she need to sue her landlord, who would need to sue the HOA who would finally sue D - nah, really, that whole bit is flawed, as that only accounts for the lilies and bigger portion of her nonsense claim is harrassment and defamation....... anyway, case dismissed....... and everything MM said went in one ear and out the other, as P turns to D and calls him a liar as they pack up to go meet Doug of the Hallway........ oh, give it up Doug, no sense trying to get this nut to explain her lawsuit, just send her to sign the papers tenant vs landlord: wants money because, she says, plumbing was bad so she had to move - her claim is for deposit, which she says landlord kept because of water damage from plumbing - wants 3 grand........ D says P caused plumbing backup by flushing non-flushable baby wipes - not only that, but P trashed place and left disaster reminiscent of a hurricane - countersuit for $3440...... ok, maybe I shouldn't with hall clown's record of lack of accuracy, but going from intro I going to say Landlord will prevail if he has statement from plumber and proof of cost of additional damages - also, may be another time when tenant should have kissed deposit goodbye instead of suing and giving landlord a change to talk on more when landlord was originally going to just keep deposit....... ok, either this place had serious problems, or landlord was happy to see the last of this tenant - seems she had a year lease, but landlord let her out 3-4 months early (hate it when tenants can't even answer how long hey lived in place..... ok, I might not know off hand, but I would hope I'd figure it out and know the answer if I was a plaintiff asking for 3 grand in a case involving tenancy..... ok, here's a chuckle - seems tenant was part time employee of landlord who cleaned the occasional apartment, so they had prior/ongoing work relationship where P knew exactly how D expected apartment to look both when previous tenant left and after it was prepped for new tenant...... ok, from get go, when she moved in P began having issues with boss/landlord - says right away she notified him of slow draining tub and D sent plumber - next day she cleaned an apartment, but says D stiffed her on cleaning fee....... hmmmm, and she even has pix of job she did cleaning apartment - so does she has pix of HER apartment after she left that dispute landlord's hurricane description......... according to P, not only did plumber visit not fix problem, but she discovered her neighbor was also having similar problems...... if she's on the ball, she has neighbor testimony which would blow D's baby wipes theory out of water - especially if she had those pix...... ah, wishful thinking, as MM quickly asks for an affidavit from neighbor - nope - however, if this case is close it might be time when MM recesses to call one of the two neighbors P claims had plumbing get problems....... over to D - man I hate when a judge asks simple question and litigant wants to roll a story - here MM asks how many times plumber was called and landlord goes on and on instead of giving a number..... ok, breaking it down, first visit was slow drain - non emergency - so plumber for estimate next week - next time is clogged toilet backing up and plumber there same day, but doesn't have what he needs - why didn't he bring what he needed, asks MM - well, we're talking multi story building, so my guess would be snake not long enough....... is this going to another flapping gums case - first P had chance to claim early victory with neighbor testimony, and plumber report could cinch case for landlord........ is MM hanging onto it to take up some time....... ok, D started out right, toilet something of an emergency - problem is half-a$$ed plumbers who, first don't bring what they need one day one, promise to show up first in morning becomes before end of the day, but hey, they got busy and it's Friday, so hey, they'll be there Monday........ dude, I agree with MM time to tell plumber get meet me at building an hour ago or don't come at all, at all and call a different plumber......... at this point, I'd be thinking P is off hook even if baby wipes caused the flood - especially as P sentry pix of sewage backing up into tub and toilet overflowing and P sent these pix to landlord on the Wednesday before the Friday plumber were a no show until after the weekend....... geez, if I'm remembering right, this all happened shortly after P moved here - I'd be wanting of of lease as apparently - especially as she has a toddler...... ok, I'm ready to say Landlord was asleep at the wheel as tenant, with her pix, is making pretty good case, but there could still be a partial switcheroo if D comes up with proof of baby wipes in a different timeline - nah, if P notified D Wednesday and sent those pixs of a tub filled to brim with sewage and water flowing out of toilet, then it's not til Monday that plumbers clear drain in wouldn't give him anything for water damage no matter who caused plug - dude needs way more non-flood related damage as he wants deposit plus additional $3400........ ok, seems early, but MM already asking to figure out how P decided on damage amount (wants security plus 1 month rent, but some question of whether month rent she paid was for 1st or last month) - ok, looking at clock, guess it IS time, even though D hasn't seemed to say much - P also wants $1300 for living (with kid) in crap filled apartment - $50 for towels she used to try to stem flood (MM points out she COULD have washed them, but, yeah, I'd probably toss them, too - and as landlord I wouldn't quibble over paying her for new towels - especially as she was trying to limit spread of sewage flood though out rest of apartment)........ now MM is asking if P actually lived there in crap-ville, or did she hurry and find new accommodations - P says she tried to stay, but smell was making her sick - hmmm she ended up moving in with next door neighbor, so neighbor flooding not nearly as serious - and now MM finally asks about something from plumber - hmmmmmm plumber says baby wipes from P'says toilet - is there a big switcheroo coming? If it DOES turn out that P caused flood, how much liability is shared by slow response from plumber and Landlord not kicking plumber in a$$ to get there 5 days earlier.......... now D points out that in P'says own pic you see baby wipes package on toilet, she says yeah she uses them in bathroom but never ever puts them in toilet - MM asks what she does with them and P says they go in diaper and into trash - ok I buy that, but also she has 1yo toddler and toddlers have been known to flush all manner of things....... does it matter, though? I'm still thinking major cause of flood was long wait for plumber to clear drain - guess it DOES, as cause may reduce amount I'd award P - still thinking nada to D for an hour flood damage, but she may need to pay plumber bill........ ah ha, I had same question MM just asked - even though cause stated in plumber report is 'large number of wipes,' how do we know wipes came from P's apartment as there are 3 others - certainly sounds like P was last apartment before main drain from building, as she had need flood when anyone in building flushed......... that's the real question of her liability for anything - D answer is she's only one in building with a baby - P says, no, upstairs neighbor has baby - but hey, I have adult sized wipes in my bathroom (perfect for quick swipe of toilet seat or any accidental missed litter box accident - and, no, I don't flush them, I keep empty airtight plastic tub of litter that comes in that I use for soiled litter and the occasional wipe).......... ok, no switcheroo, D can't prove defense that P caused backup, but P asking for more than she'll receive - ok, P claiming whittle down to $810, nothing for D scooter without title: getting late and went on and on with other cases - so, quicky recap 9n this one: P bought scooter, and either knew it had no title or was promised title at later date, depending on who you believe (and has evidence) - ok, P has the evidence, but doesn't get what he wants - apparently, heaid for scooter at cut rate price, but has since learned it will cost big to get legal title - dude wants tone keep bike and for D to pay to make it legal - totally over 2 grand - nope, says MM P has to return scooter and get back $450 he paid - and D has to arrange to go get scooter as she has already jetted around P missing scheduled meetings to work things out....... (actually only watched intro and and ruling)
  6. Wellllllll, ok....... but you'll still put me on your phone plan, right? Oh, and how 'bout buying a car/paying rent/etc for someone you met on an online dating site a week after first face to face.
  7. Absolutely - travel agents provide services irregardless whether the customer ever takes a trip. Problem is that this is another area where JJ has no clue how folks without private jets and multiple homes live. Guess that's what happens when you own multiple mansions on both coasts (plus a couple in Italy, IIRC) along with a private jet to hop on when you want a change of scenery.
  8. Yep, and 1/2 of a single episode is about all I watched ........ maybe a mistake judging by comments, as I saw D try to introduce her recording, but had stopping watching before what sounds like P's hissy fit/meltdown
  9. So, basically she knew for years that neighbors were not happy with her dog roaming, but didn't care....... yeah, if she had come crying to me I'd say I'm sorry to hear the news, but I'd be sorry for the dog - not the owner Not to mention who knows how many unwanted puppies.
  10. Hmmmmmm, maybe I'll give that show another look. I watched a few episodes when it first came on, but got turned off on it....... same with the Colorado Henderson family of vets - way too much non-animal stuff and hated the chats whole sitting on the couch routine - only watched a couple episodes before the Hendersons was dropped from my DVR schedule
  11. Never fails to irritate me when people claim their pet is a "service" animal when they are really talking "emotional support" animal. It's not as bad as it once was when you could buy a certificate and vest without any proof of training or of being of any special "service." But the result of all these untrained pets being called and sometimes treated as actual "service" animals means, all too often, people aren't going to believe the real service animal when they meet one. Otoh, not sure we need to label animals as emotional support, since all my critters provide me with emotional support...... sure, I guess a fragile person may function better with a loving but untrained animal - but not sure I agree with a law allowing that person to inflict the untrained animal on the public at large (or a landlord).
  12. Just quick note - no recap as I'm dealing with busted furnace and power has been off a couple times while it's being worked on. So DVR didn't record all of the episode UPDATE: repairman replaced some blower relay and seems to be working fine........ he showed me the old relay - contacts were so rusted and corroded I'm surprised it worked as long as it did..... oh well, $90 fix and $15 tip, but cats and I should be warm tonight
  13. Dog park rumble: one dog ended up put to sleep, but apparently had pre-existing condition - pit mix owner learned nothing, in hallterview he insists his 3 dogs still go to park without incident (guess a dog being euthanized is nothing to this guy - not to mention, MM says something about this NOT being first time this guy's 3 rescue pit mixs have been in a kerfuffle at park) - P awarded 3 out of 5 grand she asked for - vet bills but no heartache/pain and suffering........ nothing to do with case - but a standard schnauzer joins Harvey in the street - probably raising the IQ average of the peanut gallery jet ski repair rip off: P says he took his jet ski to D's shop for repairs, but when he heard estimate of 4 grand he decided against the repair - problem is, now D won't give him back his property - wants its estimated value of $4520...... D says P abandoned jet ski, says it sat at his shop close to a year, despite numerous calls and texts asking P to get it out of shop - he ended up scrapping it - says he ought to get credit for storing junky crap, but is smart enough not to file countersuit as there was no storage agreement........ Douglas hasn't even sworn litigants in yet and I'm not liking P's case - unless he can prove the junk ski was worth $4500 awhen it went to shop he would only get the value of the junk, not value if it was fixed - OTOH, if D has texts repeatedly telling p to come get it, I agree ski was abandoned....... ok, when testimony begins it like yesterday's wedding cake litigants - totally different stories has MM asking if they're sure they're both talking about same jet ski - anyway, P says he paid $1500 for thing, and it was working at time - then after 4 hours of use, son flipped it and it quit working shortly thereafter (something D said I had no idea of, when a jet ski is upside down in water you can ruin it by righting it in the wrong direction - you have to turn it over either to right or left depending on make/model)....... so, what's value of $1500 jet ski after it's been flipped and is no longer working - surely NOT $4500....... ok, gotta laugh here - P takes non running jet ski to D - not cuz D is jet ski mechanic, no, he's guy P takes his lawn mower to when it needs work...... yeah, an engine is an engine and I guess anyone can check to see if engine is getting spark and fuel, but I'm thinking it was past time for an actual marine mechanic to check his new purchase........ ok, D not complete novice, says he's worked on jet skis before and actually owns a couple of his own...... uh huh, before taking it to lawn mower mechanic, P got estimate for 2 grand from a dealer, but flapping gums as he doesn't have estimate and can't tell us what dealer said was wrong....... admits he tried going cheap with D, who, without actually taking it apart, guessimated repair at $1000......... over to D and, like we saw in preview clip, totally different story - D does sound like he knows what he's doing, but I have zero experience with these things so he could be full of 💩, he says P brought him the estimate from the dealer, and their quote, according to D, was $3500 - not 2 grand....... anyway, D charged P $100 to check it out, he determined engine was shot, says P found replacement, so he says he charged P $250 to pull engine - P came and took old engine as trade in for rebuilt engine........ ok, back to P, and here's where stories start differing - D's numbers has p paying him $350 at this point, while P says more than double that, and he denies everything about finding replacement and taking away no good engine....... getting tired of this flapping with no evidence - D says he owns 3 shops, so hopefully he keeps records and can produce them once MM asks........ hmmmmph, but actually, it's P who is asked first and produces evidence backing up his numbers - D claims P's evidence showing a money wire transfer totally bogus, says P never wired him anything so any evidence he did is bogus..... this may be enough to settle case - somebody flat out lying, but who....... ah, but too early to settle case now, so MM says put a pen in this and let's look at other elements of case - and yeah, MM says lots of texts from D to P asking what he wants done and eventually come get this pile of crap out of shop....... soooooo, backing up a bit, D explains how, when he tore down the shot engine he told P not worth time and money fixing, let's find rebuilt engine - yada yada P found one, D charged to pull shot one, loaded it on trailer and P took it off....... ah, here I thought maybe this successful shop owner - actually claims 3 shops - would have paperwork, but noooooo, he considered p his pal, so why would he keep business records........ who wants to bet, if he HAD fixed and been paid for repairing this thing, the taxman would have never heard about it....... ok, D says months go by with no word after P took shot engine off to Tampa to trade in on rebuild...... hmmmmmm money as D is talking, he mentions he needs the space to put boats in shop - hey, maybe I had wrong idea and this shop does marine mechanic work and not just small engine (lawnmower)...... finally, D says after almost a year, P came back saying ski dealer was willing to give him something on pile of crap and wanted it, but by that time D says it had been scrapped........ ok, MM asks doesn't the scrap yard need some proof of ownership - hmmmmm, not around here, a few years ago I helped yard 3 or 4 car carcasses someone had abandoned out in the county, and like D said, scrap yard just weighed trailer before and after cars were unloaded and paid based on weight..... MM takes recess to check Florida law to see if D violated law junking P's property (even though texts show months of D trying to get P to come get it) to me ski was abandoned property, but maybe law requires some final warning - like a certified letter -saying come get it NOW or in 30 days it's gone....... after break, MM doesn't start with whether or not D followed laws when he scrapped ski - instead she tears into his ridiculous $4500 claims for the non-operational thing for which he paid $1500 - she actually using words "money grab" to describe P's claim....... switching to D - yep, he's right, there was no requirement to send notice when he decided to scrap ski - seems IF P has owed money to shop and D scrapped it, he WOULD have needed to send notice - but since P was paid up, and then ghosted for months, law considers it abandoned property and D had right to scrap it...... case dismissed........ in hallterview P admits D scrapped it with his permission/knowledge, but he says he expected the money D received at scrap yard, and D kept it - if it's like our scrap yard here in mid sized SW Oklahoma'ville, D got next to nothing - maybe lost money if he paid someone to load it up and deliver to scrapyard Roommate fighting over bills when one moves out: surprise, case not eat it expect from intro ....... from intro it sounded like these hook up at work when they are hired at same time and hit it off...... after becoming friends, D has trouble at home, gets the boot, and moves in with P - I was thinking sort of couch surfing while figuring out what to do, but no, he was actually roommate who agreed to split rent/utilities 50/50 even though P had gf who was there more often than not - good deal for both P & D, as P 2 as having trouble covering bills - GF was out of job at time - and P let D slide on his share of deposit...... lease expires, and both sign the new lease (P's deposit rolls over, so D still skating on deposit) - now D legally bound by lease, so P has right to expect him to abide by terms of lease - oh, and seeing as how P had trouble paying bills, having D sign lease means he stays put instead of hunting for cheating apartment...... ok, seems big part of defense is that D thought he has paid a deposit that P could use towards D's share of rent, but now when asked he admits he was wrong, and now realizes he actually never paid a deposit...... sounds like that admission means he's acknowledging owing something - still, though, if I remember right rent is a grand a month so D's share is $500 plus utilities - so unless utilities are sky high, P is looking to collect 3-4 months (unless he broke lease and is getting charged a penalty) - also, unemployed gf was spending half her time living in apartment and paying nothing - she's still in picture as she came to court with P, is she still unemployed freeloader, or could she start paying a share - in fact, new defense (now that he can't claim deposit should cover his move out) is that P changed their agreement by moving gf in full time, which is why D moved out - P disputes this, saying gf didn't move in full time until D moved out...... huh, so P just admitted gf now there full time - to me she's the answer to finding new roommate and mitigated damages - I'm thinking D only liable for rent until she moves in full time........ in fact, when D says he asked arrangement to change to each paying a third, P sort of contradicts himself when he agrees - sounds like an admission gf was there BEFORE D moved out - P even admits gf got a job and they split rent into thirds for 3 months until she became pregnant and was put on bedrest - at that point, guess P wanted to revert to 50/50 split, but D wasn't having it (don't blame him)....... ok, I was leaning towards D, but he just blew it - seems he promised to keep paying his share, but "changed his mind" and went home to live with parents.......... WTH happened with intro storyline about him deciding to move out and go back to HIS ex....... anyway, seems there were 4 months left on lease, P didn't look for anyone to move into that empty bedroom cuz he figured D was on lease, so why bother - which is how we get to the asked for 2 grand plus - MM wants to talk about D's liability for the months' utilities when he wasn't there flipping light switch or flushing crapper....... ok, coming to decision time - D not even sure when he moved out or when last time he paid rent, but texts back up P (didn't admits in texts he can't handle his money, but promises he'll pay) - problem with P's position, is that now that they're on the outs, he wants to revert to 50/50 split while he's now admitted agreement was modified to thirds....... hmmmmmm MM agrees D owes rent, but a third not half - also, she decides D owes half the utilities....... not sure why half utilities for time he wasn't there, but think she's spanking D for his lack money handling abilities and repeated promises to pay then changing mind....... P awarded $1586.40
  14. And, IIRC she paid $60 towards the old debt
  15. bride suing cake baker: oh my, this isn't complaint about decorating, flavor, or something, no, P in says cake lady was a no show - so, when time to do the whole cake cutting ceremony there was no cake to cut - wants 5 grand pain and suffering - yeah, right, wonder what her medical records say to justify 5 grand of pain and suffering.....D says P is VERY unorganized person...... D wants $3200+ "for all she's out" according to intro clown......... ok, big fiasco, and gotta say sounds like wedding party planner was, as D Claims, pretty disorganized - OTOH, gotta wonder about D's customer service/business practices - did she ghost on wedding when she wasn't paid as expected without making every effort to contact whoever was planning things - I think it takes some special kind of person to deal with customers who want everything just right on for a special occasion, be it wedding, big anniversary bash, or even a funeral - and this woman doesn't fit the bill (otoh, she's been doing this awhile, so maybe it's all on this customer)........ this was 3rd time bride hired this baker for special occasion cakes (the wedding fiasco, bridal shower cake a week before wedding, and an engagement party (to some other dude) six years ago - according to D there was still money owed from the cake baked 6 years ago ($120 for cake plus bounced check fees), so this time around she wanted to be paid up front....... ok, very different versions of their discussion when P approached her this time around, both agree money owed from 6 years ago came up, but P says when D brought it up she (P) assured D money had been paid, and D dropped it, but texts show D admitting she owed and that bill was being added to new bill, while according to D denies debt was ever paid, says 6 years ago she tried for months to collect after check bounced before just giving up and dropping it - oh, and get this, seems D is one of those folks who actually keeps records, and she assures MM she has the records to prove she chased after P for months after that $120 - and yes she does have the texts........ ok, bridal shower cake arrives and P couldn't be happier - morning of wedding, bride says she called to make sure everything was good, and says at 8am D assured her cake would be there at 8:30 (wedding/reception not til 6 or 8pm) says at first, on morning of wedding, baker assured her she was on the way, but when meeting time came and went suddenly D no longer answering...... over to D - no surprise totally different story - instead of P calling at 8am, she says first call came at 8:51, says bride told her she was almost dressed and would call back in 5 minutes with directions to where reception was being held - no explanation I heard about why she didn't call bride instead of waiting for bride to call again - says she eventually went too work without ever hearing from bride again - says, to this day, she still doesn't know where reception was held....... well, with two such widely different stories, it'll be up to P to prove something (probably with texts as I can't see either of these two asking for a contract)...... first P tells MM she has proof in her phone of her 8 oclock call, but no, once MM has phone in hand there is no proof - MM gets both phones from the litigants to dig into looking to see if she can disprove testimony from either side...... hmmmmmm ok, texts from P which disprove her testimony that she had paid in full before day of wedding - buuuutttt not good that we hear several texts where P is asking where D is with cake, and no answering texts...... D's answer is that she was responding via phone calls, but sure doesn't sound that way from the texts - she has 6yo texts but nothing from wedding day....... I'm wondering where this all took place, and if their jurisdiction allows recording phone calls without consent - I have a free app that records all calls - because of my delivery job, & my terrible short term memory - couldn't tell you how many times I've called a customer for address correction or motel room number and then played back the recording, so easy to do hands-free with blue tooth while driving......... ok, D doesn't have good answers, but what she's saying makes her sound as disorganized as she accuses the bride of being - how could it be the day before, then day of, the wedding reception and she doesn't know where she's delivering a cake worth hundreds of dollars - also, she tells MM she was too busy at other job the day before the wedding to respond to bride's frantic calls/texts, - didn't get home til 11pm and doesn't call customers that late - so she ghosts the day before after, according to her, she told bride she needed to be paid $270 before delivery....... her answer that she isn't allowed to use her cell at work is sounding mighty lame, and has me wondering if maybe she's vindictive enough to purposely screw up bride's reception over the money - kind of doubt it, I don't think either if these litigants can think that far ahead....... ok, morning of wedding nobody has any proof (too bad, according to P her daughter was calling/texting baker, but instead of bringing daughter she brought new hubby who has zip to add in way of evidence - later in hallterview she whines to Doug that she has texts/phone records from daughter, but MM refused to look at them ....... ok, right now I doubt everything both sides say, since no one has proof - so far, texts have proven that P lied (or was mistaken) at least once when she said she didn't owe anything on cake - D testifies last communication she received prior to wedding was P telling her she'd call back with location in 5 minutes, then nothing until 8:30 that night when D claims P said she has the money and still wants cake..... hmmm, not sure what happened between two after that call, as cake was NOT delivered to P, but instead D says she used part of cake for something else (hmmmm back to other job where she works til 11pm, maybe?)....... now MM asks about D's claim that she never knew reception location - bride says she has proof D knew....... nope, proof fizzles (again)........ MM announces she can't tell which side is telling the truth (I vote neither side - I think they're both liars) - both sides have widely different stories, but no proof of what they say - P's claim to have proof has fizzled twice in court, but hard to belief D, who is either indifferent to her customer or just vindictive over a debt from 6 years ago and willing to blow off hundreds of dollars for this cake - I'd feel better about D if she had proof cake was actually made and there was any sign she made slightest effort to contact bride about delivery when she claims bride didn't call back in 5 minutes with location...... ok, no proof from either side, plaintiff has burden - seems P amended claim and no longer claims pain and suffering, but now mental anguish and discrimination - yep trying to pull race card - case dismissed...... hmmmmm counterclaim just as wonky - seems until today it was just a couple hundred, but for unknown reasons she tacked on another 3 grand - uh, no, no evidence....... but, wow, D actually gets something - yeah, guess P did sort of admit she owed something from 6 years ago, and D gets credit for saving those 6 year old texts, so P ordered to finished paying $120 for engagement cake (to some other dude) 6 years ago - ok, D said she paid $60 towards old bill, so she gets $85 today......... Grrrrr, rest of recap just got eaten - so switching to quicky recaps - Boat/trailer case: P bought old (circa 1990) boat and trailer that seller advertised As-Is with good title - asking price was $5500, but negotiated price ended up at $4700 - nothing breaking down how much boat and trailer were separatelying - turns out seller bought boat back in '08 and never registered it - they're able to meet at DMV and get boat registered (seller refunds $200 because of title snaffu), but out of luck on trailer - big difference of opinion on value of trailer - P says $2300, while D says only $500 - couple laughs when D gets caught clearly in wrong and MM has some fun pointing out fact to D's 15yo daughter - nobody has evidence of what 30 yo boat trailer is worth, so up to MM rough justice - ah ha, MM jumps on ebay and quickly find trailer able to haul this size boat (and 5 years newer than the trailer boat/sold in this case) for $700 (D's $500 guessimate much closer than P's $2300)........ P awarded $700....... but nothing said about who gets possession of trailer - whoever gets it may be able get something scraping trapper - or with more research and able to register it....... ah, the old "It is what it is" hallterview from loser last case is dog attack....... didn't watch case, but WTH is with D?!? Little bit I heard, D's big unleashed dog attacked P's little dog injuring it, and P only asking $200...... geez, why would D not settle as soon as presented with vet bill....... I zipped ahead to decision - didn't bother to listen, as when I stopped MM announcing decision over idiot D who is yammering away while MM is talking - not sure if MM ever comes down on idiot, just more zipping - oh, but I do stop when MM awards P the measley $200 she's asking for, and as MM gets up to walk out idiot is smiling big saying have a nice day........ didn't even listen to Doug, but do hear that reason D didn't settle is that P never asked, just filed lawsuit.........
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size