Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

SRTouch

Member
  • Content Count

    2.7k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

9.7k Excellent
  1. momma in law sues: mother in law P suing her son in law for money made for variety of things (medical bills, concert tickets, truck repair etc) - just from intos and preview I expect this is one of those where everything P did for D when things were friendly has become retroactive loans....... son in law has countersuit for stuff P damaged/threw out when she kicked him out (loving daughter/wife smart enough to stay away from camera)........ yeah, lots of chatter - young couple had quicky courtship/marriage/and now baby on the way - neither have any money, can't pay rent so bounce between mommies houses to which ever can stand to have them til next blow up........ P makes them loans (partly for their honeymoon trip to see Sara Evans concert in the raggedy old truck that needs to be fixed before hitting the road) not sure why P thinks these were only D's loans, especially when she says reason she 'loaned' D the money cuz her daughter has no money....... well, duh, neither did he - they're now a legal couple and the debt, if it is a legal debt, sure sounds like a joint marital debt type loan for the couple's benefit/enjoyment - instead of forking over money to these entitled kids (about to be parents) somebody should have told them to get a job or get in school to be trained to earn a living and forget honeymoon until they are self supporting (don't worry, MM will hold a counselling session)......... oh my, seems like momma went along on the honeymoon/concert trip - not only that, but she and her son were to share the room with the newlyweds?! On the trip the couple have an argument, and once they get to their room they tell mom they want to skip the concert - sounds like mom was more upset about missing Sara Evans than the honeymooner's tif..... anyway, when they get to the room (2 beds and a sofa bed) the newlyweds go into the bedroom area and shut the door and momma follows right behind, opens the door to tell them to get ready........ kerfuffle, new child bride crying, mom told they no longer want to go to concert and bride saying she does't want her brother sleeping in her honeymoon suite etc, mom says son WILL be sleeping in room, new hubby announcing he and bride will go sleep in car, momma not hearing darling daughter sleeping in car and pays for another room for the honeymooners........ all this and I'm not hearing much of a case - mom keeps saying how couple agreed to repay her, but even if MM decides that amounts to a loan I'm not sure I'd give momma anything - we'really going to have to break down these things go momma says she paid for - ok, she paid to get truck road worthy for trip - she she and son rode in truck, but did she pay D for ride/gas/etc - she bought concert tickets for her 2 kids, the new hubby and herself, she and son went to concert and meet and greet while newlyweds stayed in the new separate room - oops, when D starts talking we learn a couple things - first, mom only paid 3 tickets and hubby wasn't going to concert - second, bad blood between the siblings, and according to hubby she 'didn't feel safe' going to concert with the brother, according to mom it was brother and hubby getting into things over hubby wanting to join military (?) And not clear why hubby thinks the two got into it - too much Springer for me and I start zipping as we go to commercials........ ok, when I slow down and start listening again it's a month later and newlyweds are living with mom - brother and hubby into it again and mom kicks him out - OKKKKKKKI have to back this up - this is where the previews we've seen about litigant announcing the other side had attempted murder charges - seems after the concert trip D started a job as a security guard - mom says while at work a space heater caught fire and D and other guards put it out, but D was bit by the fire bug and he sets another fire and ends up charged with arson and attempted murder fire gets out of control, as long as she's telling us that she adds he was caught stealing - I'm wondering if she should be telling us this stuff - is there actually an open case - anyway, after the fires he comes home worried about how he might be going to prison - apparently no charges were filed, she's talking about a text he sent worried about possible charges - hey, darling wife got herself a job and she's at work while mom, 83 yo grandma in her wheelchair and the brother get into it with hubby about the weird texts about the fire and possible charges - big kerfuffle, cops called, etc......... mom gives him the boot......... ok, MM finally asks - these the newlyweds are 22-23yo..... a month after getting booted he goes back to get the rest of his stuff (including wifey who has been living with momma). ...... I'm pretty much over these two when he begins trying to explain why he came back a month after being booted to get his stuff, but didn't actually get all his stuff - sad sad story, his truck that momma had paid to fix went to clunker heaven, couldn't borrow his momma's clunker because it was in shop with no transmission (did I mention the 23 yo was moving back to his mommy with his bride)........ ok, so the couple both work, neither pay rent, but have no money for a uhaul - ah, no, seems when he got boot from P and went home to his mommy he lost his job (hmmm, wonder why they would fire him after 1 'accidental' fire and 1 fire he admits to setting - not even going to P'she accusation that he was ripping off money from businesses he was hired to guard) and bride and soon to be mommy quit her job when she moved out to go live with D at his mommy's house - so no income with baby on the way........ I haven't liked momma P since I heard she and her son went with couple on the honeymoon trip, and more D talks less I think of him - does not help that he has that a slow southern drawl........... thankfully time us running out and MM is about ready to start the actual case - defense has been these were never loans, they were a gift, etc etc - ah, but dufus signed a promissory note for some of this money - he says he signed under duress just to get his stuff and get away without another argument - after he left, P threw the stuff he couldn't fit and take that day outside........ ok, family counseling time - seems the feuding sibs have made up, but daughter keeps trying to mediate with her mom and ask for more time for new hubby to get work and pay her back, but P is keeping feud going and texting back she's going to die without money to buy insulin - MM points out if money is that tight maybe she shouldn't be leaning money (for a Sara Evans concert)......... ok, MM knows how she's going to rule, but unless I zipped passed it we viewers still don't know if the case is ripe - is there a payment schedule on the promissory note?........ ok, this case is all OVER the place and I'm not sure of the timeline, what it comes down to is long counseling session - MM orders delivered to pay the amount of promissory note, and wipes away the countersuit for stuff in left in P's house (where he never paid rent) for 3 months....... snow plow plowed parked car: P says he was in house when he dear his car alarm sound - when he went outside he saw snow plow driving away - want plow guy to for just over 4 grand in damages...... D says it was a blue car that hit the car in a hit and run - says there was blue paint on P's car after accident and his plow is not blue........ P heard plow coming, heard the crash and alarm and looked out the window to see truck driving away (only saw rear of truck and did not see plow on front)...... soon as he heard commotion he and 4-5 friends go out, see the damage, call cops and begin taking pictures - yes he has his friends here as witnesses...... ok, we'll have to see about this blue car that D supposedly saw and maybe left paint on the P'says red car - but P says he heard crash and saw a truck driving away immediately thereafter, no blue car) and was on scene taking pix right away - and tire tracks in the snow sure don't look like car tires - P reminds me of the courtroom scene in Cousin Vinny as P gives expert tire testimony about why those tracks could no be tires from a car.......... over to D - D admits he himself had plowed that evening, but says he did not hit the car....... P is some type of government employee, when asked what it is he does he just answers "math - mathmatics" - what, CIA analyst, maybe? - MM P pretty impressed as he presented quite the packet of evidence with all kinds of analysis and calculations to disprove D defense - not sure he needs all that, from the testimony sounds like there's enough circumstantial evidence to say it was D - unless of course we actually see some blue paint left by a mystery car....... ok, another problem for D - as he testifies there is nothing remarkable about when he was plowing that street - says he didn't see mystery blue hit P's car, but cars are always cutting off the plow - so how does he remember this blue car so clearly - he could be right, I know people who remember things like that, but I sure wouldn't remember some blue car hours later to tell the police a out for the report.......... ok, MM listen to P describe his calculations, but, like I said, sounds like he already has enough to win......... MM doesn't see blue paint on P's car - surprise! MM agrees there's enough circumstantial evidence to award P his damages - P after lotto money, and MM choose $1300 from award based on estimate and proof of work already paid to get car driveable........ course D thinks he was robbed and he couldn't present his defense....... in after the verdict chat MM says the clincher for her were the pix of the damage - and she's right, in pix sure looks like damage was not caused by an impact so much as something scraping along side of car - suspiciously like you would get from the top and bottom of a curved snowplow
  2. Yeah, I heard rescue from PR after the hurricaine. I figured a pit mix and that D has had so much backlash when people hear "pit bull" she now says Staffordshire Terrier. People who know dogs know, but maybe it avoids some of negative feedback from some folks - goes opposite for me, just say pit bull.
  3. Doesn't sound like a dog fight to me: P wants $650 for vet bills after what has to be the lamest pit bull attack I've heard of - her story is she started to enter the dog park, saw the D and her unleashed pit already in the park, called D who called her pit, pit goes back to owner and, without waiting to be sure pit is leashed, P opens the gate - pitty hears gate and runs back and exits the dog park - pit bowls over little dashund/beagle mix trying to play - P thinks this is a vicious attack and bops Pit in the head while screaming for D to come get her dog - D, at least temporarily handicapped, has to put brace on foot before she can come get pit (temporary or permanent disability, unsure, as P mentions a broken foot, yet D describes pit as her retrieval service dog - which would mean dog brings go her stuff when she can't go get it)......... that's all testimony from P, and without hearing a word from D I'm ready to dismiss - but before we hear from D we get to see the dogs - one of the advantages of this zoom format - P's little mix is a cute old lady sort of dog, without reading to much into it, P has to get up and go get her dog and holds it for the camera - dog could have been locked away in other room or it may not come when called - D's pit is adorable midsized pit, 3 years old, and obviously well trained as D calls it, makes kissy noises a couple times and it runs to her to see what she wsnts and then jumps on the bed behind D wanting to play....... so, viscous attack has the puppy pit playing too rough when P opens gate and lets it out of dog park, pit knocking little old lady down, P bopping pit in head with plastic cup to "get it's attention," then pit sits down trying to figure out why P is carrying on - at least that's D's version, mostly confirming get what P said but when MM turns back to P she tells us most of what D is false - but we never hear why....... ok, not sure what the difference is, and what P tells us now makes her case even weaker - guess she's arguing D was on prior notice about her pit's aggression nature as she tells us that last year there was another incident where the pit 'attacked' her other dog - this sounds like another non-incident where then 2 yo pit 'lunged' towards her dog and P freaked - no bite or attack, just pit running towards P, P thought her dog was under attack and stepped between dogs and pit backed off........ so why the hell did she decide to enter the dog park before making sure 'viscous' pit was leased........ when asked why D thinks P describes these as attacks she says she thinks it's the pit bull 'stigma'.......... ok, I sure don't hear a case - P even says the pit is perfectly behaved when with D on leash, D and her dog were in dog park where leash is not required - P opened gate knowing pit was there without making sure it was secured and let pit out - even if there had been a viscous attack it would have been P who created circumstances allowing dogs to come into contact - as it was, despite no visible injury P took little old lady dog to emergency vet where they charged her $650 and diagnosed tenderness and bruising........ actually closer than I thought because of Florida strict liability laws, but case still dismissed - with P protesting over MM as she explains the decision - in hallterview P says this is a common area, as if that removes her responsibility for not being sure pit was leashed before opening gate - it doesn't, but nothing will change her closed mind....... OTOH one reason why I wouldn't go out looking for a pit is people like P who are afraid of the breed - a pit CAN do a lot of damage, and once they get going they can be hard to stop - that doesn't make them bad dogs, but it does mean owners need to be aware and take precautions - this pit seems well trained and is supposedly a trained retrieval service dog delinquent kid shot up truck but mom won't pay: kid caught and arrested for the vandalism (truck used as bb gun target), but mom says $4500 estimate way too much - if evidence shows kid did the deed the award will depend on estimates and the truck, are we talking a $500 clunker or a $50,000 fancy truck....... ok, D intro throws into question whether son did deed and turns out they want $2500 for stress/harrassment........ D claims son found the BB gun and was arrested day after damage was reported (kid old enough to grow better mustache than many adult litigants) - kid not arrested for shooting up truck, but after complaint he shot another kid......... when P discovers the shot up truck she calls cops, and D mom approached and commiserates with her......... MM doing her Spanish translation duties, though at least this time litigant has a son on standby who could translate....... first hiccup is that when P submitted police reports of incident there's a page missing, so P son looks for that while MM continues tasking to P....... P says first she suspected D's son was when she reported incident to apartment complex office and she learned D son was seen with bb gun....... over to D side where MM asks and is told the son doesn't own a bb gun, but he found one in a field - oh, and seems he was arrested because police received report he shot someone with the found bb gun - he denies shooting the other kid - felony charges dropped to misdemeanor and then dropped completely (?) when parents of shot kid realised he wasn't hurt........ I could go either way with his story - I remember being a dumb kid and getting in trouble for running around with a group of equally dumb kids shooting each other with bb's - rules were we had to shoot low, but a cousin hit my brother in back of head - boy did we hear about how that could have been an eye........ MM isn't buying the "found a bb gun" and yeah, that's a bit much, but also I think there were more kids shooting this thing and not sure how to hold the 1 kid responsible........... now D mom talks, and we learn at one point she agreed to pay - after all cops her kid knew where gun was hidden the next day - but, as said earlier she objects to a bloated estimate......... seems after agreeing to pay she took P's first estimate to her mechanic, who said he'd do repairs for $300......... ah, but - ding ding ding, does P thinks she's hearing the slot machine at the casino and her estimate grows - anyway, D points out that her agreement to pay was sort of conditioned on talking to her son after he got sprung by the cops, anyway, P began pressuring her to pay, which caused their previous neighborly relationship to devolve in a feud - P shows up to take pictures of D's house and we see video of D's 2 sons yelling at her to stay away - we see pix of damage - nice looking truck and only 1 year old, so, yeah $4500 may be right - and no way do I buy D's guy's $300 - MM starts talking damages by going to countersuit - nope not going to happen - kid pretty much admitted responsible, and her harrassment seems to be that when P was out taking pictures of damage the truck was parked with her hose in back ground, and her sons came out to argue about pointing camera at their house - nope,........ MM says her stress and harrassment is pretty much caused by 2 teenaged sons who mom admits had possession of the 'neihhborhood' bb gun for several days......... ok, all this time we've been waiting for that missing page of police report from day of incident, and P was unable to find it........ really, P deserves to have truck fixed, D admits her kids were involved, and I haven't heard D or her son name anyone else - I'm thinking D pays reasonasonable estimate and let D track down/collect from the other kids........ yep, MM explains that this is not criminal case with 'beyond reasonable doubt' but a civil 'preponderance of evidence,' and with discrepancies in testimony between statement and mother and son, the balance goes against D - son found liable, but mom let out of judgement..... mom case dismissed, but MM says estimate is high and awards 3 grand. ......... in hallterview, instead of talking to Doug Son pulls out his earbuds and says tough! - and mom argues no proof he did the did, it's so unfair yada yada....... P says she had actually the $4500 estimate......... in judge chat we hear judges reminiscing about how, early in their marriage, someone shot a pellet through their window and they later learned that their rescue cat, Clark, had been shot and had a pellet next to a rib........
  4. neighbor feud: D had someone working on his yard cutting down trees. Wouldn't know, a gust a wind caught a tree and it ended up smashing down on P's chain link fence. P wants over $1700 for new fence and cleanup of mess, but D says only a section of the 20 year old fence was damaged and P is overreaching....... yeah, sounds like D's worker was at fault and now P wants to bank...... ok, another aspect - D is contractor who bought vacant lot to develop, so P was unhappy to see the neighbor trees chopped down and new construction next door - D finished construction and has since sold new house...... my oh my, isn't P a drama queen - I don't blame her for getting upset, especially if she's right about construction going on for a year and she wasn't given a heads up before trees were felled, I mean, just friendly knock on door saying guy will be cutting trees next day, don't worry about big crashes as they fall..... ok, pic of smashed fence, with texts from lumberjacks apologizing and asking for chance to fix it - yeah, she doesn't have to let them do repairs, but she doesn't get whole new fence, either...... seems both Tree subcontractor and D, general contractor, offered to repair fence, but P not hearing it - she has right to chose the fence contractor - oh, and forget earlier '20 year old fence' comment, her choice was contractor who built fence 2 years ago - what she's saying goes is that when she got the estimate she was told that whole fence line was 'compromised'......... not sure why a tree smashing a section would require a whole new fence line, but maybe she has expert testimony....... after commercial D's case takes another hit - he claims he's a nice guy and was going above and beyond by fixing even more fence then he had to, but now we find out P found out about the repair effort when she looked out the window to see workers ripping out her fence - yep, fence fell, fence guy calls D, they go get what they need to 'fix' it and start repairs without first contacting P....... hmmmmm sort of side note, this was only time D needed a tree contractor - we're talking BIG trees and a small area (80 foot trees and 60 foot wide lot)......... yep, like g D's case less and less - especially now as he seems to be suggesting P should go after the tree contractor - after all he says, the have their own insurance - and MM has to school him on what being a general Contractor means to case - yeah, tree guy's insurance may end up paying him after he pays P......... ok, MM is ready to talk about damage claim - when talking about ghe fence she says 'estimates' with an 's' so I guess more than one. Now that I hear just how big these tress are I can buy it being more involved than just new wire and a couple posts/rails. Could this big tree and cracked all the concrete the posts were set in requiring a much bigger job than I first thought. I f fence WAS only 2 years old I'd say she deserves a new fence on that side - maybe $1400 for matetials/ reward isn't out of line - MM does ask about the extra $300 for cleanup and some of her garden and smashed little trees - MM cuts the cleanup and only awards $100 for cleanup....... ah, now D really steps in it as he wants to keep arguing after the verdict - what he's wanting to add doesn'g help him defense in my eyes - seems P didn't put fence on the property line, but 15 feet onto her property - how does that help? Something to effect that P refused access to cross property line to fix fence. Uh, didn't judge already say P didn't have to let him repair fence? Really, what guy is saying is that instead of falling on the property line the tree (and his construction crew) crossed onto to her property - hearing this I'm ready to bump up clean up award as more of that mess she paid to clean up was caused by his crew trespassing. MM doesn't up the award........ No more recap - realized I need to run errands...... oh this is funny - 2 hours later I come back and see I never save the recap - but it's still here...... before I go to second case just want to add the two judges' explanation of where P is supposed to sue the defendant was kind D of interesting Second case was nonsense about some woman felon who supposedly turned her life around after prison and she was going to be featured in a BET documentary - which didn't happen. I missed out of this as I was feeding the cats and myself dinner. I think the jailbird (JB) was actually was a repeat felon, but not sure. If I heard right, she had a job at a college helping students get student aid - but she was also did eating money to herself. She was caught and sentenced to prison - this may have happened twice as MM questions how she got ghe job if she was already a convicted felon, and JB explains the college didn't do a background check. Anyway, BET comes a-knocking and JB grabs for her 15 minutes of fame. She hires D who 8x supposed to set up her 'brand' with interviews photo shoots etc. They start out ok, but then somebody ghosts 1 each says the other one stopped answering calls/texts/emails...... what probably happened us BET crossed her off the .use of stories and the money dried up (their deal was 2 grand a month based on what they figured BET MIGHT pay). Sooooooo months after no contract D finally gets an answer to an email - seems this was about time to be doing more publicity as time for supposed filling is coming up. Instead of answering and asking for interview dates etc, P replies with news that BET deal isn't happening, and, oh by the way, she wants back every penny she paid D for the most the ofmonths of work - to which D replies no refund & she wants to be paid for months of work she never did. Nope, nobody gets anything....... well, the cats ate beef catfood and I hate spaghetti
  5. Yes - so often when you hear someone complain their dog is crazy, destruction, aggressive and you find they are providing exactly the wrong environment. Some breeds are made to run, to work, to hunt, etc and will go nuts left alone all day in an apartment. Some want - and need - a job to be happy...... either the human provides the job or the dog will. Chances are the human won't like the dog's choice. If you get a breed bred to hunt and kill small furry critters don't leave them alone with the hamster/kitten/bunny. Oh, and even many 'cage animals' will go nuts, or get sick and die, because the human bought them as a decoration without a clue for what they need. How many birds are bought as decorations only for the human to learn they are very social (and often messy) critters. Most birds are social and need their 'flock' to be with them - when they're separated from the flock the call - and some parrots are LOUD and can shout the house down. Soooo, human sticks them in the back room in the dark to hide the mess around the cage - parrot screams - human gets rid of bird....... some of these birds in print on a single human and live 60 or more years (my cockatiel, Sunny, lived into her 20s)
  6. True story: I actually started taking a couple classes at the Junior College my junior year of high school. My first non-family related paid job was as a HS senior tutoring college required American History - I tutored HS general math, too, but that was informal and unpaid. I was quite the family disappointment when I dropped out of college to join the Army. To compound my error, I ended up in Delayed Entry Program and actually reported the Friday before Mother's Day....... a fact Mom occasionally reminded me of even after I retired from the Army 20 years later
  7. Hmmmm, running late - so it may be a race to see who posts recap first - 3 cases today Tenant wants deposit: P story is when she saw apartment/house wouldn't be ready on time she backed out of tenancy - says when she asked for deposit back D only gave back $500 of the $800 deposit - she's asking for the rest....... D says she was on schedule for having good work completed when P pulled out - says she returned a part of deposit - even though she didn't have to - out of the goodness of her heart - says she lost a potential renter because of P's flip flop........ ok, all about timing - was apartment ready on time - when did P back out - when did D lose this potential tenant......... ok, sort of bidding war - P spotted place as she was driving by, spotted and D showed her around - nice and friendly with kids having gone to school together - place wasn't ready, but D said work would be done in about a week - when P expressed interest D told her she already had a section 8 tenant expressing interest, but whoever showed up with $800 deposit would get the house - P made arrangement to stay with family for the week, got a money order and went back next day and paid the $800 - ah, but P tells her now it won't be a week - at this point this guy looking good for P, with D changing date - ah, but now P tells us she had put in other applications before making this deal and paying the deposit - not good if D relied on her and turned away the section 8 tenant........ yep, after putting down the deposit with D, one of the other places she had looked at and filled out an application for called to tell her she had been approved - this was why she backed out of deal with D, not the made up story of not being ready....... over to D, who denies the ready in a week story - she says deal was always 2 weeks and it was ready on time - and yes, she had turned away the other potential tenant - oh, and turns out she's an actual realord who also owns/rents and unlike some, knows the laws......... unless we have a switcheroo coming P was actually being nice to give anything and D deserves nothing........ yep, MM agrees, D was nice to give anything and keeps the $300........ 2 nice polite litigants as is car sale gone wrong: 2003 rustbucket Volkswagen Jetta and P wants full $1800+ refund ($1500 plus wants expenses)..... D agrees car had an implied warranty - but it was a limited 7 day warranty and P had car a month before she wanted a refund....... ah, red flag! When she goes to look at car it's not registered - no plates - so no test drive or pesky mechanic check before purchase..... on day she bought clunker it dies twice getting home - she immediately complains and is sent to D's mechanic - his mechanic diagnoses bad gas, but when she takes to different mechanic she's told transmission going out - says she and her Dad try to contact D and return car 1st day she has it, but seems D wasn't answering........ ok, if her story checks out it won't turn out good for D (assuming there really was a 7 day warranty)...... oops, no proof - in fact P submitted texts from that fateful day with complaints about the trunk not opening but nothing about the transmission - like D intro said, she didn't complain about how car ran for a month........ ok, this thing really was a rust bucket - seems she was driving it when suddenly the freeking engine falls to the ground....... over to D and they immediately start arguing about what happened, but the main part checks out - he admits she complained on day 1 about car not running right, and his mechanic telling her it's just bad gas and we get an explanation about how gas can be bad......ok, now we're getting to the implied warranty upon which D is depending - in their State, when someone buys a car with more than 125,000 miles on it they're required to have it inspected and if it fails buyer can back out of sell - D says it's buyer's responsibility to get that inspection and notify seller about a failure - if she doesn't get the inspection done within 7 days she sale becomes binding....... uh oh, did sounds like he knows what he's talking about, we'll have to see if MM agrees......... yep, D is interpreting law correctly according to MM - when MM asks about that all important inspection P starts dancing, she doesn't have the official form required for inspection failure by her State - she couldn't contact her mechanism to get it because of covid, etc, but MM isn't buying it - she gets the form when car is inspected, it's not something she goes back for for the case......... MM eventually waves off P's ramblings - she had no case - car probably was a lemon that should have never been sold, but she loves in a State with excellent consumer protections had she followed the law and gotten the inspection......... ok, great joke from judge hubby, who during comment time refers to case as 'Return of the Jetta' not happy with custom t-shirts: P ordered customers t-shirts from D to be worn by those attending her son's funeral....... have to say, custom T's are not first thing I think of as proper funeral attire - but then different strokes for different folks........ anyway, momma ordered these custom shirts and they were delivered last minute - half day before funeral where D says momma had chance to make any changes, rest delivered day of funeral........ don't like that it sounds like D is making excuses for last minute delivery, saying covid slowed her down - but sounds so far like momma accepted the product and now wants a second set of shirts for a memorial to be held when covid restrictions ease, either of course, D paying for the second set........ ok, mom shows us some of these shirts - they look like crapola - they have pictures and writing already coming off fresh out of package........ thing is, was it mom's responsibility to make sure someone inspected them upon delivery - nope, I say whoever was paid for these should return money since some couldn't be used - so, how much should refund be? Are some usable, or are they all trash - they weren't all designed to match, there are at least 2 colors and some have different wording, but we're all meant to go together......... ok, delivery was supposed to be 4 days prior to funeral, not afternoon of funeral - mom suing for full replacement cost, even though some shirts mat be good and she was given an $80 friends and family discount (oops, seems the go between that arranged with D to order the shirts pocketed the discount)...... D's explanation of the fiasco is that she couldn't get the proper material delivered because of covid convenient excuse, but could be true - I know when covid hit and threw everything for a loop my normal 2-3 turnaround for cat food order from chewy was taking 2 weeks........ I feel for both these litigants, but wonder where the heck Diora is (these two have never talked, everything was done through this missing Dior person (the one who supposedly pocketed the friends and family discount )........ I'm wondering if D can prove what she's saying - if she can I might say dismiss this case and tell mom to sue Dior - nah, D admits she received $620 for useless product when she should have canceled because she couldn't get right materials....... yep Mom gets $620 and is told to send back trashy shirts if D wants them
  8. Seems to me when JJ does her 'now I know who I'm dealing with' shtick she ends up wrong as often as she's right. This time, IIRC, tutor was said he tutored many as 20-25 students a week. JJ jumps on that and incorrectly takes that to mean he has that many every week of the school year. You would think with all her kids and grandkids she would know kids don't go to school 11 months a year. Besides, I took him estimate as the max number he tutored a week. My guess is that even when school is in session he only approaches he max number just before mid terms and finals. JJ should have asked what his average number of students was, not the max. Most of the kids aren't going to be tutored at the beginning of the semester/quarter. They're going to wait until they fall behind and fail a quiz or two, many not until parent sees the first report card. Otoh, I agree with JJ's ruling. If we view the letter as a contract, the author suffers from any ambiguities. His very imprecise 'until graduation' phase can be interpreted to mean several different dates. Mom's interpretation was a valid one, as was his that 'graduation' was an annual event. Thing is, Mom gets benefit of doubt since he authored the flawed contract. Didn't like tutor from get go - and he really tanked in hallterview when he seemed to imply he was justified to rip off mom since she lived in fancy ritzy neighborhood near Bill Gates
  9. Wouldn't you just know it? The Big Bang episode I referenced when recapping the collectibles just showed up on my TV.........
  10. Ok, stretching the boundaries of being off topic - took a picture of my Furby this morning. Immediately thought of litigant the other day who was forever looking down her nose at the camera
  11. won't pay after breakup: thought at first this was one of those cases AH loves to hate where woman throws money at loser on probation to get her man - but no, turns out loser was actually hooked up with P's fiancè's sister. Close enough, though, some loser already on probation who 'breaks up' with the sister when he violates probation with dirty urine test. Not sure from intro what defense he's going with - either he never borrowed $600, or he's entitled to the money because she lost his car keys. Once testimony begins I see P may have a problem sticking D with this loan. Quickly becomes apparent the the money was to go towards rent for D and the sister - and it was fiancée that first asked for the loan. So P needs to establish that the loan, that was for both sister and dirty pisser, is now solely responsibility of D. Turns out the fiancée was asking for loan for her sister and D, and money was given to sister when D wasn't there. Oops, I have this wrong - now I'm hearing it wasn't D who pissed dirty, it was the sister - and sister was violated and thrown in hoosegow. P wants us to know it wasn't just the $600 rent money, she had loaned the couple other money for sister's legal fees - but she stresses that was a seperate loan and she only went after the sister for that money. Over to D, who says he wasn't even part of the rent money loan - that was between the sisters and he didn't even know about it until later....... so, yeah he benefited from the loan, but never asked for the loan, never even knew about it beforehand, so why should he pay....... well, seems P has a text exchange where D says money is tight, but he's trying to pay......... uh, but seems they broke up when sis went away to the highest house - oh, and his 13 year daughter came home from school and found stuff (car keys, fob, smart watch, family pictures of jailbreak sis) missing from house and P's fiancée had a spare key - oh oh, not only does circumstances point to P and fiancée, but she admits jailbreak sis asked fiancée to retrieve some of her stuff, but Fiancée did enter the place after the breakup to retrieve stuff without D being home - but insists fiancée only took sis's stuff, not everything D says is missing........ not sure that even matters - D says 13yo noticed door not locked when she got home, so whether fiancée took the stuff or left house unsecured doesn't matter - fiancée would be responsible if he can show value of missing stuff....... but that's a whole other matter separate from the $600 rent loan - from what I'm hearing D would need to go after Fiancee, not P, anyway....... huh! now D says fiancée told him she'd return the big ticket items if he made up with jailbreak sis - oops, D caught lieing to Judge twice - first he says he has a text where fiancèe says she'll return his keys - he insists car keys while P is saying house keys - D didn't submit text to court, but reads it off his phone while conveniently omitting 'house' from passage about keys...... ok, D lieing and caught twice in 30 seconds - but does that make the rent money his loan - nope........ Crayon toilet paper story - no formal loan to D - D off hook......... collectible card case: P says he gave some valuable cards to D to sell, but after a month D tells him the cards were stolen from his house - I hate these cases, as I always wonder about the actual value of the collectibles, and question how many and what arrangement was..... did they agree on the value, or was this just speculative 'get what you can' type deal........ not sure what actual deal was, or how P came up with numbers, but today he's asking for over 3 grand. ......... D admits some of these things are worth big money - problem us he says he doedn'the know who stole them........ ok, as we go to commercial we watch as they talk about housing valuable these cards can be and we see Douglas flabbergasted when he hears about 1 rare card that sold for a quarter million bucks - like I said, I don't know much about these cards, but I do know condition is everything in collectibles - unless they agree on value we could be talking about a card worth a dime or thousands of bucks - even after they agree on value MM will have to decide who is responsible for the cards going missing........ ok, yakkedy yak about these cards which mean nothing to me and I end up FF through a lot of this - I gather they set a minimum value ($2,500), and P says anything above that would be D's fee for selling had cards....... hmmmmm so wouldn't maximum P can collect be $2500....... FF..... ok, skipped ahead and MM still trying to figure out what their deal was - part of this is because D says yeah, that was the deal, then seconds later, no he would never agree to do business that way......... yawn, this is all boring astuff can be - one thing before I just zip to decision - difference between what P is suing for and what he says the value was at time is a rise in value since he gave cards to be sold - that explains his amount - but don't see him getting that as damages......... so, to recap what I skipped - they DO agree that at time P gave the D the cards they agreed the value was a total of $2500 - since that time value went up - long after D took procession he took cards with him to a comic book store in a paper bag, left the bag unattended while he was smoking, and they were stolen - I say P should get $2500 minus any amount D gave him as he was making sales....... ah, but this is a time where MM is pissed at cavalier attitude of a litigant - actually, both litigants help out opposing side by trying to be honest - D admits he was at fault, but made no effort to pay - he admits responsibilty today, but tried to shift blame in statement - oh, and admits he never filed a police report over the theft of 3 grand worth of P's property - says cops would just laugh at theft of cards..... there are actually a couple Big Bang episodes which deal with collectibles and collectible theft, one where cop is laughing at genius Sheldon for being upset someone stole his collectibles - MM goes ahead and awards P the increased value instead (MM even went online with their list and awards today's market value)
  12. Ok, you convinced me to go back and watch this one........ but barbershop case - nope, started to watch it twice and just couldn't stand those two
  13. And teenagers and old folks - especially teenage girls. We have seen her laughing with teenagers over 'pranks' which ended up causing property damage. I remember a case where teenage girls trashed a place they rented for a party. IIRC MM laughed at the games they came up with that trashed the place, then downplayed the damage and awarded bare minimum for damages. Also has a soft spot for the old folks - especially old women.
  14. Well, don't know about "cognitively impaired," but a couple days ago I was making some instapot refried beans - washed the dried beans and had them sitting in a bowl in the sink - sliced an onion, threw in some jalapeños and spices, added the water and a little oil - put on the lid and set the timer and started to wash the knife and cut board.......... but there sat the beans in the sink 😕😕😕
  15. older divorced couple feuding: these folks were married for 20 years, got back together as friends with benefits, he loaned her money for new AC, she finds out he's sleeping around and stops repaying the loan - she seems to have been way more committed to their renewed relationship, and unilaterally decided to write off the loan because she had helped him out on rent over six years - she may have moral high ground, but unless they had some prior agreement to offset loan for rent she's going to have to repay the loan and then come after him for rent money......... ah, sure nuf she has countersuit for 5 grand for those years of back rent........ ok, we'll have to see how this goes, but P is saying he wasn't bothering to keep track of how much she had paid back on the loan and he relied on her to keep track - heck, if he wasn'the keeping track I guess we have to rely on her numbers........ oops, except that she kept records and turned it in as evidence, and when MM goes over the numbers it shows she owes a couple grand on the AC....... didn't mention it before, but D has a disability where she sometimes needs help keeping track of paperwork - seems when she went to buy a car she took P along to help - says next day she discovered that P had put himself down as the owner of the car she was buying....... anyone else think it strange that, knowing this lady had this traumatic brain injury making her fussy at times with paperwork the old geezer relied on her to keep track of the balance of the money she owed him........ that apparently got straightened out, and MM wants to move on to getting the dirt on the old couple's whoopy making - according to P, once she learned he had an overnight lady friend guest her whole attitude changed and she wanted him out of her apartment........ oh, did I forget to mention she owned the 4-plex apartment building where this guy was living - apparently they loved in separate apartments in a sort of informal landlord/tenant arrangement, and once she found out he was 'cheating' on her (even though they were no longer married) she wanted him out of her building and unilaterally decided she no longer needed to pay off the AC loan - and wanted a bunch of back rent...... oh, but here's a funny - after giving him the heave ho, she went to the credit union and pulled out $500 in change - when he asks for her loan payment she points to a paper bag and where she had $500 in loose change - and that was the final payment she made (MM already said her canceled checks show a balance over 2 grand)........ ok, but since P was relying on D to keep track of the balance throughout the time she was making payments how do we know it wasn't paid off - there's also the rent question - they never had a written rental agreement, but he paid rent (of course no receipts) and now she's claiming she was giving him a discount that she wants to retroactively cancel and collect........ MM laughs about a 'woman scorned' and the $500 in loose change - but only evidence we have shows her owing on the loan and no way to collect on back rent - course she may be happy with making dude look bad on national TV....... oh, and P is asking for over 3 grand even though D provided proof showing he's asking for an extra grand....... yeah, as expected she owes the 2 grand and can't collect anything going for back rent........ only regret D has is that P was able to take the loose change to the bank without having to count/roll it all........ rental kerfuffle: p rented on a month to month basis - says when she fell behind on rent D kicked her out with 30 day notice and refuses to return deposit - she wants almost $1800......... have to wait and see what their jurisdiction codes are - here a landlord can give you a notice to vacate the morning after you fail to pay, then you get a few days to pay, and if you don'the you can get evicted - after GETTING put out takes longer because your case has to be heard, but technically you could be kicked out 10 days after failing to pay on time (never happens of course)......... D intro talks about what a great person P is, but that he needs her rent money and if she can'take pay in full and on time he had no choice but to get rid of her......... ok, not liking P much here as she tries to dance around when MM asks her how much rent she paid and P us talking about total - rent plus the $1300 something deposit - pretty simple question - how much was rent and what did she pay - and she talks 5 minutes without ever answering - part of this is she was to receive social service help........ oh, and why do people not take a moment to adjust the camera angle - this woman has her chin in the air and talks down her nose and it appears she has nostrils bigger than her earlobes....... way she was dancing I don't have actual numbers, but if i understood her social service was giving $1795 a month - of course she wanted a $2000 a month apartment and she was to make up the difference - she was responsible for the deposit, and once that was paid she didn't have the money to pay her portion of rent and D told her it wasn't going to work........ problem with my understanding is I didn't think social services would approve a month to month lease.......... ok, I'm over this woman who can't answer how much rent she paid without a long involved narrative so I begin FF'ing through this mess........ when D starts talking I start listening again and learn he isn't much better - he does say he kept deposit because she didn't give him 30 day notice, so question is, since he told her to move out, does she have to give notice? did he give a date she had to be gone by and did she exceed his date? Sure sounds like she was just doing what he asked, so why is he trying to keep deposit? Another wrinkle, he was in such a hurry to she her gone that he offered her $1000 to move out. She even says she went through emergency housing to meet his time limit and she ended up in a shelter with her kids for 25 days........ I'm not understanding D's testimony here - think he's claiming he offered P says grand to move out by May 31st (which she did with social services help) and then he says he offered the case worker a grand to make it happen - did he give actually anybody a grand? Did he give both a grand? I'm confused and don't really care......... yep, he says gave the case worker a grand - but not P - to expedite the move - which has MM questioning a government employee accepting a bribe and MM advising P to file a complaint with social services using tape of D's testimony as evidence......... D tripping over himself trying to justify keeping the money and his testimony doesn't match his answer to complaint - I'm over this guy, he's admitted to bribing a government worker and his testimony is all over the place - he shouldn'the get to keep the depisit, but he questions who actually paid it - was it social services or did P pay? Who deserves the refund? MM decides since P gave him the money, he pays her and if social services wants that money they can chase P for it....... now there's a question of $400 for part of a month rent - well, P lived there part of a month, so sounds like this is prorated rent........ sounds like it messed up the timeline of when she actually moved out, but not worth going back to figure out - P gets back deposit but not prorated rent......... hey a third case! It'll need to be quick as there isn't much time. car transport case: p hauled a wrecked car, but hasn't been paid - wants $150........ P hauled car from NY to Florida and D wouldn't pay - big kerfuffle - cops called - cops told P to unload car and sue for payment, which is why we're here....... D says he paid what P estimated, and refuses to pay extra - funny thing is D says car was totaled in an accident, yet he's countersuing for damage done to the wrecked car during move?......... contract case - whose taking bets on whether they have a written contract?......... ok, anybody here ever watch that show where independent contractors bid on shipping jobs and the winner picks up the item and hauls it where ever it's supposed to go? Well, that's what this was. When they're bidding they're given information about the item, and how much extra work may be needed to load unload the item. According to P, his winning bid was based on a vehicle ready to load and trailer - but when he arrives he not only finds a wrecked car, but one buried in 5 feet of snow - not at all what the contract said....... so, at least when I was watching the show, the contractor would have to renegotiate a new contract or just eat the extra cost - wonder what happened?....... sooooooo, when P shows up expecting to just roll a car onto the trailer D has sent a 3rd party and can't be reached for any renegotiations D, but does the extra work and gets wreck on ghe trailer - unless there's something in his contract, sounds like he eats the extra cost........ he is not helped much when he says he has this personal thing on what the extra work should cost - sounds reasonable, but unless D agreed I'm not sure it's enforceable........ yep, listening to MM she's not accepting his personal unwritten rate change, he's not getting that unless the Internet out ship that runs the bidding has a contract that D agreed to which allows this upcharge...... ah ha, but before P arrives with car he texts D about the upcharge, and instead of saying 'what upcharge!?!' D answers, OK. ...... even worse for D, without prompting P lowers the upcharge from $200 to $150..... when MM asks why he responded 'OK' D starts dancing all over....... when P arrives D signs treceipt of vehicle, noting no additional damage, and releases the funds for the original agreed upon amount (which had already been paid to the Internet company) - then they start fighting about the additional charge - big kerfuffle - cops called etc......... ah, during the unloading (after D agreed no new damage) P asked D to get in car and get ready to apply brakes as car came off trailer - D refused to help, P released last strap and car rolled back off trailer - D even testifying it was no biggy, but isn't this where his counterclaim for additional damage comes from?...... uh, no, he wants $600 for scratches caused by straps that were there and readily visible before he signed the release saying there was no damage....... ok, even though D didn't fight the upcharge in texts, he still didn't agree beforehand - there was no contractual basis for the upcharge - nobody gets anything
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size