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)