SRTouch

social media P wants big bucks from client for aborted campaign: oh my, both these litigants think their time is VERY valuable - apparently they ran into each other at a bar - or was it a resturant - got to talking, and D hired P to create an ad for his independent film 'Celebrity Bikini Model' for FB, InstaGram, YouTube, twitter etc - their deal fell through after D paid $1100, but P says he owes $5500 more - D has countersuit for 6 grand because she wasted his time......... started disliking P from beginning when she is ultra cutesy and starts out by asking how MM is doing in Spanish - and both sides make sure to tell us she was running for political office, according to google Ms Shalira Taylor has run for office in Cleveland, Ohio, a couple times - and lost....... pg rated, no nudes or sex, but supposedly behind scenes at bikini photo shoots, yet P tells us the content was ultimately to racey for FB......... ok, simple contract case, even have a breakdown of how much P was to be paid based upon how well ad does - but wasn't it a bust if the ad couldn't be used on the intended social media?........ anybody buying this woman's yarn - Takes a second to find some pretty sexy bikini shots on Facebook, and there are some mighty racey movie trailers/ads out there - anyway, when mainstream outlets turned down the ads, they tried to go to adult sites......... anyway, about then P presented another invoice for $2500 and D said so far her campaign was a bust and she hadn't earned any more money - so the ad ends up 9nly on the porn site 1 day before P pulls it since he hadn't paid the $2500......... well, sort of, but sounds like she DID do work establishing a Web site and account's on social media - not sure how much money she earned, and really not liking either and may just zip ahead and let MM listen (I probably have sone of this wrong, cuz I was only half listening from the get-go).......... hmmmmmmm once they get to feuding and fussing D threatens to go tell her political opponent she's shady and doing business posting ads on porn sites - starting to get messy............ ok, basically, even though going to the porn sites was D's idea, now he doesn't feel he should pay for that - he's doing a lot of hmming and hawing about how he shouldn't have to pay because he wasn't happy with her performance, which of course won't fly - MM will end up doing rough justice deciding how much the work both agree was done is worth, and whether he owes after substracting his initial payment........ ok, MM has texts where D agrees to pay such and such for this and that, so she's crunching numbers and P asking for way more than she was due......... zip zip......... don't really care if D had the hots for P......... P gets $2500 and D gets nada landlord won't give tenant keys on move in day: P wants 5 grand - says when she showed up with a moving truck ready to move in the landlord wouldn't give her the keys - P ended up putting her stuff in storage abd was homeless with nowhere to lay her head........ D argues that after P agreed to take the apartment she called to say she didn't have enough money - D says she told P to call when she had the money, but then D ghosted and wouldn't answer texts or phone messages - apparently having a tenant back out of a rental caused great mental anguish and loss of work, so she is countersuing for - you guessed it - 5 grand........... oh, and as we head to commercial MM reveals that when tenant showed up with the moving truck to move in Landlord sends her a text to say apartment not for rent.......... ok, seems this apartment is actually two rooms in D's home - no lease, it was to be a month to month agreement........... anyway, according to P, once move in day she shows up with movers and truck of stuff, D not there and won't answer, eventually P receives text saying she can't move in - movers happened to have a storage unit, so P's stuff went into storage and P went to a hotel....... from P's story sounds like she has a case - not sure about the 5 grand, though she still hasn't found an apartment and is currently living with a friend (seems she's stuck between not having enough to rent an apartment, but had too much to get assistance)....... over to D - who of course denies ghosting on P and insists she tried several times to reach P, including calling and texting on day of move in......... ooops, but MM has texts which cast serious doubts on D stories - including text saying move in is a definite go and make sure movers wear masks in the house......... in fact, at 8:08 on move in day, P is texting P to call when they are finished packing and leaving to come to her house, and again reminding P to have Movers mask in house......... going to need major switcheroo to get D out of the hot water from these texts - but is P due 5 grand? Also, we still have plenty of time for a switcheroo......... after commercial break, we hear that at noon, 4 hours after text reminding P to have Movers mask, D sends another text saying she can't talk, but something has happened at house, forget it, apartment nor available.......... ok, so turns out what happened was she learned from a neighbor that she couldn't legally rent out rooms.......... oh, and P already out over $1600 for the movers............ rough justice - P over reaching, and MM weeds a lot of stuff out of the damage claim, settling on awarding $1,852 (P wanted D to for for months of storage and food - even money for clothes when she couldn't get them from storage unit - but remember this was a month to month so most D should pay is 1 month........ over to the counterclaim (also for 5 grand), seems part of the claim is because P put in a stop all mail order at the post office instead of just stopping mail with her name........ apparently, P ending up getting some of D's mail, but she says she returned it to post office....... P getting worked up over accusation she committed a federal offense messing with DHS mail - almost makes me wonder if she doth protest too much......... D gets nothing, but is yakking away over MM saying she's going to get P arrested for stealing her mail.......... Ah ha - beat @AngelaHunter to the punch by about 30 seconds 😉😉😉😉

Here locally we only get 2 episodes a day, and both are from the current season. So, even our reruns are the current season. My hope is that once she does retire we'll start to see some of the older reruns. She's always been quick to snap at people, but, at least in my memory, she USED to be entertaining whereas now she's often just mean

I share your confusion....... made worse as JJ was in one of her moods and in attack mode out the gate. First off, one of JJ's buttons is anyone making money in a real estate deal besides herself. Here lady bought a house, had it insured for replacement value, house burned to ground, and lady received more more than she paid. Apparently JJ decided it must be some insurance scam and grilled Lady about cause of fire..... several other irrelevant items, but really what case was about was Lady wanted a return of money paid to defendant for site clean up - but we heard very little about that until he butted in at the end after case was over...... if i heard correctly amid all the irrelevant distractions, it was a simple case - the woman had already collected what she paid D from his bonding/insurance and now expected D to pay more because she lost time and hired someone else who charged her twice as much

So it wasn't just me. Some days I just can't watch as she seems to attack with little to no reason.

Wacky directv DVR seems to be dieing on me - or maybe just too old probably 6-7 years old and I know direct tv warned me awhile back I needed to upgrade. Yesterday it started recording late and today reset/reconnected to satellite twice and recording didn'the started until we were down to 20 minutes left on episode......... which means I only saw tail end of episode - and what I saw was Rental dispute - tenant wants deposit, but Landlord says no - apparently there was a lease, but then an clause was added that, since tenant was waiting for new place to move into he could rent month to month - BUT after a certain deadline he would become a normal tenant with a full/regular lease (sorry i missed beginning as this sounds interesting - or at least different....... anyway, landlord sent the required letter detailing why he was keeping deposit - some question about a stray pic that snuck into the pile, but Landlord does have pix that show the carpet at very least needs to be restricted because tenant ran cables under the cable for a kitchen tv thing is, Landlord asking for replacement of rug that is at least 8 years old - MM reviews the lease, including the added clause/addendum/amendment/whatever and decides landlord within rights to keep a month rent, and might have been entitled to 2 months had he not mitigated....... no pix from tenant and he claims he left place pristine and landlord says not so much - MM thinks landlord asking why too much for cleaning for things like dirt under fridge, but does allow $100 for cleaning........ after some number crunching. MM orders partial refund of deposit amounting to $556......... in hallterview tenant thinks decision was unfair, thinking he should have gotten whole deposit back - apparently he didn't listen to MM 30 plain the ruling - MM agreed with him that landlord nick picked and over reached, but saw enough evidence to award $100 for cleaning and had no problem saying tenant owed a month in rent......... when Landlord gets his turn he casts aspersions on how MM must live in filth if she thinks tenants left place clean - something about maybe MM doesn't mind living with mold, and she probably doesn'the clean her own house enough to know what it takes - I must have missed that testimony - anyway he also thinks MM was unfair........ course after the verdict has MM all OVER that

Haven't watched this one yet. They had a recent lane splitter case on, I believe, Hot Bench. At the time I checked and learned that it IS legal in California - but only California in the US. Of course the caveat is that you can only lane split when it is safe, and then only at a safe speed. So, any accident may result in lane splitter having to prove he/she was doing it in a safe manner for the circumstances.

day laborer wants to be paid: first few minutes didn't record, so missed intro and took some time to figure out what case was about........ dude only worked short time before getting in fight with foreman and getting fired - employer tries to string him along and comes up with bogus reason why he won't pay for work done..... no doubt expecting day labor kid to give up and go away - if kid did any work he should be paid, but did they have an agreed wage - kid going for lotto money wanting to be paid for wasted time and aggravation - didn't care for either litigant, but really disliked D and the foreman who appears as a witness - as for P, back in my days in landscaping I worked with some real losers who were day laborers, and I suspect this kid is one of those - apparently foreman gave him a couple tasks, and kid had trouble accomplishing any of them, then P says foreman started "making fun" of him........ kid appears to have learning disability or something, and says he can do work, but he needs to be shown exactly what you want done - and yeah, I've known guys like this who did good work IF YOU SUPERVISED them, but would get flustered if you talked wrong or, like appears happened here, told him to go do something and expect him to take any initiative - from little we saw of foreman here, I buy that even though he denies it today - kid leaves job........ from there a long line of nonsense begins with D coming up with excuses as to way he isn't getting paid - he wants to see a Social Security card - not just a number, but the actual card - he'll only pay by check and kid needs a permanent address because check has to be mailed, just nonsense and even resorts to how he needs to consult with his attorney at one point when kid is insistent on being paid...... remember, kid is just some down on his luck out of stateer day laborer.......... not believing much of what D says, and I can only take a few seconds of foreman before I zip ahead - foreman looks like some homeless day, wearing bandana on head with crazy eyes (maybe made worse by being too close to camera)....... ok, zip zip - kid wins and paid for work but nothing for aggravation almost a tenant, now P 'fully expects' judge to ward her over $5300: P intro says she put rental deposit down on house, but crazy landlord ran her off property when P came to move in........ landlord says P failed background check - naven't heard how much deposit was, but apparently this was a mansion as D not only wants to keep the deposit, but wants an addiction 8 grand......... ok, this is supposed to be my brain numbing g court tv time to get away from waiting on election results, and as we gone to commercial P is yakking about how D asked her if she was a Trump supporter - grrrrr, this looks to be a nonsense case between money grabbers, but if it turns into trump / Biden talk I'm out of here........... ok, P liked place and was going to take it even though she claims D gave her 3rd degree about not supporting Donald - P wants to go into all this political crap, but MM tells her to get to contract and putting down a deposit (deposit was $300 and both these nuts expect to get thousands of bucks!?!)......... ok, no signed contract when P wrote the $300 check, and she was planning on moving in on first of next month (June)......... again MM has to step in to keep P testimony on track - she'sgiving me a headache......... on move in she was supposed to pay $2600 (rent and security and the $300 was a check for the pet fee she says D wasn't supposed to cash until she moved in)........ ah, but according to P she drives by, sees the for rent sign still out front, and when she texts asking g why sign is still up D goes off and tells her not to even drive down the street - oh, and despite P saying $300 check was not to be cashed, D went ahead and cashed check......... over to D, who better have real good explanation cuz P paints her in bad light - according to D, P was $300 shy of enough money to move in and wanted to use the already paid $300 pet deposit towards the move in price with pet deposit to be paid in future (of course she wanted to pay first month by check)......... ok, that actually makes more sense than the P story about Trump and D never really wanting to rent house and just trying to scam her out of her hard earned $300, course what would really make sense is a written rental agreement with a background check, though we haven't heard anything about P failing background check yet.......... ok, as we head to commercial P brings in race card to go with the Trump (she's black, D white) and I give up and zip ahead........ apparently, texts back up D version of events and make it look like P breached contract when she couldn't pay move in cost.......... as I zip ahead it looks like they had a handwritten agreement at some point, I listen a minute and agreement is that the $300 was to hold house and then (maybe) go to pet deposit, but pretty clear on June 1st P to have $2600 to move in - which she didn't have............ ok, next time I slow down down seems P also some article to proof D is anti-Muslim - not sure WTH she's yakking about, case is about $300 to hold an apartment and P not having enough money to move in - also not sure where these thousand of dollars come in over a $300 case, though I guess landlord could make a case for a month of lost rent........ ok, zipped ahead to far and had to back up the recording a bit - seems P wanted that $300 back, and went so far as to write an email to the local tv station saying she thinks D is a racist slum lord running a rental scam, which to D equates to a 5 grand law suit for defamation........ ok, nothing for defamation, but pretty good case for the month of rent ......... except they had that written agreement where P gave D $300 to hold house and D accepted on condition she could kerp the $300 if P didn't move in......... no money changes hands

bad breakup: p says when she broke up with ex-bf, he kicked her to curb - when she went back yo retrieve her stuff he smashed her leg with car door before hitting her car with a pipe and breaking her mirror - wants a couple hundred for the mirror......... D relying on a self defense theory - says P has been violent in past, so when she reached for glove compartment he slammed the door and broke the mirror to distract her so he could get away....... nah, not very interested - sometimes these cases are fun because of crazy sh*t litigants say, but it's just hard listening to P try to put words together......... ok, big kerfuffle (over another woman of course) ends with cops called - she says she agreed not to press charges if he paid for mirror - he hasn't paid, so we're here listening to this......... testimony changes mirror to a car window........ over to D, who learned grammar at same school as P........... right off I'm not sure why MM doesn't ask him to take off his hat....... basic story similar, except he was at work when he received text saying she was going to his place to get her stuff and would trash stuff if he didn't come let her inside.......... he's telling how she threw food on his front porch, he even has a pic of the mess, just not here for judge to see cuz it's on his other phone....... ok, thinking of zipping through this one soon - P should have police report backing her story, but so far MM hasnt asked for it - where D should have the text and pic backing his tale, but guess that's one that other phone......... dude admits hitting window - and then MM wants to air dirty laundry about the loving couple's past dust ups which resulted in orders of protection which these two apparently ignore whenever they decide to make up - if D is to be believed, he has had an order for 5 years - this will not make MM happy, but D apparently misses that small fact......... D really in love with sound of his voice and the story he's telling - not sure where this will end up - if there really is a protective order they both regularly violate it and P's story of dropping charges in exchange for promise to pay seems unlikely because she could have been locked up for even going to his house........ oops, did dude running off mouth so much mean he inadvertently screw up his story - earlier she supposedly threw food on his porch, but just now he gave away the food - either food comes into his story in multiple incidents or he doesn't remember what he said earlier........ now, I not only want MM to tell dude to take off the hat, but he deserves a spanking for talking over her........... ok, now it wasn't food she threw, but a bottle of "fragance", which is when he ran out to her car, slammed door on her and smacked her window - well, except MM is back to saying he hit her mirror............ ok, food, fragrance, window or mirror - i over this one - neither of these two have cleans hands, mirrow/window would never have been hit if P hadn't gone over and caused kerfuffle - I say send them on their way........ only problem with that is that during his rambling D admits reason he grabbed a pipe and hit her car is that he was pissed cuz she threw whatever it was she threw............ ok, neat thing is that when cops arriver and interviews these two lovebirds, he has a bodycam and we get to hear D admits he broke the MIRROR in anger, not self defense........ other thing, both these two talk about being at work when they decide to leave the job to meet up and have their kerfuffle......... not sure if P deserves it, but MM decides D owes for mirror - $180 landlord/tenant: landlord suing extent over damage after move out - $829 on top of $400 deposit......... D denies doing the damage - seems tenant was there 6 years, and most of the damage claim deals with stinky cigarette smoke and D says he didn't smoke inside......... this is another long term tenant who moves out because owner decided to sell - apparently this guy wasn't forced out, he was a month to month tenant and left voluntarily when told place was going on market...... sort of sounds like landlord wanted to sell as an investment property with a tenant in place, and tenant screwed the plan by leaving - which meant place suddenly needed maintenance to satisfy buyer and P wants D to foot renovation........ oh, and according to D the $400 deposit went to P in exchange for the washer & which he wanted to keep.......... so, according to P, the first time she went into the place in 6 years was after D vacated the trailer........ ok, P has before & after pix - we'really really talking less than $830 in damages, so question becomes normal wear and tear or excessive - totally buy P claim that she had to prime and paint multiple times if guy was smoking in trailer for 6 years as indicated by pix - despite D claiming they were friends, or at least friendly accounting to P, they must have had a falling out when he moved out. Now D acts like he doesn't know P hubby name, and is sort of huffy about saying P demanded key back before he was finished cleaning (doesn't come out in testimony, but we learn in hallterview that they didn't ask for key until 2 days past end of tenancy)........ nice before pictures....... oh my, looking at after pix - forget D claim to never smoke inside - I used to do cleaning and painting when remnants moved out of apartments and I see obvious tar/nicotine/smoke coating everything, but burn marks from cigarettes on linoleum floors - all kinds of moulding damage on walls - besides being dirty and needing a thorough cleaning, this is over and above normal wear, and their claim actually seems reasonable - part of what kept cost down was that P did the work themselves rather than contracting it out....... MM seems to think there was enough damage that she would have let them keep more........ P gets the $829

three case day with a late start since I was off voting this morning (only had to wait 55 minutes and lovely sunny weather - so glad it wasn't last week when we had ice and wind Disappearing ATM P owned an ATM that was inside D's business (a bar) - when various went belly up the ATM disappeared and P wants the value of ghe machine - $2500........ D has totally different story - he says the Fire Marshall ordered the machine removed because it was blocking access to bathrooms - says he called P to remove it, two uniformed guys showed up with keys to machine and hauled it away - wants to know who would bother to steal an empty ATM......... should be very simple - surely bar owner kept signed copies of the work order from the guys who hauled away the machine even if he can't produce texts emails asking for machine to be moved when Fire Marshall wrote him up along with the inspection results from the Fire Department......... ok, another small business closed by covid - D opened his bar early March, and State shut him down 7 days after the grand opening 😤............ P also new in business - this was only his second machine and it was never stocked with money - location was approved by both, so they share blame for any Fire Marshall violation............ once MM starts going through texts story changes - bar never opened, and P texting a couple months asking for status and D ghosting him - when D finally answers he acts like machine was never installed, he knows nothing about any ATM - when he admits to knowing about machine he is 'working on' what he's going to do about the missing machine......... uh, seems simple, he either needs to produce the thing or pay to replace it......... text stream asking for proof of ownership and receipt from when P purchased it - provided - weeks go by and D just stringing P along............. over to D, but not sure what he can say as his texts have pretty much sunk the defense as stated in intro - now we get the story about two guys coming to pick it up - if true WTH is with the ghosting and texts? (Oh, and of course he tries the tried and true - but never successful - he has a new phone excuse so couldn'the call P).......... this looks to be MM going to spank and humiliate flagrant liar liar until she makes him pay......... oh, he says he had video of the 'two black gentlemen' who took the machine, but he didn't think to bring the video to show Judge....... ok, no defense that makes any sort of sense......... P gets paid, and D whines about unfair judge........ landlord/tenant fight over unlicensed worked who caused fire damaging 24 condos P was a long time tenant of 10 years - says there was a plumbing issue and the condo owner sent over a plumber who caused a big fire - then when condo association gets involved it turns out plumber was unlicensed - owner wants P to fib and cover for unlicensed worker, and she refuses - P moved out, but owner holding on to $1800 of her money....... intro for D has nothing about a plumber or fire, it's all about how P tried to block the sale of the property and a claim that P trashed the place when she finally left - she has countersuit terse it for 3 grand because of a missed sale......... another case that should be easy with a Fire Marshall report showing damage and forced evacuation of 24 units, so expect usual intro nonsense............ not surprising, not nearly as simple as intro would make it seem - quickly becomes more like D says than big fire driving P out (nobody mentions fire in testimony)..... P something of a problem tenant, but D didn't move to evict even though this was only a 30 day rental agreement - course not, buyers prefer buying a place already rented out if they'received buying rental property......... ok, deposit was $900, but P wants double - certainly sounds like issue had more to do with P wanting to stay than any Fire forcing her out, this is regular old fight over deposit........ D actually sounds like she tried to work with P - she started warning tenant a year out that she may have to sell due to health and cutting back on things, offered to sell to tenant when she expressed interest in buying, and finally, went P couldn't buy or find a buyer willing to let her stay, landlord started process for selling place.......... ok, MM going to jump ahead to highly speculative $3000 lost when D sold - counterclaim based on what might have been if she sold earlier, and of course that doesn't fly with MM........ ok, certainly sounds like there was ample evidence to not return the deposit because of damages after seeing pix from landlord - rough justice - MM look so at pix and says damage over and above the $900 deposit (there goes tenants case)........... nobody gets anything Another covid rental case P put down a deposit on Jersey Shore beach house (Long Beach Island) for 1 week, but changed her mind about taking place due to covid - she wants return of $2525....... this isn't like most of the other covid cases - in this case, P could have gone ahead and rented the beach house, and the beaches never actually closed - also, they went back and forth with each other for awhile before P finally decided not to rent - D then started advertising again and eventually found a renter at at discounted price........... we'll see, my first thought is wanting to know how much, if anything, D lost when she put place back on market - also, the covid may have (probably) lowered the rental value, so who eats that loss....... (first, I agree with P about canceling her vacation plans, and D has a long way to convince me P owes)....... when P canceled beaches were closed except to locals, even though D was saying the closure would be lifted before the rental - P did the responsible thing and called off the all girls week/birthday vacation....... ah, but MM sort of does a switcheroo on me when she decides that since D was correct and beach did open, this was not a case of the state shutting things down, but of the P deciding not to risk it - probably a wise choice, but not one D has to pay for........ P doesn't get deposit refunded, and MM wants to see D costs/losses which came from renting at discount to verify sure D isn't getting more than she would have from renting to P (course D doesn't have it with her, so MM tells her she'll have to provide it before decision is final).......

These covid cases are quickly becoming worse then useless - when the city/state shuts down the party vendors have to refund the money...... simple - so far I've been sympathetic to both sides - except the one Washington State wedding when defendant/venue dude trailed guests and invaded an alternate (smaller Wedding party venue) and threatened to sic state on the wedding party

covid cancellation case: guess we'll be seeing a lot of these cases for awhile - here it's a mother of the bride suing the DJ after State of Florida shut everything down and wedding was canceled (the venue and all the other vendors have already refunded their deposits). Only possible new thing in this case is that DJ intro claims contract has clause saying no refunds for any reason - riots, fire, hurricaine or act of God isn't enough to ask for money back - but they'll perform or get someone else at a rescheduled event. Not sure how that will go over, as I'm pretty sure all the TV judges have already set the precedent that covid cancelled events result in a refund.... ok, P turns out to be best type of customer - not only did she pay the deposit, but she was paying off vendors ahead of contracted schedule because she didn't want a big bill due when wedding took place - also best type of litigant, someone who has a signed contract - so, DJ had been paid in full 2 months before wedding......... setting aside covid issue, we've seen in past cases where someone pays ahead of schedule and most contractor was allowed to keep was amount of the non-refundable deposit.......... ok, simple contract possible complicated by the no refund for any reason clause in the contract........ couple went ahead and had very small ceremony with just immediate family, original wedding had over 600 peolle invited, possible big hoedown sometime in future but nothing scheduled - P checked venue day before filming and it's still closed......... ok over to D - everyone here are Spanish speakers, but D can only get out a couple words without long pause to search for next word - and he wants to go back in time to 2002? - ok, this actually has relevance since he came from Venezuela at time when martial law was declared - his business was hurt because he had to return deposits which is why his current contracts are written with the NO-WAY NO REFUND clause......... ok, MM now looking for how contract is actually worded (dude says he had it written by a lawyer)............ ok, guy has my sympathy, but not sure if that is enough to keep money for a service never performed because the State has banned it........... way contract is written, according to MM, he wouldn't have to return money if event could be moved and someone else could provide the service - except the whole State is shutdown and there is nowhere in the State where 600 people can gather for an even (except for a Trump rally) ......... next D has a close reread of contract - really wants to claim notice came too late, but actually P gave 39 daydays and contract says no refund within 30 days - seems like D lost something in translation as what contract says in English is not what he thought - in fact, lawyer who wrote his contract goofed big time as what it says makes no sense to da'Judge.......... nope, D not looking good here...... P getting money back......... D gets free legal advice on rewriting his contract......... case over septic system P says he was hired to evaluate D septic system to see if it would handle an addition and now D won't pay what they owe - wants $500......... D says they were given a $300 estimate, so they aren't paying $800 (500 more)......... should be simple contract case but becomes very confusing get as nobody can tell a straight story - not going to going out back and try to correct numbers, but they don't make any sense until the end.......... ah, but of course there is no written contract - according to P, who I find believable, he told D he would need to rent equipment/camera for the day which would cost $300 and would charge $50 an hour labor (I have no idea how long something lIke this would take but guessing it would be a 2 man job)........ according to P, when he showed up to do job (after renting equipment) D tried to cancel and then renegotiate the price - but dude's numbers don't add up to what I thought I heard since him just say and MM confirmed, that the renegotiated labor was to be kept to 300 labor which would mean total for job would be $600 - oh, and he says when he did estimate he quoted 4 hours estimated labor which would add up to $700 not the $800 he now claims was owed......... over to D who insists the quote was $300, never anything about a $300 rental plus labor - that could be selective memory at work, I wonder if P has receipt for rental because, like MM says, noway would P agree to a renegotiated price of $300 if he is already out of pocket that already mount before starting.......... oh, whoa! according to D when P showed up he was told they had hired someone else who already did job, and supposedly they submitted paperwork to court showing work had already been done by this someone else - sounds like maybe expensive lesson for P to start writing contracts and now doing jobs without a signed contract - ah, seems like this whole septic evaluation was a code requirement, and the code enforcement required person doing evaluation to be licensed, which P is not, which is why someone else was hired........ ah ah but P tells MM he IS LICENSED so now MM needs to check that - but I'm thinking there was obviously never a meeting of minds - both sides agree at one point D canceled contract - P says they renegotiated price (yet his new price is higher than estimate?) And D says he already had job done by someone else who IS licensed....... now question is why did D let P do job if they had canceled (I'm confused about when the second guy is supposed to have done work, since I thought D wife admitted renegotiating price, but also thought I heard that job had been completed before P arrived) - D wifey says big kerfuffle with P insisting he do job since he had rented equipment, to which MM asks if D called police to remove him from property........ both sides have holes in story, confusing math from P and D just plain confusing timeline - hopefully the paperwork MM was provided answers the questions........ ok, time for some fact finding by MM - D admits he canceled via voice mail and never actually talked to P (to me that equates to never canceled and owes for rental and possibly labor for part of day).......... so, stepping back, D never officially canceled job, and agrees P did job but say P did it after being told not to - uh, I'm thinking like MM, kinda D of doubting P and helper spent hours messing around measuring inside of septic tank for giggles....... still, don't sounds convincing when she admits to saying she agreed to let him do job if he did it for $300 - we learn rental was actually $200 - still don't think they had meeting of minds, but I'm now thinking D never agreed to pay more than $300........ wonder if D can prove they hire someone else to do job - yes, eventually we learn someone else was hired and able to make report (without a camera)........... well, here's one question answered - D have been saying they paid $300 and now say they mailed it, but P says when letter came there was no check - so now P's math makes sense, he's not asking for a total of $800 ($500 more plus $300 already received), no he wants a total of $500 (200 for rental and 300 labor) - I can see the miscommunication, but who eats the labor cost (still think D should pay rental - though dude might have gotten discount if he could convince rental place he didn't use camera) - also, P never actually provided the service because he wouldn't give D a report until he was paid......... new element - P says septic failed, says D asked him to pass it anyway and he refused - and of course D denies anything such event.......... it's a rough justice decision based on credibility - After going back and forth, I'm leaning towards P on credibility, but he's the professional and he should have responsibility to have a clear contract........ Close call, but now I believe on morning of job P agreed to accept renegotiated $500 - his story now makes sense while D story doesn't........ MM comes to same conclusion - P gets $500....... in hallterview D now saying he learned P was unlicensed after the to act - which throws out to a the whole reason he says he canceled contract.......... P's final word is yes he is icensed, and I wonder if their county is like mine, where they have an old list of approved contractors with several addendums/amendments and maybe D was just looking at an old list that hadn't been updated - here, what would happen in case like this is when P turned in report he would provide certified copies of license, but then in case he never turned in report Harvey actually answered frequently asked question...... when litigants appear they sign binding arbitration agreement, so when losers leave saying they're going to refile they're just blowing smoke - there is no appeal or refiling

Oops, dueling recaps again........ just 1 thing to add to CRAZYINALABAMA - in second case I believe tenant was saying HE was a laid off bartender with COPD and his neighbor, Kim(?), had asthma and was working ftom home, so neither wanted strangers walking through their apartments

customer furniture fiasco - P hired master carpenter off the Internet to build her some solid walnut furniture for 5 grand and pays him $2700 deposit - they have a written contract and plenty of texts about what was wanted, including pictures and dimensions - I thought the initial timeline of 3-4 weeks was really pushing it, but doable, so wasn't surprised to hear D didn't have it ready - but lordy! 4-5 MONTHS go by and he still doesn't have the first piece completed (promised a living room set of 5 pieces) - after ghosting for awhile, he finally sends an email saying he can't complete the job, wants to keep the money and she can have 1 piece, a coffee table, which he should have done in a week (we never see the completed coffee table)....... solid walnut is way above anything I ever made, but I have made some decent cabinets/stuff with cabinet grade mahogany plywood - my guess is dude needed specialized tools (planer/joiner/biscuit joiner etc to make planks and maybe screwed up the wood trying to do without - don't know, just guessing, but intro said he was out 2 grand for the wood and he might have messed up gluing or maybe the finish and didn't have 2 grand to replace the wood)....... anyway, MM is not buying his unilateral contract revision where he wants to give P a coffee table and keep her full deposit - P awarded her full deposit......... I wonder if he could have gotten some credit had he offered the completed table and a stack of usable lumber, but his offer was 1 piece of furniture for $2700........ landlord/tenant dispute with some a covid twist - P is a landlord upset who decides to sell the property - seems there's also a kitty dispute - Tenant says he had a cat all along, and now Landlord want's kitty gone - seems tenant did some damage and he wants a couple months rent - P wants a little under a grand....... tenant says when Landlord decided to sell he started bringing crowds of unmasked potential buyers (this was March, 2020) - tenant says he was there 8 years with his cat....... P starts out by saying cat has only been there a year......... oops, dude not going to win points with me dishing on kitty as I've been there and ended up moving when a new owner told me to get rid of my cats - that's when I stopped rented and bought my trailer........ ok, though, according to P when he learned of the cat at resigning of lease he warned guy pets needed to be approved and I suspect maybe a pet deposit was needed - says D agreed, but secretly kept kitty........ ah, but potential buyers spotted kitty and noted D had a no-pet lease, which of course makes seller look bad as buyers wonder what else may be hidden......... sooooooo landlord goes back and reiterates if he keeps cat there needs to be a pet deposit and higher rent (an extra $100 a month?) - says D decided he was moving get out at months end......... over to D to see what he has to say - doesn't look good as he was obviously not living up to lease, and the lease he signed allows for 2 months rent being charged as a fee for breaking the lease - which he did with a few days notice........ ok, D seems to think Landlord owed him a duty to warn him of the upcoming sale of the property, but in my experience complex owners really don't always want tenants to know - anyway, realtor really pushing getting the sale done with lots of showings, nobody masked (this was March - early in covid where we thought the virus was HIGHLY contagious and able to survive on surfaces for days), stress of losing job because of shutdown etc - oh, and we learn D is in high risk because of COPD....... uh oh, and it appears D let realtor show buyers apartment for weeks before raiding his preexisting condition and wanting to halt the showings - and THIS was when P first raises cat issue and says he wants a $200 pet deposit plus $100 a month rent increase - so either get rid of cat or pay up within 48 hours........... this would be WAY out of line here in SW OKLAHOMA, but not sure what things rent for in Treasure Island, Florida......... I thinking this was borderline constructive eviction and/or extortion and D would have been within his rights to hold out for housing court and continue paying at old rate.......... MM agrees - D was in violation of the lease, but Landlord can't arbitrarily slap him with big rent increase or enforce this 2 month fee for breaking the lease......... she also isn't happy with landlord just cutting communication after issuing his ultimatum......... oh, the sale of the property had already fallen through because the buyers pulled out because of covid, so there was no hurry to do anything about the cat that had already been on site for 7 years, yet P issued his 48 hours deadline then stopped answering texts/phone calls........ok, coming at it both as one time renter and a landlord, thought at first P might have had a case - nope, nuh huh, this was an inside/outside cat that P knew about and for whatever reason is claiming it was a brand new arrival............. as I said, MM points out D could have refused to pay the increase and stayed and just thumbed his nose at the landlord until eviction moratorium ends......... oh, and when I went through this as I tenant I was able to show I had the cats before the complex sold. I talked to a guy at free legal aid at Post Housing, and all of a sudden my clowder were grandfathered into my lease without charge - though when it came time for renewal I did have to pay pet deposits - then the next year he decided to require declawing and only 3 cats where I had 5 - i could gave fought the declawing, but by local ordinance we're limited to 3 cats...... so I gave notice and ended up moving - I now have 6 cats in defiance of city ordinance 😼😺😻😾😻😽 - but no landlord

Oh my, JJ is in rare form. First case all she cares about is how foolish P was and how big a man-slut D is with his various baby mamas and P - JJ really doesn't establish any facts or who is lying, but stories couldn't be more different - from the ruling JJ had already decided their was never a loan and isn't going to listen as P tries to show evidence he had made a couple big payments....... Not sure what she saw outside the courtroom, but I have no clue if these two ever lived together, if there was a loan, or WTH happened 2nd case Begins the same way with JJ attacking litigants - this one about a parking lot collision, and JJ goes on attack like somebody didn't have insurance, even though it appears both had insurance - sounds like parking lot version of road rage as the two were driving up and down jockeying to be first in the next empty space - anyway, P says D, who was in front of him, saw an empty space and tried to back up so she could get into space and needed to back up to make it into space - I figure instead of him backing up and letting her back up, he stops and starts honking horn and yelling out window - they collide and P has over $700 in damage - his deductible is too high to cover it, and she tells her insurance he ran into her not that she backed into him - both behaved poorly and should split cost........ JJ still on her rant, rules against D and orders P get full amount, then ignores P as he tries to get more money for lost wages next episode is grumpy old folks feuding at the senior living center apparently they're drunks, thefts, cops involved, restraining orders, arrests, evictions, the whole enchilada.......... I may come back and watch, but for now I'm just thankful not to live anywhere near these two

interstate move and cheap becomes expensive: P hired D to move her household goods from California to Georgia, except he isn't a mover and doesn't know what size truck he'll need to do job - If i got this right, P sent D estimates (more expensive) from a couple professionals who showed what was to be moved, but D shows up in a truck to small to fit everything - he tries to modify the deal, saying he'll make the move in two trips instead of one - but now P has realized he doesn't know what he's doing, backs out and wants the $6800 deposit back (most HB can award is 5 grand grand) - may actually work out to a better deal for D than making trip twice, since he was paying to fly himself and a helper to California plus paying the helper - P gets back 5 grand and D keeps $1800 2nd case is nonsensical loan/investment deal between old friends with neither side having any evidence only evidence in case is a copy of a personal check made out to defendant - these two are men who admit they know nothing about hair extensions, but the 'investment' is to buy hair for some acquaintance of D so she can start doing extensions in her salon - I was laughing so much at the combined stupidity I'm not sure if we ever heard the name of mystery woman - between the two they have nothing in writing, no texts between each other or mystery woman, who I gather P never met, just the personal check made out to D - I was highly skeptical of whole thing and would have just dismissed it - Judge Mike also for dismissal, saying P didn't prove his complaint - but the women, based on fact that D admits he received the money and acted as the go between, hear enough to decide he either stole the money or was conned out of it when he failed to properly safeguard it - they are also highly suspicious of D because mystery woman supposedly took a grand and ghosted, but D didn't report it to police..........

No momentous legal precedents set during today's cases, but fun to watch court tv. first case about rowdy neighbor having big kerfuffle with biker bf at 2am. P watching the screaming match and just enjoying the show until things get a little physical and he sees the combatants pushing and shoving on top of his new car - once he suspects his car is being damaged he decides to call the cops - cops arrive and no obvious physical injuries calling for an arrest - but P's new car has a couple scratches and he's talking about pressing charges - cops negotiate a settlement on scene where D agrees to pay for repairs if P doesn't press charges - i guess cops suggested he present a simple contract with the estimate and get her to sign - he gets the estimate, which MM says is pretty reasonable, but when he presents it to D with an agreement to that she'll pay she decides that's too much money and changes her mind - well, heck, P decides if she isn't living up to the agreement he going to tack on the car rental that he was initially willing to pay for himself - D trying to cast doubt on how scratches actually happened and whether or not P could actually see what he says he saw, but really that doesn't matter since she made a verbal contract, with the cops as witness, that she would pay....... MM points out that if D had signed the agreement P presented with the estimate she would have saved herself from paying for the rental, but since she tried to get out of the agreement D now has to pay that, too....... oh, & pretty simple as to what is owed, since P has already paid for the repair and rental and is just asking to be paid what he paid - wow, no pain and suffering or harrassment claim........ second case is about a room rental in the Florida Keys - not sure how long P planned to stay, but when she arrived turned out the room wasn't what she expected - she expected a quaint (with AC) room in a house on the water, but when she arrived she found the room she had been promised was occupied by a couple squatters who were fighting eviction - unlike the usual litigants which turn out so easy to hate/despise/loath, I think these two just have very different ideas of what is acceptable - Florida Keys lady is sort of elderly and fine with no AC in January - also, she had a replacement room which she said was nicer & bigger (but no AC) - oh, and I guess in the Florida Keys if you're on the water it's no biggy if you have the occasional rat wander in, you just set traps and whack any you see - P is from NC and, like so many folks nowadays, can barely survive temps not between 68-78° - and definitely NO RATS! This lady even tried to sue because her dog was bit by a fire ant - she was NOT HAPPY and left after 11 days - oh, and P is a ventriloquist and MM has Douglas swear in the dummy as a witness (I think this was pure TV entertainment, but also let MM see dummy had a damaged eye with P alleged happened during tenancy - not sure if that was listed in damage claim, but if it was P didn't get anything for dummy's boo-boo)........ only real problem I had with P was that she apparently went crazy adding every little thing onto her damages until she wanted something like $3800...... D had a whole other set of problems resulting from not being upfront with her tenant - she knew a couple months before hand that P was driving down from NC and the squatters were still in the promised room, but she never called to warn the P, instead, depending on who's talking, P found out either once she arrived or the day before when she called from the road - when plaintiff arrives D convinces her to take the room without AC, oh, and warns her about leaving anything laying around because the deadbeat squatters have sticky fingers - I think MM would have overlooked the rat since she agreed they're commonplace on the Keys and D took action immediately by whacking rat - but, again, I think Florida Keys lady much more relaxed about the rat than most would have been......... when decision time comes it came down to P was promised an air conditioned room which turned out not to be available - she also had to deal with sticky fingered squatters who didn't clean up after themselves and helped themselves to her food - oh, and the rats - MM said she might have thought about letting D keep part of the deposit since P was there 11 days, but said there was enough wrong with place that D had to return whole $500........ Judge John had whole bit during after verdict about the Dummy

Boo hiss hated both these litigants. P caused the ruckus - how do you 'mistakedly' park in someone's assigned spot after living there 6 months? - then she was really reaching trying for bonanza money...... OTOH D has anger issues and WAY over acted - fine leave a note, but ripping off wipers on both front and back, then pouring straight undiluted laundry soap all over the car - yeah, I can totally believe P's paint, especially a clear coat finish, was messed up as P didn't discovered the deed for several hours. I was fine with D losing (even though she won'the actually pay) and not impressed with her admitting she done did P wrong

Hmmmmmm my provider is sort of in sync. Only sort of, though, because I'm now scheduled to get two episodes, new in morning and rerun in afternoon, and today had the new episodes shown a second time in the afternoon....... oh, and the order I watched the cases was different than AH's recap For some reason I thought this whole case was a hoot. I agree with MM's decision. Old dude deserved nothing - but kind of regret greedy Camilla got away without paying (though maybe she paid too much putting up with the drunk's cocurtail hour Another funny case - maybe I should stop watching in the morning since I enjoy the cases more in the afternoon. MM must have really been pissed at these snooty defendant's thumbing their nose at their agreement. No way that fence was worth 2 grand - I was thinking D should pay an equivalent amount to the $400 P paid to get rid of tree..... still, there was an actual written agreement for D to repair the fence with no estimate provided, so MM socked it to them. Again, I thought MM may have been overly generous in this award - maybe because she thought homeowner was premature pulling the plug. She awarded over 75% of the total payment for the job, and I was thinking Painter/handyman completed less than half the job since he just painted downstairs and never did backsplash........ I think the award may have had some wrist slapping for the nonsense P was spouting - noway could anyone have completed the job in 1 day as P claimed was the agreement, and she showed pix of work in progress instead of completed work.

Not sure if these were new or not - I just finished watching while I ate and can barely remember them. My HB provider is the same one that provides my TPC - and they have yet to sync what I see to what they say will be on. 1st case fussy homeowner hires landscaper working across street to come redo her landscaping - planning to pay big bucks and gives a $500 deposit. Not sure these two ever really had a deal, as their stories are so different. Homeowner claims guy showed up late on first day, worked 4 hours and never came back. Landscaper agrees he was late first day, couldn't work second day cuz granny died, and when he next showed up she had someone else ready to take over the job....... oh, and both agree 'time was of the essence' as she wanted work done by certain date....... neither side very honest - as DiM points out homeowner has crappy b&w pic showing hospital little dude did while he had much better color pic...... split decision, but can't remember what they decided 2nd case pretty straight forward about a used car lemon deal - unique thing about this lemon is they aren't fighting over the car deal, but over who should pay the parking tickets clunker got after it broke down - Judges aren't even sure who sold D the heap - car registered to P, but he says he gave it to a brother in law when he learned it wasn't worth repairing and gave it or sold it someone else - somehow D got possession and gave someone $500 for the POS - D had it for 4 months and then takes it on a 12-13 hour road trip to LA - D leaves it on a side street and it gets a couple tickets - thing is, P as registered owner gets tickets in mail, pays them off, and now wants D to pay - D says she shouldn't have to pay since it was a POS - Judges say doesn't matter who owned car, she was driving when it crapped out and they were her tickets - D ordered to pay This could have been kind of interesting. At one time, not sure if it's still the case, the seller of a used car in California was responsible for the car until it passed the smog test - even to the point where the buyer could spend more than the car was worth getting it to pass smog and seller would have to pay. Wouldn't have changed decision here as Judges decided D owed for the tickets....... but, California folks, is it still the case D could have paid to repair car to get it to pass smog and demand payment?

Dang! Out of sync again and I had recent reruns - recent covid wedding cancelation and whatever econd case would have been had I watched. Going to have to keep checking reruns to see what's on since my program guide doesn't match and one day this episodes I'm missing will show up being replayed

apartment fire: plaintiff fell asleep after starting her crockpot - fire/smoke/etc and she ends up going out her 3rd floor window - she lost all kinds of priceless crap and wants 10 grand from the landlord (apparently nary a receipt, so trust her it was worth 10 grand)........ I called this early as MM would have had an easier time pulling P's with a pair of rusty vise grips - and what the heck is the story about her jumping out the window - MM asks if there was a fire escape, and P says no, but turns out there were a slides between floors? Seems to me slides should count as an escape route........ anyway, I zipped ahead and head MM saying the fire department said the source of fire was her crockpot pot - she gets nothing........ from hallterview it seems the fire was confined to her kitchen, and landlord even offered her some money when he was actually a victim of her carelessness or faulty crockpot....... no countersuit, though he had a case......... after verdict chat: the chats have definitely turned into a favorite - this time Judge John equates P's case to someone who commits a crime asking for the reward - our 2 judges agree that if the Crockpot was really defective P might have a case against the manufacturer - but say it would be hard to prove and require lots of expert testimony - also, point out that P should have had renters insurance homeowner wants back deposit to contractor: p says she bought a trailer, but trailer park told her she needed to do some upgrades or be fined - she hired D for the job and gave a deposit, but he dragged his feet starting the job & park wanted it done yesterday so she hired a different contractor - now she wants her $700 back....... D says this was actually hurricaine Irma damage - says he was buried in damage repair jobs and P was #3 on his list of jobs when she pulled plug to go with someone else (turns out she was out of state for 2 months working on son's house) - also, seems deposit was actually $2700 and he returned 2 grand - claims he did enough work that he is entitled to keep the other $700.......... ok, my first thought here was to ask why park was threatening to fine her over taking too long to repair hurricaine damage - MM gets that answer pretty fast - seems she bought the trailer after the hurricaine, and her rental agreement in the park required the repairs - and she let it slide for a year before doing anything........ finally park got fed up, and warned her she would be fined unless she provided proof within 14 days that she had someone coming to do repair, proof being a signed contract and pulled permit with completion date within 60 days - ok, that actually sounds pretty reasonable from management....... ok, P losing it here as she really doesn't seem to know what management wanted done when - she apparently got an extention on the 14 days and completion deadline so she could shop around, and she chose D's company - for someone under the gun to get this thing done she doesn't sound like she was in any hurry - she's talking about calling D's company and being told it would be mid-June before anything could be started (yep, almost half the time wasted) and so goes in and signs the contract and puts down the $2700......... fast forward to June 20th and P calls again wondering when construction will begin and is told earliest job will begin would be mid-July - and no guarantee on that as 2 jobs were in front of hers......... uh, something of a switcheroo starting here when first thing we here from D is that he was out of town/state doing work on son's new house......... uh, so when exactly did P paid him to do the job (and did she have a state/completion date on the contract)........ P obviously knew clock was ticking so at best lousy business practice to take money and leave customer hanging for weeks......... D says he talked to park management and they were fine with his delays and he finally arrived to do work end of July - ah, but did he keep customer informed, because she went out and hired someone else while he was out of town - D trying to sell idea that P jumped gun, but MM knows the timeline and says it was actually 5 weeks after P paid the deposit before she fired him and asked for a refund...... P says she hired someone else who started job early August after yet another extension from the park manager........... D calls in his office manager as a witness - and she doesn't do it for me - basically she admits she knew about the deadline in May - so knew time was of the essence - again, poor communication from both sides - D witness saying P knew from beginning that job wasn't going to begin until mid-July and P shaking her head no...... would have been nice if either had text/emails because this is just she/he/she said with some hearsay testimony thrown in........ it's possible P found a cheaper contractor, but seems to me she should have received the full refund unless D can show he did some work......... hoboy, and now D witness really blowing D case as she says 'a lot of these women (which she changes to customers before MM jumps on her with both feet) wait til the last minute' sounds like her idea of customer service is adversarial, us vs them, instead of trying to provide good service........ ok, company owner fine with putting customer'service jobs on hold for 2 months after collecting thousands of dollars and office manager has a 'us vs them' attitude - basically, nothing D side is saying, if true, explains why P would change horses in the middle if the stream - the only way I see that happening is if P thought the construction was to start a month earlier than D says P was told - again, poor communication and everything in writing from park management saying one thing and both sides claiming management extended these deadlines time after time with nobody having evidence of ANY extensions........ ah, and more lousy business/customer service - see, D refunds the $2000 P paid with her credit card (no doubt knowing she'd win if she fought the charges) and then promises to refund $350 of the $700 she paid with cash - but when she shows up to get the $350 they had changed their minds and inform her they're keeping it......... D switches chairs with witness, and his new tact is to continue the 'us vs them' line even though pretty plain to me MM isn't buying that - and now D getting huffy with da'judge as he sees things not going his way........ at best, there was no meeting of minds, only way I see D keeping a penny is if he has proof of some work........... MM agrees - P gets back the $700 after verdict chat nothing much, just stressing importance of a clear contract with start/end dates - and whether completion time is important

Yes, urgeht care clinics cost less. Mainly because of the level of training/staffing requirements. With so many people using ERs for their primary care, the bean counters realised they would save a bunch of money with satellite clinics for non Emergency patients. Emergency medicine is a specialty like other fields, and certified emergency nurses, nurse practicians, PAs, and, of course doctors, earn more than many other fields. NOTE: as cost cutting move a lot of military post/base hospitals are being shut down. Instead of 24 hour care on post at a hospital complete with completely staffed ER, there is now an urgent care clinic. Emergencies are sent off post to the county hospital. As a retiree I am no longer be seen by a primary care provider on post, instead I have to go off post. I DO receive medications on post if they are in stock.

Think I may be back synced with everyone - at least the 3 word descrption on the program guide matches. first up - chihuahua nips P comes off as greedy ambulance chaser dude - typical little yapper, never really trained and owner walking him on a 10 foot retractable leash (as both judges point out, those things do not control a dog) - yapper runs up and nips P - as he backs away yapper nips other ankle - P grabs worthless leash and pulls dog away, which adds scrapes to nip puncture - P claims site swells up, but no pictures of swelling and he went straight to ER - ER and pharmacy costs total over $2700 - but, WTH, he decides to double his claim because of the horrible pain and suffering........ D thinks no biggy, couple small punctures, so he ignores P when he asks for $2700 without providing copies of bills........ very simple case, as bite took place in Florida where there is strictly liability - only way dog owner avoids writing check is if there's proof the 'bitee' was tormenting the dog....... P gets his bills paid, but nothing for pain and suffering...... MM stresses that P is to only keep his deductible and forward rest to his insurance (Doug even mentions it in hallterview) but somehow I bet greedy P pockets the full amount after case chat has judge hubby remembering a case he ruled on where some Norwegian was out sailing in the Caribbean and managed to shoot himself in leg with a flare gun - sailor was first taken to some Caribbean nation where doctors wanted to amputate - he managed to get transferred to Miami where trauma surgeon saved his leg....... then Norwegian sues Miami surgeon for malpractice when leg gets infected next is desperate woman who 'loaned' loser 3 grand: old story that I bailed on early....... P says the two were never in a 'relationship' - yet they were intimate and dude sometimes lives with her and her spawn...... oh, and the whole time she was loaning dude money he was sleeping in her bed she knew he had over women on the side....... MM begins going through the list of things the SSM paid for - I hear about the weed he 'needed' and about tickets so loser could go see his other kids living with 'their' mommies....... that was it for me, lunch was over and I moved back to living room where I had left the remote........ I pick things up in the hallterview where Doug tells us P gets nothing........ then Doug asks if dude comes back tonight for a booty call is SSM going to invite him in - oh, yeah, she says, they're still best friends

Still out of sync, and worse yet they started this morning with a rerun of yesterday's rerun. Just to tick me off a little more, the DVR remembers having already recorded these recent reruns, so I have to manually tell it to record each episode as it skips those it remembers recording.

Not a recap - seems my provider still having trouble syncing with the rest of the country. I just now started what was supposed to be a new episode, and am watching the rerun forensic tape case folks commented last week......... grrrrr get it together folks! They have a rerun scheduled for 4PM, so maybe that will be today's new case......... something else, they never tell give any info about the cases in my program guide. Instead we get a 2-3 word title for the first case: today's new case says "Dog Bite Debacle" and the rerun says "Livid Over a Loan" OTOH, according to the program guide the new episode I'm not watching is a dog bite case, so chances are I would have skipped it