augmentedfourth

That's what I heard, too. And considering all the insurance shenanigans we here on this show, the venue wanting to make sure the insurance is current for that month kind of makes sense. Regardless, even if he didn't have it, I think JJ was right this time in that there was nothing in the contract regarding insurance, so if he didn't have it, the plaintiffs would have been shit out of luck anyway. One of those cases where what's legally correct is annoying, but so be it. I was bored with the first case with the room for rent, but managed to get out a chuckle when the plaintiff sounded like she actually thought JJ would give a damn about her water pitcher.

I'll admit that despite my father's prodding, my husband and I went for a while without wills (and other similar paperwork). We figured if he dies, I get everything, and vice versa; if something like a plane crash took both of us out, the assumption (I know, I know) was that our parents wouldn't fight everything going to his brother, as I don't have any siblings and my parents have way more money and assets than we do anyway. But as soon as the kids came along? We were in the lawyer's office the very next month getting that taken care of. (And yes, a real attorney!)

Double post, nothing to see here!

Re: Fakey McFakerson, NotQuiteEsq. - contract aside (and yes, it was on the plaintiffs to know what they were signing), I think that maybe one of the reasons that JJ seemed to go easy on him was that what the plaintiffs wanted him to do didn't require him to actually be an attorney. The impression I got, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, was that they could have done all the work to get the liquor license themselves, but they had hired him to facilitate the process. Had it been something like they paid him to represent them in court and he wasn't qualified to do so, I'm sure JJ would have raked him over the coals. If he let them to believe he had more credentials than he has in order to win their trust, then yeah, that's super shady, but I'm not sure it's actionable, you know? And the plaintiffs still should have done their research beforehand. The best comparison I can think of is how if I wanted to, I could file my taxes myself because the government allows it, but I have an accountant do it for me. If it turns out the person I hire isn't actually an accountant and botches my taxes, it's not illegal, but the IRS isn't going to care what I thought at the time. It's still on me to look into who I'm dealing with before I hand over any money or trust them with something important. Onto today's case with the three brothers - I kept zoning out because all I could think of was how much I HATE estate cases at work and how they are my least favorite kind of job. Just like these guys, in the cases I've worked, the people are never squabbling over millions. It's all about who they claim Grandpa promised his watch to (the one he kept in a coffee can his whole life), and how their sister screwed the rest of the family over by selling Mom's shitshack for only $150K* when a realtor said it was worth twice that three years ago (before snow caused the roof to cave in and rodents took over, but that doesn't change the value, right?). One of my bosses said they might as well be throwing their money into a blender, because once it's all settled, the lawyers' fees will consume all their winnings anyway. Anyway, as soon as the plaintiffs said they'd contributed nothing to the funeral expenses, I knew they were screwed. Good for the defendant brother for keeping all his documentation. And though, like I said, my attention was in and out, from what I remember, I don't have a problem with the defendant winning on the counterclaim. You can't have it both ways - either your brother is competent enough to handle Mom's affairs, or he's a total fuckup who shouldn't be allowed near his family. I'm glad JJ thought the timing of their accusations against him was a little fishy. (*I'm in the 'burbs of NYC. Even our shitshacks are really expensive.)

The ruling on the claim was completely fair, but man, I wish JJ would have found some way to give the defendant *something*, because sending that picture was a nasty, nasty thing to do. I guess it legally didn't constitute harassment, but still. Ugh. If nothing else, I wish she could have awarded $250 on the counterclaim so the plaintiff ultimately walks away with nothing and maybe, just maybe, learns a little bit of a lesson about not being a total shitbag. I'm torn on the issue: On the one hand, I know these people are grieving, and JJ's right that being angry is easier than being said. But on the other, I can think of at least two other plaintiffs over the years whose children died unexpectedly (though I don't think they were suicides), and just came across as horrible, unsympathetic when they tried suing the people who actually cared about the deceased.

I forgot to mention along with my original snark that I did actually have a case a ways back where a woman filed a lawsuit alleging services she received at a salon caused her hair to fall out. (I think I've mentioned a couple times here before that I'm a stenographer.) I just did the depositions of the defendants, so I don't have the full story, but if memory serves, the owner of the salon and the employee never even knew there was a problem until the plaintiff texted them, weeks later, a picture of her at another salon, all "LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID TO MY HAIR" and claiming she was trying to get the damage fixed by someone else. So she didn't go storming back to the salon the next day, either. And god only knows what she did in the interim (which I'm sure the defense pounced on). Not only did she sue the owner and employee, but she even named the hair product company in the suit. To his credit, the CEO of the company actually hopped on a plane from LA to New York to be deposed and didn't try to fight the subpoena or send an underling in his place. He was a pretty cool guy and decided to just frame it as "Hey, trip to New York, guess I'll go do this for a few hours and then party in Manhattan before flying back." I believe part of the claim alleged that the products that had been used one the plaintiff were expired, and he testified that even if that were true, it wouldn't have made her hair fall out. And that's really all I remember about the case. No, I don't remember off the top of my head which hairstyling company it was. Also, I rarely, if ever, learn the outcome of my cases. Hmm, now I almost feel like digging through my files to reread them. /coolstorybro

I would bet a large chunk of that $5000 that she thinks alopecia is a contagious disease she caught in the guy's salon. (Though that's not really a fair bet since she even said near the end that she doesn't even know what it is.) I couldn't keep track of the timeline of this story or whose version of events sounded more plausible, but the one thing I did believe was when the plaintiff said it took her forever to get an appointment with the dermatologist, because I have the same problem. The practice I see isn't even all that good and only makes me think of the "Pimple Popper, MD" joke from Seinfeld since they barely DO anything, but I still have to wait a month to have someone look at me for 30 seconds.

Judge Judy totally slut-shamed that pony. Had it been a human woman, I would have been appalled, but as it stands, I had my 4:00 entertainment with the suggestion that the female horses were asking for it, and maybe even went looking for the stallion. Perhaps I need to re-examine my morals.

I know! He was like the Robert of this episode! :-X (Poor Robert. I like him most of the time, but he does get passed over an awful lot.) That wedding seemed like an awful reenactment. Or maybe I'm just hoping it was, because even if you're best friends with Kevin, are you really going to allow all the Shark Tank cameras in to use your wedding to help boost products that have appeared on the show? It's not a terrible idea, and he's right when he says common sense re: pricing goes out the window when it comes to wedding planning, but I just can't see him as the new face of weddings. Maybe too many "you're dead to me!"s over the years. I avoid valet parking, my reading glasses stay on just fine, and I'm not the target market for the wooden stuff, so it doesn't matter that I thought they looked dumb. When they said it was a good conversation piece for meeting women, I told Mr. Fourth that I wouldn't have dated him had he been wearing a wooden bowtie, flower, or fedora. He started to say that maybe some of them were cool, but then I told him if he bought one, he had to grow a neckbeard to go along with it to truly complete the look. However. He liked the Foot Cardigan people, went to their website, and was put off by the pricing. So I emailed the link to my mother, who is always looking for birthday/Christmas gift ideas for him. She's of a much higher tax bracket and didn't flinch at the cost, so I guess I'll let you all know how many pairs come to our house and what they're like....

Same here on both counts. There's one adult in this house who deals with anything even remotely involving the computers (routers, networks, printers, etc.), and it sure as hell isn't my husband. I said all throughout that pitch that there were plenty of free apps available that did basically the same thing. I don't mind the trashing those guys got, because I didn't think it was undeserved - maybe a new contender for Worst Pitch Ever? I usually don't have a problem with Lori, but UGH, she did not come off well with her "woman's perspective". For the other products - I do like hummus and fancy salad dressings, so I'd be willing to give that stuff a try. The guy seemed to have his act together, and I think he made a good deal. Mark's pouting was amusing, and as my husband said, when's the last time we saw an update on a food product with Mark involved? When the edible cup girls first walked on, their voices and personalities grated on me, but as time passed, I liked both them and their product. Obviously it's not going to be an every day thing, but for the novelty aspect, and the idea that it's a fun thing to have at a party or event, I thought it was priced just right. If I remember, maybe I'll plan something with them the next time we have people over. Despite my ladybits, I have zero interest in eyelash extensions. Maybe my technical know-how cancels that out. I have mixed feelings about the crying speech, but I think the eyelash woman would be wise to listen to Mark and grow her business that way. (And get on those patents, if possible! I think she might have fared better if she'd had the patent in hand before her appearance.)

I actually checked my phone a couple times during the episode because the ding from Riley's phone is the same notification I have for Facebook Messenger. I thought that was a nice touch, considering that teenagers using social media to bully their classmates is absolutely a thing. For me, this wasn't the best episode, but it wasn't the worst episode, either. A lot of the flaws have already been pointed out, but before I caught on that the bullying was mostly via text/Facebook/whatever, my biggest qualm was "When did this person have time to bully Riley when she's always with Maya?" Also, when Cory was naming all the other students in the class (finally!), I thought it was going to be because one of them was going to be revealed to be the bully, and I actually liked that the bully wasn't outed as one of them. But yeah, I would have expected at least a scoff and a huff from the unseen bully instead of he/she just slinking away. Sometimes this show is ridiculously cheesy and over the top, and other times, it hits the nail on the head so accurately, I'm transported back to my teenage years to relive the awkwardness and the drama. This time, I was forced to remember the time when I was 15 and my then best friend just stopped talking to me out of the blue, no reason given. Ah, teenagers.

I think it's *possible* the babysitter wasn't boinking the babydaddy. But if she wasn't, she definitely *wants* to, and is probably using the logic of thinking if he sees her all the time at his house taking care of his kids anyway, maybe she can just sliiiiiiiiiiide right into position between those sheets. Either way, JJ could have cleared it up real fast: just ask the babysitter how much she's getting paid to watch the kids. If it's a low enough figure (probably with some mumbled excuses as to why), well, then there's our answer right there.

I think I missed most of the plot of the TV/vacation tickets case because I was mesmerized by the plaintiff's choice of clothing. So many patterns! Leopard print! Watercolors! Some sort of cartoon-ish swirls! All in a flowy caftan style! I can't decide if it was fabulous, hideous, or some combination of the two.

For being on the show, what, all of three minutes? Mr. 3Ws edges pretty close to the top of my list of "Most Obnoxious Litigants". I couldn't tell if he was playing it up for the cameras, thinking he'd get his big break in California, or if he was legitimately that much of an ass. Either way, what a twit. I'm pretty sure the mics picked up (but JJ didn't) the plaintiff muttering "it's about time" under his breath after that great shutdown. In that case, I agree that the plaintiff was a little excitable and was probably asking for way more than he was entitled to, but the defendant struck me as being very greedy and just...cold.

I feel like a big chunk was edited out of the "Forgeries?" case - on the surface, both litigants seemed reasonably put-together, well-dressed, probably employed (I think the plaintiff mentioned a job? I don't remember), and just more...I don't know, with it than a lot of the recent litigants. But I kind of agree with JJ that if the plaintiff had a checking account and didn't use it to just write the defendant a check, there might have been something a little shady going on. And I don't even remember what the defendant's counterclaim was. That said.... The litigants in the "Parasites" case also seemed fairly put-together at first glance...and then they just kept spiraling downward as the case went on (and on and on). This was another one of those cases where I couldn't tell who was more in the right/wrong than the other, but I'm just glad I don't have to personally deal with either one of them.

Oh man, the kerfuffle over the handicapped parking space might be the highlight of the season for me. I don't read here before the new episodes, and there might have been a second kerfuffle if Toaster Strudel had rated the case anything less than four gavels, so we're safe. ;) I could have gladly spent the entire half hour watching JJ tear into those idiots. The reaction from the audience when Mrs. Defendant said she was a teacher was priceless.

I learned to drive in NY (not the city, but the 'burbs) and I was taught it was permissible to enter an intersection when waiting to make a left. That said, around here (still NY), it depends on the intersection on whether or not I actually do it. And even if it is legal in that jurisdiction, considering the plaintiff was going straight, it looks like the defendant was too far over to the left (his left) to make it safe. That issue aside, based on the photographs of the damage to the defendant's car, I didn't have any problems with JJ's ruling. I'm no accident reconstruction expert, but it looked like the whole front of the defendant's car was banged up and crumpled. To me, that indicates that he was the one who hit the plaintiff's car and sent him flying, not that the plaintiff was speeding in a straight line and happened to swipe part of his car.

Byrd, obviously! (Poor Byrd gets stuck as the example whenever that sort of question comes up.)

You forgot the part where each sorority sister allegedly pays $500 for that week of clothes. And obviously the same clothes can't be used from year to year. I went to a school that didn't have a big Greek life (and even if I had, that doesn't sound like my sort of thing AT ALL) and I also thought the dresses were fugly and way over-priced, but I did have to hand it to those two girls. They figured out how to tap into a niche market where their customers are apparently willing to pay high prices, and they had good plans (promising exclusive designs, branching out into the bridesmaid dresses for women who want all their former sorority sisters to be their attendants). Again, totally not my thing, but good for them, I guess. Also, while I usually love Robert, I definitely don't think he was the best partner for that deal. Maybe it's sexist of me, but I just can't see him bringing a lot to the table there. Someone more knowledgeable than me will know if he's ever done any fashion-themed deals before, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Normally I might agree with you, but let's face it, $40K is pocket change for the two of them. If they lose it, they shrug and move on. I could see both sides of the argument, but I'm leaning towards Lori and Daymond and don't think they did anything egregious. Come on, every single shark on the show has done the "take my deal right now or I'm rescinding my offer" bit. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I agree that it would have been nice to hear more about how the app actually worked, but if Lori and Daymond were willing to put up the money without that information, that's their problem. (Not to mention if they go forward and a technical issue does arise, I'm sure they each have plenty of contacts to call up and/or hire to fix it.) And Kevin's argument that the guy could have walked away with more money from another shark was just ridiculous - just because Lori and Daymond are giving him a certain amount now doesn't mean they can't put more money into the business in the future. Meh. Just another reality TV moment that was totally blown out of proportion by the commercials and promos for it. It's not going to change anything on the show in the long run, and I doubt it'll affect any personal relationships (for better or worse) that much, either.

I fail to see why calling someone out for failing to provide a service they paid for and not having the proper business documentation to keep track of transactions makes them "dickishly pushy". As others have mentioned, some people don't mind treating themselves to nice bed linens. For me, I only use my comforter about four months out of the year and there's always at least a sheet between it and my body, so even if it were a year old, it could have very well been in good condition. But hey, I guess if the woman had dropped her dog off at the groomer and the groomer accidentally gave her dog away to someone else and didn't bother trying to track it down, the woman shouldn't be dickishly pushy and sue, because she can just go get another dog for free at the shelter, right? I had the TV on for all of today's cases...and can barely remember anything about them. Yaaaaaawn. Some of the one-gavel ratings were generous. I miss sweeps week.

Yep, I was totally fine with that ruling. Call me a snob, but there's a big difference between a $30 comforter and a $300 comforter, and to me, that's one of those things where I don't think she should be expected to go out and get a used one for whatever someone claims is the depreciated value. It didn't hurt that the dry cleaner acted like an ass. Mr. Fourth only halfway pays attention to JJ when I watch, and he even said "Didn't the dry cleaners have any records or way to figure out who actually had the comforter?" It sounded like the guy was just stringing the plaintiff along and had no real intentions of helping her out (even though it was completely his responsibility), and I probably would have been calling a lot and showing up to voice my complaints, too. Snooooore on most of the other cases. Except I did chuckle a little when the rottweiler puppy defendant tried to claim he didn't sign the agreement and JJ pointed out to him that she just compared the signature on the notebook paper to the one on his answer for the show. You could actually see the wheels trying to turn in his head and come up with a way to get around that, and fail miserably.

There's a difference between auto insurance and the others, though. I believe it's illegal in most jurisdictions (if not all?) to drive an uninsured vehicle, which seems perfectly fair to me. If you don't have health, dental, life, etc. insurance, you're only hurting yourself if something happens, but the law is there so if you plow into another person while driving your car, that other person (hopefully) isn't totally screwed. I won't argue that JJ often is out of touch with a lot that goes on with her lower-income litigants, but I have zero problem with her tearing into uninsured drivers, because she's absolutely right. If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford to drive a car, and the lack of funds isn't an excuse for breaking the law. Also, I saw no evidence that the defendant wanted to "make things right". Try to cover his ass, sure. But all I heard from him regarding the actual accident was the excuse that the plaintiff was going too fast and/or should have seen him as he cut across multiple lanes of traffic. No apologies, no attempts to work things out, no offer to at least pay for part of her damages when he knew damn well he had no insurance to cover what happened at the time. I'm sticking with my original label of "sleaze".

I'm sure there was tons of backstory in the mother/son/house case that we weren't privy to. From the hallterview, the son seemed to imply that Mom's shafted him in the past (which I can actually believe), but on the flip side, he doesn't come across as a knight in shining armor for buying her $400K house for $2600 and then kicking her out with nowhere to go. I was left feeling the same way I do at the conclusion of a lot of these cases - they both came off as people I'm glad I have nothing to do with. However, while I won't lose sleep over it, I was a little surprised at the ruling. Sure, whatever agreement they had was convoluted as hell (and maybe not legal?), but it boiled down to he gave her money in exchange for her promising to do XYZ, then she never did XYZ or seemed to have any intentions of doing so. It bugged a little that JJ wouldn't even look at the messages he claimed to have. I felt like if it was a car, not a house, he would have won something, which led me to wonder - could JJ have issued an order directing Mom to sign the house over to him? Hmm.... I was always a bit of a goody two-shoes growing up (and into adulthood) and always tried to do the "right" thing, so it makes me happy when we get litigants like the 20-year-old plaintiff in the U-turn case who have their shit together. Especially since the younger generations are rarely represented well on this show. (Miracle and Malika, I'm looking at you. Also, I think most of the yesterday's litigants were in their early 20s, and none of them came across as well as U-Turn Plaintiff.) The defendant was a sleaze and I'm glad JJ tore into him the way she did, rather than reverting to "older driver + younger driver = younger driver always at fault".

I've given this some thought over the years. If I was ever a litigant on the show* and whoever was on the other side really was telling outrageous lies about me, would I have the self-control to keep my mouth shut until it was my turn? Granted, I'm sure that most of the "that's a lie!" outbursts are lies themselves, or at least whatever the other side is saying has some grain of truth to it, but it still makes me think. I've eventually arrived at the conclusion that I think I'd be able to hold it in, but the camera would most likely pan over to me making "seriously?" faces and giving some major side-eye. *I hope to never appear on this show as a litigant. However, it is my not-so-secret fantasy to somehow be peripherally involved with a case and get a phone call from JJ in her fake office with the fake books. I would die a happy woman if that ever happened.