All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AngelaHunter]

Gee. Finally caught up. "The course of true love never did run smooth."  Carelessly spawned babies, vandalism, physical altercations, kicking, police stations, restraining orders, court dates and 65" TVs and whole lot of "You understand what I"m sayin'?". Actually I can see why that question was posed multiple times because I really didn't understand what the genius was sayin' half the time. But I get it - I too always run as fast as I can whenever I see a police officer especially if I'm in front of the police station yelling and screaming like a lunatic, but sadly these days that's not very fast at all. And here I thought my youthful relationships had drama. And they all seem to act as though all this insane and/or violent crap is no big deal to them.

Horse lady was unbearable. Everything about her was annoying in the extreme, from her stupid, inappropriate grinning that she seemed to think precious, to her duhh "witness" (who truly didn't seem to know if was afoot or horseback) to her idiotic claims. Really, someone her age shouldn't be such a clueless ninny who expects everyone else to hold her hand, be her advocates and mindful of her interests. I really feel sorry for her horse. If anything happens to it I'm sure that will be someone else's fault too.

[nora1992]

Regarding the driveway-contractor case and JJ’s conviction that a straight driveway requires no more material than a curved one: airplanes follow a curved path between two points because that saves on fuel.  But as so many have already noted, JJ won’t let reality get in the way of her preconceived notions.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, nora1992 said:

airplanes follow a curved path between two points because that saves on fuel.

Well, actually most flights follow a straight line on a globe, it only looks like a curved path based on mercator projections, the shortest routes are along the great circle routes.. There are also prevailing winds so that airlines choose the route that  is the most economically vialble. But JJ is still completely wrong on her analysis based on simple geometry.

Edited February 25, 2019 by DoctorK

[nora1992]

7 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Well, actually most flights follow a straight line on a globe, it only looks like a curved path based on mercator projections, the shortest routes are along the great circle routes.. There are also prevailing winds so that airlines choose the route that  is the most economically vialble. But JJ is still completely wrong on her analysis based on simple geometry.

You've lost me.  Between that and this - https://gisgeography.com/great-circle-geodesic-line-shortest-flight-path/ 

Or why is it that when you see flight paths on a map they always take a curved route between 2 cities?  It’s because planes travel along the true shortest route in a 3-dimensional space.  This route is called a geodesic or great circle route. They are common in navigation, sailing and aviation.

I'm still confused.  I keep imagining the strings my 3rd grade teacher used on a globe to illustrate how the curved path required less string and thus less fuel.  But then, I went to 3rd grade before the personal computer.  Can I sue someone over that fact? 🙂

[funky-rat]

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 6:39 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Suing for return of furniture from former tenant/defendant by landlady/plaintiff.     So he said he would be out by 31 January, moves out early, and doesn't tell the landlady so she can show the room.    Then the landlady says the tenant took a desk, chair, and lingerie (did I hear that right?).  Supposedly the former roommate met the defendant, and the former roommate gave him the furniture, man owes $550 for the January rent, and has to return the desk and chair.     There is a bad vibe coming off of plaintiff, and defendant, and the plaintiff witness looks like he's going to fall on the floor at any second.      

A "Lingerie" is a tall narrow chest of drawers.  Most people I know call them Lingerie Cabinets or Lingerie Chests.  We have one.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Thanks, I wondered about the lingerie remark, I don't know if the landlady got that back, or just the desk and chair.  

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 2/23/2019 at 5:22 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Well, the ex-Mrs. Doane really really wanted to be married, didn't she? Ms. Doane, really?  Okay, she's large but so what? She's bright, pretty and successful but look what she picked(!!) and now she's stuck paying this useless schlub failure 1400$/month in alimony? Alimony? I thought that died many years ago, because the concept that one person must continue to support the either even after they are divorced and now are legal strangers boggles my mind.

Back in the day when I went to mediation I was advised NOT to ask for alimony as the Ex could have turned around and asked ME for alimony had he lost one of his myriad of jobs he had since that time. Plus it keeps one tethered to an Ex and the court system for a long time (spent several years trying to collect about four grand in unpaid medical bills for a child, etc from EX - did you know you can get a judgement and still not get paid? Even if you attach bank accounts which the person closes and a job which they quit rather than pay those bills, and then move away?) 

On 2/23/2019 at 5:22 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Ms. Grable. o.m.g. She gets financial aide, with which she buys whatever that frickin' mess on her head is (it reminded me of the braided macrame hanging plant holders I had back in the day) and paying for the plaintiff's old beater car.

That hair was just brutal. I have a personal aversion to Caucasians with those braids - and the grill was just the rancid icing on a very nasty cake. One of my family members has an extended family member who looks and acts like Ms. Grable and I just wanna stick a pencil in my eye when I see pics of her actin' out at family occasions. 

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

That hair was just brutal. I have a personal aversion to Caucasians with those braids

The other day there was a Caucasian defendant contractor who had the affectations of a black gangster. In addition to being very off putting, I find that disrespectful to the culture that’s not yours and that you’re imitating. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Daughter of Ms. Ham-Brown (don't google it, the ham pictures made me hungry). certainly has nothing to add does she?   I do believe that the $4k wasn't just for the trip, and they did get some money back, but if something says no refunds, or non-refundable deposit, then you're stuck.     I think the defendant is ticked that late Mommy spent so much money, and time with the plaintiff, but I don't think the plaintiff deserves much back either.     If you want a refund on a trip, get trip insurance.    I don't like the plaintiff's daughter, and suspect she's behind the increasing amounts.     

I don't know why the defendant's late mother was putting everything on her credit cards.   When I traveled with others, I put reservations and tickets on my credit card, but the travel was linked in the computers.     $4k for the plaintiff, and I don't think she deserved all of it.    I think part of it was repayment for a loan, or something.   

Illegal eviction-Another tenant that thinks he can live in a place as long as he wants to, instead of according to the lease.   I can see why the landlord disliked him, and suspect he was a total pain as a tenant.     I love it, the tenant cashed the check, and that's it.     I hope the current landlord saw this, and is very afraid, because they should be.   

Repeat-

Dog sitter doesn't care that the owner's dog dug out of the fence at the sitter's house, and was killed by a car.    This plaintiff keeps smirking about the dog dying, and actually posted an email (or on social media) to the woman saying she was glad the dog died.   The pet sitter was supposed to visit the dogs at the owner's house, and live there at night, during the time the owner was gone. Instead defendant took the dogs (4 small dogs) to her house, where the tragedy happened.    Defendant was to stay all night, and her live-in boyfriend would watch her dogs at defendant's house.    Defendant still whining about not being paid for this fiasco.     I hope the Veterinarian that referred this woman to the plaintiff doesn't refer her any longer.      Plaintiff gets $1500.  

Next case plaintiff leases a car for another person with lousy credit, and we can all guess what happened next. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I find that disrespectful to the culture that’s not yours and that you’re imitating. 

The blonde braids with long dark roots annoyed me, the braids themselves not at all

[SandyToes]

So was today "Deaf Defendant" day?!  Pretty much all of 'em just kept on blathering when JJ told them to (actually!) "Shut up and listen!"

Forget turning off their mics.  We now really need the oft-mentioned trap door.  With a hungry Rancor waiting underneath...

It would give Byrd something new to do!

[Florinaldo]

52 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$4k for the plaintiff, and I don't think she deserved all of it.

I agree. She should have been awarded only what was actually refunded to the deceased or her estate. She paid her money, she took her chances and  should have absorbed the loss. As you said, that is what travel insurance is for.

I think I understand why the deceased handled all of the travel arrangements for the two of them because P seemed easily confused; she made is sound as if she had personally received the refunds from the vendors. Thankfully for her the daughter was there and explained that although they were the ones who discussed with the companies, the refund was to her friend's credit card.

Part of the 4k$ may have been for other purposes but there was no evidence to convincingly support it and the defendant came across as a real ass instead of the dutiful executor image he should have tried to project.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Illegal eviction-Another tenant that thinks he can live in a place as long as he wants to, instead of according to the lease.

What a total, over-aged hipster smart-ass he was. I can just imagine what having him for a tenant was like. It's not an eviction when your lease terminates and the landlord does not renew it, you pompous tool.

4K trip? I could not stand the sight or sound of the little, tiny, douchebag-haired pipsqueak def. I couldn't even stand his pukey brother or his wife and they didn't even say anything. Plaintiff didn't give the money to the travel agent or airline. She gave it to def. mother so she should recover all of it from def's estate, IMO since there was no trip. They had been friends for decades and did things casually. I'm sure the "etc" was for incidental expenses like food or gas or whatever might come up.

These two cases were enough for me.

[augmentedfourth]

I didn't hate the defendant in the $4000 vacation case, though I didn't really love him either, and I think JJ was a little tough on him. I HATE doing estate cases at work, and most of the lawyers I've worked with will say that as soon as someone dies, be prepared for everyone to show up out of nowhere and claim they're owed something. I can't really blame the defendant for wanting more documentation, especially if he's responsible as the executor of the estate. The figure of $1200 was thrown around somewhere in text messages, and then someone mentioned $3900, and then there was that "vacation, etc." in the memo of the $4K check. I won't argue that he might have been partially motivated by greed to get out of paying the woman back, but I agree with him that the amount of the debt wasn't as clear-cut as JJ thought, and who knows who else he's dealing with in regard to his mother's estate.

[Byrd is the Word]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I don't know why the defendant's late mother was putting everything on her credit cards.

One word. Elderly

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$4k for the plaintiff, and I don't think she deserved all of it. 

Agree. Furthermore there was not enough evidence on the plaintiff’s side to warrant the JJ’s hostility and indignation. I wouldn’t base my defense on the “et cetera” note but I would certainly like some sort of accounting from the plaintiff before handing over $4,000. The old woman wasn’t all there and the well intended daughter didn’t impress me with her bookkeeping skills. Best guess is that the judgement was fair to both parties. 

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I can see why the landlord disliked him

I didn’t like him the moment he opened his word hole adorned with the Buffalo Bill soul patch.

[Byrd is the Word]

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

the defendant came across as a real ass instead of the dutiful executor image he should have tried to project.

Initially I followed JJ’s lead and cast him as the villain in this drama, particular with his silly reliance on the “et cetera” element. But he scored points with for weathering a strong character assignation of himself and his family from her royal highness without losing his mud. Then as the details of the financial transactions were and were not revealed I found myself empathizing with him some. Speaking from experience, I don’t envy anyone trying to decipher the finances of an elderly woman.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Next case plaintiff leases a car for another person with lousy credit, and we can all guess what happened next.

Why anyone would extend credit to an individual that credit professionals shun is one of life’s mysteries. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Florinaldo]

42 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Then as the details of the financial transactions were and were not revealed I found myself empathizing with him some. Speaking from experience, I don’t envy anyone trying to decipher the finances of an elderly woman.

Acting as executor is a chore, even when the finances are in order (I have done it twice). In this case, judging from how the two ladies dealt with their holiday trip transactions I suspect things were not all tidy, partcularly with regards supporting documents the disorganised plaintiff(s) managed to produce. However dutiful he was, he did not present himself very skillfully and frequently came across as a pernickety ass. Which may explain the scorn JJ heaped on him and why she awarded too much (in my view) to P as I wrote earlier.

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Another tenant that thinks he can live in a place as long as he wants to, instead of according to the lease. 

Who also believes there is a moral and legal obligation imposed on the landlord to renew the lease at the tenant's will, and that he must be compensated for the expenses and "inconvenience" of moving when the lease ends or is not renewed.

[AZChristian]

I've traveled with friends before.  No one on a regular basis as seemed to be in yesterday's case, but with various friends throughout the years.  Here's my take.

I have a Southwest Airlines Visa card.  Every penny I spend gets charged to that card, and I pay off the full balance at the end of every month, so it costs me nothing but the annual fee.  And I get LOTS of flight points for doing that.  This year, hubby and I are doing a trip from Phoenix to Cleveland, driving around Ohio and ending up in Columbus, flying to Baltimore, then flying from Baltimore to Phoenix - all for about $40.  

When I traveled with my friends, we would sit down ahead of time and figure out the cost of the trip for each of us.  I had a detailed spreadsheet, and everyone would have a copy.  I would handle all the travel arrangements, deposits, etc.  Each fellow traveler who wanted me to handle arrangements for them would write me a check at the beginning for their share of the KNOWN costs.  I would charge everything to my Visa card, and pay it off with my friends' checks, and my portion came out of my bank account.  But I got ALL those glorious points for free.  Sometimes I charged things for them, and it was marked on the spreadsheet.  At the end of the trip, we'd settle up accounts.  

Fortunately, no one died in the middle of the planning.  Even for an organized person, it could have been a mess.

[configdotsys]

The $4k case was a perfect example of even if you are right, I hope you lose because you come across as a pissy little dickhead. I hated the defendant and his attitude and there was no way he was going to win me back. Maybe he was right and the old lady was trying to get over but I'm just not so sure. Maybe the plaintiff did owe the deceased money and thought that she could weasel out of it so she tried to portray the $4k as all for the trip and perhaps incidentals but that's tough for me to believe for some reason.

As @AZChristian said in her post, she divided up the amounts for friends and they paid their known share up front. I thought the "etc" that the plaintiff put on the check was because while the airline tickets and hotels and what have you were static amounts-- and maybe that is where the $3900 came in-- if the deceased was to put their dinners or other things on her credit card (maybe she wanted it that way for miles or points, too), the plaintiff rounded up and gave her $4k with the intention of giving her more later depending on what they spent. 

I wish JJ would have asked the plaintiff when was the last time she bought new furniture. If the deceased paid for plaintiff's new furniture in a loan, where was the check or the credit statement from Acme Furniture that pissboy could have shown JJ? Wouldn't he have gone through records to see where it was purchased? And what was the "I don't have access," bs about? He's the executor of course he has access. I found that shady.

This may have been one of those situations in which the defendant did not know the plaintiff and treated her in a suspicious way which in turn pissed off the plaintiff because she was friends with the deceased for 40 years, they traveled and hung out together and it's a shit feeling when you have that kind of close relationship that's genuine and some relative comes along after the person dies and treats you like you are a nobody because you're not related or that you're just trying to "steal" from the family or whatever. That's a horrible thing. 

This case reminded me of the absolutely disgusting siblings who sued the father's girlfriend to whom he left a life estate. When JJ said to the piece of shit son that the defendant was his "day" for five years and made him happy, the son said, "I made him happy for 50 years." I wanted to smash through the TV and throttle both of them. This guy was nowhere near their level of revolting but I couldn't get those two out of my mind as I watched this.

[KittyMom4]

On 2/25/2019 at 10:25 AM, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Back in the day when I went to mediation I was advised NOT to ask for alimony as the Ex could have turned around and asked ME for alimony had he lost one of his myriad of jobs he had since that time. Plus it keeps one tethered to an Ex and the court system for a long time (spent several years trying to collect about four grand in unpaid medical bills for a child, etc from EX - did you know you can get a judgement and still not get paid? Even if you attach bank accounts which the person closes and a job which they quit rather than pay those bills, and then move away?) 

My mediator advised me the exact same thing, and my attorney advised me to not go after his pension plan because I could always use that as a bargaining chip if he decided to be a dick about child support. 

[funky-rat]

26 minutes ago, configdotsys said:

This may have been one of those situations in which the defendant did not know the plaintiff and treated her in a suspicious way which in turn pissed off the plaintiff because she was friends with the deceased for 40 years, they traveled and hung out together and it's a shit feeling when you have that kind of close relationship that's genuine and some relative comes along after the person dies and treats you like you are a nobody because you're not related or that you're just trying to "steal" from the family or whatever. That's a horrible thing. 

Or.....this woman was a "needy" friend.  My mom's "BFF" is like that, and she drives me up the wall.  She knows my mom did OK for herself and that my dad has Agent Orange and VA disability and his pension plan on top of SS, and they are very comfortable, and she takes advantage.  While she doesn't ask my mom for loans or the like (my mom has been burned too many times by others - she knows better), this friend will want to go shopping 60 miles away (shopping here generally sucks and we have to go to bigger cities), and she'll conveniently not know the way around (hint: she does), or she'll be low on gas, or will be out after dark and she doesn't like to drive after dark, so my mom will have to run the 30 miles to pick her up, then while they're out, she'll be short on cash so my mom will buy her lunch, or make a small purchase for her.  It annoys my dad to no end because it's so one sided.

She will also want to make a pit stop at a casino (where she'll have money to burn, natch), or go to play high stakes BINGO, sometimes on an overnight trip, where my mom will pay for the hotel (and likely meals).  My mom has always shared her winnings with those she goes with, and expects others to do the same, but her "BFF" won't.  She always has some dire need and can't share, but she'll accept a stake in other people's winnings.

I went out with the two of them once, and only once.  Never again.  She'd ask my mom stupid questions, some of which would upset her.  It got me very upset and I told her so.  I picked the restaurant to have dinner at, because I knew my mom would be paying.  All her friend  did was gripe about it, and loudly.  I was embarrassed.

I wouldn't care so much if it wasn't so one-sided.  If my mom was in straits and needed a hand for something, this woman would NOT be able to help in any way whatsoever.  So it's just a thought that perhaps the Plaintiff was one of these people who takes advantage.  Or perhaps not.  If I were in that situation and my mom's "BFF" demanded varying amounts of money, I'd sure as heck be asking for a detailed accounting.

[AZChristian]

I think we've all been exposed to "friends" like that.  Most of us are smart enough to dump them.  But I suspect that if that HAD been the case, defendant would have made a point of bringing it up to Judge Judy.  

If his first reaction when the plantiff asked for the money back was, "My mother is dead," it infers to me that he was probably trying to duck out on ALL of Mama's financial obligations with that.  His whole attitude screamed "selfish a**hole" to me.

[funky-rat]

10 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I think we've all been exposed to "friends" like that.  Most of us are smart enough to dump them.  But I suspect that if that HAD been the case, defendant would have made a point of bringing it up to Judge Judy.  

If his first reaction when the plantiff asked for the money back was, "My mother is dead," it infers to me that he was probably trying to duck out on ALL of Mama's financial obligations with that.  His whole attitude screamed "selfish a**hole" to me.

Perhaps.  If it were me, I wouldn't have drug out all the sordid details and been more like the Defendant, but that's just me. And we don't know all the details - but I can see some of what he was saying.  He could have presented it a little better, but he was a little bit of a jerk.

I would love for my mom to dump this woman, but she doesn't have a lot of friends anymore - some have died, many have moved to warmer climates, and I don't want to see her not have any friends at all.

[Florinaldo]

35 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

Or.....this woman was a "needy" friend.

I also suspect that the deceased provided the brains in this relationship and compensated for the plaintiff's mental fuzziness. At least that is what I concluded from her confused testimony and apparent disorganisation; fortunately for her the daughter was a little more cogent, although not that much.

It's too bad that the defendant acted like such a jerk beause he was at least partially in the right to ask for more info and supporting documentation, but he alienated just about everyone, starting with JJ.

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess is the plaintiff was the type of friend you have to do everything for, or nothing gets done.    I bet the defendant's late mother was the leader in everything, because the plaintiff couldn't or wouldn't do the planning, and actually book the trip herself.     I know people like the late mother, and they always have someone they do everything for, because they need to be needed.       If the plaintiff had just shown the statements to the defendant, then it might have been worked out before it ever went to court, but that never happened.    I suspect the defendant and his brother thought the plaintiff was a leech, and the mother was used by her.  

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

It's too bad that the defendant acted like such a jerk beause he was at least partially in the right to ask for more info and supporting documentation, but he alienated just about everyone, starting with JJ.

In defense of this defendant, Her Royal Highness came out of the blocks with a full frontal assault on the man’s character and hurled insults at him the likes of which we don’t hear often. He never even had an opportunity to alienate her, she was furious before he even opened is mouth. He was certainly not the most likable sort, but if you look at his entire defense, it was based on the lack of clarity to the entire, expensive transaction. This was actually a pretty good case for an arbitrator to decide; two reasonable people who can’t settle an important disagreement themselves. The woman was certainly entitled to some sort of refund and any executor who wrote her a $4,000 check based on the information he had would be neglecting his fiduciary duty to the estate's heirs. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[poeticlicensed]

I wanted to know more about the 4k trip. If each of them were kicking in 4k and I am assuming they would be doing a room share, that is one expensive trip. They should have used a travel agent, who could have divided expenses between them, therefore generating a paper record and no need for check writing.   

I think the problem is that many grown children have no idea what their elderly parents were doing re:money. And many times parents don't want their grown kids in their financial business, which is their right, but that leaves the executor to untangle the mess I have a friend whose 90 year old mom was writing checks to anyone who called her claiming to be a charity. She ended up having to get power of attorney over her mom to stop her from giving her money away to anyone who wanted it. 

I think there was a trip and I think there may have also been money passing back and forth between the two for years. Then the executor ends up being the bad guy. They were lucky to get any refunds at all. What a mess. 

[tabloidlover]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I think we've all been exposed to "friends" like that.  Most of us are smart enough to dump them.  But I suspect that if that HAD been the case, defendant would have made a point of bringing it up to Judge Judy.  

If his first reaction when the plantiff asked for the money back was, "My mother is dead," it infers to me that he was probably trying to duck out on ALL of Mama's financial obligations with that.  His whole attitude screamed "selfish a**hole" to me.

I hated the defendant and his shitty attitude.  She had the check for $4000 with the memo line.   He seemed to have done well with his share of the estate (house etc).  I would not have hassled my mom’s friend about the “etc” on the memo line.  It would make total sense to me that it would be for misc expenses that occur during a trip.  

As the executor, he was fully able to see that the refunds were posted to his mom’s credit card (otherwise, he would have argued the point). Just cut her the check and be done.  It’s really not that big of a deal and the check would cover him with the estate. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by tabloidlover

[khyber]

2 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

II have a friend whose 90 year old mom was writing checks to anyone who called her claiming to be a charity.

Exact situation with my 92 yr old FIL.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

In defense of this defendant, Her Royal Highness came out of the blocks with a full frontal assault on the man’s character and hurled insults at him the likes of which we don’t hear often.

Each time that happens I wonder if JJ saw something in the file she is not sharing with us; or in this case she perhaps was feeling some sisterhood vibes with the old lady plaintiff, because we heard nothing to justify her hostility, which he did nothing to overcome.

Ideally,  arbitrators should not let personal feelings or antipathy towards one party be a factor in the proceedings, but they are human after all and some subjectivity can creep in, so antagonising them further is not a good strategy. And we know how JJ pushes subjectivity and hostility to a whole new level of existence.

2 hours ago, tabloidlover said:

Just cut her the check and be done.

Executors have some latitude, but they still have to work within prescribed limits, starting with the will and any court decision involved. They are also accountable to heirs and other parties to the estate or to any relevant governement bodies, including the courts. So they can't authorise expenses on a whim. Some are more meticulous than others, justifiably so in this case.

2 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

I think there was a trip and I think there may have also been money passing back and forth between the two for years. Then the executor ends up being the bad guy. They were lucky to get any refunds at all.

Quite.

[Byrd is the Word]

My 88 FIL treated himself to an expensive leased automobile after he was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer; wanted to live his final days in style. His logic was that the couldn’t or wouldn’t sue a dead man. True enough. Equally true was the dumpster fire he left behind for his grieving daughter/executor my wife. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

8 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Each time that happens I wonder if JJ saw something in the file she is not sharing with us;

I wholeheartedly agree. And it is television after all and every drama needs good villain. Still, she frequently cautions litigants not to embarrass themselves on front of her vast audience. But in this case she humiliated a guy guilty of nothing more than being a bit of a douche.

As an aside, lately I’m finding that I’m asking myself more often, if you really are so smart, why do you need to perpetually remind us? 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Florinaldo]

7 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

As an aside, lately I’m finding that I’m asking myself more often, if you really are so smart, why do you need to perpetually remind us? 

Applying the unimpeachable skills and knowledge acquired during my studies at the Lucy van Pelt school of psychiatry, I would suggest insecurity as a likely explanation.

[TheLastKidPicked]

In Los Angeles I think they call it,  "Believing your own press releases".

And I agree that Judge Judy is very smart.  Especially book smart.  But she doesn't understand how many things work in the real world.

There was a case where I first realized she has no idea how the real world operates.  A concrete worker poured some concrete.  As kids will do, some random kids came by and put hand prints and initials in it.

The concrete guy seemed very reasonable.  He wasn't upset or angry, he just pointed out that he would need to redo that part of the concrete and asked the parents to pay for it.  When they refused, they took it to Judge Judy.  Again, people being fairly reasonable on both sides.  I couldn't find it online, so going from memory here:

Parents:  The kids didn't mean to cause damage

Concrete guy:  I understand.  But I had to redo the work

Judge Judy:  Where were you (concrete guy) when the kids wrote in the concrete?

Concrete guy:  I had moved on to my next project.  I had several pours to do that day

Judge Judy:  So you just left the concrete all by itself?

Concrete guy:  Um... yes.  I had several pours that day.

Judge Judy:  Why didn't you stand there and watch the concrete the rest of the day?

Concrete guy:  Stand there?  I had several jobs lined up that day

Judge Judy:  Then why didn't you hire somebody to watch the concrete?

Concrete guy:  Hire somebody to watch the concrete?

Now, if every time somebody did concrete work, they had to take the ENTIRE day off to babysit the concrete, then can you imagine how little would get done in this world?

In her little cocoon of rich people, I don't think she ever interacts with people who actually, physically, get things done in their work day.

Edited February 26, 2019 by TheLastKidPicked

[CrazyInAlabama]

FIrst case a car bought for $950, with 200 off for junk car trade in, and only paid $549, plaintiff still owed $200.   At the beginning, I felt sorry for the defendant, but not any more.    I thought the plaintiff was a crook, but I think the defendant is a crook.    The car looks like it's worth $9.50, and the plaintiff is lucky it didn't fall apart in traffic.    Plaintiff gets $0, impound fees for defendant, and use of car for two months wipe out his losses.

Repeat-Dog grooming by an incompetent groomer.   Dog had ear damage from groomer using spray nozzle on cute little poodle or mix.    JJ is right, you don't blast in the dogs ear with the nozzle.       Grooming shop owner is a fool, and claims the dog had an ear infection, and that caused the dogs ear drum to rupture.   I don't understand why the vet who examined the dog before the grooming incident didn't pull the ear hair.   The groomer is obviously hosing the inside of the ear, and that's wrong.  However, the dog owner didn't take the dog to the vet until two days later, and she tried to see the first vet again.    

The groomer shop did tell the plaintiff her dog had an ear infection, and she still waited two days to take the dog to a vet.   Plaintiff gets $  450.

Plaintiff suing ex girlfriend for unpaid rent for moving out early.    Girlfriend never agreed to pay rent, so thinks the $644 a month is a joke, even after she actually got a job.  The poor plaintiff paid her part of the rent for six months before she got a job.    The plaintiff paid the entire year of rent, and he gets almost $2k.  

[AuntiePam]

In the vacation case, unless defendant could prove that plaintiff owed money to defendant's mom, plaintiff should have gotten all that money back, no question.  If there had been loans, there would be a record.  Defendant had access to mom's bank and CC records, and he presented no proof of prior loans.

Chances are that defendant's mom put everything on her card(s) so she could get the points.  My son and his wife flew round trip from Seattle to London (a Harry Potter trip) for $140, for both of them, using points and miles.

In today's car repossessed/stolen,repossessed again case, I think both parties were more than a bit shady.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

In the vacation case, unless defendant could prove that plaintiff owed money to defendant's mom, plaintiff should have gotten all that money back, no question.

I see things differently. Plaintiff shared in the risks as well as in the benefits of their arrangement. At their age, anything can happen that could derail travel plans. She did not buy travel insurance to cover the possibility of something going awry, from a simple sprained ankle to the most extreme, which actually happened in this case. She has to live with the consequences of her own choices. That's what adults do.

Or should she get a pass simply because she's older? As long as she has not been declared mentally incompetent by a court, she is bound to the same obligations as the rest of us.

So therefore she should have gotten only her share of what was reimbursed, but no money from what the travel company kept.

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

So therefore she should have gotten only her share of what was reimbursed, but no money from what the travel company kept.

I've never liked math, which is maybe why I see this differently -- I just don't understand what happened.

It sounded like defendant's family ended up with $4,000, in addition to whatever was refunded for cancelled reservations.  Isn't that what happened?  Do we know how much of the $4,000 was spent on the vacation?

[ElleMo]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I see things differently. Plaintiff shared in the risks as well as in the benefits of their arrangement. At their age, anything can happen that could derail travel plans. She did not buy travel insurance to cover the possibility of something going awry, from a simple sprained ankle to the most extreme, which actually happened in this case. She has to live with the consequences of her own choices. That's what adults do.

Or should she get a pass simply because she's older? As long as she has not been declared mentally incompetent by a court, she is bound to the same obligations as the rest of us.

So therefore she should have gotten only her share of what was reimbursed, but no money from what the travel company kept.

they did not have any proof that the entire $4,000 had been spent. and I didn't see  defendant present any proof that the travel company held onto the money.   I think he had not proof -- that is why he kept trying to say that it was payback for the loan.  

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I've never liked math, which is maybe why I see this differently -- I just don't understand what happened.

It sounded like defendant's family ended up with $4,000, in addition to whatever was refunded for cancelled reservations.  Isn't that what happened?  Do we know how much of the $4,000 was spent on the vacation?

The plaintiff's daughter was able to get several things refunded and it went back to the deceased woman's credit cards.  It wasn't $4,000 worth but  it was a decent amount. The estate definitely got some extra money there.  T

[BusyOctober]

The repo'd/re-repo'd car case was confusing...I think there was more going on there.  Who buys a beater car off the side of the road?  How did he know it would run?  If he bought it on July 1, and drove off in it, did he get it inspected?  Insured? Registered?  If he was that desperate for wheels, then I think he's got something hinky in his back story we are missing.  And he mentioned when he "finally scraped up the remaining $200", he tried to get in touch with the guy.  OK, so you were walking around July 1 with $500+ in your pocket, but you were hard pressed to "Scrape up" the balance owed.  Yet, you had funds to hire "counsel" to bring to JJ? I don't believe it.  As for the Defendant...who spends $5k to repossess a car worth $900 (or less is my guess) to recoup $200?  Even if it was "on principle", that is too stupid to believe.  I have principles and I will fight tooth and nail if I know I am in the right, but I sure as Hell wouldn't spend thousands of my hard earned money to get back a sh**box vehicle!  That re-repo'd car is going to cost him more to fix or scrap!  I say there was some other kind of shady deal made in addition to the car.

[Byrd is the Word]

19 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I stopped trying to figure out the repo’ed repo case and wrote it off as two poor, dumb and shady operators trying to get over on each other.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[funky-rat]

On the repo car mess, it sounds like the plaintiff drives for something like DoorDash or GrubHub, or something similar.  He mentioned having to run to restaurants on little to no notice to pick up orders.  I know Uber/Lyft/Shippd have criteria that people have to meet with regard to their vehicles - not sure about the food delivery places - but if his old car wasn't running at all, that's a problem for him.  He probably bought in to the notion that you can make tons of money doing that kind of stuff (the wants ads are full of "Drive for Uber!!  Make up to $25 an hour!!!) but the reality is that those places 1099 you, so until you deduct out the Federal and State taxes, gas, wear and tear, etc, you make next to nothing - generally less than minimum wage.

Edited February 27, 2019 by funky-rat
Spelling Counts

[Florinaldo]

7 hours ago, ElleMo said:

The plaintiff's daughter was able to get several things refunded and it went back to the deceased woman's credit cards.  It wasn't $4,000 worth but  it was a decent amount. The estate definitely got some extra money there.

Testimony was either confused (plaintiff) or disorganised (defendant) and it was difficult to garner the facts of the case.

JJ certainly did not help to shed any light on what exactly happened with her screechy examination.

Here is what I gathered: the plaintiff gave 4 k$ to deceased mother to make travel arrangements on her credit card. After the latter died she and her daughter got the travel company to reimburse some of the expenses (we all know there are often non-refundable, unless you take travel insurance) which was credited back to the credit card and thus the estate. Let's say as an example that the amount refunded was 1,75 k$ (I don't think the exact figure was clearly presented); that is what plaintiffs were entitled to in my view, whereas they would have to suck up the remaining 2,25 k$ for reasons I have already detailed, instead of receiving the full 4 k$ as JJ ruled.

If defendant in his duties as executor got from plaintiffs explanations as confused as what they provided on the show, I understand why he had questions and requested more evidence;l I would have done the same, although I like to think I would not have done it with the same off-putting attitude. Funny thing is, since the show pays out the award, the estate did end up with some "extra" money in the end because it did not have to shell out the money to plaintiff.

37 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

On the repo car mess, it sounds like the plaintiff drives for something like DoorDash or GrubHub, or something similar.

That sounds very plausible and would help make sense of this rather uninteresting case which I followed distractedly.

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The groomer is obviously hosing the inside of the ear, and that's wrong.

Did that really warrant a full refund? It certainly did not cause the ear infection, the owner's negligence probably contributed much more to it, and JJ did not award any damages for the infection. But shouldn't it have been a partial refund for the grooming?

Edited February 27, 2019 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think there was plenty of blame to go around in the dog groomer case.    The groomer never should have used the water nozzle inside the ear the way it showed on the video.     The original vet should have had the ear hair pulled, and not just said someone should do it.      The first vet should have looked at the ears more closely, and who knows if the dog already had an ear infection, or if the dog just needed a good ear cleaning, and the hair pulled.       

However, the dog owner was a fool for waiting two full days to take the dog to the vet after the groomers said her dog probably had an ear infection, and trying to go to the original vet (she couldn't get the dog in to see that one) was a huge mistake.     I understand the dog owner was not an experienced owner, but she was very casual about vet treatment for her dog.     

[SandyToes]

7 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I stopped trying to figure out the repo’ed repo case and wrote it off as two poor, dumb and shady operators trying to get over on each other.

Or, best friends trying to get one over on Judy.

[Matty]

In the rerun episode yesterday where I am there was a plaintiff suing a defendant for hitting her car in the parking lot of a convenience store. The defendant thought he had hit a curb not a car. Pretty typical JJ case. What had me completely flummoxed was the plaintiff's hairdo. We've seen some amazing hairdos on JJ through the years without a doubt but this lady's do ranked top five. It was a piece of hair colored pink, orange and white swirled on the top of her head with the sides shaved and they were light brown. It was riveting. I couldn't take my eyes off her hair. I kept asking myself "Why would anyone choose this hairstyle?"

Edited February 27, 2019 by Matty

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, Matty said:

What had me completely flummoxed was the plaintiff's hairdo.

It looked as if she slapped on a big leaf of red cabbage on her head. Like you, I cannot understand the appeal of sporting such a look.

[CrazyInAlabama]

So on today's first episode, wife, and mother of three kids by a fool who apparently uses his head only to hold his hair up, claims the defendant, ex of hubby, vandalized her car.    The husband wasn't home during the night when this happened, and he was at his cousin's house, with the ex.  Apparently, the ex isn't really an ex, but a current side piece.    We later find out the hubby was home, and in the basement with the girlfriend.   Poor Byrd looks a bit confused.    Plaintiff husband previously assaulted the defendant, and spent three years in prison for the assault, but she still was boinking him after that, and after he married the other woman.      Supposedly (according to defendant) hubby was texting defendant to come over to cousin Dominique's house, and his wife was with him at the time, when they all ran into each other at the mall the day before.     

Defendant and plaintiff wife had a fight including a pistol whipping, at the defendant's house, in the basement.     There is an existing No Contact order between Plaintiff hubby, and defendant too.     There is a voicemail confessing to the car vandalism, supposedly by the defendant, but even Byrd can't figure it out.     Nothing for anyone, because they're all nuts.   

Two tow truck drivers.    One driver supposedly hit the other one, and severely injured his arm, and didn't even slow down.    They both work off the books too.   This is the famous M&J Trucking case.   I wonder if anyone at the state licensing bureau, or the IRS, caught this case?    There is no worker's comp paid by the company either, at least to the injured man.     The plaintiff claims a car was supposed to be given to him as a settlement.   Defendant knows he hit the plaintiff, and really doesn't care at all.     I think the whole thing is a scam.    Nothing for either of them.

Mother dies, and plaintiff and defendant (sisters) are fighting over the car.     Mother died without a will, so younger sister (defendant) got the 2002 car of Mom's, and the plaintiff took the 1999 car defendant was driving before.   Defendant registered car in her name, and had no insurance, for the 1999 car.      Plaintiff never put the 1999 car in her name, had no clear title.     Police report says plaintiff, her son, and defendant all lived together.    Defendant's witness says both 1999 and 2002 cars were damaged when def. and friend came back from cruise.    Def. witness says both cars were driven by plaintiff, and plaintiff and son, were busted in the cars with pot.  

$1000 to plaintiff.

Carpenter sued by former client over leaking back door.   Door wasn't fixed right, and defendant never came back to fix the door, but other employees came and fixed the door.      Door is defective, but since knob was custom it can't be returned.   Fascinating video of door leaking.    Wouldn't flashing on the top of the door on the outside work?   Defendant will have to pay for door, but not repaired floor damage from previous leaky door.   If this case doesn't get more exciting, then I might fall asleep.    I think the plaintiff received some money, but darned if I know how much.    Apparently $2000.  

It just amazes me how when you hire someone to fix or install something, they don't do it right, and then refuse to stand behind their work.   That's exactly why I only go with the pro from the Big Box store, or a bigger company.     

Edited February 28, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Carpenter sued by former client over leaking back door.   Door wasn't fixed right,

Mr Ramos is a hack who mistakenly thinks those of us over thirty are less inclined to sue him for taking our $2,000 and filling to fix the problem. I highly doubt the door was defective. If it were there’s a warranty claim. It makes no sense that the installation of a lockset would void a warranty since the door is usesless without one. In all likelihood it was installed incorrectly and therefore it leaks. Pumping in calk in as he did is an amateur play and isn’t going to fix the problem and on.y identify you as a shitty carpenter.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Byrd is the Word