All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[parrotfeathers]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendants Who Are Dumb as a Box of Hammers

Clearly they did a few very stupid things, first agreeing to destroy a driveway by telephone no less, and then wiring money to someone they have never met.   But Judge Judy sure enjoyed making more fun of them and jumping up and down in  her chair and laughing.  A little too mean for me.

[MerBearStare]

2 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

But Judge Judy sure enjoyed making more fun of them and jumping up and down in  her chair and laughing.  A little too mean for me.

Both the defendants were total dicks, though, so I didn't mind seeing her make fun of them. The one on the right in particular was uncomfortably aggressive. 

[parrotfeathers]

7 hours ago, MerBearStare said:

Both the defendants were total dicks, though, so I didn't mind seeing her make fun of them. The one on the right in particular was uncomfortably aggressive. 

Yes that is very true.  And that tongue thing he had going was creepy!  Was waiting on JJ to throw him out.

[bad things are bad]

Driveway lady should have gotten more. That driveway was a hot mess and I believe her that she needed a repair done ASAP and couldn't afford to be picky. I'd have given her the maximum allowed, those defendants needed some punitive damages to get their attention. They were indeed dicks of the first order. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Suicide, Sadness, and Life Insurance?-Plaintiff suing her late grandson's former fiance for the cost of her grandson's headstone.   Grandmother is suing because she wants some hideously expensive, elaborate headstone.    The grandmother didn't see him very often.   Grandmother took out insurance policies on all of her grandsons, and she wanted the policies on the grandsons' lives, and grandmother paid the premium.   Then grandson became engaged to the defendant, and the grandmother made the defendant the beneficiary.    

Grandson died, policy paid $10,000 in the first payment, and two years later there will be $5,000 more.   However, fiance received $10,000, and paid for the funeral for $6300.    Defendant says the second payment won't be applied for, because it's too much upset over it.    Grandmother wanted defendant to pay for some extra headstone to make grandmother happy.   

Grandmother claims she told the defendant that defendant would pay for the funeral, and headstone that grandmother wanted, out of the funeral payout defendant received.   Grandmother says the headstone was paid for by a family friend and misspelled the last name of the deceased.     Defendant submits pictures of the original, and the corrected one (Siebenmorgen is the last name, I've never seen that last name before).     There is a headstone on the grave now.   Maybe no one told the Grandmother you don't put the headstone down until the ground settles.   

The headstone is correct, and grandmother still wants another one.  Grandmother denies the headstone is corrected.  Grandmother still wants the headstone corrected, but the full name is one there, but grandmother wants all kinds of additional stuff on there.  Defendant in hall-terview says she's had death threats, all kinds of nasty remarks from the grandmother and some of her relatives.

Case dismissed.   

Move to Ohio Fail!-Plaintiff suing former boyfriend over move expenses, truck fees, and lease breaking fees  for a move to Ohio from North Carolina.   The litigants have a baby, and both had good jobs in NC, but moved to Ohio for a better job for defendant, and he had move fees paid to him by the employer ($5,000).     Then everything went boom, and they split up.   Move costs were $550, but plaintiff claims defendant paid none of it.    plaintiff paid the $300 security deposit, and $250 for the U-Haul.

Plaintiff was only in Ohio for six weeks.   With the $5,000 move bonus ($3,000 after taxes), defendant paid first month, security fee, and other costs.   They moved in 1 November, officially, and when December came around no one paid the rent.    Defendant paid the truck payment, bought a washer and dryer, to get the utility deposits, and another bill he had.

Plaintiff also wanted her own car, and they argued about that.   This was so they didn't have to share one car.  However, defendant says plaintiff doesn't have a driver's license.     Plaintiff says defendant told her to leave, and she arranged with a family friend to take her back to NC.    After plaintiff left, defendant moved out because he couldn't afford the townhouse on his salary alone.    Therefore, the issue over the lease breaking fee.  

As JJ says, the lease breaking fee will be garnished from both litigants' wages.

$550 moving fees to plaintiff, and that's it.

Second-

Dial 911 for Murder?!-Plaintiff suing former landlord for return of rent, unlawful eviction, and harassment.    Plaintiff was given a 30 day notice to quit.    In July plaintiff moved in, and she moved out in December, and month-to-month.   No written lease, landlord says she's been managing the building for 20 years.    Security deposit was returned after move out.  

In October landlady claimed tenant stole a iMac computer that was delivered, and disappeared.   Then in October plaintiff was accused of stealing Halloween decorations.   

On December 7th the plaintiff's boyfriend came over, and stayed the night.   The plaintiff and boyfriend had an argument, over his porn addiction, and the amount of money he was spending on it.   At 7 p.m. landlady heard the argument, and she called the police (he's in court), and witness testifies he was called the next morning (8 December) 9:30 a.m.    The landlady call to the police said the plaintiff was missing, or murdered.    The landlady told police plaintiff was missing, hadn't paid her rent for a month or more, and she hadn't seen the plaintiff in weeks.

On the 8th of December, the police were told there was a dead body in the apartment, and they came back to investigate.    At 9:30 a.m. the landlady took plaintiff's boots, and plant, because (from the police report) defendant said plaintiff was dead.   The argument with the boyfriend happened in November, not December.

Landlady is either a drunk, or mentally off.

After the multiple false police calls, and visits, the plaintiff gave a 30 day notice to leave.   Plaintiff claims the landlady sent her nasty notes for the next month, and didn't send her the entire security deposit. 

Plaintiff will receive the last month's rent $425, the shorted security, and $1,000 for harassment=   $1.455 to plaintiff

Unfit for Children?!-Plaintiff (SSMOO) Sainted Single Mother of One, is suing her former roommate with defendant.   They roomed together for a couple of months.   Then plaintiff moved home, and claims though she wasn't on the lease, she paid the defendant in cash (and claims she paid the $400 a month rent ) for four months.   Defendant submits a written agreement.     Defendant lived in the townhouse for months before the plaintiff, and stayed after defendant moved out, and was evicted in September.   

Plaintiff is suing defendant for the four months rent she paid defendant, and for property she left behind at the townhouse, the property left was furniture.   Plaintiff claims she left the furniture behind instead of paying for storage, and even after she moved out (if your furniture is there, you still pay the rent).  Actually, defendant says she was sort of evicted.

JJ looks at plaintiff's bank records, but there isn't any $400 withdrawal.  

Case is dismissed, in my opinion it was a money grab.

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Scissor Hand Assault?!-Plaintiff suing defendant/ex-friend for loans, she claims they're all gifts.     (Ms. Khi Ellerbe scares me, and I can't imagine why she's not in jail.  Her dress is also ugly). 

Ms. Khi Ellerbe says defendant volunteered to give her money, and forced her to take it.     Plaintiff has proof for most of the money.     

On the day he asked for repayment, she 'scratched' him with scissors, and he says she stabbed him.  Defendant stabbed him in his car, and took scissors with her in her purse.    Plaintiff has photos of the text message she sent him to get him to her place, and the cut on his arm isn't that small.   Plaintiff submits pictures of the wound.  When defendant got mad at plaintiff, she stabbed him with scissors.   Plaintiff says she stabbed him, and left him for dead.   Officer Byrd has to call "Order" to stop the audience from talking about the defendant's disgusting statements.  

Plaintiff says when the police showed up, defendant ran away.  

Defendant Khi Ellerbe is counter claiming for harassment, cyber bullying, and other garbage.  (I wish they had cut off her microphone). 

Byrd is not happy with the defendant, can I hope he'll nail her with the Fly Swatter of Death soon?   

 Plaintiff gets $2500.

Second-

Pomeranian Puppy Mill-Plaintiff dog breeder suing defendant for pick of litter, return of puppy, dog breeding fees, and something else.      Plaintiff sold Pomeranian to defendant who has three Pomeranians, and twelve Beagles (supposedly the Beagles are the fiance's dogs).   The three Poms live in the house, and the Beagles live in a pole barn, and outside.    Defendant, and fiance both sell dogs, so we're talking a puppy mill for two breeds, and plaintiff is a puppy mill operator too (JJ said so). 

Defendants wanted a female Pom to breed to their male Pom that was six months old, plus they have two other females, soon to be 20 Poms (my guess, maybe more than that).     Plaintiff has 6 Pomeranians, puppies sell for males $900, and females are $1200, and all are AKC registered dogs, and from different blood lines.      Defendant wanted a female puppy to breed Poms, and plaintiff had an 18 month old female to sell.   

Contract was $1500, and pick of litter, defendant claims she negotiated a better price.   Defendant said she couldn't offer a puppy because female is spayed, but dog isn't spayed yet.   There is no way I would believe the defendant has a registered AKC male to breed, or will spay female after one litter.    Defendant also got another Pom female to breed a few months later too.   

Plaintiff claims defendant had an 80 pound dog [Black Mouthed Cur] that killed another of her female Poms before she bought the plaintiff's Pom.  Guess defendant avoided mentioning that in the dog count.     Plaintiff claims she found out about the dog killing after she sold the puppy.   

Plaintiff given choice of picking up the puppy with the sheriff's help, or money.    Plaintiff will get the  puppy back, with the sheriff's help.    JJ says animal control and sheriff's office will look at the animal welfare.     No money changes hands.    

[dianeski]

On 5/8/2019 at 3:44 PM, Byrd is the Word said:

Amen. And to that deception, impulsivity, violence and you have met the threshold for a textbook anti social personality disorder. Absolutely. Miss Bunny Boiler is a seriously dangerous person to herself and others and that’s a real life fact. 50/50 there’s a jail cell or a locked ward in her future. 

A truly disturbing young woman

[bad things are bad]

Quote

Defendant Khi Ellerbe is

IMO, a raving psychopath

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Tree-Killing Mystery-Plaintiff suing defendant/landscaper for chopping down the plaintiff's two huge trees.  Defendant was hired to trim Crepe Myrtles (hopefully not butchered in the way we call Crepe Murder in the South).   Plaintiff has a 'before' picture of the front of his house with two big lovely trees (Crepe Myrtles) that need trimming, and there are also trees in the back yard.   Litigants agreed to $150 to trim the two trees in front.  The plaintiff wanted the two trees trimmed, but instead the defendant chopped the two trees down.   Plaintiff denies he wanted the trees chopped down, or ever said anything but 'trim' to the defendant.   

Receipt says $150 to trim and stack (put branches in the back yard for later removal), instead the defendant chopped the entire trees down to the ground, and defendant wrote cut down to the ground.  

The after picture is awful, the two trees that were taller than the house, are now two stumps, barely above the ground.   No one would take down, and stack two trees of that side.  Besides, I don't know anyone that burns Crepe Myrtle wood.   

JJ simply doesn't realize that at worst, bad landscapers chop Crepe Myrtles back to a central, naked trunk (called Crepe Murder), but should trim them back a foot or two.  

JJ says it was miscommunication, not incompetence.

Case dismissed.  

You Just Don't Get it!-Plaintiff suing former friend for unpaid car payments, ruined credit, and car damage.   Plaintiff wanted a bigger car, so she sold the car to defendant for taking over the payments.  Defendant only made one payment, didn't pay the next two months, so plaintiff repossessed the car.   Defendant owes $638 for two months payments.    Car would have been paid off in a year.  

Plaintiff's mechanic witness is her husband, so he's dismissed.   Plaintiff claims she had to replace the motor in the car.  

Defendant claims she pre-paid six months of insurance, and wants that money refunded to her, and claims she was harassed. $638 to plaintiff for two missed payments

School Bus-Driving Mom Sues Son!?-Plaintiff suing her son for a loan made to buy a truck.    $1400 remains on the truck loan, which the defendant/son stopped paying. 

$1400 for plaintiff mother.   

Second-

Kennedy Assassination Translation fail!-Plaintiff / translator suing defendant/author for not paying him for translating the defendant's Kennedy assassination book into Portuguese.    Defendant's book is fiction about Lee Harvey Oswald surviving Jack Ruby's attempt to kill him, and the trial that would have happened.    Defendant claims plaintiff would be paid 50/50 from the proceeds of the book sales from the Portuguese edition.   

There are no other translations, and defendant said the translator should publicize the book too.  

JJ says there is no contract between the two men.    Interesting, because defendant is a former attorney in the Reagan Administration, so no contract is bizarre.

JJ says since defendant doesn't have the Portuguese translation, then plaintiff should sell him the book he translated, if the defendant wants the book.   Defendant says he doesn't want the book, so plaintiff did this for nothing.  

Case dismissed.  

Boiling Water Fight-Plaintiff is suing his brother for medical bills, and punitive damages, from a fight a year ago, when the plaintiff claims his brother threw boiling water on him.    Plaintiff and defendant had an argument over the plaintiff's missing cigarettes (plaintiff says the defendant's friend stole cigarettes, and other items from the home).  Plaintiff and the litigants mother live in the house together.    Then defendant decided to boil some eggs, and plaintiff gets up from his nap, goes in the kitchen, tells defendant his friend isn't welcome at the house where plaintiff and their mother live.   

Plaintiff told defendant to leave the house after defendant was threatening him.    Then, when plaintiff went to open the door, defendant threw boiling water on plaintiff's back, and he was taken to the ER, and released a few hours later.   Plaintiff had second degree burns on his back, and now has medical bills coming in from the ER visit. 

Defendant says they argued, and plaintiff grabbed his wrists, (demonstrated on a very unhappy looking Officer Byrd), claims the brother caused the water to turn over.  So how did that turn into boiling water on the back. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.

 

5 p.m. recent rerun (second episode is cancelled for a baseball game.   No, I'm not kidding about why it's cancelled)-

First and Only Episode Today-

Six Dachshunds Wreak Havoc-JJ thinks people who rented their house for five weeks to two people who had six dachshunds (they breed them, so there were a lot more than six) made a bundle on rent.   They get nothing for the damage the people and their confined dogs did to their rental house.   I bet there were multiple litters, since five were breeding animals.   What kind of idiot breeds a 12 year old dog.    Tenant and daughter both smoke too, but claim they never smoked inside, and never made a non-refundable pet deposit, per the lease. 

Plaintiffs get nothing.  (I've seen registered dog puppy mills, I bet those puppies were never out of that room their entire lives).

I hated the defendants in this case, since I wish all Puppy Mill operators would be prosecuted, and put out of business.   

I didn't like JJ's decision the first time around, but the home owners did rent to the woman knowing how many animals she had, and did want the bonanza on renting to them.   I'm less sympathetic to the homeowners after mulling this case over.    I don't like JJ's reason for dismissing the plaintiff case, but I think the home owners rented to despicable puppy mill operators, and shouldn't be surprised about the damages.  The fact the plaintiffs never collected the unrefundable pet deposit either is their own fault.   I wouldn't have let the defendants move in at all, but I certainly wouldn't let them move in without a security deposit, and pet deposit paid.  

Egged House Payback-Plaintiff's house was egged by entitled twits, and JJ says $600 will cover the damage.   Wrong, the vinyl siding will have to be replaced, and good luck getting it to match.    This girl should have had major charges, and some jail time.   Bet she still pulls this garbage, and destroys what other people own. This little vandal is standing there smirking, next to her enabler father who can barely stop himself from laughing out loud at the plaintiff's damage.  JJ refuses to let the woman get money for replacing the door, and siding.   

(So JJ thinks the home owner should go out in the middle of the night to wash the egg off of her door, and siding?)   Ridiculous.  You know if that was JJ's house she would hire a hit man to take out the despicable father and daughter who did this, and think it's a joke)

$250 for plaintiff, and that is ridiculous.    If that storm door is like mine, it will cost $500 at least to replace, including labor.  

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Egged House Payback

A case during which JJ says "you do not have an expert as a witness, and I certainly am no expert". And then she proceeds to act as an expert on cleaning egging residues, completely misunderstanding the behaviour of such substances, especially when hosed down. Contrary to her statement, I bet that that if her house ever got pranked, it certainly never was with eggs.

I guess this was a "let's screw over the homeowner litigants" day for her.

[lovesnark]

The plaintiffs were complete idiots to rent to someone with 6 dogs. The defendants were horrible puppy mill breeders. And, JJ showed her completely out of touch attitude towards landlords again. The amount of money the plaintiffs made on the rental should not have been a part of the equation. The horrible dog breeders should have been responsible for all of the damages the dogs did plus the cost of getting the smell of cigarettes out of the home (which can be quite expensive).

I own my rental outright, so using JJ's logic, when my former tenants (referred to as the slovenly losers) did over $25k in damage to the home, I should have just sucked it up because I didn't have a mortgage payment coming out of the monthly rent. Good thing she didn't write my lease or make the rules in my state!

ETA: One of the things JJ does that makes me fume is to say a small looking bit of damage can be fixed for cheap because it's small. The slovenly losers left two stained areas along with gouges and deep scratches on the hardwood floor. Dogs peed on area rugs and they just left it there, so it stained the floor and it looked like they drug heavy furniture with no cushion all over the place. JJ would have said someone could have just sanded the stained areas, scratches and gouges and be done with it and she would be wrong. I had to have the entire living room/dining room floor refinished to the tune of $2200. She does the same thing with auto body damage, drives me nuts!

Edited August 28, 2020 by lovesnark

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Duplex Confusion-Plaintiff suing former roommate for security deposit from a rental they shared two years ago, and money paid towards a bill.  Plaintiff, her mother, and one child lived in the duplex for 2 1/2 years, then defendant moved in.    Plaintiff's mother was the signatory on the lease, and paid the security deposit.   Defendant moved in during June, and but went on the lease two months later.  Plaintiff's mother moved out, and defendant was living in one or two bedrooms of the duplex.    A year later plaintiff moved out, and defendant stayed, with her husband, and child.    

The damages are each blamed on the other litigant.   When plaintiff moved out, she claims she had a walk through with the landlord, but has no paperwork.     At that point plaintiff should have asked for her security back, and defendant would have had to pay the security deposit.    The utility bills are submitted, and plaintiff claims she put bill in her own name, after defendant didn't pay.     However, defendant has utility bills in her own name, or husband, to keep the utilities on.  Plaintiff has  bill for utilities in her own name, or any proof of payment.  

Defendant called CPS about drunken, drugged plaintiff, and her child neglect.

Plaintiff is told to go back to her local court (Sacramento, CA) for the security deposit.  

Uber Roommate Argument-Plaintiff suing former roommate for a loan to pay off credit card debt, utility bills, and .    Credit card was paid off before defendant moved into the apartment.   Defendant paid off $1165 for the credit card bills, but defendant claims he was letting plaintiff use his car for Uber (only for three weeks).  Plaintiff bought beds for both when they moved into the house.  Defendant claims he was going to let the plaintiff use his car for six months, but it turned out to be three weeks.    When defendant moved out, he left the bed behind that plaintiff paid for.   Plaintiff admits he had the bed, that costs $558, and plaintiff left the bed behind   Plaintiff paid off the defendant's credit card debt, so the defendant could refinance the car loan, and in return plaintiff would drive the car for Uber.    Plaintiff was also put on the defendant's car insurance.   

Plaintiff is a grad student working on his Ph. D.      However, he's never been an Uber driver. 

$1165 for the credit card pay off.  

Second-

Home for Eight Children-Plaintiff/landlady is suing former tenant for damages to rental property, utility bills, and a stolen phone.   Defendant moved in with her eight children, and husband,  and blames the damages on the children.   $1595 was rent, $1595 was security, but only paid a little over $1200 (It was under Section 8, but defendant has to pay the security deposit).       There are giant holes in the walls, lots of trash in the house.   Defendant says the plaintiff had a problem with the kids, ranging from 4 to 15.     Defendant says plaintiff would come to the house at 6 a.m., and lock the children outside all day.    Plaintiff bought the house in 1991, lived there until 2009, her son lived there for a while, and then she rented it out after remodeling the house.   Plaintiff says she bought for $41k and sold in 2017 for $190k, (reduced from $200k for the damages), and rented it out for seven years.  

As JJ says, plaintiff was getting the full rent from Section 8, but still told defendant to leave.   Plaintiff wanted the defendant, husband, and eight children out because of damages to house, fence, yard, etc.    There are tons of junk outside the garage, and in the yard, including tires.   Interior damages are huge holes in the walls,    The pictures of the yard and house trash are appalling.     The children regularly played basketball in the house.     Defendant claims she had to fix all of the damage to qualify for another Section 8 home.    

Defendant says she didn't have any supervision for her eight kids, so they destroyed the house.   

Plaintiff did not bring receipts to fix damages in the house.  Plaintiff's husband fixed the damages in the house.   

Plaintiff sold the house after this, and had to reduce the sale price by $10,000 to the buyer for damage repairs.    

Case is dismissed, there were few repairs done, and no receipts.    Plaintiff has utility bills she paid that defendant didn't pay.   Plaintiff wants to be paid for a cell phone she claims defendant or her children stole from her. 

Cases are both dismissed.   Plaintiff sold the property, and defendant trashed the place, so she's not getting her security deposit back.    It's bad when someone is such a bd 

Widow Payback?!-Plaintiff suing her late cousin's widower, for an unpaid car loan.   Defendant's late wife was diagnosed with a terminal disease at 19 or 20, and died not too long later.   Plaintiff co-signed on the loan (defendant and his late wife are both young, and had a child) for a car, after the wife died, the defendant couldn't pay for the loan.      Defendant couldn't afford the payments, so dropped the car at the bank, and it was sold at auction, with a deficit.     Defendant was the primary, and the bank (it actually was a repossession) should have garnished the defendant's wages.     Defendant had the car for 2 years, and he and his new girlfriend have an F-150 (apparently he has one, and there are more).     The bank notice came to the defendant's address, and he ignored it, and the bank went after the co-signer plaintff. 

In the hall-terview defendant says he's not in contact with his wife's aunt because she doesn't come around, and doesn't like his new girlfriend.    Plaintiff says the defendant certainly found a new girlfriend quickly, and she disapproves of the way they're carrying on. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.     (I hope this was the total shortfall).  

Edited August 28, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Permanently Disabled Entrepreneur-Plaintiff is totally disabled, but worked in ex-fiance's cleaning business, and claims she didn't pay him for the missed wages.    I don't consider office/house cleaning to be 'light duty'.  Plaintiff has stents in his arms and legs, and he gets disability.   Plaintiff also says he's the driver to and from jobs for defendant, because defendant can't see to drive at night. 

Defendant claims she paid him in cash, because he didn't want to report his money to the IRS, and because he can only earn $1385 a month with his disability.    He also made a claim to the California Labor Board, because defendant didn't pay him for May, for over $2,000+.  Case was withdrawn from the Labor Board, because defendant was going to marry him.       This is the third time the plaintiff sued the defendant for wages

Plaintiff wants all of his jewelry gifts to defendant back.  

I think they're both shady,   I really hope someone from the Labor Board, and the IRS saw this case.   (Defendant says she will never take plaintiff back, and I betting they were back together after this).

Case dismissed, because it's garbage.

Fiancee Father Fight-Plaintiff suing his son's ex-fiance for a phone she stopped paying on.    Defendant says she returned the phone to ex-fiance son, and says her phone was a buy one get one free.   Plaintiff says she still owes $376.   Defendant claims she gave a working phone back to ex-fiance, and it must have broken after that.   (Why is it always a brand new model iPhone?).     

Plaintiff gets his $376 for the phone.

Bingo Charity for Children-Plaintiffs wanted to rent a hall for a charity bingo, bought items for the bingo hall (expensive security doors, and other items).    However, they never were allowed to rent the hall.   

Plaintiff wanted to lease a residential property, put down $900 on it, but never moved in.   Plaintiff gets her $900 back.   She also wants to be reimbursed for security doors she bought to go on the house (she can forget that).  Other plaintiffs were at the defendant's office the same day, to rent a charity bingo space, and they loaned the defendant $500, and they get $500 back. 

Plaintiffs get $500 back for the loan, plus other plaintiff gets $900 property deposit. 

Second-

That's What Mothers Do-Plaintiff mother suing her adult daughter who wanted phones, cell phones, and a loan for two months rent.  Daughter/defendant has four kids.   Plaintiff has been giving loans for rent, and laptops for grand kids, $1,038.   $450 for one month's rent, $100 for three pre-paid telephones.  Defendant has never repaid any loans.   

$1595 was the next 'loan'.  Mother had zero expectation of being repaid, since daughter and husband never paid anything back.  Defendant has no income, so now she wants daughter to repay everything.  Sadly, plaintiff has applied for disability, and was turned down once, and has reapplied.   Plaintiff's boyfriend in also disabled.   

Defendant's husband is not father of any of the four children, and there is no formal child support.  Actually, three of the kids live with their father, and defendant has them a few hours a day, so she should be paying child support.   

Plaintiff gets $1350 for three months rent, no other 'loans' had an expectation of repayment.

8K Snatched from Model Child's Bank Account-Plaintiff is suing father because at 19 years old he bought her a car, as a gift, but father didn't pay the car loan off.   8 years later the money was yanked out of plaintiff's bank account for the car, after a judgment.     Defendant deadbeat father says only initial down payment was on him, and daughter should have paid the rest of the money. 

Defendant gave car to now ex-wife to drive, it broke down, and was put in plaintiff's aunt's back yard, and seven years later it's still there.   Loan amount is up to $8400, with interest and fees, and plaintiff's attorney is trying to get amount reduced.   Plaintiff says lender settled for $5k.   Daughter has put herself through college, a Master's degree, and owns her own home, and has done very well without help from deadbeat father.     Defendant is still a bum.  

  (I don't understand why daughter didn't get the full $5k, since she's actually out $8k from her wages being garnished.   Plus, the daughter will have this on her credit report for years.   Good thing the daughter bought a house already). 

Plaintiff gets $3,000, and $500 for plaintiff's attorney, for the rest of the pot goes for the  father's half of the settlement and lawyer, $2500 each will be sent to the attorney directly. .

[configdotsys]

This may have been talked about here but if so, I did not see it. I was watching some JJ and saw an episode in which a woman was suing an ex roommate for not paying rent or something. I thought she looked familiar so I snapped a pic of her and then went to my DVR to pull up the episode that I thought she was in. Bingo. Same woman. I have no idea when the one I was watching was recorded or what season it's from but the one on my DVR was the one where a woman, who was at her mother's house dealing with some type of crisis, got a call from someone saying they saw her boyfriend going into their house with another female. This one went home and took out a baseball bad and claimed to have started banging on the ground. The neighbor/witness (pictured) said she saw the defendant beating up the woman's car with the bat. The owner of the car was the girlfriend of the defendant's boyfriend's cousin and it was all three of them that went into the house. Here's the woman who appeared on both episodes. The pic of her in the black shirt was the baseball bat episode which was from 2013.

Edited to add: she used the same name in both shows.

Edited August 30, 2020 by configdotsys
clarity

[Florinaldo]

These court shows do get repeat customers once in while. When they have tasted once the benefits of a free trip and of their share of the award kitty (if there is money left in it after the judges' decision), the temptation must be great for some to have another go at it, instead of relying on the crap shoot that real small claims courts can be, where there is no guarantee you will be able to collect even on a favourable verdict.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Same ugly tattoo on her left side too.   Did they have to put tape over part of the tattoo?  

[Taeolas]

3 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

These court shows do get repeat customers once in while. When they have tasted once the benefits of a free trip and of their share of the award kitty (if there is money left in it after the judges' decision), the temptation must be great for some to have another go at it, instead of relying on the crap shoot that real small claims courts can be, where there is no guarantee you will be able to collect even on a favourable verdict.

Judge Mathis has been embracing that. They usually have 2-3 Classic cases a week, and more than a few times one of the litigants from the classic case has returned with a new case. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I remember the one of the woman who was suing over buying tennis shoes for her siblings for Christmas, and wanted a lot of money.   I don't remember much more than that about the case, but she lost on JJ.   Then she was on the People's Court with the same case, and won there.   So much for the binding arbitration contract the participants sign.    

[Zahdii]

9 hours ago, configdotsys said:

This may have been talked about here but if so, I did not see it. I was watching some JJ and saw an episode in which a woman was suing an ex roommate for not paying rent or something. I thought she looked familiar so I snapped a pic of her and then went to my DVR to pull up the episode that I thought she was in. Bingo. Same woman. I have no idea when the one I was watching was recorded or what season it's from but the one on my DVR was the one where a woman, who was at her mother's house dealing with some type of crisis, got a call from someone saying they saw her boyfriend going into their house with another female. This one went home and took out a baseball bad and claimed to have started banging on the ground. The neighbor/witness (pictured) said she saw the defendant beating up the woman's car with the bat. The owner of the car was the girlfriend of the defendant's boyfriend's cousin and it was all three of them that went into the house. Here's the woman who appeared on both episodes. The pic of her in the black shirt was the baseball bat episode which was from 2013.

Edited to add: she used the same name in both shows.

I think that she brought someone with her that was sitting in the audience both times.  Compare the woman sitting her left (our right) shoulder on the top photo with the one sitting on the opposite side on the bottom photo.

Also, way back when Peoples Court still had Judge Wapner, a teen boy sued a slightly older teen girl for stabbing him in the stomach with a knife.  They were approaching each other as the plaintiff walked up to a friends house and the defendant was leaving the house.  She claimed she heard the boy call her a bitch so she stabbed him.  He says he was walking with his friends and they were talking about something else entirely, so he was shocked when she started screaming at him while lunging forward and suddenly he was on the ground bleeding and in pain.  He was in the hospital for several days and the surgery required to fix the wound gave him a long scar on his stomach.  The blade must have gone in at an angle or maybe she twisted the knife when she got it in, but that smallish blade caused a lot of damage.  Bitch was completely unrepentant.  Judge Wapner foresaw a lot of trouble for her if she didn't get into counseling pronto.

Some years later, maybe ten?  Same woman being sued for attempting to stab the new girlfriend of one of her relatives.  She was visiting a relative, older woman, maybe an aunt or grandmother.  A man, probably a cousin brought his new girlfriend over and introduced her around.  The older lady invited her to sit at the table so they could talk.  Our stabber was there, sitting at the table and she had put her purse on the chair next to her.  The girlfriend saw that the only chair available to her was the one with the purse so she picked it up and set it on the table.  Stabby went nuts because no one touches her purse, and got out her knife!  She was only prevented from doing real damage by the boyfriend.  The plaintiff in that case was somewhat injured during the scuffle and wanted her attacker to pay. 

She said she stopped dating the boyfriend because he obviously knew what Stabby was like and not only failed to warn her of his violent relative, but actually introduced them, and seemed to think that it was somewhat her fault for touching an item that didn't belong to her.  That's a minor faux pas, not a crime worthy of the death penalty.

Obviously, Stabby lost both cases for the largest amount allowed at the time.

[One Tough Cookie]

Stabby looks dentally impaired in the second picture.

 

Also I hate the way she is snide about people going to online college courses. Not everyone is financially able to send their  children to 76 plus years  for a regular college . I think it's demeaning,  lot of people work damn hard in their daytime work and I personally admire their perseverance

Edited August 30, 2020 by One Tough Cookie

[Schnickelfritz]

In case no one has mentioned it (yes, that's right. I did not dig thru the comments. I'm too lazy.) - the new season starts Sept 7th. One new episode a day instead of the usual 2 to start the season.

Still on the fence about whether I care, but... Now if they paired the new one with a rerun from the first 10 years, I would be all in.

ETA- Apparently, I have jumped the gun. No new episodes are listed on the Spectrum guide for the week of the 7th. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Schnickelfritz

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

On Second Thought...I'm Outta Here-Plaintiff suing landlord for return of rent, and deposits, and harassment.   Defendant/landlord is counter claiming for damages to the home.   Plaintiff actually dragged her child to court, and child is escorted out by Officer Byrd.    Defendant is doing a lease purchase from the owner, and rents the house out.     Plaintiff gave a $1600 deposit on the house, never moved in, and wants her deposit back.   

Plaintiff was trying to do renovations before move in, such as ripping out all of the carpet.  Plaintiff claims the carpet was disgusting, and with defendant's permission.   Plaintiff was driving by, saw the house for rent, toured the house, put down the $1600 deposit in total.    Plaintiff took control of the property, ripped out the carpet, and claims the $1600 was to replace the flooring, and she says it was a loan to defendant, not rent and security.  Plaintiff wanted defendant to spend the $1600 deposit, and first month,  Plaintiff ripped out carpet, but left tack strips, old rug, and padding behind, ripped out cabinets, and other things. 

Plaintiff gets the $1600 deposit back, because the place was rented to someone else for the same rent, on the same month plaintiff was supposed to move in.   Defendant counter claim dismissed.  

The Disabled Ex-Husband and the Trashed Convertible-Plaintiff suing former friend for damaging her car while defendant was borrowed it.  Defendant is the roommate of plaintiff's ex-husband of two months.   Plaintiff is the care giver for ex-husband (for free).  Plaintiff parks her 17 year old car in the garage at plaintiff's home in the winter.    Plaintiff went to Florida for five days, and without her permission, the defendant took the car.    Plaintiff claims defendant drove the car without her permission, and car was ruined.   Plaintiff claims she had an offer for $2200 for the car.   Defendant says his own car has been broken all winter.   Defendant said he never drove the car before this occasion.   Defendant says his roommate (the ex-husband) needed groceries, and computer repair, so he drove the plaintiff's car.

Plaintiff received $200 for the car that was totaled,

Plaintiff receives $2,000.  

Judge Judy Doesn't Believe You-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for unpaid loans to pay for two DUIs ($2429).  Defendant is counter claiming for lost property.  The litigants lived in an apartment for the entire 15 years they lived together.    Plaintiff hasn't worked for 10 years, after surgery on her eyes (on SSI).    Defendant had foot surgery for a birth defect, but worked until recently.

Five years ago, the defendant needed to pay fines for DUI and probation.    Plaintiff gave the defendant the money from the amount she had saved for a cruise.   Plaintiff gets SSI, is totally disabled, but her daughter pays her to babysit her five grandchildren.    Plaintiff babysat for the three youngest for a year, and the daughter paid her.     Plaintiff paid the money for the fines, and DUIs from an account the daughter held (to keep below income and assets levels?).

My guess is this case is all about getting that show money, and everything will be dismissed. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant gets his property back. 

Second-

Hot Mess of a Long-Haired Cat-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan to pay vet bills.    Plaintiff used her Care Credit card.

Plaintiff claims defendant was uncontrollable, so JJ tells him to put down the Water That Must Not be Drunk, and he instantly does.     

The litigants were dating, but not living together.   Plaintiff has two cats, and defendant has one cat, and the loan was for vet bills for shaving because of mats, and catch up on routine shots.    Shaving was $70, and then exams, worming, shots, sedation for the grooming, and the total is now with interest, and late fees is now $576.   The original bill was almost $400, and interest and late fees were charged, so the total is now $576.    

Defendant claims he didn't promise to pay the bill, so he didn't.  Plaintiff claims defendant promised to pay the bill off within the six months interest free period.     Plaintiff claims man abused the cat, kicked the cat out of his way.    I agree with JJ, I find it hard to believe that the plaintiff who claims to be a cat lover, would continue to date the defendant who she saw abusing his cat all of the time. 

Defendant had the cat for 2 1/2 years, and never took the cat for shots (totally indoor cat).     The vet bill was $576 after all of the interest, and fees.  

$576 for plaintiff. 

Shoddy Bathroom Remodel-Plaintiff contractor is suing neighbor for unpaid balance to remodel her bathroom.  Plaintiff is a licensed remodeling contractor.   Plaintiff was remodeling the bathroom of his neighbor.    Plaintiff is on disability (I'm guessing law enforcement) and SSDI or SSI, but claims he doesn't do heavy work, and limits his income to the amounts of his disability rules.   He also subs out some work too. 

Bathroom remodel was $2100 left, and defendant claimed the work was faulty, shoddy, and she refuses to pay him.   Plaintiff received $1700, and worked over two months on the bathroom.    Defendant is upset about the quality of the work, and plaintiff's refusal to fix the problems with the bathroom.     Defendant paid another contractor $600 to fix the bad work, and complete the job.   The pictures from defendant's cell phone that the work isn't great on the drywall, and paint.  

Plaintiff claimed he would fix the last few items in one day, and wanted the money from defendant right then, $2100.   Plaintiff claims there is an email from defendant claiming she loved the bathroom, and how nice it turned out.   

Plaintiff contracted $3800 for the total job, so defendant will have to pay plaintiff some of the remaining $2100.

$1500 to plaintiff.  As JJ says, they deserve each other. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Knife Fight Over Defective Camper-Plaintiff suing defendant brothers over money he paid them for a camper (it's an RV, not a camper), property he wants back, and false arrest.    Plaintiff claims he bought the camper from the two defendants, paid in full, but the brothers repossessed the camper anyway.   The RV was $1,000, payment made in full, for keys and title.    Actually, plaintiff paid $850, had to buy two batteries, and other work.    It cost $180 to fix the RV in the first two weeks.    Plaintiff still owed $150, and paid it after the battery and mechanical work.     

Defendants claims they were only paid $750, were still owed $250 due by 1 January, but the $250 was never paid.     Defendants notified police about the repossession, and finally located, and repo the RV.  Friend of plaintiff is alleged to have pulled a knife on the defendants, and was arrested.   Defendants were lien holders on the title.    RV wasn't driveable, and was towed to impound.   There are photos of the RV when it was sold, and the extensive damages that the plaintiff did to the RV, in the 10 weeks plaintiff lived in it.   

I agree with JJ, plaintiff lied several times about paying for the RV, and it was right to repo the RV.   (On a tacky note, plaintiff's witness (Mother or roommate?) needs better posture, and a good bra fitting.)      Plaintiff woman just got booted out for shouting in court, and keeps yakking all of the way out of court, there's something wrong with her.   

Then the three litigants start threatening each other, and Byrd is looking very irked at all of them.     Plaintiff claims a friend of defendants pulled a knife on him during the repo.     Someone got arrested, I wonder if it was the woman with the plaintiff.   Plaintiff wants hotel fees for after the repo.     How many people were living in this RV?   

The defendant's resold the RV for $2,000 out of impound.   It covers the $1250 the plaintiff still owed.  

JJ doesn't believe he paid the defendants in full.   Plaintiff has interrupted JJ quite a few times.    Byrd has to tell everyone to shut up, especially the plaintiff, and looks like he's about to give the real Byrd boot to all of the litigants.  

Defendants receive $1250, plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second-

We Admit We Are Idiots-Plaintiffs are suing defendant contractor for cost to redo his shoddy painting, and defendant's counter suing for unpaid wages $888,(extras with no contract, dismissed).    House is two story, was to be painted with two coats, and they paid him $2275. 

(If the second story is vinyl siding, but is painted darker it will buckle very quickly after painting.   The darker paint attracts heat, and between paint drying, and increased heat on the siding, it warps, just the way the picture showed).     Vinyl siding is 12 years old, and painting was completed over a year before the court case (August 2018).  Plaintiff paid painter in full before they inspected the paint job.  (I can't tell you how much I dislike the plaintiff wife, and her whiny little husband.   I bet you that they're a PITA to all of the neighbors, and everyone else they are jerks to).

Case is dismissed, because plaintiffs admit they were idiots.      

Grandma Said She'd Give Me the House-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend, for utility bills, breach of contract, and pain and suffering due to stress.   Litigants lived together off and on for almost two decades.    About 2003, defendant went to live with his grandmother, in her house, and to take care of her, in Lakeside.    Plaintiff moved in during 2003 also, and claims grandmother promised her the house, and grandma died in 2013.  It took 5 years to settle the estate, which is still ongoing in court.    Defendant received nothing for his portion of the house, and was evicted by the court.   Defendant is supposed to get 40% of the house, split with his attorney, when house is sold.       

 Plaintiff wants part of defendant's malpractice settlement, not getting that either.   Plaintiff lived there for 10 years, and only paid some utilities.  During the 10 years plaintiff didn't work much of the time, and was also in jail a few times during that time.    Plaintiff also claims she's common law wife (not in California), and wants palimony (not happening either).   

She's getting nothing, and deserves nothing.   Case dismissed.     (Even if they were married, inheritance is not common marital property). 

[bad things are bad]

Quote

(On a tacky note, plaintiff's witness (Mother or roommate?) 

I looked at her and said "whatever happened to Baby Jane?"

Quote

 (Even if they were married, inheritance is not common marital property). 

Is that true? My husband got some money when his mom died and applied it to our household debt...glad he didn't decide to keep it! Maybe I'll keep the $20 I'll get when my dad goes. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Custody Battle Chaos-Plaintiff SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) suing the father of her child over the return of her belongings.  Defendant claims they lived together for 3 1/2 years, according to plaintiff she didn't live with him.       There has been an ongoing custody battle for over two years, and both have huge stacks of papers, and folders in front of them.    Plaintiff SSMOO hates that the defendant received 50/50 custody, and she sued for 18 months just over that part of the custody dispute. 

Son was two when the litigants separated.  Plaintiff claims she never lived with plaintiff, she always lived with her mother, and only left some property, TV, etc at the defendant's house.     Defendant drove her to the hospital for the birth, drove her home from the hospital, with nursery for the son.   Plaintiff claims the crib, etc was never at defendant's house.    Some of the custody testimony was from police officers who were called to a dispute at defendant's house, and he testified on the defendant's side.   Plaintiff's Order of Protection was dismissed by court, at the custody hearing.    Each has a child for a week at a time.    The SMOOT's older child lived at the defendant's house too.  JJ warns plaintiff that parental interference can lead to loss of the 50/50 custody by plaintiff.    JJ also reads the court decision.   Defendant supported plaintiff, and the two children the entire time they lived together.     Property is left at defendant's home for when the child is at his house.  (My guess is that this custody dispute will never end). 

Plaintiff's case dismissed.  Defendant says plaintiff did $2,000 worth of damages at his house in retaliation over not giving up custody. 

Landscaping Grief-Plaintiff suing landscaper for failing to complete a job, damaged and stolen property, lock changing fees.   Plaintiff and wife had to leave the U.S. because of a death in their family in India.    Landscaper was supposed to plant some greenery, maintain the front and back yard, seed the lawn, for a total of $4,000.    Then defendant wanted more money, claiming the seeding wasn't working, and he needed to sod the outside edge of the yard, and hydro seed the interior part of the yard.  

The front yard picture is awful, and looks like no seed every was put down, or sod.     Defendant also moved the plaintiff's car, and took it home to gain access to the garage.  The keys were left so he could move it in the driveway, not steal it.    Defendant admits he didn't hydro seed, never put in a full sprinkler system, that plaintiff had bought the parts for.  In the hall-terview plaintiff says the police got the car and the wife's phone back from defendant. 

$4,000 to plaintiff.     Plaintiff got the car back already, so that's dismissed.      The defendant also smoked in the car, and that won't be coming out easily.  

Second-

Caught Cheating?!-Plaintiff SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One) registered nurse, suing former boyfriend, father of her child for cost of a truck, property damage, and unauthorized debit card charges.     Plaintiff claims the police had to retrieve her house key, but defendant kicked in her front door.   When defendant's (professional musician) old car broke down he needed $2,000 for a truck, because he was sending money home to support his two other sons, 9 and 5.    Defendant claims the $2,000 for the truck was a gift, and he still has the truck.   They broke up right after he got the truck, and while plaintiff was 3 or 4 months pregnant.     There is no child support paid for plaintiff's child.   Plaintiff claims defendant is her last musician boyfriend, ever.  

Defendant never paid for the truck.   After plaintiff caught defendant cheating at the motel, the police had to get her key back.   Plaintiff went to work after catching loser cheating, and came home and door was kicked in, and TV was broken, two interior doors were broken also, and the front door.   At that time the only missing items were the clothes and shoes belonging to the defendant.   Defendant claims plaintiff was home when he came for his clothes, and shoes. 

There is a video filmed after that of defendant looking for his birth certificate, a month after moving out.    Defendant came in through the window.   Plaintiff's video shows the window being broken (it has a metal grid over it, with chains), and she says she didn't have his birth certificate, and other I.D.s

$2,000 for plaintiff for damages. 

No Drinking, No Partying, No Random Boyfriends?!-Plaintiff Suzanne Hudak, suing former room renter in her home for damages, not covered by security deposit.    Plaintiff moved in September, $350 a month, with two cats.    A friend moved into another room with one more cat at the same time.   Signed lease says no drinking excessively, no random boys, no partying, but that is written in later, on the written lease.   There are no initials from tenants about the added restrictions. 

Plaintiff disliked the drinking and partying, but that's written in later, so not binding.   Boozing it up, random boys, smoking on the property, etc.  JJ says you can't say that no one can smoke anyone on your property, so I guess the medical campuses that do that are wrong?     

Landlord claims the cats from the defendant and the other former tenant cats were in one room.     Landlady claims all of the carpet was new, but previous homeowner had cats in that room, but had cardboard on top of the carpet to protect it. ,   

No rent is owed by defendant, because the landlord drove tenants out.    No before and after pictures were taken.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Landlord

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Children Witness Violent Tasering?!-(this is the one where the man who was tasered bit the finger off the plaintiff with the taser)-Defendant was tasered by plaintiff man, who was having an affair with the defendant's girlfriend witness, and plaintiff woman (wife of plaintiff) is sister of defendant's girlfriend/witness.       Defendant and girlfriend have highs and lows in the relationship, during a low point the defendant and girlfriend had a spat at the dentist office parking lot, he asked her to leave, girlfriend went to the plaintiff's house (close by).   

When defendant man gets home, the plaintiff man confronted defendant man, (they were picking up def. girlfriend's stuff from the house) the defendant was tasered by the plaintiff twice, the men are wrestling, plaintiff puts his finger in the defendant's mouth, and def. gets tasered, and plaintiff man lost half of his finger.      

The plaintiff's two young kids were in the back seat and saw all of this kerfuffle.    The defendant took the taser away, and turned the taser into Anaheim police.     Plaintiff's wife works at Disneyland too.     Plaintiff and wife say they never had a taser, and don't know where the defendant got a taser to turn in.   The police report is submitted, and defendant wrestled the taser away from plaintiff, and turned it into the police, and there is a voucher number from police for taser.    Plaintiff is going to lose, and I hope Disney reps. were watching this episode, this man shouldn't be around guests at Disney.  

Second incident-Plaintiff claims he was picking up cans, stopped at the gas station the defendant works at, and claims he accidentally was there, in a city the size of Anaheim.   I don't believe this for a second.    Defendant witness/girlfriend was boinking plaintiff's husband at the time too.    

Plaintiff's case dismissed, because it wasn't false arrest.  

Baloney Story From a Squatter?!-(A man sues for damages while he lived rent-free)-Plaintiff suing defendant for locking him out of the friend's property, and disposing of his property.     Defendant owns the house, and plaintiff moved in to take care of his friend who was renting the defendant's house.       Plaintiff claims when renter moved out, that he had the right to stay in the house, and he never paid rent.   

Plaintiff moved in, never paid rent, never was on the lease, and his girlfriend moved in too.    Landlady/defendant thinks tenant moved out after February, and paid back rent through April after housing court, adding up to $11k, and Larry (the legal renter) paid it.    Rent is $4k a month. 

The squatter plaintiff never paid rent, and is shocked he's called a squatter.   Plaintiff's girlfriend who 'travels a lot' stayed there sometimes.    She looks shady too, actually she looks like she's going to fall out of the chair any second.  

 When the landlady defendant got the eviction on the renter, and changed the locks, the squatter is whining about his stuff being disposed of.    He's also blaming the evicted tenant's health issues on black mold in the apartment, so squatter and girlfriend don't seem to worry about mold exposure.     

Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves less.    Landlady said she never saw the plaintiff until court, and that apartment/house she owns was empty and vandalized when she saw it after the eviction.  (Too bad she didn't have the taser from the previous case, he would have danced out the door).  (Plaintiff John Sjogren's film projects are interesting)

Second-

Child Removed From Drunk Parents-Plaintiff suing defendant for taking his truck without permission, and wrecking it.     Defendant is alleged to have had a big physical fight, and wife was beaten up (witness is defendant's wife), while they were both drunk.    The 9 year old daughter of defendant was scared by the parents fighting.   

Plaintiff was called to come over to the house, and the child's aunt came over and took child to safety.    Plaintiff took female defendant to his home, and a friend took her to safety from there.   Defendant's wife claims defendant male didn't beat her up. 

Male defendant took plaintiff's truck (yes, defendant was very drunk), and when it ran out of gas, police stopped and gave him a ride to the gas station.   Defendant drove a few more miles, and truck broke down.   Police found truck, and there is no police report, and truck was scrapped.

Case dismissed, because it's stupid, and so are all of the litigants.  

34-Year-Old Brat Beat Down-Plaintiff suing former landlord, for return of belongings she withheld, after she locked him out.    Plaintiff brought his mommy to court, yes, he's 34 years old.     Plaintiff paid security, and moved in a week early at defendant's home.   The plaintiff saw defendant's father was sleeping over on the couch, and plaintiff and the dad had a fight.   Plaintiff left his shoes in the common area, and father put them outside of plaintiff's door, and he almost tripped over them.   So plaintiff stuck the shoes in the living room.    A passive-aggressive brat of a plaintiff. 

Plaintiff's mother seems to think her 34 year old brat is cute, and she's wrong.  Defendant realized this roommate situation wasn't working out so she locked his door, and put a note on his door telling him to find other accommodations.     A month later plaintiff returned to get his stuff back, but would have to pay rent for October (had paid through September already).    Plaintiff never paid for October, and now we fast forward to February, and then to this case.   Plaintiff's junk is in the room, some in a shed she owns, and he needs to pay the rent through February to get his stuff.   

Defendant rented room in January, so plaintiff just has to pay for October, November, and December.   (Roommate for one month slept in the plaintiff's abandoned bed-Ick!!!).   

$450 rent to defendant, and plaintiff gets his junk back.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

All Sales are Final!-Plaintiff / furniture owner is suing consignment shop owner for the money he paid for furniture he never received.   Plaintiff was furnishing a house, and he bought furniture from defendant, for $8,215 total, and plaintiff has a receipt.  Receipt says all sales are final (the receipt is the contract).     The plaintiff changed his mind about a sectional sofa, and a king sized bed, and wanted a refund, defendant said no, so he cancelled.   Plaintiff disputed with the credit card company, they ruled in favor of the plaintiff, then defendant disputed it, and money was eventually returned to defendant by credit card company.   

Plaintiff sent a mover to pick up the furniture after the final credit card ruling,   Defendant says plaintiff never picked up furniture after numerous attempts to contact him.   Plaintiff witness claims the mover (his witness), was told furniture was already sold.    Witness was sent to pick up 14 pieces of furniture, but claims 5 were already sold, so mover picked up nothing.  Then American Express reopened the case, and ruled in defendant's favor again.    (I hate the plaintiff).     Defendant admits she did sell some of the furniture (including a silver giraffe) was sold, after waiting until March for plaintiff to pick up furniture.  

$5,000 to plaintiff.   Defendant has no receipts for the furniture she resold.   Defendant also claims plaintiff made 'advancements' on her. 

One-of-a-kind Hardwood Table Feud!-Plaintiff suing artist for the return of deposit for a custom made dining table.    This is the defendant's only source of income, making custom furniture pieces with live edge, and he's been in business for six years.    However, defendant didn't bring photos of the final product, and there is no written contract specifying completion date either.    

Deposit was $1500 down, which was paid, and $1500 more on delivery.   They agreed that 22 October was the finish date, and table wasn't finished, and plaintiff wanted the deposit back.   Defendant refused to refund deposit.     

As JJ says, there wasn't a final date of completion for the table.   The pictures don't show the completed work the defendant claims.   There isn't enough progress shown to prove that the table was in progress.    

Plaintiff receives $1500 back.    

Second-

Dog Smashes Into Car?-Plaintiff suing dog owner for damage to her car from defendant's dog running into the car.    Plaintiff was driving when defendant's dog ran into her car,    Defendant says dog wasn't out of his control.    Defendant drove into the parking lot of a store, with the dog, and his girlfriend, dog got loose, and ran to the grass median in the parking row.    Then dog ran towards the road, into the path of the plaintiff, who was going straight on the highway, on the far lane from defendant, and something hit her car.   It was the dog that hit the car, dog had no leash or anything else.  Then defendant ran across from the parking lot, and then plaintiff saw the damage to their car.   

Plaintiffs told the defendant to go to the vet, but they would have to talk about car damage after the vet visit.   Defendant claims the plaintiffs were turning left from the road, into the parking lot, and ran over his dog.   However, plaintiffs were going straight on the far side of the road.  

Photos of the car are submitted by plaintiff.   Dog hit on the left side of the car, between the drivers door, and wheel well.   

$998 to plaintiff for car damages.  Defendant is a jerk, and is trying to blame all kinds of medical issues with the dog on the plaintiff.   

Domestic Violence and the Paint Job!?-Plaintiff suing former friend for unpaid wages for painting.    Defendant claims plaintiff is just ungrateful.   Plaintiff was earning $100 a day, cash, working a day at a time for the defendant.    Plaintiff was charged with domestic violence against former fiance, and ended up in jail.     Defendant says plaintiff's girlfriend hit plaintiff, and that plaintiff should take photos, and press charges. 

Defendant put up bail, $1500 so plaintiff could get out of jail.  Plaintiff's fiance dropped charges, and defendant received his $1500 back (it took a long time for the bail refund).   

Then plaintiff claims he worked 10 days for defendant, and is owed $1,000.  However, defendant claims plaintiff only worked one day for him, so only is owed $100. 

There is no proof that plaintiff worked the 10 days, and all would have been 'off the books' and 'under the table'.   

Plaintiff receives $100 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Drunk Driving Freeway Brawl?!-Two men went out clubbing, were drunk, and started fighting.    While driving home they got into a fight into the middle of the freeway, early in the morning.     Plaintiff claims the defendant reached back and smacked him in the head (he was sitting in the back seat).   The plaintiff hit the driver in the head a couple of times, while he was still driving.

Plaintiff demanded to be let out, and defendant let him out on the freeway, and they started fighting even more.     Another car stopped, and told the defendant to let the plaintiff go, and they all got in the car and left the plaintiff behind.    Plaintiff walked to the nearest exit, and someone at a building saw his injuries and called the police.    

The plaintiff has a restraining order that was granted against the defendant.     

$2500 to plaintiff.

Don't Double Talk Me!-Plaintiff suing former friend for unauthorized credit card charges, and missing furniture.     Plaintiff never signed the lease on their joint apartment.     Defendant used the plaintiff's credit card (co-applicants on credit card to help credit history for defendant), defendant never paid the credit card bill, and plaintiff cancelled the card (yes, it's confusing).       Defendant was trying to get a car flipping business off the ground.   Defendant had a custody battle at the time, and he used the credit card for money for the attorney.  

 Defendant owes $4,000, and plaintiff gets it.    

Second-

Don't Cosign With Your Idiot Boyfriend-Plaintiff cosigned for the boyfriend's car the month they moved in together.   Actually, it isn't even a cosign, because boyfriend's name isn't on the loan.   Defendant has kids, plaintiff doesn't.    Plaintiff is basically bankrupt.   

Plaintiff took her father's car with her when she moved out of her parent's house, and in with defendant.   Defendant traded in his truck (for $800), and wanted a new vehicle for him.   Plaintiff's family now pays her rent, and she lives with the roommates that were there when deadbeat boyfriend lived there.    Plaintiff is blaming the boyfriend for everything, because he's almost 10 years older than she is.    

Car was repo'd in January 2020, and only plaintiff was on the loan.   Defendant was only on the insurance for the car he drove.  Plaintiff is still whining that defendant is responsible for the car, but he's not.    JJ thinks plaintiff is an idiot, and she is.   As JJ points out, the woman is on the loan, registration, and could have gone to the police to get the car back, and resell it.   

On the video of the fight in front of the LAPD officer that had to deal with the two fools, plaintiff acts like a dirty mouthed psycho, and so does the loser boyfriend.    The plaintiff admits it's her car, and the video shows she has a dirt vocabulary, but limited to the same stuff repeated over and over.   The litigants still lived together for months after the video. 

$23,000 is still on the loan, that plaintiff is responsible for.  (I would like to slap both litigants until they cry like the spoiled brats they are, and I'm betting Officer Byrd would like to help with that). 

Plaintiff receives nothing, and is told to take this to another court that has a higher limit, where she will be told she's getting nothing. 

Canadians, Defamation and a Mexican Holiday-   (I would like to thank the episode caption writer, this is the most bizarre case title I've ever read for JJ, or any other show)-

Defendant owns a vacation condo in Playa del Carmen, Mexico.   Plaintiff rented the condo for three months, through a direct contract with defendant.    Plaintiff told defendant he's cancelling the rental, and wanted all but a couple of weeks of the deposit back, so his parents could stay there for two weeks.   Plaintiff received reduced rent because of the three month term.   JJ says there was a legitimate contract, with offer, acceptance, consideration, and contract completed.     Defendant said that he needed to send his deposit that day, because if he wasn't going to do the 3 month rental, and deposit, she would rent to some Canadian guests instead.    

Defendant was only able to re-rent the condo part of the 3 months.   Plaintiff wanted his $2,000 deposit back, his airline tickets, attorney fees, and everything else he could think of.   What a nasty person the plaintiff is.   

When defendant refused to knuckle under to the extortion by plaintiff, he posted nasty reviews all over the internet rental sites.  Defendant is counter suing for defamation of character, and loss of rental income.   Defendant say during the time of the contracted rental, there were two full weeks of vacancies.   Defendant did earn almost $5,000, but JJ doesn't care that the woman, and the property managers had to work a lot extra to book the time the man defaulted on. 

 (I think defendant should have receive the $2,000, and the plaintiff shouldn't have been rewarded for breaking the contract, or his bullying of the defendant). 

Plaintiff receives $2,000 (defendant made same amount of rental money from other tenants). 

[Florinaldo]

3 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I think defendant should have receive the $2,000, and the plaintiff shouldn't have been rewarded for breaking the contract, or his bullying of the defendant). 

I entirely agree. But then JJ would have missed an opportunity to once again screw over a small business owner who had to scramble and do extra work to fill up the period the asshole customer abruptly left vacant with more than one new guest, which means she had to offer each of them a discount if the total came to the same discounted rate she had given him for a prospective long-term rental. I also think that him complaining to the realtor's association and her boss was beyond the pale, but by that time JJ had lost interest. It's acceptable for him to file a complaint with the rental Web site, even though they made their arrangements directly, but going outside of that is unacceptable in my view.

[Schnickelfritz]

Spectrum is showing that the new season starts Sept 14th. Let's see if that is right...

Still not sure if I care.

[Taeolas]

Well it is the final season. It'll be interesting to see what COVID precautions they are going to take. 

TPC seems to be going all virtual (except for Doug) Starts on the 14th.

Judge Mathis seems to be using plexiglass shielding between everyone and social distancing and masking. (Starts on the 7th I think)

I haven't seen what JJ or Hot Bench will be doing, but they both have new seasons starting this week or next it seems. 

[NYGirl]

Todays rerun was the very unpleasant defendant who used her friend's credit card to buy herself makeup and clothes along with using Lyft.  The case was the usual crap we see but the defendant could NOT stop saying the plaintiff found out her husband was gay.  I really really hated her and I'm surprised JJ let her say it so many times. 

I remember seeing this case and having the same dislike a long time ago.  JJ had her old hair.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Eyewitness to Hit and Run!-Plaintiffs had a hit and run on his vehicle, and is suing his neighbor as she is the owner of the attacking car.      WItnesses saw the hit and run happened in the early morning hours, after midnight, Witness says car came out of the darkness, hit a parked car, on the street in front of their buddy's house.   Attacked car was shoved across the street, up on the curb, and there was a lot of damages.     It was plaintiff's car, and witness looked until they found the owner of the car.    They were looking at the attacked car, and the hit and run driver drove by, but didn't stop, and hit the gas and kept going.    Defendant says her brother-in-law was driving, told the police her car was hit when it was parked.   Defendant's brother (in court) was the car passenger (no, he wasn't, brother was driving, he is a bad liar, and so is the defendant car owner).   

Defendant's brother stands and lies in court to JJ.   Witness can't look at JJ, keeps shifting around, and looks like he's about to cry (I would like to slap him until he cries, and the defendant too, they're both liars).    Brother says he was taking car to defendant's house, or his own house, he's really not sure.   Lying witness claims he was the passenger, and brother-in-law was driving, and a car was in the middle of the street, and it was the plaintiff's parked car in the middle of the street, and claims plaintiff backed into defendant's car.   

Defendant car owner called her insurance first, and the police after that, quite a while after the accident.   BIL has a driver's license, but I'm guessing he wasn't on the car insurance policy.   Plaintiff submits his copy of the police report, and lying defendant doesn't have one, even though she claims she made a report with the police.    Plaintiff's police report says defendant told them her car was parked in a parking lot, and was hit there, while car was parked.   Report also says car was in custody of family friend, omits the brother, and brother in law.   

2001 Buick Le Sabre was only a year old with plaintiff. 

$1200 to plaintiff for his totaled car.

Botched Bridesmaid Dresses?!-Plaintiff suing seamstress for return of money she paid seamstress to make the 10 bridesmaids dresses, for $500 down, and $500 left.   Plaintiff also suing seamstress for ruining her wedding.    Plaintiff paid $500 bridesmaid deposit, flower girls dress, and vest for the young men.     Boy's vests, and flower girls dress were used in the wedding, and were paid for.     All ten bridesmaids wore the dresses at the wedding, 

Plaintiff claims every bridesmaid dress needed help to make it down the aisle safely.   However, all of the dresses were completed, except another reception dress that wasn't completed.   There were two or three fittings for each of the brides maids' dresses.   $500 was all that plaintiff paid for the bridesmaids' dresses, and at $50 each for a fitted dress, it was a bargain.  

(I'm not sure how this case ended, but the bride still received dresses for $50 each, and then flower girl's dress, and vests for the little boys.  I hope the seamstress received her final $500.    Defendant says in the hall-terview that she will never do an entire wedding party's garments again).    

Second-

Financial Elderly Abuse?!-Plaintiff owned a consignment / resale shop, and is suing former friend for defamation, slander, and a false restraining order filing (it was dismissed).     Defendant also applied for a restraining order against plaintiff, but it was also dismissed.    Plaintiff was charged with financial elder abuse.    Defendant refinishes furniture, and plaintiff has the resale shop.     Slander on internet against plaintiff was alleging she committed elder abuse by cheating an 80 year-old woman who plaintiff had consigned furniture through her.   

Defendant alleged plaintiff stole furniture from the 80 year old, and was selling stolen property.   Texts with plaintiff, and defendant say plaintiff took property, and gave furniture owner no money.    Plaintiff sells online so the furniture was taken to plaintiff's home.   Plaintiff claims she deposited $110 to the consigner's bank account, but brought no proof.    Plaintiff took truckloads of furniture and items from the older woman

All restraining order applications were dismissed.    There are phone messages from plaintiff threatening the defendant over the restraining order filing.   Defendant says protective order filing was before the threats, so that's dismissed too.

Cases dismissed. 

Speeding, Crashing, Suing?-Plaintiff suing former neighbor for totaling a car plaintiff sold defendant.   Defendant purchased a car from plaintiff, in June, registration wasn't transferred to defendant, and there was no valid insurance on the car when the accident happened in October.   Litigants didn't really know each other before defendant saw "For Sale" sign on car (they lived in the same apartment complex).    Police report from defendant says driver was going to fast for conditions, and fine was $600.    

The other car owner in the accident are coming after plaintiff for car damages, because plaintiff was still the legal owner of the car.   Plaintiff's letter from insurance company is bizarre, and thrown out.   Plaintiff didn't submit the cancellation of financial responsibility for the car were submitted to DMV after the accident.    Plaintiff had cancelled her insurance on the car, before the accident. 

JJ advises the plaintiff to settle with the victims of the accident, and then sue defendant for the short fall. (Since plaintiff didn't come to court with clean hands, she's going to lose that case too). 

 

    

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Unbelievable Toll Bill!- (This is the one where the defendant isn't paying the plaintiff, and works for New York City so she can garnish his salary for the tolls and unpaid child support)-Litigants are divorced and after the divorce the defendant ex-husband didn't pay hefty toll fees ($4,601).    Defendant claims his debit cards were stolen, so he had to borrow money from his adult daughter to pay his bills.    Tolls were on a car that is registered to the plaintiff, and so she is liable for them, and she will have to go back to family court to get a divorce decree correction, and then attach his assets, for that and the child support.   Anything owed before the divorce date, is supposed to be in the division of marital debt.      

JJ will give the woman the tolls and late fees after the divorce date.    Car registration, and insurance is in the name of the plaintiff, so man won't have to get a Connecticut license.    JJ also reminds the man that non payment of child support results in garnishment, and driver's license suspension.    

My guess is the ex-Mrs. Deadbeat thinks that one of these days he'll come to his senses, and run back to her.  

$1325 for tolls, and recommended ex-wife goes back to court as often as necessary.  (I wonder where all of his money was going?   And where the tolls were to and from?   Maybe Atlantic City?  Or some of the big casinos, Mohecan Sun (spelling?) isn't too far away, and there are many more)

Holiday Betrayal!-(I remember this one.   Defendant keeps making statements about the plaintiff's late husband).      Plaintiff suing defendant for making unauthorized charges on plaintiff's credit card.    The litigants worked at the same place at the time.    Defendant wanted to send Western Union funds to her adult son for Christmas gifts for the grand kids, but it was bad weather, so instead of going to cash her $1900 check, she used the plaintiff's credit card.     Defendant claims she paid the Western Union $250 back.

Then in January, defendant used the card again for $710 for makeup, clothes, etc for Christmas, except it was in January.   Defendant used the credit card for Lyft, also.    After the January charges arrived, the plaintiff cancelled the credit card.    Defendant claims she helped clean the plaintiff's house for her, and starts the slander against the deceased husband.      Defendant claims the late husband made the charges, and it took months for them to show up after he died (Bull pucky).  

The husband didn't die until February, which is long after defendant made credit card charges, and plaintiff said defendant was never in her house after the husband died.   

$710 for the plaintiff, for the credit card charges.   Plaintiff didn't file for the $250 Western Union bill.   Defendant is a jerk.   

Second-

Over-Reaching Elder Abuse-Plaintiff suing father's former caregiver for an unpaid loan, and elder abuse    Defendant worked for father for three months, and he bought her a car.   Defendant worked for father for about 18 months, and was fired.    Defendant claims she's disabled from being born with dislocated hips, and mostly took care of the man's dog.   Car was purchased, and titled by plaintiff's late father.    The daughter/plaintiff found out about the car purchase, and returned it to the car dealer for a full refund after seven days, so elder abuse is dismissed.   

Defendant admits plaintiff's father loaned defendant $300, the month after woman was hired.    (Doesn't anyone ever do criminal checks before hiring caregivers?)       Defendant claims the 96 year old father only needed her to take care of the dog, so her disabilities didn't impact her ability to take care of the dog. 

$300 to plaintiff.  

Three Fathers for One Child-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of plaintiff's daughter's welfare payments (daughter was brought to court by defendant, is only 11, and is asked to wait outside the court room).     Plaintiff and ex had four kids, one son full time, the other three 50/50 custody (the one full time child is still with plaintiff, and one other one, the others are grown, and gone).    Then ex-wife had a baby while living with defendant, but baby isn't defendant's biological kid, baby is the 11 year old girl in court. 

Defendant is raising the daughter as his own.    Julisa (11 year old) went into foster care after Defendant and her mother had a domestic violence case, and mother went to jail.  Then the plaintiff took the girl into his home.  Defendant claims he doesn't get SS for daughter, but maybe the mother did?     However, plaintiff wants the state child care payments that the mother, and defendant received, adding up to $1230 over the 10 month period.     

No one is paying child support for child, including the biological father.    

Plaintiff receives $1323.

Cosmetics and Fashion-Plaintiff suing defendant/former business partner for  failing to deliver a clothing order, and lost wages.  Plaintiff wants $1400 ($400 was for the clothing order, the $1,000 for lost wages).    Plaintiff claims she receive no clothes, and defendant claims he did give her some of the clothing order.  Litigants keep yakking back and forth.   Defendant's witness apparently has Woolly Bear Caterpillars glued to her eye lashes.

Defendant sent plaintiff a text saying when another person paid him money he was owed, and he would pay plaintiff.   

$400 to plaintiff.

Edited September 4, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[MerBearStare]

One of my favorite things about Judge Judy is the audience reactions and there were some great ones today. The best reactions were when the plaintiff said her ex-husband racked up over $4,000 worth of tolls (that guy was a real piece of work) and when that awful defendant said the plaintiff's husband was gay (did the plaintiff even speak at all during the hearing?). I think I even gasped when I heard $4,000. 

[TVMovieBuff]

16 hours ago, MerBearStare said:

One of my favorite things about Judge Judy is the audience reactions and there were some great ones today. The best reactions were when the plaintiff said her ex-husband racked up over $4,000 worth of tolls (that guy was a real piece of work) and when that awful defendant said the plaintiff's husband was gay (did the plaintiff even speak at all during the hearing?). I think I even gasped when I heard $4,000. 

That guy had to have had a serious gambling problem. He had a decent job but had no money for tolls, no money for child support, no money no money for anything.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Man's Fuzzy Memory of Assault?!-Plaintiff suing his ex-girlfriend for credit card fees, legal fees and the return of property.   However, defendant claims plaintiff attacked her, she didn't attack him.   Defendant claims plaintiff's pastor is actually his side piece.    They have been in a relationship since 2013, shacked up 2015, and separated in December 2016.    Plaintiff claims they never lived together.   Plaintiff gave defendant a second card for his credit card.     Plaintiff claims defendant made unauthorized charges on his credit card, after they separated (anything before that time is not unauthorized).   As usual. plaintiff has no bills to prove anything, but claims defendant went online and changed the billing address to her address, so he never saw the bills. 

Plaintiff wants legal fees over the credit card issue, and he's not getting that.  Property plaintiff wants back includes an old air conditioner, Plaintiff also wants an old fridge/freezer he stored in defendant's garage.   Freezer is gone, dismissed.    Defendant wants items stored in plaintiff's shed.   Plaintiff claims everything he was storing for defendant is gone into thin air.  There is a storage unit that was mutual, but has been emptied.    The shed defendant is talking about is on plaintiff's property. 

No police report about defendant's assault, but medical record is submitted.    Plaintiff claims there was no assault by him.

The argument was plaintiff talking to his pastor girlfriend/fiance, so the couple split up, and defendant moved out.   THat's when defendant does the dramatic explanation of the violent assault on her by the geezer boyfriend.   If her description was true, she would have been in ICU, not moving out.  Defendant claims she called the police, but didn't file the report.    I don't believe the defendant at all.    

Counter claim $2500 to defendant, and nothing for plaintiff.

Second-

Broken Jaw Party Foul!-Plaintiff suing defendant for breaking his jaw, and choking him, for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.      Plaintiff went to a party at defendant's house, but was invited by the defendant's roommate.    Plaintiff went to pick up two other party goers, and when the plaintiff arrived at the party, he says everyone at the party was drunk.    Plaintiff was leaving to go home, when defendant assaulted him, and claims defendant's witness also punched him repeatedly.   Police report is submitted by plaintiff.    Plaintiff says he met with police later too, but there is no further report, and no one was arrested over this assault.   

Defendant claims plaintiff wasn't invited to party, and was drunk.    Defendant claims plaintiff wanted to fight him, and he was only defending himself.    Defendant says plaintiff's witness is also his witness.   However, witness says plaintiff, defendant, and defendant's witness were all drunk and fighting.   

Everything dismissed.   

Quick!  Hide the Pontiac?!-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for money she invested in a car, stolen property, and punitive damages.   Defendant is counter suing for the return of a stolen car.     They lived together, and bought a Pontiac and a Mercedes.   Defendant says he paid for both cars, and plaintiff paid nothing for the cars.     When they broke up the plaintiff stayed at the original apartment, and kept the Pontiac, and she would take over the payments.     Defendant took the Mercedes.    Defendant was getting notices that plaintiff wasn't paying the last $2,000 on the car loan, and called the finance company, found there was actually only $500 more on the loan. 

Plaintiff had paid $1500 on the car, leaving the last $500, which defendant paid off.      When he went to take the Pontiac back, defendant found that plaintiff had changed the locks on the car.    Defendant claims plaintiff was paying on car, but fell behind, and plaintiff kept hiding the car with friends, in various locations.

Defendant claimed he paid for both vehicles, except for $1500 she paid on the car.   

Plaintiff gets the Pontiac back, and defendant gets $500 for the car he paid.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Kid Bullies and Vandals?!-(Two boys are accused of bullying an allegedly unsupervised 4 year old, and vandalizing a car, I remember this one, the 4 year old was outside for a long time, and the car damage was only possible for the other kids to do if they had sledge hammers)-Plaintiff suing defendant for vandalizing her car, and little kids that were accused claim the defendant's 4 year old did it (with a stick).      Plaintiff also left her 4 year old unattended, and claims the two little boys bullied the plaintiff's son.    This is the one where the plaintiff says grandma, and daughter were supervising the 4 year old, and then claims she was taking a shower, or about six other stories, and supervising her son herself, and saw the other kids vandalize her car out the window as she climbed out of the shower.    Defendant was at work, and her adult sister was supposed to be watching the little boys, and the boys weren't supposed to be outside at all.    

The plaintiff's story is ridiculous, and JJ says she's lying about everything.   

Case dismissed.

Get Outta My Lane!-Plaintiff claims defendant caused a car accident, but defendant claims it was plaintiff's fault.     Plaintiff was driving a Altima, with full insurance ($2,000 deductible),. Plaintiff in left turn lane, and claims defendant whacked her car from the other left lane (double left turn lanes).     Altima is still at repair shop, and insurance won't cover it because of lack of police report, so she owes almost $4k.     

Defendant claims he was in left and through lane going straight, and plaintiff turned left from the straight through lane, and hit him.         The police report is totally useless, but I think there's a security camera video.     Court chart of cars shows plaintiff in straight through lane, but she turned left, and defendant in the inside left turn lane, and he came out and hit her.   However, plaintiff was in left turn lane, and defendant tried to go straight from the left turn lane, and nailed her.   Defendant claims plaintiff was in the straight through lane, but turned left across his path. 

 JJ gave plaintiff $2000, because with the video the insurance company will pay up now, and now plaintiff's deductible will be covered.  

The video shows defendant's car behind the plaintiff's car, and defendant was at fault, so plaintiff gets $2k.   

Second-

Divorce Fallout = Free Horses-Plaintiff went on defendant's mother's property to look at horses being given away, and defendant's daughter invited plaintiff on the property.   Defendant daughter was going through a divorce, and the horses needed to be rehomed.     Plaintiff claims she stepped on a pipe or something in the pasture, and turned her ankle.  Defendant daughter kept the horses on the defendant's mother's property. 

Plaintiff claims she climbed over a gate, and defendant says she didn't need to do that getting into the property.   There is a walk through gate shown on the pictures submitted by defendant.   There was a lot of getting keys, shuffling positions, etc.   Then defendant unlocked the gate, and opened the gate, and plaintiff climbed over the second gate, stepped on something, and rolled her ankle.    

I'm surprised the plaintiff didn't go after the defendant's homeowner's insurance, or if she had better evidence, get a civil attorney.      JJ says plaintiff was invited, and defendant is partly responsible.

Plaintiff claims her deductible will be $2300 or more, and she receives $1150 (half of out of pocket fees, because plaintiff was half responsible)

(Sadly, anyone who comes on your property, and gets injured can and will sue you for damages.   Even if they're trespassing). 

When a Pit Bull Attacks...Yet Again-Plaintiff suing defendant/neighbor for a dog bite, pain and suffering, and other damages from defendant's dog biting plaintiff.   This happened at a dog park, and plaintiff says the defendant's dog bit her dog at the park a year ago.    

Plaintiff was at the dog park for the first time after the previous attack, with a well behaved group of dogs and owners..     Plaintiff saw defendant coming to the dog park, plaintiff yelled for defendant to stay out, because plaintiff was leaving.   Defendant ignored the warning, let her dog loose in the gate, and defendant's dog again attacked plaintiff's dog.    Plaintiff was injured rescuing her dog from the attacking Pit.   

Plaintiff's arm injuries look very bad, and had to drain to heal.    Defendant dog was quarantined, and defendant claims that was her only issue with animal control.    

JJ wants defendant to describe the previous attack by her dog, the year before.   Defendant was not watching her dog, and the Pit Bull was in a fight with plaintiff's Jack Russell.   Plaintiff says the Pit entered the park, and immediately pinned her Jack Russell to the ground, and a bystander separated the dogs.   Defendant didn't see any of the fight or rescue happen, because she wasn't even looking.     Plaintiff says defendant never sees anything her dog does.  

Plaintiff gets $2,000.   I think she should have gone for $5,000, because the Pit shouldn't be at the park, and the owner is a fool. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Internet Obscenity Revenge?!-Plaintiff former tenants for damage to her home, harassment, and defamation.     There were six tenants at the end of the lease, and only two were left past lease termination.   Plaintiff gave 30 day notice to move out by 1 June, the two tenants were month-to-month tenants, but defendant idiot #1 (the one of the nasty texts to a 10 year old child) says he didn't want to move.   The third remaining tenant was also there until 11 June.       When JJ sees the text on plaintiff's phone, she has Officer Byrd show it to defendant witness, tenant #3.    After seeing the nasty text sent by idiot #1 to a 10 year old child, says if someone sent that to a 10 year old in his family, that person wouldn't be sending any more texts.     After the notice was given (they had six months notice that plaintiff wouldn't be renewing the lease), idiot #1 started posting plaintiff's address and other information on revenge sites.    (Brady Ulrich, witness and tenant #3 is now a Physician's Assistant, so he must be a lot better character than Idiot #1.   Judging from his responses at seeing the texts is very appropriate).  

The nasty ads show requests to call or visit the woman for various sex acts, and role play, all posted by Idiot #1.  They also included her phone number and address.   There is nothing the plaintiff sent to defendants that was nasty in any way. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.   

Wild Car Crash Caught on Tape-(I love cases with video that shows who is a liar)-Plaintiff suing her former friend, for totaling her car.   Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car (they are friends from church), running an errand stopped in at a store, left the motor running, and keys in the car, and the car was stolen.      When defendant realized car was stolen (like hell it was, you know he wrecked it), he called plaintiff, a police report was made.   30 minutes later a fireman called plaintiff, asking if she was all right.   Car was found wrecked, crashed into a telephone pole, and with the keys on the driver's seat.  

Plaintiff had insurance, so that paid off, and there was a shortfall of over $1,000, which plaintiff has been paying off.    

There is a video of the car crashing in the telephone pole, showing defendant jumping out of the car, and jumping into another car (sounds like they were street racing).    The video is from a neighbor with security cameras, showing the race, the accident, and defendant running to the other car.   Defendant is such a liar, it's the same jacket he was wearing when he borrowed the car, and it is absolutely the defendant.  

$2800 for plaintiff to cover $1,000 deductible, and shortfall on car insurance.   

Second-

Child Abuse by Mom's Boyfriend-Plaintiff suing the mother of his child, for lawyer fees, and punitive damages.    After visit with defendant/mother the 6 year old boy said the defendant's boyfriend hit him.   Plaintiff says when he picked the son up, he noticed a lot of bruises, and claims the mother's boyfriend hit him.      Right after that the defendant and her boyfriend wanted to take the child for a vacation for a week.     Plaintiff made an immediate police report about the abuse, and applied for a protective order against the boyfriend.    Defendant claims son fell down after training wheels were removed from bike.       Mother and son did go on vacation, without the boyfriend.   

Mediation over this failed, and plaintiff didn't ask for legal fees, and defendant says she didn't.    Plaintiff says the legal fees were requested by defendant, and turned down by the court.  Plaintiff has majority custody, with only some visitation with child's mother/defendant in summers.     Plaintiff filed for a protective order against ex girlfriend's boyfriend.   Counter claim for false protective order is dismissed by JJ, because the court cancelled the protective order due to a lack of evidence.     This was the first police report ever filed by plaintiff.   Police report says the child told the officer that the bruises were a result of hitting by the defendant's boyfriend, including pictures.      I don't see how the court could dismiss the protective order against the defendant's boyfriend.   Right after that the mother wanted primary custody, but plaintiff still has primary custody.  

Everything dismissed.   

Bailout Gone Wrong-Plaintiffs suing former landlord for an illegal eviction, storage costs, and bail.    Plaintiff hit a rough patch, moved into defendant's home, and then moved in his girlfriend in when plaintiff moved in.   However, plaintiff's written complaint says girlfriend moved in after plaintiff moved in, with defendant/landlord's permission.     Then plaintiff's girlfriend's mother moved into the house a few months later, and slept on the couch.   (Can you tell I hate the plaintiff, his girlfriend, and anyone else connected to him?).    

Plaintiff says he bailed defendant out, but was never repaid.   JJ dismisses the eviction, and the hotel fees, because they're garbage.   

Plaintiff told to go back to local small claims court, where it will be denied.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Alabama Crackheads Beware-When Chief Warrant Officer Steven McCulland Sr (he actually is the senior child support officer for Mobile, AL), was serving subpoena on an Alabama man, and a dog chained up bit CWO McCulland Sr.  on the leg.    The defendant claims that there were signs, but I didn't see any, and he has eight English Bulldogs (they are not English Bulldogs, unless they're crossed with something bigger, and meaner) that he not only has chained up in the front and back yard, but sells too.     

Plaintiff gets zero , because he was an uninvited person on the man's property.    The dog owner only had rabies shots for the dog, the day after the bite.  The defendant is slimy, and treats his animals poorly, and isn't allowed to chain them out like this all of the time, so he's the worst kind of backyard breeder, and a bad owner, who also apparently doesn't get rabies shots on time either.     Slimy defendant says his nine children have no issues with the dogs. 

CWO McCulland says the dog didn't have rabies shots until the day after the bite.    Sorry JJ, but process servers are supposed to serve the person, not just run away like a chicken.   The city ordnance also says dogs have to be penned, not on a chain ($150 fine).  

(This is why some delivery people have been shown booting packages into yards, to avoid being bitten).  

The defendant's dogs bit two other people in April, and is guilty of failure to have the dogs penned in a fence with four walls, instead of chained out.    

(CWO McCullen Sr. is a legal officer, to serve warrants, it's his job, and he wasn't trespassing when he went on defendant's property.   Plaintiff had the right to be there). (JJ says nothing about the dogs not having rabies shots either.)

( I love how the plaintiff's tie, and shirt collar match). 

Plaintiff receives nothing, but in my opinion he deserves something for being injured doing his job.  

Rib Bones Sicken Puppy-Plaintiff accused the defendant of feeding rib bones to Husky puppy, requiring surgery to remove the bones.    Defendant took dog out of kennel (they were at a mutual friend's house), and let him eat rib bones.    However, the plaintiff's idiot witness says he saw the defendant take the dog in the back yard, and grabbed the rib bone from the brother's dog and chewed on it.   The plaintiff's witness is the idiot who gave the brother's dog the rib bone.       (the long shot of the plaintiff table with only the Husky's rear end visible is hysterical). 

$0 to plaintiff.  Plaintiff should have sued her witness, not the defendant. 

Second-

Head-On Collision Chaos-Plaintiff bought car for his daughter, but ex-wife took the car, was in a head on collision, received $4700 from the insurance company.   Defendant kept the money from the insurance company, and plaintiff is suing for car money, and clothes for daughter.  The litigants have been divorced for 14 years.    Defendant has always paid child support for his two daughter, and even when daughter lived with father, mother has never paid child support. 

Defendant bought a car for daughter, but mother had it until daughter received her license.   However, mother drove the car, and a month later had an accident with the car.   Ex-wife received $4700 for car, and spent it on her own living expenses (for defendant, her older daughter, and another child by someone else).  JJ is right, money should have gone to daughter, so she could buy a car when she goes to college.  

$4700 to plaintiff.   

Cruise Scam and Defamation-Plaintiff is in the novelty business, and booked a cruise through defendant/travel agent.   Cruise cost just under $1,000, then plaintiff cancelled the cruise. 

Defendant kept the service fee for booking the cruise, which I think is right.   Plaintiff claims the defendant scammed her, and defendant claims contract talks of the cancellation policy.   Plaintiff received a refund for the ticket from the cruise line, but not the $400 booking fee from the agent.    I bet the cruise line didn't refund the booking fee to the agent either.   

 $400 to plaintiff, defendant case dismissed.  

Edited September 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

29 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff receives nothing, but in my opinion he deserves something for being injured doing his job.  

Absolutely. Even if it was only to tell the grinning idiot of a neglectful dog owner that he must pay for not taking better care to protect people who have a legitimate reason to come onto his property, instead of keeping adding dangerous animals to his herd. And who really thinks he has complied significantly with the order to confine his animals in some sort of secure pen?

Plaintiff was on official business, so JJ was full of shit in saying he was in effect trespassing as an uninvited visitor.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Florinaldo

[jilliannatalia]

32 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Head-On Collision Chaos-Plaintiff bought car for his daughter, but ex-wife took the car, was in a head on collision, received $4700 from the insurance company.   Defendant kept the money from the insurance company, and plaintiff is suing for car money, and clothes for daughter.  The litigants have been divorced for 14 years.    Defendant has always paid child support for his two daughter, and even when daughter lived with father, mother has never paid child support. 

Defendant bought a car for daughter, but mother had it until daughter received her license.   However, mother drove the car, and a month later had an accident with the car.   Ex-wife received $4700 for car, and spent it on her own living expenses (for defendant, her older daughter, and another child by someone else).  JJ is right, money should have gone to daughter, so she could buy a car when she goes to college.  

$4700 to plaintiff.   

I agree totally with you and with JJ. I can't see how the defendant thought she could justify her actions.

 

[jilliannatalia]

On 8/30/2020 at 1:32 AM, Zahdii said:

I think that she brought someone with her that was sitting in the audience both times.  Compare the woman sitting her left (our right) shoulder on the top photo with the one sitting on the opposite side on the bottom photo.

I could certainly be wrong, but to me the woman sitting beyond her right shoulder in the top photo looks more like the one sitting beyond her right shoulder in the bottom photo than the one who is sitting on the opposite side. Regardless, the three of them could be triplets.

[Steph J]

52 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Cruise Scam and Defamation-Plaintiff is in the novelty business, and booked a cruise through defendant/travel agent.   Cruise cost just under $1,000, then plaintiff cancelled the cruise. 

Defendant kept the service fee for booking the cruise, which I think is right.   Plaintiff claims the defendant scammed her, and defendant claims contract talks of the cancellation policy.   Plaintiff received a refund for the ticket from the cruise line, but not the $400 booking fee from the agent.    I bet the cruise line didn't refund the booking fee to the agent either.   

 $400 to plaintiff, defendant case dismissed.  

I hope she used it to buy a hairbrush.  I mean, damn lady, you're going on TV, fix what's atop your head first.

[jilliannatalia]

I' ve read more than a week's worth of recent reviews to see if anything will clarify a question I have,  but I have not come across anything promising, so I shall ask the real experts.

Quite some time ago, as in well over a decade ago, JJ tried a case featuring a woman who bought a suit for a short-term suitor. I think he counter-sued because he said her son damaged his truck, but I'm less clear on that. I believe I was in law school, teaching kindergarten,  and just barely married when I saw the episode. That was two children and almost half a life ago for me , and I'm not even certain I saw the episode on its original airing. On the old Television Without Pity forum, the defendant was referred to as "Suit Studmuffin."  The woman was disparaged on the forum for the number of cheap accessories she wore. She referred to herself more than once as "a professional woman," and repeatedly asked Judge Judy, "Do I look like a Sugar Mama to you?," pronouncing it  more like "shooguh;" I recall having to back it up and replay it multiple times to discern what it was she was trying to say.

My extended family has very vague connections with this woman's family. My cousins are close in age to her two children and went to school and participated in various activities with them. The woman's family is well-known in their area for reasons I won't divulge here. I attended a couple of baseball games and sat near the woman and her extended family. When the episode was slated to run, my cousin called me and told me to record it. Even though I was very busy as both a full-time teacher and a full-time law student, I made the time to record and watch the episode, and I was not disappointed. 

Anyway, many years later, because of mutual Facebook friends, I caught a Facebook political post made by this litigant. The post had only one response, which was   "Stfu moron...just watched your dumbass on Judge Judy! You are a gold digging slut!"   (The gold-digging reference may allude to the former JJ litigant having married seemingly lucratively since then to an ophthalmologist.  She was a divorced single mother when she appeared on JJ. Her current Facebook introduction lists her as "Doctors [sic] wife and administrator at *** Eye Institute." ) I could provide a link to the FB post, but I doubt anyone  cares enough for me to bother.

I'm quite curious as to the timing of the post, which was made yesterday. Does anyone know if that case aired again recently or if it was included on any of the Judge Judy DVD sets?  it seems odd that someone would post something to her now about the  more-than-a-decade-old JJ appearance.

Thanks for any help anyone here can provide.

 

 

 

[TVMovieBuff]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

 

Wild Car Crash Caught on Tape-(I love cases with video that shows who is a liar)-Plaintiff suing her former friend, for totaling her car.   Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car (they are friends from church), running an errand stopped in at a store, left the motor running, and keys in the car, and the car was stolen.      When defendant realized car was stolen (like hell it was, you know he wrecked it), he called plaintiff, a police report was made.   30 minutes later a fireman called plaintiff, asking if she was all right.   Car was found wrecked, crashed into a telephone pole, and with the keys on the driver's seat.  

Plaintiff had insurance, so that paid off, and there was a shortfall of over $1,000, which plaintiff has been paying off.    

There is a video of the car crashing in the telephone pole, showing defendant jumping out of the car, and jumping into another car (sounds like they were street racing).    The video is from a neighbor with security cameras, showing the race, the accident, and defendant running to the other car.   Defendant is such a liar, it's the same jacket he was wearing when he borrowed the car, and it is absolutely the defendant.  

$2800 for plaintiff to cover $1,000 deductible, and shortfall on car insurance.   

 

 

I too like it when a defendant has their ass out in the breeze being caught on video doing the very thing they are accused of. This guy kept to the lie, didn't even flinch. 

I love it when Judy tells them they can be convicted of a crime, for what was on her show. This guy didn't flinch.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Wedding Ring Theft?-Plaintiff is suing his younger brother.    Defendant is the younger brother of plaintiff, and plaintiff is suing defendant for home damages, damaging his motorcycle, and stealing plaintiff's wife's wedding ring.   Defendant was kicked out by mother from family home, for smoking pot, having parties in her home, and plaintiff took the brother in.    Plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle wreck, was in the hospital, and plaintiff and wife came home from the hospital from three days, and found dog stuff on the rug, his motorcycle spray painted, TV broken, and wedding ring had been stolen and pawned by defendant.   

Defendant says house was trashed when he came home, and blames it on plaintiff's brother's enemies.   Defendant pawned the plaintiff's wife's wedding ring.  Plaintiff's witness is the pawn shop owner, saying the date and time the wedding ring was pawned, and paid defendant $900.  Defendant says the ring pawn was to pay for his cell phone the plaintiff broke.  However, defendant pawned the ring a few days before the phone was taken by plaintiff.  Defendant signed it was his ring, and it wasn't reported stolen when it was pawned, and resold.   Defendant claims there was no party, and he's absolutely lying.  My guess is the ring was never reported as stolen, and never will be. 

JJ tells the plaintiff to make a police report,  against the defendant.    Plaintiff has five days to file the police report against defendant, and then he will get his show money.   $2800 to plaintiff, after proof of a police complaint against defendant is filed.     Bet the $2800 was never claimed by plaintiff. 

Don't Kiss Your Sister's Boyfriend-Plaintiff (21 years old) suing her older (23)sister over an unpaid loan.    Defendant claims plaintiff damaged her car, and that exceeded the cost of the loan.   Car damage happened when they had a fight involving plaintiff sucking face with defendant's boyfriend (is it too much to hope it's the defendant's ex-boyfriend? No, boyfriend is defendant's witness).   Plaintiff claims defendant damaged her own car.   

$416 to defendant for the car.  

Second-

Worms Coming Up Through Drain?!-Plaintiffs / former tenants suing  are suing former landlords for return of rent, security deposit, and harassment.     Plaintiffs paid first month's rent, and security deposit to defendants, with a written lease (defendants brought lease copy).   Defendant mother, the owner of property,  can't fly (Sorry JJ, some people can't fly for physical reasons).     Plaintiffs saw the home before move in, (Jersey City, NJ), and claim defendants would put in new appliances, and shower, and a cabinet or two.  Plaintiffs only lived there a month. 

Plaintiffs claim shower flaked paint, that jammed drain, and worms came out of the drain (plumber says it was pasta spaghetti, not worms).   Defendants claim plaintiffs were in the apartment more than a month, and flooring was new before plaintiffs moved in.    Defendants had plaintiffs evicted in June, by housing court.   Plaintiffs claims they moved in April, voluntarily.   Defendants say the closets, refrigerator, kitchen were full of garbage.    Plaintiffs claims they stayed in motels from April through June, because they were afraid of defendant woman.   The owner/defendant's mother actually lives in part of the house.  (I'm sure I saw this before, probably a couple of times, but the plaintiffs look very familiar.   I wonder if they're on other shows too?).  

By the way JJ, people buy all new furniture on payment plans, or rent to own, then move leaving everything behind, or take everything with them, and leave no forwarding address.   They also get a house hold full of rent to own furniture, get it delivered to an empty house that they claim they're moving into, and then sell it, but they never lived there at all.     Defendant/landlords also say the plaintiffs smoked pot every day in the house, and the lease says smoke free environment.     Also, plaintiff has a 3 year old asthmatic child they were smoking pot right next to.    

Defendant also say plaintiff woman wanted a different lease leaving the plaintiff boyfriend's off the lease, in plaintiff woman's name only, to defraud the welfare department.  Why is JJ going to reward welfare cheats? 

$850 to defendants , (this is for 2 months rent, minus the security deposit).

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 8/31/2020 at 6:44 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mother or roommate?) needs better posture, and a good bra fitting.) 

And she needed to do something about that meth mouth.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Skateboard Boy Wonder-(A gifted youngster neglects to tell his father that he has been accused of vandalism)-The defendant child is accused of hitting and damaging a garage door, but mother of kid says plaintiff terrorizes the neighborhood (not an excuse for vandalizing someone's property).  Plaintiff hears garage door getting hit, and defendant child is standing there with his skateboard, and admitted he damaged the door.   It costs $800 to replace the door panel, and paint it.     

Little brat defendant kid swears he was at school at that time, and didn't hit the garage door.      After defendant mother got home, the little boy told his mother about the door, but didn't tell his father who had come home much earlier.   The kid's mother has all kinds of excuses that her son didn't do it, and if he did it wasn't his fault.   I totally believe the plaintiff, and think the defendant's kid gets away with anything he does.  

Kids says in the hall-terview that if it's not on camera, it didn't happen.   (The defendant's mother keeps saying her kid is in gifted and talented classes, so?   That doesn't make him honest, or truthful.)

$800 for plaintiff, and plaintiff won't shut up, and gets the boot.   Defendant's mother still keeps yakking too.  

Mud-Dragging, Big Tipper?!-Salon owner plaintiff is suing defendant client for defamation, lost wages, and non-payment.    Client/defendant at her last appointment wrote a huge tip, reversing the charges later.   

Client/def. claims she was having her natural color removed, so I guess she's talking double process?   However, she's talking Baliage (spelling), which is just highlighting for most.   She also wanted Ombre, so with dark hair she would need the color stripped, and then the highlights, or ombre color added back.      Defendant wrote nasty internet reviews too, and JJ says tough.   The defendant is lucky her hair hasn't fallen out from all of her color techniques she wanted.    

At her last appointment the woman was charged $220, and she had $480 on her card, and she reversed it that night.   Plaintiff claims the service was $220, and tip $250, and another $10 tip, but plaintiff claims he refunded $250 that day, leaving $230.      Plaintiff has proof that defendant reversed the $230 too.    Defendant says plaintiff owes her the money for having to go to court.    

Plaintiff is owed $220, and gets it. 

Second-

Woman Left Dying on Bathroom Floor?!-Plaintiff woman claims her ex promised her marriage, and health insurance, and instead left her sick.  Defendant filed for restraining order for harassment by the plaintiff.    Plaintiff sent defendant a message she was going to take him to JJ's court, so America could see what a dirt bag he is.     

Plaintiff is suing defendant after moving from Oklahoma to Las Vegas, promised everything, including health insurance, and wants JJ to pay her for $5k for false police report, health insurance, etc.      Plaintiff moved back to Oklahoma.      Plaintiff claims defendant took her truck key (he has truck, it's joint ownership), two women's motorcycle helmets (man had it, it was in his name, and he sold it).     Defendant took her $100 tent (forget it), and owes plaintiff a month's rent after he moved out, but it was month-by-month, and woman got evicted for non-payment.     

Defendant filed for order of protection because of harassing emails, and claims the man left her to die, instead of paying her medical bills, and plaintiff claims the man sends naked pictures to people.      Defendant wants to trade in truck, or refinance truck in his name to get plaintiff's name off of the truck loan.   Defendant claims he'll see bank first thing when he gets back to refinance it.     Plaintiff has ride share vehicle, and has to come back to Vegas periodically, defendant claims she stalks him, with no proof.     

JJ says no reason to get protective order, so plaintiff gets $500, and that's all. 

5k Credit Card Free Ride?!-Plaintiff suing father of child, and his girlfriend for unpaid credit card bills.    Plaintiff has six year old with defendant.    Plaintiff stayed at defendant and girlfriend for two days, when she was sick.    Defendant girlfriend has a very gravelly voice, doesn't she?     

Defendant girlfriend made charges on plaintiff's credit card (she's on worker's comp, and disability, for over 2 years now).    Plaintiff says defendant and girlfriend lied about her living with them.      Defendant girlfriend and plaintiff were friends, said girlfriend needed money, girlfriend only has adult kids, and a 7 year old lives with them (a kid with even another woman).      Lisa (defendant) needed money for Christmas gifts.   Defendant racked up over $5000 ($5416 to be exact), in lieu of two months rent.   

Plaintiff says she stayed at the house for two days.  The defendants have zero proof of anything

$5000 to plaintiff.

Edited September 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[khyber]

I noticed that starting next Monday, Judge Judy has showed up on my DVR. Are these really new shows?