All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, basiltherat said:

There is definitely something amiss with Sonny Jim A/C skillet boy.

I kept wondering about possible fetal damage due to substance abuse by the mother. Maybe that is the reason she lost custody shortly after he was born.

She looked fierce; if she were belligerent with me, I think I would grab something too.

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Just Don’t Do It!-

I laughed at the way the defendant sort of deflated when his witness gave up the name of the person he sold the bike to; it took all the wind out of the story he had concocted.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Florinaldo

[parrotfeathers]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I laughed at the way the defendant sort of deflated when his witness gave up the name of the person he sold the bike to; it took all the wind out of the story he had concocted.

I bet that was an awkward trip home.  

[bad things are bad]

Quote

I bet that was an awkward trip home.  

Since it was an old case, I wonder if those two ever got married and if so, subsequently lived happily ever after. Anyone catch their names for Googling purposes? 

[LetsStartTalking]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. first one new, second one a rerun-

First (2020 new)-

Teen Pitches Fit Over A/C?-(2020 post Covid case)-Plaintiff Justin Hodge, age 18,  suing his mother, Christine Connel, for illegal eviction, moving costs, computer tablet, and broken phone  Son lived with aunt from 3 months to age 13.    Son had visitation with mother once a week, and aunt was his legal guardian.   Since age 13, plaintiff has been living with the mother, and the fight was over heat/ac conflict.   During the fight plaintiff says mother broke his phone, but she bought it.   Laptop was claimed to be purchased by the mother too.   Defendant claims plaintiff broke his own phone.     

During the argument police were called, and plaintiff grabbed a skillet "to defend himself" from defendant.   Plaintiff admits he hit the floor with the frying pan a couple of times.    Plaintiff says police did not do a report, and were called by neighbors.     

The fight was started by son, because mother turned the air conditioning off, and son wanted it back on.  Defendant claims son didn't have an issue about anything until his friend Devin told him what to do.     I think the defendant's right about that.   I bet Devin thinks that if son gets a restraining order, then mother will get removed from her own house, and he can move in a be another squatter.   

Litigants are estranged.   Defendant will give laptop back to plaintiff, because it was a gift from the mother.  

Plaintiff receives laptop back.       

Just Don’t Do It!-(2012, 17th season)-Plaintiff Tracy Cooper is suing Jeff Black, claiming he stole her exercise machine.     JJ asks defendant where the exercise machine is, and smart ass defendant says I don't have it.   Defendant looks like he's been pole axed.   Defendant's fiancee says defendant sold the exercise machine to a friend of defendant named, Adam.    JJ tells defendant fiancee that she's with a fool, and as usual, fiancee just smirks.  

Defendant claims plaintiff abandoned the exercise machine.   He claims plaintiff sold him the machine for $500, but plaintiff says he's lying. Plaintiff hired mover Jeff Black to move her household goods, including the exercise machine.   

Defendant fiancee says defendant loser sold the machine to Adam for $500.    Machine is gone.

Plaintiff receives $500 for the older exercise machine.  

In hall-terview defendant's fiancee says that defendant was just nervous, isn't a bad person (for a thief;, my view, not hers), and how it's all a misunderstanding.   (Guess who was totally slammed on his FB page for his moving company, in 2015?   That must have been a rerun of the episode.    Yes, good old Jeff, I wonder if he's still a mover? ). 

 

Teen Pitches Fight

Poor kid had the communication skills of a 14 year old, even though he was 19. His cornbread isn't fully baked yet. His mother scared me! And she didn't even say much - it was just the vibe coming through the TV.

 

Just Don’t Do It!

A shout out to the sexy Jeff Black! Why were the producers keeping this in the can for eight years? This guy was beautiful - I'd love to see him working up a sweat on the exercise bike OR moving my furniture. 😁

Back to the case...Judge Judy had it in for him from the get-go. Why?

A. He was a handsome male.

B. He was a 22 year old male.

C. He was a self-employed male.

If you combined the above three into a female, Judge Judy would've chalked it up to 'miscommunication' and a 'misunderstanding' between the litigants. She would have applauded the young woman for being self-employed. If it was a pretty 22 year old female, she would have never accused her of being 'a hustler', etc.  She very possibly would have ruled in her favor by telling the plaintiff 'Next time, get a written contract. She's not responsible for your belongings.' She then would have wished the 22 year old female 'good luck' with her entrepreneurship.

Gender is everything with young adults on Judge Judy's show.

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

German Shepherd Attacks Chihuahua?-Plaintiff Sheena Soldi suing former neighbor/landlord for his German Shepherd dog attacking her Chihuahua, and she wants vet bills.   They have common back yard unfenced.    Defendant says plaintiff's dog came on his property, and so it wasn't defendant's responsibility.    Plaintiff didn't see the attack, only the defendant saw it.   Defendant says Chihuahua was on his property, and came in his yard (Invisible Fence).     Plaintiff has two dogs, a bigger dog, and the Chihuahua, and switches them on a 60 foot lead, but was not on a leash, or with the plaintiff.   Plaintiff decided not to pay February's rent, until defendant paid the vet bills.   Big mistake to do a self-help rent strike in a tenant-at-will state.  Plaintiff did not pay February through July, claiming the housing (Board of Health) was substandard, and so she didn't pay rent, and had been given a 30 notice to quit in February.

Plaintiff claims taking black mold out of her basement exposed bare wires, but her boyfriend did the mold removal.   Sadly, this results in JJ bringing up the "Ate the Steak" story.   Her father only lives two miles from the rental house, and she moved in with him.   As JJ says, the back rent is over $6,000, that plaintiff never paid will pay for her dog's vet bills.

Defendant says plaintiff and boyfriend built an illegal wall upstairs, that he had to remove, and you can see the marks where the wall was.

Defendant says the plaintiff's trip to the vet after the scuffle was the first time the unfixed dog was ever at the vet's office.   Defendant's dog has been deemed dangerous by animal control, however if this truly happened on his property, if the GSD didn't have a previous bite history, then I don't understand why that occurred.   Many places a dog biting another dog doesn't result in any charges.  

Both cases dismissed. 

Houston Hurricane Damage?-Plaintiff Gertrude Bush suing former landlord Marsha Muwwakki over house flooding that happened during Hurricane Harvey, she wants moving expenses, return of deposits.    Security was $650, and pet deposit $150, rent was $650.    Plaintiff didn't pay her June rent, and claims defendant told her not to, however, landlord says that's a lie.  When plaintiff moved in, she claimed the roof was leaking within a few days.   Defendant had the roof fixed before plaintiff moved in, and started again after move in.   Plaintiff moved to Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and wants moving costs.   Plaintiff claims landlady forgave her rent for June, and wants moving costs for moving 5 hours away.

Defendant claims that plaintiff compromised the roof, and when Hurricane Harvey came through months later, it compromised the roof.  Defendant is suing for rent, bills, and other items.      

JJ reams out defendant for the roof problem, causing plaintiff to move.    

Defendant gets $2,000 moving costs, and $750 for deposits.

Second (2016)-

High at Work?  You're Fired-Plaintiff /former part-time employee Jason Furbush, was fired by John Klein , defendant for coming into work high.   Plaintiff is suing for a motorcycle, and tools that he stored at defendant's business warehouse.  Plaintiff admits he came to work high, and was terminated.      Plaintiff worked off the books.    It was three weeks after the termination that the plaintiff finally contacted the defendant about his stuff.   Everything was junked when defendant's business moved out of the warehouse/business.   However, defendant claims plaintiff stole a lot of auction inventory that defendant had purchased, and defendant only returned half of the items before the termination.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, after the photos are shown of the junk left by plaintiff, including used syringes.  

I'm Just Trying to Get Home-Plaintiff Marquis Brown Sr suing fellow motorist, Richard Stephan,  after defendant crossed into plaintiff's lane, and hit his car.   Defendant claims plaintiff caused the accident.    Both drivers were legally turning left (multiple, legal turn lanes), and plaintiff was going to the gated entrance to where he lives, about 300 yds. down the road after he turned left.  Entrance was on the right side of the road.    Plaintiff was in the middle left turn lane, driver ahead of him put on flashers and stopped.   Plaintiff went into the far right turn lane, and did his turn.   Defendant (from the left side left turn lane) says plaintiff hit the left side of his car during the turn, and kept pushing his car until he hit the curb.   After the accident, defendant says he wanted to get into his gated community, and didn't want to stop.    

Plaintiff claims defendant was in the far left turn lane, and he was in the middle left turn lane.   Defendant car hit the plaintiff's car on the driver's side, clearly shown by photos of the damages.  

Defendant claims nothing is his fault, and he's wrong.   Defendant should give up driving, he's a menace. 

Plaintiff receives $1,722.

Raise Your Hand if You Were Sober-Plaintiff, Latia Juma, and defendant, Carlo Fearrington , were both drunk, and defendant was supposed to be less drunk, so he was driving plaintiff's car.   Plaintiff claims she was drunk, but didn't realize the defendant was drunk too.   

They hit a parked car, and plaintiff claims they left a note for the car owner.   Insurance never said anything about the other car, so they obviously didn't leave information for the poor car owner.   

Case dismissed.  

Edited December 3, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AlleC17]

59 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Teen Pitches Fight

Poor kid had the communication skills of a 14 year old, even though he was 19. His cornbread isn't fully baked yet. His mother scared me! And she didn't even say much - it was just the vibe coming through the TV.

 

Just Don’t Do It!

A shout out to the sexy Jeff Black! Why were the producers keeping this in the can for eight years? This guy was beautiful - I'd love to see him working up a sweat on the exercise bike OR moving my furniture. 😁

Back to the case...Judge Judy had it in for him from the get-go. Why?

A. He was a handsome male.

B. He was a 22 year old male.

C. He was a self-employed male.

If you combined the above three into a female, Judge Judy would've chalked it up to 'miscommunication' and a 'misunderstanding' between the litigants. She would have applauded the young woman for being self-employed. If it was a pretty 22 year old female, she would have never accused her of being 'a hustler', etc.  She very possibly would have ruled in her favor by telling the plaintiff 'Next time, get a written contract. She's not responsible for your belongings.' She then would have wished the 22 year old female 'good luck' with her entrepreneurship.

Gender is everything with young adults on Judge Judy's show.

 

 

I disagree:  I thought he was a complete, lying tool.  Pretty for sure though!  lol

[basiltherat]

Jeffy was a dolt -- not even a smooth liar, and Judy's had plenty of 'em.  Its obvious Judy had him pegged from whatever idiotic drivel of an answer that he wrote down and swore to.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one 2020 rerun-

First (new 2020), second case (2013)-

Scary Air-Bag Recall?!-Plaintiff Olivia Benavides suing rental car company owners Sean Pirali for a fraudulent rental car.   There is a signed contract.   Car was rented for $160 a week, and $150 deposit.   Car was a 2009 model Toyota, and was rented by a previous renter (car was purchased two months before from a private individual).     There was a recall on the air bags, and recall notice is undated.   However, defendant claims his mechanic checked the car over, and the recall wasn't actually on that specific vehicle.  (I had a car with the recalled airbags, and was one of the first in my area to get scheduled at the dealer to replace them.  So either the airbags had been replaced, or they ran the VIN number and it wasn't on the list). 

Plaintiff wanted to rent the car for a ride share, and terminated the contract, and return the car without two weeks notice.   Plaintiff claims she tried to give notice the first week, but had the car from 28 May, and returned on 22 June, for three weeks total.    Plaintiff only paid for two weeks, not the third week, but did pay the $150 deposit, and $50 processing fee.     Plaintiff wants her payments back, but had the car for three weeks.    

Oh no, the "Ate the Steak" story is coming again.   

Case dismissed, because of the deposit.   

Babysitter’s Bounced Checks! (2013)-Plaintiff Brittany Taylor suing former babysitting employer Amelia McPeek. for the two bad checks defendant wrote her ($100, and $100 ) for babysitting her child overnight.  After both checks bounced plaintiff refused to baby sit for the child again.    Plaintiff wants bank fees, the $200 for the bad checks, and other fees.   Defendant claims she didn't know the account was closed that she wrote the checks on.  The checks were written against an account in another state, that the defendant had at a credit union.    

JJ wants to know where the defendant went on both overnight babysitting sessions.    Defendant doesn't want to say. If she rolls her eyes again, I hope JJ gives the plaintiff everything she asked for.   

In her sworn statement defendant didn't say anything about not knowing the account was closed, wrote the checks against the wrong account, and says the babysitter was incompetent. Defendant works at a hospital, scary isn't it?

$600, ($200 for the checks, plus bank fees, and damages) to plaintiff.

Second (2020 Rerun)-

Beauty Pageant Coaching Scam?!-Plaintiff Amy Davis suing for the return of a deposit for the campaign for her beauty pageant coaching business, from defendant Cori Dyer.  Plaintiff paid a $5,000 deposit to defendant.    (Defendant looks very familiar, wonder if she was previously on another judge show, or one of the pageant reality shows).     Plaintiff claims defendant did virtually nothing for the $5k.       Defendant was offering plaintiff a job modeling for a skin injections, fillers, etc. in return for getting the services free, and they started talking, and later plaintiff hired defendant's company.     Plaintiff hired defendant for marketing for the pageant business. Defendant proposed that plaintiff would pay half of the costs for the marketing campaign, and share 50/50 on the profits.   Plaintiff's witness is also an attorney, but is not appearing as an attorney (plaintiff is engaged to him, but her fiance doesn't represent her).     

Defendant claims she, and two partners (her own adult children), worked over 300 hours on plaintiff's campaign.   

Plaintiff was Miss Utah in 2004, and advocates for Traumatic Brain Injury after suffering a TBI during a cheerleading stunt gone wrong back in her college career.

Defendant is very slippery, didn't even bring the logo she designed for the marketing campaign, or any other work product.  Contract was made in mid-2018, to the present, and JJ wants to see the work produced by defendant's company.   No work is shown. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000, and she actually says thank you.   (Did the defendant just hint that JJ is too old to do this?  I 

Covid-19 Business Owner Bites the Dust-Plaintiff Michelle Muschke suing defendants, Dennis and Brenda Hallman, for return of deposit on a beauty salon, and equipment.    Defendant operated salon for six years, she leases from another person.   Defendant was four months behind on leased space, and asset she was selling was the salon equipment inside the salon (chairs, mirrors, etc.).     Defendant says her business partner left the state, and she was on the hook for the entire salon expenses.  

Defendant was selling lease to plaintiff too, and claims she didn't have to repay the four months rent she owed the landlord.   Registration to run a salon had lapsed almost two years before this, until closed down because of Covid.    Building owner bought salon contents for two years of back lease payments.      

Plaintiff gave $5k deposit, and it was for the salon lease, and contents, that had already been sold by defendant to landlord.    I think if there is a good contract, that plaintiff should have filed fraud and theft charges.     (Plaintiff won without saying a word). 

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Edited December 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Babysitter’s Bounced Checks! (2013)-Plaintiff Brittany Taylor suing former babysitting employer Amelia McPeek. for the two bad checks defendant wrote her ($100, and $100 ) for babysitting her child overnight.  After both checks bounced plaintiff refused to baby sit for the child again.    Plaintiff wants bank fees, the $200 for the bad checks, and other fees.   Defendant claims she didn't know the account was closed that she wrote the checks on.  The checks were written against an account in another state, that the defendant had at a credit union.    

JJ wants to know where the defendant went on both overnight babysitting sessions.    Defendant doesn't want to say. If she rolls her eyes again, I hope JJ gives the plaintiff everything she asked for.   

In her sworn statement defendant didn't say anything about not knowing the account was closed, wrote the checks against the wrong account, and says the babysitter was incompetent. Defendant works at a hospital, scary isn't it?$600, ($200 for the checks, plus bank fees, and damages) to plaintiff.

Took me a minute to decide who defendant reminded me of - finally decided Paris Hilton from around time she was doing those corny Simple Life tv shows 15 years ago........ 

 

[LetsStartTalking]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one 2020 rerun-

First (new 2020), second case (2013)-

Scary Air-Bag Recall?!-Plaintiff Olivia Benavides suing rental car company owners Sean Pirali for a fraudulent rental car.   There is a signed contract.   Car was rented for $160 a week, and $150 deposit.   Car was a 2009 model Toyota, and was rented by a previous renter (car was purchased two months before from a private individual).     There was a recall on the air bags, and recall notice is undated.   However, defendant claims his mechanic checked the car over, and the recall wasn't actually on that specific vehicle. 

Plaintiff wanted to rent the car for a ride share, and terminated the contract, and return the car without two weeks notice.   Plaintiff claims she tried to give notice the first week, but had the car from 28 May, and returned on 22 June, for three weeks total.    Plaintiff only paid for two weeks, not the third week, but did pay the $150 deposit, and $50 processing fee.     Plaintiff wants her payments back, but had the car for three weeks.    

Oh no, the "Ate the Steak" story is coming again.   

Case dismissed, because of the deposit.   

Babysitter’s Bounced Checks! (2013)-Plaintiff Brittany Taylor suing former babysitting employer Amelia McPeek. for the two bad checks defendant wrote her ($100, and $100 ) for babysitting her child overnight.  After both checks bounced plaintiff refused to baby sit for the child again.    Plaintiff wants bank fees, the $200 for the bad checks, and other fees.   Defendant claims she didn't know the account was closed that she wrote the checks on.  The checks were written against an account in another state, that the defendant had at a credit union.    

JJ wants to know where the defendant went on both overnight babysitting sessions.    Defendant doesn't want to say. If she rolls her eyes again, I hope JJ gives the plaintiff everything she asked for.   

In her sworn statement defendant didn't say anything about not knowing the account was closed, wrote the checks against the wrong account, and says the babysitter was incompetent. Defendant works at a hospital, scary isn't it?

$600, ($200 for the checks, plus bank fees, and damages) to plaintiff.

 

Judge Judy should have advised Olivia to spend money on a hairdresser and a dentist, never mind renting a car.

Sean was quite sexy. I pegged him to be in his early 50s. However, when he ass-licked Judy at the end, he said he's been watching her since he was a 'teen'. She's been on the air for 25 seasons, so the math doesn't add up - it makes him 44 at most. He didn't look good for 44.

 

Amelia McPeek - she was a nurse ???  She's got a nursing license ? How ?

[KittyMom4]

17 hours ago, basiltherat said:

Jeffy was a dolt -- not even a smooth liar, and Judy's had plenty of 'em.  Its obvious Judy had him pegged from whatever idiotic drivel of an answer that he wrote down and swore to.

So dumb, yet I'm sure he thinks he is the bees knees. His girlfriend was gorgeous and smart, I truly hope she dumped that turd and found a decent, honest guy.  JJ had his number from the moment he took a deep breath and said "I don't have it". I D I O T.  Plaintiff was overeaching with wanting the bike back like it was a one of a kind, never duplicated item. Sheesh, take your money and go.

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Scary Air-Bag Recall?!-Plaintiff Olivia Benavides suing rental car company owners Sean Pirali for a fraudulent rental car

 

2 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Judge Judy should have advised Olivia to spend money on a hairdresser and a dentist, never mind renting a car.

Sean was quite sexy. I pegged him to be in his early 50s. However, when he ass-licked Judy at the end, he said he's been watching her since he was a 'teen'. She's been on the air for 25 seasons, so the math doesn't add up - it makes him 44 at most. He didn't look good for 44.

Hahahaha, I thought the 2 of them could do a low rent impersonation of Gomez & Morticia Addams for Halloween! Man, she was missing more teeth than a jack-o-lantern! And he with is greased back hair and "I've been watching you since I was a teen" comment, really? At least have the decency to NOT put a date on it! 

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Judge Judy should have advised Olivia to spend money on a hairdresser and a dentist, never mind renting a car.

Sean was quite sexy. I pegged him to be in his early 50s. However, when he ass-licked Judy at the end, he said he's been watching her since he was a 'teen'. She's been on the air for 25 seasons, so the math doesn't add up - it makes him 44 at most. He didn't look good for 44.

 

Amelia McPeek - she was a nurse ???  She's got a nursing license ? How ?

She said she worked at a hospital, and did overnights sometimes.   I'm hoping that means a clerical or something that has no direct responsibilities to patients.     I wonder how many other people she's written bad checks to?     When I close an account, or move and get new checks, the old unused ones get shredded.  

Olivia with the rental car, she certainly used the daylights out of that car, according to what she said in court, she put a lot of miles on that car.    Wonder if she had issues getting her own car insurance?  That's one reason to use rental cars.   Or as in the case of other litigants on this show, (not Olivia), they're renting in their name, and letting someone else use the car.    

Edited December 4, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

Today's new case - dog tail injury. I was uncomfortable with the result. The groomer struck me as more credible, it was too bad that she didn't bring one of the groomers who filled in the cards from earlier visits, but to a non lawyer, those cards probably looked (incorrectly) like they would be "business records" and admissible. What really struck me was the plaintiff's picture that she said was as soon as she got home from the groomer showed the dogs tail with an injury that did not look like a fresh injury to me, it looked like it was something that had been going on for a while. I am no expert on dog injuries, but I have a fair number of injuries to myself and have seen a lot of fresh injuries. Sadly, a lot of owners ignore pet injuries, hoping they will go away and as the injury gets progressively worse, they start worrying about how much a vet will cost. I am not really convinced either way, but this one felt wrong to me.

Edited December 4, 2020 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Divorcees Duke It Out!-Plaintiff Michelle Plater suing ex-husband Michael Plater for the remainder of a title loan.    Car is a 2013 Chevy Impala.  Litigants were co-owners on the car, and there was no settlement of marital property.   Defendant put down $3k on the car, and the loan was over $10k, but plaintiff (home health care, and pet care) paid for the payments on the title loan for a while, then turned the car in 2015 to the original dealership, because she had been in an accident, and couldn't pay for the car.   Defendant paid the $1700 back payments to get the car back from the dealer, and he had the car and paid the loan off, $10k+.     

Then litigants took out a title loan on the car, for $9k+.    Defendant paid on the loan for eight months, $3500 paid.   TItle loan was $9k, and each litigant, and son in medical school took about $4,000, $1200 for plaintiff, and the rest for defendant.    Defendant paid a lot of the initial car loan, and he paid off the title loan on the car (yes, I know this is ridiculous, and confusing, but it's what happened).     Plaintiff has the car, and another husband, but is now unemployed.    Plaintiff also claims she paid $7k on the car but has no proof, but defendant does.   

Plaintiff has the car now, which is paid off.  Plaintiff claims she didn't know car title was still in her name, but that's impossible to change titles without her signature.

JJ tells plaintiff to sell the car, and split the proceeds.  

Muslim Mudslinging?!-Plaintiff Leticia Madden suing ex-boyfriend and live-in, Arthur Blount Jr. for rent after he moved out of the townhouse they were renting together.     Litigants, and plaintiff's cousin lived in a townhouse together.  Cousin, and defendant moved out about the same time.  Cousin paid no rent at any time.    Plaintiff wants defendant to pay half of the rent for over six months after he moved out.    Defendant claims plaintiff was abusive.   

Plaintiff claims that since the defendant is Muslim, that he wanted to turn her into a Muslim, and was mean to her (that's what the case title refers to).   

Defendant says she called him the R-word, ran around constantly, and was verbally abusive.   When plaintiff told defendant to hit the road, he moved out in October, and plaintiff stayed there for 10 months (cousin didn't move out actually).

Plaintiff case dismissed.       

Second (2016)-

Stealing Power- Plaintiff Jada Hunt suing former potential landlord, James Stacy, Jr.   for a refund of rent, and emotional distress for a house.   There was no power, and it would take a couple of weeks to get the lines connected. Hot water heater, and copper lines in house had been stolen.      Power line to house was disconnected because a previous tenant had stolen electricity from the city of Detroit.    House didn't have power until almost a month later. 

 The landlord also hadn't replaced the hot water heater, water line, plumbing, and fixtures, which had to be done before a certificate of occupancy could be issued.    Defendant claims the house has electric power now. 

When plaintiff gets back to Detroit, she and her family are homeless.    Plaintiff is no longer interested in moving into the landlord's slum.    Landlord bought house for $8k, a few years ago at auction, and it's been empty for several years now.    There is some evidence of repairs.

Defendant can shove his counter claim where the sun don't shine.    What a total slum lord. 

 $1200 to plaintiff.   I hope plaintiff and her family found a nice, safe place to stay after she went back to Detroit. 

Rats in the House-Plaintiff Tammy Hintzman was renting a beach house in Oceanside, CA from Elena Uranga.   Home was remodeled by the owner, and on the second year, plaintiff rented the house.   Plaintiff left a month early, and security deposit was used for last month's rent.   Plaintiff wants her security, and rent back.   

Plaintiff claims there were rats, and she should get her security deposit back because the home was infested with rats.  However, plaintiff says there weren't any rats until August of the lease year, which ran until 8 December. 

Lease says that pest control is tenant responsibility, inside or outside of the house.    Landlady had pipe holes filled in with foam (if anyone does this, then used the dark orange fire rated foam, it dries like concrete), and other holes patched. 

Plaintiff moved out a month early, but the rats were gone by then.   Plaintiff moved right into another rental home that was leased before the end of her lease from defendant.   

There is no way the plaintiff's timeline isn't a lie, because she sent notice with the new home address, when shehg gave notice to the landlady.   Defendant/landlady thinks plaintiff wanted to move closer to her sister, and new home is closer.  Lease was signed on the new place in the end of September.     Plaintiff sent an email to defendant asking about renewing the lease, and the monthly price, three weeks after plaintiff signed the lease on the next place, proving that tenant hadn't told defendant she was moving. 

Plaintiff case is dismissed, because she's a freaking liar. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 12/2/2020 at 6:56 PM, basiltherat said:

There is definitely something amiss with Sonny Jim A/C skillet boy.   Whatever it is, there's no way he would have the gumption or knowledge to file a lawsuit unless his "friend" Devin was advising him.

All I could see is Gypsy Rose, that girl killed her mother after the mother kept her sick (Munchausen by proxy) for years to get money and attention and sympathy. The mother shaved the girl's head because she told her Gypsy Rose had "cancer".  I can't unsee it. 

8 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Judge Judy should have advised Olivia to spend money on a hairdresser and a dentist, never mind renting a car.

She looked like one of characters from SNL played by Kristin Wiig, missing tooth and all. Like the pot smoking hippie version of the Target lady. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. first one new, second one a recent rerun-

First (2020, new)-

Groomer Lacerates Dog?!-Plaintiff Brenda Cornejo, dog owner suing grooming shop owner,  Diane Layton, for the damages to her dog's tail, eventually leading to tail amputation.  Plaintiff took Marley (small terrier mix), and German Shepherd for groom, and when she picked the dogs up, noticed Marley's tail was sliced.    Plaintiff claims this was the only injury Marley ever had at the groomer.   Plaintiff's son was playing with the dogs at her home after the grooming, and dog shrieked, and was bleeding.    I bet something happened at home, not at the groomer's shop.        

Dog went to emergency vet, and first bill was $400+, there were other visits, and reports from the emergency vet, There are also a lot of routine vaccinations on the emergency vet bills to.   Then plaintiff took her dog to her vet, and the tail was amputated at the emergency vet, $3012.    Groomer records say dog had tail issues since June 2018.    Groomer says she told plaintiff about the tail issues, and dog should see a vet.  Plaintiff claims groomer forged the grooming card.   What grooming shop has the owner doing all of the work?   

Plaintiff is going to win, but she shouldn't.     

Plaintiff witness, Tia Weinstein, testifies that she never saw an injury on Marley.    Photos of the dog tail are submitted, and the wound is very minor, and on the end of his tail.   

I think it's either fly bites, that became infected, or one injury that was never treated over a long time.   That's not a fresh wound in my opinion.   I think it's an infection that was never treated, and it's not anything to do with the groomer.    There isn't trimmed hair on the tail either, especially the tip.    In my opinion (I've had dogs that went to the groomer a lot over the years), that's not a grooming accident.   JJ also ignored that the vet had to do all of the routine shots, because groomer says dog had never been to the vet, ever!    

Plaintiff receives $ 3358 for vet bills.    Lost wages and other garbage are tossed out.  

Second (2020)-

Drug-Test Challenge Cat Fight?!-Plaintiff Kimberly Richter says former friend, defendant Carrie Reyes, assaulted her, and wants medical bills, plus pain and suffering.   Defendant says it was self-defense.    Plaintiff says defendant Carrie Reyes, and husband Raul Lavera,   were arguing about which one of them is on drugs.    So, plaintiff has some home drug tests, and offered them for both to test.     When plaintiff, defendant and defendant's husband were in garage talking, plaintiff had some drug tests (14 panel drug tests), plaintiff handed the defendants the drug tests.   So who has a bunch of drug tests at their house?   

 Husband said he would, defendant got upset, and jumped plaintiff, breaking her nose, and other injuries.    Plaintiff's daughter rescued plaintiff, police were called, and she went to the doctor the next morning.   

Defendant's story varies dramatically, and we pick up at the garage point.  Defendant claims plaintiff has a history of alcoholism, and offered to sleep with defendant husband.   Defendant says she told plaintiff's husband about the sex offer, and claims the plaintiff attacked her.  Defendant claims plaintiff was in front of her, pushed her, and she was pushed onto her knees (this doesn't make sense unless her knees bend the other way).   Defendant sent photos of her injuries to the detective on the case.   Defendant says plaintiff ripped her hair out.    Defendant never saw a doctor, or made a police report.   Defendant claims she hit plaintiff's nose in self-defense.  (What the hell is defendant wearing around her waist?)

   Plaintiff daughter says defendant pushed her mother down, and the fight started, and plaintiff told defendant to leave.    Sounds like mutual combat, until defendant grabbed a vase or something, and hit plaintiff in the head.  Defendant husband tells JJ he agreed to the drug test, and defendant wife refused.    This backs up the plaintiff's story. 

I hate both litigants.   What a sordid, ludicrous mess this case is, and I'm guessing this is rather normal for the litigants, and I bet the kids involved have seen a lot of this fighting over the years.   

$3,078 to plaintiff for medical bills.

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[parrotfeathers]

19 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Today's new case - dog tail injury. I was uncomfortable with the result. The groomer struck me as more credible, it was too bad that she didn't bring one of the groomers who filled in the cards from earlier visits, but to a non lawyer, those cards probably looked (incorrectly) like they would be "business records" and admissible. What really struck me was the plaintiff's picture that she said was as soon as she got home from the groomer showed the dogs tail with an injury that did not look like a fresh injury to me, it looked like it was something that had been going on for a while. I am no expert on dog injuries, but I have a fair number of injuries to myself and have seen a lot of fresh injuries. Sadly, a lot of owners ignore pet injuries, hoping they will go away and as the injury gets progressively worse, they start worrying about how much a vet will cost. I am not really convinced either way, but this one felt wrong to me.

JJ had her mind made up before the case even got started.  Groomer didn't have a chance.

[bad things are bad]

On 12/4/2020 at 12:47 PM, BexKeps said:

Scary Air-Bag Recal

PSA here: the Takata airbag recall is still a thing and people have died. If you are buying a used car, go to NHTSA's recall site and put in the VIN. It will tell you if the vehicle is part of the recall.  Or better still, most carmakers have their own sites which will tell you if the repair has not been performed on your vehicle (based on the VIN)

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. both reruns-

First (2017)-

Bulldog Rescue Scam or Slander?-Plaintiff Melisa Duncan is suing Victoria Rigdon for online slandering of her English bull dog rescue business (My Dreams Bull Dog Rescue), leading to the loss of 3,000 donors, and the rescue closing.  501 (c)3 registered in 2017.   Rescue was in Florida, and they had dogs in plaintiff's home, and with foster parents.    Plaintiff has one now, and that's all she has.    Most dogs end up in foster homes, pending adoption.    JJ wants the foster homes name, and only lists two homes.   The rescue pays for supplies, but not for fostering.    In six months plaintiff paid vets $4k, but no bill copies.    The two foster homes have fostered 15 dogs in six to nine months.    The two plaintiff witnesses have fostered for the rescue also.   Rescue paid thousands for vet bills, about $10k.   Plaintiff raised about $26k through silent auctions, and from other donors, since April 2017.

Defendant claims plaintiff has a bad character, and divorced her sick husband (nope, don't see what that has to do with the case).   Defendant gives JJ the posting that she put on the rescue page, alleging that plaintiff isn't vetting dogs properly, and claims to be an expert, and doesn't keep the dogs long enough before adoption.       Defendant can't be sued for her opinion about the adoptions.     Defendant claims adoptions were done without home visits (no proof). 

Defendant says plaintiff posted she was closing the rescue because of husband's cancer, but that was when she was divorcing him at the same time, and said nothing about defendant's posts.    Not nice, but not defendant's business either.  (As you can probably tell, I don't like the defendant).

Defendant sent a message via FB to examine the books and records of the rescue, but no formal request.    Defendant didn't bring others she claims looked at the plaintiff's books.    However, since plaintiff did say the husband's health, and other issues were why she closed the rescue, then I bet she won't get a penny.

Plaintiff can show no damages.   

Plaintiff receives $500 for the unsubstantiated charges by defendant.

Second (2017)-

Vandalized Office, Mudslinging Business Partner-Plaintiff Sharon Dent suing former business partner Angel Canady-Larry, at Global Tax & Business Solutions,  for vandalizing her office, and stealing her employee files.  They were in business for five years.   Litigants were in a tax business together, and each want $5k from each other.     

The defendant was in charge of check writing for the business, and paid herself $13,025.   The checks were to cover rent for a property she owned with her husband.  Instead of paying the office assistant (a plaintiff witness), the defendant paid the assistant's rent from the business accounts.   

Plaintiff fired defendant after defendant's husband was accused of sexual harassment in the business office, victim is plaintiff's witness, and defendant was told her husband wasn't to come into the office.   

Graffiti in office reads "Angel" in several places, and that's the first name of the defendant (Angel Canady-Larry).   I do not believe there is any way that defendant and her husband weren't behind the graffiti.       Office had been cleared out, because plaintiff took the furniture out before the vandalism.    Defendant is suing for her TIme-Warner Cable modem, and slander.    Defendant has a witness that says after defendant was fired, witness was called to meet with the plaintiff, and defendant, and told defendant was out of the office.    Defendant witness says she did her taxes with defendant, and then plaintiff called and said she needed to sign her taxes.   Witness said she had already filed, and didn't authorize the plaintiff to do her taxes.   The IRS should take away the authority of plaintiff's company to act as an agent for taxes.    So defendant and husband owned the apartment that plaintiff's witness lived in, and was paid for out of company funds, and she's also the one who claims defendant's husband harassed her.  

Both cases dismissed. 

Don't Believe Everything You Read Online-Plaintiff Travis Evans suing Christin Heath, mechanic for damaging his car, and return of his deposit.  Plaintiff bought a 2007 Saturn, that needed a new engine, and was towed to the defendant's shop.    Plaintiff found defendant through an ad on Facebook, and a recommendation from his aunt.    The deposit to the mechanic was $1200 in December, and car was picked up six weeks later, and had to be towed home.  Defendant also lost his mechanic's shop during January.     Plaintiff claims nothing was done to his vehicle over the six weeks, except many parts were disconnected, and placed inside the car.  Why didn't plaintiff get a mobile detailer to clean his car seats? 

Plaintiff has unhelpful estimates.  Plaintiff receives $1200 deposit back.

Edited December 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[nora1992]

Don’t like the plaintiff that wants a reduction in rent because he lost his OVERTIME pay (regular salary seems unaffected).  That was never guaranteed, so he’s coming across as a scammer.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. both 2020-

First (New, 2020)-

Season Pass Scam?!-Plaintiffs Victoria Viamin, Jonathan Friedland, and Nicholas Shore, bought $500 each Ikon annual friends and family ski passes from defendant Vynessa DiBlasio.  There was another person who bought the $400 pass with blackout dates on holidays.    Passes are usually $1,000, but the $500 pass had no blackout dates.   Plaintiffs paid on apps to defendant.   ($400 pass isn't in court, so he's out).   

Defendant says she received $1500 via the apps, for the $500 Ikon ski passes.    Then all three plaintiffs received an email saying that the three passes (and the fourth) were fraudulent.   Defendant says she was duped, and it's not her fraud.   However, she resold the passes, so it's her fraud.  JJ tells obnoxious defendant to find the person she bought the passes from.  

$500 to each of the three plaintiffs, totaling $1,500.   

Father Son Fight! (older case)-Plaintiff Cody Lloyd suing his father, Randall Lloyd for a car that Cody paid $4200 for.  Car was in father's name, because of Cody's age, and was supposed to be transferred to son when he turned 18.      Father was mad that son who moved in with him had a party in his house, when father was out of town.    

When son became 18 he was supposed to turn car over to son, and instead the father sold the car, and kept the money.   Apparently son mov

Father Randall Lloyd is slurping the Water That Must be Drunk like he's been marooned in the desert for years.   What a slime ball.

Plaintiff receives $4200 for his car, father receives nothing.   

Covid Strikes Again! (2020)-Plaintiff Alexander Nielsen suing former landlady, Mary L'Homme.  Tenant lived there for two years, and rent was $2,000 a month, and during Covid rent was reduced to $1500 for two months, paid it, and plaintiff then moved out with relatives, and still wants his security deposit back.   During Covid plaintiff's company stopped overtime, and his income was reduced. 

Defendant says all conditions with the reduced rent dropped off of her phone.     Fortunately, plaintiff has the texts.  (Why did plaintiff take an apartment where he had to have overtime to afford it?   That's not the landlord's problem, it's his).    Defendant agreed to the reduced rent for two months, at $1500.

Plaintiff receives his $1,000 security deposit.

Second (2020 rerun)-

Jerry Bishop memorial screen.  He will be missed.  

 

The Reason This Country is in Trouble!-Plaintiff Richard Mance suing, Jazmine Garcia, SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four)  the girlfriend of his wife's nephew for unpaid rent, and damages.   Plaintiff and wife's nephew, who is defendant's boyfriend, Brian, signed a co-tenancy lease on an apartment.   Tenants were two children, defendant woman, and boyfriend.    Defendants didn't pay the last four months rent.     

Defendant is a former foster, and was getting some stipend from the state, which ended.     Defendant has three of her four children living with her, and her boyfriend, but two kids live full time with defendant woman.     Plaintiff was ruled against, and plaintiff claims he paid the landlord $9010, principal and attorney fees were about a $1,000.  Defendant has four children, but only three live with her.    Boyfriend wasn't on the lease, just the defendant, Ms. Garcia.  

Defendant woman claims boyfriend sold a car, and paid the security deposit.    Defendant woman is 22 and has four kids, defendant boyfriend has three kids with defendant, and he's 42.    Defendant boyfriend claims he was on the lease, but didn't live there full time.   Defendant boyfriend refuses to say what bills or support he supplies for his girl friend, their three kids, etc.   

 

I wish Officer Byrd would punch out loser defendant witness/boyfriend.   Defendant boyfriend refuses to say where he lives when he's not at defendant girlfriend's place.    Defendant is on welfare (that's why boyfriend claims he doesn't live there), and only has TREAD for former foster kids. I only mention the TREAD and welfare because defendant did and she gets tribal money.    Defendant man pays nothing for rent, security or anything else.    At last JJ has the boyfriend's mike cut off.   

(My guess is the defendant stopped paying rent is her stipend went bye-bye when she hit 22 years old.  Some states pay stipends until the 22nd birthday for former fosters, I'm not sure what state they were all from, but that's my guess). 

JJ tells the plaintiff to sue defendant witness.

$2500 for plaintiff.  

Tweener's Missing Diamond Earring!-Plaintiff, age 56, Darryl Paxton, is suing defendant Elizabeth Claiborne, for the value of a diamond earring, $350.   Plaintiff lives with Wndy, the 38 year old (former daughter-in-law of defendant) for five years now, and her 12 year old son.    Plaintiff gave two earrings to girlfriend, and one to girlfriend's 12 year old son.    Plaintiff noticed son's earring was missing, and he says grandmother/defendant took the earring, and threw the earring away. 

JJ explains to plaintiff that girlfriend (former daughter-in-law of defendant)  has standing to sue on behalf of her son, for the earring, so she needs to sue her the child's grandmother/defendant.    

Defendant says grandson came to visit, and was complaining about the earring hurting. Grandmother claims the grandson's ear was inflamed, so she removed the earring.   Grandmother says the earring was accidentally trashed.     Earrings purchased by plaintiff were far superior to replacement earrings purchased by defendant /  grandmother.    

Plaintiff's witness will have to sue defendant, because plaintiff has no standing to sue. Yes, daughter will have to sue her mother.  

Case dismissed.  

Edited December 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[LetsStartTalking]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. both 2020-

First (New, 2020)-

Season Pass Scam?!-Plaintiffs Victoria Viamin, Jonathan Friedland, and Nicholas Shore, bought $500 each Ikon annual friends and family ski passes from defendant Vynessa DiBlasio.  There was another person who bought the $400 pass with blackout dates on holidays.    Passes are usually $1,000, but the $500 pass had no blackout dates.   Plaintiffs paid on apps to defendant.   ($400 pass isn't in court, so he's out).   

Defendant says she received $1500 via the apps, for the $500 Ikon ski passes.    Then all three plaintiffs received an email saying that the three passes (and the fourth) were fraudulent.   Defendant says she was duped, and it's not her fraud.   However, she resold the passes, so it's her fraud.  JJ tells obnoxious defendant to find the person she bought the passes from.  

$500 to each of the three plaintiffs, totaling $1,500.   

Father Son Fight! (older case)-Plaintiff Cody Lloyd suing his father, Randall Lloyd for a car that Cody paid $4200 for.  Car was in father's name, because of Cody's age, and was supposed to be transferred to son when he turned 18.      Father was mad that son who moved in with him had a party in his house, when father was out of town.    

When son became 18 he was supposed to turn car over to son, and instead the father sold the car, and kept the money.   Apparently son mov

Father Randall Lloyd is slurping the Water That Must be Drunk like he's been marooned in the desert for years.   What a slime ball.

Plaintiff receives $4200 for his car, father receives nothing.   

Covid Strikes Again! (2020)-Plaintiff Alexander Nielsen suing former landlady, Mary L'Homme.  Tenant lived there for two years, and rent was $2,000 a month, and during Covid rent was reduced to $1500 for two months, paid it, and plaintiff then moved out with relatives, and still wants his security deposit back.   During Covid plaintiff's company stopped overtime, and his income was reduced. 

Defendant says all conditions with the reduced rent dropped off of her phone.     Fortunately, plaintiff has the texts.  (Why did plaintiff take an apartment where he had to have overtime to afford it?   That's not the landlord's problem, it's his).    Defendant agreed to the reduced rent for two months, at $1500.

Plaintiff receives his $1,000 security deposit.  

 

Season Pass Scam?

I couldn't help but wonder (or fantasize?) if Nicholas Shore and Jonathan Friedland were 'a couple'. Two sexy college dudes who were forbidden to 'chime in' because there is no chiming in JJ's courtroom. In any case, I'd love to be snowbound in a ski lodge with just the two of them.

Back to the case - Judge Judy was giving defendant Vynessa Di Blasio three minutes - that's it! - to explain her defense. We now know 'three minutes' means 'three short sentences' on Judy's timeclock. Poor Vynessa got whiplashed by the judgement.

 

Father Son Fight!

There's a very good reason why this case was left in 'the can' for seven years. There's absolutely no good reason why it was broadcast today, as filler between two 'new' cases. We'll leave it at that.

 

Covid Strikes Again!

Thank you producers for this case with the incredibly sexy Alexander Nielsen suing Mary L'Homme, who looked like she was channeling Bette Davis in 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane ?'  I was waiting for Ms. L'Homme to start bellowing "Blaaaaaaaaaanche! Blaaaaaaaaaaaaanche!"  Mr. Nielsen was a hottie in a businessman / nerd sort of way. Very sexy smile. He was one I'd want to rip off his glasses (which were dated), loosen up his shirt and tie,  and muss up his hair - I'm sure he's fun when he 'let's loose'.  If he needs a place to stay, I'm renting a ski lodge with Nicholas and Jonathan...

The case was a 'no brainer'.  She gave him the place for $1500 for June and July 'unconditional'. Somehow Baby Jane Hudson forgot that....just like she forgot she had her older sister Blanche up in the room. 

 

 

 

[DoctorK]

48 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Poor Vynessa got whiplashed by the judgement.

True about the 3 minute shortfall (in what we saw) but the defendant was so completely wrong that it didn't really matter.

[Florinaldo]

11 hours ago, DoctorK said:

True about the 3 minute shortfall (in what we saw) but the defendant was so completely wrong that it didn't really matter.

Her "argument" became clearly wrong so extremely fast that it broke some relativistic barrier and there was a resulting time dilation effect, which is why her 3 minutes went by so quickly.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Carolina Girl]

17 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Her "argument" became clearly wrong so extremely fast that it broke some relativistic barrier and there was a resulting time dilation effect, which is why her 3 minutes went by so quickly.

The glimpse I got from the email that was sent was that the purchaser "disputed" the credit card purchase and so the pass issuer invalidated the passes, which makes me wonder if defendant was in on the scam from the beginning.   She claims the individual "ran off" and can't be found.  How did she hook up with him in the first place, then?  And why was she actively recruiting literal strangers to buy them?

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Beer Pong Gone Wrong-Plaintiff Amanda Filbrandt suing former roommates, April Huddleston, and Diana Clement, both 18, for damaged property, unpaid bills, and return of rent (living in a rented house).    Plaintiff was on lease, when boyfriend moved out, he was removed from the lease, and both defendants were added to the lease.   

Plaintiff saw defendants' video of a party of underage people playing beer pong, brought home a Pit Bull, that was not house trained.  Dog was brought to the home without plaintiff's consent.    Lease had all three roommates on it, each paid $217 a month.    Over Christmas holidays, plaintiff was out of town for two weeks, plaintiff saw video of beer pong party, beer cans, and cigarette butts in the house, and lawn.   (JJ refuses to go to her college kids' homes, or apartments because of the filth, and germs).     

There was a roommate agreement forbidding the dog, and parties without all roommates agreement.   Plaintiff says her dining room table finish was ruined by water damage, and table is cracked.    Defendants had a Yorkie with everyone's consent, but the incontinent Pit Bull was moved in without plaintiff's consent.   

Plaintiff had a right to move out because of defendants' breaking the roommate agreement.   Plaintiff receives her $217 security deposit back.  Table top is absolutely ruined.  Pit Bull chewed up plaintiff's coffee table. 

In mid January plaintiff was moving out, and when she came back to get her stuff, she saw the total damage to her table.      Defendants gave dog back to the original owners in mid-January.    

Plaintiff receives $1,029.    

Woman Attacked During Beauty Treatment-Plaintiff Catrina Kaihe suing her hairdresser's roommate Kellie Hunter for medical bills, and lost wages from a dog attack.  Plaintiff went to defendant's witness house (her name is Aguilar) house for hair services,  and defendant's dog bit plaintiff.     (On a personal note, never go to a hairdresser that can't even do their own roots for court). 

Plaintiff says she was having foils put on, and dog ran into the room, and bit her twice on the hand.    Dog is a Rhodesian Ridgeback.   This was the first time plaintiff went to hairdresser's place for hair services, instead of defendant coming to the plaintiff's home.   Defendant witness doesn't want to mention that dog was let in by defendant, while she was helping get foils ready for plaintiff, and that's when the dog bite happened.   Defendant claims the plaintiff let the dog into the room herself, and was playing with the dog.  

Defendant witness was previously homeless, and still lives with her witness (the dog owner, and hairdresser).   Defense witness doesn't want to speak in court, because she's afraid of being kicked out by defendant.   

Plaintiff submits doctor's report, and medical bills.   Plaintiff received six stitches in her hand, and missed work for a week.   Plaintiff needs a better hairdresser too.  

$1,000 for plaintiff for medical bills, and lost wages. 

Second (2017)-

The Smell of 14 Cats in the Morning-Plaintiff Taymoor Pilehvar (not the immigration attorney in Florida)bought a condo, in Stillwater, OK, and later rented it to the defendants, Kevin Mensink and Tiffany Armstrong,  who had 14 cats, and 7 kittens, and the results were horrible to live with.  (I can almost smell the ammonia from just hearing 21 cats in one home).   Plaintiff was in college, when he moved to Norman, OK for law school, and now practices law Norman, OK in Oklahoma, and he rented the condo to defendant.    Defendants lived in condo for three years, and were often late, but paid, except they still owe partial rent for the last month.    (Plaintiff now intends to rehab the condo, and sell it). 

Neighbors started calling plaintiff about the cat stench from the condo.   The maximum number of cats was 14, including kittens, and found homes for them (now the strange singing/meowing, voice of the defendant man starts).   Defendants had 4 cats when they moved out.   Lease says 3 cats maximum.   

Bizarre note, the male defendant has a weird voice in court, a cross between meowing, and speaking.   Last time it was suggested by posters that it was Tourette's, or stuttering mitigation, or he's part cat.   Male defendant's hairstyle is interesting too, resembling cat ears.   

Plaintiff never gave permission for more than three cats.   I love the plaintiff, he has move in condition of the condo, the damages in photos, and original photos are from defendants' Facebook page.   There are a lot of Facebook photos, of many cats and kittens (different photos show different coat colors, and patterns).     On move in, apartment was immaculate, and in great physical condition.    In hall-terview the defendant male's voice is more normal.   I wonder how the new landlord of the defendants felt, when they saw this case? 

$5,000 to plaintiff for cleaning (won't even begin to remediate that smell, you have to remove drywall at least two feet above the floor, all trim and baseboards, clean floors under carpet, or other materials, and it still might not get rid of the smells, and probably the doors too.  If you have pop corn ceiling, that will hold the smell also, and curtains and other fabrics).   I pity the neighbors of that condo. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.  

Store Owner or Drug Dealer-Plaintiff Tommy Wade alleges that the neighbor Miranda Arnold,  in the  apartment,   building accused him of running a drug business, and filed a false protective order against him.    Plaintiff claims he only operates a store for building residents for juice boxes, and milk, and doesn't actually live in the unit.     Plaintiff also has an attorney he's used since he was 18, but can't find the number.    Plaintiff also claims he only has the store open to help people, and spends most nights at his girlfriend's place.   Plaintiff didn't bring any bills for his business, and claims the building manager knows about the business.  

After defendant called police about alleged drug activity by plaintiff, he made death threats against her, and she received a protective order.  (Plaintiff was selling his products out of two separate apartments, and the day-room in the building).   When the day room closes at 4:30 pm, he starts selling out of the apartment until late at night.       The plaintiff's attorney doesn't know him, the receipt for cash isn't a number the attorney uses,    Madonna Homes, the complex this happened in is only for elderly, and disabled people.     I want to know how plaintiff, and his fiance qualified to move into a building for elderly, and disabled?   

Defendant is getting evicted from apartment complex because of plaintiff's harassment, and that means to me that management of the apartments is fine with plaintiff running his store in the building, and allowing someone who doesn't even qualify to live there have two apartments, and use the day room.

Case is recalled, and the attorney doesn't know the plaintiff, and his receipt isn't from his office. (On another strange note, plaintiff's witness/fiance is barefoot in court). 

Plaintiff case dismissed.        Counter claim dismissed. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. first one new (I’m guessing the second case in the first episode is older), second one 2020 rerun-

First (2020, first case)-

Divorce Kills a Catered Party?!-Plaintiff Toby Petrucelli (woman) suing caterer, Nancy Vajretti, over an event that never happened, at a venue/club.  Plaintiff claims she and her ex-husband signed the contract in July18,  2020 for the event that would happen in December 2020, with $1500 down, and more payments to follow.   However, contract copy from defendant was only signed by ex-husband, and defendant.   So plaintiff has no standing in this case.    Next payment was due on August 6, for $3500, next was November 6 for $3500.    August payment 

Contract says cancel by 90 days before event to get a refund.    Cancellation was October 6th, less than 90 days before the event.    Payment of $8,000 was made in October, right before the cancellation.   The plaintiffs paid in full for a discount, 

Plaintiff has no standing in the case, so she receives nothing.    Ex-husband will have to sue to get the money back.  

Clueless Crash Into a Wall (2012)-Plaintiff Giselle Bennett is suing neighbor, Shannon Robinson (male) for driving into her garden, and crashing into a retaining wall on her property.   This happened in Atlanta GA.   Plaintiff was asleep, heard a crash, and found the accident happened.   Defendant says he has no idea how the car ended up on plaintiff's property, and who stole, and crashed his car.     Defendant car was not insured, and he claims he wasn't responsible.  

Defendant's statement says he parked in front of plaintiff's home, on the street, because his friends needed his driveway for parking.  

Pictures of the retaining wall are very bad, insurance would have covered this, but defendant didn't pay his bills.   Plaintiff has letter from defendant's former insurance company, and it says his policy was cancelled a full month before his car mysteriously flew into plaintiff's wall.

$350 to plaintiff.

Second (2020 rerun)-

Best Used Car Contract Ever Written!-Plaintiffs Zachary and Alexa Parry are suing defendant for refund on the sale of a car (Hyundai Elantra), repairs, and registration fees.  Defendant Diane Donges claims car was "As Is".   However, Alexa Perry wrote the wonderful Bill of Sale, saying if repairs exceed $1,000 that a refund will happen.  Car passed smog, a miracle for cars on this show.   

 Plaintiffs purchased a craigslist car from defendant, and six weeks later they're suing.    There is a Bill of Sale, stating that on initial assessment by mechanic exceeds $1,000 in repairs, or doesn't pass smog test, then there will be a refund.   Car passed smog, and plaintiffs claim the repairs on the car are in excess of $1,000, so plaintiffs want a refund.   

Air conditioner wasn't working, and plaintiffs knew that, and it cost $618 to fix a/c, three days after purchase.     Then, on July 23rd they got on the freeway, and the check engine light came on, and mechanic claimed that they needed a transmission rebuild or replacement (for $4200, $4800, or $6200 [for a new transmission])   , both are expensive, and well over $1,000 refund limit on the Bill of Sale. 

Plaintiffs sent a demand letter outlining the repair costs, and wanting a refund.  

Defendant bought the car used, and sold to plaintiffs three months later.   Defendant bought a BMW at auction, and wanted to sell the Elantra.  Plaintiffs claim there is a lien on the car, for $4640 from Advanced Auto (where she bought the Elantra from), and defendant claims she paid the lien off.     

According to contract terms (contract was plaintiff's), plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of the purchase price of the Hyundai, $4600   Plaintiff put the contract terms in the contract, and defendant gets the car back. 

$4600 to plaintiffs.  So plaintiffs keep the car, and now they can get the transmission fixed.  

Convenience Store Crash!-Plaintiff Graham Kirlin is suing fellow motorist, Jeremiah Merrell for backing into his car in a convenience car parking lot.  Each litigant blames the other one.   2019 Honda is plaintiff's car, and he's paying on it, with insurance, and $1,000 deductible.       Plaintiff wants $5,000, and $1,000 deductible is combined with the work he had to go through to get car fixed (car was fixed six months after the accident).  Plaintiff is only going to get $1,000.   Plaintiff witness co-worker was in the car during the accident. 

Plaintiff says defendant backed out of a parking space, and hit his car.   Plaintiff was in a space, with a car in the next space, and then defendant backed up, plaintiff claims he was at a full stop, and defendant hit him with the trailer hitch on the truck driven by the defendant.   Defendant claims plaintiff hit him, and defendant also claims his insurance company found no fault by either party.    Plaintiff says defendant gave him an out dated insurance car also. 

Plaintiff, and witness say that defendant claimed he had a relative with a body shop, and they could get the car fixed right now.   However, defendant's brother works at a car dealer, and doesn't have a body shop.   Apparently, defendant backed into the front grill of the plaintiff, so drawing on easel isn't right.    Plaintiff car hood, bumper,  and front grill are ruined.    

Defendant claims he backed out of the parking space, stopped, and then plaintiff rammed into defendant's back end.     Bull, as JJ said defendant didn't see the the plaintiff's car, and backed into it. 

$1000 to plaintiff for deductible. (I think plaintiff should have received $1,000 more for inconvenience, and for defendant being uninsured). 

[KittyMom4]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Divorce Kills a Catered Party?!-Plaintiff Toby Petrucelli (woman) suing caterer, Nancy Vajretti, over an event that never happened, at a venue/club. 

Miss Petrucelli needs to lay off the botox, her face looked like a clay mask. Aside from the distraction of her immobile top lip and eyebrows, her case was such a sham. She knew full well that she was not a signer on the contract, I'll bet she wanted her ex to sue the defendant on her behalf and he refused so she thought she could pull a fast one on JJ. 

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Clueless Crash Into a Wall (2012)-Plaintiff Giselle Bennett is suing neighbor, Shannon Robinson (male) for driving into her garden, and crashing into a retaining wall on her property.   This happened in Atlanta GA.   Plaintiff was asleep, heard a crash, and found the accident happened.   Defendant says he has no idea how the car ended up on plaintiff's property, and who stole, and crashed his car.     Defendant car was not insured, and he claims he wasn't responsible.  

omg, Mr. Keps and I laughed so hard at this case, the car over the top of the brick wall, his "I dunno what happened" excuse, too funny!!  The plaintiff's deadpan, "we live in the same house" had us rolling. 

[LetsStartTalking]

Is anyone else as dizzy as I am watching the 'new episodes', and going from current 2020 to Spring, 2012 ? Seeing a much younger JJ with her original hairstyle, juxtaposed with the older 'RBG' Judge Judy ?

[KittyMom4]

On 12/7/2020 at 8:36 PM, LetsStartTalking said:

Season Pass Scam?

I couldn't help but wonder (or fantasize?) if Nicholas Shore and Jonathan Friedland were 'a couple'. Two sexy college dudes who were forbidden to 'chime in' because there is no chiming in JJ's courtroom. In any case, I'd love to be snowbound in a ski lodge with just the two of them.

Back to the case - Judge Judy was giving defendant Vynessa Di Blasio three minutes - that's it! - to explain her defense. We now know 'three minutes' means 'three short sentences' on Judy's timeclock. Poor Vynessa got whiplashed by the judgement.

JJ knew after 3 seconds/3 syllables that Ms. DiBlasio was a liar. I loved how put together those kids were, I thought Miss Viamin was gorgeous, I covet her hair.....

18 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

The glimpse I got from the email that was sent was that the purchaser "disputed" the credit card purchase and so the pass issuer invalidated the passes, which makes me wonder if defendant was in on the scam from the beginning.   She claims the individual "ran off" and can't be found.  How did she hook up with him in the first place, then?  And why was she actively recruiting literal strangers to buy them?

Yep, I think she got duped and scammed those kids thinking it would never come back on her.  

On 12/7/2020 at 8:36 PM, LetsStartTalking said:

Mr. Nielsen was a hottie in a businessman / nerd sort of way. Very sexy smile. He was one I'd want to rip off his glasses (which were dated), loosen up his shirt and tie,  and muss up his hair - I'm sure he's fun when he 'let's loose'.  If he needs a place to stay, I'm renting a ski lodge with Nicholas and Jonathan...

Um....I thought he looked like Jeffrey Dahmer. He gave me the creeps.

[WallStreetDuchess]

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  Store Owner or Drug Dealer-Plaintiff Tommy Wade alleges that the neighbor Miranda Arnold,  in the  apartment,   building accused him of running a drug business, and filed a false protective order against him.    Plaintiff claims he only operates a store for building residents for juice boxes, and milk, and doesn't actually live in the unit.     Plaintiff also has an attorney he's used since he was 18, but can't find the number.    Plaintiff also claims he only has the store open to help people, and spends most nights at his girlfriend's place.   Plaintiff didn't bring any bills for his business, and claims the building manager knows about the business.  

After defendant called police about alleged drug activity by plaintiff, he made death threats against her, and she received a protective order.  (Plaintiff was selling his products out of two separate apartments, and the day-room in the building).   When the day room closes at 4:30 pm, he starts selling out of the apartment until late at night.       The plaintiff's attorney doesn't know him, the receipt for cash isn't a number the attorney uses,    Madonna Homes, the complex this happened in is only for elderly, and disabled people.     I want to know how plaintiff, and his fiance qualified to move into a building for elderly, and disabled?   

Defendant is getting evicted from apartment complex because of plaintiff's harassment, and that means to me that management of the apartments is fine with plaintiff running his store in the building, and allowing someone who doesn't even qualify to live there have two apartments, and use the day room.

Case is recalled, and the attorney doesn't know the plaintiff, and his receipt isn't from his office. (On another strange note, plaintiff's witness/fiance is barefoot in court). 

Plaintiff case dismissed.        Counter claim dismissed. 

These two fine people are from my town (Toledo). I could not be more proud/s. I've been to Madonna Homes many years ago to visit a client, and they were primarily for elderly or disabled people, though since it was run by LMHA, the plaintiff may have gotten in because there were no openings at other LMHA run rentals. I don't remember when, but I think this is the complex that was renamed after some huge bug infestation and possibly LMHA losing the property. At any rate, I could totally see where this guy could have set up his shady shop. I'm glad neither got anything.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

New Career: Flipping Cars!-Plaintiff Ramon Canty is suing body shop owner Christopher Satkowski, for a car purchase, tow fees.   They were going in together to flip cars, buy cheap, fix up and make money selling.   2007 Charger was the first purchase, for $800, and it needed an engine ($1250 + $400= $1650).   When plaintiff finally picked up car, it croaked on the side of the road right up the street from the defendant's shop.  

Car was left by the side of the road by plaintiff, and defendant.   Then car was gone from the side of the road, and tow truck said car was gone when they came to pick up car.   Defendant assumed plaintiff had called a different tow truck to pick up car, and take it to plaintiff's mother's mechanic shop.   Plaintiff didn't call to ask about car for three days later, so why didn't he call the next day to check with the mechanic?    I wonder if anyone checked with the police, to see if it was towed by them? 

This is not defendant's fault, because plaintiff bought an $800 car, invested about $2,000 in it, and there are no guarantees on the repairs.

OK, so car was picked up by police, and after the legal time period was auctioned off, probably junked by now. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Creative Judgment!-Plaintiff Janie Hill suing Glen McTier over a car purchase.  Plaintiff was buying the car on payments, but didn't pay the last payment, then the deal went south.   Plaintiff claims she was only going to pay the last payment to defendant when he signed title over, defendant repossessed the car, and that's when she stole the car back, and still has it.  After defendant repossessed the car, the plaintiff went and stole the car back from defendant, and has had it for 14 months, and wants the title signed over to her.     Car registration was cancelled by defendant.    Price was $3500, at $300 a month.   Plaintiff paid $3000.

Defendant is countersuing for impound fees, lost wages. 

Proof by plaintiff is inadequate, and as usual, receipts are in the car, but when defendant repossessed the car, plaintiff claims defendant cleaned it out.    Defendant is going through bankruptcy, and he still owes $700 on it.  As usual it's a title loan.  I'm very confused about the bankruptcy case.  

I agree with JJ, there's some kind of scam going on here, but I'm not sure how.   Plaintiff claims she only wants the title, but also wants $3,000 in payments returned to her.  

JJ says defendant will get $350 for the last of the loan, title will go to the plaintiff, and then she can register the car.  The $350 check for defendant will be made to TItle Max, and defendant will have to pay the loan off, and title will go to plaintiff. 

Second (2017)-

Pregnant Ex-Lover Anger-Plaintiff Ericka Bobalek suing former live-in boyfriend Trace Fisher, for return of rent, moving costs, and security deposit.     They were shacking up, and three months later it ended.    Plaintiff took out a personal loan for $4,000 for moving, security deposit, and rent.    Security was $1450, and rent was $950.    As usual, defendant has no proof he paid security, and first month's rent. 

Plaintiff moved out in March, and went back to apartment to pick up some of her things, and discovered another woman living there.   Plaintiff rented a U-Haul, and moved out in Mid-March, and discovered the evidence of new furniture, TV, belongings of Heather (his children's mother, and their two kids living there).    Man has 50/50 custody, and after plaintiff moved out he claims Heather only came over to send kids to school, but plaintiff says woman was living there.  (Sadly, plaintiff became pregnant, and claims defendant told her to get an abortion or move out.   Plaintiff moved out, and sadly will be tied to the loser defendant for years to come.  This is child number four for defendant). 

Plaintiff gets $1450 security back, but no moving costs.   Plaintiff also bought almost $1,000 of appliances, and defendant paid her $800 for those, and she'll get $156 more.  Defendant says on move out day, either plaintiff or a helper took his king sized bed, and smashed his TV (good for them). 

$1606 to plaintiff.  Plaintiff does not get money for the loan, because she had no expectation of repayment.   Defendant claims to be a victim.  

Attending a Funeral or Arrested-Plaintiff In He Lee suing former tenant John Jhun for unpaid rent and damages.  Plaintiff rented a 2 story home to defendant, and defendant paid $1100 security deposit.   Plaintiff claims defendant didn't pay from July to September (defendant claims he paid cash, and has no receipts).     Defendant owes $3300 for three months rent (July to September).   Plaintiff claims damages, but no proof of damages, so that's dismissed. 

Plaintiff has no proof of damages.    Defendant was out of town in September at a family funeral, however plaintiff claims man was in jail.    Counter claim by defendant is for property landlady took when he was at the funeral (or jail).  Defendant has no proof of the funeral he went to.   

Defendant also left his girlfriend behind at the plaintiff's house, and she was told to leave also (apparently not on lease).  So girlfriend didn't need to go to the funeral?   

 Plaintiff gets today's award for hysterical faces, during the defendant's testimony. 

 Plaintiff gets $3300 for rent.  

Edited December 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. first case on first one new 2020, second case?, second episode 2020 rerun-

First-

You’re Not Entitled to $5,000 (2020)-Plaintiff John Progner suing mechanic Miguel Ramos over repair of a 35 year old RV, a 1985 Toyota Camper.    Plaintiff paid $2500 for it when it was 15 years, old (2000),, and had defendant fix the rusted out body, for $5,000.     Plaintiff claims he paid $4500 to defendant.      Plaintiff also paid $1,000 to $1500 for other repairs.    Plaintiff wants the money to fix his brakes, but defendant was only paid to fix the body, not the brakes.   Plaintiff Progner is a PITA, and simply won't shut up.    

The RV was totally rusted out on the flooring, and the roof had big issues.    I suspect there was a lot more damage than even $5,000 could begin to fix.  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Daycare Disaster (older anywhere from 2012 to 2016?)-Plaintiff Angella Scott suing defendant Stacey Hastis, for non-payment of daycare bills for two children for three days.   As always, defendant claims care was inadequate, and so she left her children there anyway?    If defendant really had concerns, why would she bring the children back?    She had the children there for the 15th, and 16th, and brought them back on the 30th.   

On the 16th, defendant claims her mother went to pick her children up, and plaintiff gave the wrong 5 year old to the grandmother.   The defendant brought her children back on the 30th,, and that was the last day at daycare.   Oh no!  The Ate the Steak story again.  (this is old enough that JJ doesn't know a tablet is an iPad).  

Plaintiff receives $77.25 for the daycare bills.

Second (2020)-

Blind Rescue Dog Gets High?!-Plaintiff Tijera Wright suing her cousin, Anthony Chambers for vet bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering after dog ate pot brownies bought by defendant.      Defendant brought pot edibles on a visit, and dog got into pot brownies.   Adorable dog was rescued by plaintiff, and is totally blind.  

Plaintiff claims the feeding of the pot brownies was not an accident by the defendant.   Defendant and plaintiff's brother rode train down to visit, and purchased pot brownies in San Diego, and defendant was taking the brownies home (he's from another state, no shipping across state lines, last time I heard).     On June 2 defendant claims plaintiff's brother let dog eat chocolate covered raisins (also deadly for dogs), and pot brownies.    Defendant says dog was fine.   However, plaintiff says dog was stoned.  

(Plaintiff says defendant tried to murder her dog on previous occasions, and this time it was chocolate, raisins, and pot.  So why is cousin still allowed in her home, or near her dog? I would love to kick the snot out of the defendant).     

Plaintiff receives $446 vet bill.      (Defendant is despicable). 

Elder Abuse and the Escape Artist!-Plaintiff Janice Bad Heart Bull, suing defendant Jitandra Panchal over a car sale.   Plaintiff wanted a Scion station wagon type vehicle, and litigants are both Scion enthusiasts.    Plaintiff didn't see car until the day she purchased the car for $4500 (defendant says $4500, but plaintiff claims she paid $5500).   (I find the plaintiff's interrupting irritating.   JJ keeps calling her name, and we have the same first name.  As a result of plaintiff's blabbing, I just got my name called by JJ four times, and she wasn't happy either.  This could be a case for PTSD). 

Plaintiff doesn't have a bill of sale, defendant has a statement of fact (in his state used instead of a bill of sale).   Plaintiff had car for 4,000 miles, and six months before engine blew up.  Plaintiff claims the defendant lied to the DMV about the car title, and engine being clean.    It was an 11 year-old car, registered to the plaintiff, so there was nothing wrong with the title or the deal.

Plaintiff claims defendant left the country (so what?), and abused her as an elderly person, and she wants JJ to pay her for the second car she had to buy after Scion went to the car junkyard in the sky.      Plaintiff should have checked Car Fax before she bought the car, not after. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

Edited December 10, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[pagooey]

8 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Is anyone else as dizzy as I am watching the 'new episodes', and going from current 2020 to Spring, 2012 ? Seeing a much younger JJ with her original hairstyle, juxtaposed with the older 'RBG' Judge Judy ?

I find it a little jarring and sad, too. Younger JJ, with her expert makeup and hairdo (and her diffusion filter on the lens!) is a far cry from doing-her-own-look, gives-no-f*cks 2020 JJ. It's clear that she thrives in front of an audience, too, and that she's disappointed there's no one to laugh at her punchlines, and no one to shush for laughing. Seeing her former self batting around Mr. I Don't Know How My Uninsured Car Got On That Brick Wall for sport was a delight. She doesn't have the patience for it any more, and for her own sake and health in this crappy year, I am glad she's almost done. 

This can't be how she wanted her silver anniversary final season to go, either, which is a shame. I do appreciate that they're bringing back some real doozies of cases for us to enjoy. But if this is how she has to go out, I say dig deeper. Go WAY back and treat us to the classics! Cheez Balls! Tupperware! Heck, what did it look like in the first season, before she became a total phenomenon? Show some ancient cases, maybe even have her do some commentary. Which ones stand out in her memory? Would she rule differently today? Does she regret any decisions? The producers are sitting on a gold mine, if they really want to acknowledge her cultural impact. And it's not like there's anything NEW to watch on t.v. 

ETA: I mostly lurk, here, but I enjoy all you regulars and hope you're safe and well during these craptastic times! Life is short; eat the steak!

Edited December 9, 2020 by pagooey
wishing everybody well ;)

[Florinaldo]

7 hours ago, BexKeps said:

I loved how put together those kids were,

Which must have been very frustrating for JJ since she could not exercice her usual prejudices and hate against younger litigants. Fortunately, she had an awful defendant on which to focus her fury.

9 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

You’re Not Entitled to $5,000

Another deluded idiot who thinks his ancient jalopy is worth as much, if not more, than a new vehicle and runs perfectly. At least until another party puts their unclean hands on it. He was even dumb enough to deny the visual evidence of the good job the defendant had done on his crappy old RV.

JJ was too much indulgent with him, letting him drone on and on trying to blacken the defendant's character by bringing up alleged and irrelevant issues of child support and similar matters.

[CrazyInAlabama]

22 minutes ago, pagooey said:

ETA: I mostly lurk, here, but I enjoy all you regulars and hope you're safe and well during these craptastic times! Life is short; eat the steak!

Just pay for the steak, don't eat and dash the way the litigants do.  

Spoiler

I really wanted to cut Janice Bad Heart Bull's microphone off, and have Officer Byrd boot her out.  She was so irritating.     She's no stranger to courtrooms either, with at least one other case where someone tried to get a restraining order against her.   

 I see nothing wrong with defendant going overseas, and I fail to see why that woman thought it was sinister.  I bet he wished he stayed there after this car transaction.     

I have zero idea of when the daycare case originally aired.    So it could have been any time from 2012-2017.    They don't add that to the copyright date at the end of the show. 

[nora1992]

Poor Mr Progner - her mind was made up as soon as she read the age of the vehicle, and she didn’t even bother to get his name right.  But it just emphasizes the point of getting everything in writing, and that checks are still useful.

[LetsStartTalking]

14 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

Poor Mr Progner - her mind was made up as soon as she read the age of the vehicle, and she didn’t even bother to get his name right.  But it just emphasizes the point of getting everything in writing, and that checks are still useful.

Poor Mr. Progner looked like "Mr. Ed" the talking horse from the 60's TV comedy.

[LetsStartTalking]

Just now, LetsStartTalking said:

Poor Mr. Progner looked like "Mr. Ed" the talking horse from the 60's TV comedy.

 

Her 'You ate the steak' argument is becoming ridiculous, since you can't compare the simple act of 'eating' the steak to daycare, or 90% of all the other cases - especially with those cases which involve contracts and agreements.

If her 'you ate the steak' held weight, then everyone who has forfeited a deposit for something they never received should be getting their deposits back. People lose deposits on items and services for a steak they never were even served, never mind eaten. Yet she never brings 'the steak' argument up for their defense; they lose their deposits. 

[DebbieW]

Agreed with the "ate the steak" analogy only working one way.  I'm also becoming a little frustrated with her take on animal cases (bites, custody, whatever).  Granted, many of the plaintiffs and defendants in these cases are asshats, but I find it annoying that if a litigant makes any reference to their pet being like their child JJ shuts them down and says that's ridiculous, but if there's one little hint that a person might have been careless in any way in the slightest, JJ lectures them about their pets being like their children.   Pick a stance and stick with it, please.

[LetsStartTalking]

Quote

ETA: I mostly lurk, here, but I enjoy all you regulars and hope you're safe and well during these craptastic times! Life is short; eat the steak!

If you eat the steak, be prepared to pay for it. If you put a deposit on the steak, and it's never served to you - be prepared to lose your deposit.

 

What does ETA stand for in this sentence ? I only know it as 'estimated time of arrival'.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

When Old Friends Become New Roommates-Plaintiff / homeowner Melody Syndor suing former friend Vernon Stuart Jr. for damages, and unpaid rent for his girlfriend when she rented him the top floor of her townhouse ($600 a month, four months).   Plaintiff claims the defendant moved his girlfriend (met on Plenty of Fish) and she moved in within a few days of meeting defendant.   He never paid rent for the girlfriend either.    Defendant claims plaintiff turned utilities off on him, and constructively evicted him.    Defendant owes $150 more for the last month's partial unpaid rent.   Plaintiff claims defendant broke the sleigh bed that belonged to her, tea stains on the mattress, and other stains on the mattress, microwave, washing machine (stackable), and carpet trashed, including wax.    Clothes racks pulled down in walk in closet in his room, furniture damages.   No security deposit either.   No invoice for cleaning fee.   Defendant promised in texts that if plaintiff helped him clean his previous place, he would give her half the returned security $90. 

Rent for defendant's girlfriend.   Scary that defendant is a realtor, and has access to many homes as a part of his business.  Plaintiff says defendant abandoned TV, and other items at her place when he moved out.   Defendant has five days to pick up his TV, or it can be trashed, with a police escort.

Plaintiff receives $240.   

Frightened Painter Walks Off Job?!-Plaintiff Christopher Bellard suing defendant Jeffery Spring-Durovy, who was paid to paint his house interior, but job wasn't finished.    Bellard says he paid 50% deposit to painter.   Painter says he left after threats by the plaintiff.    Plaintiff says job was not done well, however, he didn't allow defendant time to finish either.  

Defendant painter admits the paint job was taking longer than promised.    However, plaintiff hasn't had the job redone, or finished since this happened, which is over three months.    

Plaintiff receives $2250.  

Second (2017)-

Yorkie Struck and Killed-Plaintiffs Isaias and Ashley Sanchez, suing driver/defendant Brad Underwood, for hitting and killing their Yorkie.   Plaintiff brother Geronimo Sanchez was walking three dogs (plaintiff's Yorkie, and Boxer, and his own Jack Russell Terrier), and it is alleged that he was also on his cell phone.     Yorkie was on a retractable / flexy leash.    One other dog was on a leash, and the Jack Russell was on a flexy too.   Plaintiff claims Boxer was also hit, but not injured.   Plaintiff was walking the three dogs, and claims he waited on the sidewalk, then when he went into the street when the defendant hit the two dogs.    Plaintiff dog walker says he was barely off the left side curb, so he's claiming the defendant was on the wrong side of the street, and turning left.   

Defendant was pulling out of his driveway, and hadn't reached the stop sign yet, and was going to turn left after stopping.   Defendant's car hit the plaintiff walking across the corner, from behind the neighbor's parked car,  on the left side of the street corner, across the intersection.    Defendant's pictures show the neighbor's car parked on the corner where plaintiff crossed.    However, defendant didn't see the dogs coming out from behind the parked car.  Defendant claims plaintiff/dog walker was on his cell phone too.    The only vet bills are for the dog's cremation, and defendant paid the $159.    

Plaintiffs want the money to buy another Yorkie.   My question is how far out in the road was the Yorkie?    The defendant was on the right side of the road, and the dog walker crossed from the left side.   Plaintiff dog walker did admit he saw the defendant backing out of his driveway.  

(I bet the dog walker was walking diagnally across the street, from the SW corner, to the NE corner, and came out from behind the badly parked SUV of the neighbor.      

In my opinion, it was the plaintiff brother's fault, he was jaywalking, on his cell phone, and not paying attention.  They should have been buying their own replacement dog.   

Plaintiff receives $1200.

Playing House Nightmare-Plaintiff Noretha Martin, suing ex-fiance Eric Epps for car payments.    Litigants lived together for five years.   (What the hell is that fugly furry vest on the plaintiff?   It looks like she made her own out of road kill pelts).    Both litigants owned two cars, and both were bought on plaintiff's credit.    Defendant was supposed to make the payments, and he paid his own car off.   

Litigants had a big fight, after man was 'caught' doing something, but still lived together for one more month when defendant moved in with his next girlfriend.   Plaintiff started making payments on defendant's car, after car finance people threatened to repo defendant's car, which was on plaintiff's credit.   Defendant didn't pay for three months, and plaintiff called police, and she went to get the car, and took the plates.   Next day plaintiff had the key, and she drove it home.   

Plaintiff paid one month of payments, tried to refi the car ($14,000 owed), and couldn't.   (Defendant says plaintiff didn't want his new girlfriend in the car that was in her name).  Sorry, but plaintiff took the car back, so why should the defendant pay anything on the car?  Plaintiff also is whining because defendant didn't marry her.  

$5,000 to plaintiff, but her $14,000 car payment still is garnished from her wages, and she's still going to pay $8,000 plus interest.   Plaintiff didn't really win. 

Edited December 11, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

7 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In my opinion, it was the plaintiff brother's fault, he was jaywalking, on his cell phone, and not paying attention.   They should have been buying their own replacement dog.  

Totally agree. JJ should have at the very least declared it shared liability and decreased the award accordingly, down to zero in my view. She also should have deducted the funeral costs which the defendant paid.

9 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(What the hell is that fugly furry vest on the plaintiff?   It looks like she made her own out of road kill pelts). 

I thought it may have been made from Yorkie pelts, like the one in the previous case.

[Bobby88]

4 hours ago, DebbieW said:

Agreed with the "ate the steak" analogy only working one way.  I'm also becoming a little frustrated with her take on animal cases (bites, custody, whatever).  Granted, many of the plaintiffs and defendants in these cases are asshats, but I find it annoying that if a litigant makes any reference to their pet being like their child JJ shuts them down and says that's ridiculous, but if there's one little hint that a person might have been careless in any way in the slightest, JJ lectures them about their pets being like their children.   Pick a stance and stick with it, please.

Absolutely! I think it's JJ's lack of consistency that frustrates me the most. One episode, she'll give some 18-year-old spoiled brat a well-deserved verbal smackdown for trashing a rental property. Next day, identical scenario with different litigants, and she goes off on the landlord for being stupid in renting to such a young person. Either 18-year-olds are legally responsible for any damage they cause or they're not.

I've noticed in recent years that she HATES when anyone (except her) makes some type of profit. Anyone apart from her who has even the slightest of windfalls is automatically a scammer. I don't know when that started, but I definitely remember when she wasn't like that.

Seriously, when I watch some of her older episodes from even about six or seven years ago, she's like a different person. I would imagine seeing some of the wackos that have come in and out of her courtroom day after day for 25 years would jade a person, but this is ridiculous.

 

 

[One Tough Cookie]

9 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Poor Mr. Progner looked like "Mr. Ed" the talking horse from the 60's TV comedy.

I  think I just pissed myself!

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. first one new 2020, second one 2020 rerun-

First (2020)-

Take Shorter Showers!-Plaintiff Steven Weiss paid for son's (Dylan Weiss) rented room at  defendant Apawari Martins' house.   Plaintiff wants return of security deposit, and  rent increase, by $100 a month, and wrongful eviction.    Defendant says plaintiff father claimed son would get a job, and claims son was running a business out of the house, impacting utilities, and businesses aren't allowed in residential areas.    Defendant son claims he had to sign the agreement, but JJ thinks the defendant signed the agreement, committing forgery.    However, son claims he signed the contract, and addendum.    (Sadly, another parent who wants others to put up with their adult child, instead of having them live with them. The father couldn't live with the son, [or maybe the new wife or girlfriend didn't want to cope with him], so other people are supposed to?    ALso, father lied that son was going to be employed, and he wasn't then, and still isn't, unless his online services are really paying well.    Personally, I don't like plaintiff father).

Son/plaintiff isn't sure if he ever signed the contract, and addendum or not.   However, son kept paying the higher amount, so that sounds like a contract to me. (I studied law at the school of Law & Order, JJ, and The People's Court, so I know everything).    If son isn't competent to sign contracts and pay bills, then how is he competent to live alone?   Son also is supposed to have several web services companies too.   Plaintiff son cut back on utilities use, so $100 increase was lowered to $50 for utilities, making rent plus utilities $750.   Plaintiff father claims he didn't talk to defendant about the rent increase, just his son.  

Then defendant gave plaintiff son eviction notice.    According to defendant, plaintiff son took very long showers, and was in the home 24/7, using more utilities.   Plaintiff father wants 11 days rent back (not happening).   

Rent increase dismissed.    Defendant is showing damages.  This isn't going to go well for the defendant.   Fair Housing court said plaintiff wasn't entitled to security deposit back, so why is JJ rehearing another adjudicator's decision?   JJ wants to see the estimate, which is $800.   However, I think the stucco corner had to be patched, and painted, not just painted. 

$600 to plaintiff for the security deposit.  

Second (2020 rerun)-

Pony Attacked by Pit Bull!-Plaintiffs Estella Hernandez suing former neighbor, Myra Solis,  for vet bills, and punitive damages.     Plaintiff husband, Francisco Hernandez,  saw a pit bull, and German Shepherd owned by the defendant attacking plaintiff's pony/horse.     First attack was pit bull biting plaintiff's pony on the legs.     Plaintiff husband recognized the dogs.    Defendant owns the dogs.   

Plaintiff saw the pony bleeding at 4 p.m., and saw the pit bull and German Shepherd owned by the defendant (she keeps interrupting, and is despicable).     

Plaintiff husband Francisco Hernandez saw the same two dogs in October 2019, before, again attacking his pony, and he talked to the defendant the next day.  The second attack was in December 2019, on the horse, and the pony owned by plaintiffs.    The same two dogs were seen on the property by plaintiff husband at the time of the attack.   

Defendant got the German Shepherd years ago (defendant is lying, there is no way this is the same dog, it would be ancient, and GSD’s simply don’t live to be over 16 years old), and then the pit bull right before the attacks.    There were no animal issues on plaintiff's property since 2013, when they moved in, until right after the pit bull arrived.   

Vet wrote a statement about the attack, and the surgery required by the horse, and the pony, on the second attack.    After the October incident, plaintiff sent a text to defendant talking about the dog attack, and bills.   Defendant lived with her family, who are renters.    Defendant claims the pit bull was a foster, and wasn't really her dog.     Bet homeowners or renter's insurance wouldn't cover the dog, especially after the attack. 

I'm guessing that the defendant's move out from her parent's home, where she lived when this happened, was because the landlord told the parents that either the daughter left, or the parents did.     So, the daughter moved out.   Her dogs were confiscated, quarantined, and euthanized.     In spite of the fact (sarcasm) that her German Shepherd was years older than any GSD I've ever heard of, or as Carolina Girl said, four years older than any GSD she's ever had), there is no way this was a 16 year old GSD.   My guess is the pit wasn't the only new dog.  

My guess is the landlord of the defendant's parents said that daughter wasn't on the lease, and I bet anyone 18 or older had to sign the lease.     I bet neither dog was on the lease, and the dogs weren't covered under renter's insurance, if the parents even had insurance.  

Defendant claims she needs video evidence to prove her dogs attacked the pony, and horse.    Defendant claims she gave pit bull up, but that's a lie.   Animal control came out and issued a warning after the October attack, and  after the December attack dogs were confiscated, and euthanized.  

$3,000 for plaintiff.

Pandemic Panic!-Plaintiff Brenda LeBrane-Jackson wants deposit back on apartment she wanted to rent from defendant, Jerome Oswald.   Apartment wasn't ready in time for move in.  Plaintiff gave a $1450 deposit, then Covid happened, and her two jobs went away, and she could no longer afford the apartment.    Defendant is counter suing for the cost of renovations plaintiff requested, and he completed.    Apartment was attached to the back of a house, a studio for plaintiff and her son. 

Plaintiff wanted a TV, the shower fixed, closet organizer, medicine cabinet installed.   Plaintiff's problem is that she lost her job, but defendant completed work, and stopped showing it because plaintiff agreed to move in.   Plaintiff will not get her $1450 back.   Defendant rented the apartment in July,   Plaintiff moved to Louisiana because it's cheaper, and getting started again.

Case, and counter claim dismissed.  Plaintiff will not be receiving her $1450 back. 

Edited December 11, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sadly, another parent who wants others to put up with their adult child, instead of having them live with them. Personally, I don't like plaintiff father).

But I don't think the son was playing with a full deck and the father wanted the kid out of the house.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 minutes ago, One Tough Cookie said:

But I don't think the son was playing with a full deck and the father wanted the kid out of the house.  

At the beginning of the case, with the son, the father was definitely running the show.  However, I noticed about halfway through the son started talking, and participating, and didn't seem so limited.    I'm betting the second half of the case was more real.  

[pagooey]

3 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

What does ETA stand for in this sentence ? I only know it as 'estimated time of arrival'.

In these forums, "Edited to add". 🙂

 

[Rabbittron]

My mom had a GSD who lived to age 21.