All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Mondrianyone]

Just now, CoolWhipLite said:

I must say that it feels good to be among others who give in to their curiosity. I don't mention my court show-related Google explorations in mixed company. 

Back atcha.  In my case there's all kinds of background info I could find out about reality-show books (and who really wrote them), but I'd have to tell the folks I work with why I want to know, which I won't do.  But here I'm with my people.

[NYGirl]

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Today's landlord/tenant case -- again we have a decision that makes no sense because JJ knows something we don't know.  Plaintiff sues for damage to his rental property and gets nothing, even though he has police reports about shenanigans on the property and he has abatement orders from the city about a car on blocks and trash in the yard.  And maybe someone is or isn't living in a trailer on the property.  Sheesh!

Defendant gets $5K on a counterclaim because her vehicles were unlawfully impounded.  Why $5K?  Surely it didn't cost $5K to get the vehicles out of impound?

I wonder if plaintiff landlord knew about the counterclaim.  Did he have any clue what documentation JJ would want from him to defend the countersuit?  Or was he so sure that JJ would rule in his favor that he didn't think he needed to worry about it.

And furthermore, the vehicles on the documents he brought belonged to her daughter's boyfriend and somebody else that either lives or visits.  I was dumbfounded when JJ ruled for her.  There was definitely something going on there.

[speac]

I suspect it was because the plaintiff out and out admitted that in the time the tenant was out of the house because of the illegal eviction, he went in, tore up the bathroom, dumped all our boxes and caused all the 'damage' that he was now claiming she had caused.  JJ awarded her counter suit on the grounds it was an illegal eviction and he had damaged her property.  The defendant didn't have to even prove that it was an illegal eviction because that had already been decided in another court when they ruled she could go back into the house.

[Toaster Strudel]

I doubt he painted graffitti in his own house.

[Mondrianyone]

Just now, Toaster Strudel said:

I doubt he painted graffitti in his own house.

She admitted that her boyfriend did the painting.  JJ asked, "Who's the artist?"  And she said it was Pixley, or whatever his odd name was.

I came away with a sense that landlord and tenant somehow deserved each other, but I don't know why.  Definitely some story behind the story there.

[Christina]

22 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

 

The funeral home director? I just wanted to run to the TV screen (if it wasn't on the wall, three feet above my head) and give him a big, old hug because he just seemed like the sweetest, nicest man in the world. I wonder why the Defendant didn't get approved for the murder victim funeral funds? The only thing I can think of is that maybe her son was murdered during the commission of a crime he was committing?  

 

13 hours ago, ElleMo said:

Yes, I liked him too.  He said he doesn't turn anyone away and offered to give her free services.  She turned down the free service, wanted something more, so she should definitely pay.

That was what I was thinking. Or perhaps it was a suicide but mom wasn't believing that. It shows a lot of class that the funeral home owner didn't say why she was rejected. I am sure he knows or at least has an idea.  A lot of litigants would throw that in just to be spiteful and hurt the other person.  I wouldn't be surprised if he encouraged her to be on the show so she wouldn't be on the hook financially any more. 

I hadn't considered him being killed during the commission of a crime, even though that is now in the running. My mind went straight to suicide. As anyone who watches Dateline, 48 Hours and/or their progeny {not an addict}, the parents always insist suicides are murders. They were getting divorced and he didn't want to pay child support, or obviously he had a gun to her head making her write the suicide letter (which actually happened once to a mentally disabled man), and the previous suicide attempts were in high school and she wouldn't leave her kids (not how depression works). Ignore the powder burns on her hands but not on his because he clearly wore gloves and put it in her hand to fire, his co-workers are just covering for him saying he was at work. There is a lot of mental gymnastics that takes place in suicides since it is still such a taboo with some people believing you can't go to heaven if you commit suicide. 

[SRTouch]

16 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

And furthermore, the vehicles on the documents he brought belonged to her daughter's boyfriend and somebody else that either lives or visits.  I was dumbfounded when JJ ruled for her.  There was definitely something going on there.

Definitely more than we were being told, but by ruling time I more than half expected JJ to do one of her abrupt, "what the hell?" type rulings. Once he started with his snippy "It's right there in front of you!" "I gave it to you already" I figured there was stuff she knew that we weren't being told, so I started believing defendant's wild, out of left field, stories might just be true. Really, defendant was saying he kicked her out illegally - and what do you know, 5 days after the eviction the housing court reversed itself and let her come back. Her countersuit was about her 2 motorcycles and a working car being towed and impounded. Then despite his "There it is!" it turns out his abatement order, which he provides as justification, isn't about her vehicles after all. He tried to use people living in a travel travel against her, by the time it was over I was giving her the nod on the claim that he had given mutual friends permission to park there. Sure, during part of that time non working vehicles, at least one up on blocks belonging to her daughter's bf, were cited, but I wonder if that might not have dated back to when defendant's bf, the plaintiff's ex-partner, was living there. Plaintiff and his partner/her bf apparently let people park stuff there willy nilly, and the dates didn't match his towing her vehicles. Once JJ decided he was "slippery" (at least partially based on something the cops put in a report which we weren't privy to) she decided everything he was saying was a lie. (Despite being dressed up for court, I have feeling this guy is far from a model, sober, clean citizen.) So, I wasn't surprised that his suit was tossed - he was one of those with lots of paper he didn't expect to be read. He came with lots of documents and evidence that, once read, not only didn't help his case, actually supported the defendant - JJ doesn't like it when litigants 'piss on her leg and say it's raining'.The $5000 to defendant WAS a surprise to me, nothing we heard justified that. I guess maybe once JJ decided the impound was unjustified, she just gave defendant credit for whatever she claimed she had in her boxes that she claimed were dumped and ransacked. Her claim that he damaged his own property starts to make sense once he admitted to started demo for renovations. Oy, we may have have needed another half hour of these idiots to get an explanations, so I'm good with not knowing. I sure wouldn't want to be neighbor's with any of this crowd!

[SRTouch]

24 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

She admitted that her boyfriend did the painting.  JJ asked, "Who's the artist?"  And she said it was Pixley, or whatever his odd name was.

Not so sure. As I understood the convoluted case, her bf at one time was plaintiff's friend/partner. Didn't plaintiff get possession of the house after a lawsuit against a former partner? And, could that former partner be the bf who moved out and left her in the house the plaintiff now owns? Maybe, the bf vandalized the house because of resentment over being forced out? I really don't know, but that would kind if make the ruling make more sense. We'll never know unless one of you google experts find the back story. (And, yes, I have been know to google points/people I see on court tv.)

24 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

I came away with a sense that landlord and tenant somehow deserved each other, but I don't know why.  Definitely some story behind the story there.

ITA

[SRTouch]

20 minutes ago, Christina said:

 

I hadn't considered him being killed during the commission of a crime, even though that is now in the running. My mind went straight to suicide. As anyone who watches Dateline, 48 Hours and/or their progeny {not an addict}, the parents always insist suicides are murders. They were getting divorced and he didn't want to pay child support, or obviously he had a gun to her head making her write the suicide letter (which actually happened once to a mentally disabled man), and the previous suicide attempts were in high school and she wouldn't leave her kids (not how depression works). Ignore the powder burns on her hands but not on his because he clearly wore gloves and put it in her hand to fire, his co-workers are just covering for him saying he was at work. There is a lot of mental gymnastics that takes place in suicides since it is still such a taboo with some people believing you can't go to heaven if you commit suicide. 

My first thought was over dose or DUI accident, but I suppose suicide is also a strong possibility and might be more likely.

Oh, and I agree that the litigants came on knowing the outcome. It was just a way for the funeral home to be paid, and both sides showed class by not taking things personal and getting all hot and bothered with each other.

Edited January 5, 2017 by SRTouch
Spelling

[Trini]

Yeah, I checked out at about the middle of today's case. Wasn't interesting enough to try and follow.

[Brattinella]

18 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Once JJ decided he was "slippery" (at least partially based on something the cops put in a report which we weren't privy to) she decided everything he was saying was a lie

What he said that convinced JJ was that he admitted he "stored" all her stuff, and that it was NOT still in the boxes.

[Mondrianyone]

Just now, SRTouch said:

Not so sure. As I understood the convoluted case, her bf at one time was plaintiff's friend/partner. Didn't plaintiff get possession of the house after a lawsuit against a former partner? And, could that former partner be the bf who moved out and left her in the house the plaintiff now owns? Maybe, the bf vandalized the house because of resentment over being forced out? I really don't know, but that would kind if make the ruling make more sense. We'll never know unless one of you google experts find the back story. (And, yes, I have been know to google points/people I see on court tv.)

ITA

Defendant said flatly more than once that plaintiff's former business partner wasn't her boyfriend--and plaintiff never challenged that, so I tend to believe it was true.  I'm pretty sure she said all three of them had been friends before this brouhaha and that business partner had one bedroom, his daughter (I think) had another, and she had her own bedroom downstairs.  They never uttered business partner's name, but she did mention her boyfriend a number of times--Pixley the artist.  Who knows who really vandalized the house?  My guess is plaintiff or his people, while she was evicted, but she never hesitated to acknowledge that Pixley was the one who did the graffiti (which wasn't bad!) and claimed that a clean coat of paint had covered it up before she left.

I swear, sometimes I think I know more details of these people's lives than I do about my own!

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Kenny (HA!) really came out smelling like a pile of doggie doody after that case. Of course his mama (double HA!) with the mailbox mouth

Oh, god. Freezing rain today knocked my power out and I missed this!

[Brattinella]

54 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, god. Freezing rain today knocked my power out and I missed this!

I'm so sorry!  Did you have heat and food?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I'm so sorry!  Did you have heat and food?

Look how kind you are! My first thought was, "Is there enough alcohol in the house?" 

[EtheltoTillie]

October episode I only now just saw: Captain Kangaroo suing organizers of charity golf tournament. I was very happy to read in old posts that so many of you also recognized this litigant as Captain Kangaroo. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by GussieK

[EtheltoTillie]

I could not make sense of today's landlord tenant case either, and I did not care, and I turned it off. 

[EtheltoTillie]

Does anyone have the new cable company Spectrum?  They took over Time Warner here in NYC, and they've taken hostage of my DVR with a new interface that mixed up the order of my episodes.  Hence old Captain Kangaroo was showing as the new episode, and I almost missed Hitler hair/funeral director. Thanks to you alert posters for tipping me off!  Watching Hitler hair now!  

[AngelaHunter]

Thank you, Brattinella and Giant Misfit! Yes, I have my Coleman cooktop so made dinner, and there's always plenty of wine. And cat food.

 

5 hours ago, GussieK said:

Watching Hitler hair now!  

I hope you took a Pepto before viewing.

[SandyToes]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yes, I have my Coleman cooktop so made dinner, and there's always plenty of wine. And cat food.

Cheeseballs?  Do you have cheeseballs?

Glad I missed yesterday's landlord case. We are having troubles with a tenant now and I may have gone over the edge with that ep. I shall console myself with thoughts of the funeral case. Sigh.

"Hitler Hair."  Gah! 

Edited January 5, 2017 by SandyToes

[AlleC17]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, god. Freezing rain today knocked my power out and I missed this!

Aw, you missed Kenny, who reminded me of a very low rent, pre crazy ranting Mel Gibson.  Kenny certainly thought he was something special, and so did his Momma.

[augmentedfourth]

15 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

I came away with a sense that landlord and tenant somehow deserved each other, but I don't know why.  Definitely some story behind the story there.

The whole case was definitely a "which side is shadier?" contest, and those contests have no winners. One of the reasons I was okay with the ruling was that the defendant at least seemed to own up to some of her shadiness, with the graffiti artist boyfriend and something with the daughter's boyfriend I'm not remembering. The plaintiff seemed hell-bent on convincing everyone he was this fine, upstanding citizen, when clearly he was not (since I agree that JJ knew plenty of information and saw stuff in the police report that we weren't privy to).

 

Also, was the plaintiff wearing a velvet suit jacket? I couldn't tell for sure, but it seemed that way.

[SRTouch]

  once again posting in wrong form --- sorry

Edited January 5, 2017 by SRTouch
Oops

[configdotsys]

14 hours ago, GussieK said:

Does anyone have the new cable company Spectrum?  They took over Time Warner here in NYC, and they've taken hostage of my DVR with a new interface that mixed up the order of my episodes.  Hence old Captain Kangaroo was showing as the new episode, and I almost missed Hitler hair/funeral director. Thanks to you alert posters for tipping me off!  Watching Hitler hair now!  

I posted about this a couple of weeks ago. They have ruined my DVR experience by putting shows in folders by season and also added an "Other episodes" folder as well. There is no way to sort anything. So you have to search every folder manually and look for the date it was recorded. Even more infuriating, if you find two shows from say, Season 18 were recorded on a particular day, after you watch one show and go back to the list of shows, it puts you back at the top of the menu and you have to manually scroll and find your way back to watch the next episode. It's making me insane.

Edited to add: Since I'm ranting about Spectrum, when you press the List button or Guide button on the remote, it takes a full 4 seconds for the cable box to respond. Yeah, welcome to Spectrum...

Edited January 6, 2017 by configdotsys

[configdotsys]

On 1/3/2017 at 2:47 PM, Silver Raven said:

Wow.  Watching a rerun this morning.  A woman and her boyfriend signed a lease to move into a house.  She and BF got into a fight the day they moved into the place, and BF burned the place down.  And now she wants her deposit back.  During the discussion of the case, she says she's in the middle of a custody dispute, but she also said the landlady knew that her boyfriend had a criminal background.  Gee, I don't know, maybe if you're in the middle of a custody case, you wouldn't want to be with a guy with a criminal record?

This was one of my "keeper" episodes until my DVR died a couple of years ago so I hope it comes around again. I have found that when people talk of episodes on this thread, it is a week or more later when I finally get it and many times, my DVR gives a completely different description. I almost erased the restitution case with the two morons throwing rocks over a bridge because the description said Road Rage Cat Fight.

As I remember it, the moronic plaintiff signed a lease with the criminal boyfriend but kept insisting to JJ that he was not to live there but was only on the lease for financial reasons. The landlord-- in an attempt to help the plaintiff-- foolishly prepared a second lease with just the plaintiff's name on it for her to present to the court in her custody case. Plaintiff tried to tell JJ that that lease with her name only was the "real" lease and try as JJ did to explain to her that you cannot sign a lease with someone and a week later have them removed without their consent, the plaintiff just didn't get it. The criminal boyfriend burned the house down, the defendant got $51k in fire insurance and the plaintiff was suing for her deposit back. If I remember correction, JJ cracked up at the plaintiff.

Edited January 7, 2017 by configdotsys
because retribution is not restitution

[Ilovecomputers]

I saw what must have been a rerun--a man was suing his neighbor over a fence.  The plaintiff claimed the neighbor's debris was leaning against the fence and caused it to collapse.  The plaintiff wins this year's award for "Best Use of Photographs Which Depict Nothing Relevant to a Case."  He had a stack of photos and in the corner of one photograph one could barely make out Bigfoot, or maybe it was the fence in question.  Turns out JJ is also an expert in fences and claimed that the fence was old and "rickety" so the plaintiff got nothing.  She also called the defendants "unneighborly" for not chipping in for a new fence.  I don't know how much fences cost, but it could be that they're living on a fixed income and can't afford it.  There was something off about the defendant's wife.  She would cock her head from side to side and not say anything, just like my dog does when I talk to her about going for a walk.

[AmyFarrahFowler]

Hi Everyone-Does anyone remember an older case where a woman was suing on behalf of her daughter (I think it was a daycare and/or rental issue where friends were involved) and the daughter cried through the whole case? I am currently watching an old 20/20 and I could swear it's the same young woman. Her name is Jenelle Potter and she was convicted of murder.

[vibeology]

I saw the fence one too @Ilovecomputers. Those pictures were pointless but I did agree with JJ that the right thing to do is pay for half the fence if you can (and it seemed like their issues were personal rather than financial.) It might not be on your property, but since you're going to be keeping your neighbors out, you're benefitting from it even if you weren't the one who initiated it. I had a neighbor growing up who wouldn't pay for a fence. She waited until the people beside her and behind her put up a fence and suddenly she had a fenced in yard at no expense. Tacky and I always thought poorly of her as a result. She wasn't hard up for cash; she just figured why pay for something when she could get it for free.

[AngelaHunter]

23 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

Aw, you missed Kenny, who reminded me of a very low rent, pre crazy ranting Mel Gibson.  Kenny certainly thought he was something special, and so did his Momma.

Don't rub it in. I really wanted to see Momma with the mouth like a "mailbox."

 

AmyFarrahFowler - Is this the episode?

 

[AlleC17]

4 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

I saw what must have been a rerun--a man was suing his neighbor over a fence.  The plaintiff claimed the neighbor's debris was leaning against the fence and caused it to collapse.  The plaintiff wins this year's award for "Best Use of Photographs Which Depict Nothing Relevant to a Case."  He had a stack of photos and in the corner of one photograph one could barely make out Bigfoot, or maybe it was the fence in question.  Turns out JJ is also an expert in fences and claimed that the fence was old and "rickety" so the plaintiff got nothing.  She also called the defendants "unneighborly" for not chipping in for a new fence.  I don't know how much fences cost, but it could be that they're living on a fixed income and can't afford it.  There was something off about the defendant's wife.  She would cock her head from side to side and not say anything, just like my dog does when I talk to her about going for a walk.

JJ often knows more than we get shown, but I did not like her admonishment about sharing the costs of a new fence.  My neighbor has a fence, and when the old one fell down, they were very insistent that I share the cost of the new one.  Why?  Fence is on their property and does nothing for my property value, so why should I chip in?  I guess JJ would think I wasn't very neighborly, but whatever.  lol  I am going to put in a large, enclosed space for my cats so they can go outside:  maybe I should ask the neighbors to help pay for that?

[AmyFarrahFowler]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Don't rub it in. I really wanted to see Momma with the mouth like a "mailbox."

 

AmyFarrahFowler - Is this the episode?

 

This is it! I guess it's a different girl but they could honestly be identical twins. Thanks Angela. I would post her picture but unsure how.

[ASpring1900]

On 1/4/2017 at 9:05 PM, CoolWhipLite said:

I don't mention my court show-related Google explorations in mixed company. 

LOL! I happened onto an episode of Divorce Court earlier this week, and the litigant's Instagram name was listed under her name. I've never seen that on any court show before. It took me about 10 seconds to search for her on IG and I admittedly scrolled through her entire feed. Sure enough, there were pics of her kids, her defendant boyfriend, her jarring business that was briefly mentioned. I wonder if more court shows such as Judge Judy will list Twitter or Instagram names...

[SRTouch]

On 1/6/2017 at 1:43 PM, AManfred said:

LOL! I happened onto an episode of Divorce Court earlier this week, and the litigant's Instagram name was listed under her name. I've never seen that on any court show before. It took me about 10 seconds to search for her on IG and I admittedly scrolled through her entire feed. Sure enough, there were pics of her kids, her defendant boyfriend, her jarring business that was briefly mentioned. I wonder if more court shows such as Judge Judy will list Twitter or Instagram names...

Just makes me think of all the crappola people put out there without any sort of filter. I'm fairly new to FB, but I've already had someone get half upset when I asked if they had figured out what to do about such and such. It was "how do you know about that?" Well, duh, you posted it for everybody to see!

Edited January 8, 2017 by SRTouch
Changed word

[DoctorK]

Regarding FenceGate, where I live it is simple, fences must be set back at least 6 inches from the property line. My fences are completely on my property and neighbors can put up their own fence if they don't like to look at the backside of my fence. The result is that anywhere neighbors on both sides of the property line put up their fences, there is about a 1 foot dead space between the fences. No question about whose fence is whose.

[pagooey]

Quote

Sure enough, there were pics of her kids, her defendant boyfriend, her jarring business that was briefly mentioned. 

Okay, I'll bite: a jarring business? Is that...a business that startles and alarms people, or something to do with actual jars? Making them? Filling them with bath beads/peanut butter/moonshine? So distracted now!

OT: FenceGate, or according to the defendants at least one photo of GateGate...what a dud. All that crap holding up the fence on one side or the other might be...similar to my strategy with the very tiny closets in my home. Shhhh. 

[SandyToes]

Fencegate!  Hee!   Our behind-us neighbors wanted a new fence and asked us to go in half. Mr. Toes offered to build it, if they would buy materials. Please know that Mr. Toes is quite the handy man, and being an engineer, a fence he built 30 years ago is still in great shape, despite having been through at least six hurricanes, two of them biggies.  And 30 years of wear and tear. The fence we replaced on one beside-us neighbor has two "front sides", so we both get a nice pretty side, because we designed it that way. Behind neighbors said no, they would prefer   "professionals" to do it, and that's all fine, too.  We get the "ugly" side, and they get the pretty side. No big deal to us - that's what shrubbery is for.

Previews for today's show looked impressive, so have set the DVR.  Of course, it is cold and raining here, so weather (or weather reports) will probably interrupt it. 

[AuntiePam]

Judy Judy Judy!  In the salon rental case, she gave plaintiff the rent he was owed, but gave him nothing for the salon chairs that the defendant absconded with.   JJ says the chairs were old and because plaintiff hadn't purchased them in the first place -- they came with the building, which was an inheritance from plaintiff's mother-in-law.  Judy!  The chairs still had to be replaced, and they weren't defendant's chairs!  So now it's okay to steal something because it's old, or because it was inherited? 

The "sisters" with the car/insurance/accident story we didn't get to hear -- were they really sisters?  One had an accent, the other didn't.  Or at least it wasn't noticeable.

[Guest]

I'm laughing like a dang fool at the crying little Miss Sarah. 

She first approaches the podium with much bravado then crumbles into a heap of tears. 

I saw this episode many times but still cannot make any sense of it.  Hope she stays on the straight and narrow because if they ever put that girl in the witness protection program - she'd cave the first time someone recognized her working at Walmart.

[tvfanatic13]

2 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Judy Judy Judy!  In the salon rental case, she gave plaintiff the rent he was owed, but gave him nothing for the salon chairs that the defendant absconded with.   JJ says the chairs were old and because plaintiff hadn't purchased them in the first place -- they came with the building, which was an inheritance from plaintiff's mother-in-law.  Judy!  The chairs still had to be replaced, and they weren't defendant's chairs!  So now it's okay to steal something because it's old, or because it was inherited? 

The "sisters" with the car/insurance/accident story we didn't get to hear -- were they really sisters?  One had an accent, the other didn't.  Or at least it wasn't noticeable.

Re the sister case- that was so strange. JJ obviously thought they were both full of it, but we heard nothing of the case. And they flew them to CA for that. 

[Jamoche]

2 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

The "sisters" with the car/insurance/accident story we didn't get to hear -- were they really sisters?  One had an accent, the other didn't.  Or at least it wasn't noticeable.

They sure squabbled like sisters - I'm surprised JJ didn't say "I'm not your mom".

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Jamoche said:

They sure squabbled like sisters - I'm surprised JJ didn't say "I'm not your mom".

Or great grandma

[Toaster Strudel]

I understand that the plaintiff sister might not have had "clean hands" signing up for a car for her sister who had no credit.

Then the defendant sister drove said car without insurance.  Also no "clean hands."

I think JJ thought that they were in cahoots to use the show, wink wink nudge nudge, to pay for the damages.  It turns out that they were both pretty hostile actually.  And possibly JJ didn't want to award the plaintiff any money for lying about who the real owner of the car is.

[Brattinella]

3 minutes ago, Toaster Strudel said:

I think JJ thought that they were in cahoots to use the show, wink wink nudge nudge, to pay for the damages

I think that is EXACTLY what they were trying to do.

[AuntiePam]

Is it my imagination or are there more boring (or sham) cases lately?  The sisters and the cousins ($200 a month, unpaid for 13 months, and now you're suing over some jeans and boots?) were a waste of time.  The show must have money to burn.

[ASpring1900]

17 hours ago, pagooey said:

Okay, I'll bite: a jarring business? Is that...a business that startles and alarms people, or something to do with actual jars? Making them? Filling them with bath beads/peanut butter/moonshine? So distracted now!

Mason jars of desserts :)

[basiltherat]

Regarding the salon chairs, they were inherited, old, the defendant did refurbish them and the plaintiff did say she could "have" them, whether that meant to keep was never made clear.  Also, he should have listened to his wife, as JJ said.

[AuntiePam]

3 minutes ago, basiltherat said:

Regarding the salon chairs, they were inherited, old, the defendant did refurbish them and the plaintiff did say she could "have" them, whether that meant to keep was never made clear.  Also, he should have listened to his wife, as JJ said.

But we only have the defendant's word for that.  I wanted to know more.  What did she do to refurbish them?  New upholstery?  Simple cleaning?  When a stylist rents salon space, do they provide their own chairs?  Do salon chairs go out of style?  Were they the kind of chairs that can be raised and lowered?  Those must be expensive. 

[DoctorK]

Quote

What did she do to refurbish them?  New upholstery?

I think that I heard from someone in the case that the chairs were re-upholstered by the defendant. Whoever said it, no one else disputed this.

Edited January 7, 2017 by DoctorK
clarification and spelling

[SRTouch]

48 minutes ago, basiltherat said:

Regarding the salon chairs, they were inherited, old, the defendant did refurbish them and the plaintiff did say she could "have" them, whether that meant to keep was never made clear.  Also, he should have listened to his wife, as JJ said.

You obviously had more patience than I did. I had a hard time listening to her talking out and with her "attitude." I've never sat down in a salon chair, but if she was ever my barber I think I'd get up and leave with half a hair cut rather than listen to her.

As far as the chairs, from the bits and pieces I halfway heard, these were 15-20 year old salon furnishings that the now deceased mother in law put in back around 2000. So, of course no receipts or proof of their value, except for what I felt were wildly inflated prices. I agree JJ made it sound like she was just discounting that part of his claim, but I thought it was more that he brought no evidence of the legitimate value and JJ wasn't about to accept his unsubstantiated numbers. Quick look on eBay shows new cheap salon chairs under $100, while expensive models run into the hundreds. I don't remember what he wanted, but the number that comes to mind is $750 per chair. Again, I could be wrong, maybe that was $75, but unless I missed it he had no nothing to establish value.

[Jamoche]

2 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

But we only have the defendant's word for that.  I wanted to know more.  What did she do to refurbish them?  New upholstery?  Simple cleaning?  When a stylist rents salon space, do they provide their own chairs?  Do salon chairs go out of style?  Were they the kind of chairs that can be raised and lowered?  Those must be expensive. 

In every salon I've been to the chairs are permanent fixtures. Makes sense, you have to bolt them to the floor even if all they do is pivot.