All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[SRTouch]

8 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

My favorite part of the dog case was how the whole first half was about how much time the plaintiff let elapse between giving the dog to the defendant and trying to get it back, and JJ based everything on her giving the dog to him in August of 2017. As she said, that would be bad enough, to show up in early 2019 to get the dog back. But then the defendants, who were well-behaved and didn't call out the entire time, mentioned something about having the dog in January of 2017 (and had vet bills to back them up), making JJ put on the brakes for a second. When she questioned them about the August/January discrepancy, the way the brother defendant simply said, "She lied" made me laugh. And based on the plaintiff's performance, I don't think a single person in that room doubted him. That's how you do it, folks - if you know you're in the right, just keep your mouth shut and it'll work out.

Well, heck, I might just have to watch a "dog" case to see this 😕 

[ButYourHonor]

10 hours ago, khyber said:

Also personally met one of the crazy horse ladies that was a litigant on the show & she was a piece of work.

One of the women from that blog case?  Do tell!

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I did enjoy the plaintiff witness getting the boot in the theft case, that was continued, or dismissed or whatever until the local court decides about restitution.    I loved the defendant saying pleading Nolo Contendre (spelling) was different from pleading Guilty.  

I think JJ might have kicked her out so peremptorily because she was the only one able to put a coherent sentence together and thus was spoiling the freak show. The icing on the cake was her saying "I don't get a warning?". From her words as she exited, she is a regular viewer of the show and thus was expecting the usual explicit "another word out of you and you're out" shot from JJ.

I could not make head or tails of most of what the two litigants were saying, much less understand how the plaintiff could have come up with any reasoning to justify her action.

2 hours ago, SandyToes said:

Regarding Gucci the Yorkie - was kind of hoping his new owners were going to get the whole 5K just for kicks and giggles. Heaven knows they probably earned it.

They may not be finished with her since she yelled "I am calling the police when I get home" after leaving in a huff. I hope they get all of their ducks in a row in case it is more than just empty bluster and make sure they have all the relevant papers at hand (restraining order, vet bills, JJ's decision, etc.). in case the cops do show up, so they can readily demonstrate how much of a kook she is. Although I suspect the police may already be very familiar with her true character; I would not be surprised to learn she frequently tries to stick the police on other people.

[SandyToes]

Dog case involved no injuries!! (as far as I recall), just ownership between nice, quiet defendants' side, and lunatic plaintiff's side.  And I agree, she probably will call the cops.  Since she wanted 3 times the cash for what was paid for the dog.  (or, I guess, the dog.)

Excellent theater-value on today's eps! The dog lunatic here, the wacky (possibly deranged?) Karen Watkins and her "What? No warning?" side-kick, and the BSC gal who kicked down the door of grandma's house to reclaim her offspring: quite the cast of characters!  Plus two cases where I had no idea what was actually being sued for.  BSC gal was suing grandma for kidnapping?!  Didn't realize that was now a small claims court concept. Who knew! 🙄 

A great day for cheese balls and popcorn!  And, @AngelaHunter, more booze!!!  Cheers!

Edited February 21, 2019 by SandyToes

[khyber]

13 hours ago, ButYourHonor said:

One of the women from that blog case?  Do tell!

No it was not a recent case but from several years ago about a woman who claimed a horse was sold out from under her.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, khyber said:

a woman who claimed a horse was sold out from under her.

Mighty fine, that is! "A horse - sold out from under her." I'm picturing her landing on her butt on the ground. 😀

[CrazyInAlabama]

How shocking, the defendant's homeowners insurance said they don't cover pit bulls, and similar dogs, but no one told the insurance company that they had one.     The defendant only discovered that the his insurance didn't cover the dog, after the dog attacked the plaintiff's dog.   Yes, this is the infamous "My dog isn't like a Pit Bull, he's more like Scooby Doo" case from the previews.     I do love that the defendant's wife just got the boot for chiming in.      

How interesting, the plaintiff's car was driven by her Mom when the accident happened, instead of the other way around.   A daily double, daughter/car owner plaintiff just got booted.   How hysterically funny!   The mother plaintiff is suing for pain and suffering for her daughter, because the daughter who was not in the accident, lost her car.   If the defendant didn't have seizures, then why doesn't he remember much about the accident, and why does the police report say he has seizures?  

I'm glad JJ dismissed that case, just because the insurance didn't pay the entire amount of the car doesn't mean that Byrd and JJ should.   

Plaintiff suing defendant for renting her a storage space, security deposit, moving expenses, etc.     Plaintiff claims that the dwelling was illegal, but it was office space not residential, and only for storage.  Plaintiff's statement to the court says that the unit was a studio.     The one studio/storage unit was to replace three other storage units.     

What a coincidence, code enforcement dropped by when the plaintiff was there, after she called them.        JJ thinks that the plaintiff was actually living there.   The plaintiff also has some crude receipts for rent, and JJ suspects the receipts are forged.        Plaintiff gets $175 for one month's rent, (or security deposit).    Defendant claims plaintiff was living there, and had her dog there, and that's why code enforcement booted her out.    

(On a personal note, I love the defendant's matching tie, and pocket square).    Plaintiff made loans, and paid defendant for advice on patent issues.     

The defendant also installed a water system in her house, for $5,000, and that's a decent price.    Water filtration is a very pricey business.    However, the defendant glanced over the patent paperwork for the plaintiff, and referred someone to design the shoe she wanted to patent.   Defendant thinks he'll get $7500 for the contract, and referral, and he's a wrong.   

The plaintiff took a $5000 loan out on her insurance to loan the defendant the money.    $5,000 for the plaintiff.     

Edited February 25, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm glad JJ dismissed that case, just because the insurance didn't pay the entire amount of the car doesn't mean that Byrd and JJ should.   

I am not certain what the rules are when a case is dismissed. Don't litigants still get to share in the award kitty? Or is a free trip and stay in LA considered compensation enough?

42 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  Plaintiff gets $175 for one month's rent, (or security deposit).

I thought that was 175 $ too much in her favour.

[AngelaHunter]

Nina Walsh lives with Gerald's mom! Yeah, maybe her mailing address is her sister's home, but she lives with Gerald's mom, honest! She never lived in the office/storage space, "that is known to be a condemned building." She just liked to go over and look at her whatever junk in storage, move it around and stuff like that. The lady behind her told her the space was condemned. Isn't that proof? She doesn't agree with what she said in her emails, and doesn't think it's odd that none of the signatures on her reciepts, supposedly made by def., match. they look fine to her. Woman is koo-koo. Gerald, take her home to mom. Poor mom, stuck with those two losers.

Christopher Curry, sociopathetic scammer, figured he'd scam an older woman and she wouldn't do anything about it. Hey, he ate dinner at her house and "looked at" some papers. Isn't that worth 7500$? If he had thought he could soak her for more he would have, until she was broke. He's such an astute businessman that his employee overdrew his account, so he had to go ask plaintiff to help him out, to the tune of 5K. Just a shameless, babble-speaking bottom feeder, fancy clothes and all. Despicable, he is.

[AngelaHunter]

OMG, have to serial post here: Hayes? Is he kidding us? He has the gall (or the brainlessness) to stand there and say that his smashing into plaintiff's parked car wasn't his fault, but hers. Yes, he had a big medical boot on his foot, but the doc told him he could drive with it. Sure. He had no insurance, of course, but that too is someone else's fault, maybe the doctor's. Plaintiff is awarded 3200$. In the hall, this frickin' moron stands there, all indignant, and says, "I can't believe she did this to me." Yes, how dare she demand he pay for the damage he did? Don't blame him! It's all a big conspiracy against him.  Even the audience was allowed to snicker at his  off-the-charts bone-headed stupidity. There's a video showing him crashing into her car, yet it's still not his fault. How can this be? What the hell is the world coming to?

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The mother plaintiff is suing for pain and suffering for her daughter, because the daughter who was not in the accident, lost her car.

Good grief people. You’re not entitled to an award for pain and suffering when you get shorted by your insurance company or compensation for lost wages when dealing with life’s little frustrations. It’s not the lottery so rub some dirt on it and move on. You’ll be fine. 

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Good grief people. You’re not entitled to an award for pain and suffering when you get shorted by your insurance company

That woman has a head of solid bone. If she had not had the nose of her car stuck out into oncoming traffic there would have been no accident, but as usual, that's not her fault. It's the fault of the person behind her and the fault of the person who hit her. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Dear Daughter is also an idiot, another one who knows what happened even though she was nowhere in the vicinity. Such a PITA was daughter that she got the Byrd Boot. Momma is suing for pain and suffering on behalf of darling, big-mouthed daughter? For a car accident that was HER fault? Where is this colossal nerve, this Special Snowflake entitlement coming from, or is it just sheer stupidity? Daughter lost her car because of you, you foolish bitch.

Hey, Sandytoes? I'll take that drink now. The ones I had earlier wore off too soon. 🍷

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Nina Walsh lives with Gerald's mom! Yeah, maybe her mailing address is her sister's home, but she lives with Gerald's mom, honest! She never lived in the office/storage space, "that is known to be a condemned building." She just liked to go over and look at her whatever junk in storage, move it around and stuff like that. The lady behind her told her the space was condemned. Isn't that proof? She doesn't agree with what she said in her emails, and doesn't think it's odd that none of the signatures on her reciepts, supposedly made by def., match. they look fine to her. Woman is koo-koo. Gerald, take her home to mom. Poor mom, stuck with those two losers.

I was slightly sympathetic to her and would have liked to hear what her lawsuit was about, instead of listening to JJ's incessant questions.  So did plaintiff try to scam some money after she found out that the place had been condemned? 

Did she have any proof that the building was condemned?  JJ should have asked. 

Because yeah, people do move around but have their mailing address be someplace steady and secure, like a sister's house.  And they do "visit" their storage units (even with their dog) to get something they need, or to add more junk. 

I guess plaintiff had no reason to sue -- she had no damages -- but JJ could have let us in on what the case was about.

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, AuntiePam said:

I guess plaintiff had no reason to sue -- she had no damages -- but JJ could have let us in on what the case was about.

I got that city officials asked her to leave because she was living in a place not zoned for occupancy and didn't even pay the monthly rent/fees.

[badhaggis]

40 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Good grief people. You’re not entitled to an award for pain and suffering when you get shorted by your insurance company or compensation for lost wages when dealing with life’s little frustrations. It’s not the lottery so rub some dirt on it and move on. You’ll be fine. 

I got the feeling they were trying to get the excellent Kelly Blue Book price. The car did not look excellent. The argument would have carried more weight with me had they not been paid by their own insurance. Your own company does not typically lowball you ymmv

[augmentedfourth]

40 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I was slightly sympathetic to her and would have liked to hear what her lawsuit was about, instead of listening to JJ's incessant questions.  So did plaintiff try to scam some money after she found out that the place had been condemned? 

Did she have any proof that the building was condemned?  JJ should have asked. 

Because yeah, people do move around but have their mailing address be someplace steady and secure, like a sister's house.  And they do "visit" their storage units (even with their dog) to get something they need, or to add more junk. 

I guess plaintiff had no reason to sue -- she had no damages -- but JJ could have let us in on what the case was about.

I maybe -- maybe -- would have believed that she wasn't living there if it weren't for the fact that she just so happened to be around (with her dog, according to the defendant?) at the exact time code enforcement swung by. Her story about the neighbor behind the building or whatever sounded made up. And, of course, once you lie about one thing, it's hard to believe anything else, though I do agree that people move around a lot and where they're currently residing doesn't necessarily match their driver's license, and so on. I believe it was briefly mentioned that part of her lawsuit was expenses she incurred to get her stuff out of the condemned building and maybe a new rental fee. Which, even if she had been truthful the entire time: NOPE. No one ever gets moving expenses from JJ. Because they ate the steak and/or if you don't like it, ah-MOVE!

[arejay]

8 hours ago, badhaggis said:

I got the feeling they were trying to get the excellent Kelly Blue Book price. The car did not look excellent. The argument would have carried more weight with me had they not been paid by their own insurance. Your own company does not typically lowball you ymmv

More likely she carried a big deductible, $1000 or more.

[badhaggis]

31 minutes ago, arejay said:

More likely she carried a big deductible, $1000 or more.

That could be it. She also said they did not get close to the KBB value. It might be a little bit of both.

[Byrd is the Word]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

If the defendant didn't have seizures, then why doesn't he remember much about the accident, and why does the police report say he has seizures?  

Absolutely. He must have mentioned that himself. But HIPPA laws being what they are she have an almost impossible time making a case of it. And as soon as she mentioned that she was exiting a parking lot and into a lane of traffic she sprung the trap door on herself. And as hard as she tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again (“I was just a nose into traffic”) it was too late. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

And as hard as she tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again (“I was just a nose into traffic”) it was too late. 

That might be same type of self-serving understatement we hear all the time, e.g. "I just tapped his car! The damage can't be more than a couple hundred bucks!" and then we see a video of the tapped car being smashed hard enough to send it into another dimension.

[SandyToes]

17 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

That might be same type of self-serving understatement we hear all the time, e.g. "I just tapped his car! The damage can't be more than a couple hundred bucks!" and then we see a video of the tapped car being smashed hard enough to send it into another dimension.

Or over one of those parking curbs!!

[patty1h]

Re the "curved driveway case", I wonder what's the story behind the plaintiff and her black gloves.  Some kind of hand deformity, allergy or skin problem, she's eccentric, constantly has cold hands or identified with Theo from the Netflix series "The Haunting of Hill House".

[AngelaHunter]

Durr. Wrong forum.

Edited February 22, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[DoctorK]

JJ was pontificating again on things she knows nothing about on the curved driveway case. From the pictures and drawings it is clear that a straight driveway would require at least 1/4th to 1/3rd more concrete, rebar and labor even if JJ doesn't believe it. Also, from the drawing and pictures, I don't know what kind of vehicle the plaintiff wants to put in the new garage, but that looks like most vehicles would not have any problems getting it in the garage unless the other two vehicles in the original garage spaces are left parked in the driveway (this may well be a driver problem not a driveway problem).  This doesn't even consider whether the local government would allow another sidewalk cut and reduction of on street parking. I think this case boiled down to the plaintiff going for the reduced cost of the curved driveway then didn't like it when it was done. Her hallterview sounded a little nuts: "he's a danger to the community".

[patty1h]

@AngelaHunter, those are the cases from Peoples Court.

[AngelaHunter]

Thank you patty1h! Heh. I was wondering why there was no excellent SRTouch recap!

Edited February 22, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[ButYourHonor]

Who was surprised that the loser defendant getting alimony was also getting disability?  What an idiot.  “I might tell the bank to suck it up, duuuuurrr...”

[CrazyInAlabama]

The ex in the first case had to pay $1400 a month for 8 1/2 years to the ex?     That's a huge amount of alimony, or spousal support or whatever they call it. 

How stupid does the plaintiff have to be to slash the ex's tires in front of police officers?   Turn on the TV, and you'll see.   He brought the wife as a witness to confront the ex girlfriend?    Bet there was a lot of overlap there.    I wonder if the new side piece is in court too?   The defendant's hairdo is something else.    Defendant is another one who never brings receipts, and is paying for everything from her financial aid (student loans I guess?).  What a shock, plaintiff titled SUV in question in his name, and girlfriend, because he had a DUI, and can't get a license.   Dwayne / plaintiff lost his temper, and flattened the SUV tires, in front of police officers he called to claim she stole his car, and later she also sold it.   Dwayne is about to get the JJ stomp, and deserves it.     Nothing for the plaintiff, and defendant is so clueless she doesn't realize she won.       

Added a third garage, to a lovely looking house.     I hope the plaintiff wins a couple of hundred to change her hair to something besides Bozo orange (it looks like when my Aunt decided to 'touch up' her hair a little, and had to get it fixed at the expensive salon).   

The after on the garage looks wonderful, and I see why they did the new portion of the driveway as an add on to the existing driveway.     I would have made the far right side straighter, and I bet the permit would have to go through the HOA.     They would have to fix the driveway exit to the street, and that would be pricey, including digging up the sidewalk, and making the curb cut, so it would be more labor and materials, and concrete.    Plus, I bet getting permission from the HOA, and whoever else has to do an approval could take forever.    Getting approval from the HOA is never guaranteed.   The architect's plans were approved by the homeowner/plaintiff.    I liked the plaintiff at the beginning, but I don't like her now.    

I don't think JJ exactly understands the extra labor, concrete, permits, and materials needed for the straight back driveway, plus there may be utilities under that side of the house.   Nothing for the nasty mouthed plaintiff.   The contractor/defendant did nothing wrong, and I would have him work for me any time.    He does lovely work.  

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

Edited February 23, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

JJ was pontificating again on things she knows nothing about on the curved driveway case.

As soon as she started "analysing" the evidence, I thought here she goes again. She often has little sense of construction work and none of geometry, particularly in three dimensions.

She was almost as lost at sea as the plaintiff in evaluating the work done and the respective consequences of the two main options involved. At least she ultimately ruled correctly.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Her hallterview sounded a little nuts

More than just a little, surely.

1 hour ago, ButYourHonor said:

Who was surprised that the loser defendant getting alimony was also getting disability?  What an idiot.  “I might tell the bank to suck it up, duuuuurrr...”

He was either trying to be witty or to put up a good defense to earn his share of the awards kitty. Failure on both counts.

[iwasish]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

JJ was pontificating again on things she knows nothing about on the curved driveway case. From the pictures and drawings it is clear that a straight driveway would require at least 1/4th to 1/3rd more concrete, rebar and labor even if JJ doesn't believe it. Also, from the drawing and pictures, I don't know what kind of vehicle the plaintiff wants to put in the new garage, but that looks like most vehicles would not have any problems getting it in the garage unless the other two vehicles in the original garage spaces are left parked in the driveway (this may well be a driver problem not a driveway problem).  This doesn't even consider whether the local government would allow another sidewalk cut and reduction of on street parking. I think this case boiled down to the plaintiff going for the reduced cost of the curved driveway then didn't like it when it was done. Her hallterview sounded a little nuts: "he's a danger to the community".

From my limited experience with a “ third” garage, aren’t they usually for either seldom driven, classic type cars or even to store motorcycles, snow mobiles, jet skis or other recreational or landscape type vehicles? Especially when they are attached to the 2 car garage but have a separate door?. In the area  I live the 3 car garages don’t  have that “add  on” look, They’re just one extra large/wide garage. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Some of the golf car communities have the third garage for golf carts, especially if they have to plug in to recharge.  Most I've seen there is a double garage door, and then the smaller third garage (golf cart garage), or there are regular garage doors with one for each side of the main, double garage, then the extra one is on the side.    When I lived in Colorado, the third garage was half full of the adult kid's stuff, and the other half was the snow blowers, snow shovels, and riding lawn mower.

The added on garage in the case today looked wonderful, and looked like an over-sized one car.     The brick was matched very well also.     

Edited February 23, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

As soon as she started "analysing" the evidence, I thought here she goes again. She often has little sense of construction work and none of geometry, particularly in three dimensions.

It makes me nuts when she automatically assumes that any car with side damage was hit by another car and therefore the driver with the side damage is at fault. Often that’s true. But any of us can side impact a stationary object and do damage to the side of the car that could appear as if the car were struck and not the other way around. If you don’t believe me ask to see the pictures of what our son did to my car when he was 16. 🙄

Edited February 23, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

It makes me nuts when she automatically assumes that any car with side damage was hit by another car and therefore the driver with the side damage is at fault. Often that’s true. But any of us can side impact a stationary object and do damage to the side of the car that could appear as if the car were struck and not the other way around.

Collision reconstruction and ballistics are other fields she frequently fumbles. She could benefit from a primer workshop on basic Newtonian mechanics, but I fear she would probably tell the instructor "that does no make sense to me and if it does not make sense, then it is not true; your Newton is not a credible witness!"

Edited February 23, 2019 by Florinaldo

[zillabreeze]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I don't think JJ exactly understands the extra labor, concrete, permits, and materials needed for the straight back driveway, plus there may be utilities under that side of the house.   Nothing for the nasty mouthed plaintiff.   The contractor/defendant did nothing wrong, and I would have him work for me any time.    He does lovely work.  

I know when JJ gets construction plans in her hands my blood pressure will go through the roof.   I've been in the concrete biz for decades.  Work past the property line and into a public R.O.W. is ALWAYS more expensive for a myriad of reasons.  Also, for maintenance, aesthetic & ADA reasons, it's not unusual for jurisdictions to limit the width of a residential curb cut to about 20'.

If there had not been approved plans, I bet the poor contractor would have been screwed by JJ's piss poor comprehension of surveys and construction. 

16 hours ago, DoctorK said:

JJ was pontificating again on things she knows nothing about on the curved driveway case. 

I would never agree to let her mediate anything technically related.

If Bozo Hair can't swing a veehickle into the garage from that radius (it's not a damn semi circle) she doesn't need to be driving anyway.

IMHO, nothing looks worse than filling a front yard full of concrete flatwork instead of green stuff.

Edited February 23, 2019 by zillabreeze

[Byrd is the Word]

58 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

She could benefit from a primer workshop on basic Newtonian mechanics,

I’d settle for 9th geometry. 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

your Newton is not a credible witness!"

Well, to be completely thorough, Newton did not account for relativistic effects. On the other hand, none of her cases involve getting to significant fractions of the speed of light. Can you imagine trying to explain that to JJ?

[Florinaldo]

1 minute ago, DoctorK said:

Well, to be completely thorough, Newton did not account for relativistic effects. On the other hand, none of her cases involve getting to significant fractions of the speed of light.

Neither did the phenomena or actions Newton observed and was trying to explain (except perhaps for some astronomical observations).

I would never even consider trying to describe relativity to JJ, much less quantum physics or string theory (I shudder to think of her then incorporating bits and pieces of these into her pronouncements and judgments, all wonkily of course).

[DoctorK]

8 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

any car with side damage was hit by another car and therefore the driver with the side damage is at fault.

Even JJ would understand about skidding or sliding into an object (if she would actually listen). However, she would never believe that in a sharp low speed turn, the middle of your car moves forward and sideways. simple geometry - oh never mind, that is terra incognita to JJ.

Edited February 23, 2019 by DoctorK

[SandyToes]

17 hours ago, DoctorK said:

JJ was pontificating again on things she knows nothing about on the curved driveway case. From the pictures and drawings it is clear that a straight driveway would require at least 1/4th to 1/3rd more concrete, rebar and labor even if JJ doesn't believe it. Also, from the drawing and pictures, I don't know what kind of vehicle the plaintiff wants to put in the new garage, but that looks like most vehicles would not have any problems getting it in the garage unless the other two vehicles in the original garage spaces are left parked in the driveway (this may well be a driver problem not a driveway problem).  This doesn't even consider whether the local government would allow another sidewalk cut and reduction of on street parking. I think this case boiled down to the plaintiff going for the reduced cost of the curved driveway then didn't like it when it was done. Her hallterview sounded a little nuts: "he's a danger to the community".

I gave up on this one half way through because I could see how it was headed. I'm guessing she won?  

This looks like one of those typical HOA-locked properties, and I bet you are exactly correct, @DoctorK.  I was surprised she got permission to actually ADD another garage to the property. Contractor seemed to have all his ducks in a row, seemed very professional, but again, I bailed, so who knows maybe he did get all scammy after I left.  I did see one photo where it looked like the new drive wasn't all concrete, but maybe faded into the grass, or something? If that was the case, then yeah, maybe there's a beef.  

Ugh.

ETA:

Quote

I don't think JJ exactly understands the extra labor, concrete, permits, and materials needed for the straight back driveway, plus there may be utilities under that side of the house.   Nothing for the nasty mouthed plaintiff.   The contractor/defendant did nothing wrong, and I would have him work for me any time.    He does lovely work. 

Whew.  Kinda wish I'd stuck it out, now! 

(still trying to figure out new forum tangles.  Used to combine quick "serial posts" and stuff.  But very pretty!  Love all the new buttons!)

Edited February 23, 2019 by SandyToes

[zillabreeze]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The defendant's hairdo is something else.

and probably pretty expensive.  Then you see her Janky Teef and want to vomit.  I will never understand the mindset of the spendy hair, nails, tats, clothes only for a mouth that looks and most likely smells like a portajohn.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

I know when JJ gets plans in her hands my blood pressure will go through the roof.   I've been in the concrete biz for decades.  Work past the property line and into a public R.O.W. is ALWAYS more expensive for a myriad of reasons.  Also, for maintenance, aesthetic & ADA reasons, it's not unusual for jurisdictions to limit the width of a residential curb cut to about 20'.

If there had not been approved plans, I bet the poor contractor would have been screwed by JJ's piss poor comprehension of surveys and construction. 

Contractor did a great job - when he started his explanation of why planned curved driveway would be cheaper I immediately got it (I grew up with family in construction, so maybe that helps - thing is, even when JJ has an professional testifying about his field, if the tesimony doesn't match her preconceived ideas she assumes the expert is a scammer, scoffs and discounts the testimony). When this contractor realized he could never convince JJ,  he immediately shifted tact and brought out fact that his pour/construction was according to the plans P signed off on.

Side note: my ears did perk up when bozo hair claimed construction was stopped several times by inspectors. My guess, she saw work stopped while waiting for inspection. If you're ahead of schedule, or the inspector is late, some workers might get an unexpected day off, while one or two do little jobs or site cleanup - you sometimes have to leave wiring/plumbing/structural components visible for the inspector before it gets hidden behind next layer of contruction. I know in some areas contractors post the permit, rough schedule of inspections, passed and prnding inspections, etc in a central location on site, and there's a color code for passed inspections, something needs to be changed but contractor trusted to do it without a followup inspection, or maybe something more serious that needs reinspection, or the dreaded red tag - all work is to stop, some major FU, you might have to tear everything down and start over 

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

I would never agree to let her mediate anything technically related.

Soooooo, add that to the list - construction/renovation of pretty much anything, firearms, classic cars, accident reconstruction, etc..... I pretty much avoid all animal cases, but if you happen to large powerful dog, expecially one that looks like it could have - gasp - pit bull in its background, forget it, your chance of a fair hearing is vanishing tiny. Add to that she distrusts rescue animals. Oh, and all teenagers are irresponsible liars and and.....

hang on, why do I watch her show again

[Florinaldo]

1 minute ago, SRTouch said:

When this contractor realized he could never convince JJ,  he immediately shifted tact and brought out fact that his pour/construction was according to the plans P signed off on.

Thankfully for him he had written documentation, which is something JJ can understand, most of the time anyway. She therefore ruled "within the four corners" of the contract and since plaintiff had approved the architect's plans, she rightfully lost. He was sharp enough to see that he had a winning alternate strategy, something very few of those litigants would have the ability to perceive.

4 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Oh, and all teenagers are irresponsible liars and and.....

For males, her scorn extends into their late 20s, at a minimum.

5 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

hang on, why do I watch her show again

Now, don't you start with troubling existential questions...😉

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, SandyToes said:

I gave up on this one half way through because I could see how it was headed. I'm guessing she won?  

Nope, contractor realized he wasn't going to win with his plain-as-nose-on-your-face explanation, and shifted to arguing he followed the blueprints that homeowner approved prior to contruction - so he won with the contract

1 hour ago, SandyToes said:

This looks like one of those typical HOA-locked properties, and I bet you are exactly correct, @DoctorK.  I was surprised she got permission to actually ADD another garage to the property. Contractor seemed to have all his ducks in a row, seemed very professional, but again, I bailed, so who knows maybe he did get all scammy after I left.  I did see one photo where it looked like the new drive wasn't all concrete, but maybe faded into the grass, or something? If that was the case, then yeah, maybe there's a beef.  

Ugh.

ETA:

Whew.  Kinda wish I'd stuck it out, now! 

1 hour ago, SandyToes said:

(still trying to figure out new forum tangles.  Used to combine quick "serial posts" and stuff.  But very pretty!  Love all the new buttons!)

Yeah, there are times when leaving the heart symbol just doesn't seem to match what I want

[AngelaHunter]

Well, the ex-Mrs. Doane really really wanted to be married, didn't she? Ms. Doane, really?  Okay, she's large but so what? She's bright, pretty and successful but look what she picked(!!) and now she's stuck paying this useless schlub failure 1400$/month in alimony? Alimony? I thought that died many years ago, because the concept that one person must continue to support the either even after they are divorced and now are legal strangers boggles my mind. So, the repugnant Mr. Doane gets 3K/month to sit on his large butt and watch game shows? I bet he doesn't know enough or doesn't bother having taxes taken off his windfall and  I hope he gets hit with a huge tax bill in April.  I just hope this albatross was worth it for the brief period of wedded bliss, Ms.Doane.

Black gloves lady: Another one who thinks she can sign a binding agreement and then later say "I don't want to abide by it." That house has more garage frontage than house frontage, but that's what she wanted so fine. Her reason for trying to get money from the contractor, even after she signed off on the architect's plans: "I signed under the pretense of a LAAAH!" So... if the lie was a pretense, doesn't that mean it was truthful? My head hurts.

Ms. Grable. o.m.g. She gets financial aide, with which she buys whatever that frickin' mess on her head is (it reminded me of the braided macrame hanging plant holders I had back in the day) and paying for the plaintiff's old beater car. A good use of free money, I guess. Ms. Grable - please use some of that aide to do something about that terrifying grill you have. In her mind, helping the plaintiff  of the Popped Collar- who is married, has no license because he's a drunk driver and is an ex-con, was a good investment. Maybe it was, because she now has the car. Why? What? When? Why is she so involved with plaintiff? Why is she paying for his heap? Where in the world is Kenny? Why is wifey standing by her man? So many questions, not the least of which is how can people live their lives this way?

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

1400$/month in alimony? Alimony? I thought that died many years ago, because the concept that one person must continue to support the either even after they are divorced and now are legal strangers boggles my mind.

Years ago it was explained to me that essence of matrimonial law is to protect the state. The argument being if you marry someone and divorce them, the financial burden of their support should fall on the bread winner and not the state if need be. You picked him, you support him and not we the people. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Edited February 24, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[DoctorK]

38 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

please use some of that aide to do something about that terrifying grill you have

Actually, I think she did - it looked like a removable cosmetic gold grill on her lower front teeth. We have seen a few grills in court, usually from guys who spent more on the 24 inch spinner wheels than they spent on their cars. I don't think any dentist would have done what she had, and it has been a while since I got crowns (back teeth only) but I had a very experienced dentist and asked for the most durable type of crowns and took his advice on gold (for the record, I have 5 large crowns, most of them over 20 years old, only had to have one re-cemented). I also recall that back then the porcelain crowns were slightly less expensive than gold.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Actually, I think she did - it looked like a removable cosmetic gold grill on her lower front teeth.

But... they were all pointy, like a piranha's jaw. Is this fashionable now? Talons and pointy teeth? As someone who is way out of the loop on fashion, it looked hideous to me. 😞

[SRTouch]

42 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

But... they were all pointy, like a piranha's jaw. Is this fashionable now? Talons and pointy teeth? As someone who is way out of the loop on fashion, it looked hideous to me. 😞

Sure, perfect for plant hanging hair do - only thing better would be bozo color plant hanger 'do with her grill

[SandyToes]

7 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Soooooo, add that to the list - construction/renovation of pretty much anything, firearms, classic cars, accident reconstruction, etc..... I pretty much avoid all animal cases, but if you happen to large powerful dog, expecially one that looks like it could have - gasp - pit bull in its background, forget it, your chance of a fair hearing is vanishing tiny. Add to that she distrusts rescue animals. Oh, and all teenagers are irresponsible liars and and.....

hang on, why do I watch her show again

All those cell phone and "Squattah" cases!!

[Byrd is the Word]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

But... they were all pointy, like a piranha's jaw. Is this fashionable now? Talons and pointy teeth? As someone who is way out of the loop on fashion, it looked hideous to me. 😞