All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

North Carolina is a fence in state, for cattle and livestock (this includes horses, thanks to the research of connieinnc).   Didn't the enabling mother claim to have other official reports of the defendant's animals being in the road?       An official report I would believe, but nothing either plaintiff said.   

Was the case of the stallion chasing the neighbor's horses through the fence, and the stallion owner being cited for "animal at large" in North Carolina also?     That defendant (the stallion owner) had a huge fine for animals at large, and was admonished by the local judge about any additional citations leading to possible jail time, and even bigger fines?  

Edited June 6, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[connieinnc]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

...

North Carolina is a fence-in state, but only for cattle, and the defendant has no leg to stand on in this issue.   Cases dismissed.  

...

I looked it up and the NC statute includes equine animals:

§ 68-15. Term “livestock” defined The word “livestock” in this Chapter shall include, but shall not be limited to, equine animals, bovine animals, sheep, goats, llamas, and swine.

[CrazyInAlabama]

OK, I didn't find it, and appreciate you finding it.    

3 p.m. reruns-(probably from 2015 or so)-

Bait Shop Sign Slam-Plaintiff sign maker suing defendant for bank fees, non payment, and other stuff.  No signed contract, because they were friendly, and I bet they're not friendly any longer.   Defendant owes for unpaid fees for sign (which is very nicely done), and bank fees for bounced check.    Defendant has a ton of excuses, but still never paid the check fees, or payment, and claims she paid signmaker $1500 cash.   $825 for plaintiff.  

Flirting and House Painting-Plaintiff homeowner suing defendant unpaid loan to buy painting equipment.   Defendant claims he was to do painting in return for money for supplies.   $1200 for plaintiff.

Pills, Horses, and Gambling-Plaintiff suing defendant ex-girlfriend for horse expenses, house bills, etc.   Plaintiff says defendant was paying board, and costs for three horses (she flipped horses, just like house flipping for profit), and claims she had a gambling addiction too.  Defendant claims she barely gambles, and denies addiction.   (Funny halterview with defendant, not only does she not remember what the $800 was loaned for, she doesn't remember cheating on him either).  Plaintiff gets $800.

Honey, I Shrunk Your Pants-Plaintiff suing defendants for keying her car, after plaintiff was blamed for shrinking the defendant woman's pants by putting them in the dryer.   Defendant demanded plaintiff immediately reimburse her $50 for the pants.    Defendant boyfriend (he lives in the house, with car owning defendant), tried to mediate, but defendant woman wouldn't stop arguing.    Plaintiff found her car was keyed when she looked at it the next morning, and defendant woman said in the police report she would pay for damages.    Estimate for damage to car is $1400, and plaintiff gets it, and defendant doesn't get a penny.   

Child Support Me Not-Plaintiff suing defendant over child support payments she received after teen daughter moved in with him.    Child support was supposed to stop in January, but defendant accepted three months more of support, and wouldn't pay it back to plaintiff.    Plaintiff gets his $734   back.   What irritates me is the defendant won't actually be paying a penny to the plaintiff either, so she's still ahead.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

Endangered Children and Rescue Dogs-Plaintiff renter is paying to expand the house, and needed it roofed, and she's suing defendant / handyman/ contractor, for a bad roofing job.   Plaintiff claims the bad roofing endangered her children, and dogs.   This is a flat roof, and apparently not a very well made former carport, so I'm not surprised it has big issues.  Roofer has a lot of excuses, but he shouldn't have been roofing anything, and plaintiff gets $1,000 back.   Damages are thrown out.    Her $1900 roof wasn't worth it, and she should get a real roofer next time, and for a lot more money.  

Apprentice Plumber Bailout-Plaintiff suing former friend for two unpaid loans.  Defendant borrowed twice from the plaintiff, and repaid $,    Defendant was living in condo with the plaintiff, paid no rent, and claims cleaning the condo is the same as paying rent.   $2099 to the plaintiff. 

A Dingo Mauled My Shepherd-Plaintiff suing neighboring rancher defendant for his part Dingo mix, for mauling her miniature Shepherd.    The plaintiff's dog was on her driveway, front yard area (this is a rural area, and they are large properties).  This is alleged to be the second attack on her property by the man's dingo mix on her dogs.   Plaintiff didn't pursue charges on the first attack.    Sadly, many places in the country, there are no leash laws, and no animal control.  Plaintiff's daughter says defendant threatened to kill her family, so she didn't want more confrontations with the defendant over the first dog attack.  

Defendant is whining because plaintiff said the next time defendant's aggressive dog is on her property, it's going to be shot.   

In the U.S. Australian Dingoes are only able to be owned by zoos, or with a wildlife permit, including crosses, contrary to what some yahoo said on another site, I suspect they're a breeder or owner of a Carolina Dingo, pretty equivalent to the Dingo, but an American feral dog.    In Australia you have to have a permit to own a dingo, or cross, and that's only in two states. 

 Defendant claims the dingo mix was targeted by the plaintiff and she tried to run it over on the public road.    Defendant claims he has secure fence, and it was open (I suspect it's no climb, or hog fencing).   Defendant is a big jerk, and I suspect he enjoys his animal wandering, and destroying other animals.    Plaintiff gets $514 for vet bills.

Customized Nightmare-Plaintiff suing defendant for not restoring his classic non-driveable car properly, for the $6500 he paid to get the car fixed.    Then plaintiff had the vehicle towed to another shop, and wants money for more repairs.   Plaintiff had the car towed, and didn't say a word to the defendant for seven months, nothing for the plaintiff.  

Edited June 6, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

29 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims the bad roofing endangered her children, and dogs.   This is a flat roof, and apparently not a very well made former carport, so I'm not surprised it has big issues.

Zero sympathy for someone foolish enough to trust a Craigslist “roofer” on her (okay, and that lease agreement is sketchy as hell) property. Real roofers are pros and expensive. The pros clean up the nails and keep the water out. The hacks leave nails, cigarette butts and water infiltration behind.  Of you want to find a pro and don’t have a trusted friend’s referral use Angie’s list not the Craigslist, the rectum of the Internet. She got $1,000 with is about $1,000 more blood than she’d get out of that rock in the real world. Claim your victory and go home.

37 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Apprentice Plumber Bailout

Or “Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!”

[AngelaHunter]

55 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Zero sympathy for someone foolish enough to trust a Craigslist “roofer” on her (okay, and that lease agreement is sketchy as hell) property.

It's not even her property, but rented. She does "animal rescue", which is kind of outrageous since she's not even smart enough to avoid being a SSMOTHREE(!) Animal rescue with three small kids? Did she say she works, yet has the time and resources for all these kids and animals? Something weird going on there and I don't even want to know what. She hired the handyboy for peanuts and, as a work colleague of  mine used to say, "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys."  And who the hell does major renos on a rented house? I guess she wanted the carport fixed so she could stash more animals.

I'm still looking for anything good that resulted from the use of CL.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Endangered Children and Rescue Dogs-

Plaintiff does not have time to take care of her messy backyard because she has kids and, most importantly, does "animal rescue". The latter fact being presented as proof of her eligibility for immediate sainthood, of course. Quick, call the Pope: that is a case for instant canonization if I ever saw one. I think the spot for Saint Dumbass is still open.

Trusting someone who does roofing as a sideline just to save a few bucks is a really stupid move. Even skilled and reputable roofers can leave a few nails behind, like those that fall in the gutters, but contractors like the one she got do not know how to take the necessary precautions, or do not bother with them.  I found about five nails after the first snow melt following having my roof replaced a dozen years ago. I used a good skilled contractor; not the most expensive (who sometimes charge more solely for their reputation), but certainly not an amateur who does it as a hobby and my roof looks like in was installed... well not really yesterday, but say the day before yesterday.

I wonder if her kids and animals are more in danger from the mess in the backyard or from the nails. Too bad she got any of her money back.

8 hours ago, SRTouch said:

As someone said early on, too bad JJ didn't give the horse owner a chance to make her case for the countersuit.

I was disappointed by that because perhaps the legal issues might have made for a more interesting discussion than the ugly display from the plaintiff and her drunk daughter. There are still many outdated or susprising statutes on the books that vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some were silly even at the time they were adopted.

[DoctorK]

52 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

There are still many outdated

Not necessarily, some reflect the reality in non urban communities where peoples' livelihood depends on stock animals. However, laws that require a man with a red flag to walk in front of any automobile might be a bit dated (but it would make rush hour more entertaining).

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

"animal rescue". The latter fact being presented as proof of her eligibility for immediate sainthood,

Yes, and eligibility for some sort of gov subsidy for her "charity" organization. Maybe that's why she wanted the room added - maybe it was required so she can warehouse more animals and get more funding. I think she's in CA so I'm sure she'll be able to rake in money there. Or I could be talking through my hat, but I saw lots of so-called rescues operating when I was doing it and there were many skeevy ones.

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I found about five nails after the first snow melt following having my roof replaced a dozen years ago.

Had mine done too. It never occurred to me to ask my handyman (who is incredibly good) to do it.  It was fall, with lots of leaves on the ground. After the workers left - actual licensed roofing contractors - I walked around the house and picked up any nails that had fallen there, hidden by the leaves. There weren't very many, maybe 8 or so, and that's with three guys working on a large roof. The Handyboy must have dropped as many as he used. Or, the plaintiff was exaggerating in hopes of a payday, just like landlords who say a house was "trashed" and we see a dirty stove and a garbage bag or a tenant says the place was infested with bedbugs and we see one blurry pic of a harmless carpet beetle.   

[Florinaldo]

9 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Not necessarily, some reflect the reality in non urban communities where peoples' livelihood depends on stock animals. However, laws that require a man with a red flag to walk in front of any automobile might be a bit dated (but it would make rush hour more entertaining).

The red flag one is the type I was thinking about; there are recurring media reports, on slow news day usually, cataloguing those outdated laws and regulations that not one ever bothered to repeal, and are not enforced even though still on the books.

I mentioned earlier that rural statutes can be surprising for city slickers like me, but are still relevant. As others reported after doing the research, the laws in NC might support (or not) the defendant's position, but the issue was never explored because JJ dismissed it from the start.

When someone says "the law says", I reserve judgement until proof is provided or the actual wording says the reverse. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

13 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Zero sympathy for someone foolish enough to trust a Craigslist “roofer” on her (okay, and that lease agreement is sketchy as hell) property. Real roofers are pros and expensive. The pros clean up the nails and keep the water out.

After Hurricane Wilma, I got nails in my tires probably six times within about six weeks, because so many people were having to get their roofs redone. Sometimes nails get propelled out into the street when old roofs are taken off. Because Florida is so hot, the nails dig into the overheated soft asphalt which makes them prime targets for car tires. 

And flat roofs are notoriously hard to repair and upkeep. It would take a real professional (not one that was a "handyman" and probably stayed at a Holiday Inn the night before) to fix a flat roof properly. I imagine that guy didn't pull a permit either. 

[blondiek237]

I too felt JJ was wrong in the horse case.  What if that had been a child that got away from their mother and was in the road??  To hit and KILL a horse she had to be moving.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. both episodes are reruns-

Bat Girl Goes Bonkers-Plaintiff suing defendant for assaulting him with a baseball bat, while he was sleeping.     The defendant was offended by some rumors she blamed plaintiff for spreading, and she whacked him.     

When plaintiff is asked why he didn't have her arrested, he says because he didn't want to take a mother away from her children (this is when JJ asks "You have children!!!).    Defendant hit plaintiff in the head with a baseball bat she brought with her.   She claims it was self defense.  Plaintiff gets $5,000 for medical bills.

Separation and the Single Mother-plaintiff suing Sainted Single Mother defendant over whether money was a gift or a loan.  $1500 dollars is in dispute.  Defendant claims plaintiff sent her an expensive purse, and then put the $1500 in her bank account.   $1500 to the plaintiff. 

Say Yes to the Shoddy Dress-Plaintiff mom of teen suing defendant dressmaker for not finishing her prom dress on time, and kinds of anguish over the ruined moment of a lifetime of daughter.   The plaintiffs talked to seamstress on 6 May for a prom dress for 15 May, even though the plaintiffs knew the date of the prom eight months before this.          Seamstress finished dress on the day of the prom, instead of a couple of days earlier.   There are pictures of daughter wearing the dress at the prom, but daughter claims lace was falling off, and one sleeve needed lace put on.   Lace was put on the second sleeve after the prom.   They paid $700 for the dress, it was worn to the prom.    Prom was held on a yacht.   $200 back to plaintiff.  (My suspicion is the yacht was so the party could be outside the Florida state water limits, so the champagne part of the part could happen.)     

Consignment Nightmare-Plaintiff sues defendant consignment dealer for items she sold on the internet.   The defendant's full time job is selling consignment items online.    Defendant claims the unsold, brand new items were donated to charity.    Plaintiff bought a bunch of brand new designer items (Ferragamo, Gucci, etc), to finance her Ph. D. studies, and because she would be unemployed during school.    Defendant only sold a few items, and the rest disappeared.    For example, a Gucci wind breaker jacket bought for $500, sold for $50.  There were six items consigned, only four sold.   $800 for plaintiff.  

In the horse hit by car case, if it was at night (I don't remember what time of day or night it was) the horse might not have been visible, especially with an impaired driver.

Edited June 9, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m., both reruns-

Big Bucks Fish Tank Botch-Plaintiff suing defendant for value of custom fish tank.     Almost $4k of custom fish tank was delivered to defendant, and it was defective.  However, no one who dealt with the defendant before is in court.   Defendant claims the company was going to replace the tank, but never did, and the company offered him $200 to get him to keep the defective tank.   Defendant reversed the charges on the fish tank, but fish tank company refused to pick it up for months.   It turns out that the fish tank wasn't custom, but was delayed to make it look like they custom ordered it.    Plaintiff gets his scratched up tank back.

Lover's Lexus Mix-Up-Plaintiff accuses ex of fraudulently registering his Lexus.  As usual, defendant claims the car was a gift.   Plaintiff bought Lexus from private seller off of craigslist, never changed registration to his name, changed license plates, or had insurance.   Defendant took car, drove it, and then sold it.  Meanwhile, plaintiff attempted to sell car that defendant had possession of.   Case dismissed, due to unclean hands, from not registering the car, and leaving the prior owner on the hook for liability.  

Love Triangle Vandalism-Plaintiff and her father (car owner) are accusing her boyfriend's ex (they have two children together) of ramming her car, kicking it, and then harassing her.  Boyfriend is witness for plaintiff.       Plaintiff was picking up boyfriend when defendant rammed the plaintiff's car, kicked the car, and insurance company paid for ramming damage, but not for the kick damage. 

This happened two years ago, and plaintiff pre-med student didn't have time to file.   Defendant got arrested for criminal recklessness, claims she didn't go to court, but got probation, so she must have plead it out.    Defendant claims all of this was 'an accident'.  Court costs were $120 for this case, but no restitution was paid.    Police report says nothing about kicking car door, just hit the window with her hand.   Case dismissed. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

plaintiff pre-med student didn't have time to file.

Provided this one makes it through under grad, med school and residency, I hope her judgment regarding patient care is better than that of her choice of paramour or there are going to be some serious malpractice cases in Indiana's future.

[Brattinella]

JJ screwed the pooch on the car-ramming lunatic.  She is a jealous psycho, rammed her car twice on purpose because her EX was in the car with another woman!  How is this NOT $5000 for the plaintiff?  Plus the fact that she lies continuously in court.  Judy, you are a loon.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the car ramming lunatic case, the plaintiff's insurance company paid for the car damage from the ramming.    They just didn't pay for the kicked door damage, because it wasn't in the police report, and never mentioned before the JJ court filings.       

The plaintiff has to be very smart for pre-med, to actually get admitted, so I'm hoping she gets a clue about the loser boyfriend.      

A hint for people getting a new roof, they actually sell magnets at the big box stores, either on a handle like a rake, or I had two on poles that were smaller (they were out of the size I needed), when my roof was redone.     You have to go out every day when the roofers leave, to gather up nails and screws before they get stomped into the ground.     Be sure to do the driveway, and street gutters before you drive into the garage or you'll have flat tires.   

Edited June 8, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[iwasish]

After I had my roof done, I tied some strong magnets on ropes and attached the ropes to there rear of my brothers small John Deere tractor and dragged them  up and down the yard for 30 minutes at a time over a couple day period. Collected a bunch of nails and other oddities. Still find an occasional nail once in a great while but no flats or injuries!

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Love Triangle Vandalism-Plaintiff

I couldn't finish this and still, my head is aching. Jeffrey, the prize, goes to school online, but had to move to Lafayette, IN, to do so (no internet connection in Merrivale?) although he denies it was an online school and he bunks off and on with the def, Fantasia, who followed him as he moved around for the online classes. Yet, Jeffrey says, "Me and him went to university together." JJ corrected him, but it was obvious he didn't get it. His new little squeeze, the 22-year old pre-med student, also says, "Me and him were..." Pre-med girl is fine with Jeffrey knocking up Fantasia a second time, because... I forget. Fantasia says Jeffrey was, like,  her on-again, off-again studman, who, like,  lived with her a few times for short periods, didn't stick around or want to marry her, so she thought getting knocked up twice was a good idea.  She gave up her "residence" and moved back with long-suffering daddy, who appeared to be the only one with half a brain in this case. Damn. If wigs are now mandatory, Fantasia better find a decent one. This wig-hat, with her low-growing hairline clearly creeping down and showing in the front is not a good look.  I never got to the car ramming. 

[Brattinella]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Damn. If wigs are now mandatory, Fantasia better find a decent one. This wig-hat, with her low-growing hairline clearly creeping down and showing in the front is not a good look. 

LOL!  I was cracking up at the magenta-hued wig-hat!

[zillabreeze]

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

anguish over the ruined moment of a lifetime of daughter

FWIW, I have a theory about these "after the fact" custom dress, wedding cases...

These silly women fantasize about their perceived awesomeness.  They just KNOW that they and their event are the next social media storm!  The interwebs are just gonna blow up with likes and loves!  IG will break down.  Their stunning self will go viral!

When that fails to happen, they start scrambling around trying to find someone to blame.  Must be the tailor, must be the DJ,  caterer or photographer!  It can't possibly be that they cheaped out on vendors and got exactly what they paid for.  It certainly can't be that they tried to shove their giant ass into a skintight dress and still don't look like Beyonce.

Gotta be a lawsuit, somewhere!

17 hours ago, iwasish said:

After I had my roof done, I tied some strong magnets on ropes and attached the ropes to there rear of my brothers small John Deere tractor and dragged them  up and down the yard for 30 minutes at a time over a couple day period. Collected a bunch of nails and other oddities. Still find an occasional nail once in a great while but no flats or injuries!

Then again, a real roofer kind of company always has a little push around rolling magnet.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

It can't possibly be that they cheaped out on vendors and got exactly what they paid for. 

So you mean when someone wants a 3K$ dress they saw in a magazine but only want to pay 350$ they might be disappointed?

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The plaintiff has to be very smart for pre-med, to actually get admitted, so I'm hoping she gets a clue about the loser boyfriend. 

Many people can be highly educated (I guess English grammar isn't the pre-med student's strong suit) and still be utterly clueless about anything outside the books.  I have a feeling she's one of them.

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

Then again, a real roofer kind of company always has a little push around rolling magnet.

Yes, that's what my roofers had. They just missed the few that got buried under the leaves.

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Big Bucks Fish Tank Botch

I never saw this. You'd think someone with the illustrious handle of "Simon Palafox III" wouldn't be such a dopey, dumbass blob. He looked like an utter fool here, being forced to agree that his company (and he knew nothing about the sale) was just jerking the def around - "Ah, give him a couple hundred bucks to make him shut up and go away"  and has very shady business practices. The name of the store was repeated several times and I just hope people in that area stay away in droves. 

Then I watched the very appropriately named "Shreck vs. Mullett." Mr. Shrek, he of the enormous skull and missing teeth, is suing his former ladylove, Mullett, for a 21-year old car he bought on CL and took possession of in a Burger King parking lot. Shreck didn't bother registering it - "It was currently registered in the seller's name" because he's just too busy to bother with such formalities. Also, he couldn't afford it. He also didn't put any insurance on it. I guess he didn't have time for that either. Shreck is a busy boy! And they walk among us!

Stupid me. I watched a bit more of the car-ramming, wig-hat case. Jeffrey, the full-time student, says (when asked why he pays zero to support the fruit of his loins) "Me and my lawyer was in the progress..." He doesn't know the difference between "process" and "progress", this 27-year-old career student. "Take English!" JJ advises him. Yeah, like that's going to happen. He still didn't know what he said was wrong and I'm sure his new girlfriend doesn't know or care either. This is the future. We will have doctors who will say, "We was in the progress of testing you."

[chenoa333]

On 6/5/2019 at 4:17 PM, Carolina Girl said:

BINGO!  I'm glad someone else noticed this.  JJ kept saying "and you took out another $35, and another $35 while you were overdrawn!"  Can this woman read a bank statement?  If you're overdrawn, the bank does't let you withdraw further funds.  Those $35 "withdrawals" were the overdraft fees in the amount of $105.00 occasioned by the niece buying the Kindle books.  And plaintiff should have gotten that money back.  I don't care if she was overdrawn for five other checks, BUT FOR the niece she wouldn't have been out an additional $105.

And excuse me - just because she didn't SUE her brother to get the rototiller back, it's now HIS by right of possession.  He admitted she had let him use it.  Suddenly now it's his?  Wow.  Remind me to borrow a relative's appliance or something that I covet and hold on to it for a long time hoping they don't take the trouble to sue me to get it back.  Because apparently it magically becomes MINE after awhile. 

Poor judgment all around.  You didn't like the plaintiff.  We get it.  I didn't either, but you were NOT fair to her.

Yeah. I pretty much can't/don't watch JJ anymore. I still have love for Judy and the Byrd but I haven't had fun watching her show for a very long time. Not as many hard core morons/funny looking people as there used to be. And JJ seems like she just doesn't give a rat's a$$ how she rules on a case. 

However I do occasionally like to view the photos on the "litigants of JJ" website.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

So you mean when someone wants a 3K$ dress they saw in a magazine but only want to pay 350$ they might be disappointed?

Yep, especially since they gave the dressmaker a whole two weeks to create a masterpiece from a picture clipped from a gossip magazine

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Yep, especially since they gave the dressmaker a whole two weeks to create a masterpiece from a picture clipped from a gossip magazine

Fortunately, most of the outfits they're trying to copy don't seem to require a lot of fabric.  Less fabric, less stitches, less time needed.

[AngelaHunter]

23 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Fortunately, most of the outfits they're trying to copy don't seem to require a lot of fabric. 

Yes, especially if the dress is for a high school prom, as many of these moms seem to want their daughters to attend with their breasts and buttocks virtually bared. I'm trying to picture my father's reaction had I dressed like a hooker for a high school dance, but luckily most of the prom girls we see here don't appear to have any father in the picture.

SRTouch - nice to see you back! Hope things are okay for you!

[Florinaldo]

6 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

These silly women fantasize about their perceived awesomeness.  They just KNOW that they and their event are the next social media storm! 

They have also been sold on the unreasonable fantasies of the Cinderella wedding and the Princess prom, through movies, TV shows, the media and popular culture in general. No wonder they get frustrated when reality does not live up to unattainable expectations, and wish to lash out because someone must be responsible.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

Sorry to be out of sequence here, but I'm just randomly watching recent eps. I thought I had lost the ability to be shocked at the behavior of litigants, but Mr. Fullerton? There must be a lot of people trying to find out his phone number. The weird, creepy, super-pasty, sweaty-looking def, Mr. Chiampa(sp?) had no home, so Mr. Fullerton thinks why sure! and let this character move in with him. In his house(!!). Why no, Chiampa doesn't pay rent. Not only that, but he hits up Fullerton for 642$ for a car repair. He moves out, but then again needs more money, 2000$ this time. Even though he paid no rent and none of the first loan back, Fullerton agrees to give him the 2K. WTF? Either Fullerton had a "thing" for the greasy thing, or he's the most gullible person on the planet. This left me dazed and bemused. 

Oh, wait - I lie. Even dumber and more baffling is the plaintiff woman giving 1500$ to her house painter to further his brilliant career since he couldn't afford a paint sprayer himself. She thought about it, decided it was a good idea and gives him cash. She doesn't know why she gives him cash. He, a hideous troll, explains that she was making passes at him, but he's been married for twelve years! He's a married man! How dare she? That didn't stop him from asking for money though. Honestly, it just gets worse.

So MY handyman is coming to rebuild our deck. There are a few things I know will not happen:

He will not ask me for my Home Depot card and then use it to buy himself stuff.

He will not leave a ton of "debreese" all over.

He will not hit me up for a loan and then say it was a gift because I was coming on to him.

He will not ask if he can move into our spare bedroom.

[iwasish]

On 6/8/2019 at 2:32 PM, zillabreeze said:

Then again, a real roofer kind of company always has a little push around rolling magnet.

Clearly I did not go with the real roofer kind of company!! LOL 

[iwasish]

On 6/6/2019 at 1:40 PM, SRTouch said:

As someone said early on, too bad JJ didn't give the horse owner a chance to make her case for the countersuit. I agree with JJ's ruling, I don't I think a motorist driving down a public road should be liable for injuring an out of control animal. OTOH I know that laws differ in some jurisdictions. Part of my attraction to court tv is learning some of the ways laws differ between jurisdictions. Could it be that in North Carolina  (I think I heard that was where these folks are from) has a statute that says a passing motorist is liable if a bear chases livestock onto the road (especially when the livestock is a horse named after a deceased son). Seems more likely that an unlicensed driver who had no business driving would get stuck with liability for property damage. 

I don’t quite believe the bear story. Most fences I’ve scene that corral horses/cattle and livestock are some type of rail fencing. A bear would not have to break the fence to get to the horse. He could merely climb thru or over it.  I would have liked to see the pictures of the fence, if she did have them there. But even so, I think JJ was correct. The sympathy for the horse owner comes from the driver’s record, that she should NOT have even been on the road.  If she had a valid license and had hit the horse, regardless of how the horse got on the road, she could have sued the horse owner and collected damages. JJ used the clean hands theory to deny her any damages due to her not having a valid license. Once that issue is dealt with all that is left (sadly) is a horse loose on a roadway and it seems in that jurisdiction the owner is responsible. 

Judy also said that had the driver run off the road, thru the fence and hit and killed the horse, she WOULD have been liable.  

[Byrd is the Word]

11 hours ago, iwasish said:

I don’t quite believe the bear story. Most fences I’ve scene that corral horses/cattle and livestock are some type of rail fencing.

I had the same feelings and I also found her a bit off. Furthermore, she had no proof that such a bear attack took place nor was it an “act or God” as she claimed; not that would it have made much difference apparently. Legally speaking the horse is her property and it should not have been on the road. I’d be interested to learn whether or not she filed an insurance claim for the loss of her horse and how that was settled.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Rapper Repair-Plaintiff says defendant / car flipper / rap producer, sold him a car for $1055, and it can't be registered in his state.   The car had a salvage title, and the plaintiff knew this when bought it.   There is a procedure for getting the salvage titled vehicle registered legally.  Defendant will furnish the photos, and statements plaintiff needs to register the car.  Case dismissed.  Plaintiff is still whining in the hallterview too. 

Begging for Money-Plaintiff says defendant never repaid a loan for her business, and defendant says it was a gift.   Defendant claims the money was a campaign contribution for the husband of the defendant, and not a loan.   Defendant used the plaintiff's credit card for $7500, and repaid nothing.    (Interesting article about the defendants, they went on the show to get the money, but get nailed for $7500, and the show caps at $5,000.  The article resulted in the show's lawyers contacting defendant, for violating the non-disclosure agreement they signed). Plaintiff gets $5,000. 

Extravagant Beach Wedding Fail-Plaintiff suing defendant/former fiance, for backing out of their wedding.   He sent her a text to cancel it.   Plaintiff takes desperate to a new level, moved defendant in to her place after two weeks, were engaged and planning a wedding after six weeks.   Defendant (twice divorced) wanted a courthouse wedding, but plaintiff (once divorced) wanted a fancy beach wedding.   

Defendant has a bankruptcy, and lots of bills, and plaintiff says in her sworn statement that she knew he was broke.    Plaintiff wants money for the ring, her dress, venue costs, all kinds of vendor costs, and she's out of her mind.     As JJ points out, the man paid very little of the living expenses, but plaintiff thinks he's going to pay for the wedding of the century?   Plaintiff claims she didn't know defendant was living with another woman when they met.  Case dismissed. 

Brother-Sister Skermish-Plaintiff / condo owner suing defendant (brother) for 'artwork' his children did on her walls when sister let man and two teenage children move in to the condo.    He  paid rent for a while, then stopped and wanted his mother to pay the rent, but mother says it never happened, and she's plaintiff's / daughter's witness.     Defendant didn't pay eight or nine months rent, and claims Mother was going to pay his rent, and claims sister was going to cut his rent in half.   Defendant also had a cat, not allowed by the HOA, so plaintiff will get fined for that too.   Damages to condo include holes in walls, ruined doors, and his teens ruined the walls with 'artwork'.   The pictures don't show a little crayon or marker, but a lot of marker on every wall.    The entire condo is filled with trash, damage, and will take thousands to fix, and $5,000 won't even begin to fix it.   Defendant loses, and I only hope he's been evicted too.      Plaintiff says the artwork looks exactly like the brother's graffiti, so it may not be the teens.  

(In the horse fence case, there are also vinyl fences that don't hold up very well, wood fences may be older and deteriorate, and there are wire fences that aren't very secure either).  

Edited June 10, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 pm episodes, first one new

The $18,000 Signature-Plaintiff agreed to pay insurance policy premiums for half of an insurance policy, on ex-husband, with other half going to his five children.    Plaintiff said she couldn't pay for the policy, and was taken off the policy as a beneficiary.   Plaintiff needs to sign the policy for defendant to sell the policy, and plaintiff wants to be paid for signing the policy.  At first, plaintiff claims defendant denied he wanted to sell the policy, but still wanted her to sign and waive the insurance policy payout.   

 They agreed defendant would pay her $18,000, but paid her only $12,000, and now she wants $6,000.    She is a life insurance agent, and wrote the original policy, and he sells health insurance.       Plaintiff gets $5,000.    

Teen Test Drive Disaster-Plaintiff suing teen for taking their car out for a spin, totaling it, and losing it to a tow yard.  Plaintiff dad and son bought 2001 (?) Mustang for $2400, son drove it for a year before the totaling.    Defendant was borrowing the car to go to work, and was thinking about buying it.    Plaintiff is responsible for tow fees, and car storage costs.  $239 to plaintiff.

(Some people do go out of state for community college.     I knew someone who studied at the best HVAC program in the country, and it was in Illinois.     Some programs admit so few students that locally there may be a long waiting list, but somewhere else there isn't a wait list at all.    It's odd but it happens). 

Edited June 11, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[shksabelle]

So people who live in subsidized housing go out of state to go to community college??!!

As JJ would say, “What an America.”

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is responsible for tow fees, and car storage costs.  $239 to plaintiff.

I don’t know where my man Byrd got his figure, but the least valuable Mustang value I could find is about $1,400. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I agree the amount seemed low for the Mustang, but the father said they paid $2400 for it, and the son drove it for eighteen months before he loaned it to the defendant, so it was probably not in great shape by the time the defendant totaled it.   

I wonder if that was the storage/impound fees minus the few dollars they paid for metal value when it got crunched.  

I didn't catch if there was any insurance payment either.  

Edited June 11, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The $18,000 Signature

I enjoyed this, as I always do contract cases. There was no mention of indiscriminate breeding,  abused kids or animals and no violence or murdered English. I could have my chicken sandwich without worrying about indigestion. 

Little Eggman Daddy, who totally trusts and depends on some silly boy to take care of the car he wrecked is an utter idiot. "He told me he would, so I just forgot about the car." Def has lots of bills and fine to pay, douchebag hairdos and earrings to pay for, so why would he pay a cent for the car when he can just ignore the whole thing? Daddy honestly thought anyone could walk into a tow yard with no proof of ownership and be given any car he likes? Daddy admits in the hall he learned something here, something he should have known already. 239$? Really, Byrd? I'm sure this 18-year-old car was a wreck after Daddy's little boy and his buddy got done with it, but still... Anyway, if that's what Byrd says, that's what it is. Byrd can do no wrong in my eyes. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I agree the amount seemed low for the Mustang, but the father said they paid $2400 for it, and the son drove it for eighteen months before he loaned it to the defendant, so it was probably not in great shape by the time the defendant totaled it.   

I'm guessing it was the value of a totaled vee-hikle. I went on Kelly Blue Book and the trade in value I got in fair condition was $323-872.  And we know it wasn't in fair condition since it was totaled but that was the closest thing I could pick. So our man Byrd was pretty accurate. 

It's too bad the Life Insurance Man came up with a contract for his Ex-wife. She seemed like she was a little pissy there. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

My suspicion in the insurance case is the ex-husband was looking to sell the policy, found out the ex-wife had to sign off on it, and he claimed that he wasn't selling at that point.    Then when he went forward, and he 'suddenly' found a buyer, and had to negotiate with the ex to sign the policy release.    I think he meant to sell all along, and thought he could get away without paying the ex-wife. however, she apparently writes insurance policies for a living, and he goofed.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first episode new, second rerun (thanks to the soccer, I'm going to be getting one hour instead of two)-

Stuck Truck Rage-Plaintiff truck driver is suing defendant/property owner for stealing a delivery driver's truck keys.    Property owner put up a sign saying No Exit (the property was used by people as a cut through to the Kroger's parking lot next door, to avoid a blocked street).   JJ claims there was a sign saying No Outlet in the right place.  Plaintiff was turning around, got stuck in the grass on defendant's property, and while plaintiff was out of truck, the keys disappeared.  Plaintiff is suing for tow bill (if you weren't on his property on the grass, then you wouldn't have been stuck).  JJ says the property owner was unreasonable, and plaintiffs get $14 for the truck key replacement.

(I hope the property owner put up proper signs at the driveway, and coordinates with the police, so people won't be driving through his mobile home park.  One of these days, a delivery person is going to be driving through the park, and run over someone).    

Restaurant Money Pit-Plaintiff, restaurant seller suing defendant for money owed from her purchase of the restaurant.   Purchase price was $81,600, and sold at a big loss.  Plaintiff admits defendant owes a lot more than the court limit, but even if he sued woman and won, he would probably never get anything from the woman.    Plaintiff says he just wants it all over.   Defendant's restaurant went out of business this year, but she had owned it since 2016.    Defendant wants credit for the money she spent on the restaurant.  $5,000 to plaintiff. 

Rerun-

Huge Ego on Display-I remember this, the defendant claims his boss paid for his car repairs because he was such a great employee.   Defendant was unemployed, or had low paying jobs, finally got a job with the plaintiff's business doing alarm installations.    Plaintiff loaned money for a transmission repair, and rental car costs, and loaned him down payment, and defendant paid nothing back.     Defendant paid plaintiff $1450, plaintiff gets his remaining money back.   

Masseuse on the Loose-Plaintiff loaned defendant $6,000 to open the doors on her massage business.    Defendant claims she was going to repay the plaintiff with massages, but only paid $2512, and still owes $3488.    I wonder if the plaintiff's witness wife knew about the repayment plan?     Written contract says $5k, not 6,000, so plaintiff only gets $2088.  

Edited June 12, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

8 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Stuck Truck Rage

I initially pegged the defendant as a territorial asshole considering the number of times he mentioned "private property". That assessment was sealed when the used the "I am a God-fearing man" line as a testimonial to his honesty and credibility.

If I went into a hissiy fit each time a Canada Post or FedEx delivery truck enters my property, I would have died of an apoplectic fit a long time ago.

Too bad JJ did not decide to award the delivery guys more money because the private signage for the private blockage was privately deficient.

13 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Huge Ego on Display

The rest of him was not small either.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

That assessment was sealed when the used the "I am a God-fearing man" line as a testimonial to his honesty and credibility.

As soon as I hear that, or "I was on my way to church" or "I'm a Christian" I pretty much know we're going to hear a tale of scamming, cheating and lying. I don't go to church ever, but I wouldn't steal the keys from someone else's vehicle as you just know this mealy-mouthed asshole did.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Restaurant Money Pit-

These were some astute business wheeler-dealers. Neither is sure how much they paid or what was owed, just approximate guesses. However, plaintiff stated why people would choose to come here rather than go to a real court. At least here they might get something and in a real court, even if a judgment is entered, good luck in getting a defendant to ever pay a dime.  It was kind of funny when the def started waving around pictures of equipment she put in the restaurant, as though that had any bearing on what she owed. Yes, I've done improvements to my house, so should I be able to deduct them from the mortgage?

[CrazyInAlabama]

What I didn't like about the delivery case is he wasn't delivering to the trailer park, but cutting through to the Kroger's.   I'm guessing it happens a lot, and not just the Fedex guy.    I would worry as a trailer park owner having someone hurt by a truck that was taking a shortcut, and being held liable because I didn't stop it.     I wonder why the other road was blocked?    

I really think the truck key thief is lucky he didn't get arrested for auto burglary or something similar.      I really disliked him personally, and especially the God-fearing man remark.    That remark had nothing to do with the case.     

I think the No Outlet sign was on the street leading to the blocked off road ending, and not on the left turn into and through the trailer park.  

Edited June 12, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

22 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I would worry as a trailer park owner having someone hurt by a truck that was taking a shortcut, and being held liable because I didn't stop it.   

However, the property owner did not really seem to care much about safety but more about protecting his sacred "private property". Even his signage was crappy and not installed at the places that would have been the best and most efficient for viewing by drivers.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

32 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

What I didn't like about the delivery case is he wasn't delivering to the trailer park, but cutting through to the Kroger's.

I wasn't particularly crazy about them either, but the def. had no right to steal the keys from anyone. What did he hope to accomplish with that act, other being a vindictive, God-fearing asshole? I guess he crossed off, "Thou shalt not steal" from his list of commandments.  He doesn't want the truck on his private property, but stealing the keys just delays their leaving. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

35 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

As soon as I hear that, or "I was on my way to church" or "I'm a Christian" I pretty much know we're going to hear a tale of scamming, cheating and lying. I don't go to church ever, but I wouldn't steal the keys from someone else's vehicle as you just know this mealy-mouthed asshole did.

Similarly, I love when a defendant comes out in a dress shirt straight out of the bag with the crease lines still on it and they are wearing a big old cross (double points for a rosary).  Perhaps it's to keep the lightning bolts away from them so they don't burst into flame while testifying. 

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

"I am a God-fearing man"

That line delivered by the shifty eyed, lying asshole as evidence of his truthfulness. Sickening.

The only thing remarkable about this case is both litigants testifying at her her bench and leaving with all their fingers and toes. Never ever have I seen that. 

[AngelaHunter]

27 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

The only thing remarkable about this case is both litigants testifying at her her bench and leaving with all their fingers and toes.

I remember seeing that only once before when Byrd was busy and couldn't bring some piece of evidence up. In this case, Byrd looked all chill about it. I guess he figured these characters didn't look too dangerous. 😄

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Property owner put up a sign saying No Exit (the property was used by people as a cut through to the Kroger's parking lot next door, to avoid a blocked street).   JJ claims there was a sign saying No Outlet in the right place. 

As I recall, the driver said that he was delivering to homes in the trailer park. Also, didn't JJ tell the park owner that his signs were not positioned properly? I may be wrong on either or both of these. The defendant should have gotten hit harder on stealingt the keys, not for the $15 replacement cost (which for some reason JJ reduced to $14) but for a deliberate and malicious action that cost the plaintiffs time and money.

Edited June 12, 2019 by DoctorK