All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AngelaHunter]

53 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

Inside was the remnants of that fried chicken (mostly bones, but some meat was left).  I about vomited.  I threw it in the trash,

Well, you'll never be a primo hoarder -  or a litigant - with that kind of finickiness. They eat the chicken and just throw the bones on the floor. The mice, rats, and cockroaches enjoy it, so it's beneficial for some I guess.

[funky-rat]

34 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Well, you'll never be a primo hoarder -  or a litigant - with that kind of finickiness. They eat the chicken and just throw the bones on the floor. The mice, rats, and cockroaches enjoy it, so it's beneficial for some I guess.

Yeah, I watch that show to feel better about my messy house, lol.

I am surprised our trusty male cat didn't find them.  He was nuts about chicken bones and would dig them out no matter how well we hid or packed them in the trash (because yes, I know, chicken bones are horrible for animals).

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 pm reruns-

Drinks, Baseball and a Bailout-(They both work at a ball park, that's where baseball comes in) Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend defendant for a loan for a car of $1800, he says it's a gift, but paid her $300 back.     Defendant dumped plaintiff right after the car purchase, and right after he was nailed for a D.U.I., and she bailed him out, and car was impounded.   $1500 for plaintiff

Sibling Squatter-Plaintiff parents of five say defendant relative (brother of plaintiff husband) , his mother, and another relative skipped out on rent, and hoarded trash in their home.    The plaintiffs moved to Montana for work, that didn't pan out, and moved back.   Then plaintiffs found the rent hadn't been paid, and $2800 in utilities were unpaid.   The mother quit her job, and moved out when the plaintiffs returned.   Defendant brother claims he paid everything, but stopped paying rent.      Colorado has squatters rights, at least when this case occurred, and brother exercised them.   Since Cody the deadbeat brother finally moved out, the couple only rent the garage (I bet they're living in the house themselves).      Cody was renting the garage for his car, and never paid.   Cody also trashed the yard, the neighbor's yard, and the house, and they had to pay for cleaning.  Plaintiffs get $800 unpaid rent.   (The hallterview is hysterical, deadbeat renter Cody talks about how he owed nothing, 

Hair Salon Freeloader-Plaintiff suing former landlord defendant over a hair salon lacking zoning permits.  Plaintiff wanted plumbing repairs,  the bathroom improved, outside lighting improved, and other things not in the lease.   Plaintiff started improvements two months before taking possession of the salon space, and at the end of the third month plaintiff left.    Plaintiff also didn't want to get electricity, and other utilities in her name, and claims the defendant should have paid.       They both signed a lease, and it says that the building is zoned as a salon, plaintiff claims it wasn't zoned that way, but has zero proof.    The plaintiffs did nothing to find out about zoning, but it was zoned commercial.   They never gave the landlord any notice about any issues, except the letter saying the plaintiffs were moving out in a couple of weeks, before they had to start paying rent.     Plaintiffs get nothing back, because they got three months free rent.     Landlord alleges damages to the interior of the building, and put up additional outdoor lighting.    Cases dismissed, and landlord keeps security deposit.  

[pagooey]

10 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

It's strange that he used 1/4" over 1/8" spacers, because there's literally no advantage to him.

Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that that ding-dong 1. didn't know the difference and/or 2. started the 1/8" wall with the 1/4" floor spacers, or some jumbled combo of both, and then just kept going higgledy-piggledy. Hence the smashing when they came up too high. As Bugs Bunny would say, what a MAROON!

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first new, second rerun (a graphic stabbing rerun)-

Deceased Father Fraud-Plaintiff claims her siblings/defendants lied to her about the sale of late father's home, and took money from his bank account.   Plaintiff claims she was coerced into defendant's son purchasing house for $7500, and son and wife of defendant went on the deed.    The defendant's used the father's money to fix up the house (sounds like a total dump), and then son and his mother bought it, and the son now rents the house out.   Sorry JJ but Zillow isn't a great resource for house prices.   Sister gets $1200.    

Mutilated Privacy Hedge-Plaintiff suing defendant/neighbor over the trimming of an 18-foot privacy hedge.    Man trimmed joint privacy hedge to 3 to 4 feet, after several break ins at his house, where the burglars are shielded from view by the gigantic hedges.     The man had trimmed the hedges before with her permission, but not that short.    The hedge is planted right on the property line, and branches hang over on his line.  $5,000 to plaintiff.      

Stabbing, Slashing and Kidnapping-Plaintiff suing ex for false CPS report, harassment, and a bunch of garbage.   Defendant says ex-girlfriend, and her new boyfriend ganged up on him over money, stabbing him repeatedly, in the head and face, and slashed his tires.  Defendant was later assaulted, and stabbed, but was arrested by the police.    Plaintiff woman is scary.    Woman claims she was assaulted by the defendant, but that's when defendant was stabbed and assaulted, and arrested and held for three days.     Plaintiff claims three months before defendant slashed her tires.  Plaintiff claims she was short on her rent, and needed car repairs.   

Plaintiff claims man texted, and called her, and she went outside to meet him at 2 a.m., outside the gated apartment.     Plaintiff of course no longer has the phone or text records.   Plaintiff claims defendant grabbed her, two passerby got defendant off of her, she escaped to her apartment, called 911 (no 911 call or police report).   There is nothing but a incident report for stalking 90 minutes after her 'assault' happened.   Woman didn't even go to the hospital, or do a police report.   Woman claims she didn't know she was stabbed (Sorry, if I get stabbed I'll know it, and I'll go to the hospital, and file criminal charges).     Defendant claims plaintiff called and texted him to come over to her house.   

Plaintiff filed for a restraining order, but didn't go to court, and it was dismissed.         Defendant had multiple stab wounds to his head and face.     JJ gives plaintiff nothing, and tells her to show the tape the police, with her zero evidence.   I don't think the defendant received anything, he waited over a year to sue.   

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, funky-rat said:

Yeah, I watch that show to feel better about my messy house, lol.

I watch that stuff whenever I need the motivation to do some serious cleaning. I watch 10 or 15 minutes of "How Clean is Your House" on YT and before I know it, I'm up and steam cleaning the refrigerator!

39 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Stabbing, Slashing and Kidnapping-

Okay, then. Thanks. Now I know what to skip. Violent, savage lunatics are permanently off my viewing list.

Edited June 18, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[AngelaHunter]

Just watched the hedge kerfuffle. I admit I am really terrible with numbers, but Mr. Benoit? 18-5=3? Really? Even I have the correct answer to that. The city laws say a hedge can't be higher than 3 or 4 feet and he has the proof, except that's not what it says at all. "Oh," says Mr. Benoit. Okay, so maybe arithmetic and reading just aren't his strong suits. 

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Deceased Father Fraud

Wow. I just found the going price for a house in that neighbourhood of Decatur (I think) is 10-12K? Absolutely astonishing to me. Nice that the siblings left their elderly father to live in a house that was "trashed" with holes in the walls and no heat, but pounced like a pack of hyenas when Dad departed this world. What a bunch of lulus, especially Charles, who doesn't work, and his wife who doesn't work, and their son, who probably doesn't work either, although we never heard from him. I guess they all used their collective brain power to pull a fast one on the plaintiff. 

Edited June 19, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[AuntiePam]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Just watched the hedge kerfuffle. I admit I am really terrible with numbers, but Mr. Benoit? 18-5=3? Really? Even I have the correct answer to that. The city laws say a hedge can't be higher than 3 or 4 feet and he has the proof, except that's not what it says at all. "Oh," says Mr. Benoit. Okay, so maybe arithmetic and reading just aren't his strong suits.

But there was a section in the code limiting something to 3-4 feet.  There were limits on fences/hedges depending on where they were located, and one of the locations said 3-4 feet. 

I believe he asked and I believe she said okay, but she wasn't happy with the results.  I don't see that it was worth $5K, especially since they'll grow back.  He may have killed that one tree, but the other stuff will survive.

On the estate case, I'm sort of glad to hear that there are livable houses for sale for $10K or less, somewhere in the US.  I'd like to see them though. 

[DoctorK]

8 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I believe he asked and I believe she said okay, but she wasn't happy with the results.  I don't see that it was worth $5K, especially since they'll grow back. 

From the testimony, he had asked and gotten permission previously to trim the hedge and had done it in what we would all recognize as trimming. This time he chopped down three fourths of the hedge which is not trimming, it is wholesale removal. The plants may or may not grow back since losing the vast majority of their greenery may kill them. Even if they can grow back, I am not sure the plaintiff will still be around after the 15 to 20 years it may take to return to their original size. I liked the outcome but didn't dislike the defendant, I think he is just a bit deficient in common sense, also not very good with arithmetic or reading comprehension.

[funky-rat]

9 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

On the estate case, I'm sort of glad to hear that there are livable houses for sale for $10K or less, somewhere in the US.  I'd like to see them though. 

You can buy older homes in a few areas near me for that amount, or a little more.  Many are nice.  Some are row homes.  But the downside is that there are no jobs in the area whatsoever, and a good drive down windy 2 lane roads to the nearest places of employment - often a one or more hour drive.  So it's a trade-off.  The areas also don't offer much in terms of shopping, entertainment, etc.  And by shopping, I mean they may not even have a single decent grocery store.

[Byrd is the Word]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I just found the going price for a house in that neighbourhood of Decatur (I think) is 10-12K?

As an Illinois resident I'm familiar with Decatur.  Needless to say, you don't want to live there.  It's a fine/terrible example of the rust belt.  There are no jobs, lots of drugs and crime and the sort of economic and emotional depression that most of us would run from. 

[PennyPie18]

10 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

But there was a section in the code limiting something to 3-4 feet.  There were limits on fences/hedges depending on where they were located, and one of the locations said 3-4 feet. 

I believe he asked and I believe she said okay, but she wasn't happy with the results.  I don't see that it was worth $5K, especially since they'll grow back.  He may have killed that one tree, but the other stuff will survive.

On the estate case, I'm sort of glad to hear that there are livable houses for sale for $10K or less, somewhere in the US.  I'd like to see them though. 

$5000 was  too much for those hedges. Why did JJ  think the plaintiff was entitled to such a big award? I have seen her give much less in other cases involving property (furniture, etc.) that won't grow back. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the hedge man's case, I would suspect that depending on the type of hedge plants, that they'll grow back to the previous height pretty quickly.  The house I grew up in had hedges that grew at least that tall in a year, so maybe those hedges will too.     $5,000 was ridiculous for that hedge.   

One of these days, when robbers come into the neighbor's house when she's home, that man will probably be the one who calls the police to rescue her.     I wonder what the crime rate is in that neighborhood?   

In the man's place, from now on I would cut everything straight up from his side of the property line, and never trim the hedge for the old bat next door.    Then I would put in a security system, with the video door bells, and let the neighbors worry about their own property.       Also, since the man has been trimming that hedge for years, with her permission, she actually owed him a lot.   Yard work like that is pricey. 

In the Decatur  case I think the big sticking point that made the sister so angry was that her sister-in-law is on the deed too.    I bet the nephew/son moved for work,  and the mother/sister-in-law manages the property, and that just pisses the old bat off.     If they hadn't improved the property, then I suspect the house wouldn't qualify to sell, after appraisal, except as a tear down, and that probably would have been very little in that area.   There is no way they could get anything but a cash buyer in that area, or hold a mortgage themselves, and we all know how poorly that comes out.

Edited June 19, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[funky-rat]

The biggest thing about the plaintiff  that bugged me was her assertion that the Defendant was overblowing his house getting robbed because they use her ridiculously tall hedges as a hiding place - she didn't seem to believe it, and said that everyone else was getting robbed (or something similar).  They were sloppy looking, and I wouldn't be happy about it either.

The statue he quoted only covered walls - walls could only be 3-4 foot.

The $5000 was ludicrous, IMO.  And I agree that she was probably using him for free trimming services for years.

[Florinaldo]

The funniest line in the house sale case was from JJ: "I am not a probate judge because I don't know anything about probate law". An she then proceeded to revise the probate (does that make her a "re-probate judge"?) to come up with her loopy decision.

When you are the executor for an estate, you need to document precisely what you are doing and to keep the heirs informed through letters or meetings, even if the situation does not appear too complicated. And especially if one of the parties involved is a bitter hag like the plaintiff sister, who clearly already had problems with a majority of her siblings (and at least one spouse). With people like her you want to take all possible precautions to avoid trouble, because they will make some at the first opportunity you give them.

The house was in bad condition and it needed to be repaired to bring it up to a condition where it would be sellable. The funds necessary for this would normally come from the estate. If the latter is a very cash-poor, as was the case here, the money can be borrowed in expectation of reimbursement from future revenues from the sale of the house. I believe that the defendants attempted to say that they paid it from their own pockets as a loan to the estate, but JJ kept cutting them off because she arbitrarily would have none of it. So the estate was in debt towards them and they rightfully got their money back from the sale of the house, which left less money than the full sale value of the house to distribute amongst the heirs.

That is what the sister did not understand or deliberately refused to understand, joined by JJ. They both considered only the sale price, not the expenses necessary to get the house into shape. The fact that the sister-in-law was on the deed only added another convenient pretext for the plaintiff to get all riled up. It did not help that the executor seemed to do things rather loosely, with not enough documentation.

The son would have been better to buy the house as it was, for way less money, and then use the "savings" to repair the house himself.

1 hour ago, funky-rat said:

The $5000 was ludicrous, IMO.  And I agree that she was probably using him for free trimming services for years.

Ludicrous indeed. But JJ has a soft spot for lying old biddies.

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In the Decatur  case I think the big sticking point that made the sister so angry was that her sister-in-law is on the deed too.    I bet the nephew/son moved for work,  and the mother/sister-in-law manages the property, and that just pisses the old bat off. 

For starters, I found the plaintiff quite credible.  That said, I empathize with her anger.  I believe her when she says she was mislead into believing that the nephew would occupy the house and thus occupancy in addition to ownership would remain in the family.  Turning the house into an income property changes all that.  And if it's indeed correct that a $7,500 house can fetch $500 per month in rent, it's a gold mine. $6,000 in annual rent makes their ROI something any of us would envy.

[funky-rat]

I was on the fence with the somewhat-cranky sister.

It does appear the executor didn't keep good records, and it appeared they made some decisions without consulting everyone, which they should have done.

She lost me a little bit with the whole "He promised I could come visit so I can keep my memories" or whatever it was.  Please.  Kind of like that woman from an older case who freaked out because she plopped a non-running truck on someone's property and they finally ditched it.  She too whined about visiting the truck for memories or some such thing.  Your memories can't be sold, and can be visited without being at the house.

Likewise the other side lost me with how bad the house was, yet they were allowing their elderly father to live there?  Too much histrionics.

It would have all been alleviated if they would have all been honest.  If the kid wanted to turn it in to a rental, then he should have had to have an appraisal, and bought the house from the estate for fair value once the home would be fixed up (not fancy, but livable).  Not in the bad condition it was in.  But I do believe the parents, and the kid who bought it, said he would be living in it, so he could get the house at a discount, and make the others think they were helping a relative get his start in life.

Many times, estates would be best handled by impartial 3rd parties.

[Byrd is the Word]

24 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

The funds necessary for this would normally come from the estate. If the latter is a very cash-poor, as was the case here, the money can be borrowed in expectation of reimbursement from future revenues from the sale of the house. I believe that the defendants attempted to say that they paid it from their own pockets as a loan to the estate, but JJ kept cutting them off because she arbitrarily would have none of it.

In fact, what the defendants did in this case was take money from the estate in order to improve an asset of that estate in order to liquidate that asset.  Then they did so at below market value to a buyer that they identified who then turned the former estate asset into a bit of a income producing gold mine.  All the while deceiving and short changing the plaintiff.  I don't believe for a second that the scheming defendants spent nickle one from their own empty pockets to improve that property and if so would have produced evidence, in spite of JJ's interruptions.  Even if you take them at face value, they foolishly and unnecessarily co-mingled their funds with those of the estate which is a huge mistake.  I agree with you that the simplest, most responsible thing to do is sell the house to the nephew as is and at the correct, appraised value and then properly distribute the proceeds. But instead the defendants reveled themselves as the despicable, money grubbing low life cheaters that they are resulting in some pretty interesting TV viewing. 😊

Edited June 19, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[zillabreeze]

57 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

In fact, what the defendants did in this case was take money from the estate in order to improve an asset of that estate in order to liquidate that asset.  Then they did so at below market value to a buyer that they identified who then turned 

My thoughts exactly.  A proper appraisal, then make the repairs and selling at market would have been fine.  OR a proper appraisal and selling it as is below market would have been okey dokey.

It was combining both methods solely for the benefit of the nephew that turned it into a screwing for the other siblings.

BUT!  Here's where HRH's complete inability to do math shows up....there were three(?) other siblings, not in court.  HRH made her "adjustments" and gave the Zillow difference to the plaintiff. 

IMHO, unless P had Power of Attorney to sue on the other siblings behalf, her award should have only been $300.00 ($1200/4)?

Edited June 19, 2019 by zillabreeze

[Florinaldo]

58 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

In fact, what the defendants did in this case was take money from the estate in order to improve an asset of that estate in order to liquidate that asset. 

Which would be a quite acceptable way of doing things. The final accounting from the liquidator would itemize and justify every transaction. However, I understood that the estate did not have enough money to do so and that is why they put in their own funds, but it was difficult to follow because they were not the best at explaining and JJ kept cutting them off. If you co-mingle your funds with the estate, you must have a clear document that describes the terms and expectations of all parties involved. Considering that the executor's work was far from rigorous, I doubt very much such a document exists, leaving the door open for the hateful sister to sue and for JJ to enable her.

The fact that the house became a rental property is irrelevant. Once the estate sells the house, the heirs have no longer any interest in it. The new owner can live in it alone, leave it empty, share it with roommates or rent it outright. Which means assuming the associated reponsibilites of maintenance and dealing with renters.

The fact that the house stayed in the family muddies the waters. If the terms of the sale are not clearly spelled out in a contract that all heirs can examine, it would help prevent nasty lawsuits. In this case, things were so unclear that the rental aspect of it gave the angry money-hungry plaintiff another motive to seize upon for going after her siblings. Not that she needed help to stir up shit; it seems to come as second nature to her. I know the type, I have seen it in action. Not in my family thankfully, but in the workplace.

What they should have done is offer her the possibility of buying the house, fixing it up herself and then doing whatever she wants with it.  I wonder how fast she would have run away from that option.

2 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

BUT!  Here's where HRH's complete inability to do math shows up....there were three(?) other siblings, not in court.  HRH made her "adjustments" and gave the Zillow difference to the plaintiff. 

Well the other siblings are not in court before her, which means that in her eyes, they do not exist in "her" America.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Florinaldo

[zillabreeze]

As far as hedgebutcher dude, I'll bet a responding officer pointed out the hedges as a factor in the break-ins.  A decent cop usually does look around and offer opinions on that sort of thing.

[patty1h]

I was fascinated by the weirdly shaped defendant Stacy Slaton (aunt Janice Miller was kicking her out for using her credit card).  Tight shirts are not her friend - she had the oddest body shape that I've seen in a long time.  Starting from the top, her head was strangely boxy.  When they showed her from the side, her back seemed to stick out a good 6-8 inches, comprised of massive back fat rolls, ending in a tremendous muffin top.   Her slouchiness made her body shape more bulgy.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 6/18/2019 at 1:12 PM, funky-rat said:

When I moved my bed, I about fell over.  There was the lunchbox - it had fallen behind my bed when I dumped my stuff that day after practice. 

I had a close friend who lived about an hour away. She had to come "into town" for her daughter to have some kind of medical testing. I was gone at work and gave her the keys to my house so they could hang out in between appointments. During that time, she decided to clean my house (back when I had little kids and my house was way more of a mess). She emptied my daughter's closet and found a "happy meal" from Subway inside a tote bag, complete with half a sub sandwich which was ironically only petrified and not a rotted mess. 

17 minutes ago, patty1h said:

Tight shirts are not her friend - she had the oddest body shape that I've seen in a long time. 

I read this as TIGHTS are not her friend. And tights are NOBODY'S friend. They might hold in some collection of adipose tissue but speaking as a very large woman, that fat has to go somewhere and it's usually out the top into a well-baked muffin top. 

[zillabreeze]

6 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

but speaking as a very large woman, that fat has to go somewhere and it's usually out the top into a well-baked muffin top. 

From another fluffy gal, if you want to see some serious physics defying adipose displacement, try Spanx.🤣😂🤣😂. 

All I can say is thank goodness for Amazon Prime.  After the dogs and I finished laughing,  that garment was back in the envelope.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Cat Wars!-Two women plaintiffs suing the neighbors for harassment, and damages.    Defendants say plaintiff and sister feed feral cats that poop everywhere, and are a general nuisance.    Female defendant says she has photos of six cats, turned over 20 into animal control, and husband/live-in has seen the woman's yard full of cats in the Spring mating season.  When defendant woman found cat 'logs' in her yard, she threw them over the fence, and plaintiff threw them back, back and forth several times, and plaintiff threw water bottles, trash, and hit defendant.  (I would pay a lot for a video of this). Then the defendant took a water hose to plaintiff, (she claims police told her to) and squirted plaintiff over fence.   Defendant goes to run errand, and comes back to many plaintiff family members, upset about the dust up, and the accusations of feeding the feral cats.   Sister of plaintiff claims the male defendant attacked her, but defendant claims woman tripped over curb, and did a phony fall.    

Defendants had to put covers on patio furniture, pigeon spikes to keep cats off their outdoor furniture.    They had to put up a gate, because plaintiff was coming  on their property, and released cats from humane traps, so the cats couldn't be taken to animal control.     Nothing for either set of litigants.    It would be great if the plaintiff and her hoard of relatives moved, but good luck selling the cat house (You knew I would go there).

Out of Control Pet-Plaintiff's small dog was off leash, when a neighbor's dog attacked it.  In a townhouse development, defendants big dogs were in their garage, when the door went up, the plaintiff's small dog (off leash, and roaming as usual) was attacked when it came in the garage, all three dogs ran out on the lawn, defendant freed little dog.        Defendant offered to pay half of the vet bills, and that wasn't enough for plaintiff.    So she wanted everything paid, and lost, so she will get nothing.    The defendants have several pictures since this happened of the new dog wandering alone, on their property, and the son with the dog off leash too.    Plaintiff gets nothing. 

Sideswiped in the Night-Plaintiffs are suing the owner of a damaged car over a hit-and-run accident.    Plaintiffs claim defendant hit their parked car in late evening, they heard a loud bang, and a car screeching away.     Neighbors saw who hit the car, and police tracked it down.   It had damage consistent with the accident.    Defendant claims no one drives that car, it's uninsured, and says it's never been in an accident.    Defendant's house was full of visiting relatives, and she was asleep when the hit and run happened.    Plaintiff's get $3,000 (local limit), but accident cost was over $5,000.  

Edited June 19, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

New-

Teen Stupidity Causes Bodily Injury-Defendant daughter (17 at the time) was driving mommy's car, without a drivers license (she's never tried to get a license).   Defendant took the car with her boyfriend, totaled the car, and boyfriend was in the hospital for 2 weeks, and rehab for a total of two months.    Driver claims it was plaintiff's fault, she also says she drove the car many times before.     Actually, defendant driver has flunked the driver's license test once, and never went back to try again.   Plaintiff gets $3478.

The Bee's Knees-Plaintiffs are suing ex-roommates for unpaid rent, unpaid utilities, and all kinds of other garbage.     $318 for unpaid utilities, and that's all.  

Black Friday BB Gun Deal-Plaintiff suing defendant niece for unpaid loan, moving costs, and something else, $2900+.    Plaintiff's sister has custody of defendant's children, and defendant was told to leave her mother's home.    Plaintiff aunt let niece move in, because she had no where to go.   Personally, I wouldn't let the niece into my house, ever.    The credit card was for Victoria's Secret purchases using the niece's discount, and niece kept using the credit card.    Niece is suing for illegal eviction, but never paid one penny of rent. Niece kept coming back in the middle of the night, and setting off the alarm.   So aunt notified her she was changing the alarm code, and putting her stuff in storage, and not to come back to her house again.    Niece also wanted money for Christmas presents for her children, including BB guns.      Plaintiff gets almost $900, but nothing else.   Defendant gets exactly what she deserves, nothing.  

Rerun-

Anxious Toy Spaniel Tug of War-Plaintiff bought Papillon from defendant for $1500, wanted her money back, returned the dog, then changed her mind again and wanted the dog back.     (Tacky comment of the day, plaintiff needs lipstick aim help, or a cold sore remedy)  I wish the woman behind the plaintiff's left shoulder could stop shaking her head like a bobble doll.      The second time there was a $500 non-refundable deposit on the dog, she picked up the dog, and was upset the dog wasn't perfect, and didn't adjust instantly.    Plaintiff has another Papillon puppy now, poor doggy.    My guess, she found another puppy that matched her furniture better, or cheaper, and bought it.     The plaintiff is trying to claim the contract was signed, but it wasn't.    Breeder resold the puppy to a good home, for payments, and cheaper.    $0 to everyone.

Courts Don't Care About You-Plaintiff suing defendant ex-live in, for two iPhones she purchased on his account.   Except they were purchased after the break up, but plaintiff has no receipt for purchase of the phones.  (I already can't stand either litigant). Plaintiff now has the receipts, and defendant still has no real defense to stealing the phones.     Nothing for anyone while they were shacking up, just the phones after.   $743 to plaintiff.   

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

Tight shirts are not her friend - she had the oddest body shape that I've seen in a long time. 

That assemblage of  bumps reminded me of those 3-D models of the ocean floor.

Now try to imagine her in those Victoria' Secret garments she bought with the aunt's credit card...

5 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Teen Stupidity Causes Bodily Injury-

The callous irresponsibity of that young idiot was something to behold. JJ left hanging the question of whether the plaintiff was insured, on the grounds that the defendant would not have been covered anyway. Ordinarily she might very well have told the plaintiff that she came to court with unclean hands if ininsured, but she probably was so disgusted with the defendant that she wanted to stick it to her all the way.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Florinaldo

[7EasyPayments]

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Courts Don't Care About You-Plaintiff suing defendant ex-live in, for two iPhones she purchased on his account.   Except they were purchased after the break up, but plaintiff has no receipt for purchase of the phones.  (I already can't stand either litigant). Plaintiff now has the receipts, and defendant still has no real defense to stealing the phones.     Nothing for anyone while they were shacking up, just the phones after.   $743 to plaintiff.   

Anyone have a reason why JJ would only award the value of one phone?

There were two, and $743 each............................

I don't think the sushi is working! 😉

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess in the iPhone case, that JJ suspected that man actually had one phone, and woman had the other one, and they thought they'd come on the show and get them both paid for.     The man really didn't have receipts showing that the woman actually purchased both phones.  

Edited June 19, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[zillabreeze]

36 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

The callous irresponsibity of that young idiot was something to behold

Darn.  The case was almost over by the time weather dude finished yapping about storms 

[AuntiePam]

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

I was fascinated by the weirdly shaped defendant Stacy Slaton (aunt Janice Miller was kicking her out for using her credit card).  Tight shirts are not her friend - she had the oddest body shape that I've seen in a long time.  Starting from the top, her head was strangely boxy.  When they showed her from the side, her back seemed to stick out a good 6-8 inches, comprised of massive back fat rolls, ending in a tremendous muffin top.   Her slouchiness made her body shape more bulgy.

Me too.  So tights were the reason for the oddly-placed bulges?  Her poor posture didn't help (AuntiePam said, as she straightened up and looked around).

But the aunt's hair was what really got my attention.  It was like she was peeking through curtains.  That style would look great on a younger woman, with a different shaped face. 

Why are the nurses on this show the kind of people I wouldn't trust to empty a bedpan?

[CrazyInAlabama]

Was the aunt wearing a wig?   I question the intelligence of anyone who lets the niece move in, especially when they buy them VS stuff to wear to work (hopefully long pants and tops), and doesn't suspect the niece will keep using the credit card.      And the idiocy of buying BB guns for the kids to use at the aunt's house was insane.   I have to admire the aunt, and hubby for booting the niece, notifying her about the storage, and putting things in storage so she has no excuse to come back.     

It's nice that the aunt apparently learned how to boot a 'guest' the right way, probably from years of watching JJ.   the best rule is don't take pity on loser relatives or friends, and believe them when they say they will get back on their feet.     The big mistake by the aunt was letting the niece cross the door step.  I'm guessing the niece lied about VS employment, since she didn't seem to be there for long.   I'm guessing that a lot of her jobs have been faked.  

I suspect just as with the people who say they're teachers on this show, and are actually part time teacher's aides.    I'm thinking most of the 'nurses' are actually nursing assistants at the most.   Or the miscellaneous nursing assistants that were running loose in the local hospital where I used to live (the hospital I told my friends to take me to the next town's hospitals instead, unless I would bleed out on the way).   Or they're some home health aide with virtually no training at all.  

Edited June 20, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

That assemblage of  bumps reminded me of those 3-D models of the ocean floor.

Holy... Ms. Quasimodo Slayton? She can't pay rent, can't pay for food (except her own which I would say was plenteous) can't pay for utilities, but she can buy freakin' BB guns for her unfortunate young children (which I'm sure they really need) who are dumped on her parents to look after since she is not even allowed to have them visit at whatever lair she's holed up in now. What the hell did she do for that result?  She got a job at a gym? Doing what, I may ask? Then a job at Victoria's Secret so she wanted some sexy lingerie?? Stephen King couldn't make up this kind of horror story.  I wish we could have seen the sperm donor who wanted to hump that over and over but maybe he got off drugs, took a look at his baby momma and left the country. Aunty seemed together, except for her feeling for some reason she needed to wear a dress with cleavage-baring cutouts. Like, why, Aunty? Sadly, I do believe Ms.Slayton is a nurse, considering the kind of nurses we see on this show. 

29 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Or they're some home health aide with virtually no training at all.  

That could be. I checked the online test to be a home health aide and I really think the average crow could pass it.

Imani, little snotty twerp who thinks if she takes someone's car and totals it, it's the fault of the car owner: I guess her momma reinforced that attitude and Imani "be tryin'" to get a license but can't pass the test. I was so distracted by Momma's get-up I could hardly pay attention to the same old "nothing is my fault" dreary case. Yes, when I have an afternoon court case - even a TV court - I ponder what to wear, and settle on a platinum bleached wig and a tight dress that displays my huge droopy breasts halfway down, and that has sparkly sheer sleeves. Hey, I wore it for my Vegas appearance in 1981, so why not?

[Red Bridey]

The niece had a pretty face, but OMG that body.  Her head stuck out like a tree branch, and those fat rolls were all in the weirdest places.  I had no idea Victoria's Secret would carry clothes for that particular kind of physique.  I didn't think they went higher than a 14 or a 38-DD in bra sizes.  I don't shop there, clearly.  I am glad my mother told me to stand up straight and that I actually listened to her!

[funky-rat]

I liked the Aunt in that case (and too wondered just how the Defendant could achieve that odd look), but wanted to get stabby every time they said Victoria's SecretS

[AZChristian]

33 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

I liked the Aunt in that case (and too wondered just how the Defendant could achieve that odd look), but wanted to get stabby every time they said Victoria's SecretS

Five years ago, I went into two different Victoria's Secret stores to look for a special nightie to wear on our 50th anniversary on a cruise ship.  TWO different stores.  I was shopping in the middle of the week, in the middle of the day, so neither store was crowded.  In fact, I was the ONLY customer in both stores.

In BOTH stores, I was totally ignored and no one acknowledged me when I walked in the store, and no one offered to help me (even the young clerk folding items five feet away).  I came to believe that it was because they looked at a white-haired lady and decided that I did NOT fit their demographic target, and was unworthy of being helped.  I took my high-balance-available credit card, left the stores, and have never returned.

I have said that to say this:  How on God's green earth did that woman get hired to work at VS?  If customers have to meet a demographic to be acknowledged, would VS have hired someone who was unkempt, overweight, and with no sense of style?

[funky-rat]

3 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I have said that to say this:  How on God's green earth did that woman get hired to work at VS?  If customers have to meet a demographic to be acknowledged, would VS have hired someone who was unkempt, overweight, and with no sense of style?

I wondered the same thing, but thought I was being too mean to think that.  Just like there's a commercial for a skin product that has some people in it that aren't remotely "conventionally" good looking, and I sometimes wonder about that too, but then I feel bad for thinking that because I'm not a model myself. 

Sorry that happened to you.  Someone in an Esprit store (not an outlet - a mall store) once stopped me at the door and told me they didn't have anything in my size.  I told her I didn't realize socks and purses (which are generally what I buy there - I loved Esprit and wore it in my thinner days, but I know better now) came in a size, and they didn't need my money if they felt that way and left, while she backpedaled quickly.  I kept going.  Same thing at a store called "Cotton On" (I'd never heard of it prior).  Bought my husband a few t-shirts without him present.  Bought 3X shirts.  They were about the size of a normal adult large.  I returned them - only one had been tried on.  The woman griped about the shirt being "stretched out" and said she would make an exchange, but he should understand their sizing is different, and he wasn't allowed to try anything on because nothing there would fit him.  She suggested perhaps we get something as a gift for a thinner friend or relative.  I was seriously offended, and it takes a lot to offend me.

I do remember a store (Abercrombie, perhaps) who took a lot of flack because their owner, who was physically fit but facially un-gifted, said that overweight people need not apply to work there, or come in to shop there.

[AZChristian]

I have found that the best way to get waited on at a jewelry counter is to wear nice rings while you're pointing at what you want to see in a display case.  LOL.

[poeticlicensed]

59 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

I wondered the same thing, but thought I was being too mean to think that.  Just like there's a commercial for a skin product that has some people in it that aren't remotely "conventionally" good looking, and I sometimes wonder about that too, but then I feel bad for thinking that because I'm not a model myself. 

Sorry that happened to you.  Someone in an Esprit store (not an outlet - a mall store) once stopped me at the door and told me they didn't have anything in my size.  I told her I didn't realize socks and purses (which are generally what I buy there - I loved Esprit and wore it in my thinner days, but I know better now) came in a size, and they didn't need my money if they felt that way and left, while she backpedaled quickly.  I kept going.  Same thing at a store called "Cotton On" (I'd never heard of it prior).  Bought my husband a few t-shirts without him present.  Bought 3X shirts.  They were about the size of a normal adult large.  I returned them - only one had been tried on.  The woman griped about the shirt being "stretched out" and said she would make an exchange, but he should understand their sizing is different, and he wasn't allowed to try anything on because nothing there would fit him.  She suggested perhaps we get something as a gift for a thinner friend or relative.  I was seriously offended, and it takes a lot to offend me.

I do remember a store (Abercrombie, perhaps) who took a lot of flack because their owner, who was physically fit but facially un-gifted, said that overweight people need not apply to work there, or come in to shop there.

That's really hysterical because so many people shop at VS for gifts. How on earth would the staff know that someone is shopping for a gift? Not to mention that us older folks tend to have more disposible income than your average 22 year old. No wonder retail is going down the tubes.  

My daughter worked at an Abercrombie for a summer when she was in college. What a freaking racket. They requireed all staff, who they called "models" to wear the overpriced clothes when they worked, but only gave a 20% discount. And on top of it, they don't guarantee a minimum number of hours. I came to the conclusion taht they "hired" anyone, just to make them purchase a wardrobe. My daughter also told me that they assigned the "less attractive" staff to the stockroom. Perhaps that's where the defendant was working.

1 minute ago, poeticlicensed said:

T

Edited June 20, 2019 by poeticlicensed

[funky-rat]

47 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I have found that the best way to get waited on at a jewelry counter is to wear nice rings while you're pointing at what you want to see in a display case.  LOL.

Or toss around lots of jewelry terminology that only a serious buyer would know.  😁

7 minutes ago, poeticlicensed said:

That's really hysterical because so many people shop at VS for gifts. How on earth would the staff know that someone is shopping for a gift? Not to mention that us older folks tend to have more disposible income than your average 22 year old. No wonder retail is going down the tubes.  

My daughter worked at an Abercrombie for a summer when she was in college. What a freaking racket. They requireed all staff, who they called "models" to wear the overpriced clothes when they worked, but only gave a 20% discount. And on top of it, they don't guarantee a minimum number of hours. I came to the conclusion taht they "hired" anyone, just to make them purchase a wardrobe. My daughter also told me that they assigned the "less attractive" staff to the stockroom. Perhaps that's where the defendant was working.

Yep.  In my case,  I was looking for purses.  Didn't realize I was too fat for a purse, lol.

And it was Abercrombie.  Their CEO is nothing to look at, so I found this amusing:
https://fox4kc.com/2013/05/10/abercrombie-fitch-fat-ugly-people-shouldnt-buy-our-clothes/

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, poeticlicensed said:

Not to mention that us older folks tend to have more disposible income than your average 22 year old. No wonder retail is going down the tubes.  

This x1000!!!!

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I have found that the best way to get waited on at a jewelry counter is to wear nice rings while you're pointing at what you want to see in a display case.  LOL.

My daughter has a very nice wedding ring set and a Louis Vuitton purse. (the diamond belonged to my son-in-laws grandmother so heirloom ring appearance). The purse she bought herself after saving for working an entire summer and pooling her graduation money gifts. That purse and that ring open so many doors. She also buys very high end clothes on clearance at 80% off and hangs onto them forever. There are times where we had been perusing high end stores and the clerks are stumbling over each other to wait on her.

I don't fit in anything in VS but I used to buy my grown kids gift cards there so they could actually buy themselves new underwear. Nothing like some new "drawers" to perk up a new mommy's wardrobe. 

Was the "nurse" and the aunt the case where the "nurse" looked way older than the wig-wearing aunt? The nurse looked like she was put together with spare Tinkertoy parts 

[bad things are bad]

16 hours ago, Red Bridey said:

The niece had a pretty face, but OMG that body.

I agree her face wasn't bad but she looked to me like there were a few fries missing from the Happy Meal. A little off-center.

I can only guess that whatever issues she had that caused her to lose custody of her kids are reflected in that odd face. 

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I came to believe that it was because they looked at a white-haired lady and decided that I did NOT fit their demographic target

I had something like that happen, but I got chased out! I was shopping for a dress at the mall, to wear to a fancy work event. I passed by a store called "Pennington's" which carries 14+ sized clothes. I saw a beautiful dress in the window and it wasn't cheap. The style at the time was drop-waist, looser clothing so I thought it might just do. A saleswoman ran up to me. She was very short and very wide, with a face like an angry possum. "I'd like to try on-" I began. She got about 2" away from me and interrupted me.  "We don't have anything here for you," she said as she began backing me towards the door.  I really thought she might bite me, so I fled. I wonder if the store owners would be pleased to know that their staff discourages shoppers from buying their merchandise?

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

would VS have hired someone who was unkempt, overweight, and with no sense of style?

She didn't say she was in sales, did she? It's not possible...is it? 🤯

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess in the aunt/niece credit card case, the aunt fell for a story from the niece when she said she was getting a job at VS, and that's why there was no employee discount.     I suspect it wasn't the only garbage the niece told the aunt, and everyone else too.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

This Is Not Let's Make a Deal-(Soccer ran over again!  The injustice of it all.   Don't worry, they still get all 900 commercials in, just not the program)-Judge dismisses a man's claims that his landlord took advantage of him and his girlfriend.   Landlord has to return $170 of security deposit.   Plaintiff was supposed to move out on 1 January, paid the rent for January, moved on 27 January, wants 4 days rent back.   Room wasn't re-rented until March 1.     (I can't imagine living where you rent to craigslist strangers to live in rooms in your house, for what would rent an entire house where I live).    Ex-tenant claims that the harassment from the landlord forced him to move (he gave notice first), lost his job because of this, and bunch of garbage.   $170 of security deposit back to plaintiff.  

Deadbeat Ex-Mother-in-Law-Plaintiff loaned ex-Mother-in-law (MIL) money for a car purchase, $1500.  Ex-MIL defendant didn't pay it back.   MIL defendant says money was a gift, and former daughter in law should get more jobs again, if she needs money.   $1500 to plaintiff. 

Rerun-

Homeless, Evicted, and Robbed-(I remember this one, it's wild)-Plaintiff Aunt was homeless, and her niece . defendant (Niece's last name is Nephew) made the huge mistake of letting Aunt move into her apartment, and would take over the lease.     Aunt / plaintiff moved in with niece in March,  (Only income is social security, just $735 a month), was supposed to take over lease in April, paid half rent in May $300. 

 Aunt went to visit relatives, came back, and niece said she wasn't running a ##### house (#### got bleeped by the censor, Aunt had strange hours, and bad friends. and came and went at odd hours), so I can guess what niece said.     Aunt moved to tent in back yard of her witness, and moved into witness's house after surgery.    Aunt is suing niece for two TVs she left behind.  Where did she want to put the TVs?  On the tent side?   Niece moved out of the apartment, tried to get Aunt to get TVs, and she never picked them up.   In June there is a text from Aunt that she'll pick up all of her stuff, except the TVs (this must have been the tent in the back yard stage).   Aunt never picked the TVs up from niece's daughter, despite repeated requests to pick them up.   Case dismissed.   

Sentimental Family Property Feud-Plaintiff suing defendant /neighbor for damaged property, and a fence.     This is the strange case of the family owned desert property where the plaintiff's own it, and it's just vacant.   Plaintiffs claim neighbor dumped junk on their property, and damaged it.    Defendant recently bought the property next door, and claims cement blocks were there first, and she moved them voluntarily, after repeated whining by plaintiffs. .   

Sadly, the pictures show the valuable family property is nothing but an empty dirt lot, and there is no damage.     The plaintiffs also want to put up a fence, and want defendant to pay for that too.   Ridiculous plaintiffs!    The property looks like a vacant lot, and the only structure looks like a nasty old shed.     The plaintiffs are loons, and I feel sorry for the defendant living next door to that dump.    Case dismissed.  

Edited June 21, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I can't imagine living where you rent to craigslist strangers to live in rooms in your house, for what would rent an entire house where I live). 

Once they said that the Plaintiff was paying $1595 a month for one room, I had to look up the house because WHAT?! It's in Calabasas (home of the Kardashians) and estimated cost of $2.5 million (which seems kind of "cheap" for the area).

I cannot imagine paying that kind of money for one room unless it was over 1,000 sq. ft. and had, like, a pool in it. Even the alleged cost to clean it was more than I pay the housekeeper to clean my entire house every other week.

[Byrd is the Word]

On 6/19/2019 at 5:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Black Friday BB Gun Deal

Didn't see much of this.  As soon as I heard niece Stacy and Victoria's Secret in the same sentence I had to tap out. 🤢

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Ex-tenant claims that the harassment from the landlord forced him to move (he gave notice first), lost his job because of this, and bunch of garbage.   $170 of security deposit back to plaintiff.  

That weasel actually tried to claim damages on behalf of the absentee slam piece he left in his bed.  Nice trick if you can do it Houdini.

[7EasyPayments]

9 hours ago, funky-rat said:

Or toss around lots of jewelry terminology that only a serious buyer would know.  😁

Yep.  In my case,  I was looking for purses.  Didn't realize I was too fat for a purse, lol.

And it was Abercrombie.  Their CEO is nothing to look at, so I found this amusing:
https://fox4kc.com/2013/05/10/abercrombie-fitch-fat-ugly-people-shouldnt-buy-our-clothes/

Nothing to look at?!?!?!

He's one of the PlexaDerm people !!!!