All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[zillabreeze]

14 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I am certain that if JJ was a landlord and she had to clean up a mess left by former tenants, she would find all sorts of reasons she should be compensated for her oh-so valuable time (quantum meruit anyone?). And her hourly rate would not be cheap.

My pet peeve too.  If I make $40/hr killing myself at my regular job, then my few weekend hours are SACRED!  

When someone presents a reasonable bill for their time spent swabbing up after one of these pigs, that's perfectly fair. 

Why does HRH pay out when there is a Merry Maid invoice, but then turn bitch when property owner does the woRK?  

I get all mathy when deciding to hire out the house cleaning or lawn mowing.  I am essentially buying back my own time.

[AngelaHunter]

14 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

The whole thing is out of control.  Handicap/service dogs. I call BULLSHIT. 

Quote

Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA?

Quote

A. No.  These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person.  Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.  However, some State or local governments have laws that allow people to take emotional support animals into public places.  You may check with your State and local government agencies to find out about these laws.

Quote

Q5. Does the ADA require service animals to be professionally trained?

Quote

A. No. People with disabilities have the right to train the dog themselves and are not required to use a professional service dog training program.

So, someone who could not properly care for a hamster can train their own service dogs - yeah, we see how people on this show train their dogs -  and you can take your untrained dog anywhere, even if it may jump on people, pee on the floor or get into a fight with another dog. All you have to say is that you're feeling uncomfortable/sad/anxious/annoyed today and no one dares question that, because UN-PC.  What a joke.

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

[AZChristian]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

So, someone who could not properly care for a hamster can train their own service dogs - yeah, we see how people on this show train their dogs -  and you can take your untrained dog anywhere, even if it may jump on people, pee on the floor or get into a fight with another dog. All you have to say is that you're feeling uncomfortable/sad/anxious/annoyed today and no one dares question that, because UN-PC.  What a joke.

Mariah and Audrey ("Sisterwives" show) posted a complaint last year that Southwest Airlines actually wanted them to PAY to take their two dogs on a plane to visit Mariah's family over Thanksgiving last year.  These two show up at all sorts of rainbow marches, Mariah has traveled to Bali to learn yoga, etc., etc., etc.  But they told Southwest they are "emotional support animals" so they should be allowed to take them for free.

I think Southwest won that battle, and Mariah and Audrey found out that very few people agree that being a "special snowflake" qualified them to take their dogs on the flight for free.  

Southwest has since updated and publicized their requirements for emotional support animals.  You have to actually PROVE you need it.

"A Customer seeking to travel with an emotional support animal must provide to a Southwest Airlines Employee current documentation (not more than one year old on the date of travel) on letterhead from a licensed mental health professional or medical doctor who is treating the Customer's mental health-related disability. The letter must state all four items below:

• The Passenger has a mental or emotional disability recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
• The Passenger needs the emotional support dog or cat as an accommodation for air travel and/or for activity at the Passenger's destination
• The individual providing the assessment is a licensed mental health professional or medical doctor, and the Passenger is under his or her professional care AND
• The date and type of mental health professional's or medical doctor's license and the state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued."

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Mariah and Audrey

Never heard of them, but they take "snowflake" to a whole new level.

Imagine the shit Southwest is going to get from an army of bleeding heart SJWs because they are not taking care to protect the moods, feelings and emotional needs of their passengers. Or maybe won't allow freeloading.

Did they want to take the dogs in the cabin with them?

[AZChristian]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Did they want to take the dogs in the cabin with them?

Southwest will only allow pets in the cabin - not as baggage.  If they are true service or ESA animals (cats or dogs only), they fly free.  If they are just pets, the owners have to pay $95 each. 

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Southwest has since updated and publicized their requirements for emotional support animals.  You have to actually PROVE you need it.

It's good to see that some corporations have grown a spine and are standing up to the widespread abuse of the service/support animal notion, which so many scammers use to simply slide their pets in past very reasonable access policies.

5 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

When someone presents a reasonable bill for their time spent swabbing up after one of these pigs, that's perfectly fair. 

I think JJ's reasoning is "you chose to be landlords, now pay for it with your own time". As if she would stand for that logic being applied to her!

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

ESA animals (cats or dogs only)

I am super allergic to cats and a frequent flyer. It’s only a matter of time before I have to wage a small war over your ES cat and my anaphylaxis. 

[AZChristian]

35 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I am super allergic to cats and a frequent flyer. It’s only a matter of time before I have to wage a small war over your ES cat and my anaphylaxis. 

I'm allergic to animal dander, so I stay away from areas where there are dogs OR cats.  I'm not AS allergic as you are, and I ALWAYS wear a mask when I fly, so it's not a major issue for me.  Yet.

[AngelaHunter]

23 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I am super allergic to cats and a frequent flyer. It’s only a matter of time before I have to wage a small war over your ES cat and my anaphylaxis. 

Yes, that's something that could cause mass confusion with the SJWs. On the one hand, they think anyone who says their pet is a "Service animal" should be allowed to take them anywhere, but OTOH, what about people who have severe allergies or are deathly afraid of dogs? Whose rights should they screech and protest for? What to do? Maybe that will cause such conflict that their heads will short circuit, like the androids on Star Trek who were defeated with illogic. 

Today I was pleasantly surprised with a rerun of a case I had forgotten. Tiny, little, angry jailbird Bobby Sherell, who is such a massive loser he goes to jail often for narcotics, gets multiple DUIs, can't keep a job, doesn't support his kids because no one yet told him he has to, and needed to take money from his Momma (who apparently can't afford to buy herself a bra) to buy a 1984 Pontiac and now Momma wants the ex-wife to pay her back. Wee Bobby has the nerve to tell JJ he's not going to stand there and be "disrespected" because he feels he's deserving of much respect, I guess.

Sadly for Bobby, JJ asked Byrd to "Get him out of here. I don't want to look at him anymore." Poor Bobby. No one really understands him or respects him.

Grandma claims she also wants money from the ex-wife (who thought having THREE kids with loser Bobby was a peachy idea) for feeding her own grandchildren during the every-other-week, supervised visits with Bobby - because her darling boy can't feed them from jail or a rehab center - and for using gas to drive them around. Again, I am stunned and sickened that at least two women wanted and want him, as he appears here with his "fiancee", a little sadsack who sat there listening to all this, about what a lowlife bum her loverboy is, but that's okay with her. "Oh, how I love that man of mine!" 🤣 Women of JJ: You are making me ashamed of being a woman.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I think JJ's reasoning is "you chose to be landlords, now pay for it with your own time".

I kind of think it's a "You don't get paid to clean up your own property." I wish I could get paid for the work I do on my house.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Jurists,

Let's move past the service animals discussion.  We're getting far afield from the show. 

[Florinaldo]

35 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I kind of think it's a "You don't get paid to clean up your own property." I wish I could get paid for the work I do on my house.

If the messes or damages you are cleaning up are the ones you made yourself, no problem, pay for them. But with rentals, it's another person's fault, so they should be held accountable for the time you have to spend to put things right.

But as @AZChristian pointed out, JJ pays out only if it's done by an outside contractor or business. It takes as much time and work in both instances though.

[Byrd is the Word]

15 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

But as @AZChristian pointed out, JJ pays out only if it's done by an outside contractor or business. It takes as much time and work in both instances though.

I agree with you both. The trouble is so few litigants can be trusted with their valuation of their own time that without receipts I’m not very interested either. 

[AZChristian]

15 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

But as @AZChristian pointed out, JJ pays out only if it's done by an outside contractor or business. It takes as much time and work in both instances though.

I don't think it was me who wrote that earlier, but I fully agree.  

To use one of JJ's own favorite comparisons:  If you eat a steak, you have to PAY FOR IT.  If you cook and eat it at home, it costs less; you just pay more if you eat out (or hire a cleaning service, to bring the example back to the landlord comparison).  But you still have to PAY FOR IT.  

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I don't think it was me who wrote that earlier, but I fully agree.  

You are correct, it was @zillabreeze. Sorry for the misattribution, but at least you agree with the sentiment, so no real harm done.

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

To use one of JJ's own favorite comparisons:  If you eat a steak, you have to PAY FOR IT.  If you cook and eat it at home, it costs less; you just pay more if you eat out (or hire a cleaning service, to bring the example back to the landlord comparison).  But you still have to PAY FOR IT.  

Excellent analogy.

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

The trouble is so few litigants can be trusted with their valuation of their own time that without receipts I’m not very interested either. 

Judges in small claims courts have the discretion to make adjustments to claims in order to bring them down to a reasonable amount. "Rough justice" as they say on TPC. And in this instance, the amount did not seem overblown (although well below what JJ herself would probably claim for her valuable time).

Edited July 14, 2019 by Florinaldo

[jww]

"   Since the van wasn't a gift, or sale, then it goes back to the mother's possession. "

If the mother is in a nursing home on Medicaid then anything the mother gave away in the three years prior to going into the home would have had to be paid back to Medicaid/nursing home and she would have been unable to give anything away while in the nursing home without Medicaid receiving the fair market value of the gift.  Generally Medicaid requires the patient to spend down until they are broke save for their  house and car which Medicaid will place a lien on and collect when the patient dies.

[AZChristian]

7 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Excellent analogy.

Thanks!  Also, JJ is always harping on the "four corners of the contract."  Most leases stipulate that you will be charged for clean-up costs.

So who "ate the steak" in that analogy?  The tenant!  He ate the steak (left a mess), so he has to pay for it.  All the landlord is doing is making it possible for the tenant to pay Texas Roadhouse prices (landlord cleans it up) instead of Gordon Ramsey Steakhouse prices (landlord hires a third-party professional cleaner).

So help me, I'm tempted to send this analogy to the Judge Judy staff via her website.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

So help me, I'm tempted to send this analogy to the Judge Judy staff via her website.

I did it!

Here's what I submitted on judgejudy.com:

"Judge Judy - rightly - often states that a contract is limited to the four corners of the paper.  A lease usually includes an agreement that a tenant will leave the property clean and free of debris.

Judge Judy also frequently uses the "if you eat the steak you have to pay for it" statement indicating that people who cause an expense must pay for that expense.

Let me give you an analogy.  If a tenant leaves a mess, he has chosen to "eat the steak."  SOMEBODY has to pay for it.

There have been multiple instances where Judge Judy has rendered an opinion that a landlord who cleans up the property themselves is not entitled to be reimbursed for their time and cleaning supplies.  In the opinion of many of us who discuss the show on an internet board, this is simply not fair.

By cleaning the property on their own, the landlord is making it possible for the tenant to "eat the steak" at the lowest possible cost. The landlord is saying, "I'm only going to charge you Texas Roadhouse prices."  For his effort, the landlord gets stuck with the bill (in "Judge Judy's World").  Had the landlord hired an outside cleaning company, he would have then tried to make the tenant responsible for that steak, but at Gordon Ramsey Steakhouse prices. In that scenario, the steak (of no higher quality) would have been a LOT more expensive.  For obvious reasons, the landlord - who is not sure there will be ANY reimbursement for "the steak" - opts to do the cleaning on his own to make sure he doesn't get stuck with a larger bill.  

But Judge Judy, in effect, penalizes the landlord for trying to keep the cost of cleaning as low as possible.  This is simply illogical and unfair."

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

But Judge Judy, in effect, penalizes the landlord for trying to keep the cost of cleaning as low as possible.  This is simply illogical and unfair."

Excellent post. 

If a rental property is a side gig and landlord works a regular job, then they should be able to bill for cleaning at about the hourly rate they make at work

It's not like a neurosurgeon is gonna swab up the rental property.   If a Merry Maid deep clean is $400+/- then landlord should at least get that for self performing.

[AngelaHunter]

Late as usual, but I salute JJ for being able to address with a straight face the plaintiff in the car engine case as "Ms.Bube", pronounced "Boobie" multiple times as Ms. Boobie stood there with her immense boobies thrusting over the podium like the prow of an old-timey sailing ship. And then, as long as we're going with phonetics, we had the def. Mr. Fillpot, whose testimony and that of his brilliant son made me so happy those stellar genes are being passed on. 

Bunch of shady characters in the sublet case. I used to rent apartments and not once did I tell the prospective landlord, "I'm looking for a legal apartment because I need a green card."  It was admirable of one of the defs, Mr. English, to inform JJ that something plaintiff said is  "hearsay" even though he was dead wrong.

Loppe and his errant baby momma certainly left a mess in their nest, but the plaintiff was so goddam annoying I'm glad he got nothing.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

the plaintiff was so goddam annoying I'm glad he got nothing.

Acutally, he got 1 000 $, and deservedly so; I might have awarded him more depending on the whole facts of the case (which we are not often privy to because of editing and info that is in the filings but is not shared with viewers).

[Anne Thrax]

You can only collect if you paid someone else for their time.  You can't get an award of money that you never paid out in the first place.  You can't charge yourself for your own time, invoice yourself, and then what?  You pay yourself from your own money?  It's absurd.  Taking your own money to pay yourself doesn't count as an expense because it's already your money whether you pay yourself or not.    What's not to understand? 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Anne Thrax

[AngelaHunter]

20 minutes ago, Anne Thrax said:

You can only collect if you paid someone else for their time.  You can't get an award of money that you never paid out in the first place.

Totally agree. The security deposit can take care of damage or stuff that needs to be hauled out. If the damage exceeds the amount of the security dep. and the landlord hires a cleaning service or contractor to finish the job and presents a paid bill, they should and do get that money. Period.

Besides, even if landlords should get paid for cleaning their own premises, who is keeping track of the hours they spend doing so? I remember one landlord who declared it took some insane amount of hours or days to clean one room and expected to get paid for it. "Look at this piece of paper where I wrote '12hrs x 15$/hr = 180$'. Why isn't that enough proof?" I suppose it should be since he swore to tell the truth and nothing but and we know litigants never lie or make up stuff or white-out documents or try to perpetrate scams on anyone.

Just my 0.02 cents.

[AZChristian]

I googled a bit, and - as with many things - it depends on the jurisdiction.  If it goes to court, some states won't blink an eye at an allocation of $40 per hour paid directly to the landlord for a reasonable amount of time required.

Most landlords on JJ come into court with pictures of horrendous messes - inside and out.  There have been times when she has - correctly - denied a claim for a little dirt on the stove or on a floorboard.

But if a person has to spend hours cleaning up an obvious mess which is not of their own making, their time has value.  Let's assume the landlord was planning to spend a weekend relaxing (or doing something else of their choosing), but instead has to spend it performing manual labor doing something that he/she should not have to do.  The tenant - by leaving a mess - is incurring an additional debt to the landlord, whether the landlord hires someone else to clean it up, or does it him/herself.

I think it's okay to agree to disagree.  

[Anne Thrax]

I'm a landlord myself -- when we first started out, Mr. Thrax and I had to do our own cleaning and repairs because we couldn't afford to pay someone else.  Then the economy got better and we made enough to hire people.  Of course when you hire people, you have to supervise (lesson learned the hard way) so should you be able to charge a former tenant to compensate you for your own time watching out for your own interests?  No, of course not -- that's the price you pay to be in business for yourself.  I can't see how people have a hard time understanding that.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Anne Thrax said:

Taking your own money to pay yourself doesn't count as an expense because it's already your money whether you pay yourself or not.    What's not to understand? 

I think we are all sufficiently intellectualiy gifted here to understand.

However we do at times disagree on how the same set of facts may lead to one decision or a different one. In this instance, the damage is caused by a third party. The expense and time necessary is due to their actions. So an argument can be made that they should pay for what they have caused, even if the time involved is just the landlord's. Especially if it's a part-time landlord, who has a real job and other things to do than clean up afterwards. A different argument could be made if it is a big building with a full-time janitor on staff.

Small claims judges can use their discretion to assess the validity of the length and value claimed for one's own time. JJ chooses not to do so and went as far as dismissing the whole claim as if the landlord had committed a heinous crime, whereas he never made a secret of the fact that the bill was for his own time; she just was not listening when he said it, or she chose not to listen. which she often does.

29 minutes ago, Anne Thrax said:

Of course when you hire people, you have to supervise

It is also important to make wise choices when hiring, as we have often seen in cases on these shows. Anyway, supervisory time is a different issue from doing the actual cleaning work.

29 minutes ago, Anne Thrax said:

I can't see how people have a hard time understanding that.

Because, obviously, we disagree. It happens a lot around here, but we all keep on truckin'.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Florinaldo

[funky-rat]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I googled a bit, and - as with many things - it depends on the jurisdiction.  If it goes to court, some states won't blink an eye at an allocation of $40 per hour paid directly to the landlord for a reasonable amount of time required.

Most landlords on JJ come into court with pictures of horrendous messes - inside and out.  There have been times when she has - correctly - denied a claim for a little dirt on the stove or on a floorboard.

But if a person has to spend hours cleaning up an obvious mess which is not of their own making, their time has value.  Let's assume the landlord was planning to spend a weekend relaxing (or doing something else of their choosing), but instead has to spend it performing manual labor doing something that he/she should not have to do.  The tenant - by leaving a mess - is incurring an additional debt to the landlord, whether the landlord hires someone else to clean it up, or does it him/herself.

I think it's okay to agree to disagree.  

Absolutely we can all agree to disagree.  IF the amount of repair exceeds their security deposit,  I think it's OK to pay someone for their time.  I know not all agree.  I also understand that some people charge outrageous amounts of money.  I would think JJ should set up some "prevailing wage" amount (ie: $25 an hour) for someone who cleans up their own property.  Just my opinion.  That would be fair, and end arguments.  Again, YMMV.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Jurists,

Yes, sometimes people both understand and disagree.  Thank you for keeping the conversation civil.  Let's not suggest that people do not understand simply because they disagree or are looking at different considerations.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns (2016 or so)-

Flirting Turned Fighting-Defendant suing plaintiff ex-boyfriend for assaulting her, and damaging her car after she gave him a ride home from the club, and she claims it was because man was jealous.   Plaintiff drove to police station, and defendant walked to the police station, and officers chased after defendant (why can't we have a video of this one?), and a week later defendant was arrested.   I hate defendant saying "You understand what I'm saying" in every other sentence.  Case is still pending.   Because of the pending case, JJ wants an estimate for the one car door, $450 to plaintiff.   

Child Support and the 65-Inch TV-Plaintiff suing baby daddy defendant for TV set, $300, she was buying from defendant, then there was a burglary at his apartment, and the TV was stolen.      JJ has to remind plaintiff that a 5-year-old doesn't need a 65-inch TV.  Defendant filed for a restraining order, but dropped it before the TV deal.   Case dismissed.

Evidence Showdown-Plaintiff suing defendant for repossessing a car defendant sold for $600.   However, defendant's witness says he paid $400 to defendant, and owed $400 more, because he was buying the car.     Defendant's SO and roommate saw defendant's witness give defendant the money order, and claim none of them know the plaintiff.    Defendant also had a title loan on the car for $800.   $400 to plaintiff.   

Independence Day Attack-Plaintiff suing defendant for their dogs running wild and attacking her dog on the Fourth of July.   (This should be quick, it's eight minutes left of the episode).  Plaintiff was walking her two leashed dogs, passing the defendant's house on her walk.    Plaintiff was crossing street, and the defendant's two dogs grabbed one of the dogs (American Bulldog/Boxer mix, and an American Bulldog), one dog was pulled off of her dog, but came back again.    Defendant and wife weren't even at the dog attack site.    The defendant's adult son saw the attack, but isn't here in court.  Defendant says it's negligent to walk your dog on the fourth of July, because of the fireworks.       $2452 to plaintiff.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. both reruns-

You Look Scared to Death...I Like It-Plaintiff suing defendant (scared of JJ) for printing equipment she was selling, and he bought.    Defendant claims he paid the agreed on price for the equipment, and owes nothing for used screen printing equipment.   The price was much higher at one time, and lowered gradually to $4200, then $2200.  Defendant paid adult son of plaintiff cash for used equipment.   (JJ invokes the ghost of Kelly Filkins, of Ebay of Pigs fame).     There is an unsigned contract, but plaintiff claims defendant took it with him. $2k to plaintiff. 

The Bank is Closed-Defendant claims she gave her banking information to prospective boyfriend, and he emptied her bank account.  Plaintiffs are mother and stepfather to defendant, a 20 year old fool. Mother plaintiff stopped putting money in defendant's account  (joint account with daughter and mother), in May when theft was discovered, and daughter dropped out of school.      Chauncey (no last name), emptied the account of  $2,514.    When mother took daughter to police about the theft, and daughter refused to give man's information to police, the parents got sick of the daughter, and bank of mom was closed.      $2514 to plaintiffs.    

Equestrian Bucks Responsibility-Plaintiff novice horse owner sues trainer/saddle fitter over refurbishment of a saddle that didn't work out, and second saddle.       Defendant reflocked the used saddle, plaintiff didn't want it, and wanted a new saddle from the trainer.   The new saddle was $1600, and defendant fitted the saddle to the horse on site at the barn, and witness and plaintiff rode the horse in the saddle.    Plaintiff wanted her regular trainer to evaluate the saddle, and then wanted to return second saddle.   Defendant said that she would refund the saddle minus restocking fee, and no marks on saddle.    Money refunded on saddle minus restocking fee, and plaintiff cashed the check, so case is done.   Plaintiff says she wanted a full refund, tax, and fitting fee, and no re-stocking fee.  

Plaintiff also lied in her complaint to the Better Business Bureau, and trashed trainer online.  I saw the BBB complaint, and it doesn't even match what she said in court, and is still up on the BBB site.     Cases dismissed.    

[Byrd is the Word]

26 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Equestrian Bucks Responsibility

My powers of observation were so clouded by this terminally annoying harpy plaintiff that I failed to fully understand what she was suing for.  But it seems that it was the 15% restocking fee plus the sales tax that wasn’t refunded. JJ would hear about the tax, but if the defendant did indeed accept the return, the sales tax should also be refunded. As much couldn’t stand the plaintiff and her twice uttered “do the math” remark to HRH, she has a point. Her remark in haterview about being glad it’s all over seemed to express some sort of relief. The same sort of relief a normal person would have after getting back 85% on the return of a custom item and claiming a small victory. What a pain in the ass she must have been. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[AngelaHunter]

56 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

My powers of observation were so clouded by this terminally annoying harpy plaintiff that I failed to fully understand what she was suing for.

How unbearable was she? Seeing a 55-year-old woman of normal intelligence standing there with that big, dopey "Aren't I cute?" grin and the frickin' tooth licking as she tried to foist the blame for everything she did, including going over her budget, on someone else made me want to slap her, really hard. "My witness, my witness" who is her equally dopey looking daughter with her jaw hanging open, I assumed. You did not look cute at all. You looked and sounded like an utter fool who expects everyone else to take care of her business. Obsequious to JJ, but a nasty, vicious liar, to boot.

Reminded me of this nutty woman I knew, who picked up some oily sleazebag half her age on Plenty of Fish. I had just bought a new car and when she saw it she said, "Oh, that's the little stupid car that (boyfriend) just bought. He didn't like it so he took it back after a week. " Sure he did, and the dealer just gave him all his money back, you numbnuts.

[Byrd is the Word]

13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Sure he did, and the dealer just gave him all his money back, you numbnuts.

That reminds me of the halfwit defendant in a case against seller of a dog that the fool and his equally clueless daughter wanted to return because it wasn’t the temperament that the seller claimed. “If I buy a car and it’s not what I want I return it”. Try that sometime Mr. Clodhopper and let the rest of us know how long it takes the seller to stop laughing before they tell you to take your car and go home. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[funky-rat]

Refunding of sales tax varies by state.  Some states refund no matter what, some do not refund, no matter what, and some will refund on some transactions but not others (ie: No refund if buyer changed their mind, but refund on defective items).  I deal with this at my job.  It's all so very confusing.  So she may not have been due a refund of the sales tax.

[PennyPie18]

I worked for a water company years  ago, and saw both sides of the landlord/tent complaints. I would never become a landlord. I saw so many cases in which the tenets trashed the place, then ran off during the night so they could never pay anything. Of course, landlords were also known to be ruthless, but much less than the tenets. Yes, getting a check for rent every month,(when it is paid) sounds good, but it comes with a lot of headaches....at least from what I saw.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns (I think these are from 2016)-

False Arrest by Angry Neighbor-Plaintiff angry with neighbor/defendant for having him falsely arrested.  Plaintiff was irritated about defendant's dog coming on the plaintiff's property, and dog attacked plaintiff twice.  Defendant refused to keep dog confined, and animal control was called.  (Defendant moved, and before this case is even heard, I'm glad)  Defendant was piling trash against fence on plaintiff's property, removed the trash.   Defendant piled up more trash, defendant filed a complaint, and had plaintiff arrested for stealing that property.   However, defendant admits he knew the fence was on the plaintiff's property. 

Defendant's wife says the 'trash' was paint they were using, and other household items.   Wife also claims the fence was their fence, but the junk is all on the plaintiff's property.     Resurvey showed fence was well on plaintiff's property.   Defendant's ridiculous counter claims dismissed.   $500 to plaintiff for harassment.   

Shih Tzu Hostage Crisis-Plaintiff woman sues her ex for veterinary bills, and the return of "her" dog.  Defendant bought puppy for $400, and dog is in court, adorable, and very quiet.  It's obvious plaintiff doesn't want the dog, just wants to infuriate the defendant.    Defendant keeps adorable puppy.  

Judge Judy Calls a Bluff-Plaintiff suing defendant/future brother-in-law for stealing his rental car.  Plaintiff rented car, (defendant claims the plaintiff's rental was through a friend at the dealership).   Defendant says plaintiff and fiance were going to LA to take stuff up there too, and fiance was going to use the rental for her, and the kids, and defendant was going to drive the rental car.  As usual, defendant has no license, and got off road at checkpoint, and got arrested, for unpaid ticket failure to appear for driving without a license.  Car was impounded.   Plaintiff claims he drove rental to LA, and fiance's father drove them home, and when JJ gets the father's phone number, plaintiff admits the story he told was a lie.   So if they had two cars in LA, and one car disappeared, then why did the father have to drive them back to San Diego?    Half of impound charges for each side, because plaintiff knew defendant had no license.  $981 to plaintiff. 

Mercedes in the Middle-Plaintiff suing defendant ex-boyfriend for harassment, and title to a Mercedes.   Plaintiff wanted Mercedes, but boyfriend co-signed for the loan.  Then they broke up, plaintiff took the car, and defendant started getting late payment notices, affecting his credit.   Money is still owed on vehicle, and plaintiff wants car title signed over to her(not happening). Defendant wants car refinanced in plaintiff's name taking him off the loan.  The funny thing is the plaintiff's job title is "financial consultant".   JJ gives plaintiff 30 days to refinance the car in her name, then defendant will sign the title over.  However, defendant asks a good question "What if she can't get it refinanced in her name?"     Nothing for anyone.  

Edited July 16, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. both reruns-

$44,000 Child Support Bill-Defendant deadbeat father is $44k behind in child support (monthly cost is only $400).   Plaintiff is suing him for his part of annual pass to Disneyland for 16 year old daughter, and car parts for car for daughter's birthday.  His wages aren't garnished because he works under the table, and he has three little kids (11, 7, and 1) with another woman now.   Defendant wants to do annual Disneyworld passes for himself, current squeeze, and three kids.   Father agreed to buy parts for car ex-wife bought for their daughter, and gave $300 for the car.  JJ gets enough information for court to go after child support from deadbeat ex.  Is the defendant still claiming that a welder can't find a job?   Cases dismissed.

Drug Addiction Duo-I remember this one, it's the one where the former tenant/ defendant was evicted by plaintiff, claiming all kinds of damage.      The poor defendant is obviously very fragile, and I hope he found a better situation after this.   

The plaintiff claims the Sleep Number bed, and speakers that were collateral for a car loan disappeared.   The loan was for $1800  There was an agreement that no drugs were to be brought into the house, and defendant claims plaintiff brought the drugs into the house.  Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves exactly that.   Plaintiff gets $1800 for the loan.   

The defendant says he has four months clean, and I wish him continued success.  

Condemned-I remember this one.   Plaintiff rents an office space for storage, claims defendant landlord was renting it as a studio apartment.   However, the ad, and lease clearly state it's storage space, and not living space.  By an amazing coincidence, code enforcement dropped by just in time to inspect to see that plaintiff was living there.   Plaintiff denies she was living there.   Plaintiff wants all of her rent back, and a bunch of other stuff.    Plaintiff claims she was living with a relative of her boyfriend, and wanted to store three storage units worth of property in the rented space.    Plaintiff gives a rent receipt that is an obvious forgery.    $175 to plaintiff, and she really didn't deserve that.  

Dating Inventors Butt Heads-Plaintiff suing defendant for unpaid loan, and unauthorized credit card charges.  Plaintiff was paying defendant for patent advice for her shoe invention, and looking at papers, and it costs $7500, including over $2500 on her credit cards.    Defendant claims money was payment for his advice, but plaintiff claims it was a loan against her life insurance, and because his bank account was compromised.   Plaintiff gave man $5k, plus he charged $2500 on her credit card.   Plaintiff gets $5k. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Condemned-I remember this one. 

I didn't until I started watching. Thank you, Nina Walsh. You gave me just the laugh I needed after the day I had. She was modulating her tone to sound like a member of the Royal Family or some socialite and did pretty well until a "had came" slipped out. She lives with Gerald's momma, for sure.  Goofy Gerald nods benignly, looking as though he has no idea if he's afoot or horseback. Nina has three storage lockers but no home. Her mail goes to her sister since that is a "trusted place" for her to receive all her important correspondence.

She has 3 receipts from the def, with three different styles of writing. She doesn't understand how that could be. Does Nina really live in a storage locker in a building "known to be condemned"? I think so. Well, "the lady behind the storage" told her it was condemned. A storage locker would have to be in pretty bad shape to be deemed unfit to store junk. She does have receipts to prove she paid for all the other storage lockers, but not with her. Maybe Gerald's mommy got sick of this crazy bitch and threw her out. I'm sure Mom has enough on her plate, with her idiotic middle-aged son still bunking in with her.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The poor defendant is obviously very fragile, and I hope he found a better situation after this.   

Sadly, Jason Stemple committed suicide.

[CrazyInAlabama]

50 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Sadly, Jason Stemple committed suicide.

That is sad.     I'm not really surprised though.  Apparently, JJ even reached out and offered him help.   Heroin is such a hard drug to quit, and stay sober.   Jason Stemple was only 31 or so.    

I wonder how the man from today's rerun did later? This was a February 2019 episode, so I hope he's still doing well.      I hope losing in court didn't harm him.   The man today looked so fragile, and was so proud of his four months of sobriety.    I'm hoping getting away from the former landlady helped him.  

Edited July 17, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I think he was one of the very few litigants I ever truly felt sorry for. Poor guy was just pitiful. Too bad he refused JJ's offer of help. What a waste of a life. 

ETA: Just to clarify, I was referring to Jason here. Haven't seen today's show.

Edited July 17, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-usually from 2015-2016-

A Dog, a Snake, a Fish and My Son-Plaintiff mother claims the two young defendants lost her snake, her dog was injured, and the fish was dead, by her second visit back to her house.  Who thinks a 19 and 20 year old are going to be responsible adults?   Plaintiff got a job in another state, so left her 20 year old son in the house, with his 19 year old buddy.   Plaintiff kicked out one roommate, and the other defendant moved in.  On the second trip back house was trashed, and many items missing from house.   Items were advertised on social media by second roommate, including the snake.         Plaintiff claims house is now unlivable.    Plaintiff is suing the two roommates, but not her own son.    Defendants only paid one month's rent from August until December, so they were squatters.   Defendants also claim house was being foreclosed on, so they didn't need to pay rent. Bet that was one interesting house to live next to, I'm sorry for the neighbors, but not the homeowner.  Case dismissed, plaintiff is losing house, and hasn't paid mortgage in months.  

Counterfeit Rolex -Plaintiff suing defendant for selling him a fake Rolex.    Cable went blip, so I have no idea how this came out.  

Car Fight-Plaintiff (with bangs over her eyes)  suing defendant over fight with their cars, over an incarcerated person.  Defendant was going to pick money up from boyfriend (before his recent incarceration), and he was sitting in the plaintiff's car.   Boyfriend is in the slammer on federal charges, and defendant doesn't know what for.   Plaintiff claimed to have started yelling, and defendant claims plaintiff ran by her car, then claims plaintiff whacked her car window with her cell phone.    No police report or photos are available to show damage to defendant's car, but plaintiff's has photos, and police report.  $3k to plaintiff. (estimate is $7k for the same car). 

Child Support Goes to College-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend defendant for overpaid child support payments for daughter's college.   He had to continue child support from 18 to 21 if she was in college full time.    Daughter dropped out for a semester, and went back one class at a time, so as JJ puts it, that's not college, but playing.    $2631 back to plaintiff.  

Dangerous Pumpkin Prank-Plaintiff suing defendant for putting a bunch of large pumpkins in the road, and damaged plaintiff's car badly.    Plaintiff says the other two delinquents reimbursed her  for damage, but defendant delinquent has a bunch of ridiculous excuses for how he's innocent.    The two other got caught chunking pumpkins in front of cars later that night.   Police report doesn't say Eddie Haskell Jr was involved (defendant teen reminds me of Eddie Haskell, who never did anything wrong according to him).   Plaintiff has no witness that defendant teen was involved, or the police report. 

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$44,000 Child Support Bill-Defendant deadbeat father is $44k behind in child support (monthly cost is only $400).

I really think there is something wrong with me, that I continue to be shocked and horrified that these women not only wanted the likes of the smarmy, sleazy, douche-bag haired, ugly, deadbeat creep with the used car salesman smile, Valenzuela, but really wanted him to sire the next generation. Y'know, like, I mean, a ton of women really wanted Ted Bundy and one of them wanted to marry him during his trial, knowing he left a string of tortured, mutilated and brutally murdered young women in his wake. So Valenzuela owes a ton of back child support, but I can't help thinking that the women who want him - and others like him - deserve whatever they get since I'm pretty sure he was never an upstanding, honest, responsible person.  But I guess any man is better than none, to way too many women.

[SRTouch]

6 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Counterfeit Rolex -Plaintiff suing defendant for selling him a fake Rolex.    Cable went blip, so I have no idea how this came out.  

At least you're  getting to see some JJ. DirecTv and my JJ provider are still fussing with each other, so I haven't been getting any JJ for the past two weeks 😢

[zillabreeze]

40 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

51 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

At least you're  getting to see some JJ. DirecTv and my JJ provider are still fussing with each other, so I haven't been getting any JJ for the past two weeks

I've been doing all my research and the very next time Dish gets into a pissing match with a network, I'm cutting the cord. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

New-

Hennessey-Fueled Catfight-Plaintiff and defendant got into a fist fight in plaintiff's home, and plaintiff wants money for damaged property in her apartment.  Plaintiff told defendant to leave, and testifies she threw defendant's cell phone at her when she was outside.   Defendant claims phone was tossed in toilet (no it wasn't).  The entire fight was fueled with booze.   Interesting front tooth on defendant, or is it missing?  Defendant's ex-girlfriend is witness for plaintiff.   Defendants were invited by plaintiff's roommate or whatever.    All this happened in front of plaintiff's children.  In the Hallterview defendant says she kicked in door, broke couch, and all of it was fueled by booze-Where's the video?    All cases dismissed.  

Homeless Man Home Invasion-Plaintiff lived with defendant ex-boyfriend, in his father's house, where defendant was renting a room.    Defendant was told to leave by his mother, and he couldn't pay rent after he lost his job.  He's blaming his job loss on plaintiff coming to his job site, and causing a scene.     Plaintiff suing defendant for trying to break into her house, breaking the  window, trying to steal her TV (TV was stored with defendant's witness, and she picked the TV up, then the attempted break in happened.    TV was five years old, and is now virtually worthless.  When defendant went to pick TV up from plaintiff, he claims the door was wide open.   Plaintiff has a picture of the broken window.   Plaintiff gets $160, what she originally put in on the TV.  

Rerun-

Recess for a New Generation-Teenager re-enacts a YouTube laptop throwing stunt, and grabbed plaintiff's bag with the laptop in it, and threw it.  Plaintiff mother suing for cost of laptop.    Defendant mother, claims there is a school rule that nothing that happens to a laptop at school that there is no responsibility to anyone but the owner, however she has nothing to prove that.  Defendant daughter admits she took the laptop bag, and threw it, breaking the laptop.      Carmen the defendant is not smart, and  a total fool.  $327 to plaintiff for the smashed laptop, and says if the fictional teen who threw it first can be found (Joaquin), then defendant can sue the other parent for half of $327.   Joaquin doesn't exist.  

Bag of Rice Cellphone Trick-Plaintiffs suing defendant for ruining two iPhones when he pushed defendant man into a pool.  

Fool defendant sends a picture of himself flipping a bird with his text messages.   JJ says she doesn't understand people sending nasty pictures that they would be ashamed to have their grandmother see, and defendant fool says JJ reminds him of his grandmother.    JJ says she doesn't give a damn who she reminds him of.     Plaintiffs upgraded phones, but only want value of original phones.   Value of the phones to plaintiffs

[Byrd is the Word]

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Hennessey-Fueled Catfight

It occasionally occurs to me that the votes cast by people like these count the same as your and mine and I want to scream. Stupid, violent and gross. 

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant was told to leave by his mother, and he couldn't pay rent after he lost his job.  He's blaming his job loss on plaintiff coming to his job site, and causing a scene.

Does anyone have any trouble believing this guy to be a violent, dangerous sort? I sure don’t. 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[AngelaHunter]

Need to clarify here. The drug addict referred to by CrazyinAlabama is not the one I was talking about. I just watched this case, and hard-hearted as I am, I had zero sympathies for the sobbing, blubbering def, who was countersuing because he blamed the plaintiff for his relapse. He says he also quit his job to work around plaintiff's house, so I guess his being unemployed is her fault too. It's always someone else's fault. Someone who is indigent, homeless and hooked on drugs has  a Sleep Number bed? Whatever. Here is the person I said I felt sorry for and who committed suicide. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a super-expensive bed. 

[Byrd is the Word]

38 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Fool defendant sends a picture of himself flipping a bird with his text messages. 

Actually, I think the image came from the plaintiff’s contact photo. But JJ’s point is well taken as the dopey defendant did allow himself to be photographed flipping the bird. I don’t like that picture. When something like that pops up on my devise it’s as if I’m being flipped off and it sorta makes my blood boil.

[Byrd is the Word]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Here is the person I said I felt sorry for and who committed suicide. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a super-expensive bed

I missed this epp but I watched the same video this morning. What a lost soul this guy was. Terribly sad and hard to watch, particularly given the ultimate outcome. RIP. 

[AngelaHunter]

59 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In the Hallterview defendant says she kicked in door, broke couch, and all of it was fueled by booze-Where's the video?   

That's what I was wondering. I guess none of them are candidates for a Tea Dance.  Necoya,(?) Deja and the plaintiff in a Furniture Bustin', Door Kickin' Epic Battle of the Gargantuas and we don't get to see it? Deja, dear, I really think you should have skipped one of the tat/hairdo/fake nail/eyelash sessions and got a new front tooth for the one that's missing (knocked out in a fistfight?)  "Hennessy"?? Who the hell sits and guzzles cognac? 🤣 I can just turn this off, which I did when I couldn't take one more word in murdered English and can't imagine being a judge and not only having to listen to this nonsensical, sordid crap but engage and "conversate" with the small-brained, violent parties involved.