All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[badhaggis]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

She just pissed off JJ $2,700 worth.  

If someone still has this on DVR, would you look at something, please???  When the plaintiff is handing up his damage photos, they are printed on regular copy paper.  Freeze up and see if there are actually a bunch of little divots in the car door or if the paper is just wrinkledy?

I meant to check that, but my delete finger was too itchy.

Not that it matters; Plaintiff deserved $5,000 and a ticker tape parade for NOT clocking Brittany Boobs right in the kisser.

It looked on my tv like the paper was dimpled.

Edited September 17, 2019 by badhaggis

[Byrd is the Word]

10 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

If someone still has this on DVR, would you look at something, please???  When the plaintiff is handing up his damage photos, they are printed on regular copy paper.

I thought the paper might be dimpled also. But it was odd that the dimpling only seemed to be in the area of the door. There’s no way you do that sort of damage without a hammer. Perhaps it was the way the light hit the printed page. But the scratches on the fender that were horizontal in nature were very inconsistent with a the type of impact the plaintiff described. If that horrible woman could have controlled herself for 5 minutes she might have actually convinced the judge that the damage was at least exaggerated. 

[augmentedfourth]

14 hours ago, DoctorK said:

So what was the judge doing about this? I understand on an entertainment reality show that you might let an amusing litigant go on and on, but not in a real cort room.

No judge, no courtroom, it was just a hearing, much like a deposition. This probably varies wildly depending on location, but around here, if you're filing a claim against a municipality (like your town, your village, your county, whatever), there's a hearing first before it gets into a full-blown lawsuit. Honestly, I don't know exactly what the distinction is or what happens between the two, as that's above my pay grade. I just need to know what to stick on the title page of the transcript. 😄 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. rerun episodes, probably 2016-

First-

The Ever-Changing Dog-Attack Story-Plaintiff suing defendant because his 10 year old son was bitten by defendant's out of control dog.   Little boy says woman was walking dog, and had baby stroller too, when dog bit little boy.   Little boy had to get four shots that day, because they hadn't established the owner of the dog, or the dog's bite history.    The way the police found the dog and owner was the day after child's bite, another person was bitten by the same dog.   There are two animal control reports. 

Defendant claims she blocked the child from being near the dog, and child wasn't bitten.   Defendant's sworn statement to JJ is total garbage.   Defendants were cited for the bite on the child, but not the second bite.  (If they ever said what type of dog this was).  My personal guess is this dog has a long history of aggression, and biting.   The photos of the child's injuries are bad.   Good thing the little boy wasn't allergic to anything in the rabies and tetanus shots.   $2500 to plaintiff.   Defendants are doo-doo heads, and delusional about their dog's aggression.   

Fumigation Fence War-Plaintiff suing neighbor for a fence falling on her car.  The defendant's house was tented for fumigation, and the flapping tent damaged the fence, and it fell over on her car.    The woman is suing for her car deductible. The fence isn't on defendant's property, and she refused to give him contact information to contact her landlord about fixing the fence before the extermination company's error.     Defendant says plaintiff sent him a demand letter, but with someone else's name on it, not his name.  $500 to plaintiff.  

Second-

Rottweiler Puppy Fail-Plaintiff was selling a Rottweiler dog (18 months old) that was getting aggressive towards his wife.   Plaintiff bought the puppy for $400, and wanted to sell dog for $800.   Defendant offered $300, and one puppy, pick of litter (defendant breeds lots of Rottweilers).  Defendant wasn't told about the aggression.  Defendant says dog isn't aggressive in his home, and he didn't breed them.  Defendant's mother had cancer, and he sold the adult dogs, and gave the puppies away.   Defendant claims he couldn't get in touch with the plaintiff to give him two puppies.   

Plaintiff wants $1600 for the puppies, for his unregistered female he sold for $300, and one puppy that he never picked up.   He actually wanted to train the first aggressive, disobedient Rottie to be a certified service dog.  Plaintiff gets $400.

Pro-Bono Publicist Scam-Plaintiff was hired to do publicity for defendant, and defendant says she was never supposed to pay plaintiff.    First requirement was flyers, and social media for defendant's management company.    Defendant claims plaintiff wanted to create a magazine to promote the performance artists she promotes.   Defendant claims she had 300 clients, but it's all pro bono (she's on disability, and lives off of her spouse's wages).   There is no signed, written contract.   Plaintiff claims she was to be paid $60 per leaflet produced (=$600), and also says defendant wrote horrible allegations on social media about her.  Plaintiff gets $600 wages.   Plaintiff filed for a protective order against defendant, but it was never served on defendant.    

Plaintiff had nothing to do with the music business before the defendant.   So her magazine she started about the music industry was from her experience with the defendant.   As usual, defendant claims her accounts were hacked, and everything was someone else's fault.       The defendant says plaintiff shouldn't make money off of the music industry, because she's not doing it pro bono, and claims plaintiff stole her identity, and bullied her, counter claim dismissed.       Plaintiff gets $600 back wages, 

Edited September 21, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

Divorcees Still Supporting Adult Son-Plaintiff suing ex-husband for not helping loser adult son out of mess, they've been divorced for over 20 years.   At first defendant agreed to help son, but then there was a falling out with the son, and it fell apart.   Agreement was to help married adult son, who is not working, and has a pregnant wife, and plaintiff talked to ex-husband about helping with son's rent ($1700 a month, defendant's portion was supposed to be $850).  Ex-wife paid the $1700, and is mad ex-husband didn't pay his half.  JJ says if man told ex-wife he wasn't contributing after fight with son, and she transferred the money after that, then man doesn't have to pay.  Woman sent money on 18 April, but it was returned (insufficient funds), but man told son and ex-wife on 12 April that he was done with support a grown man.    If the plaintiff rolls her eyes at JJ one more time I'm going to scream.     Grown son is plaintiff's witness, along with his Grandma.   Father co-signed for a car for son, who is 34, and father paid most of the payments ($7,000 by the father).    Case dismissed.     

Labrador Chews Up Pomeranian-Plaintiff's Pomeranian is alleged to have been attacked by defendant's unleashed Labrador.   However, plaintiff's sworn statement doesn't resemble her dramatic, testimony in court.    Vet reports said some treatment should happen, she couldn't afford it, and vet agreed to take dog if she signed it over to him as a rescue.  Woman still wants vet bills paid ($91).   However, plaintiff waited two days to take the dog to vet,.   Woman first paid $125 euthanasia fee, then signed dog over to vet and not euthanized.     Her total vet bills were $91.  She adopted the dog a year before, it was a rescue.    She took dog for walk, or sitting on bench, and claims the unleashed Lab attacked the Pom, twice.    Defendant says there is no bench in the common area, so plaintiff made that up.     Defendant will pay the $91, not the $5,000 the plaintiff wants.   (Defendant says someone adopted the dog, a rescue paid for the surgery).

Second-

Are You Trying to Make Me Dislike You?-Plaintiff was buying car from defendant, and car was repossessed for never paying on time, and plaintiff wants return or value of Kia Soul, and her property from car back.    In 2016, the Kia was given to plaintiff in return for her paying for the payments.   Defendant says plaintiff's agreement was plaintiff would pay the remaining payments, and insurance, as a type of rent.  Kia is now paid off, title is clear, and defendant has car.    Defendant's witness gets thrown out, sadly just an expression, and not launched out of a cannon.   Plaintiff paid for car for almost 3 years.   Car payment was $350 for car, and $100 for insurance.   Plaintiff didn't pay for periods of time, made up payments, was constantly late.  Plaintiff had car for 27 months, owed $7,000+, and only paid $5500+.  Plaintiff claims in Nov 2018 defendant said send her $1450, and she would send the title to plaintiff.   $5,000 to plaintiff. 

Did You Think You Were Coming to the Circus?-Plaintiff suing for return of money paid for Toyota Solara.     Plaintiff claims she sent money orders, and has the receipts.   Plaintiff paid $3451, in 2017, and plaintiff claims she couldn't find defendant to get car and title from her.   Defendant has lived at the same address for years, and works at the same place for over two years too.   JJ wants to know why defendant didn't give the car and title to the plaintiff.  Plaintiff owed $50 last payment.   

I expect a sad tale of woe that won't touch JJ at all.   Defendant got repossessed, and it still had $300 owing on it.   Except as usual, defendant doesn't know how much of a lien the car had on it.   Plaintiff gets $3441 for the car.  

Edited September 21, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Toaster Strudel]

On 9/16/2019 at 11:50 AM, Byrd is the Word said:

"I’m in the hospital all the time. I don’t know the name of the hospital”

Hopefully the hospital's name has the word "mental" in it.

[mtbingmom]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

Divorcees Still Supporting Adult Son-Plaintiff suing ex-husband for not helping loser adult son out of mess, they've been divorced for over 20 years.   At first defendant agreed to help son, but then there was a falling out with the son, and it fell apart.   Agreement was to help married adult son, who is not working, and has a pregnant wife, and plaintiff talked to ex-husband about helping with son's rent ($1700 a month, defendant's portion was supposed to be $850).  Ex-wife paid the $1700, and is mad ex-husband didn't pay his half.  JJ says if man told ex-wife he wasn't contributing after fight with son, and she transferred the money after that, then man doesn't have to pay.

The ex-wife claims she never got the text. JJ kept yelling "you knew! You knew! he wasn't paying" Calls for the operation of his mind Your Honor.

[AuntiePam]

Is was sure the Toyota Solara case was going to go the other way.  It looked like Judy was going to tell plaintiff that what she had paid was what she would have paid if she had been renting a car -- that she got her money's worth.  (She had paid about $5500 in car payments but owed around $7,000.)

I think this was another case of Judy not liking a defendant -- that woman would not shut up!  If she hadn't talked back, I think JJ would have ruled against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in the dog case -- drama school dropout?  Weird that Judy didn't ream the defendant, who admitted that his unleashed Lab mix attacked the Pomeranian. 

[SRTouch]

On 9/16/2019 at 6:00 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Housekeeper Steals Customers-Plaintiff cleaning service owner suing former employee for soliciting clients away from her business.   Defendant was hired with a contract, to do cleaning services, and contract said no stealing clients.   One of the ex-clients, and present client of defendant is the witness.      JJ gives the plaintiff $5,000 for lost client.  

This one was funny as JJ was really down on P, and P even comments in hallterview that it looked like she was going to crash and burn..... but then D's witness is called up and totally blows defense, resulting in switcheroo and big win for plaintiff 

Edited September 18, 2019 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

The plaintiff in the dog case -- drama school dropout?  Weird that Judy didn't ream the defendant, who admitted that his unleashed Lab mix attacked the Pomeranian. 

Actually watched this one. I think it's another case where one litigant was so outrageous JJ just ruled to get them both out the door. As if P with her changing story wasn't bad enough, P then passed up her 'bill' hoping JJ wouldn't read it. Even when JJ points out the bill shows she was refunded $125 P tries to play word games. D on other hand was pretty up front - admitted he lost control of his dog, says he knew he should pay P's vet bills, but that he refused when P went after every penny she ever spent on her dog - IIRC P wanted 5 grand for a $81 bill!

[Byrd is the Word]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Did You Think You Were Coming to the Circus?-Plaintiff suing for return of money paid for Toyota Solara.     Plaintiff claims she sent money orders, and has the receipts.   Plaintiff paid $3451, in 2017, and plaintiff claims she couldn't find defendant to get car and title from her.   Defendant has lived at the same address for years, and works at the same place for over two years too.   JJ wants to know why defendant didn't give the car and title to the plaintiff.  Plaintiff owed $50 last payment

This entire case was strange. Who in their right mind makes installments for months on a car they don’t have possession of? Doesn’t she know that car becomes less valuable every month? Clearly the car was repossessed before the plaintiff made the final, $49 payment. Then the defendant ducked the plaintiff as she attempted to make that final payment and obtain the title so she  could “justify” not delivering the car that she no longer had. Her entire defense/scam was based on the fact that the plaintiff isn’t entitled to the car since she failed to complete that payments. If she said that once she said it $20 times. A rare case where a plaintiff clearly got screwed and eventually received her due.

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Are You Trying to Make Me Dislike You?-Plaintiff was buying car from defendant, and car was repossessed for never paying on time, and plaintiff wants return or value of Kia Soul, and her property from car back.

So today is the day for car deals gone bad.  In this one we have a defendant built like my dorm room refrigerator with her obstinate and hostile attitude.  It’s the latest example of a litigant with a strong case being so completely unlikable that we don’t seem to mind when she gets screwed over.  For starters, I saw no evidence that there was a sale agreement. It seems to me that even at the $7,000 agreed upon price that 2016 Kia Soul was undervalued. And I was silently begging JJ to ask Byrd to look up the value.  I also believe the boxy defendant when she said the $1,400 payment discussed by text was to allow the plaintiff to retain the use of the car and not to complete a sale.  How the plaintiff could claim ownership of a car with a value closer to $12,000 after making payments totaling $5,000 is a mystery.  The plaintiff exists the courtroom with her money returned and having enjoyed the use of a nice car free for months.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[funky-rat]

10 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

The plaintiff in the dog case -- drama school dropout?  Weird that Judy didn't ream the defendant, who admitted that his unleashed Lab mix attacked the Pomeranian. 

The defendant was reasonable, I believe him when he said that his dog came around the corner and her dog nipped at him, and it started a fight.  He said he offered to pay her vet bills numerous times, but wasn't down for paying a ludicrous amount of money for stuff he shouldn't pay for.  I don't think the guy needed to be reamed, and the plaintiff was so over-the-top outrageous, that JJ's ire was justified at being sent to Miss Drama Queen who sues for fun and profit.

[bad things are bad]

Quote

 She even denied being Brittany, but her name was on her shirt.

Oh, that was PRICELESS. 

Quote

Woman first paid $125 euthanasia fee, then signed dog over to vet and not euthanized

That was just sad. She treated that dog like a cheap coffeemaker...not worth repairing, just get rid of it. The dog was able to be healed, apparently since the rescue took it on. 

[Byrd is the Word]

5 minutes ago, bad things are bad said:

She treated that dog like a cheap coffeemaker...not worth repairing, just get rid of it. The dog was able to be healed, apparently since the rescue took it on.

I'm pretty sure that P would have failed the "Have you been hospitalized in a mental heath facility or been prescribed any psychotropic medications?" test.  There was something seriously off about that one.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. rerun episodes, probably 2016-

First-

Icy Road Spin Scare-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for damaging her car while he was borrowing it.     According to plaintiff they had a huge, violent fight, over the damage to her car.  Then he moved in with roommates a few blocks from her house.    Defendant was driving plaintiff's vehicle, was on I-70, spun out, and pulled on the median with minor damage (plaintiff's photo shows major wheel well damage, and passenger side front fender and bumper damage).

Defendant claims his Jeep was damaged while plaintiff was driving it, and that was before the first fight about her car.   Defendant claims they fought over the car, but there was another fight outside his place, and that's when the second fight about his car happened.    Defendant claims they had a later fight, and she threw her phone at his car, and broke the windshield.    JJ tells them to fix their own cars, neither one had collision insurance.      Cases dismissed.  

Dune Buggy Bamboozle-Plaintiffs bought a dune buggy from defendant.   They claim it wasn't the one they wanted, and finally returned to defendant, and it was damaged (according to defendant).    Defendant wants money for repairing dune buggy.   Apparently, the defendant's company shipped the wrong dune buggy to the plaintiffs, and defendant says plaintiffs were fine with that.  Plaintiff say defendant is a liar. Defendants say main difference between two buggies is color, and side panels, plus buggy was a floor model.   Plaintiffs say they never used the buggy, but defendant says it was used.  Plaintiffs get money back $4921 (or about that).   

Second-

Parking Insanity Caught on Tape-Plaintiff suing defendant for medical bills, and damages from parking lot fight caught on video.    Plaintiff was arrested, and video shows plaintiff was the aggressor, and assaulted the defendant.    Defendant says plaintiff whacked her car door into defendant's car, twice.  Lori Hansen, (she's the one on the ad for the show with JJ saying she's not scary),  plaintiff parked almost on top of the parking space line, you can clearly see that on video.   All of this apparently happened in front of the liquor store.  Defendant claims plaintiff started choking her, and broke her phone.  On video, poor feeble Ms. Hansen isn't using her cane, and claims she doesn't always need it.    Defendant has police report, and JJ saw on video that Lori H. struck the first blow.   Plaintiff case dismissed.  For some bizarre reason, hall-terview is with plaintiff's husband. 

Single Mom Mess-Plaintiff was being evicted, and defendant agreed to let plaintiff and her children move into her house.   Rent for two rooms was $600, and claims she paid $694.  Plaintiff moved stuff into the garage, and defendant said plaintiff couldn't stay, and plaintiff agreed to pay utilities.    Plaintiff demanded to do more than month-to-month to save more money to move on.     Plaintiff decided not to move in, and was going to get her stuff out of the garage, but wanted her money back.    Plaintiff wasn't arrested on the day in question, but was on parole.   Defendant signed agreement in front of police officer that she would return the $694.    Plaintiff is suing because defendant filed a complaint for assault against plaintiff.    They did mediation first, and defendant didn't appear.    Defendant claims plaintiff damaged her garage door.  $694 for plaintiff, defendant claim dismissed. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

I Live to Pay Your Vet Bills-Plaintiff paid for defendant's dog's bills for tests, and expected to be repaid, sadly dog died.   Defendant suing for $5,000 for harassment.     Defendant claims plaintiff donated money for tests, because she has a history of donating to dogs in need.   Defendant posted online about need for money for dog tests, and called plaintiff about a loan.    Plaintiff paid for dog's tests.   All texts are from defendant's phone, she promised to repay plaintiff,  and she denies all of them.   $481 to plaintiff.  

Park City Park Problem-Plaintiff moved into a rented, furnished loft from defendant, and moved out 19 days later.   She alleges defendant was constantly partying, random visitors, front door left unlocked, etc.   Plaintiff paid $1200 first and last months rent on move in.   Plaintiff also wants her iPhone, passport, social security card, and other items back.   $600 to plaintiff. 

Second-

First Date Kidnapping-Plaintiff claims the defendant, an ex-con, kidnapped her on their first date, and forced her to co-sign a truck loan.   As usual, defendant's witness is his current wife.   Plaintiff's witness is an ex also, and she filed for a restraining order, and they haven't had the court date yet. Two of his arrests were for domestic violence (he was only released in June from jail).   .   Litigants met online, on the first date she let him sleep over at her house (she has a 1 year old daughter), and she claims he forced her to sign the truck loan papers.    They agreed on day two for plaintiff to sleep over at defendant's house, with the daughter.     Plaintiff co-signed for his truck on day two.   Truck is in plaintiff's name, and JJ told her to go get the truck, and then sell it.  No money to plaintiff, just the truck.   (Doesn't plaintiff ever watch the ID channel?   Inviting someone you don't know into your house on a first date is really dumb, and a great way to end up in a shallow grave.  Bet she didn't know he was on crime number four before she brought him into her house on a first date, and slept over on date 2 with a 1 year old in tow). 

Co-Signing Drug Catastrophe-Plaintiff and son are suing former friend for vehicle expenses, and removal of son's name from car title.    Defendant wanted a car, put $2600 down, and she had no credit.   Plaintiff son (they were co-workers, and dating) is on the loan, and is co-owner with defendant, and plaintiff has the car.    Defendant loan car to two friends, they were pulled over by police, with drug paraphernalia in the car.   $506 was the impound fee.  Car was never insured.  Plaintiff claims car currently has $5,000 worth of damages.  Plaintiffs the damage was that bad when they retrieved it from impound, and defendant said mirror and tail light were damaged when she had it.   Plaintiffs didn't bring an estimate.  Why would JJ pay the plaintiffs for damages, when they didn't insure the car?   $3400 to plaintiffs, and defendant won't get her expense money until she signs the car over to the plaintiff.  

Edited September 19, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

First Date Kidnapping-Plaintiff claims the defendant, an ex-con, kidnapped her on their first date,

This woman is jaw droppingly stupid and perhaps an unfit mother. I have no words, except that I hope she’s  on DCFS radar. F*ck me, this one was disturbing. 

[NYGirl]

I don't know who was more annoying in the loaning/donating of money to save the defendant's dog.  The Plaintiff?  Giggling....talking over JJ..shouting out.  I wanted to reach in the TV an pull her perfectly coiffed hair...or

Defendant who was just trying to put something over on JJ and was pretty dopey I think.  I.e., JJ here..take a look at my dog's picture.  ::eye roll::

[bad things are bad]

17 hours ago, NYGirl said:

I don't know who was more annoying in the loaning/donating of money to save the defendant's dog.  The Plaintiff?  Giggling....talking over JJ..shouting out.  I wanted to reach in the TV an pull her perfectly coiffed hair...or

Mmmm, no contest for me. That defendant, denying the texts were hers and pulling the old "it was a GIFT (donation)" bullshit. See my doggie and feel sorry for me 

Yes, plaintiff. STFU but I could see being utterly infuriated by Miss The World Owes Me. 

Quote

First Date Kidnapping-Plaintiff claims the defendant, an ex-con, kidnapped her on their first date, and forced her to co-sign a truck loan.   As usual, defendant's witness is his current wife

Anyone else yelling RUN!!! at the current wife? RUN RUN RUN RUN but boy was he good at being calm and apparently rational. Bet that came in handy when the cops came around

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns, probably from 2016-

First-

Rage Against the Door-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for her attempt to break into his house.    The attempted break in happened the day after they broke up, during a big argument at his house.   He sent her a text that he would bring her belongings to a meeting place, but if she came to his house he would call the police.    Police were called when defendant tried to kick the door down.   Defendant claims she lived with plaintiff, but contradicts herself in her statement.   She brought a one year old into this mess.    Plaintiff gets $600, defendant gets $0.

Convicted Felon Wants Guns Back-Plaintiff kept ex-boyfreind's (he says ex-boyfriend, but they went through a divorce, very confusing).     They are divorced, and he wants more visitation, or custody.   Defendant claims he only has supervised visitation, and wants more.   Plaintiff wants her truck back, and she signed the truck over to him.    Truck was never re-registered in his name.    Defendant given two weeks to re-register the truck, or plaintiff gets it back.  As usual, the next wife is defendant's witness.     Defendant mostly lived in the shed behind the house.    Defendant wants his BB guns back, and they are in the shed.  Plaintiff is told to leave the BB guns at the local police precinct for him to pickup, and police will decide if they are legal for him to possess.  

Second-

Disorderly Cousin Conduct-Plaintiff suing her cousin/former tenant for unpaid rent, and police complaints after they moved in together.    Defendant was living with a boyfriend for four years in his house, there was a fire that caused damage, and they had to move out.   Cousin/plaintiff offered her main rental house with boyfriend for $1,000 a month until boyfriend's house was repaired.   House wasn't repaired in time, and plaintiff wanted her usual $2500 a month summer rental.   Defendant claims rent would be $1k but had to move out the end of May or else.   Defendant claims she moved May 28.   No proof of April or May rent is shown.  

Then case gets interesting, defendant claims plaintiff doesn't own house, doesn't rent main house, but lives in it herself, and rents the back house.   Plaintiff letter says plaintiff had complaints from the back house renters about disorderly behavior.   Eviction action started in mid-May, according to property manager.     $2,000 back rent to plaintiff.   

Show Me the Proof-Plaintiff suing former roommate for unpaid bills, damaged and stolen property, and cost of lock change.    Defendant signed a one year lease, but moved after she changed the locks on him.   Plaintiff claims she has photos proving defendant stole her property, but they don't show him with anything.    Plaintiff has no proof of anything. Plaintiff has zero proof, and simply won't shut up.   She has police reports, but claims that they are inaccurate.    Case dismissed.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

Watch his Case if You Have Children-Plaintiffs suing parent of child for throwing a rock and damaging their car.  Plaintiff witness is a neighbor's child.   Plaintiff noticed two days later her car was dented, and she asked a neighbor's son if he knew who damaged her car.   As usual, defendant claims her son didn't do this.    Witness's grandmother waited until plaintiff came to her door to have witness tell what he saw.  Defendant son gets the witness chair, and claims he doesn't know who threw the rock.      JJ says there isn't enough proof, and JJ suspects the witness actually did it.    Case dismissed.  (My guess is in the rock throwing case the defendant said he didn't know who threw the rock, because if he admitted the plaintiff's witness did it, the child would beat the snot out of him when they got home.   I bet the bigger kid is the neighborhood bully, and his grandmother doesn't care about that. )

Liar, Thief and a Cheat-Plaintiff suing former employer for unpaid wages for house painting. Defendant's witness is not available, and has no proof that plaintiff didn't finish the paint job.      $300 lost wages to plaintiff.  defendant has zero proof of anything.   Defendant should have paid the man. 

Second-

Man Shaken Up By Nephew's Murder-Plaintiff was renting a room from defendant (he had a two bedroom apartment), and she left.  Plaintiff is suing defendant/former roommate, former property manager (son of property owner) , and the boyfriend's mother (she owns the apartment house).   Defendant kept plaintiff's security deposit and never returned it, and never turned it over to landlady.  Defendant/former roommates all seem to leave rather quickly, and he never returns security deposits.   Only former roommate is still the defendant, because he never turned over security deposit from plaintiff to property owner or manager.   (Defendant says he's upset because his nephew was killed in a mass shooting recently).     

Defendant swears she caused a flea infestation from her cat. , and other damages.   However, defendant's girlfriend and dog stay over often.    Security was $1100, and plaintiff gets back $980.    Defendant case dismissed. 

Worst Case Car Scenario-Plaintiff suing former friend/defendant for damages to a third party's vehicle,  after friend gets into an accident while driving her uninsured car.   Defendant says plaintiff asked him to look at her car, and tell her what was wrong with it.   Plaintiff had no insurance.   The car in question wasn't driveable, plaintiff had another car.   Defendant had the car towed to a friend's house to work on it, and got it running.  He took the car for a test drive,   Plaintiff says she was selling the car to the defendant, but it wasn't registered to him, or insured, and defendant didn't have the title.     Sale of car wasn't complete, car was registered to plaintiff, and she says Allstate covered the car.   However, she did not have insurance on the car, just the one she was driving (bet it doesn't either).   My sympathies are with the third party who had their car wrecked by the plaintiff's uninsured car. 

The third party that defendant hit sued plaintiff for almost $5,000.  Case dismissed. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[VartanFan]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ says there isn't enough proof, and JJ suspects the witness actually did it.    Case dismissed. 

Yet again - disagree with her ruling here.  That smirky boy and his moron mother will be in court again because she’s another one who says ‘nope, not my precious baby’.  There are 3 kids there and he ‘doesn’t know’ who threw the rock?  

[funky-rat]

13 hours ago, VartanFan said:

Yet again - disagree with her ruling here.  That smirky boy and his moron mother will be in court again because she’s another one who says ‘nope, not my precious baby’.  There are 3 kids there and he ‘doesn’t know’ who threw the rock?  

I was on the fence about this one.  I wasn't confident the Plaintiff's witness wasn't involved more than just seeing it happen.  The fact that the grandma didn't have the boy go over to the neighbor and tell her right away, and then said "You'd better tell the truth" to him pushed me to the "not so sure" side.  The Plaintiff's witness futzed and fumbled through a lot of his testimony, and I also get a bully vibe from him, and could see him threatning other kids (especially younger, weaker kids), so there's enough doubt there for me to agree with JJ, and I think she used her instincts on this one, and her many years of working with kids to feel it out.

I have no proof he's a bully, but I was heavily bullied as a child, and I just get this vibe from him that I can't explain.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably from about 2016-

First-

Cyclist in the Pedestrian Crossing Smash-Plaintiff bicyclist suing motorist for hitting him, while cyclist was in a crosswalk.  Plaintiff was on bike path, crossed crosswalk (it's part of a greenway bike path), stopped to for check traffic.   When plaintiff crossed defendant's SUV hit the bike.  There is a sign on crosswalk that says to watch for pedestrians, and cyclists.    There are no medical records of injury to the plaintiff.   Defendant doesn't care that he could have killed a person, just that he thinks he would have been right in his own mind.  Police report says plaintiff did nothing wrong, but defendant violated right of way for crosswalk.    Defendant was driving his sister-in-law's vehicle, and was insured.  Defendant claims he didn't his cyclist. 

Plaintiff gets $550 for damage to his bike

Neighbor from Hell-Plaintiff suing neighbor for money owed for a car $500, and harassment.    Defendant claims car was a gift, and plaintiff was neighbor from hell, and wants $2,000 for plaintiff filing a false restraining order.   Defendant's car broke down, and plaintiff sold him a car for $500 (defendant says it was a gift).  Defendant has car, registered in his name, and JJ tells him to sign over the title, and give the car back.   Defendant given choice, either pay the $500, or sign the car back and return it.   $500 to plaintiff for car.   Plaintiff has several police reports claiming harassment, and applications for protective orders (dismissed after hearing).    Plaintiff gets $500, nothing for defendant.  

Second-

Mechanic Crosses a Line-Plaintiff suing former friend for value of car, and money she paid him to fix it.    Plaintiff has teenage son, bought a car for son, gave it to mechanic to fix it, plaintiff moved to Houston.    Defendant towed car to plaintiff's father's house, it wasn't registered, had no bill of sale, no tags.   Defendant was going to register the car, by putting a mechanic's lien on it, and confiscating it.   The title was in a previous owner's name, not the woman that sold it to plaintiff.    Plaintiff paid only the money to put the mechanic's lien on the car to get a clean title, $190.   Car title is in defendant's name, and he will sign it over to plaintiff.    Defendant got car running, and told her it would cost her $200 to have car fixed.   The mechanics lien was a scam to get a clean title, because plaintiff didn't have the right paperwork.   Defendant will sign car over to plaintiff, and $200 to defendant.     

Unbelievable Car Deal-Plaintiff suing former friend for return of money she paid for a 2006 Chevy Impala.   Plaintiff bought car from defendant for $2200, and paid in full.   However, defendant needed to make one more payment on his car loan, and he would have a clear title.   A few weeks later plaintiff's car was repossessed by lender.   Defendant says she agreed to pay him $2200, and make the four remaining payments on car (he only bought the car a couple of months before he sold it to the plaintiff).   The Blue Book value is $6,000, he put $1500 down, and payments were less than $300 a month, so there were a ton of payments left.   

JJ says they were scammers, and plaintiff claims she didn't know the car was worth $6,000, that she thought she was getting for $2200.    JJ gives nothing to either litigant, and that's what they deserve.   I think the defendant was hiding the car out at the plaintiff's place, and the lender found it and repossessed it.  

Edited September 20, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

Paving the Way to Unemployment-Plaintiff suing cement mason for jack hammering a driveway, and destroying her driveway.     Defendants claims someone on the internet hired them to put in a new driveway, plaintiff wasn't home, and neither was the person that hired them.    Defendants gave a $6,000 quote, but person hiring them wanted $300 first from the defendant to prove it was a legitimate bank account.   They sent the $300, and defendants jack hammered a lot of the driveway, and plaintiff was shocked to come home and see her driveway destroyed, since she never hired them.    Not surprising that they could never get in touch with the 'owner' who wasn't an owner, and was a scammer.   Plaintiff receives $2268, plus $895, totaling, $3163 to replace her driveway.    (The two defendants never accepted that they were scammed, and had ruined a driveway that they had no right to touch).

The Magically Disappearing Dilapidated Car-Plaintiff suing former friend for the disappearance of her car.  Defendant towed plaintiff's car into his mechanics shop, after plaintiff inherited car from late uncle, fall of 2016.   Four months later car didn't pass emissions, but it was registered, pending passing the test,( it flunked).   Car is a 1994 Buick LeSabre (spelling?).    From Fall 2016 to October 2018 car went back and forth to defendant's mechanics shop, and it was never registered.   In October 2018 car was brought back to mechanic, it was parked in front of his house, and towed for expired registration.    Plaintiff claims she can't find her car, and defendant says car was towed to city impound, and defendant claims he told the plaintiff.    The mechanic must have been really cheap for that woman to waste over two years sending her car back and forth to him.     $1.002 to plaintiff.     

Second-

Three Words No Man Can Say (they are "I don't know")-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for assault, a headstone for miscarried child, and other stuff.   Defendant was buying home under VA, and plaintiff gave him $1,000 for his closing costs, and they were going to live there together.   Defendant simply won't stop acting a fool, and won't shut up.   Defendant is a disabled vet, gets a VA pension, and does odd jobs.   He claims he paid plaintiff $100 monthly rent for the nine months they lived in her apartment, and she only paid $240 a month (subsidized rent-are you allowed to have roomies in subsidized apartments?).    Plaintiff doesn't get $1000 back, because there was no contract saying the money was a loan.     

Plaintiff miscarried at four months, and she wants half of the cost of the headstone ($400 is his half).   Plaintiff paid $400 for the burial, and the headstone was $800 more.  There was no agreement for defendant to pay $400 for half of the headstone.   (Case dismissed.     

Adorable Little Girl Confesses-Plaintiff alleges defendant's little girl knocked over a sign, (a pole with a cement block on the bottom), and it damaged the plaintiff's car.  Plaintiff couldn't hear the loud boom over her own sound system.  Defendant mother says plaintiff was parking illegally, and so she shouldn't have to pay.     Little girl is in the witness chair, and admits she pushed the pole.   JJ says it was defendant's mother role to control her daughter, and didn't.   (Kid might have been cute on the stand, but she sure looked angry when mommy lost).  (I hate those sound systems where the entire trunk is a giant speaker.   Fortunately, those systems are a great way to get a ticket here.   If that woman's music is so loud she can't hear a giant boom of the sign hitting, how does she hear ambulance sirens?   What a jerk)$452 to plaintiff.  

Edited September 22, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendants gave a $6,000 quote, but person hiring them wanted $300 first from the defendant to prove it was a legitimate bank account.   They sent the $300

The next time anyone receives a Nigerian’s offer to share millions with you and you ask yourself “who falls for this shit?” remember these two rock heads. Dumb and Dumber.  Oh, and Dumber has the temerity to arrive in court with a cement mixer full of attitude and hostility. I doubt even a jackhammer could crack either one of these thick skulls. 

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

they are "I don't know"

I don’t know. There, I said it. Happy ladies? 😘

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Kid might have been cute on the stand, but she sure looked angry when mommy lost

Maybe because this plaintiff considers her a “wild child”. So says the woman who’s “system” is so loud and annoying in a school type zone (with kids running around no less) that she can’t tell the difference between a big ass pole hitting her car and the sound of her favorite tune. I’m willing to bet that behind that big smile beats the heart of a nasty woman. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[arejay]

I always wonder when I hear "my fiance"......just how long have the two of you been blissfully engaged? Did you agree to marry him before or after you contributed to his family bloodline? Has he actually even asked? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, about 2016-

First-

Assault of the Landlord-Defendant had the woman pet sit, and a year ago the woman claimed she was a general contractor, and paid her $25,000 to g.c. the roof.      He says she never did any work, isn't a contractor, and has been on disability since 1992.  She claims her disability ended in 2015, but won't answer any of JJ's questions, so her case is dismissed.  Defendant says he let her stay in the spare room occasionally, since she lived so far away.  She left for several weeks, and when he noticed a bad odor from the room, he entered and found a lot of his stolen property.  He claims after he changed the locks, the woman crawled under the house and broke in.  Defendant filed a police report alleging assault by her, theft, and wanted a protective order. and changed the locks.   Plaintiff wanted a temporary protective order and it wasn't made permanent.   JJ advises the defendant to have his attorney ask a judge to file a vexatious litigant order against plaintiff.   Cases dismissed. 

Pedestrian Slam in a Parking Lot-Plaintiff claims the defendant hit him with his car in a parking lot.   Defendant says he didn't do anything wrong, didn't even put in a claim with his insurance company, because he thinks nothing is wrong with the plaintiff.   Plaintiff claims the defendant doesn't have insurance, but defendant claims he does.   Plaintiff gets damages $2100  for medical bills, and lost wages.   

Second-

Parents Want Their Child Arrested-This is the sad case of the 18 year old girl who was banished from her parents house, because she went to her boyfriend's house on her birthday.    The parents refused to give her back her cat.  Her mother even claims the girl has the cat confused with a previous cat, but this cat is black or brown, and the previous one was white.   When the parents were out of town, the neighbor who was watching the place let the girl in to the house, the girl liberated her cat (she had the cat for eight years).   The parents made a police report, and wanted her charged with burglary.   

I remember these people well from previous airings, they have seven kids, three of them are witnesses for the defendant, and the older ones don't even associate with the parents.   I feel so sorry for the daughter, and the other children.   Father took her car back too, which was in both names (daughter, and father).    Father saw car on street near boyfriend's house, and confiscated it.    

Daughter now rents a room from her boyfriend's mother, is going to college.   The parents actually wanted an 18 year old with great grades, no criminal record to be charged with a crime.    The defendant keeps the cat, and since the car was a gift, and daughter will get half of the car value, $425.  

Edited September 24, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-(New)-

Beware of Narcissistic Fools-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for furniture, credit card charges, and other stuff.      They were shacking up in his house with their children.  Plaintiff gets dining sets back, desk, antique table, and she has five days to get a police escort, get movers to take everything back, or else it goes.   Plaintiff can't enter the house, just the movers.   She wants to be reimbursed for her family vacation that he went on.   Plaintiff likes to sent nasty texts to defendant's new girlfriend, who is as usual, his witness.    Defendant will pay his own insurance bill now.   Plaintiff gets $2278, and her furniture.

Defendant claims his witness, (his current girlfriend, was married when they started dating) saw plaintiff come in his garage.   (Not one of these fools that warn everyone about their toxic exes, ever mentions the  effects on their kids of bringing someone new into their home either.)

Second-(Rerun)

Babblers Are Usually Liars-Plaintiff and defendant are fighting over damage to plaintiff's car. Plaintiff claims defendant stole daughter's necklace too.    Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car to go to the beach, all met at the beach, and car had damage.  Car loan was months after he necklace disappeared.    $1,000 for the plaintiff.     

Battle Over the Bronze Lions-Defendants bought a house from the plaintiff, had a contract to pay separately for bronze lions, and never paid.       There was a separate agreement for the purchase of the lions, via an exchange of emails between plaintiff and defendant.    Plaintiff gets $5,000 , for the lions.   

Edited September 23, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AuntiePam]

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

First-(New)-

Beware of Narcissistic Fools-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for furniture, credit card charges, and other stuff.      They were shacking up in his house with their children. 

How long did they live together?  Why didn't JJ go with "the courts don't get involved with canoodlers"? 

I think he should have been responsible for the CC charges after the split, but if she was dumb enough to give him a card, she should pay.  The date of the cable TV and car insurance charges wasn't given -- at least not that I heard.

I didn't care for either of those people.

[khyber]

1 hour ago, arejay said:

I always wonder when I hear "my fiance"......just how long have the two of you been blissfully engaged? Did you agree to marry him before or after you contributed to his family bloodline? Has he actually even asked? 

Now a days so many people say fiancee when what they really mean is that we are long term partners. There is no real plan to get married.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 hours ago, arejay said:

I always wonder when I hear "my fiance".....

How many times did she say 'my fiancee', anyway? I lost count.

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I didn't care for either of those people.

Nor did I. He’s clearly a half wit ne'er-do-well and she’s a disingenuous harpy. She just had to humiliate him with the “his mother paid for the condo” remark. And if you’re done with him move on already. These “helpful” texts to the new woman are only the manipulative musings of a bitter, shit stirring  ex. 

[AZChristian]

12 hours ago, khyber said:

Now a days so many people say fiancee when what they really mean is that we are long term partners. There is no real plan to get married.

There's a whole variety of shows based on the concept of "90-Day Fiancee."  Some of these people have never even MET in real life - it's all internet razzmatazz.  Many of them don't even make it to a status of "long-term" partners.  But there's always either money involved (usually overweight middle-aged women sending it to younger foreign men), or the promise/potential of a green card with life in the U S of A.  

Trash TV at its best.  Almost as good as a typical day of idiocy on Judge Judy.

[VartanFan]

10 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Nor did I. He’s clearly a half wit ne'er-do-well and she’s a disingenuous harpy. She just had to humiliate him with the “his mother paid for the condo” remark. And if you’re done with him move on already. These “helpful” texts to the new woman are only the manipulative musings of a bitter, shit stirring  ex. 

Ugh - agreed, but I had to laugh at the hallterview with him...how she so wanted him and he was clear that he NEVER wanted anything to do with her.  But her stuff was in his house and he was willing to take all sorts of money and a credit card.

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, VartanFan said:

But her stuff was in his house and he was willing to take all sorts of money and a credit card.

So true.  Regardless of the circumstances, who leaves belongings behind in a property they are leaving for good and expects to see those belongings again? I'm sure they're equally to blame. And there's no way she's as nice as that big smile would have you believe.  I've said it once and I'll say it again, grown men who take money from a woman are hugely suspect.  Any self respecting 21 year old with half an ounce of common sense knows that if you commingle your property and cash with any sort of roommate you do so at your own peril.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[SRTouch]

42 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

So true.  Regardless of the circumstances, who leaves belongings behind in a property they are leaving for good and expects to see those belongings again? I'm sure they're equally to blame.

I bailed on this as JJ was going through the CC statement. One thing that got my attention was how quickly Dude jumped in when JJ started telling P to go get her stuff.  Seemed he definitely did NOT want her showing up at his house. I suspect the breakup was quite the kerfuffle, and her move out was far from an orderly, planned move.

Edited September 24, 2019 by SRTouch

[Byrd is the Word]

Beware of Narcissistic Fools On long road trips, Mrs. BITW (34 years on 10/12) and I will sometimes engage in the "who would you date if you found yourself widowed?" conversation.  This inevitably leads to the "what are your deal breakers?" list.  It's a long list for both of us but the top three unique ones are:

Mine: 1.) Substance abusers 2.) Anyone who doesn't mesh with my adult children 3.) Anyone who would treat a food server like a pet

Hers: 1.) Financial instability 2.) Angry 3.) Lazy

Crazy how many litigants never seem to have made a list.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the former lovebirds/furniture case, there must be a protective order of some kind barring the plaintiff from the house.   I guess that's why the defendant would have to have an appointment, police escort, and movers to get the furniture out of the house.   I'm sure if she or relatives moved stuff out, that the furniture would be beaten to pieces, and the walls, and doors of that house would look like hell. 

I can't believe how many people like the litigants in this case invite virtual strangers into their home, around their children, and then are surprised when everything implodes.     I didn't like the defendant, but the plaintiff screamed bunny boiler to me.   That incident with the garage was scary, even though JJ shut that testimony down quickly.    I suspect the plaintiff was finding a lot of excuses to drive by, or park outside the defendant's house.       

Edited September 24, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably around 2016-

First-

Co-Parenting BBQ Snafu-Plaintiff says the father of her three year old child vandalized her car at a BBQ.   Defendant says he didn't do it.    After the BBQ everyone went to his house, and the two started fighting.   Defendant tried to get the tablet the child was using, and plaintiff got mad, and plaintiff called police on him.    Plaintiff claims the defendant was out of control.  Plaintiff claims defendant damaged her car, and she wants money.   JJ tells defendant to buy touch up paint, and fix the scratch on her car.    $50 to the plaintiff.  

Prized Tennis Shoes Feud-Plaintiff suing exboyfriend for loan to buy Michael Jordan tennis shoes, as usual, defendant says they're a gift.   The defendant wanted the sneakers, said he would pay back the plaintiff, so plaintiff gets $190 for the shoes. 

Second-

The Truck that Got Away-Plaintiff claims defendant gave her a truck, and defendant claims she said he could put it on her grandfather's property for a while.   Plaintiff is suing defendant for truck title, and for vandalizing her car.   (Both litigants were separated from their current spouses).  Defendant hadn't registered the truck in his name yet (he got the truck in his divorce).   Plaintiff did nothing to fix up truck, so her story that she keeps the truck if she fixed it up, is nullified.   Defendant gets the truck back, with the marshal's help.   Case dismissed.  

Convicted Felon Takes on Lawyer-Plaintiff/attorney suing former client  for skipping out on his legal bills.   Defendant says attorney didn't get him off, so he didn't pay her after the retainer.  Defendant was charged with forcible robbery, home invasion, and one other charge.   He was convicted on a 2011 case, and was still on probation for this when charged for the robbery.    

Defendant says the additional felony shouldn't have resulted in a sentence.   Even though he was on probation, he was released on bail after arraignment.   Attorney represented defendant at arraignment, and probation violation twice, and at violation hearing,  2013 arrest bargained down to dismiss two counts, and defendant only received probation,  after attorney bargained with the DA.   Defendant plead guilty to two counts, and received probation again.   $4500 to plaintiff. 

[pinkandsparkly13]

On 9/21/2019 at 6:42 AM, Byrd is the Word said:

The next time anyone receives a Nigerian’s offer to share millions with you and you ask yourself “who falls for this shit?” remember these two rock heads. Dumb and Dumber.  Oh, and Dumber has the temerity to arrive in court with a cement mixer full of attitude and hostility. I doubt even a jackhammer could crack either one of these thick skulls. 

I don’t know. There, I said it. Happy ladies? 😘

Maybe because this plaintiff considers her a “wild child”. So says the woman who’s “system” is so loud and annoying in a school type zone (with kids running around no less) that she can’t tell the difference between a big ass pole hitting her car and the sound of her favorite tune. I’m willing to bet that behind that big smile beats the heart of a nasty woman. 

My bf couldn't stop laughing during the case of the jackhammer guys regarding the guy on the glasses reactions.  He said "that guy is pissed!" Lol.

And I didn't like the plaintiff much in the little girl car case. Like "sure she's cute, but she's clearly a troublemaker" whatever she said. I know you need to have your kids under control, but they play sometimes. Sorry that a pole happened to fall on your car in the process. That's unexpected. Lol 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (new)-

Judge Kicks Man Out of His Own House-Plaintiff is of ex-girlfriend/defendant, who got an order of protection banning plaintiff from his own home, when he regained the house (three months later), he says everything was stripped.  Defendant and her children lived with plaintiff for five months, and then she filed for protective order. 

 She had left the home, and judge allowed her and her children to move back into the house, and banned plaintiff.   TRO was ex parte (plaintiff didn't get to testify or contest order).  Nothing in the application for protective order mentions that the home was plaintiff's.   The final decision, with two amendments, was man could move into his home, and applied for his possessions back.  Defendant took furniture, but returned it.  (Sometimes the person with the kids gets the best car, and the house, since the hearing for the protective order didn't include the facts that it wasn't her house, or the defendant's kids). 

Plaintiff gets washer/dryer money back, $1283. No estimate for damage repairs, so no money.   Defendant gets nothing.   

Tree Huggin' Father/Daughter Duo-Plaintiffs (father and daughter) suing neighbor for tree services, harassment, invasion of privacy.   Plaintiffs want tree service to remove branches from neighbor's yard that has branches over her house, and property, and they have written permission from the coop board.   Both parties live in a co-op.   (they own their mobile home, and the land is owned in common, and they all make the rules).  I already see what the plaintiffs are saying about defendant being the neighbor from hell.  (Note to plaintiffs, if you ever want to sell the mobile home, and get away from defendant, going on Judge Judy is not the right way to do it).   Defendant simply won't shut up.      (I think the tree hugging part in the title is because defendant claims plaintiff doesn't think animals belong inside)

Second (rerun)-

Nervy Son Sues Mother for Being Late-Plaintiff was late bringing back grandson, when she had been told the son and family had an appointment.  Plaintiff wants balance on an unauthorized account, cell phone, and some other stuff.  Plaintiff bought phone in 2015 for son, and put him on her phone plan.   Defendant also told plaintiff that he didn't want his son around a relative with a drinking problem.   However, the grandmother did have the grandson around this drunk, and her defense is that she didn't take him around the person when the person was actually drinking.       The defendant wife was going to take the child to the movies with them, and the plaintiff was over 15 minutes late.   $282 to plaintiff for phone bill

I suspect letting the plaintiff back into his life was a mistake for the defendant, and that's been remedied by now.   I also suspect the mention by Granny Dearest about the drunk relative not being around the 'grandkid when the person was drinking' was another passive-aggressive shot at the parents.    Also, I think there was nothing accidental about bringing the child home late, so it would ruin the movie plans for the daughter in law.   Grandma's comment about the son and girlfriend/wife not marrying was a low blow, and nasty as hell. 

Baby Daddy Blues-SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) bought a car with defendant (they have two kids together, and he's moved on to a wife), man paid on note for three years, then they broke up, and he turned he car back in to the loan company.    Defendant claims nothing was owed on the car, but plaintiff has a bill from collections and the loan company for $7,000+.    JJ's solution was for plaintiff to give social security number, address, and employer to loan and collection company, and tell them to go after ex-boyfriend.    

Edited September 25, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

TRO was ex parte (plaintiff didn't get to testify or contest order).

For the benefit of those of us who live our lives without violence, how the heck does she get a TRO that removes him from any residence without him being allowed to testify in his defense? I can’t imagine that he simply failed to appear. 

[funky-rat]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Nervy Son Sues Mother for Being Late-Plaintiff was late bringing back grandson, when she had been told the son and family had an appointment.  Plaintiff wants balance on an unauthorized account, cell phone, and some other stuff.  Plaintiff bought phone in 2015 for son, and put him on her phone plan.   Defendant also told plaintiff that he didn't want his son around a relative with a drinking problem.   However, the grandmother did have the grandson around this drunk, and her defense is that she didn't take him around the person when the person was actually drinking.       The defendant wife was going to take the child to the movies with them, and the plaintiff was over 15 minutes late.   $282 to plaintiff for phone bill (I suspect letting the plaintiff back into his life was a mistake for the defendant).  

I remember that one, and I remember thinking the grandmother was a complete troublemaker.  If you can't honor a request to keep a child away from a relative, then you don't belong taking the child at all, because you clearly can't follow directions.  Had we been able to have children, my husband said that they would have UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES spent any time alone with his mother.  I saw how she treated other people's kids when they asked her to babysit.  There was one or two she clearly favored, and treated the rest like crap.  One time she asked me about why I hadn't given her grandkids yet, and I reminded her she had several step-grandchildren (who she didn't treat well, but I didn't speak that).  She told me that they weren't blood, and it wasn't the same.  And with that attitude, I wouldn't have trusted her with an animal, let alone a kid.  I absolutely could have seen her doing the same thing.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, probably 2016, both reruns-

First-

Friendly Loan or Cry for Help-Plaintiff suing defendant /former friend for unpaid loans., $3600.  Defendant came to plaintiff with a tragic story, and needed money to save home from foreclosure.   Plaintiff had him sign his truck over to her as collateral for the loan.    Defendant says he did a lot of handyman work for the plaintiff, and he was never going to lose his house.  Defendant says the loan was up front payment for small handyman work.   $3600 to plaintiff, and defendant was unprepared.     

White Noise Leads to Homelessness-Plaintiff suing former landlord, for return of rent, hotel costs, and stolen property.    Plaintiff rented a room in defendant's house for $830 a month, and didn't stay a full month.  Defendant put an ad in craigslist, rented her the room weekly ($600 security, and $200 was weekly rent).   Plaintiff claims $830 was monthly rent, no security.  Landlord says her white noise machine disturbed the entire house, and so he illegally evicted her.   When plaintiff was evicted she stayed at a friend's place, and stayed in motels, and became homeless for months after this.  $2330 to plaintiff. 

Second-

Breaking Down Barriers-Plaintiff also says defendant, and her roommate were aggressive towards her.  Plaintiff says when switching sides of street, defendant went into plaintiff's driveway entrance, and hit her gate head on.   Plaintiff says she saw the gate bashing happen, and defendant was going into her house, and agreed to fix the gate.   Defendant claims in court she didn't hit the gate, and to call the police if she was sure.   Defendant claims she had car insurance on the date she offed the gate, but car wasn't smogged, or registered, and insurance wasn't in force at the time.   Defendant counter claims for false restraining order request by plaintiff, (against defendant and roommate).   There were several run ins with the roommate, and defendant.  Incident included trash can moving by defendants so they could park there.   Plaintiff filed for protective order after gate bashing, when a relative of the defendants was being aggressive, and made threats to plaintiff, and she has a witness.   $2550 to plaintiff, nothing to the jerk defendants. 

Get a Job-Plaintiff/aunt suing defendant/niece for using her credit card to buy $2600 worth of Christmas gifts, and not repaying the money.    Defendant is jobless, and has been for many years.   Aunt is 81, on social security, totaling $1,000 or so a month, and gets housing assistance from HUD.    Aunt works with Senior Corps as a tutor to children, and gets paid $2.65 an hour.   Despicable defendant says money was a gift.     Defendant blames everything on plaintiff's daughter, not her own spending.   $2600 to plaintiff.

[Silver Raven]

I really wish they hadn't left us hanging there, what was grandma being investigated by the FBI for?

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Call CPS If You Suspect Abuse-Plaintiff mother suing daughter, SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four) for unpaid utility bills.  I think mother just wanted the world to know there are two fathers each for the four children have different fathers, and past and current boyfriend aren't fathers of the kids.    Grandmother moved into place with defendant granddaughter, and was paying rent, some groceries, and other utility bill was in mother's name, without plaintiff's knowledge.    Mother/plaintiff found out the utility was in her name and had to get a payment plan to pay the bill.   Defendant daughter claims mother tried to use fraud to get utility bill paid out of her bank account, but failed.   

Counter claim by defendant is for filing a false CPS report, that the live-in boyfriend was abusing the children.    Defendant says FBI was investigating grandmother, and sadly, no one tells us what grandma was in trouble with the FBI about, so wanted her to leave.    $382 for plaintiff for utility bill, nothing for defendant.

Stiffed on $30K Rent to Own-Plaintiff suing defendant for money paid for Crown Victoria.  Defendant did some home repair jobs for defendant, and rented a house from defendant on a land contract (rent-to-buy on the property for $30,000 at 6%).    Defendant claims he paid his rent, but has no proof.   Defendant claims plaintiff gave him the Crown Vic. in return for driving plaintiff around, and she denies this.   Plaintiff decided to move back into the house, paid only three payments, and still owes two more.   Plaintiff says she sold him the car for $1250, but defendant says it was free in return for helping her.   

Defendant and son drove 12 hours roundtrip to where plaintiff was living, loaded a U-Haul for her, hauled it to the rent-to-own house.   She didn't pay them a penny for this.   Plaintiff case dismissed.    

Defendant claims plaintiff made false claims of domestic violence, and other criminal acts.   Defendant keeps the car. (At least I think that's how it worked out, 

Second (rerun)-

Children Trapped in a Skirmish-Plaintiff mother suing daughter for     .   Grandmother on father's side lived in rental house, with her daughter.    Fight between the two litigants when started when estranged husband of defendant was hired to work at plaintiff's house.    Defendant is alleged to have assaulted her two young siblings, but no police or medical evidence is submitted, so that's dismissed.    Plaintiff claims daughter trashed the house, after mother sent her an eviction notice.   Plaintiff daughter took bedroom sets, but no receipt available.    Defendant claims she bought her own washer dryer, but plaintiff has no receipts to prove she bought washer dryer. 

Plaintiff alleges house damages, but doesn't have before and after pictures, just after.   Defendant claims all of the junk left behind wasn't hers, and claims she was locked out so she couldn't clean.  No unpaid rent either.   Plaintiff says locks changed in February, after lease ended.   Unfortunately, the plaintiff works for the company that gave her the receipt, and is also the company that employs the ex-husband of defendant.    Defendant claims she left her laptop behind on move out, but that's the first thing anyone takes with them.    Defendant also claims the locks were changed days early, but plaintiff says it wasn't true.  

Defendant gets to pick up her dryer, and that's all anyone receives.

Collision He Said, She Said-Plaintiff suing other motorist for car accident.   Mother of plaintiff was driving the car, was going straight through the signal, with a green light.  Defendant was  turning left on a green light, without making sure it was clear.   Mom claims she was t-boned by defendant turning without checking on clear traffic lanes.  Plaintiff's insurance company paid for his car, minus the deductible.    Defendant's car was towed, and insurance company didn't cover the 2019 Jeep Cherokee, and dropped the insurance coverage, so he never reclaimed the car.  (No, no one understands how someone lets a brand new car go back over a $1700 impound and towing charge).        

Plaintiff gets $500 deductible back, but is not getting $4500 for using Uber and Lyft, and rental cars. 

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant did some home repair jobs for defendant, and rented a house from defendant on a land contract (rent-to-buy on the property for $30,000 at 6%).    Defendant claims he paid his rent, but has no proof.   Defendant claims plaintiff gave him the Crown Vic.

So unless I’m mistaken, Miss WAY Too Old for that nasal stud and Pippy Longstocking braids was only suing for the janky old Ford which would explain why JJ wasn’t hearing any of the rent to own nonsense. Uncle Fester gets the car because she gave him the title, he and the kid spent hours traveling and moving for her benefit and the car has almost 0 value. But it would also explain why Fester’s counterclaim was summarily dismissed because everyone watching knows he’s a SQUATTA.  My take away from this? The next time I’m driving from Chicago through Michigan, make sure my tank is full when passing through Jackson.

PS, the drive from Jackson, MI to Livonia takes only 1 hour or so and not 6. Unless, of course, you stop every 15 minutes for more cigarettes and cheap beer. No wonder she’s disabled. Her life choices would probably disable Batman. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[CrazyInAlabama]

I really disliked the plaintiff in the rent-to-own, Crown Vic. case.    I wonder if she misspoke about where they moved her from and to?   Or it included packing her stuff, loading and unloading the furniture at the old house?      I think the defendant was well rid of the woman, and her house.  

[Mrs Shibbles]

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

PS, the drive from Jackson, MI to Livonia takes only 1 hour or so and not 6. Unless, of course, you stop every 15 minutes for more cigarettes and cheap beer. No wonder she’s disabled. Her life choices would probably disable Batman. 

I believe the terminology she used was “I’m disability”