All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[funky-rat]

18 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

Am I the only one who is tired of the judges in these cases putting the onus on the lender?  I don't care if they had an expectation of the loan to be repaid or not, the idiot BORROWED money, and told the lender they'd pay it back by giving them some story that they'll have it in two months, their tax return, yada yada.  These are friends of the lender (usually) who come to them with a (usually) desperate need for money which the pigeon agrees to lend them.  They aren't going to ask for pay stubs or run an Equifax before forking over the bucks - heck they usually don't get an IOU.  I'm sure the borrowers don't give them a clear picture of their finances, and I'm sick of these judges with their "did you really think they'd repay it."  YES THEY DID, or they wouldn't have given it to them in the first place.   There's the occasional exception, but the lengths to which these deadbeat defendants go to justify not repaying them tells me they knew damn well it was a loan and that they were supposed to pay it back.  

When it's two non-related people, yes, I agree.  When it's family, that's a little different.  Family would, in most cases, know someone's situation more intimately, and whether they realistically thought they'd get paid back or not.  My mom "loans" me money, but she knows my financial situation has been dicey at times, and she knows I likely won't pay her back much of it.  We do try to do things for her and dad - move a gun safe in to the house - things like that, but my mom wouldn't sue me.  When there's more distant family, or family who was estranged but reunited, then there would likely be less knowledge, but some of these cases there would be no way they would expect to be paid back and I am inclined to feel a little less sorry for them.

[AuntiePam]

What an odious person.  "He came on to me so I didn't have to pay him back."  

And there's no way she's living on $742 a month, with two kids.  She's either getting other government assistance, alimony or child support. 

The other thing that bugged was the pitying tone she used when she said that her poor mother was unable to help her out.  Puh-leeze!

Plaintiff giving away his settlement -- been there, done that.  I assume it's a one-time payment and that the man will work again.  If it's a permanent disability settlement, he'll be getting monthly payments as well

It's a windfall, and of course he's going to help his friends. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, probably 2015-2016-

First-

The Picasso of Upholstery-Plaintiff wanted his boat seats, etc. reupholstered, and claims the "Picasso of Upholstery" damaged the boat.   Plaintiff bought 20 year old boat 7 or 8 years ago, and wanted it reupholstered.   $2200 was the upholstery estimate.    Boat needed to be lifted up so water would run out while it was outside the shop.   Upholsterer was supposed to use stainless steel staples, but used metal that will rust through quickly.   Plaintiff claims defendant didn't put seats, etc back.    Plaintiff is not getting $2200 back for upholstery, delayed payment for months, and had what he paid for done.   He saw the boat before he paid and picked it up, but said nothing about the boat, paid and took it home.  Case dismissed.

Blue Book Shmoo Book-Plaintiffs want car payments, and repairs back.  Plaintiffs were sure they couldn't get financed by a real car dealer, so they bought the car for three times Blue Book value from defendant.   Plaintiffs claim defendant scammed them into returning the vehicle.   Plaintiffs paid $500 down, plus $600 more.    Plaintiff says defendant said they either return vehicle, or he would report it as stolen.   Defendant says the plaintiffs flattened the tires, and threw the keys at him, and he had to have the car towed.   Defendant received $1400 for the $875 car (Blue Book).    $ 800 to plaintiffs.  Defendant ripped them off, usury in contracts is naughty, and he wanted three times what the car was worth. 

Second-

$2,000 for Lifelike Baby-This is about those very lifelike dolls people buy (I have heard of cases where people saw the dolls in cars, and thought they were babies, and broke windows).   Plaintiff wanted doll, disputed the credit card charges, then weeks later she stopped the dispute (the money was put back in defendant's account about 6 weeks later), then the money was taken out again (this had to be a dispute from the customer).        (I have to say that doll is seriously creepy to see).    The defendant made a police report for fraud, and the District Attorney told her to return the money, or the doll.   Doll was returned, and money had already been returned.     Plaintiff is suing for defamation, because defendant "defamed her in the doll community").      (Defendant says plaintiff has a nine year history of scamming people, and has used 31 different names).    Plaintiff case dismissed, and I hope the doll community paid attention to this case.    Defendant says the doll was damaged, and she had to repair it and sell at a loss, but it's already over.  Cases dismissed.  

Unwed Parents Payback-Plaintiff suing defendant for stealing his property.  Defendant pawned his property, and never redeemed it.   $500 to plaintiff for stolen items.   Defendant had laptop returned to her, so no money for her. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

2 hours ago, funky-rat said:

When it's two non-related people, yes, I agree.  When it's family, that's a little different.  Family would, in most cases, know someone's situation more intimately, and whether they realistically thought they'd get paid back or not.  My mom "loans" me money, but she knows my financial situation has been dicey at times, and she knows I likely won't pay her back much of it.  We do try to do things for her and dad - move a gun safe in to the house - things like that, but my mom wouldn't sue me.  When there's more distant family, or family who was estranged but reunited, then there would likely be less knowledge, but some of these cases there would be no way they would expect to be paid back and I am inclined to feel a little less sorry for them.

Agree when it's family.  I was pretty much referring to those people who lend money to their church friends, work friends, etc.  To me it's like they're giving these people a pass because the lender didn't interrogate them on their financial status before forking over the $500 they needed for tires, rent, etc.  Free money.  

The one issue I DO agree with, is when these people make additional loans to people who haven't paid them back for a loan already made.  Lend someone $1000 and then turn around and loan them another $500 four months later with the original loan balance still outstanding.  Sorry, no sympathy from me on that one.  I had a friend do that to me.  Borrowed $200 and didn't pay it back and had the nerve to come to me three months later begging me to lend her another $200 because she was strapped.  I simply said "sorry, but your credit line is closed."  Never did get the $200 back.  Considered it a life lesson.  

[SRTouch]

19 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Am I the only one who is tired of the judges in these cases putting the onus on the lender?  I don't care if they had an expectation of the loan to be repaid or not, the idiot BORROWED money, and told the lender they'd pay it back by giving them some story that they'll have it in two months, their tax return, yada yada. 

I've thought the same thing...... when someone asks for money I tend to think they're asking for a loan or charity - not a gift. I don't view a gift as something you ask for (unless of course it's some occasion where the giver asks the recipient what they want as a present). When someone complains they are having financial trouble and need x amount for rent/car payment and the person they're talking to offers to 'help,' I assume they're offering a loan - not a gift. If the person who borrowed* the money says they're not sure when they'll be out of the hole and able to pay it back, it doesn't become a gift when told 'don't worry about it' .... all that means is repay the loan in a reasonable amount of time. If there is nothing in writing and it ends up in small claims, I think the judge should determine the reasonable time frame for repayment.

*Added: maybe we should define "borrow" as so many of the litigants seem confused. Borrow us a verb meaning to "take and use (something that belongs to someone else) with the intention of returning it."

Edited October 25, 2019 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. rerun (I missed the new episode)-

(The first, new episode was a father suing his son for the dog back.    Father said that if son didn't go to college, but worked at a movie theater, then the father wanted the dog back.   JJ said son keeps the dog.     Note to father, if someone isn't ready to go to college, they won't do well, and it's a waste of money.   I bet the father wanted to choose the school, the major, and everything to do with school.    I bet the Dad had a therapist that always sides with the person that pays the bills, in this case it's Dad. ).

Second (Rerun)-

Siblings Nasty Text Battle- Plaintiff suing estranged brother, and his daughter for Kindle charges she didn't authorize, that were on her account.     Roto tiller she's suing for was several years ago, and she's not getting that back.    Plaintiff left home at 16, moved away, and they were friendly for the last 10 years, after she moved back to the home area.    Niece downloaded with plaintiff's permission, but she told her only free books.   Three overdrafts costs plaintiff $35 for overdraft fees.   However, plaintiff's withdrawals amounted to $130 which is a lot more than the three books, and did the overdraft herself, and that was a long time before the niece bought the ebooks.   

Defendant filed for a restraining order against plaintiff, after she sent nasty texts, and threats to kill him.     Defendant thought plaintiff got the point, and dropped the restraining order, it was also against plaintiff's daughter, and another relative.   Plaintiff has to get a nasty crack about defendant having restraining orders against him, and other rotten cracks.  Case dismissed, and defendant keeps the roto-tiller.  Hall-terview statements from plaintiff proves she's a very nasty person. 

Learn How to Pack a Box-Plaintiff was moving from her residence, and she's suing defendant mover for stealing items, and bad moving.  Plaintiff not sure when she moved, stiffed the landlord for January's rent, and someone else paid for her move.    Movers took her stuff, and moved it into storage.   Mover says she packed items herself, and packed food in boxes, attracting rats.        Plaintiff move was paid for by social services.     Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

On 10/24/2019 at 5:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. rerun (I missed the new episode)-(The first, new episode was a father suing his son for the dog back.    Father said that if son didn't go to college, but worked at a movie theater, then the father wanted the dog back.   JJ said son keeps the dog.     Note to father, if someone isn't ready to go to college, they won't do well, and it's a waste of money).

Didn't hear much from kid, so can't really say if kid loves/cares for the dog - though it does sound as though kid is spoiled slacker who mom is enabling, and may be just claiming dog to piss off pops. What did come through to me was that Dad is trying to blackmail son into going to college using dog as a tool, and not really attached to dog - even 14yo sis indicated dog primarily bro's. Son legally an adult, but really an immature kid who will cut nose off to spite Dad - especially with Mommy enabling him. No-win position for Dad. Mom better wake up or he'll be a middle-aged snowflake sponging off her the rest of her life

Edited October 26, 2019 by SRTouch

[Byrd is the Word]

56 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Note to father, if someone isn't ready to go to college, they won't do well, and it's a waste of money).

This. 

And as much as I did like the father, and the mother as well (if only for remaining silent and not joining the fight) it was telling to me the number of times he used the word “rules.” I’m all for boundaries and expectations that build character and a sense of responsibility, but in my experience both as a child and a parent those fathers who leaned hard on their rules often fell over and landed on their asses when the kids hit high school and you could no longer control them like you could see they were 12. And frankly, I’d rather see my son work as an attendant in a movie theatre then a day trader.  

[poeticlicensed]

Threatening to take away a child dog at 6 is an ok way to try to get them to comply but if you are still doing that at 18, then that's a problem

 I'll give the kid credit for recognizing that he didnt want to take on a huge debt. And I thought it was pretty rich that dad was so insistent that son should go to college to the extent that he threatened to take away his dog whilst not offering any financial support to go to college. Did anyone catch that dad has a gaggle of kid with his first wife plus has a baby with wife number 2? I realize that not everyone believes that parents should help pay for a child's education, but then dont insist they go. 

[Byrd is the Word]

9 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

Did anyone catch that dad has a gaggle of kid with his first wife plus has a baby with wife number 2?

In fact, there is no wife Number 2. He’s only separated from his wife; a separation that’s lasted 5 years. (What’s that about?) In the meantime he’s met another woman (who referred to in court as a “girl”) treats her kids as his own and then made a new baby with the girlfriend. The BITW Respect-O-Meter started pretty high in this guy and steadily dropped the more he talked. He presents himself as traditional dad with all the strict rules and expectations then revealed that he’s started a new family while still legally entwined with his wife. I wonder what HIS dad would say about all that. (Maybe he’d want to take his son's dog away also).

Also, if people don’t think long and hard before suing a family member they’re a special kind of stupid. Every one of the few such cases I’ve been close to has lead to a permanent fracture in the relationship. If the dog or the money or the f’ing Rototiller is worth it, have at it. But I brand you some combination of fool and jagoff when you sue your son over a dog that will likely die before the bitterness of the lawsuit subsides. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[KittyMom4]

@Byrd is the Word Yes to everything you said. At first I was firmly on Dad's side, and then I slowly started slipping down the bench to the other side the more he talked. The fact that Dad took his kid to court OVER A DOG tells me pretty much all I need to know. Pets and children should not be used as pawns to get your way.

Side note, I kinda got a "Duggar" vibe off of Dad: spawning a bunch of kids, living on what sounds like a farm with horses and such, and trying to control every waking minute of his children's lives....weird. 

[Byrd is the Word]

1 minute ago, BexKeps said:

@Byrd is the Word Yes to everything you said. At first I was firmly on Dad's side, and then I slowly started slipping down the bench to the other side the more he talked. The fact that Dad took his kid to court OVER A DOG tells me pretty much all I need to know. Pets and children should not be used as pawns to get your way.

Side note, I kinda got a "Duggar" vibe off of Dad: spawning a bunch of kids, living on what sounds like a farm with horses and such, and trying to control every waking minute of his children's lives....weird. 

Not to read too much into things but it might be telling that he was identified as a software engineer; a profession that's about precision, control and power...none of which are often present in life, particularly parenting.

[KittyMom4]

Gotcha @Byrd is the Word, that's a good point. I think some equate parenting with having to control everything they do, even if its harmless in the long run. It's too bad this guy is more interested in making sure he has the last word than building a relationship with his son,  that is what will have more of an affect on whether the kid ends up being successful in life. 

[khyber]

If the kid really wanted to go to college then he could start with 2 years of community college while living with mom and thus have no debt. Maybe he's just not ready to go yet. 

Got very strong "control" vibes from the father. He continually tried to interrupt JJ when it wasn't going his way.

[Byrd is the Word]

46 minutes ago, BexKeps said:

he has the last word than building a relationship with his son,  that is what will have more of an affect on whether the kid ends up being successful in life. 

Precisely. The end game here is to raise kids to be happy, productive, kind, respectful, responsible, etc. In the final analysis will suing your son over a dog mainly to prove a point yet likely fracture the father/son relationship improve the chances of that happening or harm them? I know which way I’d bet. 

[funky-rat]

18 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

And there's no way she's living on $742 a month, with two kids.  She's either getting other government assistance, alimony or child support. 

She's also gotten herself named as her son's caregiver, so there is more money involved in that, and he is likely receiving SSI.

16 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Agree when it's family.  I was pretty much referring to those people who lend money to their church friends, work friends, etc.  To me it's like they're giving these people a pass because the lender didn't interrogate them on their financial status before forking over the $500 they needed for tires, rent, etc.  Free money.  

The one issue I DO agree with, is when these people make additional loans to people who haven't paid them back for a loan already made.  Lend someone $1000 and then turn around and loan them another $500 four months later with the original loan balance still outstanding.  Sorry, no sympathy from me on that one.  I had a friend do that to me.  Borrowed $200 and didn't pay it back and had the nerve to come to me three months later begging me to lend her another $200 because she was strapped.  I simply said "sorry, but your credit line is closed."  Never did get the $200 back.  Considered it a life lesson.  

Agreed.  I was having trouble coming up with a decent response yesterday.  But agreed 100%, with my noted exception being family, but also agree on those who keep tossing people money.  At some point, you need to cut and run.

As for the dog fiasco, I'm again on the fence.  While the dad seems to be a control freak, the kid is a chronic slacker in the making.  I'd venture he's highly intelligent, and anything that doesn't come easily to him is "too hard" and not worth his time.  The whole Day Trading comment cemented that for me.  He sees it as easy money.  And with the dad insisting so hard on counseling, I'd venture there was more to the story there too.  The kind-of ex-wive gave off a really passive-agressive vibe to me, and I could see her being the type to would jade a kid - "Come with me and bring your dog.  I won't make you do stuff you don't want to do like your mean dad!".  The kid also had some odd accent that seemed to float in and out, leaving me to wonder if he studied abroad at some point.

Dad was too hung up on rules, chores, etc for sure.  But I also know that the longer someone puts off college, the less likely they are to go, and it's needed anymore - college or trade school, and the kid doesn't seem like the trade school type.  The "I don't want debt" comment seemed hollow to me.  He certainly won't be able to save enough for college working in a movie theater.  And I didn't hear his dad say he was refusing to pay for school.  He wanted the kid to look in to grants and things like that, and provided a detailed list, but the kid didn't do it.  A co-worker of mine put his kid through an expensive program at an expensive college, but he had her apply to as many grants and scholarships as she could to help lighten expensees, and take out student loans.  She couldn't get a ton of them either (that was something the kid last night said - there wasn't much in loans available to him, likely due to his family's income), but she did take some out.  Plus his mother is a realtor, and I didn't hear anything about her helping.

Not sure why their divorce is dragging on so long.  They both seem like somewhat miserable and somewhat manipulative people, so it shouldn't be a shock their kid turned out like he did.  Still, dad should have just let it go.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, khyber said:

If the kid really wanted to go to college then he could start with 2 years of community college while living with mom and thus have no debt. Maybe he's just not ready to go yet. 

Got very strong "control" vibes from the father. He continually tried to interrupt JJ when it wasn't going his way.

From little we heard, it sounded like Mom and Dad are pretty well off financially. I have no first hand knowledge, but wonder how that would affect son's application for financial aid. Also, my impression was that Dad started pressing him to apply late fall of senior year before graduation - again, no first hand knowledge, but seems late in the game to start looking into aid..... Still, depending on where they're located, some States offer great community colleges at a real bargain.

Edited October 25, 2019 by SRTouch

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

The end game here is to raise kids to be happy, productive, kind, respectful, responsible, etc.

Absolutely and this Dad seems to be off track in his approach. However, I think there is much more going on with the son than just conflict with an overbearing father. The whole back story of the son sitting around the house doing little but play with the dog and play video games, coupled with him moving in with Mom (who provides him free room and board) and getting a part time job which pays very little, sounds to me like the son has some serious problems. The fact that he left the one therapy session he attended (with father out of the room) very angry sounds like he didn't like what the therapist said and was completely resistant to outside professional input. Overall, this is a mess but I sadly see the son twenty years from now still living off his mother, working occasional odd jobs and sitting around Mom's house mostly playing video games. I hope he gets some kind of help because I think he needs it. YMMV as always.

Edited October 25, 2019 by DoctorK

[funky-rat]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

From little we heard, it sounded like Mom and Dad are pretty well off financially. I have no first hand knowledge, but wonder how that would affect son's application for financial aid. Also, my impression was that Dad started pressing him to apply late fall of senior year before graduation - again, no first hand knowledge, but seems late in the game to start looking into aid..... Still, depending on where they're located, some States offer great community colleges at a real bargain.

Fall of senior year is about the time you start putting in applications for scholarships, etc.  At least it was when I went to college, and was still that way a few years ago when I had friends with kids who were that age.  He likely wouldn't be able to get much aid in terms of federal student loans (and private ones are bad news), but there are scholarships and grants, which might help offset costs, and his dad gave him a list and he blew it off as "too hard".

4 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Absolutely and this Dad seems to be off track in his approach. However, I think there is much more going on with the son than just conflict with an overbearing father. The whole back story of the son sitting around the house doing little but play with the dog and play video games, coupled with him moving in with Mom (who provides him free room and board) and getting a part time job which pays very little, sounds to me like the son has some serious problems. The fact that he left the one therapy session he attended (with father out of the room) very angry sounds like he didn't like what the therapist said and was completely resistant to professional input. Overall, this is a mess but I sadly see the son twenty years from now still living off his mother, working occasional odd jobs and sitting around Mom's house mostly playing video games. I hope he gets some kind of help because I think he needs it. YMMV as always.

Perhaps (just a guess) the kid was blaming his dad for everything, and the counselor tried to get him to own up to his own actions (whatever they may be).  My late evil MIL was the type that only wanted to hear that nothing was her fault, and if a psychologist or doctor told her otherwise, she set off to find someone who would tell her what she wanted to hear.  Last night's kid reminded me so much of my brother-in-law.  While their mother abused my husband, she spoiled his brother - rotten.  I witnessed it.  It was mind-boggling.  He was kicked out of a number of schools, and basically floated through life while she did everything for him.  He had no plan post high school (he did graduate, but didn't apply to any colleges or trade schools) other than "to work the system".  He thought about the Army, and it would have done him good, but she didn't want her baby to go and talked him out of it.  When he got in to drugs, she made excuses.  When he'd get arrested, she'd pay for an attorney to get him out of the charges.  If he lost his job, he'd live with her.  He'd steal, and she'd blame it on his girlfriend(s).

She died, and he got arrested again and wanted their step-dad to bail him out.  He said "I'm not your mom, and I don't have the money.  I'll come visit you, but you have to take your punishment."  And he did.  And he's much better off for it.  We put money in his commissary and we wrote to him telling him he was going to come out of it stronger.  While I agree with the dad that letting that kid sit home playing video games all day is not doing him any favors, the dog was not a battle to pick.

The college the kid was accepted at - Embry Riddle - is a very specialized college.  You don't go there to get a degree in history.  You go to learn all about avionics.  They teach all aspects, but that's essentially what E-R is.  I'm not sure how hard it is to get in there, but it isn't cheap, and it's a private school.  Maybe that was the dad's dream and not the kid's?  The guy I dated in high school wanted nothing more than to go to E-R - he was a plane nut - he and my dad got along well.  Too bad he was an ass (my ex, not my dad).  In the end, he went to the college his parents went to - they were rabid alums.  And I'm confident they had a big hand in that.  Kind-of sad.

[bad things are bad]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

From little we heard, it sounded like Mom and Dad are pretty well off financially.

Yeah, how many houses did they mention having? 

[AuntiePam]

57 minutes ago, bad things are bad said:

Yeah, how many houses did they mention having? 

Just the two, both in Florida.  ??  He mentioned a trip to Spain too.  I haven't traveled abroad but I imagine even with discounts, taking the family to Europe isn't cheap. 

What got me was dad talking about how the son was supposed to "clean up after" the dog.  If the dog is house-trained, there won't be much to clean up, except for maybe some hair.  Keep the food and water dishes clean, that's about it.

The kid did speak differently in the hallway.  Much more clear and assertive.  

Dad's made him afraid to fail.  That's why he's taken such an easy job. 

[poeticlicensed]

5 hours ago, funky-rat said:

She's also gotten herself named as her son's caregiver, so there is more money involved in that, and he is likely receiving SSI.

Agreed.  I was having trouble coming up with a decent response yesterday.  But agreed 100%, with my noted exception being family, but also agree on those who keep tossing people money.  At some point, you need to cut and run.

As for the dog fiasco, I'm again on the fence.  While the dad seems to be a control freak, the kid is a chronic slacker in the making.  I'd venture he's highly intelligent, and anything that doesn't come easily to him is "too hard" and not worth his time.  The whole Day Trading comment cemented that for me.  He sees it as easy money.  And with the dad insisting so hard on counseling, I'd venture there was more to the story there too.  The kind-of ex-wive gave off a really passive-agressive vibe to me, and I could see her being the type to would jade a kid - "Come with me and bring your dog.  I won't make you do stuff you don't want to do like your mean dad!".  The kid also had some odd accent that seemed to float in and out, leaving me to wonder if he studied abroad at some point.

Dad was too hung up on rules, chores, etc for sure.  But I also know that the longer someone puts off college, the less likely they are to go, and it's needed anymore - college or trade school, and the kid doesn't seem like the trade school type.  The "I don't want debt" comment seemed hollow to me.  He certainly won't be able to save enough for college working in a movie theater.  And I didn't hear his dad say he was refusing to pay for school.  He wanted the kid to look in to grants and things like that, and provided a detailed list, but the kid didn't do it.  A co-worker of mine put his kid through an expensive program at an expensive college, but he had her apply to as many grants and scholarships as she could to help lighten expensees, and take out student loans.  She couldn't get a ton of them either (that was something the kid last night said - there wasn't much in loans available to him, likely due to his family's income), but she did take some out.  Plus his mother is a realtor, and I didn't hear anything about her helping.

Not sure why their divorce is dragging on so long.  They both seem like somewhat miserable and somewhat manipulative people, so it shouldn't be a shock their kid turned out like he did.  Still, dad should have just let it go.

JJ asked specifically if the parents were going to help financially with college. Son said no. Dad did not disagree. So I assume that son is on his own. 

I assume the family lives in FL. I am so surprised that they didnt try to steer him to community college. FL has a very strong CC system and half the kids at 4 year colleges in FL start at Cc. Embry Riddle is ungodly expensive and is focused on aerospace and avionics. Unless he has a passion, it's probably not a great choice for an 18 year old who seems like he doesn't know what he wants from life.

Edited October 25, 2019 by poeticlicensed

[springtime]

Dad was all about the son following the rules- Dad needs to work on his life first (Do as I say, not as I do)

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2015 or 2016-

First-

Witnesses on the Judge's Watch List-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for return of a car, assault and harassment.     Defendant claims he paid back plaintiff for car.  Two litigants bought car ($2000 paid by plaintiff), it was titled in both names (he's listed as lien holder on car).   Plaintiff witness is the baby momma to defendant's witness, who is also the defendant's brother.    When they broke up, he took the car, and claims him taking care of her kids equals paying for the car.   $1050 to plaintiff, and defendant can't sell the car because of title issues anyway.  

Disastrous Crash Into House-Plaintiff suing defendant for crashing into plaintiff's house.    Defendant claims to be postal employee, but there is no proof she's actually still employed.    Plaintiff husband says defendant was non responsive to bystanders, but still pressing on the gas, after she hit the house, and it looked as if she had a seizure while driving (plaintiff also says truck smelled like booze when they opened the door to help defendant).   Defendant didn't have car insurance,.   Defendant was coming from home at 9 p.m., when she hit the house with her pick up truck. Insurance has expired three months before the accident.   Plaintiff is fixing the house a little at a time, out of pocket, to avoid her homeowner's insurance going way up.    Plaintiff gets $5,000.     

Second-

Illegal Entry and Photo Shoot-Plaintiff (condo owner) suing former tenant for property damage, and HOA fines.    Tenant was given 90 notice that lease would not be renewed.  $1840 was security deposit.   Plaintiff moved back into her condo, and defendant moved to a unit next door.    Plaintiff didn't do walk through, but did send a list of security deposit deductions for damage.   Defendant claims plaintiff moved in early before defendant moved out.   However, plaintiff has pictures day after move out, and the condo has trash all over.  As usual, even though the defendant's dog used the back bedrooms as toilets, no rug money will be given to plaintiff.   HOA fines are still in play, for the defendant's dog that ran loose in common areas, damaged the common area rugs.     Defendant denies she hit the drive through gate, but that the gate hit her car.  Defendant's daughter is witness. and excuses everything her mother did.   Plaintiff and HOA claim defendant pushed traffic gate with her car, and not pushed it with her hands.     $525 to plaintiff.    I can't believe the HOA allowed the defendant to move back into another condo, after the damages. 

Malamute Mayhem-Plaintiffs suing for vet bills from defendant's Malamute attacking their small dog.    Plaintiff saw the Malamute loose again a while later.   Defendant paid first vet bill.    However, plaintiff dog later had a hernia, and they want to be paid for the dog's hernia surgery, $956.    Defendant swears the hernia wasn't her dog's fault, and has a ton of excuses for why it's not her fault, and claims her dog only got out one time.    Hernia was right next to the bite mark.    Defendant's dog has been off leash wandering at least six times after the attack, according to plaintiffs.    $1.002 to plaintiffs. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[configdotsys]

Does anyone else remember the weird parents who were suing their daughter for taking her cat on Christmas when neighbor was housesitting for them? They seemed very creepy and wanted the daughter arrested. They used weird terms: the mother said the daughter "crossed our borders when we weren't home" and their son who was a witness for the defendant daughter said he was forced out of the house as 17. There was a lot more weirdness there. The father in the dog case gave me that vibe.

I do think the son has problems. He sounded like he has a speech impediment and kept smirky smiling. It looked like it was a nervous condition so dad seems to have "ruled" with an iron fist. It looked like the father was on a total power trip. 

JJ usually skewers people who refuse to contribute to college for their kids. She didn't do that here.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

JJ asked specifically if the parents were going to help financially with college. Son said no. Dad did not disagree. So I assume that son is on his own. 

I thought Dad said the first time he was hearing about finances being a deal breaker was in the courtroom. My impression was he didn't think kid even applied for aid. Could be wrong, but here's my timeline for what happened 

1. Dad pushed kid toward college of Dad's choice
2. took him to visit campus
3. told kid he could take dog to Mom's if kid agreed to apply for aid and that dog would return to Dad's place while kid was attending school
4. Kid agreed to Dad's stipulations and moved to Mom's place with dog
5. Kid stopped communicating with Dad
6. Dad thought kid had applied for aid, but never heard results and now doubts applications ever put in. If they were, kid never told Dad they were denied and nobody ever discussed a Plan B.
7. Dad pissed because he figures kid failed to live up to their agreement and blew off college (with enabler  Mommy's help)
8. Loving Dad files suit

Edited October 26, 2019 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

8 hours ago, configdotsys said:

Does anyone else remember the weird parents who were suing their daughter for taking her cat on Christmas when neighbor was housesitting for them? They seemed very creepy and wanted the daughter arrested. They used weird terms: the mother said the daughter "crossed our borders when we weren't home" and their son who was a witness for the defendant daughter said he was forced out of the house as 17. There was a lot more weirdness there. The father in the dog case gave me that vibe.

I do think the son has problems. He sounded like he has a speech impediment and kept smirky smiling. It looked like it was a nervous condition so dad seems to have "ruled" with an iron fist. It looked like the father was on a total power trip. 

JJ usually skewers people who refuse to contribute to college for their kids. She didn't do that here.

Yes, the Dad vs son college case struck me as weirdly similar. I was wondering if maybe the 5 year legal separation w/o divorce might have some religious reasons.

Other possibility I thought of when I heard talk of multiple houses (originally in two different States) and I think businesses (multiple rather than just one business). I thought maybe business finances so complicated easier to separate personal/marital assets and just leave businesses alone -

I know, just thinking with no facts. But whole thing seems weird to me. Why would Dad legally separate & divide marital assets without getting divorce when he started his new family with the 'girl' he now has kids with

Edited October 26, 2019 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Graphic Designer Hell-Plaintiff suing graphic designer for $1,000 to do a website, banner, business cards, etc.    Plaintiff claims defendant didn't do the work, but defendant gave enough proof to the bank that the bank reversed the charges, and paid the defendant.    Plaintiff claims she had to pay someone else $600 to do the rest of the work, but has no proof of the work she had redone.    Plaintiff's witness keeps talking to the plaintiff.  JJ has to threaten to dismiss plaintiff's case to stop plaintiff's back talk.    $400 to plaintiff.  Plaintiff now goes off on JJ.   Plaintiff said she did get her website, and materials, and it cost her $600 to another designer, so that only leaves $400 to make plaintiff whole.  

Second (Rerun)-

Blind Chef Scammed by Employer-Plaintiff suing former employer for unpaid wages.    State of Arkansas paid defendant for hiring disabled employees and training them, he was also paid for providing transportation.    Plaintiff was actually working for free for defendant, but defendant received $12,000 from state for the $1,000 he paid plaintiff.    Defendant is paid $7k per employee for the training they give them, and then they get $3k more.   The defendant non-profit is for training them to work in the restaurant run by the non-profit, by the state of Arkansas.   Plaintiff was paid $1300+ for the entire year in salary, but the state paid defendant over 10 times that.   All of the employees transported worked at the same restaurant.   Restaurant owner stopped paying plaintiff for the last 4 to 6 months man worked in the restaurant.   Defendant was paid over $40k, but only paid the three employees $4,000 total.   $5,000 to plaintiff  

All Aboard Excuse Central-Plaintiffs are suing defendant for unpaid loan to buy a motorcycle, for $4500, but plaintiff kept $1,000 herself.    Defendant claims he repaid the loan in cash, and has no receipts.    Plaintiff didn't pay on the loan herself, but just paid when the defendant paid her.  Defendant paid $2406, from the $3500 loan.   $1.094 is owed on the loan, and that's what the plaintiff gets.  

[augmentedfourth]

Re: the dog case - While I'm sure there's some truth to the claim that Mom lets the son lounge around and do whatever he wants, I also definitely got controlling vibes off the father, to the point where I don't blame either of them for not wanting to live with him anymore. Much like Not-A-Prize Nancie the other day, Dad seemed utterly baffled when JJ wasn't agreeing with him and the case wasn't going his way. I don't think any of them are terrible people, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there was some shady stuff lurking beneath the surface. Community college sounds like it would be perfect for the son, in between Dad pushing him too much and Mom not pushing him enough. He was perceptive enough to sum it up perfectly in the hallterview - he'd like to have a relationship again with his father, but the guy DID just sue him [over something relatively petty, in my opinion].

[funky-rat]

16 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

JJ asked specifically if the parents were going to help financially with college. Son said no. Dad did not disagree. So I assume that son is on his own. 

15 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I thought Dad said the first time he was hearing about finances being a deal breaker was in the courtroom. My impression was he didn't think kid even applied for aid. Could be wrong, but here's my timeline for what happened 

1. Dad pushed kid toward college of Dad's choice
2. took him to visit campus
3. told kid he could take dog to Mom's if kid agreed to apply for aid and that dog would return to Dad's place while kid was attending school
4. Kid agreed to Dad's stipulations and moved to Mom's place with dog
5. Kid stopped communicating with Dad
6. Dad thought kid had applied for aid, but never heard results and now doubts applications ever put in. If they were, kid never told Dad they were denied and nobody ever discussed a Plan B.
7. Dad pissed because he figures kid failed to live up to their agreement and blew off college (with enabler  Mommy's help)
8. Loving Dad files suit

Dad didn't specifically disagree, but he did say that he wanted the kid to apply for grant and other aid first, and gave the kid a list of all of the things he needed to apply to.  JJ seemed to agree that was reasonable (as do I - grant and scholarship money doesn't need to be paid back - another reason his not wanting debt claim rang hollow with me), then she asked the kid if he did that, and he said yes, the dad gave him a list, but something to the effect of "it was hard" and that's where it was left.  I also don't believe he bothered.  I also got the impression that dad thought the kid was doing all of this, since the kid wasn't living with him at that point.

I agree that E-R might have been what dad wanted for him (I touched on that in an earlier post) - he seemed particularly proud that the kid was accepted there and badly disappointed he didn't bother.  And I agree the dad has control issues and needs to pick his battles more wisely, but I'm not going to put everything on the dad.  Not with the information the show presented.  I think there's plenty of blame to go around, and I think there's a lot more to that story.

[configdotsys]

23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Yes, the Dad vs son college case struck me as weirdly similar. I was wondering if maybe the 5 year legal separation w/o divorce might have some religious reasons.

Other possibility I thought of when I heard talk of multiple houses (originally in two different States) and I think businesses (multiple rather than just one business). I thought maybe business finances so complicated easier to separate personal/marital assets and just leave businesses alone -

I know, just thinking with no facts. But whole thing seems weird to me. Why would Dad legally separate & divide marital assets without getting divorce when he started his new family with the 'girl' he now has kids with

I hear you and wondered about the religious angle. Perhaps dad wants to prevent mom from getting involved with anyone else and won't divorce, meanwhile, he has "met a girl" and took her kids in as his own. What a prize.

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Graphic Designer Hell-Plaintiff suing graphic designer for $1,000 to do a website, banner, business cards, etc.    Plaintiff claims defendant didn't do the work, but defendant gave enough proof to the bank that the bank reversed the charges, and paid the defendant.    Plaintiff claims she had to pay someone else $600 to do the rest of the work, but has no proof of the work she had redone.    Plaintiff's witness keeps talking to the plaintiff.  JJ has to threaten to dismiss plaintiff's case to stop plaintiff's back talk.    $400 to plaintiff.  Plaintiff now goes off on JJ.   Plaintiff said she did get her website, and materials, and it cost her $600 to another designer, so that only leaves $400 to make plaintiff whole.  

Second (Rerun)-

Blind Chef Scammed by Employer-Plaintiff suing former employer for unpaid wages.    State of Arkansas paid defendant for hiring disabled employees and training them, he was also paid for providing transportation.    Plaintiff was actually working for free for defendant, but defendant received $12,000 from state for the $1,000 he paid plaintiff.    Defendant is paid $7k per employee for the training they give them, and then they get $3k more.   The defendant non-profit is for training them to work in the restaurant run by the non-profit, by the state of Arkansas.   Plaintiff was paid $1300+ for the entire year in salary, but the state paid defendant over 10 times that.   All of the employees transported worked at the same restaurant.   Restaurant owner stopped paying plaintiff for the last 4 to 6 months man worked in the restaurant.   Defendant was paid over $40k, but only paid the three employees $4,000 total.   $5,000 to plaintiff  

I thought the plaintiff in the graphic design case hurt her case by having such an attitude. I think JJ did not like her and that affected how the case went. Maybe I misheard it but I thought the defendant was supposed to print flyers or brochures or something and had sent her one in an email which she printed and brought to court. JJ kept saying, "Did you get this?" pointing at the flyer and the plaintiff kept saying that she only got it in an email, which technically means she did get a copy but she did not get the printed ones that the defendant was supposed to do. I thought the case felt very drawn out and my interest waned.

What a total racket the guy in Arkansas had collecting large sums of money for hiring people with disabilities, paying them pennies and ripping off the state for "transportation" costs. Yeah, Mr. "I call them people with abilities" was all about altruism. Right.

7 hours ago, funky-rat said:

Dad didn't specifically disagree, but he did say that he wanted the kid to apply for grant and other aid first, and gave the kid a list of all of the things he needed to apply to.  JJ seemed to agree that was reasonable (as do I - grant and scholarship money doesn't need to be paid back - another reason his not wanting debt claim rang hollow with me), then she asked the kid if he did that, and he said yes, the dad gave him a list, but something to the effect of "it was hard" and that's where it was left.  I also don't believe he bothered.  I also got the impression that dad thought the kid was doing all of this, since the kid wasn't living with him at that point.

I agree that E-R might have been what dad wanted for him (I touched on that in an earlier post) - he seemed particularly proud that the kid was accepted there and badly disappointed he didn't bother.  And I agree the dad has control issues and needs to pick his battles more wisely, but I'm not going to put everything on the dad.  Not with the information the show presented.  I think there's plenty of blame to go around, and I think there's a lot more to that story.

I thought the kid was using the "I didn't want to go into debt" as a line to make himself look better and avoid more scrutiny. Just a vibe I got. Totally agree that there's a lot more going on there.

Edited October 26, 2019 by configdotsys
close quote

[khyber]

Not sure where to post this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlxu5dDwhO0

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, khyber said:

Not sure where to post this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlxu5dDwhO0

That was so funny!  Especially the case where the litigants appeared "normal", and then the woman started to speak and half her teeth were gone.

And Jason Momoa -- does he hang out at 30 Rock or what?  It's not his first cameo.

(The clip is the First Impressions Court skit from SNL, with Chance the Rapper as the Judge.)

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably from 2015-2016-

First-

Exotic Fish Payback-Plaintiff suing defendants over lost wages, value of exotic fish, and travel expenses. over an aquarium fish selling business. Defendant claims they were business partners with the plaintiff.    Plaintiff says defendant never opened the physical store, but operates the fish business out of his apartment, and it's operated illegally because he's on welfare.    Plaintiff claims defendant wanted her to attend a fish convention on his behalf.  Defendant claims they were 50/50 business partners, and no money she gave him was a loan.     Counter claim is plaintiff tried to destroy defendant's business.   Cases dismissed.   

Skateboarder Tragedy-Plaintiff car owner suing skateboarder for damage to her parked vehicle, when he hit her SUV.    Defendant says plaintiff was in her car, but in the parking lot, and her car was moving.    Plaintiff was in the bank when the accident happened, and saw him hit her vehicle.  Police refused to show up, and take a report.   Skateboarder has never worked, but collects disability since childhood, and is sometimes homeless he still has a payee too.   Defendant claims a Jeep forced him off the road, into the parking lot, where he hit the SUV.      When plaintiff gave him the estimate for car repair, defendant said his SSI check can't be garnished for civil actions (he certainly knows all of the rules, doesn't he?).   $3,000 for plaintiff   

Second-

The Fixer-Plaintiff car seller, suing defendants (mother and son), for sale of a car.   Plaintiff saw non-running car advertised on craigslist, he paid $500, and towed it.   Plaintiff claims that defendants told him a family member had the title, and they would get it to the plaintiff in a week.   The defendants bought the car from a cousin, but claim they didn't know that cousin's ex-wife had to sign the title to transfer it, and never registered it in their name.    Plaintiff got the car running, bought an engine for it.     How cute, the scammer defendant calls the plaintiff a scammer.   $2500 to plaintiff, and he returns the car.   

Motorcycle Regrets-Plaintiffs are motorcycle owner, and a friend who paid to get bike out of impound.    Defendant was purchasing motorcycle, and make payments, totaling $2,000.   Defendant took possession of the motorcycle, chest protector, helmet, and gloves.   Defendant changed his mind about buying the motorcycle, and decided to return it, instead of paying for it, and reselling it.   Defendant hadn't paid any more for the bike, and didn't register it.  $800+ was the impound fee.   Plaintiff has the bike back, and will resell it.   The motorcycle gear has never been found.  Plaintiffs get impound fee, and money for motorcycle gear. 

[patty1h]

Landlord vs Mr "Hot As a Pistol":  I didn't like the motormouth and dramatic Ms Jennifer Zachreson.  Boy, did she have some thick torso/shoulder/chest ratio - those were linebacker quality.

I believe that she changed the lease and her tears didn't gain any sympathy from me.  The defendant was kind of dumb for publishing that gun photo with his history, but I think she was using any little angle to get the judge on her side.  I also didn't think JJ was giving her any slack for her continued use of "yup" instead of 'yes'.

[AuntiePam]

I wasn't sympathetic to Jennifer either, but I understand why she'd ask him to leave.  Why did she think she could keep his money?

How dumb, pretending not to know what JJ meant by "original". 

And yeah, built like a linebacker.  I bet those shoulders get sore.

[JD5166]

Poor Sr. Picture dad...I bet he loses any and all arguments with horrible mom and flat faced daughter. The pictures were fine, in fact made her look a lot better. This generation of instagramers has bred an entire generation of little snotty bitches, so disrespectful to a judge. 

Line backer lady was such a faker. If you’re afraid of the guy you give him his money back, I can’t believe JJ did t bring that up. 

Good cases today! 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Inappropriate Pistol Posting-Plaintiff former tenant suing former landlady for the return of rent, security deposit, hotel costs, and an illegal lockout.   Defendant claims she didn't know tenant had a criminal record (released from prison two years before, after a 15 year sentence), but plaintiff claims she knew about his history.  Defendant wanted a part time tenant, not someone who was at the house all of the time. 

Landlady's copy of the lease has alterations, about no women, no over night visitors, but that's in the landlady's handwriting, so she's the forger.    Landlady in tears when JJ finds out who is the forger.    Defendant tried to get a protective order against tenant, who never did anything to her.   Judge issued protective order without a trial, and the application for protective order is many pages long.   Defendant also claims someone broke into her house, and she suspects plaintiff.    (Note to defendant, when you're in tears, actually producing tears is effective, not producing tears is a dead give away you're a phony).    The plaintiff posted a picture on a dating site, with him pictured with a pistol, saying he's hotter than a pistol.   Defendant filed for protective order, and kept accepting rent before that.  Defendant told plaintiff to leave in April, and filed for the protective order in May.    Defendant keeps citing the lease provisions that are obvious phony additions.  (Defendant is slurping the Water that Must Not Be Drunk).     $300 security, plus $1200 (two months rent), to plaintiff.  Defendant claims to have a 10 year protective order against plaintiff.  

Second (Rerun)-

Slick Senior Picture Operation-(I remember this one, Defendant helicopter Mom gets booted by JJ)-Plaintiff suing defendants over a photo session for high school daughter's photo session.   It was connected with some modeling contest.    Senior photos are at a discount, but the 'model' pictures are free.  

Plaintiff photographer wants money a check that defendant stopped payment on for photo shoot proofs.    The proofs are unedited, and show the teen as a red head, but as plaintiff says would have been edited to the daughter's appearance.     Defendant helicopter mom claims she only received two photos, and daughter admits she received many more photos from the group sessions.        Helicopter mommy tries to charge the sacred desk of judgment, and Byrd stops her.   

Plaintiff's actual album photos look great.  Only one photo is not good.   Photos were $1243.+  for the 10 digitals, and the album.     Plaintiff didn't do the final album after the check was stopped.   The photographer's photos were in addition to the school yearbook's senior photos.   Defendant helicopter mommy gets booted, for talking constantly.   Photos on the daughter's phone are good, and daughter doesn't want them.   Photographer gets her initial $250 session fee.   Since defendant mother posted some of the photos, photographer gets $500 more, and it totals $750.     Daughter almost gets to join mommy in the hall. 

Edited October 28, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[littlebennysmom]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Inappropriate Pistol Posting-   (Note to defendant, when you're in tears, actually producing tears is effective, not producing tears is a dead give away you're a phony).   

Boobsie McGee was so annoying!  The fake tears, the mini breakdown that JJ refused to indulge, her perpetual wrinkled brow confused/concerned look were so ridiculous.  And if you're going to let someone rent a ROOM in your house, it's incumbent upon YOU to run a background check.  

[Burning Rubber]

Was this guy a murderer for real?

[Blissfool]

7 hours ago, Burning Rubber said:

Was this guy a murderer for real?

Yes. I googled him. He shot his girlfriend in the face in 2002. Claims it was an accident.

I tended to believe the defendant that it was the plaintiff who doctored the lease. Why, then, was half of the top line whited out?  The lease looked odd with the top line shortened.

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, Blissfool said:

Why, then, was half of the top line whited out?  The lease looked odd with the top line shortened.

As the judge pointed out, either someone whited out part of a line or someone added part of a line, she wasn't sure which. To me, it is probable that the extra stuff was added later for two reasons: first, making a xerox copy of a document with white-out on it (I remember back when we actually used that stuff a lot) the edges of the white-out show because the white out is never exactly the same color or brightness as the paper; second, it makes sense that the top line was short because the top line was a stand alone statement, and the rest of it was a stand alone statement.

[parrotfeathers]

33 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

As the judge pointed out, either someone whited out part of a line or someone added part of a line, she wasn't sure which. To me, it is probable that the extra stuff was added later for two reasons: first, making a xerox copy of a document with white-out on it (I remember back when we actually used that stuff a lot) the edges of the white-out show because the white out is never exactly the same color or brightness as the paper; second, it makes sense that the top line was short because the top line was a stand alone statement, and the rest of it was a stand alone statement.

This was one of the most interesting episodes ever!  I agree she was a whiney woman who was going way over board on the drama.  Glad he got his money back.  But that gun photo was really stupid.  Just as stupid to rent a room in a house with one bathroom to some stranger from an ad on FB.

[funky-rat]

1 hour ago, parrotfeathers said:

This was one of the most interesting episodes ever!  I agree she was a whiney woman who was going way over board on the drama.  Glad he got his money back.  But that gun photo was really stupid.  Just as stupid to rent a room in a house with one bathroom to some stranger from an ad on FB.

She was hoping to find someone like a traveling salesperson, who passes through an area at prescribed times (ie: once a week, one week a month, etc) who is loking for a place to stay that isn't a hotel.  Some companies will rent rooms on a monthly basis for their traveling staff because it's cheaper than a hotel (I wondered if rent was originally cheaper and she raised it since he'd be there full-time, because part-time rent is usually cheaper).  I stayed in a really nice apartment in a friend's building for a long weekend because they didn't have any short term rentals in there (holiday weekend) and I got the whole apartment for $60/night.  They rented that apartment to companies for short term tenants.  It was 2 bedroom, fully furnished and even had a washer/dryer.  It was nice to stay there for a few days.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

19 hours ago, littlebennysmom said:

Boobsie McGee was so annoying!  The fake tears, the mini breakdown that JJ refused to indulge, her perpetual wrinkled brow confused/concerned look were so ridiculous.  And if you're going to let someone rent a ROOM in your house, it's incumbent upon YOU to run a background check.  

So basically (not basically, that's a filler word) she was looking for somebody to rent that room and give her money, but not actually OCCUPY the room. And she was freaked out hyperventilating and looking skerred, and the next minute she was happy as a clam and laughing. Sure, Jan. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. rerun episodes, both probably 2015-2016 or so-

First-

Young Girls Salon Fail-Plaintiff sold unprofitable children's hair salon (after six months open) to defendant, and defendant didn't pay the full amount.    Salon was actually sold to the defendant's wife, and she didn't come to court, but her husband did, with a power of attorney from her.     Sold for $38000, defendants paid $20,549, leaving 17,500 or so.   Defendant brought no proof, and claims he paid all $38k.  Plaintiff gets $3,000.     I'm still not sure who is the liar here.   

2x4 Vandalism Victim-Plaintiff suing her former friend for assault, and vandalizing her car (defendant is plaintiff's best friend's boyfriend).    Plaintiff was at defendant's witness (defendant's current girlfriend) house, and the defendant and girlfriend were arguing.    During the argument, plaintiff tried to leave in her car, and claims defendant threw something at the car and damaged it.  Plaintiff gets $500 for car deductible.   

Second-

Death Threat and Racial Profiling-Plaintiff suing tow truck owners for false arrest, harassment, racial profiling, and tow fee.     Plaintiff car was towed from a parking lot he parked in over night, but it was illegally parked in an apartment parking lot.   Tow operators claims it's the Salvation Army permitted parking only lot, and they have a contract to enforce parking there.   After car was towed, plaintiff was told by police where car was at.  Plaintiff called tow lot, and was called a "Crazy Arab Guy" by defendants.    When plaintiff took the police, and cash, and with his witness they went to the tow lot, and defendants claimed to police that plaintiff threw rocks at their vehicles at the impound yard.   

Defendant wife claims plaintiff had a longer beard when she saw him at the impound yard, but claims he cut his beard off between the rock throwing/trespassing, and the next morning.      Case against plaintiff was dismissed on motion of prosecution.    Defendants didn't show in court to testify. 

 In the second arrest, plaintiff was sleeping in his car, had paid to be there, and in June plaintiff was arrested because defendant wife claimed plaintiff threatened to kill her.   Second case was also dismissed by D.A., because defendant used another name in the police report.   Plaintiff gets nothing for illegal tow, that's dismissed.     Plaintiff receives $5,000 for two false arrests, and enthusiastic applause by the entire audience.   

Check Bouncy House-Plaintiff suing former friend for two bad checks ($2920) that she cashed for him.     Defendant was remodeling her bathroom, and then she offered to cash the legit looking cashier's checks, the checks were both bad.   After the first bad check, when plaintiff gave defendant the money, she cashed another check for him.   After the two bad checks, the man claims he stayed with plaintiff and worked for her.    I can't believe she cashed the second check, after the first one was bad.   Plaintiff receives $2750, not the amount for the second check.  (Hallterviews are funny, defendant claims plaintiff is a saint, and the other people cheated him.    Plaintiff claims the out of town work for defendant was a stretch in jail.  )

Edited October 29, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AuntiePam]

Who are these young people who can afford to pay thousands of dollars for a dog?  They're not breeders and the dogs aren't show dogs -- so what the heck?

I do think that defendant agreed to pay something for the dog.  French bulldogs are trendy, and even if it's 18 months old, it's worth money.  And even if defendant's dog wasn't registered, that doesn't mean that puppies couldn't be sold.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Paying the Puppy Premium-Plaintiffs suing for value of French Bulldog puppy (for $3500), and dog took too much time and effort, so they gave the puppy to defendant.    Now they are suing for the value of the puppy, defendant had another Frenchie.     One plaintiff took puppy to defendant's house, puppy was over a year old by then.    As JJ says, the puppy was smaller and more valuable as a puppy, than it was a year later.   Plaintiffs now want $3500 for puppy they didn't even want.    Defendant's male puppy is unregistered, and plaintiff claims she thought both dogs were registered, and breeding more puppies would be very profitable.   There is nothing in the text messages stating a price for selling puppy to the defendant.    (My guess, plaintiff finally realized that if she wanted to breed puppy, that she would have stud fees, pick of litter, and might not break even).    Defendant gave puppy to a good home.  Case dismissed.   (Frenchies seems to be getting popular, and about the time people find out a good one can go for $3500 to $5000, then people who don't know anything about breeding dogs decide they will get a couple of dogs, and make a fortune). 

Incarcerated Ex-Girlfriend Payback-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for an unpaid car loan, and buying furniture in plaintiff's name.     The litigants dated between incarcerations of defendant (she's a home health aide!).     Defendant is currently driving her sister's 2019 Kia Sorento (for 9 months so far), but defendant is making the payments, and hope it has insurance.   Car wasn't up to defendant's standards, so she told plaintiff she needed a new car, and plaintiff told her to forget it.   Defendant abandoned the car, and it was repossessed, unfortunately there is a shortfall.    If plaintiff receives $5k, and it will go to the credit union, if they want to settle for the $8k current total.  

Second (Rerun)-

Therapy Pit Bull vs. 8-Year-Old Child-Plaintiff suing for dog attack ($997 vet bill) by a pit bull that was being walked by an 8 year old child, and the child couldn't stop the attack.  Defendant keeps claiming the pit bull is a therapy dog.      Plaintiffs are suing neighbor after pit bull attacked their Labrador.    Plaintiff's dog was on leash, when pit bull attacked.    An 8 year old was going to walk the Pit Bull, but defendant doesn't remember the kid's name.   Plaintiff says Pit dragged boy across a neighbor's yard, when it attacked the first time.   Then Pit slipped the collar, and the Pit attacked the Lab again.   Defendant was watching the 8 year old, for the kid's parent, and can't remember his name, and hasn't seen the child since the dog attack.  Defendant claims plaintiffs were trespassing, and her dog attacked because it was protecting the 8 year old.    Defendant claims plaintiff was hitting woman with the leash, not at the dog.    Defendant lied to Animal Control on the day of the fight, and claims she didn't see fight happen.    Plaintiff sent certified letter with vet bills to defendant who did not reply.    Sheriff's department officers arrived, and stated they had a history with the address residents, so they stuck around until animal control showed up.  As JJ says, defendant either lied to Sheriff deputy, and Animal Control, or lied to JJ, (note to defendant, this is not a cocktail party, so don't dress like it is), and defendant says she lied today.   I hope the Sheriff's department saw this, or JJ forwarded a copy.     $997 to plaintiffs. (and JJ goes off on defendant big time, very enjoyable).

Alabama Child Support Drama-Plaintiff suing ex-wife for collecting extra child support that she accepted and kept after child turned 19.   Plaintiff gets $945 back.    

Edited October 30, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Benjamin Button. Heh.

[nora1992]

13 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Who are these young people who can afford to pay thousands of dollars for a dog?  They're not breeders and the dogs aren't show dogs -- so what the heck?

I do think that defendant agreed to pay something for the dog.  French bulldogs are trendy, and even if it's 18 months old, it's worth money.  And even if defendant's dog wasn't registered, that doesn't mean that puppies couldn't be sold.

Defendant admitted to paying $5500 for her puppy, so $3500 was a discounted price.  I believe the plaintiffs; the defendant didn't live up to the deal.