All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Mrs Shibbles]

1 hour ago, augmentedfourth said:

Yep, I also caught the "again" on the lost dog post.

So you know how we sometimes criticize JJ for jumping to conclusions and making determinations before she hears the actual cases, etc.? Well, today was one of those days where the second I saw the defendant in the dog/chicken case and the bitchy look on her face, I just knew she was guilty of whatever she was being accused of. And she did not disappoint.

I would have ruled against the defendant simply based on said bitchface. 
 

I caught the  “AGAIN” on the post too.  What a piece of crap woman.

[littlebennysmom]

31 minutes ago, Mrs Shibbles said:

I would have ruled against the defendant simply based on said bitchface. 
 

I caught the  “AGAIN” on the post too.  What a piece of crap woman.

Both wife and husband defendants were hot garbage.  The husband tried "I'm an Iraq vet, that was my support dog!" to garner sympathy.  Doesn't he realize that makes both of them look worse?  If indeed he was that vital to your daily functioning, why and how has he gotten out of your yard more than once?  Why wouldn't you do everything you could to assure that didn't happen again?  

These idiots are the kind of people that sue because their kid, Lil' Bitchface, breaks into a secured yard and injures themselves on someone else's property.

I feel sorry for their Great Dane who I'm sure is plotting his next escape.

Edited February 19, 2020 by littlebennysmom
Typo

[augmentedfourth]

18 minutes ago, littlebennysmom said:

Both wife and husband defendants were hot garbage.  The husband tried "I'm an Iraq vet, that was my support dog!" to garner sympathy.  Doesn't he realize that makes both of them look worse?  If indeed he was that vital to your daily functioning, why and how has he gotten out of your yard more than once?  Why wouldn't you do everything you could to assure that didn't happen again?  

These idiots are the kind of people that sue because their kid, Lil' Bitchface, breaks into a secured yard and injures themselves on someone else's property.

I feel sorry for their Great Dane who I'm sure is plotting his next escape.

Well, don't forget, someone obviously could have stolen the dog because it was worth $1200! The defendants even had a receipt! Yes, I'm sure one of the neighbors took the $1200 dog out of the fenced-in yard, just to let it loose to kill some chickens. Sounds about right.

[Florinaldo]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Dumpster Diving, Meth Use and Theft-

What a reversal of demeanors in the audio that was played. The calm and respectable older gent turned out to have quite the abusive temper and potty mouth, while the nervous and fidgety defendant kept her cool during this exchange despite the numerous insults he was throwing her way.

14 hours ago, littlebennysmom said:

The husband tried "I'm an Iraq vet, that was my support dog!" to garner sympathy. 

Actually, I believe he does need a service dog for his PTSD, caused by living with such a loathsome person as his wife.

The "service dog" is one of the frequent sympathy arguments litigants try, like "I am a single mother", "it's a rescue animal", "I am just a woman so I do not understand anything about car sales or financial matters",  or wearing a big-ass neck cross that just happens to hang outside your shirt. Thankfully, these strategies never work.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Florinaldo

[nora1992]

On 2/16/2020 at 7:27 AM, Florinaldo said:

4 weeks is a short time to invoke desperation as a motive for your actions.

@AuntiePam offered suggestions as to what the mother could have done. She could also have sued him in small claims for not making payments (I don't think it was made clear if he did or not). She could also have removed him as an authorised driver and asked Hertz to handle the repo.

It's sad she found herself in that situation, but it was of her own making and she jumped to a rather extreme solution.

When you're being billed for money you don't have and can't afford to pay, and realize you've fallen for the promises of someone who doesn't care that you can't pay the rest of your bills, you are desperate.  Was she foolish for signing in the first place?  Yes.  But who here can just watch patiently while the bill balloons?  The discussion of what she tried to do with Hertz was shutdown; her first resort DID involve the company.  And take him to small claims court?  He didn't have the assets to rent his own car; what would be the point of a judgment? 

If you've never been in that situation, you won't understand how the worry takes over and you can't do anything until the immediate problem is fixed.  

If the defendsnt had taken his mother's debit card and drained her bank account, he'd be guilty of theft.  Adding a third party to the mix doesn't absolve him of guild.

Edited February 19, 2020 by nora1992
Clarification

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

The "service dog" is one of the frequent sympathy arguments litigants try, like "I am a single mother", "it's a rescue animal", "I am just a woman so I do not understand anything about car sales or financial matters",  or wearing a big-ass neck cross that just happens to hang outside your shirt. Thankfully, these strategies never work.

Never fails to irritate me when people claim their pet is a "service" animal when they are really talking "emotional support" animal. It's not as bad as it once was when you could buy a certificate and vest without any proof of training or of being of any special "service." But the result of all these untrained pets being called and sometimes treated as actual "service" animals means, all too often, people aren't going to believe the real service animal when they meet one. Otoh, not sure we need to label animals as emotional support, since all my critters provide me with emotional support...... sure, I guess a fragile person may function better with a loving but untrained animal - but not sure I agree with a law allowing that person to inflict the untrained animal on the public at large (or a landlord).

Edited February 19, 2020 by SRTouch

[KittyMom4]

On 2/14/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(A rather popular local specialty cake shop here charges a lot for delivery.   However,  if you pick it up, and do set up yourself, you are responsible for the cake from the second you pick it up.    The cake stands the plaintiff had were very light weight plastic, they looked like Dollar store items.     And the price the bride received of $4.00 a slice was really cheap compared to what other stores charge, plus delivery and set up).    

I'm always amused by people who want a Kardashian Wedding on a white-trash budget, I felt for the bride about the cake falling but you get what you pay for. If she wanted a 4-tiered bejeweled wedding cake she should have gone to a bakery that could provide her with EVERYTHING she would need. I give kudos to the defendant for being upfront in saying "yea, that's not in my wheelhouse." but she should have declined to even attempt to stack it unless she provided the correct cake stands to do so. 

On 2/18/2020 at 1:51 PM, Lady Iris said:

Did I hear correctly that the plaintiff, who looks like he's got to be in his 60's, his daughter is 13?

Did you hear the halterview where he said he doesn't date 20 year olds?? He was 60+ with a 13 year old daughter, wth?????  

22 hours ago, DoctorK said:

When they showed the lost dog FB posting from the defendants, I clearly saw that they said their husky was missing AGAIN (same for the Great Dane I think I saw). This is key, the defendants were on notice that their fencing is inadequate

My husband caught that as well and was surprised that JJ didn't latch on to that. Those defendants were despicable and nasty. Him and his PTSD service dog excuse which was a load of crap, and her with her sneer and defiant head slant, I wanted to slap them both. If I were those neighbors I would be fencing my pet chickens pretty darn quick because there was no remorse on the other side of that courtroom and I wouldn't be surprised if this  happened again. 

[Zahdii]

Had a family that lived a couple miles away, and they couldn't be bothered to contain their dog, who was known for roaming, although this dog was just after impregnating other dogs.  After years of this, I saw the owner in a store crying that her dog didn't come home one night and the family found his body dumped in a nearby ditch.  He'd been shot.  She was begging for someone to baby her, and the most she got was a "sorry that happened.  Do you know who did it?"  She sniffed out that it could be anyone, people were always telling her to keep her dog home.

[SRTouch]

48 minutes ago, Zahdii said:

Had a family that lived a couple miles away, and they couldn't be bothered to contain their dog, who was known for roaming, although this dog was just after impregnating other dogs.  After years of this, I saw the owner in a store crying that her dog didn't come home one night and the family found his body dumped in a nearby ditch.  He'd been shot.  She was begging for someone to baby her, and the most she got was a "sorry that happened.  Do you know who did it?"  She sniffed out that it could be anyone, people were always telling her to keep her dog home.

So, basically she knew for years that neighbors were not happy with her dog roaming, but didn't care....... yeah, if she had come crying to me I'd say I'm sorry to hear the news, but I'd be sorry for the dog - not the owner

Not to mention who knows how many unwanted puppies.

Edited February 19, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Voter Fraud and Rabbits-Plaintiff is sing her former foster daughter for the  she claims she stole from her home.     Plaintiff committed voter fraud, by filling out the provisional ballot for the defendant, and put it in the ballot box (totally illegal).     Plaintiff was foster mother off and on, for several years.    Defendant claims plaintiff changed the locks, and wants her property back that she couldn't get out of the house.    After the first time defendant was removed, defendant claims plaintiff committed Social Security fraud, and it's still under investigation.  Plaintiff has done a bunch of internships for SICU (a union) (unpaid too).    When defendant went to the polls to vote, she was told that she had already voted.  Defendant has charged the desk twice, and Byrd is not happy.     Defendant will receive her sewing machine, rabbits, and items at the plaintiff's home (she will retrieve her items with a police escort). 

 Plaintiff's buddy lies to JJ, after plaintiff gets snotty with JJ.    I hope the local foster authorities will bar the plaintiff from having foster children. 

The items that plaintiff claim were stolen by defendant, were all gifts, including the cell phone.   

 B$*#& plaintiff sasses JJ about the cell phone defendant has, when told to forget it.    Plaintiff will get tablet back when defendant picks up her stuff.   Case dismissed.     

Judge Reveals Secret to Living Longer- (The secret from a gerontologist is: To live to be 100, don't fall)-Plaintiff is suing over damages to his vacation rental (a condo in Florida).   Defendant and his mother, plus others were staying at plaintiff's place.   Ceiling fan wouldn't turn on.   So 83 year old mother stood on bed to pull the chain, and fell off the bed., and hit and broke a wall of mirrors during her fall.   Defendant claims the mattress wasn't firm, and that caused his mother to fall (he's counter suing for $3k for pain and suffering).   For once, the plaintiff has pictures before and after.   Defendant's mother didn't go see the doctor, and wasn't hospitalized.    $540 to plaintiff to fix the mirror.     

Second-

Stealing Power- Plaintiff suing former potential landlord for a refund of rent and emotional distress for a house.   There was no power, and it would take a couple of weeks to get the lines connected.  Power line to house was disconnected because a previous tenant had stolen electricity from the city of Detroit.    House didn't have power until almost a month late.     When plaintiff goes back to Detroit, she and her family have no where to live.   

The landlord had to replace the hot water heater, water line, plumbing, and fixtures.   $1200 to plaintiff.    Plaintiff is not interested in moving into the landlord's slum.    

Rats in the House-Plaintiff was renting a beach house in Oceanside, CA.   Home was remodeled by the owner, and on the second year, plaintiff rented the house.   Plaintiff left a month early, and security deposit was used for last month's rent.   Plaintiff wants her security, and rent back.   

Plaintiff claims there were rats, and she should get her security deposit back because the home was infested with rats.   Lease says that pest control is tenant responsibility, inside or outside of the house.    Landlady had pipe holes filled in with foam (if anyone does this, then used the dark orange fire rated foam, it dries like concrete), and other holes patched. 

   Plaintiff moved out a month early, but the rats were gone by then.   Plaintiff moved right into another rental home that was leased before the end of her lease from defendant.    There is no way the plaintiff's timeline isn't a lie, because she sent notice with the new home address, before she even gave notice.   Defendant/landlady thinks plaintiff wanted to move closer to her sister, and new home is closer.  Lease was signed on the new place in the end of September.     Plaintiff sent an email to defendant asking about renewing the lease, and the monthly price, three weeks after plaintiff signed the lease on the next place. 

Plaintiff case is dismissed, because she's a freaking liar 

 

[VartanFan]

7 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

What a reversal of demeanors in the audio that was played. The calm and respectable older gent turned out to have quite the abusive temper and potty mouth, while the nervous and fidgety defendant kept her cool during this exchange despite the numerous insults he was throwing her way.

Don't get me wrong, the older guy had a temper, but she was taping and knew she had to come across as a 'butter wouldn't melt in my mouth' kinda gal.   This whole thing shouldn't have been more than 1/2 of a single episode.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Head-On Collision Chaos-Plaintiff bought car for his daughter, but ex-wife took the car, was in a head on collision, received $4700 from the insurance company.   Defendant kept the money from the insurance company, and plaintiff is suing for car money, and clothes for daughter.  The litigants have been divorced for 14 years.    Defendant has always paid child support for his two daughter, and even when daughter lived with father, mother has never paid child support. 

Defendant bought a car for daughter, but mother had it until daughter received her license.   However, mother drove the car, and a month later had an accident with the car.   Ex-wife received $4700 for car, and spent it on her own living expenses (for defendant, her older daughter, and another child by someone else).  JJ is right, money should have gone to daughter, so she could buy a car when she goes to college.  

$4700 to plaintiff.   

Cruise Scam and Defamation-Plaintiff is in the novelty business, and booked a cruise through defendant/travel agent.   Cruise cost just under $1,000, then plaintiff cancelled the cruise.  Defendant kept the service fee for booking the cruise, which I think is right.   Plaintiff claims the defendant scammed her, and defendant claims contract talks of the cancellation policy.   Plaintiff received all but $400 back by Royal Caribbean, but defendant kept his booking fee.   $400 to plaintiff, defendant case dismissed.  

Second (New)-

Sale or Sham?-Plaintiffs bought trailer from defendant, and they were going to resale to plaintiff's witness.   Plaintiffs paid $450 for trailer, and defendant said the trailer title was lost, but defendant would look for it.   Trailer was originally bought by defendant and husband.   Then the  husband left, they are still married, but she's in court with a current boyfriend, and probably her future child's father.   Plaintiff say defendant didn't say trailer was owned by defendant's husband, the way defendant says told plaintiffs.    What a liar the defendant is.    Plaintiffs took trailer home, put new tires on it, 

Then the police showed up, with handcuffs in hand.   Plaintiff showed bill of sale to police, the police said they would pick up the trailer, and trailer was placed on the street, per police instructions.    Trailer was finally towed to impound.    JJ boots the loser defendant's boyfriend that is a snotty nosed, butt in sky.    Defendant claims she offered a refund for $450 to plaintiffs.   

JJ advises buyers to get a title in hand, and not trust someone to get a title later.   It turns out the trailer does belong to the defendant, but her husband.   

Plaintiffs receive $650.

Barbershop Bathroom = Free Room?-Plaintiff suing former friend for unpaid balance for a bathroom he built in defendant's barbershop.  Plaintiff was in in-patient drug rehab for a month, and then five months of outpatient program, court ordered.   Plaintiff built the bathroom in the barbershop for $3,000.   Defendant says he would find a place for plaintiff to stay, with a friend.     Plaintiff lived with defendant witness for six months.   Defendant witness is a contractor, and says the bathroom plaintiff built was defective, and nothing in it ever worked.  

Plaintiff has no written contract.   Plaintiff took two months to build the bathroom.    Case dismissed, plaintiff did a bad job, got six months of free rent, and had no contract.  

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, VartanFan said:

Don't get me wrong, the older guy had a temper, but she was taping and knew she had to come across as a 'butter wouldn't melt in my mouth' kinda gal.   This whole thing shouldn't have been more than 1/2 of a single episode.  

Yep, and 1/2 of a single episode is about all I watched ........ maybe a mistake judging by comments, as I saw D try to introduce her recording, but had stopping watching before what sounds like P's hissy fit/meltdown

[AuntiePam]

In the trailer case, plaintiff was allowed to speak at length about what he was told by DMV when he tried to register the trailer.  JJ usually shuts that down as hearsay, but she didn't like the defendant, so plaintiff talked as long as he wanted.

[Toaster Strudel]

10 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

What a reversal of demeanors in the audio that was played. The calm and respectable older gent turned out to have quite the abusive temper and potty mouth, while the nervous and fidgety defendant kept her cool during this exchange despite the numerous insults he was throwing her way.

Fidgety was recording the conversation, she was on her best behavior.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Fidgety was recording the conversation, she was on her best behavior.

Of course she had the advantage of knowing the thing was being recorded; but it is still a wonder that the nervous wreck we saw on the stand managed to get herself under control for several minutes under that verbal barrage.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Cruise Scam and Defamation

Add another profession to the list of businesses JJ hates: travel agents. I think it is quite reasonable that the agent's booking fee would be non-refundable. He did the work after all. However, it should certainly be made more explicit in the written exchanges with customers. Not that it would have made a whiff of difference with JJ because her mind was made up from the very start.

[KittyMom4]

18 hours ago, Zahdii said:

Had a family that lived a couple miles away, and they couldn't be bothered to contain their dog, who was known for roaming, although this dog was just after impregnating other dogs.  After years of this, I saw the owner in a store crying that her dog didn't come home one night and the family found his body dumped in a nearby ditch.  He'd been shot.  She was begging for someone to baby her, and the most she got was a "sorry that happened.  Do you know who did it?"  She sniffed out that it could be anyone, people were always telling her to keep her dog home.

The only thing I feel sorry for here is that poor dog. Idiot owners should be shot and dogs should be rehomed to responsible, caring owners. 

[khyber]

13 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

In the trailer case, plaintiff was allowed to speak at length about what he was told by DMV when he tried to register the trailer.  JJ usually shuts that down as hearsay, but she didn't like the defendant, so plaintiff talked as long as he wanted.

Maybe its because his witness was with him at the DMV and could corroborate what was said.

[AuntiePam]

40 minutes ago, khyber said:

Maybe its because his witness was with him at the DMV and could corroborate what was said.

Maybe, but it's still hearsay.

JJ may have allowed it because what plaintiff said was exactly what the DMV would have told him, and JJ knew that.  He wasn't trying to blow smoke. 

[SRTouch]

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Add another profession to the list of businesses JJ hates: travel agents. I think it is quite reasonable that the agent's booking fee would be non-refundable. He did the work after all. However, it should certainly be made more explicit in the written exchanges with customers. Not that it would have made a whiff of difference with JJ because her mind was made up from the very start.

Absolutely - travel agents provide services irregardless whether the customer ever takes a trip.

Problem is that this is another area where JJ has no clue how folks without private jets and multiple homes live. Guess that's what happens when you own multiple mansions on both coasts (plus a couple in Italy, IIRC) along with a private jet to hop on when you want a change of scenery.

Edited February 20, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Professional Driver Crash-Plaintiff suing defendant for car insurance deductible, over a car accident, when defendant made a U turn in front of him.         Plaintiff was going straight, defendant was behind the plaintiff, went to turn right, then made a U-turn instead, and when defendant crossed in front of plaintiff, and defendant was hit.       Both litigants were insured on the date of the accident.  

Defendant was a school bus driver at the time.   Defendant witness (passenger with defendant) swears she saw the cell phone light on plaintiff's phone reflecting on his face.   She testifies she could see him looking down at his phone while he was driving.    Defendant's insurance declined to pay his deductible, because he was on the phone.   Case dismissed.   

The Ultimate Sister Betrayal-Plaintiff suing sister for unpaid dental work charges.   Plaintiff opened a dental care charge card, to pay for defendant sister's dental work, and defendant refuses to pay.   

Defendant says the extra dental work was the plaintiff's fault.   The care credit bill is $7,013.    Defendant admits that the bills are hers.   Defendant claims she paid $550, but left the proof at home.    Defendant's defense for not paying the dental charges is that sister punched her in an argument over defendant boinking plaintiff's guy.   Actually, the argument with plaintiff was when defendant was in the hospital having the plaintiff's boyfriend's baby (this is defendant's second kid with the same man).  After the dental work, defendant refused to pay after she found out plaintiff was seeing the sleazy boyfriend again.   Plaintiff is still seeing the father of defendant's kids.   

Plaintiff receives $5,000, leaving her still $2000 in the hole.   

Second-

High at Work?  You're Fired-Plaintiff /former part-time employee was fired by defendant for coming into work high.   Plaintiff is suing for a motorcycle, and tools that he stored at defendant's business warehouse.      Plaintiff worked off the books.    It was three weeks after the termination that the plaintiff finally contacted the defendant about his stuff.   However, defendant claims plaintiff stole a lot of auction inventory that defendant had purchased, and defendant returned half of the items before the termination.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, after the photos are shown of the junk left by plaintiff, including used syringes.  

I'm Just Trying to Get Home-Plaintiff suing fellow motorist after defendant crossed into plaintiff's lane, and hit his car.   Defendant claims plaintiff caused the accident.    Both drivers were legally turning left (multiple, legal turn lanes), and plaintiff was going to the gated entrance to where he lives, about 300 yds. down the road after he turned left.  Entrance was on the right side of the road.    Plaintiff was in the middle left turn lane, driver ahead of him put on flashers and stopped.   Plaintiff went into the far right turn lane, and did his turn.   Defendant (from the left side left turn lane) says plaintiff hit the left side of his car during the turn, and kept pushing his car until he hit the curb.   After the accident, defendant says he wanted to get into his gated community, and didn't want to stop.    

Defendant claims nothing is his fault, and he's wrong.   Defendant should give up driving, he's a menace. 

Plaintiff receives $1722

Raise Your Hand if You Were Sober-Plaintiff and defendant were both drunk, and defendant was supposed to be less drunk, so he was driving plaintiff's car.   Plaintiff claims she was drunk, but didn't realize the defendant was drunk too.   

They hit a parked car, and plaintiff claims they left a note for the car owner.   Insurance never said anything about the other car, so they obviously didn't leave information for the poor car owner.    Case dismissed.  

[ThePurpleArcher]

7 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Absolutely - travel agents provide services irregardless whether the customer ever takes a trip.

Problem is that this is another area where JJ has no clue how folks without private jets and multiple homes live. Guess that's what happens when you own multiple mansions on both coasts (plus a couple in Italy, IIRC) along with a private jet to hop on when you want a change of scenery.

Exactly. Judge Judy needs to realize that this is the man's livelihood - he's not being a travel agent 'for sport', he's doing it to survive. He should have service fees like all the other big agencies. If the woman was suing AAA Travel for the same thing, you think Judge Judy would rule against them? Of course not. So treat the little business man the same way !

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

You're Not Cute, You're Obnoxious-Plaintiff is suing former friend for crashing her motorcycle.  There was a party at the plaintiff's home, and defendant's car was blocked in.    So defendant claims plaintiff told him to take her motorcycle, of course she claims he's a liar.    Defendant didn't have a motorcycle license, and crashed the bike.   Sadly for the citizens of New Hampshire, defendant is a contract state employee.   It would be a Kawasaki Ninja, and motorcycle was under 'storage' insurance, because owner had surgery, and it wasn't supposed to be driven.     Plaintiff gets her money.   

Newlyweds vs. Dueling Piano Show-  Plaintiff/musician is suing defendants for the balance of money, for performing at their wedding (they do dueling pianos), for $4,000 paid up front.

  The wrong date was on the contract (plaintiff had it down for October, but defendants put a date in September, so it was defendants' fault).   It was hard to get substitute musicians, but plaintiff did, and they performed.   However, JJ thinks because all plaintiff did was find other musicians, and paid them $1200 extra, that plaintiff received money for doing nothing(Wrong JJ, in my opinion).     JJ says since new musicians cost $1200, and defendants paid $4,000, JJ says plaintiff profited $2800.    

JJ says plaintiff wasn't obligated to help the defendants, and his case is dismissed.  

Second (New)-

Family Unprepared for Father's Sudden Death-(Judging from the glares between the two litigants, Byrd and the security guys need to be ready)-Plaintiffs (sisters) are suing other sister over funeral costs for their father.   Mother couldn't afford it.    Plaintiff sister is suing for defendant's share of father's funeral costs ($2733).    There are four sisters, and with the mother were at the funeral home.   One sister said she couldn't kick in, and mother had no money, so the other three sisters paid for it, pending the insurance company review.  Policy was for $100k, and policy is still under review (life insurance, but father died before the two year vesting period, Lumico is the insurance company, and another policy lapsed).    

JJ is using the sacred phone of Justice, calling the insurance company for information, and policy has been under review since the father died in November, and this was filmed in February.    JJ threatens to go to the State Attorney General, for insurance issue.  (I hope it's not the kind of policy that only pays if the person dies in an accident during the first two years).    The insurance company is being nasty, and trying to weasel out of answering.   Mother of women did the policy.     The insurance company has received medical records, and they claim that is something still outstanding.     Bet the company is going to claim that the blood clots that killed the man were a pre-existing condition.    Twin sister of defendant (a trial attorney) testifies that she'll sue if claim is denied.   Defendant will file a complaint with the State Insurance Commission where this company operates.   Plaintiff doesn't want the mother to pay for the funeral, even if she receives the $100K.     The daughters paid for an autopsy.   (If they can prove the father had blood clots before, then this insurance payout will be history, or if he lied on any questionaire to the insurance company).

Defendant sister attorney just said Lumico is a s$*% policy.    And she's so right.  There are a lot of complaints against Lumico, including one that is very similar to the claim in question.   The person on the review says that because the policy hadn't finished the two years, they only received 10%, so the most the mother will get is $10K.  One source I looked at said that for some policies, there is a three year period from getting the insurance, and that they won't pay a penny if you die before the three years is up.  This company actually has an A rating by A.M. Best that rates insurance companies.   Lumico doesn't require medical exams, but a medical questionaire (don't know if applicant does it, or medical provider does this), so if who ever filled this out omitted something that's a disqualifying condition, or outright lied, then this will never be paid. 

Plaintiff gets $2733.

Everything but the Kitchen Sink-Plaintiff sister (a child care teacher, age 33) bought a car in her name for her sister (she's the oldest 36 year old I've ever seen), who had bad credit (and probably a bad driving record, or no license is my guess).   So plaintiff is coming to court with dirty hands.  Defendant sister had her last car repo'd (2 years ago), and another recent repo in the last 3 years.    Defendant had an hit and run accident with the car in question, and that car was repo'd, and plaintiff wants JJ and Byrd to pay her for this.     Plaintiff case dismissed, because she has some of the dirtiest hands in court ever.  

Edited February 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Silver Raven]

There are a lot of complaints against Lumico Insurance on the Better Business Bureau page, that sound very similar to this case.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

There are a lot of complaints against Lumico Insurance on the Better Business Bureau page, that sound very similar to this case.

I thought the one that said if the person doesn't live through the vesting period (which is either two or three years), that you receive 10% was interesting.   So my guess if they can't find a disqualifying condition or pre-existing condition, that the pay out will either be $0, or $10k

[NYGirl]

The Defendant sister was so annoying in that funeral case.  She kept haughtily smirking throughout the case.  I wanted to pull her braids. 

In the hallterview her twin put her in her place!

 

[AuntiePam]

I wanted to reach through my TV and smack the smirk off that sister's face! 

I felt bad for mom, hearing her daughters talk about how they have to take care of her, like she's this pitiful creature.  They were so patronizing, and I think mom's feelings were hurt.  If they managed to be successful, it was because of their parents. 

A friend lost out on a life insurance policy on her husband because there was no autopsy.  The man was 80 years old and had been undergoing treatment for cancer and COPD, heart ailments, diabetes.  An autopsy would have been a waste of time and money. 

By the time the payment was denied, the man was in the ground. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by AuntiePam

[ThePurpleArcher]

I've mentioned this years ago, and I need to mention this again: I doubt very much that the phone call was real.

First, there is NO WAY JJ would get through to a representative that fast (and this was not edited). She dialed the phone and right away said 'Hello, Cindy, this is Judge Judy...'  Sorry - I'm quite sure she would have listened to a an auto-response first, then listen to a menu of options, then be put on hold with music, then finally speak to someone.

Second, I doubt very much 'Cindy' would be giving private info on this account to 'Judge Judy' or anyone else. I'm sure the only one who has access to this is the man's widow as she's the beneficiary -  no one else. This info is confidential, and like other confidential information, it's not free to anyone who calls and says "I'm Judge So-and-so".  (If it was that easy, anyone can do it.) And they wouldn't be giving this info out without a court order or subpoena. 

That said, I did copy Judge Judy's responses in the 'fake phone call' when she said she was being given 'rote responses' and needed more info - I'm going to use her dialogue  when I deal with a CSR on the phone who delivers rote answers. 

By the way, this is a response from them last week in a BBB complaint:

"Keeping policy owner information secure and private is one of our top priorities. In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we are required to restrict access to policy information to the policy owner. We are allowed to disclose information only as authorized in writing by the policy owner or as otherwise permitted by law. "

NO WAY did they give any information to JJ about this policy over the phone. No way! 

Edited February 21, 2020 by ThePurpleArcher
Edited for update of response from company on BBB.

[augmentedfourth]

Considering I just spent over a year dealing with my health insurance company over some bills and it still hasn't been 100% resolved, it was satisfying to hear JJ yell at the life insurance company over the phone. I was pissed off enough that I eventually wrote to my state senator and a staffer even started calling my insurance company on my behalf. Fucking insurance companies, man. (Though I'll add the caveat that the one time I had to file a claim with USAA when a tree fell on my car during Hurricane Sandy, they were easy to work with and I didn't have any problems at all.)

 

I kind of saw both sides in the wedding musician case. On the one hand, no, the guy didn't have to do anything to help them out, since I don't think the defendants disputed that it was their fault the dates got mixed up. On the other hand, he did make $2800 for not actually playing that day. If he himself wasn't available to play that day, I'm guessing it's because he had another gig booked, meaning he actually got paid twice that day. And since there was a month between the two dates, it's also possible he could have booked another gig for the original incorrect date and gotten paid for that as well. Originally, I thought the case was going to be about the defendants not paying the agreed upon price because it was different musicians, but when I heard that the original contract was for $4000 and they paid $4000, I kind of lost sympathy for the plaintiff as well. Again, I get where he was coming from, that he himself didn't actually pocket the full $4000, but it's like they were all sort of throwing the original contract out. Also, it seems like it could have been a great opportunity for him, if the couple told everyone how he came through for them at the last minute, possibly getting him some new customers in the future, but instead, he dragged them to court and now they'll be telling everyone to stay away from him.

[AuntiePam]

14 minutes ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

I've mentioned this years ago, and I need to mention this again: I doubt very much that the phone call was real.

First, there is NO WAY JJ would get through to a representative that fast (and this was not edited). She dialed the phone and right away said 'Hello, Cindy, this is Judge Judy...'  Sorry - I'm quite sure she would have listened to a an auto-response first, then listen to a menu of options, then be put on hold with music, then finally speak to someone.

 

 

I thought I noticed some editing, but I could be wrong.  A staffer must have gotten a CSR on the phone for JJ, so we didn't have to sit through the recording options, etc.  I don't think JJ would fake a phone call, especially one that put the insurance company in such a bad light. 

 

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

A staffer must have gotten a CSR on the phone for JJ, so we didn't have to sit through the recording options, etc.  I don't think JJ would fake a phone call, especially one that put the insurance company in such a bad light. 

I've had this discussion with a RL friend who often discusses the 3 court shows I watch regularly  (JJ, Hot Bench & TPC). I think all three are edited to a degree, but are about as 'real' as can be expected on an entertainment show. BTW, JJ is the judge we find least 'real' as she is most apt to make off the wall rulings to meet her America.

as far as the calls made by both JJ and MM - we stop short of declaring them fake, but neither of us believe they happen as shown. If they were 100% real, more often than not we'd hear "stop f*ing with me.... click" & "who is these really?" As far as whether or not an actual CSR respond as shown..... we know the judges are given access to records/statements etc before coming out to film - we also know that there are big staffs off camera who research cases (I think I heard/read somewhere JJ has around 60 staffers who research, brief her, help her get ready etc) - my point here is that she probably knows long before actually taping that she might be calling ACME Insurance, and she has the staff on hand to get signed permission from litigant and to ACME prior to taping, and have staff phone ahead and have an agent who already has signed permission from client who has had time to pull & review files, and probably has list of questions JJ will be asking before JJ  picks up her phone. OTOH, since we never hear other end of JJ calls they coulld be totally bogus and the staff already made the call and have given her herm answers. Fake or real? Well, fake as in call we see is not happening as shown. But, also the information JJ gathers in the phone conversation may be real. Even though what we see may be a reenactment of call staffers made week before. MM is more real when she makes calls from bench, we hear both sides, and at times she either doesn't get through or gets unexpected answer...... not totally real though, as sometimes, we hear professionals answering questions you KNOW would NOT be answered.

Really, the amazing thing is when we learn of cases where litigants have managed to fake out the staffers........ remember the case where big sis is suing deadbeat daddy for not paying debt/rent/whatever and she couldn't afford Christmas for her younger brothers........IIRC, she got caught in her lies by JJ when JJ had boys wait outside, then when Byrd called them in the brothers forgot their lines and told JJ what presents sis hot them - sis got nothing from JJ, but then appeared without brothers on TPC and won........ that's not the only time litigants have faked a case, but most memorable in my mind

Edited February 21, 2020 by SRTouch

[Silver Raven]

1 hour ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

By the way, this is a response from them last week in a BBB complaint:

"Keeping policy owner information secure and private is one of our top priorities. In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we are required to restrict access to policy information to the policy owner. We are allowed to disclose information only as authorized in writing by the policy owner or as otherwise permitted by law. "

They use the exact same response to every BBB complaint.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, NYGirl said:

In the hallterview her twin put her in her place!

That was the only enjoyable part of that case. And the lawyer twin had a better sense of how to dress, without letting unsightly bulges show up at random on your boby, a skill the defendant has yet to learn.

Of course the call was edited; whenever JJ goes back into her office and even during the examination they take out bits here and there, for pacing or to eliminate boring waiting time or transitions. In this case, I agree that a staffer most probably got in touch with the representative, which always takes a long time, put her on hold, and JJ then faked dialing the number before she picked up the call. Unless the staffer had the whole conversation with the insurer and JJ just reeenacted it.

If that insurance company so freely discussed the details of the claim with a third party, they must operate in a state that has very lax laws for protecting personal information. Unless those statutes have a "JJ exception" clause.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

However, JJ thinks because all plaintiff did was find other musicians, and paid them $1200 extra, that plaintiff received money for doing nothing(Wrong JJ, in my opinion).

Her faulty reasoning was similar to the one in the travel agency case from yesterday.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Florinaldo

[maggiemae]

I was a travel agent for 30 years - never had a contract for cancellations except for those of the airline, tour company or crusie company.....etc.

There was never a signed contract with this jerk.

 

 

[ThePurpleArcher]

11 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

They use the exact same response to every BBB complaint.

Exactly - and there's no way some CSR is going to discuss the case with Judge Judy. They'll tell her to send them a subpoena.  I think the phone call was a made up script based on what the widow told them before hand and telling the producers how her phone call went with them. This was NOT a real phone call - and JJ had her mind made up to tear apart the company. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

On the BBB site, and others with reviews of the insurance company, there were different levels of when you receive payouts.   The highest level is after the 2 or 3 year vesting period expires, and you get the full payout pretty soon.    Then if you die before the vesting period is up, like the father did, your beneficiary is only paid 10%, or in this case $10K (the policy was $100K).    The lesser levels of pay outs, depending on your medical history, have a graduated payout period over several years.     I really don't see how this company gets an "A" rating from the rating company for insurance.     

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Ex-Lover's Expensive Mistake-Plaintiff and ex-boyfriend bought a $28000 car on payments, and then she dumped him.    Defendant has no drivers license, and hasn't for years.   Plaintiff used her car for a trade in, and she wants payments from defendant.   Defendant was driving when they were pulled over for speeding, and since defendant has no license, they received a ticket.  Plaintiff will not get paid for the traffic ticket.    When plaintiff started do payments, and insurance from defendant's bank account, he reversed the charges, and dumped her. 

Defendant says when his brother got out of his unfortunate incarceration, defendant and brother got an apartment together.     Defendant says he discovered that plaintiff was making the car and insurance payments without his knowledge, but he says that he couldn't reverse the charges.   Plaintiff made the $1,000+ payment from defendant's bank account, and then dumped him.   Plaintiff gets nothing for the traffic ticket, because she let defendant drive without a license.     Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Shoot My Dogs If You See Them-Plaintiff suing defendant for vet bills, after dog attack,on her dog.  Plaintiff wants to be paid for her ruined garden, from his cows escaping and violating her garden.    Defendant has American Bulldogs, the attacking dog got run over a couple of months before the court case.      Defendant claims his dog couldn't get out because of his world-class fencing, and that's a lie, because his dog got run over.    When plaintiff let her dog out into her yard, she saw two of defendant's dogs savaging her mini Schnauzer.   When she came out, the two dogs ran back to defendant's yard.   Plaintiff says part of the fence is two rails, not full wire.   Defendant told plaintiff his dogs didn't do it, and if she saw them on her property again, shoot them.      Poor attacked Schnauzer had a lot of problems, and huge vet bills.   

$2600 to plaintiff for her dog's vet bills, and nothing for her garden. (If plaintiff is smart, she'll move away from the defendant).

Second-

Sick Cat Travel Alert-Plaintiff wanted a specific kind of cat, for a specific female cat from the defendant.    Defendant says plaintiff didn't want the specific cat, but it was sick so it couldn't be sold.   Plaintiff flew from California to Minnesota, there were 2 females, and 1 male in the litter.    The plaintiff's witness is holding the cat.   Devon Rex is the breed.    Defendant says the cat had a cold, and she never offered the female cat for sale.   Defendant was not offering the other female for sale, because she kept her for breeding.    

Picture of cat is of the male, and text says it's the boy cat.   That she's buying the male is clearly stated by the defendant's text to the plaintiff, and plaintiff's response.   

When she arrived, the plaintiff demanded the sick female, and now wants to be paid for the medical care.     Plaintiff given choice of keeping cat, or giving the cat back, and getting a refund.    Plaintiff keeps the cat, and gets nothing else. 

96 Year-Old Wants What She Wants-Plaintiff is suing his mother's granddaughter.   For a time the granddaughter was responsible for grandmother's care.    Plaintiff claims defendant stole money from grandmother, before she went in a care home.  Plaintiff took mother out of the NC assisted living,  Plaintiff didn't visit while his mother while she was in NC.   Plaintiff says defendant wouldn't provide the grandmother's beloved Club Crackers (grandmother wants exactly 19 with each meal), and other items grandmother wanted.     Grandmother is in a care home within driving distance from plaintiff/son.  Plaintiff visits his mother three times a week. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Mother/Daughter Take Down of Used Car Salesman-(I bet this will be worth watching for the video)-Plaintiffs bought a used car from defendant salesman, and are suing him for selling her a bad car, and for an illegal repo.    When car was repo'd the two harridans are shown on video attacking and chasing the defendant.  Plaintiff bought a 2013 Ford Fusion with over 102,000 miles.    Plaintiff claims she paid over $19,000 for it, and owed $9,000 on it (actually paid $3500 down, and owed was just under $8,000).   The loan was over 26% interest.   Quamish Elder is the plaintiff.   The first payment was a month late, and car was repo'd a couple of weeks later.    Because of the late and missed first payment, the borrower/plaintiff now owed almost $8,000, because the loan came due.   With the interest, the car total for all payments equal $19000, for a $12000 car.   

Plaintiff claimed car went in the shop, because extended warranty she purchased didn't cover what was wrong with the car.   Defendant paid for the first repair, and refunded the second repair to plaintiff.     (Note to plaintiff: If you have decent credit, you won't have to pay 26.75% interest).     As JJ points out, for $3500, plaintiff should have bought a used car for that amount, and not financed the car.      

Video shows the two harridans coming after the defendant, and him running, and locking himself in his office.  JJ will discuss the assault for the counter claim.    Defendant claims the plaintiffs attacked him on three occasions.    First time was a tirade over the phone.   Second time was when plaintiff came to the dealership, making threats,  and she called someone to kick defendant's fanny, and police escorted plaintiff off with some man who showed up at the same time.   Third time is the video of the assault with mother and daughter trying to pull the door to defendant's office open.       Defendant didn't see a doctor for his injured finger.    

Plaintiff case is dismissed, defendant receives $500.    

Second (New)-

Recipe for Childcare Disaster-Plaintiff is suing son for damaging and stealing her belongings, after he locked her out of their shared home.    Plaintiff claims the son, and his current wife have custody of Noah (one of his children), after a CPS case in Colorado.    Plaintiff says she saw signs of abuse on Noah (small bruises, etc), after son and his children moved out of the shared home with plaintiff, wife, son, now wife, and the passel of children.    Plaintiff was worried about Noah, so they sent money for Noah's mother to come where they live (in Indiana).   So there are four children less than 4 years old, with defendant wife taking care of her infant twins, two kids under four by someone else, and Noah.    So defendant wife was a stay at home mother to all five kids, and some kids went back to the other parent or to defendant wife's mother, leaving her with Noah, and infant twins.   

Defendant claims plaintiff and wife were getting into illegal activities, but they all moved in together in mother's trailer, and mother and wife moved into a camper trailer.   Defendant claims one plaintiff tested positive for meth use, after a domestic at the home.  

The child Noah is now in a foster home, and supposedly coming back to defendant's home. One other child of defendant wife, is with wife's mother, and the twins are with the wife's mother too.    Plaintiff suing for two sports jackets, a sports gumball machine (branded with some team's colors and logo).    There is no proof of the missing items value, so plaintiff case dismissed.   Defendant case is dismissed, because he's a jerk.   

Frat Brothers Fight-Plaintiffs are suing former fraternity member and roommate for moving out of their frat house, and breaking the lease. .    However, you don't have to be a member to live in the housing, and the plaintiffs didn't try to replace the defendant.   Defendant's grades were below fraternity requirement, and he was booted out of the fraternity,  However, defendant signed a lease, and was still obligated to pay for the housing.   

(On a personal note, I hate the beard, and funky hair on one plaintiff, and the other plaintiff shouldn't have done whatever he did to his eyebrows).  Defendant's daddy whines that his son signed the lease, but never moved into the frat house.   

$3950 for plaintiffs for broken lease.  

 

[AuntiePam]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(On a personal note, I hate the beard, and funky hair on one plaintiff, and the other plaintiff shouldn't have done whatever he did to his eyebrows).  Defendant's daddy whines that his son signed the lease, but never moved into the frat house.   

$3950 for plaintiffs for broken lease.  

 

Yeah, one of the plaintiffs looked like David Spade as Teen Wolf, and the other had spectacular cheekbones, which almost made up for the too-defined eyebrows. 

I worked for a short time at a community college, and a required course was Life 101.  One of the subjects was money and credit.  Looks like this should be in the high school curriculum too.  I'll admit to making stupid money decisions even into my 50's though, so I was kinda sympathetic to the plaintiff -- until she went bonkers.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mother/Daughter Take Down of Used Car Salesman

Mother probably thought that a little pastel bow in her hair (or was it a flower?) would make her look sophisticated and civilised. Or prehaps it was to counteract the effect of her and her daughter having been recorded charging like raging banshees at the poor car salesman.  I do not believe her story that she was trying to calm her offspring. She was also enabling her daughter's stupidity by finding all sorts of excuses; it is working very well because in the hallterview the plaintiff showed she did not understand a single damn point that JJ made to her. Not surprising from someone who chose to pay such outrageous interest charges when there was a more reasonable alternative.

Didn't she say this was not the end of it? Defendant should consider getting a protective order.

I also think he should have received more in punitive damages.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

On a personal note, I hate the beard, and funky hair on one plaintiff, and the other plaintiff shouldn't have done whatever he did to his eyebrows

Considering how well behaved they were and adressed the judge very respectfully, as well as presented their arguments and the facts cogently, I will give them a pass on their appearance since they were a refreshing change from so many rude and inarticulate litigants.

[Silver Raven]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Frat Brothers Fight-Plaintiffs are suing former fraternity member and roommate for moving out of their frat house, and breaking the lease. .    However, you don't have to be a member to live in the housing, and the plaintiffs didn't try to replace the defendant.   Defendant's grades were below fraternity requirement, and he was booted out of the fraternity,  However, defendant signed a lease, and was still obligated to pay for the housing.   

If I were that defendant, I would have been embarrassed to have my daddy come with me to fight my battles for me.

 

[DoctorK]

10 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Didn't she say this was not the end of it?

I am always amazed at how many of these litigants are so ignorant that they don't know what binding arbitration means, especially the ones who proclaim that they will take it to the Supreme Court.

[Florinaldo]

5 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I am always amazed at how many of these litigants are so ignorant that they don't know what binding arbitration means, especially the ones who proclaim that they will take it to the Supreme Court.

I think she may have meant she intends to continue harassing the defendant, perhaps at his place of business, on the Web, etc. or again using the guy she sent around early in the story.

But considering how stupid she is, she may indeed not have understood that the agreement she signed with the show makes this her last kick at the can. If she attempts it, defendant will have a strong argument for a quick dismissal as well as legal costs involved.

[augmentedfourth]

Dude, what the hell rolled out of Indiana in that case. I was right there with JJ - we went through a million kids with five million parents and grandparents and who lived where when, all for two jackets and a gumball machine? Not that I had plans to visit Indiana anytime soon, but it's definitely been crossed off the list.

 

Someone backing out of a lease at the last minute is how I found my living situation my senior year of college. We were all lucky it worked out so well. Ah, those were the days. It was a shithole, but it was our shithole.

[AuntiePam]

15 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

Dude, what the hell rolled out of Indiana in that case. I was right there with JJ - we went through a million kids with five million parents and grandparents and who lived where when, all for two jackets and a gumball machine? Not that I had plans to visit Indiana anytime soon, but it's definitely been crossed off the list.

 

 

And as it happened, not one bit of it was relevant to the case.  I'll admit to being slightly impressed that the defendant dad seemed to know where all those kids were at all those different times. 

 

[4Sibes Redux]

2 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Dude, what the hell rolled out of Indiana in that case.

I was fixated by the defendant’s tattoos once I noticed the red 81 on his hand. That number and script may have meant that he was a “supporter of his local Hells Angels.” I was trying to read the other tats, but could only read the word “Outlaw” in his left forearm. 
 

With all the odd details in the case, I was wondering if it was fake. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

I wanted to reach through my TV and smack the smirk off that sister's face! 

You and me both AuntiePam (the sister with the braids in the insurance case). I was waving my arms menacingly at the TV set cos she was so smirkable. 

Did anybody catch where the case where the woman and her mother chased the used car salesman into his office was from? Because I swear it must have been Florida. It's such a Florida thing to happen. 

[AuntiePam]

2 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

 

Did anybody catch where the case where the woman and her mother chased the used car salesman into his office was from? Because I swear it must have been Florida. It's such a Florida thing to happen. 

I want to say Minnesota but I don't remember.  Minnesota is getting almost as bad as Florida.

One of the late night talk show hosts (forgot which one, or maybe it wasn't even them) said if you want to be entertained, Google "Florida man" and let Google fill in the rest. 

[parrotfeathers]

12 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Did anybody catch where the case where the woman and her mother chased the used car salesman into his office was from?

Yes and I do believe JJ should have punished her monetarily.  Had they gotten to him it definitely would have been assault.

15 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I wanted to reach through my TV and smack the smirk off that sister's face! 

Plus she was so certain she was going to win!

[patty1h]

Marla Randle was suing her son's baby mom for sitting fees, etc.  All during the case, Marla had me saying "Oh, honey no" in my head.   

Marla was a tragic mess with her many rings, bracelets, talon nails, eyelashes and wandering eye.  The icing on the cake was that her choice of wig was a joke - half of her head looked like she had massive alopecia but the other half had the luxurious waterfall of curls glued on tight.  Gurl, you gotta choose your wigs for better coverage.