Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims some man watches her apartment for defendant constantly. 

I believe the defendant's son is one of the people plaintiff claimed was watching her.  Defendant's demeanor was very calm during the proceedings.  In the hallterview, plaintiff said something about the whole thing starting when she (plaintiff) refused or wasn't able to give the defendant a ride home from work, but defendant said she caught plaintiff in a lie about living in a big house.  Strange case.  Reminds me of an old "Knots Landing" I saw.  Ah, I miss those nighttime soaps...

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 3/3/2020 at 10:18 PM, parrotfeathers said:

i saw that episode tonight.  JJ refused to even look at it.  Maybe it was real?  Something about the case was fishy to her.

 

23 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

JJ acted as if she had never heard of PayPal.  I don't understand why she didn't even question the defendant about the transaction.  In his halterview, he said his defense was going to be that the plaintiff made an investment, and no investment is 100% secure.

I stopped here this morning specifically to see if anyone was talking about this weird case. I don't understand why they would even air it. Why did she not look at the receipt? Or question the defendant? At least show us why it was fishy before throwing it out. I just don't get the point of leaving us wondering why she was so "not interested" (complete with "I know you're trying to scam me" face on) in even seeing the receipt. If she looked and it was sketchy, fine. But this just left us hanging in puzzled confusion. I hate that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, configdotsys said:

But this just left us hanging in puzzled confusion. I hate that.

Yes I agree!  I've seen her throw cases out before but at least she looked at the stuff.  One time she accused them of conspiring to be on the show just to get the money and then were going to share it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

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

First-

Teen Lies to Police-Plaintiff mother (car owner) is suing her son's former friend, for forcing son to let defendant drive the car, and wrecking it.  The two teens have been at the same school for several years, and were friendly.   Plaintiff son claims defendant forced him to let him drive the car, and he wrecked it.   Defendant says plaintiff was driving during the accident, and wanted defendant to switch places and lie to police. 

 Plaintiff mother claims defendant bullied her son, which is ridiculous since the son was friendly with defendant, and liked to go to defendant's house to visit.   Defendant says plaintiff was driving to the donut shop, car brakes failed, and car crashed, Defendant says plaintiff wanted him to take responsibility for the accident, and he did.   Plaintiff mother wants over $2700 to fix the car, but Blue Book is only $1525.

Insurance disclaimed paying, because the driver defendant wasn't licensed, or on the insurance.  $1525 for plaintiff.

Rodent Disposal Fee Fight-Plaintiff step grandmother owns condo, and step granddaughters moved in to the condo.   Plaintiff loaned $5,000 to one step granddaughter (who moved in with her two kids).   Defendant paid back all but $1,000, and she claims she doesn't owe the step grandmother anything.   Grandmother claims she has a signed lease with defendant (other step granddaughter moved out), for her boyfriend, and now, two kids to live there.  Rent is $787 a month, and didn't pay for two months.   Plaintiff's witness granddaughter lived in condo for 7 years, and moved out when boyfriend moved in, and other baby was coming, and she said there never was a rat problem.     Defendant's reason for not paying rent is that the condo had a rat problem, but the one rat was finally caught, and it looks domestic to me.    

Plaintiff wants two months rent, $1000 loan, and rodent disposal fees.   They have a picture of the dead rat.   $2574  to plaintiff.   

Second-

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.

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I must say, the turquoise haired wastrel seriously had to be one of the best-looking guys which Judge Judy had on in a long time. Very sexy - and he knew it.  A rare breed who could get away with 'turquoise hair'.  They should nab him for 'the bachelor'. 

Like my dear Great Aunt Katherine used to say, "Pretty is as pretty does." He seemed super pleased when Judge Judy noticed that he had coordinated his hair with his tie.

I've been catching up on recorded court shows and Judge Marilyn from People's Court told a defendant that the defendant was, "Pretty but evil." And speaking of pretty...has anyone else seen Judge Jerry Springer's bailiff?

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Section 8? Not so Great-Plaintiff/landlady suing defendants (former tenant is the Section 8, her father/witness was the guarantor of the rent, who did not pay it either).   Plaintiff lived with her three children, her kid's father, and her adult brother.   Rent was $1600 a month, paid by Section 8 at the beginning.    Children's father, and defendant's brother both helped to pay the rent, and when they left the unemployed tenant had Section 8.    Then when defendant was dumped by Section 8, she didn't pay the rent.    Landlady and tenant both were notified that Section 8 wouldn't cover the rent.   Defendant had a one year lease, with Section 8 (October of 2018, to October of 2019).   

There were a lot of nefarious people who were coming and going in the house, or living as illegal tenants.    Defendant tenant's father was guarantor of the rent, and he refused to pay the rent.   Since no rent was paid, landlady intended to evict, but tenant moved out in June after not paying rent.   

 Damages are supposed to be huge, tons of junk and trash left in the house, pictures are submitted by plaintiff.   Some of the damages by tenant were caused by tenant's children who were playing on the rental house roof, a photo of them is submitted, on the house roof, and garage roof, playing.        Roofer repair bill is submitted.    Pictures of trash in house are stunning.    Landlady had to remove 5,060 lbs. of trash, it took a 27 foot U-haul to get rid of it.    Tenant's children live full time with defendant grandfather, and tenant only lives there occasionally.   Defendant's counter claim is that landlady attacked her, and left bruises, no medical report, as usual.   Landlady has text messages with the same bruise photos, (sent to landlady's daughter), and saying the boyfriend did it.   

Plaintiff gets $1543, for repainting and repair, (not for entire house).    Landlady kept the security deposit, and received some of the roof repair costs (there was a storm about that time too).    $2074 to plaintiff for damages above the security deposit.   Defendant's phony claim is thrown out. 

Second (Rerun)-

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

 She had left the home, and judge allowed her and her children to move back into the house, and banned plaintiff.   TRO was ex parte (plaintiff didn't get to testify or contest order).  Nothing in the application for protective order mentions that the home was plaintiff's.   The final decision, with two amendments, was man could move into his home, and applied for his possessions back.  Defendant took furniture, but returned it.  (Sometimes the person with the kids gets the best car, and the house, since the hearing for the protective order didn't include the facts that it wasn't her house, or the defendant's kids).   Defendant claims she didn't ask for the house, but moved back in anyway.    Defendant, and her children moved into the house for almost four months.    There were about six hearings about the protective orders, until plaintiff received his home back.     Some items were returned, but not plaintiff's military mementos.   Defendant took the washer/dryer, and returned it to the store.    

Defendant gets nothing. (some jurisdictions have gone so far over the line, that testimony by the protective order target isn't allowed, and they don't even get notice until the protective order is served).    Plaintiff gets washer/dryer money back, $1284. No estimate for damage repairs, so no money.  Defendant's stupid case is thrown out.  

Tree Huggin' Father/Daughter Duo-Plaintiffs (father and daughter) suing neighbor for tree services, harassment, and invasion of privacy.   Plaintiffs hired tree service to remove branches from neighbor's yard that has branches hanging over their house, and property, and they have written permission from the co-op board to remove.   (Both parties live in a co-op.   they own their mobile home, and the land is owned in common, and they all make the rules).  Defendant is shaking her head like a bobble head doll over everything.   JJ says board president has to do the tree trimming, but the co-op said the plaintiffs can hire a tree service and trim the tree.    Board president granted permission for the trimming.   However, since land is owned is common by the co-op, defendant has no right to tell the tree trimmers to leave her property. 

I already see what the plaintiffs are saying about defendant being the neighbor from hell. 

Defendant is counter suing for harassment, and damages to her home.   

Note to plaintiffs, if you ever want to sell the mobile home, and get away from defendant, going on Judge Judy is not the right way to do it.   Defendant simply won't shut up.      (I think the tree hugging part in the title is because defendant claims plaintiff doesn't think animals belong inside, or whoever writes the episode captions is drunk again).   Everything dismissed, on both sides.   In hall-terview the plaintiff says they did call police, and defendant was cited. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gets $1543, for repainting and repair, (not for entire house). 

JJ is sometimes so tight-fisted about damages, you'd think the money came out of her pocket.  I think the invoice for removing all the trash was for over $1,700 alone.  Whacko female defendant mumbled something about one of her boyfriends putting holes in the walls.  I can't believe her children haven't been removed from that environment.  Grandpa seemed odd, too.  (Shakes head.)

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

3 pm episodes, both reruns, probably from 2015 or 2016-

First-

Father Scams Inmate-Plaintiff car buyer suing seller for a Mustang purchase.    Plaintiff bought car from defendant for $3500.   Plaintiff bought car, paid in full, had car title, and took car.   Then four or five days later plaintiff was incarcerated for 14 or 15 months.   Plaintiff mother needed spare key to car, contacted defendant to get one.   Plaintiff never retitled, or registered car in plaintiff's name, a month or so later someone wanted to buy the car from mother on payments (it was still in defendant's name).    Plaintiff mother says the potential buyer (Adam) took car, paid her a few hundred dollars, car disappeared, and buyer was also incarcerated.   Defendant never saw the Mustang again.   

Plaintiff claims the defendant applied for a duplicate title, and resold the Mustang.   Defendant did get a duplicate title because plaintiff mother called him, said son had lost the title, and needed a replacement. 

Defendant says car was impounded two times, and that was when plaintiff mother needed title to get car out of impound (my guess is to resell it to the mysterious incarcerated person).   Plaintiff mother told defendant son that her son was driving car, and title flew out the window.   Defendant agreed to meet woman at the DMV, and made several appointments to meet her on different days, but she never appeared. 

Plaintiff found car on craigslist, car is registered to Freddy something, and Freddy said he traded his car and some money for Mustang, and no title.  My guess is Freddy had a title signed over to him, and registered it, so I bet plaintiff mommy had the title all along.  Freddy *** got car out of impound and registered it somehow.  Plaintiff mother is getting the overacting award for the show today.   I believe everything the defendant, and his son said about the case.    Defendant is found by JJ to have nothing to do with impound or reselling of car. Case dismissed.  

Brother's Gift Backfires-Plaintiff is suing his sister for her unpaid traffic tickets.  (On a tacky note, who did that to the defendant sister's hair? Edward Scissorhands maybe?).     Defendant claims plaintiff doesn't want her driving the car, and her only ticket was thrown out of court.   

Defendant claims everyone drives that same vehicle, including plaintiff, and various relatives, so who knows who got the tickets.   Defendant claims brother filed a false CPS claim against her, but there is no proof who called CPS.   Everything dismissed.  (Followed by a hug in the hall, so I suspect it was all phony to get the ticket paid).

Second-

Charity Golf Drama-Plaintiff suing charity golf match organizer for more money.  Plaintiff won $500, and wants $347 more.   Tournament sponsor runs a restaurant, caters a meal for the teams, and the payout for the tournament is $5,000 for scholarships.       Others who won donated cash prizes back to the charity, but not the plaintiff.   Plaintiff gets nothing. (Plaintiff was also so irritating, that the defendant/restaurant owner banned him from her establishment). 

Who Let the Cat Out-Plaintiff floor installer, suing defendant for non payment, after her cat was allowed to damage the floors by her adult son.     Plaintiff's son was watching house, and pets while plaintiff was out of town.    Defendant told to stuff it, it was her son's fault.  Plaintiff received no deposit.   $5,000 to plaintiff

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

JJ is sometimes so tight-fisted about damages, you'd think the money came out of her pocket.  I think the invoice for removing all the trash was for over $1,700 alone.  Whacko female defendant mumbled something about one of her boyfriends putting holes in the walls.  I can't believe her children haven't been removed from that environment.  Grandpa seemed odd, too.  (Shakes head.)

Plaintiff had the $1500 security deposit too.  So $3500 for sheetrock and trash removal -- that's not too bad.  But I do wonder if there were more damages.

Am I the only one who thought the defendant in the brother/foster-sister 2003 Mercedes "loan" case was kinda hot?  He had great cheekbones.  Reminded me of the actor who played Hanzee in Fargo, season two. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Can Judge Judy Mend a Broken Family?-Plaintiff suing brother for unpaid truck driving wages, when she was stranded in Maryland.     Plaintiff wants $1100 in back wages,   Defendant owns a truck, plaintiff was driving his truck as an employee, from New Jersey to Maryland, with several stops on the way.     Plaintiff was being paid by number of miles, .30 per mile.    Plaintiff doesn't have all of the mileage covered cumulated for the last trip that plaintiff was not paid for.    Last trip should be $480, but plaintiff wants $1100.    (The plaintiff is giving me a headache with her endless babbling, should I sue her?).     

The plaintiff was supposed to pick up a truck, there was an argument, and she was stranded by the brother in Jessup, MD.    Defendant is counter suing, for nothing I care about.  Plaintiff was supposed to do two loads, but only did one.    Plaintiff also sent a text to brother, saying "Good luck finding your truck".    The defendant's name is Addam, so why does plaintiff call him "Prince Adam"?      

Both litigants are swilling the "Water that Should Not be Drunk" like they're dying of thirst.   Plaintiff gets $1600, and this case is finally over.   Defendant counter suit dismissed.  

 

Second (Rerun)-

That's What Mothers Do-Plaintiff mother suing her adult daughter who wanted phones, cell phones, and a loan for two months rent.  Daughter/defendant has four kids.   Plaintiff has been giving loans for rent, and laptops for grand kids, $1,038.   $450 for one month's rent, $100 for three pre-paid telephones.  Defendant has never repaid any loans.   

$1595 was the next 'loan'.  Mother had zero expectation of being repaid, since daughter and husband never paid anything back.  Defendant has no income, so now she wants daughter to repay everything.  Sadly, plaintiff has applied for disability, and was turned down once, and has reapplied.   Plaintiff's boyfriend in also disabled.   

Defendant's husband is not father of any of the four children, and there is no formal child support.  Actually, three of the kids live with their father, and defendant has them a few hours a day, so she should be paying child support.   Plaintiff gets $1350 for three months rent, no other 'loans' had an expectation of repayment.

8K Snatched from Model Child's Bank Account-Plaintiff is suing father because at 19 years old he bought her a car, as a gift, but father didn't pay the car loan off.   8 years later the money was yanked out of plaintiff's bank account for the car, after a judgment.     Defendant deadbeat father says only initial down payment was on him, and daughter should have paid the rest of the money. 

Defendant gave car to now ex-wife to drive, it broke down, and was put in plaintiff's aunt's back yard, and seven years later it's still there.   Loan amount is up to $8400, with interest and fees, and plaintiff's attorney is trying to get amount reduced.   Plaintiff says lender settled for $5k.   Daughter has put herself through college, a Master's degree, and owns her own home, and has done very well without help from deadbeat father.     Defendant is still a bum.  

Plaintiff gets $2500 for the loan, and $500 for plaintiff's attorney, for father's half of the settlement and lawyer.  (I don't understand why daughter didn't get the full $5k, since she's actually out $8k from her wages being garnished.   Plus, the daughter will have this on her credit report for years.   Good thing the daughter bought a house already). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Plaintiff had the $1500 security deposit too.  So $3500 for sheetrock and trash removal -- that's not too bad.  But I do wonder if there were more damages.

Am I the only one who thought the defendant in the brother/foster-sister 2003 Mercedes "loan" case was kinda hot?  He had great cheekbones.  Reminded me of the actor who played Hanzee in Fargo, season two. 

Yes - he was very attractive. He could be a male model (though I would get rid of the Whoopi Goldberg harido).

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Can Judge Judy Mend a Broken Family?-Plaintiff suing brother for unpaid truck driving wages, when she was stranded in Maryland.     Plaintiff wants $1100 in back wages,   Defendant owns a truck, plaintiff was driving his truck as an employee, from New Jersey to Maryland, with several stops on the way.     Plaintiff was being paid by number of miles, .30 per mile.    Plaintiff doesn't have all of the mileage covered cumulated for the last trip that plaintiff was not paid for.    Last trip should be $480, but plaintiff wants $1100.    (The plaintiff is giving me a headache with her endless babbling, should I sue her?).     

The plaintiff was supposed to pick up a truck, there was an argument, and she was stranded by the brother in Jessup, MD.    Defendant is counter suing, for nothing I care about.  Plaintiff was supposed to do two loads, but only did one.    Plaintiff also sent a text to brother, saying "Good luck finding your truck".    The defendant's name is Addam, so why does plaintiff call him "Prince Adam"?      

Both litigants are swilling the "Water that Should Not be Drunk" like they're dying of thirst.   Plaintiff gets $1600, and this case is finally over.   Defendant counter suit dismissed.  

 

 

That case was so confusing and way toooooo boring to follow. I deleted it from my DVR by the second commercial. 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think truck drivin’ Sis won the JJ Guinness World Record for “Longest Uninterrupted Storytelling by a Plaintiff”.  Wow.  JJ never lets anyone ramble on and on with such a lengthy backstory! 

  • Like 7
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

I think truck drivin’ Sis won the JJ Guinness World Record for “Longest Uninterrupted Storytelling by a Plaintiff”.  Wow.  JJ never lets anyone ramble on and on with such a lengthy backstory! 

Yes!  I was amazed.  JJ must have been getting ready to go on a long vacation or something, and was feeling quite mellow.  But she had no time at all for brother, did she? 

At one point, plaintiff said "Long story short . . . " and my husband and I both said "Too late!" 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

I think truck drivin’ Sis won the JJ Guinness World Record for “Longest Uninterrupted Storytelling by a Plaintiff”.  Wow.  JJ never lets anyone ramble on and on with such a lengthy backstory! 

I was waiting for JJ to interrupt with "I didn't go to postgraduate school for seven years to listen to you truck driving story. Not interested ma'am! ".

 

I was also intrigued by the sister referring to her brother as 'Prince Adam'.  I didn't realize the family was part of royalty. Too bad JJ didn't pick up on that. 

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/6/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Can Judge Judy Mend a Broken Family?

I think the brother's mistake was stranding her in Maryland. I would have dropped her off high and dry all the way down to Patagonia!

On 3/6/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I don't understand why daughter didn't get the full $5k, since she's actually out $8k from her wages being garnished

Probably JJ's stinginess once again at work. Although it only benefited the deadbeat dad because otherwise the plaintiff would have gotten the whole of the award kitty, whereas they now split the amount remaining after she gets paid her judgment. So JJ does not really save the show any money because as we understand it, the same amount is always allocated (and spent) on each case.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Pot Bellied Pig Bite-Plaintiff claims her (two blocks and two acres away) neighbor has a huge pot bellied pig (200 lbs.) that has escaped the stockade fence/chain link defendant's fence., Pig came on the plaintiff's property, and bit her Great Dane.  Plaintiff has an invisible fence, and a stone fence, except for one opening, and says the pig has come on her property before too.    There is a video of the pig in the plaintiff's yard, showing the pig biting the Great Dane.      Dane was bitten on the leg, and owner wants vet bills.      

Defendant was notified by the police to get her pig off plaintiff's property.    Defendant wants legal fees, she hired a lawyer to get documentation (defendant wanted dog's medical records), and animal control gave first bill to defendant.  The defendant had fence down over a month before the escape and bite.   (Defendant's witness is an animal control officer, testifying for defendant, and claiming the bite we saw on video didn't happen.)

  Total vet bills $626, so $700 to plaintiff.  

Two Bedrooms Too Small-Plaintiff rented room in apartment from defendant.   Plaintiff was up to date on rent, when defendant changed the locks on him.  Defendant claims plaintiff was aggressive the second he moved in, and he evicted plaintiff for safety reasons.   It was a non-smoking apartment, and defendant claims plaintiff was smoking, but that wasn't in the lease (JJ asks what plaintiff was smoking).   Plaintiff claims an assault also.    Defendant claims plaintiff broke in, and stole two TVs, and other items, without proof, but neighbor who witnessed this isn't in court.  Defendant has photos showing burning items, and says plaintiff set something in his apartment on fire.    $700 rent and security back to plaintiff. 

Second-

Teen Savings Stolen by Mom-Plaintiff daughter wants her money back from her CD back, that the mother stole.   Since the daughter was a minor, the mother's name was on the account.  When daughter married last year, she went to the bank to cash the CD in. no one could find her account, then it was discovered that the mother cashed the CD in right after it was opened, almost 12 years ago. 

Mother denies cashing the CD in.   Mother claims if she cashed it in, the daughter wanted her to do it, but she doesn't remember anyway.    Daughter moved out at 18, and never moved back, put herself through college.   Sadly, there is not enough evidence to prove mother stole the money.      (I think the mother is full of it, her daughter never goes back to the home town, moved out the second she could, and the mother says they have a good relationship?  I don't believe it).   

I totally believe the bank, and that the mother stole the money.   JJ is wrong, the legal owner was the mother, according to the bank records, and the bank refused to give out further information about the CD because daughter is not the legal owner.     Case dismissed.  

Double Surgery Beat Down-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for loans for car down payment, and medical and living expenses.  Girlfriend wasn't working for a while because of repeated surgeries.    Case dismissed.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/6/2020 at 9:42 PM, BusyOctober said:

 

I think truck drivin’ Sis won the JJ Guinness World Record for “Longest Uninterrupted Storytelling by a Plaintiff”.  Wow.  JJ never lets anyone ramble on and on with such a lengthy backstory! 

 

Yes, I kept waiting for JJ to stop her and say, “It sounds like a whole lot of ‘Who Shot John’.”  Has anyone ever heard anyone but JJ use that expression?

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Shut This Family's Lights Out-Plaintiffs suing mother for ripping them off.   Plaintiff, and his fiance were living with the mother (defendant), for about 18 months.     Fiance (not the son) was informed when the house electricity would be turned off.   So the defendant needed the utilities in the plaintiff/fiance's name, (mother has bad credit) but bill would be paid out of the father (house owner) auto pay bank account.   

House was in foreclosure (according to the defendant), and conveniently burned down too.   The PG&E bill was in the thousands, then defendant's name, also in the thousands, and then the plaintiff fiance.    Bill was $3250 (or about that), when plaintiffs found out the bill wasn't being paid.   

As JJ says, the deadbeat defendant family don't pay the electricity, but keep putting the bill in different names, until bills reach a high amount, and utilities get cut off..    Defendant is alleged by plaintiff son to have opened Care  credit account, and other credit charges, also in plaintiff son's name.   The 'emergency dental work' was for veneers on defendant front teeth.    Plaintiff son disputed the charges with Care credit, and it was written off (defendant says she's paying the dentist).   Case is recalled so defendant can get proof she's paying the dentist (great idea, sticking a dentist with thousands of dollars worth of bills, in a court with the daughter of a dentist).    It doesn't show clear payments on the dentist bill.   

   Plaintiffs claim that almost $10k was disputed and taken off of credit accounts, except for the mother's/defendant's $462 Victoria's Secret bill, now in collections.    There's also a Fingerhut charge account, that plaintiff son claims he didn't know about, but then he says he saw the items arrive, and they were addressed to him.  The plaintiff fiance was told why the utilities were going to be in his name.     I suspect he wasn't upset about the big bill, until he found out that a lousy credit report would do to his future nursing career prospects. 

I don't know how JJ decided, but I wouldn't give the plaintiffs anything, they knew about the accounts, and I suggest the son and mother pull this garbage a lot.  

Plaintiffs received $3500+ for the electric bill, and that's all.  

 

Best Friends: Worst Roommates-Plaintiffs were bad roommates, and plaintiff wanted his cousin to move in, with her children.    Defendant claims the cousin would move in alone, and later she, and the father of the kids, and the kids all moved into one room.   Plaintiff is still suing defendant for not paying his half of the rent, when the cousin was paying it already.   It's plaintiff's problem if he didn't make the cousin pay the rent.    (Plaintiff should be suing the hair stylist that did that dye job, and cut to his hair).   

Defendant's counter claim will be heard, and dismissed.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (Rerun)-

Paying the Puppy Premium-Plaintiffs suing for value of French Bulldog puppy (for $3500).   The plaintiffs said the dog took too much time and effort, so they gave the puppy to defendant.    Now they are suing for the value of the puppy, but there is no contract, oral or written, to pay for the year old Frenchie.   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 I 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.  The Kia Sorento is obviously a way for defendant to have a car, on someone else's credit.      Plaintiff receives $5k, and it will go to the credit union, if they want to settle for that from the $8k current total.     $5,000 to plaintiff, money goes directly to credit union. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I missed the decision by JJ.     I hope someone else caught the award, or lack of award. 

She gave plaintiff around $3500 for the electric charges. 

I can't see PG&E losing all that money, and maybe they didn't.  Here, if utilities are owed, a new account won't be set up until the old account is paid.  So either the new owner/tenant pays, or a lien is placed on the property.  When there's a lien, the account is cleared if/when the property is sold.  If there's no sale, then the amount owing can be assessed to the property taxes.  If the owner still doesn't pay, the property can be sold at sheriff's sale and the lien will be paid from the proceeds of the sale. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

She gave plaintiff around $3500 for the electric charges. 

Thanks.     I really missed that part. 

 

My guess is write offs are charged to all of the customers in increased costs.       I bet they were making up phony leases or something similar, and then the next fool could get the utilities in their name, if they had credit.   Then here comes the fiance, notice the son of defendant fiance had other credit in his name, but the mother didn't even try to get him to do the utilities.    

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

As JJ says, the deadbeat defendant family don't pay the electricity, but keep putting the bill in different names, until bills reach a high amount, and utilities get cut off..   

They had so many family members lined up to defraud the electric company that it made my jaw drop and head spin (picture that!).  Speaking of jaws, what was wrong with plaintiff (defendant's son)?  He spoke as if his jaw was wired shut.

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant's male puppy is unregistered

I believe she said she spent $5,500 on this unregistered dog.  That's crazy.

Poor little puppy that got shuffled around.  It did seem that the new owner was caring for him/her (he took the dog to the vet for ear mites), but I couldn't understand what he was saying.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Ilovecomputers said:

Speaking of jaws, what was wrong with plaintiff (defendant's son)?  He spoke as if his jaw was wired shut.

I think he had some sort of disability not sure what.  But his partner seemed to be watching out for him thankfully.  

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

There is nothing in the text messages stating a price for selling puppy to the defendant. 

I think some type of price was talking about surely if though there was nothing in writing to prove it.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably from 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.  Plaintiff also claims to be on disability, and she claims she could drive to the convention, but had to stop taking her medication for the trip.  Defendant claims they were 50/50 business partners, and no money plaintiff 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.     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?).  Skateboarder has never worked, but collects disability since childhood, and is sometimes homeless he still has a payee too. (The reason the defendant gave for not paying is the only reason I put the SSI part in). 

$3,000 for plaintiff   

Second-

Pool Man in Hot Water-Plaintiff pool man (independent contractor) suing defendant (pool company owner) for money owed.   Plaintiff says his ex-wife told defendant (former employer) that he was stealing clients.   

Defendant wrote a check to plaintiff for $1570, and plaintiff went to the bank and there was a stop payment on the check, and a previous $900 check had a stop payment also.  However, defendant claims plaintiff stole pool supplies, and sold them online.  Plaintiff claims all of the things he sold online, but bought it from someone who was going out of business, he didn't steal it. Plaintiff receives $2470 for the two bad checks.   

Upside Down Truck Deal-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for payments for truck she co-signed on, then she refinanced the truck  in only plaintiff's name, but defendant made all of the truck payments.  Plaintiff took truck back after this,  sold it, and kept the money.   

Plaintiff wants JJ to ignore the $5k profit she made on truck, and pay her for repairs, and maintenance on truck too.  Case dismissed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Uncle Accused of Criminal Trespass-Plaintiff suing adult niece for furniture stolen from his home, an unpaid electric bill, and damages.     Uncle/plaintiff rented his former marital home (aunt died a few years ago), for a lease/purchase to the niece.   Uncle says when lease/purchase didn't happen, and niece moved out, she took all of the furniture, didn't pay the electric bill, and damaged the place.   Uncle says defendant took the seven piece master bedroom set, another bedroom set, living room couches, two dining room sets (house was fully furnished when niece moved in), etc.    Niece claims uncle came into the house before she moved out, but he couldn't have stolen all of the furniture.     

Plaintiff submits the electric bill from niece's residency, she never paid the electricity bill, and uncle had to pay the electric bills so the electricity wasn't cut off.     Plaintiff says only pool table, and a glass topped table, and a lot of left over trash was all that was in the house when deadbeat niece moved out.   Niece left the yard and in-ground pool a mess. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000, and deadbeat defendant gets nothing. 

Marijuana Air Pollution-Plaintiff suing neighbor for destroying his front yard when defendant cut down a branch on plaintiff's tree.    Plaintiff says he's had issues with defendant from about a year after defendant moved in during 2015.    Defendant claims the trees were on the fence line, or on his property.   However, plaintiff shows the trees were on his own property.   Plaintiff says smell from defendant's marijuana plants, and smoking have polluted plaintiff's house.     

Defendant says he doesn't have pot plants, and that there is no smell in his yard.     Defendant claims there is no survey, and plaintiff submits one.    Defendant claims there are no corner markers.   Plaintiff says he watched defendant dig the front marker up, (it was metal and concrete), and defendant threw it in plaintiff's yard.     Defendant actually cut down the rest of the trees yesterday.

Plaintiff gets $5,000.   

Second (Rerun)-

Divorcees Still Supporting Adult Son-Plaintiff suing ex-husband (divorced for over 20 years)for not helping loser adult son out of mess.   At first defendant agreed to help son, but then there was a falling out with the son, and it fell apart.   Agreement was to help married adult son, who is not working, and has a pregnant wife. Adult son often isn't working, or paying his bills, such as the car situation in the next paragraph.    Son apparently blames everyone but himself for his issues, according to son's text messages to father. 

  Plaintiff talked to ex-husband about helping with son's rent ($1700 a month, defendant's portion was supposed to be $850).  Ex-wife paid the $1700, and is mad ex-husband didn't pay his half.  JJ says if man told ex-wife he wasn't contributing after fight with son, and she transferred the money after that, then man doesn't have to pay.     

Woman sent money on 18 April, but it was returned (insufficient funds), but man told son and ex-wife on 12 April that he was done with support a grown man.    If the plaintiff rolls her eyes at JJ one more time I'm going to scream.   The rent was late enough that mother had to pay a late fee too.     Grown son is plaintiff's witness, along with his Grandma. 

 Father co-signed for a car for son, who is 34, and father paid most of the payments ($7,000 by the father).    Case dismissed.     

Labrador Chews Up Pomeranian-Plaintiff's Pomeranian is alleged to have been attacked by defendant's unleashed Labrador.   However, plaintiff's sworn statement doesn't resemble her dramatic, testimony in court.    Vet reports said some treatment should happen, she couldn't afford it, and vet agreed to take dog if she signed it over to him as a rescue.  Woman still wants vet bills paid ($91).   However, plaintiff waited two days to take the dog to vet,.    Plaintiff's overacting about her story is ridiculous, and contradicts her sworn statement to the court.   

Woman first paid $125 euthanasia fee, then signed dog over to vet and not euthanized.     Her total vet bills were $91.  She adopted the dog a year before, it was a rescue.    She took dog for walk, or sitting on bench, and claims the unleashed Lab attacked the Pom, twice.   

Defendant says there is no bench in the common area, so plaintiff made that up.   

 Defendant will pay the $91, not the $5,000 the plaintiff wants.   (Defendant says someone adopted the dog, a rescue paid for the surgery).   I wouldn't have paid a penny to the plaintiff.     However, JJ gives plaintiff the $91 for the vet bill she paid. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant actually cut down the rest of the trees yesterday.

I have a lot of sympathy for plaintiff, because bad neighbors can make one's life hell.  The plaintiff said the smell of the defendant's marijuana plants wafted into his bedroom and made it smell very unpleasant, and he confronted the defendant about the smell.  Their relationship deteriorated from there.  The color of defendant's florescent green shirt hurt my eyes, and I hated how he smirked throughout the proceedings.  That said, did the plaintiff say he (the plaintiff) "moved" the property line over 7" to accommodate a fence and the trees were actually on defendant's property?  Hope he uses his $5K to plant some mature trees, barberry bushes and fragrant shrubs on his side of the property.  You just know the defendant is going to continue to play games by playing his music loudly every day and do every annoying thing he can think of.  Didn't realize marijuana plants gave off a smell.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

That said, did the plaintiff say he (the plaintiff) "moved" the property line over 7" to accommodate a fence and the trees were actually on defendant's property? 

I thought he said he had built the fence over seven inches onto HIS property to that he'd have the 7" leeway for his trees.  

And the smell of pot growing in a yard is UNMISTAKABLE.  We had a neighbor that lived several houses down that was growing pot in his yard and you could smell it all the way to our house.  After several complaints, he finally stopped - I hear he was threatened with small claims lawsuits for violation of "quiet enjoyment" local codes. 

This clod from yesterday was a complete dickhead.  But I was confused about something.  I thought the law was that you were allowed to trim trees overhanging on YOUR property from "hell to heaven".  So I'm assuming two things - one is that the plaintiff told him that although the fence was HERE, that he could not trim past the 7-inch line and that he reached over and whacked them beyond the fence as well.  Judge Judy seemed to believe he was not permitted to trim them at all.  

But I wanted to smack that smirk off his face.  He's the neighbor from hell, that's for sure.  

  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I thought he said he had built the fence over seven inches onto HIS property to that he'd have the 7" leeway for his trees.  

The plaintiff said that the trees were on his property, and when he put the fence up (after a survey, complete with cemented in corner metal pins) it was inside the property line to accommodate the trees.    The worst thing is that there is no way for the plaintiff to fix this situation, unless one of the litigants sells.   No way will anyone buy the plaintiff's house with that defendant living next door.  

The defendant didn't trim anything from the trees.   He would have had the right to trim branches overhanging his property, but that's not what he did.    He had them all cut down to the ground, including the ones the day before he came to court, and all of them were the plaintiff's trees.     I would plant Bouganvillea (or however it's spelled), since you can only cut that off with a chain saw-it had hard, long wooden spikes on it.    

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/9/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Shut This Family's Lights Out-Plaintiffs suing mother for ripping them off.   Plaintiff, and his fiance were living with the mother (defendant), for about 18 months.     Fiance (not the son) was informed when the house electricity would be turned off.   So the defendant needed the utilities in the plaintiff/fiance's name, (mother has bad credit) but bill would be paid out of the father (house owner) auto pay bank account.   

House was in foreclosure (according to the defendant), and conveniently burned down too.   The PG&E bill was in the thousands, then defendant's name, also in the thousands, and then the plaintiff fiance.    Bill was $3250 (or about that), when plaintiffs found out the bill wasn't being paid.   

 

 

Best Friends: Worst Roommates-Plaintiffs were bad roommates, and plaintiff wanted his cousin to move in, with her children.    Defendant claims the cousin would move in alone, and later she, and the father of the kids, and the kids all moved into one room.   Plaintiff is still suing defendant for not paying his half of the rent, when the cousin was paying it already.   It's plaintiff's problem if he didn't make the cousin pay the rent.    (Plaintiff should be suing the hair stylist that did that dye job, and cut to his hair).   

Defendant's counter claim will be heard, and dismissed.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.

 

I had trouble at times understanding the plaintiff, myself as he seemed to have some kind of dental work or jaw surgery which prevented him from opening his mouth. The mother was a piece of work - she was only 55 ? She looked a lot older, especially wearing Cher's discarded wig from 2000.

As for PG&E (and other utiltiy companies) they don't lose a nickel on families like this. The unpaid debt is eventually written off and passed on to other responsible consumers. Why do you think we pay so much for electricity, cable, cell phones, etc. ? Why do you think our rates keep going up ? Companies such as this (as well as banks, finance companies, mortgage lenders) never take a loss - they have others pay up for the deadbeats,

 

As for the room-mate case - wow that defendant was handsome! I was wondering if they were more than just room-mates, myself. JJ didn't ask the question (though she sometimes does). 

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/10/2020 at 7:29 AM, Ilovecomputers said:

They had so many family members lined up to defraud the electric company that it made my jaw drop and head spin (picture that!).  Speaking of jaws, what was wrong with plaintiff (defendant's son)?  He spoke as if his jaw was wired shut.

Regarding the strange way sonny boy spoke - if you ever watched Alaska Bush People, one the the kids spoke that way........ yes, I did watch those clowns for awhile & had a good time snarking at their ridiculous antics (even posted here on prime timer), but after awhile it was so silly I quit watching

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Ex-Wife Gets the Pit Bull-Plaintiff truck driver suing ex-wife, and her mother for the return of his dog, a Cane Corso/Pit Bull mix.  The plaintiff had the dog since three months old, and the dog usually traveled with him. (Bizarre note, plaintiff claims he never lived with the ex-wife for the two years they were married).   (I'm not liking the plaintiff, his previous dog died of heart worm, easily prevented).  It's ridiculous that the defendant, and her mother blame the drug use on the plaintiff, since the daughter has been a druggie for years, and looks stoned in court.     Plaintiff gets $500, and defendants keep the dog.  

Mercedes Custody Battle-Plaintiff suing former friend for value of a car, and a false restraining order.    Plaintiff claims defendant gave her the car, and then repossessed it, after defendant didn't maintain insurance on it.   Mercedes ML 320 (I think) was the car. but I don't know the year.     

Plaintiff claims car was registered in her name, but she didn't have insurance on vehicle.     Defendant has paperwork from the police saying car is registered to her, claims the plaintiff abandoned the car, and police called her to pick the car up.      Defendant claims plaintiff swiped the car back, had it for a month, and car is now gone.   Case dismissed for both sides.    (Plaintiff needs to lay off the hair bleach.   I'm shocked her fried looking hair hasn't fallen out).  

Second-

Arkansas Handyman Hustle-Plaintiffs suing their ex-handyman for incomplete and substandard work on their home.   Defendant was hired to work on plaintiff's house in Arkansas, and is counter claiming for unpaid work.   After moving to Pennsylvania, and then moving back, house has been on the market, still is, and never sold (bet it's overpriced).   Plaintiff's witness is their real estate agent.   Defendant was paid $2300, including $500 for materials.   

I agree with JJ, the defendant put in plenty of work, definitely enough for $2300 worth of work.    The plaintiff's realtor was in and out of the house a lot, and the owners never told him to quit.  I hate the parade of litigants that want to get all of their money back, but still had work finished.  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Mobile Homelessness-Plaintiff suing former friend for stealing his tools, after she let him stay in her house, use her shed for storage, and hired him for some handyman work.   If defendant wouldn't have let him live in her living room, man would have been homeless.   

Defendant says the plaintiff's daughter brought a dolly, and picked the tools up, and took them to her father.    Daughter claims she didn't pick up the expensive tools .   Plaintiff claims defendant wanted to sleep with him, and stealing the tools was retaliation for saying no to her.   Case dismissed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Your Homelessness Is Not Your Sister's Problem- Plaintiff and her family were homeless, and defendant sister allowed sister, husband and three children to move into her home, and didn't charge rent.    Plaintiff is thanking her sister by suing her for unpaid credit card charges, punitive damages, and other garbage.   

Since they left defendant's home, husband and children live with his mother, and plaintiff lives with another relative. 

 Plaintiff claims she moved out of previous rental home for a bug problem, and they live off husband's SSI or SSDI, and food stamps (this is relevant to the case) have about $2k in income.    Plaintiff bought bed for $2k for defendant, (lease to own, it would have cost $4k total), and defendant kept it for a month.   Defendant put the bed outside on the porch , husband picked it up, and it was stored at  husband's mother's house, and was returned to the lease to own company.    (JJ mentions that husband is disabled, but works with a friend, violating the disability rules is JJ's guess).    Plaintiff owes $731 to leasing company.   

Plaintiff claims defendant wanted the bed, and would pay for it, and changed her mind.   Plaintiffs lived in defendant's home for three months, equivalent to $1500 savings.   Defendant said to put the rent to own bed in her name, so she would pay for bed and own it.     (What is the plaintiff's problem?   She's talking at the speed of sound). 

Plaintiff case dismissed, and both litigants are ousted.   Defendant claims plaintiff stole her money out of the bank by stealing her identity.   

Invasion of Privacy, Assault and Theft-Plaintiff suing former roommates, and plaintiff wants utility bills paid, plus move out costs.    Defendant counter claim is stupid. JJ sends litigants out to add up which utility bills each paid.    Case is recalled. 

 Defendant claims that plaintiff stole his toiletries, return of rent, and invasion of privacy (I told you it was stupid).  Defendant had a Nanny Cam, and saw plaintiff stealing from him.   

Move out costs were because defendant didn't pay for damages he did.           Defendant has a police report that says plaintiff broke into his room, and assaulted him.  

Both cases dismissed. 

Second (Rerun)-

Pomeranian Puppy Mill-Plaintiff dog breeder suing defendant for pick of litter, return of puppy, dog breeding fees, and breach of contract.      Plaintiff sold Pomeranian to defendant who has three Pomeranians, and twelve Beagles (supposedly the Beagles are the fiance's dogs).   The three Poms live in the house, and the Beagles live in a pole barn, and outside. 

  Defendant, and fiance both sell dogs, so we're talking a puppy mill for two breeds, and plaintiff is a puppy mill operator too (JJ said so). (I think plaintiff is a backyard breeder, who has more puppies produced than is right, but not a puppy mill).   Fiance says he interacts with his Beagles, and doesn't sell for profit (he gives away the culls I bet, and sells the rest).

Defendants wanted a female Pom to breed to their male Pom that was six months old, plus they have two other females, soon to be 20 Poms (my guess, maybe more than that).     Plaintiff has 6 Pomeranians, puppies sell for males $900, and females are $1200, and all are AKC registered dogs, and from different blood lines.      Defendant wanted a female puppy to breed Poms, and plaintiff had an 18 month old female to sell.   

Contract was $1500, and pick of litter, defendant claims she negotiated a better price over the phone.   Defendant said she couldn't offer a puppy because female is spayed, but dog isn't spayed yet.   Defendant claims plaintiff gave her the dog to help her with her dog breeding contract.   

There is no way I would believe the defendant has a registered AKC male to breed, or will spay female after one litter.    Defendant also got another Pom female to breed a few months later too.   (Sadly, many people who want a profitable way to finance their farm find out that running a puppy mill is profitable).   If defendant thinks JJ is falling for her sad eyed looks, and lies, then she's really wrong.   Defendant claims she doesn't want to breed dogs, and wants all of them for pets.  

Plaintiff claims defendant had an 80 pound dog [Black Mouthed Cur] that killed another of her female Poms before she bought the plaintiff's Pom.  Guess defendant avoided mentioning that dog in the dog count.     Plaintiff claims she found out about the dog killing after she sold the puppy.   

Plaintiff given choice of picking up the puppy with the sheriff's help, or money.    Plaintiff gets puppy back, with the sheriff's help, and JJ says animal control and sheriff's office will look at the animal welfare.    Defendant's crocodile tears are ridiculous, and she's just upset she can't breed this poor dog until it dies. (Byrd ferries kleenex to defendant, I think he wanted to toss them to her, wrapped in a big rock).     No money changes hands.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Those bed sisters obviously got their values from the same well.  At first I was totally on Def's side--Plain seemed like the typical grifter who's been working the system and anyone else she could work (without really working) for a very long time.  I thought it was interesting how she hesitated when JJ asked if the guy in the extremely large very pink shirt was her husband.  Not a question most married people need to mull over before answering.  But then sister who bought the $2,000/$4,000 bed admitted to living on student aid.  I have an actual J.O.B., and my bed didn't cost nearly that much.  These girls kind of scared me, if I'm honest.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

I thought it was interesting how she hesitated when JJ asked if the guy in the extremely large very pink shirt was her husband.  Not a question most married people need to mull over before answering. 

We noticed that hesitation too.  My husband asked what plaintiff's response was, and I repeated her answer in the same reluctant way.  They have different last names (as my husband and I do).  Probably one of those common law type of arrangements which aren't recognized in many states. 

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant's crocodile tears are ridiculous, and she's just upset she can't breed this poor dog until it dies. (Byrd ferries kleenex to defendant, I think he wanted to toss them to her, wrapped in a big rock).  

That show pays JJ a bazillion dollars, but she controls the tissues dammit.  I couldn't understand her tears--she has, what, 4 poms, 15 beagles and a black mouthed cur?  If she has to give back one dog, she's left with 18?  My husband thinks when plaintiff goes to pick up her dog that the dog will have disappeared.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The plaintiff said that the trees were on his property, and when he put the fence up (after a survey, complete with cemented in corner metal pins) it was inside the property line to accommodate the trees.    The worst thing is that there is no way for the plaintiff to fix this situation, unless one of the litigants sells.   No way will anyone buy the plaintiff's house with that defendant living next door.  

The defendant didn't trim anything from the trees.   He would have had the right to trim branches overhanging his property, but that's not what he did.    He had them all cut down to the ground, including the ones the day before he came to court, and all of them were the plaintiff's trees.     I would plant Bouganvillea (or however it's spelled), since you can only cut that off with a chain saw-it had hard, long wooden spikes on it.    

Thank you for the clarification.  I was under the impression he had trimmed on what he perceived was HIS side.  I had no idea he'd cut them down completely.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, in the tree case, he chopped the plaintiff's trees down to the ground.   Defendant did a bunch more the day before the court case too.    Defendant should be on a Neighbor From Hell story site.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

My husband thinks when plaintiff goes to pick up her dog that the dog will have disappeared.

Same here.

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Yes, in the tree case, he chopped the plaintiff's trees down to the ground.   Defendant did a bunch more the day before the court case too.   

Plaintiff seemed like a bit of a pushy bully, but defendant was a total dick and appeared very pleased about it. Cutting the trees to the ground the day before the hearing was a clear act of defiance and provocation.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not defending the pomeranian defendant at all.  She absolutely did not need any more poms.   I don't know if he hunts, but hunters keep packs of beagles even in these times.  And they don't stay in the house.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, parrotfeathers said:

I'm not defending the pomeranian defendant at all.  She absolutely did not need any more poms.   I don't know if he hunts, but hunters keep packs of beagles even in these times.  And they don't stay in the house.

Well, with 18 dogs, two small children and a household to maintain, defendant must excel with time management skills.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Let's Do the Bad Math- Plaintiff suing former friend for return of car down payment, emotional distress, and slander.     Defendant sold his nephew the same car, for $1098.   Then sold car to plaintiff for $745, because nephew went to jail, didn't finish paying for it, but plaintiff had to repossess it himself.    Defendant still has the title, but plaintiff has the car.   Defendant wants $5,000 for return of the car, lost wages, and car damages-this man already collected more than double the blue book of the car.      Plaintiff gets car signed over to him, and defendant gets $730 back.     Nephew told to sue uncle/defendant for his $1098.  

Contractor Scam-Plaintiff suing contractor for return of payments for home remodeling.    Defendant is a licensed contractor in Orlando, Florida, and was hired to redo a shed.  Plaintiff bought the land, and shed (more like a hunting or fishing shack type) for $22,000.   The contractor was supposed to redo the shed into quarters someone could live in,  from the studs out, and did very little.  Plaintiff paid def. $3400, to buy and install windows, drywall and texture, tub, toilet, and tile, all wiring, all plumbing, painting (interior and exterior) flooring.   Defendant violated the written contract, and has no receipts for anything.    $3400 to plaintiff.     

Second-

Single Woman Snafu!-Boyfriend/plaintiff, and girlfriend/plaintiff are suing the ex-girlfriend defendant.   Plaintiff man let her use a joint debit card to rent a car, and is suing for rental fees, towing fees, and a false restraining order.     Plaintiff man claims the defendant is a friend of many years, not a girl friend.         Plaintiff girlfriend wasn't happy about lending the defendant their car.    

Plaintiff says defendant has spare vehicles, and felt sorry for the defendant, and wanted the car out his name.   The car was loaned to defendant in July, for four weeks, and then it was traded in by the plaintiff girlfriend, for another car.   When the plaintiffs broke up, they had joint cars, individual cars, and she wanted it cleared up.     The credit card for the rental car was a joint plaintiff card, and man didn't discuss paying for the rental car, or loaning the other car to defendant.     Plaintiff girlfriend was really ticked about defendant/not a girlfriend's car use, and credit use.   Plaintiff man never mentioned the repayment of rental car fees, and car use by defendant.   

Rental car fees included toll fees, $442 in collections, plus almost $300 not in collections, plus $90 from Hertz, rental car fees outstanding($840).    False restraining order claim by defendant is denied by JJ.    

Defendant filed for restraining orders against both plaintiffs.     Defendant is a realtor, so the burglary, and theft charges hurt her career.     There are Facebook messages acknowledging the debt for the car, and tows, etc.     $2038 to the plaintiffs. (I find it interesting the old friend defendant, and plaintiff's live in look remarkably alike).  

My Sister the Moocher!-Plaintiff sister, and her man bun wearing boyfriend are suing her sister for mooching.    Of course, sister claims it was all a gift.   Defendant moved in with sister, and agreed to pay rent for $500 a month, stayed for 11 months.     Defendant moved out after a verbal altercation with man bun.   Plaintiff girlfriend bought a gun membership for man bun, and they want money for a mini fridge for the defendant.     Nothing for either set of litigants. (Defendant says she moved out because "of a lack of disrespect" by plaintiffs).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Homeless Man Kicked Out-Plaintiff suing his former roommates for a false restraining order, rent, and other stuff.    One defendant is the owner/roommate, two other roommates are renters from first defendant, and plaintiff rented a garage space from defendant.   Plaintiff rented garage space, with separate bathroom facilities, instead of being homeless.   Who the hell in Boise government allows rentals of garage spaces without bathrooms for living space?    Garage space was unfinished space.   Plaintiff put down carpet, and paint, pictures on wall, and other items to make space better. 

 Defendant woman is another tenant, and is retired/disabled with a terminal illness.     Woman tenant/defendant has a temporary restraining order against plaintiff.   Woman blames plaintiff's drinking and belligerent attitude, and threats, against her for the TRO.   Another former tenant and girlfriend moved out, blaming the plaintiff.   However, plaintiff has since moved out of the rental property.   Defendant woman claims the day after plaintiff was removed by police to a hospital, and woman claims plaintiff demanded she buy Meth for him.   Plaintiff claims he complained to management, and police about defendant woman dealing drugs on the rental premises.  

TRO put plaintiff out of the residence/garage, until TRO hearing.   TRO was dismissed when defendant woman didn't show in court.    JJ's guess is that landlord wanted plaintiff out, and used TRO by defendant woman to get rid of plaintiff, without going through legal eviction proceedings.  Both defendant tenants went to get the protective order for the woman, but male tenant didn't show up.   Defendant tenant kept the security deposit, but didn't return it to the organization that paid it.   Since man was booted out by the TRO, and had no time to clean, but landlord kept the furnishings that plaintiff put in the garage space.    When plaintiff returned to the garage space, after the TRO was dropped, there was someone living in it, with his furnishings.   $950 to plaintiff, in lieu of going back to that snake pit to get his stuff.  

(This is such a sad case.  It's pretty obvious that the plaintiff, and woman defendant are very compromised, so is the other tenant, and the landlord is a big jerk.)    

Second (Rerun)-

Mystery Tire Slasher-Plaintiff claims former boyfriend slashed her tires, but has no proof, so that's not happening.   Plaintiff claims the defendant was storing two of her bicycles in the defendant's mother's commercial building basement, and she wants them back.   Defendant says he gave bikes and other things away, because plaintiff wouldn't pick up her stuff.  Plaintiff receives $100 for the two bikes.   (In court after defendant's claim is dismissed, he wants his medication that was at plaintiff's house, and worth $1,000 back.   Plaintiff says "You mean your Viagra").

My In-Laws Stole My Dog-Plaintiff claims ex-in laws stole his dog, and other property.  However, he can't say what the other property was, or have proof, except for his car.  As usual, in-laws have nothing belonging to plaintiff, and marital property needs to be split by the divorce judge.   Sorry, he doesn't get dog back either.   (Plaintiff stomps out of the courtroom when he loses).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

After watching today's episode (homeless man evicted from garage) I have to wonder:

Did Judge Judy really go to post-graduate school for 7 years to hear a bunch of meth heads fight over an eviction? I guess she did. 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 11

Share this post


Link to post

I'm guessing it is not legal for them to rent out the garage, but if no one catches them....  Also, the boy who moved in with his dad in Eagle and didn't want to go back to the house..... Eagle is an upscale community, I'm guessing the dad may have given the boy his portion of the money to buy the house to get him out in the first place.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I questioned the end-stage emphysema disability.  If she was that sick, shouldn't she have been using supplemental oxygen? 

Didn't like the defendant who did all of the talking.  He was quite rehearsed, and probably hoped to impress Judy with correct grammar, an occasional big word.  The other defendant had godawful vocal fry. 

If anyone in Boise's government was watching, I hope they look a bit closer at the housing that they're subsidizing. 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I questioned the end-stage emphysema disability.  If she was that sick, shouldn't she have been using supplemental oxygen? 

This! I've known 3 people in that situation & each of them was tethered to oxygen 24/7.

  • Like 7
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

I thought both the Pom Plaintiff and the Pom Defendant were total garbage people but at least the Pom Plaintiff (whose dogs had produced "six or seven" litters in less than three years) took the dog back rather than take the money. The Plaintiff was also alleging that the male Pom belonging to the Garbage Defendant had birth defects and Garbage Defendant was very cagey ("Mary") when asked who she got her other Poms from. I'm guessing Craigslist. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Dirty Drug Test Bail Out-Plaintiff suing ex-wife for unpaid bail, and credit damage.  Defendant failed drug test, again.      They were actually living together for a while, because otherwise she would be homeless.   Her children were taken by the state in 2005 after a DUI, and plaintiff has custody since 2005.  She was arrested in 2008 for petty theft, 2005 DUI, and this time 2013 for a dirty drug test.    She tested dirty for meth, and prescription drugs.    Defendant paid child support from her disability.   

Remaining bond amount is $4786, or she would have to go to jail for six months.   She claims to be sober for six months, but she's been arrested many times in El Dorado county, California.   Defendant's mother claims she didn't know daughter was busted again.     Too bad for plaintiff, the phone number for bondsman is wrong, no contact to verify.  Case dismissed. 

Teen TV Custody-Plaintiff and defendant lived together, bought a TV two years ago, and plaintiff wants $300 for half of their joint TV.   (Defendant has a "Once Upon A Time" Disney tattoo on her upper chest, and between that and her green hair, and numerous facial piercings, it's not a pretty picture).   Defendant offered $300, and plaintiff accepted it, so he gets the money.   $450, for plaintiff, $150 for the phone defendant broke, and $300 for the TV. 

Second-

Father Shields Negligent Teenager-Plaintiff suing 17 year old driver, and his father for automobile damage from teen hitting her car.    Plaintiff was turning left off of highway, and teen pulled out from stop sign, and hit entire driver's side of plaintiff's car.  Both cars were insured, and everyone had a license.     Father of teen arrived at accident scene, and asked plaintiff to not call police, and said he would pay for damage.     Then when defendant's father refused to pay for car damage, lied to his insurance company about the accident, so his insurance rates wouldn't go up.   

Teen driver also stands up at the display board and lies about the accident too.    After this the car was rear ended, and car was totaled, but it was a reduced amount because of previous accident damage.    JJ awards nothing, because woman received more money that car was worth.  

Shouting Out Not Allowed-Plaintiff suing ex roommate for theft of his property.   The two litigants were just roommates, matched up to rent house by realtor who rented the house.   Defendant locked plaintiff out of the house, and he couldn't retrieve his property.    Only defendant signed the lease with the realtor.   Plaintiff claims he was never served with counter claim by defendant, so she has to refile in their location.    Defendant received a TRO, and plaintiff couldn't go back into the residence.       

JJ is right, defendant should live alone.    Defendant saying how scared she was of wimpy plaintiff is so unbelievable.     Defendant says man only left trash behind, and she disposed of it all.   $0 for plaintiff.  (Plaintiff won't shut up, and gets his case dismissed, after he says defendant is a meth user).  If he kept his mouth shut, he would have been paid, but too bad. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Lesbians Call it Quits-Plaintiff (U.S.),and defendant (Canadian) met on the internet.   Then they had a fight, and broke up.   Plaintiff bought an iPhone, tablet, and other stuff.   After the breakup the defendant sold the phone, and iPad.    Defendant shipped clothes to the plaintiff, through defendant's business, and those cartons will go to the defendant after court case.  (Defendant's fake eyelashes are so huge, and long).    Plaintiff's car was driven by defendant, and left in Buffalo, after the fight.   Defendant was supposed to pay car payment, but plaintiff did.  

Defendant counter claim ended with the clothes carton return, and the car issue dismissal.  Because defendant sold the phone, and iPad, plaintiff is told to keep the clothes defendant shipped to her, and sell them.   Phone was $1099.   (iPhone 11), iPad was $1006.  Plaintiff gets $2,000 for the iPhone, and iPad.   Defendant will now get her cartons of clothing back. 

Custody Battle Ends With New Girlfriend Daycare-Plaintiff and defendant were in a relationship, not living together, and defendant couldn't  pay his rent for a months and day care bills.   So plaintiff gave defendant the rent money, day care funds, and other items.    Defendant added plaintiff to his car insurance, but never actually paid the insurance, so plaintiff paid the insurance after taking defendant off of the policy.     Defendant was in a custody battle over his daughter.   Plaintiff says she gave defendant a loan for rent for 1 month (August), day care costs,   ('Getting to know each other' is apparently the new dating phrase).  

Sadly, defendant's daughter's mother died, and that is why the custody battle ensued.   In September they had a big argument, and plaintiff figured out the defendant is a fool, and deadbeat.   Plaintiff gets $3216

Second (Rerun)-

Don't Drink Water Now!   I'm Speaking!-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend (who is married) for a truck she claims she paid for, but he kept.  Plaintiff's Mommy gave daughter money to fix the truck, for almost $1,000.   Defendant's worse sin is he's trying to drink a lot of the Sacred Water That Must Not Be Drunk, while JJ is talking.   Truck was registered in defendant's father's name, but is driven by defendant and wife.   

Before the breakup with plaintiff, defendant and plaintiff used the truck.   (Dating is now called "Dealing With").   Defendant says he can't drive the truck because he has Epilepsy.      Plaintiff paid for truck (bought from defendant's father), and litigants drove truck together.   

JJ says plaintiff should sue the father, because he didn't give her title to the truck, so she needs a judgment against the father for the truck.   Plaintiff says the father refused to come to court.   This is when JJ tells defendant to leave the water alone.    Defendant is counter suing for destruction of property.     Nothing for anyone.    

Follow the Money-Plaintiffs suing defendant / boat mechanic for return of a deposit, repairs, and property damage.   Plaintiffs took boat to mechanic in late October 2017, left a deposit of $5,000 to fix the boat.   Plaintiff claims she put the money in checking,  then withdrew money, but nothing shows money went to defendant a couple of weeks later.     Plaintiff claims she gave the mechanic $5,000 cash, but didn't get a receipt.       Case is dismissed without prejudice to go back to a local court.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If they filmed Judge Judy without an audience, what would you miss the most?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think JJ doesn't play to the audience as much as other stars, so I don't think it would be a huge deal

Re: being repaid for TVs people bought more than 6 months ago--anything older than a few months is worth a tiny fraction of what you paid for it. TVs are basically prizes in the Cracker Jacks box anymore. 

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
SilverStormm

Community Manager Note

Official notice that the topic of Sean DeMarco is off limits. If you have 1-on-1 thoughts to complete please take it to PM with each other.

If you have questions, contact the forum moderator @PrincessPurrsALot.  Do not discuss this limit to this discussion in here. Doing so will result in a warning. 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size