All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Divorcees Who Can't Call It Quits-Plaintiff and defendant have been divorced for 18 years.   Defendant, and their adult son moved into plaintiff's house (2 months after divorce), there was an argument, and defendant and son left.   Former family home was plaintiff's father's house, and after divorce plaintiff stayed there, and two months later the defendant and son move in with plaintiff.    The trailer was 14 x 70, and bought fully furnished.  Over the years, plaintiff replaced the furniture, recarpeted, painted, etc.     Defendant and children (only one left), stayed there.   Then defendant bought another trailer in 2001, but litigants got back together, rented for a while, and plaintiff's parents bought a house for plaintiff.   House was unfurnished, and plaintiff furnished everything for the house.  Defendant paid $400 to $500 a month as rent.    

There was an argument in July 2019, with adult son, and plaintiff/father.   Defendant, son, his girlfriend, and their baby.   Defendant received an order of protection, that excluded him from his own house.   When plaintiff got the defendant, and rest of the cast of thousands, he found everything gone in the home, except the stove and fridge.    Defendant thinks she had the right to take everything with her.    Plaintiff's parents paid cash for the house, and plaintiff repaid them.     After the furniture theft by defendant, plaintiff bought a few items of furniture, and is transferring his job location, so doesn't need furniture.   Defendant is counter suing for a fridge, and title for travel trailer.   Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant gets nothing, and deserves less. Defendant told to negotiate a buy out on the travel trailer with plaintiff, that's not going to happen. 

Procrastinate Now-Plaintiff suing brother and sister/defendants for missing and damaged property.    The litigants were all living together, and about a year ago there was a fight with the brother.   There was an order of protection against plaintiff, and it has since expired, and plaintiff wants her property back.    Plaintiff was given the right to go with a police escort to get her property back, a year ago, but plaintiff didn't pick up her property.      Plaintiff says she had no where to take or store her furniture.   Plaintiff's items were put in a back storage area, and plaintiff never picked her property up in over a year.   

At the time of the argument, the plaintiff went in brother's room and destroyed his clothes. 

Defendant says the TV plaintiff wants back belonged to defendant's boyfriend, and it was picked up long ago.     Defendants are counter suing for property damage, and harassment.  Defendants have nothing belonging to plaintiff.    Everything dismissed.  

Second (Rerun)-

Woman Subjected to Lie Detector Test-Plaintiff suing cousin for refund for airline ticket, lie detector test, and hotel room (part of trip package).    Defendant claimed right before a trip to Miami, that plaintiff stole from her ($2600).   Plaintiff said defendant should pay for a lie detector test if plaintiff passed the test (she passed).   Plaintiff paid for her airline ticket, but didn't go, and defendant says it was non-refundable.   This was a hotel, air fare package deal.   $800 for airline ticket, and $159 for room.   I wouldn't go with the defendant after she called me a thief either.   

All three women who were accused took lie detector tests, and passed.  $325 for lie detector test (only plaintiff had one, and passed).    $147 was the concert ticket, each, and defendant wants to be repaid for the ticket.  Defendant gets nothing for concert ticket, and JJ has to tell her that "textes", isn't a word.     Plaintiff gets hotel cost back, but not airline ticket (plaintiff actually flew to Miami).   Plaintiff gets $159 for hotel fee.    

Hot Mess Sleepover-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for late fees, stolen money, damaged property.     Defendant wanted to sleep over at her place, and plaintiff claims the next morning her futon was ruined, and items were missing.    Actually, he slept with plaintiff, not on the futon.   

Plaintiff claims $525 was stolen from her purse, and plaintiff's daughter is the witness to the theft.  Daughter didn't immediately tell her mother about the theft, and I can see why JJ dismisses it.   (Tacky note to plaintiff, wearing a regular bra, and an off the should top is tacky, not fashion).   JJ should have told the plaintiff and her thieving, lying daughter to get out.   It was obvious to me that the daughter took the money, and then only blamed the man when the mother found out the money was gone.   

$525 for plaintiff (because defendant offered to "help her out" with the missing money).         

Edited March 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Ilovecomputers]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims $525 was stolen from her purse, and plaintiff's daughter is the witness to the theft

I didn’t believe the plaintiff’s daughter, and I think her daughter stole the money. The daughter claims she saw the defendant rummaging around in plaintiff’s purse.  Her mom took her to school but the daughter never mentioned it until after school. Daughter pondered over the matter and all that the defendant had put her mother through.  Translation:  Daughter took the money and hatched a plan in school to make the defendant a scapegoat.  Defendant offered to help plaintiff out but claimed plaintiff paid her rent and that was the end of that. Translation:  He wanted a friend with occasional benefits and no emotional commitments.  He was working two jobs; why would he need to steal money?  The daughter is 13 going on 30.

[ThePurpleArcher]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Procrastinate Now-Plaintiff suing brother and sister/defendants for missing and damaged property.    The litigants were all living together, and about a year ago there was a fight with the brother.   There was an order of protection against plaintiff, and it has since expired, and plaintiff wants her property back.    Plaintiff was given the right to go with a police escort to get her property back, a year ago, but plaintiff didn't pick up her property.      Plaintiff says she had no where to take or store her furniture.   Plaintiff's items were put in a back storage area, and plaintiff never picked her property up in over a year.   

At the time of the argument, the plaintiff went in brother's room and destroyed his clothes. 

Defendant says the TV plaintiff wants back belonged to defendant's boyfriend, and it was picked up long ago.     Defendants are counter suing for property damage, and harassment.  Defendants have nothing belonging to plaintiff.    Everything dismissed.  

 

Damn her brother was sexy, until she let out at the end that he liked to wear her clothes which is why he stole them. Sorry Devon - I'll pass on that. LOL! 

Between this family and the first family - I wish the producers of 'FAMILY FEUD' would sign them up for their show. Can't wait for Steve Harvey to question Devon - "So you like to dress up in your sister's clothes?"  Harvey would have plenty of fun with the other family, as well...

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Pomeranians and the Police-Plaintiff was walking her two Poms. on the street, leashed, and defendant's Cattle Dogs jumped out of defendant's Jeep, and her dogs attacked plaintiff's dogs.    Plaintiff claims defendant has had two previous run ins with defendant screaming at plaintiff for walking her dogs on the public street.     Plaintiff took her dog to the vet,  and claims the abscess on dog's face was a puncture wound.  Defendant didn't pay her animal control fine, because she claims her dogs weren't out of her Jeep, and JJ advises her that the city will put a lien on her house.   

Defendant filed a restraining order against plaintiff walking on the street, and it was denied,    Defendant keeps laughing at inappropriate times, and denying reality, it's obvious something is wrong with her.   JJ says defendant needs psychiatric help, and I absolutely agree.   This is the kind of case that makes you thankful that your nutty neighbor (everybody has at least one), leaves you alone.  

$1500 to plaintiff for defendant harassing her, and for filing a false protective order,  but not enough proof for vet bills.   

Underage Drinking and Online Bullying-Plaintiff alleges defendant (former high school friend) kicked her car after a night of drinking.    Defendant claims she wasn't drinking (she's 20).    There was a verbal fight, mostly by defendant, and defendant kicked plaintiff's car, witnessed by two others in police report.  Plaintiff says defendant was very drunk.    $1600 for plaintiff, and defendant told to stuff it. 

Second-

Be Afraid... Or Not-Plaintiff left home of ex boyfriend and his nasty mother, and claims they destroyed her property (21 and they lived together for 3 years).  Plaintiff's mother is asked why she didn't ask her 21 year old daughter to come home to escape an abusive relationship.  Mother's answer is "because she's an adult, and lives on her own" .   

There are multiple police reports about malicious mischief, one report wasn't done until over a month later.  Plaintiff claims defendant has many police reports against him, and his loud mouth mother awful.  Plaintiff now gives up on everything but her car, that had domestic abuse (yes, a car had domestic abuse against it).  Case dismissed.  

DWI Disability Fail-Plaintiff suing former friend for false accusations of depositing a check.   Litigants were in the Military together.   When defendant went to jail for DWI, she told plaintiff to use the check for rent.   A check was cashed by plaintiff, and defendant told her bank it was false cashing of check.  Defendant wants $1000 back, has no proof of anything.  Plaintiff gets $1,000, defendant ridiculous claim dismissed.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Never Say a Judge Made a Mistake-(I hope this makes sense, because it was a very confusing case)    Plaintiff suing his daughter's mother for the return of child support (daughter is 15).    A child support order was in effect, and there was an additional $274 a month for child care, however, So in 2015 the child support child care portion was ended, but it was retroactive to 2010 (or something like that) to pay for previous years that no child care was paid.          Plaintiff quit working in 2018, and has gone to court many times to get child support reduced, or eliminated.   In 2018 daughter was getting some money from plaintiff's Social Security, so child support was reduced by  $180 a month, until the over paid child care amount is paid back to plaintiff.

Plaintiff (I'll call him Mr. Deadbeat) wants extra money, because there were $17k of over payments, and that can't be paid back before daughter ages out.   My guess is that daughter and daddy won't have any relationship after this.      In 2018 child support went to zero, so Mr. Deadbeat isn't getting his extra money back.   And Mr. Deadbeat says the judge was wrong, and says it to JJ.  Mr. Deadbeat stopped working in 2014, claiming he's 'being disabled', but started a company then too.   Mr. Deadbeat admits to four trips to court to reduce or eliminate child support, defendant says 

(Did I mention I loathe the plaintiff, Mr. Deadbeat?)

Plaintiff's witness stands up and interrupts.   JJ yells a "Sit" order loud enough that I bet every puppy watching this show just planted their fanny firmly on the floor.   Plaintiff's witness gets his stupid rear tossed.     Mr Deadbeat's case is tossed.  (By the way Mr. Deadbeat, child support is to support the child, not to bank it, especially at that minimal level of payments)

Teen Counselor Demands Payback-Plaintiff suing former roommates for his $767 for a month he was away at camp (he's a counselor).   Defendants got a refund for half of a month, because of an air conditioner leak, and plaintiff want's his part of the rent refund.   The entire rent was $2903, and there were only 3 people in the apartment, but plaintiff only rented the one bedroom.    $967 to plaintiff.   

Second (Rerun)-

Me Too Movement Nonsense-Plaintiff suing co-worker for loan ($719) to repair her car.   Defendant claims plaintiff hit on her, and would forgive the loan if she slept with him.    The litigants worked together for about 90 days, until she was fired.   She's also 'on leave' from Kohl's.   

Car was towed to mechanic, plaintiff paid to fix the car.   After defendant got car back, she refused to pay plaintiff for the work.     As defendant is making allegations of sexual harassment against plaintiff, plaintiff's wife is sitting right there (she's a witness).    JJ objects to defendant crying sexual harassment to avoid repaying the money.  

The defendant is a total scammer, and with her inappropriate giggling, and laughing, she seems totally out of control. 

Plaintiff receives $700, defendant gets nothing.  

Money Pool Takes a Nose Dive-Plaintiff suing for an unpaid round of a money pool/savings plan known as a Candena (spelling?).      Plaintiff claims you draw the numbers at the beginning, each person puts their money in, and get paid the $9k each month by month when their number comes up.    So number nine gets nothing, according to the defendant.  But plaintiff claims everyone puts in the money, and the ninth person gets $9k last.    No, I don't understand how this works, or why anyone would do this.    No one gets extra money, they only get their $9,000 back.    Text messages from defendant acknowledge that he stole the plaintiff's money. 

$5,000 to plaintiff, however, he's still $4,000 short.  

 

[ThePurpleArcher]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Never Say a Judge Made a Mistake-(I hope this makes sense, because it was a very confusing case)    Plaintiff suing his daughter's mother for the return of child support (daughter is 15).    A child support order was in effect, and there was an additional $274 a month for child care, however, So in 2015 the child support child care portion was ended, but it was retroactive to 2010 (or something like that) to pay for previous years that no child care was paid.          Plaintiff quit working in 2018, and has gone to court many times to get child support reduced, or eliminated.   In 2018 daughter was getting some money from plaintiff's Social Security, so child support was reduced by  $180 a month, until the over paid child care amount is paid back to plaintiff.

Plaintiff (I'll call him Mr. Deadbeat) wants extra money, because there were $17k of over payments, and that can't be paid back before daughter ages out.   My guess is that daughter and daddy won't have any relationship after this.      In 2018 child support went to zero, so Mr. Deadbeat isn't getting his extra money back.   And Mr. Deadbeat says the judge was wrong, and says it to JJ.  Mr. Deadbeat stopped working in 2014, claiming he's 'being disabled', but started a company then too.   Mr. Deadbeat admits to four trips to court to reduce or eliminate child support, defendant says 

(Did I mention I loathe the plaintiff, Mr. Deadbeat?)

Plaintiff's witness stands up and interrupts.   JJ yells a "Sit" order loud enough that I bet every puppy watching this show just planted their fanny firmly on the floor.   Plaintiff's witness gets his stupid rear tossed.     Mr Deadbeat's case is tossed.  (By the way Mr. Deadbeat, child support is to support the child, not to bank it, especially at that minimal level of payments)

 

 

It was hard to follow, but I believe the plaintiff had a good case, and it was beyond Judge Judy's expertise for a half hour show. At one point she acknowledged he was owed $10,000 but she could only grant him $5,000 and he was fine with that - which pissed her off more. 

From what I gathered, he was paying his child support every month on time, as well as child care. His baby-mama was collecting both, but then left her job to be a stay-at-him mom, and was STILL collecting child care - even though she was at home with her daughter. Apparently, their family judge understood this and awarded the plaintiff a refund going back a few years, since he essentially 'overpaid' in child care expenses which no longer existed.

Judge Judy doesn't like responsible fathers like this. She abhors entrepreneurs of any kind (she's prove this time and time again). She doesn't like disabled people, either. So he had three strikes against him, and she allowed the wife to 'double dip'. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

My interpretation (this case almost put me to sleep) was that the man didn't pay child care for years, but then it was added on, and since the daughter was way too old for child care by then it was dropped.   However, I thought the judge (or maybe a previous judge did this) said that the man didn't owe child care for now, but did for about 5 years before, so he was having to pay that.   Then another judge looked at it, and realized that the man had over paid $17,000 in child support, so he paid very little for a couple of years.    The small amount of child support was supposed to catch up a lot of the over payments, but then the man went on disability, and there wasn't a child support to get credit for.   Then for a couple of years he not only wasn't paying, but wasn't getting credit for what he paid, because he went on disability.    Then he figured out that he would never get even for the over payment, and still was owed a lot, because in two or three years the daughter would age out of child support payments.      

The biggest mistake the man made was he should have gone back to the local jurisdiction, not small claims.     That's the only place that could help him, and for whatever reason, the family court didn't want to help him.  That's the only place that could do anything about garnishing the defendant's wages too, not JJ.      However, I hated the remarks that the child support should have been banked for the child to get when she's older.    Child support is to support the child, not for savings.   If there was some huge sum left over, then bank it, but I doubt what the man was paying really made a dent in the expenses for the daughter.    I bet there is zero relationship with the child by the father, and he acted as if it was someone else's fault he had a kid to support.   It takes two to make a baby.     I felt sorry for the girl, and I bet that she's spent years of her life hearing about what a burden she was to the father.    I bet everything was garnished from his pay, and I doubt he ever paid a penny voluntarily.    

 

[tiftgirl]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ yells a "Sit" order loud enough that I bet every puppy watching this show just planted their fanny firmly on the floor.

This made me laugh like a loon!  I could just picture little fannys hitting the floor and puppies across the countty thinking "WHAT did I do??"

Reminds me of the time I put a Thundershirt on one of my cats and she just dropped like a stone as if it somehow took away the use of her legs.  I felt so bad I couldn't get it off fast enough.  She also had to watch me box it back up and close the box before she moved again.

[AuntiePam]

I think one reason JJ ruled against the overpaying-dad was that the amount he paid was so low.  $180 a month for regular child support and $224 when mom had to pay for child care.  She said a few times that you couldn't feed a hummingbird on $180 a month.

I wonder if he had any kind of relationship with his daughter.  I doubt it.  I also wonder about his relationship with defendant.  Was it a one-night stand or did they at least date for awhile?  Not that it matters -- it's just sad.  Everyone gets shortchanged.  Dad has to pay for a child he didn't want/doesn't care about, mom struggles to provide, daughter has no father figure, and JJ and Byrd help foot the bill for the WIC and Section 8 and other assistance over the years.

I waited for JJ to ask plaintiff the nature of his disability, but she didn't. 

[khyber]

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

I waited for JJ to ask plaintiff the nature of his disability, but she didn't. 

Me too.

[Schnickelfritz]

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I think one reason JJ ruled against the overpaying-dad was that the amount he paid was so low.  $180 a month for regular child support and $224 when mom had to pay for child care.  She said a few times that you couldn't feed a hummingbird on $180 a month.

I thought it was reduced BY $180 per month. Not knocked down to $180. Too bad I  erased the  show. I double checked as I thought I read it that way, but JJ for the first half kept saying he was only paying $180. They could only knock down the amount by 20% to try to rectify the mistake. Anyone read the  paperwork???

I think he was paying child support until he made bad business decisions and went for disability. Now his child support comes out of that. Maybe they were saying they could only take 20% of that. I was confused as poor Byrd by the end of it. Didn't like either parent.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Revealing 911 Call-Plaintiff suing former friend, and two others for vandalizing his car (one woman is his cousin).   There is a 911 call from the plaintiff, with breaking glass on the tape.  Plaintiff has a protective order against his cousin for two years, but he says all three defendants attacked him.     Plaintiff claims the two women threw mustard on his car when he was stopped at a light, he was heading to work.   He pulled into a parking lot to call police, and that's when the two women, and the man, smashed the plaintiff's window.    Plaintiff's witness (a woman he didn't know before this) heard the rock smash the window and saw all three defendants in the parking lot.     Defendants claim they were in Chicago when the attack happened, but as usual, the witness couldn't make it.     Defendants are such liars.     I feel sorry for plaintiff's witness, she did the right thing talking to police, and coming to court, but I worry about retaliation by the three defendants.     $1170 for plaintiff, defendant told to get lost.  

Trust Your Instincts-Plaintiffs are landlords, and rented to the grandmother of defendant for 15 years, and grandma is still a tenant.    Defendant is granddaughter, and her witness is her mother (Daughter of grandmother tenant, mother of defendant).  Defendant was a tenant, given a three day notice to leave in January, 2016. According to landlords, didn't move until March 2016.    Defendant has a ton of reasons for not paying full rent ($800 a month), and didn't pay full rent after August 2015.     $4400 is owed by defendant according to landlords.  $4400 to landlords.   

Second-

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

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

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

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Ex Wives on the Prowl-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend (Kentako Brown) for assault, security deposit return, and over paid rent.    They met on online dating site, and plaintiff moved in with him, put down security deposit, and signed two year leases, and moved out in 2019.    Plaintiff claims she moved out because of harassment from more than one ex-wife of defendant.  There was also one other roommate with the two litigants.     Plaintiff says when she left, she claims she paid rent until another roommate moved in, but claims defendant said roommate was paying less than their share.   Defendant says plaintiff moved in and out of the apartment several times.    Plaintiff's witness is Jeffrey the roommate after she moved out.   Jeffrey was paying $600, plus $100 for part of the utilities.   However, plaintiff was paying $900 for rent.   (I really dislike the defendant.   Is he stoned?)

So far plaintiff is owed $1300, for rent and security back.   

Plaintiff filed a police report for an assault by defendant on her at a cell phone store.    No medical. $2191 for plaintiff. 

How the Boxes in Men's Brains Work-Plaintiff suing former girlfriend for kicking his car, and denting it.   They were living together for three years or so, they had an argument, and defendant didn't like his explanation about where he was, so she kicked his car.  (JJ says the male brain has boxes in their brain, that aren't connected, and once something is discussed, it's over).  Picture of foot print on door of plaintiff's car is submitted.   

Plaintiff gets $2100.

Don't Be an Idiot in Front of Your Child-Plaintiff suing ex for return of rent, moving expenses, and damages from an illegal eviction.    The litigants got together, she moved into his house, they had a child (poor kid), and then they broke up.   She gave him $1,000 for a car, instead of paying for her own apartment (she only stayed 6 days).    The money came from plaintiff's car getting hit ($1600), and she kept the insurance money instead of getting the car fixed, and gave $1,000 to defendant.   Plaintiff flew to Houston, and wants the plane ticket money back.    $1,000 to plaintiff.   

Second (Rerun)-

Dalmatian Claims Victory Over Pit Bull-Plaintiff (Pit Bull/Beagle cross owner) suing defendants (Dalmatian) for vet bills for an attack by defendant dog.   Plaintiff has two dogs, and was walking them on leash, when defendant wife opened garage door, letting the defendant's dog out, and the attack happened.      All three dogs were injured by mace used by plaintiff to separate dogs.  Defendants claim plaintiff's dogs were actually on defendant's property when the attack happened.    It took four months for plaintiff to get the animal control report.    

Plaintiff said he was walking his dogs in the street, and defendant's garage opened, and their Dalmatian charged and attacked the plaintiff's Pit Bull.   Plaintiff maced the dogs to get the fight ended.  Defendant claims her mother opened the house door, and let the dog out.   Both defendants' statements contradict each other.   Plus defendant wife claims she was warming her car up, in June, in San Diego (why would anyone warm a car up in San Diego in June?).  (Defendant husband is obviously well-rehearsed, and wife is in charge of everything in that house).   Plaintiff dog looks like a Lab, not a pit.  

Defendant wife claims plaintiff was carrying a baseball bat, and attacked her dog while it was on their property.       Defendant's son claims to have seen other incidents involving plaintiff dogs, and defendant husband gets booted.   Defendant wife has video that she claims shows plaintiff walking on her property, but he's actually on the sidewalk and then the street.   $212.45 for vet bills.  I don't blame the plaintiff for carrying a baseball bat now when he walks his dogs.   

The Dalmatian attacks Lab case (the Pit/Lab looked like pure Lab to me) was very confusing, but a lot of that was the constant contradictions between the two defendants.   With the son chiming in, making stupid claims, it was even worse.     I bet the Dalmatian has more than one attack, and despite the Disney movie, I've known some really aggressive, nasty Dalmatians over the years. 

 The video showed the defendants, and their son were liars.    And if you don't want someone walking on a public street, and carrying a baseball bat, then keep your animal under control, and behind a fence.     My guess is the defendants let their dog outside a lot, in the front yard.        

The statement about the wife warming her car up didn't make sense to me.   It was June, in San Diego, and it couldn't have been cold.    

50K Bail and Seizures in Jail-Plaintiff suing defendant (her cousin) for an unpaid loan for bail.   Defendant was arrested for domestic violence, had been in jail for a few weeks before bail was posted.  Plaintiff says defendant called him collect from jail, and told her he needed $50k assured bail.   

Defendant counter suing for plaintiff posting his arrest record, which is apparently pretty extensive.     Plaintiff put up $3,000 for bail, he repaid $195, and JJ awards plaintiff $2805, and nothing to defendant.   

Edited March 25, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Ilovecomputers]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Plaintiff has two dogs, and was walking them on leash, when defendant wife opened garage door, letting the defendant's dog out, and the attack happened. 

I'm not sure if there was a language barrier, but it seems to me the defendant was trying to explain that she used a remote starter to start her car.  JJ went ballistic.  "YOU CAN'T START A CAR WITHOUT TOUCHING THE BRAKE PEDAL!!!"  Judy probably gets driven everywhere in a limo and is out of touch with remote starters and voice commands for a car.

Defendant's household was odd to say the least.  The answer they filed was corrected to say that instead of doing housework, she was leaving for work.  She was "warming up" her car on a June day.  The wife also testified that as soon as the garage door opened, or the front door opened, or bells went off, or something, her mother began doing landscaping in the front yard.  I watched the video where they claim the plaintiff's dog was in their front yard.  Geez, it might have stepped over from the sidewalk to put a foot in their yard.  My husband and I observe a man in our sub encourage his male dog to raise his leg and urinate on our brick mailbox, but when we've confronted him about it, he denies it.

[bad things are bad]

Quote

JJ went ballistic.  "YOU CAN'T START A CAR WITHOUT TOUCHING THE BRAKE PEDAL!!!"  Judy probably gets driven everywhere in a limo and is out of touch with remote starters and voice commands for a car.

Plus push button start. And you can start a car without depressing the brake pedal, but you can't put it into gear. 

 

[Mondrianyone]

God, she's becoming such an embarrassment.  Poor Byrd.  He obviously still wants to hold on to this job.

I'm old enough to remember the Watergate Hearings.  This reminds me of Senator Montoya telling witnesses to "talk into the machine."  He meant the microphone, but he was too old to know what it was called.

[CrazyInAlabama]

.

Edited March 25, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 pm episodes, both reruns, probably from 2016-

First-

21st Birthday Party Down the Toilet-Plaintiff rented house for a 21st birthday party (for son's birthday party, instead of his condo), and there was only one working toilet, with no toilet paper flushing allowed, and an outside urinal pit.   Defendant claims to have had parties up to 300 people at the house, and have to carry toilet paper outside in garbage bags.   There is nothing in the contract about the bathrooms, just a sign in the one working bathroom, with one toilet.   Plaintiff claims defendant rented backyard, and defendant lives in the house.  Defendant is counter suing for damages to plumbing.   $750 was rental price, and plaintiff gets $350 back. (Defendant already refunded $100 to the plaintiff) (This case is so disgusting.    How can any jurisdiction allow this person to rent this house, with unusable plumbing?)  

Volvo Custody Fight-Plaintiff suing for repair costs, and storage fees for 2005 Volvo S80.   Plaintiff bought car from defendant, and claimed it couldn't be smogged, and therefore, was not able to be registered.  Plaintiff wants to keep car, but get paid for mechanical work she put into it.  This is a California sale, and is required to have a valid smog certification.  

Defendant will have to take the car back, and will pay the car price back to plaintiff.   However, plaintiff wants to keep car, so case is dismissed.    

Second-

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

Then case gets interesting, defendant claims plaintiff doesn't own house, doesn't rent main house, but lives in it herself in the summer season, and rents the back house out.   Plaintiff letter says plaintiff had complaints from the back house renters about disorderly behavior (4 police visits were documented).   Eviction action started in mid-May, according to property manager.     $2,000 back rent to plaintiff.   

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

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Family Uproar Over Nursing-Home Wedding-Plaintiff suing ex-stepmother/defendant and her roommate for property damage, and taking late father's belongings.  The case is actually over late father's money he left the defendant, who was his wife.    This case was after probate finished with late father's estate.   Defendant step mom had lived with late father at his home, for 12-15 years.    Defendant woman also worked in the business (car lot) with late husband/plaintiff's father.   Plaintiff daughter says defendant woman was just a live-in companion, not a marital partner.  Plaintiff/daughter claims step-mother/defendant woman was banned from hospital (by his family).     My guess, it's all about the money with daughter.    Defendant roommate moved in with defendant woman, after husband died.    

(What the hell is wrong with plaintiff's husband?   He looks like he's going to topple out of chair any second).     Plaintiff and her sister got the house in probate, and will sell it soon.  Defendant woman, and plaintiff's father married at nursing home, but plaintiff daughter/harpy nullified the marriage, and that's how plaintiff and her sister got everything.  Plaintiff claims defendant woman stole furniture, pool sticks, family albums, some kind of yearbooks, and everything that belonged to late father.    Probate case has already ruled on house contents, in favor of plaintiff daughter.    There was a will leaving everything to the two daughters, since marriage with defendant woman was nullified.   Defendant woman, and roommate claims she left everything behind in the house.   Plaintiff case dismissed, and counterclaim dismissed.  

No One Scams Judge Judy-Plaintiff suing defendant/nephew for crashing a car defendant took without permission.   Plaintiff actually had insurance, and car was an older Jaguar.   Plaintiff's wife was in a wreck, car was totaled, and plaintiff was paid $5629 for the car value.    Plaintiff claims he had car fixed, but there is zero proof he fixed the car.  Plaintiff claims car was repaired, and nephew/defendant stole the car, and wrecked it again.   Nephew/defendant says the litigants were driving home from the casino, came home to plaintiff's house, and nephew supposedly took car and wrecked it.    If plaintiff would have received $5,000, plus the $5629, he would have twice the value of the car.   Case dismissed as a scam. 

Second (Rerun)-

Mother Abandons Children for 6 Months-Plaintiff, day care provider suing defendant for defendant leaving her two children at the day care for six months.    Plaintiff had the two children for what started as a four hour span, that turned into six months. 

Defendant's witness is the current boyfriend, and not the father of either child.    Defendant paid nothing to day care provider, but occasionally brought food.   Children were receiving public assistance from California, but no support order, and mother received food stamps. I wonder if that means mother was given food stamps for kids, but kept them without doing anything for her own children?   Day care provider says the woman brought one gallon of milk, and that's it.   Defendant denies that during the six months that she wasn't in rehab, or jail, but was working.    Defendant was getting assistance for both children for at least 3 months, but gave nothing to plaintiff for full time care. 

Defendant is counter suing for $5,000 for children's property she didn't get back, 2 iPads, 2 bicycles, 2 scooters, and clothing.   Plaintiff says she wanted the defendant to pick up and sign for belongings, but defendant refused, So JJ directs that at a specific date and time, defendant will pick up items from porch at plaintiff's day care, and if she doesn't show, it's all gone.  Plaintiff gets $5,000

Real Estate Fail-Plaintiff suing real estate agent defendant for moving damage, when the free movers he supplied moved her household items and damaged some.  However, a mattress that had dirt on it, was cleaned at the defendant's expense.   Even though realtor called it a 'free move', it was paid out of his commission profits. 

Realtor paid to have it cleaned, but plaintiff wants it replaced.    Plaintiff gets money for mattress, but not for her injury.   $4000 for mattress ($4k for a mattress?) to plaintiff.

Cost to Change Your Mind-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of deposit on a trailer that plaintiff never moved into.   $1500 was the deposit that plaintiff paid in cash, remaining balance was $1200 due five days later.     There was no written contract.     Plaintiff put down deposit, never paid the rest, and thinks she'll get the deposit back.   Defendant resold the trailer for $1,000 instead of $2700.     Plaintiff loses deposit.   If trailer was resold for $2700 then defendant would have received deposit back, but that's not what happened.  

 

[Ilovecomputers]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 My guess, it's all about the money with daughter.   

Daughter smirked a lot, but when she was asked about what property was stolen by defendant, all she could come up with was a portable oxygen tank, some pool sticks and baseball caps.  Geez, have some respect for the 15-17 year relationship your father had with this woman. You got the house, you got everything. You won. Now go home and pat yourself on the back that you did not permit this woman a single memento, not even a baseball cap. Aren’t you proud of yourself?

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Young Girls Salon Fail-Plaintiff sold unprofitable children's hair salon (after six months open) to defendant, and claims defendant didn't pay the full amount.    Plaintiff was supposed to have a stylist as a partner, but she bailed on her, so she sold the salon.   Salon was actually sold to the defendant's wife, and she didn't come to court, but her husband did, with a power of attorney from her.   ( I'm assuming his hair is a wig, but it's awful, and his crooked eye glasses are driving me nuts)  Sold for $38,000, defendants paid $20,549, leaving 17,500 or so.   Defendant brought no proof, and claims he paid all $38k. 

Plaintiff gets $3,000.     I'm still not sure who is the liar here, but my guess is it's the defendant.   

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

Plaintiff gets $500 for car deductible.   

Second-

Bride Bursting at the Seams-Plaintiff suing dressmaker for return of money he paid to have a wedding dress for plaintiff's wife.    Plaintiff wants money back ($1200 total, $750 actually paid), cost of replacement dresses, and a bunch of other garbage he's not getting.   Plaintiff fiance wanted a layered bottom, and tight from top to the start of layered bottom tiers below her hips.    Fiance/wife wanted spandex material lining, with tons of big sequins on the top half of dress.   Basically, fiance wanted built-in lard control, but lining isn't stretchy.   She should have shelled out for Spanx.   

Fitting was only a week before the wedding, and it was at seamstress shop (he subcontracted out for the dress to the seamstress).   Plaintiff actually paid $750.  For $1200 you're not getting a fully custom dress that looks like a $5,000 plus dress.   

Plaintiff gets $750.   (My question is how any dress is supposed to suck in the extra flesh on the bride, that's a job for heavy duty foundations, not stretch satin.    Stretch satin wouldn't have worked either, and I suspect the seams would rip out very quickly)

Uber Driver Collides with Teen Driver-Plaintiff claims defendant crossed into her lane, and hit her car.   Defendant drives Uber, and passenger from accident day is defendant's witness.  Plaintiff had a green arrow, turning into left lane of street, and defendant was making a right on red, and instead of turning into right lane of street, crossed into the left lane and hit the plaintiff.     Defendant's witness says plaintiff crossed into defendant's lane, and hit defendant.   However, defendant driver claims plaintiff said she turned on a yellow light, but when her father got there he told her to say it was green.   

Case dismissed, no way to prove fault, no police report.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Mercedes Benz Tug-of-War-Plaintiff suing former friend for breach of car lease deal, and returning the car damaged  Plaintiff leased a MB for 8 months for a former assistant who left the country.   Plaintiff needed someone to make the lease payments for the term of the lease.     Defendant was supposed to pay the lease amount to plaintiff, once every 6 months.   After 19 months defendant didn't want the car, and after month 27, car had 9 months remaining.    There was no written agreement between plaintiff and defendant.   Counter claim by defendant is garbage according to JJ.   Defendant claims he returned car to plaintiff with damage that was on car when he received it. 

Plaintiff says defendant offered to fix car damage.   Defendant says he only made the repair offer out of friendship.  Plaintiff's estimate for car damage is $4,300.   Defendant's dealer estimate is less than $500.   

Counter claim is that plaintiff stole clients in car business from defendant.   (this is when JJ says if Byrd could fit in her robe, he'd take her job in a heartbeat.  Nope, not unless he removed the lace collar).  There is no non-compete contract between the litigants, so that's out the window.   $500 to plaintiff, no mileage because they had no contract. 

German Wirehaired Pointer Puppy Fail-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of deposit for German Wirehaired Pointer (GWP) puppy.   Plaintiff found GWP breeder through a friend, put down a deposit for a puppy from the defendant's next litter (63 days later), plus 8 weeks until release.   Deposit was $500 from plaintiff, and was paid.   Dog's pregnancy didn't take, but plaintiff decided on a refund, instead of waiting for the puppy.    Plaintiff never received check, and Pay Pal wasn't used either.    Defendant, despite saying she will return deposit, that deposit was non-refundable. 

Counter claim is because plaintiff told the truth online about defendant's business practices (defendant is a real estate agent.   After this case I wouldn't use her).      Counter claim thrown out. 

Plaintiff will get $500.  

Second (Rerun)-

Jersey Shore Assault and Arrest-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for false arrest, attorney fees, and vehicle damages.   Litigants were a couple at one time but were only friends, went out for the evening, plaintiff was driving.  Defendant wanted to leave, they finally left, and started to argue in the car while plaintiff was driving.    Defendant admits she pushed him away, plaintiff claims she punched him in the face while he was driving.  Defendant is sent outside to redo her testimony.   

Plaintiff claims defendant filed false police charges against him for assault, and cause him to have an accident with his car.    Defendant claims plaintiff was driving, holding her phone in his left hand, and choking her at the same time (This isn't even possible, unless you have eight arms like an octopus).     

As JJ says, it's obvious that plaintiff was hit, and slapped by the defendant while driving.   Defendant Breshay Wigglesworth is getting very agitated at JJ.   

Defendant did ask to be let out of the car, but plaintiff says it was far from anywhere that was safe to drop her off.  The day after the accident plaintiff was arrested for assaulting defendant, but it actually was the other way around, and the case against plaintiff was dropped.   Case dismissed.    (Sorry JJ, but letting the woman out on the side of the road, miles from anywhere, simply isn't safe).  

Parking Permit Blunder-   Defendant parked in a prohibited space (permit only), and her car was towed.   Plaintiff paid impound fees, and is suing for $360, and defendant is suing plaintiff for damages to her car by the towing company.   The idiocy in this case is staggering.    $360 to plaintiff, nothing to idiot defendant.  

[SRTouch]

started writing this before @CRAZYINALABAMA posted his recap

***********

Hmmmmmm things kind of sparse in the court tv world lately, what with reruns on TPC and just a couple new Hot Bench and JJ cases a day. Things are so bad I watched a dog case today on JJ.

Today's first new case was some nonsense about a leased Mercedes. If I have this right, P leased car for an assistant, she left country, lease still had time on it so he leased it to his friend, the defendant. D decided not to keep car, and returned it. P wants big bucks for damage to car and excess mileage...... problem is there was nothing in writing about mileage, D denies damage happened when he had car, and P can't show assistant didn't do damage before D took over lease........ lots of yakkedy yak back and forth, but P proves nothing. P wants over 4 grand in body damage, D offered $500 in a text, JJ scoffs at ridiculous estimates from P and orders D to pay the offered $500. Only reason D pays anything is the text where he offers to pay $500. D has equally ridiculous counterclaim. Something about how supposed friend P played dirty when P went into business competition with D, saying he stole his clients. But, JJ points out (repeatedly) they had no 'non compete' clause, so D has no legal case

puppy sale: this was case dog case I watched, though I'm not sure if should even call it a 'case'..... P contacted back yard breeder Defendant in late August about getting daughter a Christmas puppy. Breeder says no problem, she about to breed her dog, so should have puppy's by Christmas....... not sure of time when exactly the puppy was expected to be born, but if I heard right late November, so I question whether it was too early to wean a pup as a Christmas present...... doesn't matter though, pregnancy never happened - P put down $500 deposit in Sept (think pup was to cost $1000) - on Oct 12 P texts asking about pregancy, is told mama didn't catch, P asks about refund and breeder replies she can either get the money back or wait til spring when next litter would be due....... same objection to her timeline, she says dog will go into heat in March and P can get puppy June or July - I know some people claim it's ok to separate a puppy from momma at 6 weeks, but IMHO 8 weeks is early and 12 weeks better......ok, P has repeated texts asking for refund, has repeated assurances from D that refund is on the way, eventually P goes nuclear, files this case and goes on yelp to trash D in a review on her day job as a realtor. Of course P gets back the deposit - and of course D filed a defamation case - thing is, JJ reads us the negative yelp review and holds it up for the camera..... what's the saying about best defense against defamation being the truth. Everything P put in review is the truth..... countersuit tossed and P gets her deposit back

Edited March 27, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, I was afraid I heard it about separating the puppy from mom way too early.    That's just wrong, hurts the puppy, and can have lifelong effects.    I think plaintiff dodged a bullet when the breeder backed out, and she bought elsewhere.  

[VartanFan]

On 3/24/2020 at 3:29 PM, Schnickelfritz said:

thought it was reduced BY $180 per month. Not knocked down to $180.

This. I agree - that is what the paperwork said.  Regardless, Judy’s point was basically (i think) that the judge’s order was mathematically figured out for until she was 18.  If he flipped the script (which he did, by going on disability), that agreement was done.  Fathers like these....it drives me crazy when the non custodial parent thinks that because a mathematical figure is determined, it means they are paying what they SHOULD pay for their child.  So many of these orders cover a small fraction of what it really takes to raise a kid.  Sorry...I grew up as one of those kids whose father wanted to NOT support us.  Makes you feel super loved.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Car in Captivity-Plaintiff claims her car has been held captive by defendants for 10 months at his car repair lot.   Plaintiff took her car to the mechanic in July, and claims the fact she had no car caused her company to fire her.    The original car issue was oil pan, and radiator (she ran over something).  Defendants claim plaintiff paid $780.   Defendant claims plaintiff still owes for further work, and they're not releasing car until the payment.   

Car is running, but motor is past warranty period, but why should defendants suffer because plaintiff took a long time to pay her bills?    JJ says to go get the car and take it somewhere else, and gets her $780 back (if you want a used engine, you take your chances with it working).   $780 to plaintiff, and that's it.  

Speed Eviction-Plaintiffs suing former landlords for return of security deposit and rent.  Defendants rented a townhouse, and rented room to plaintiffs for a week.   Deposit was $1,000, and $800 rent, and they paid $1700 to defendants.    Eviction was because plaintiffs weren't on the lease.   Property manager, another proposed tenant, and the police (they rent three rooms) came in the house, and told the plaintiffs to leave.   $1700 to plaintiffs.   (In the Hall-terview the plaintiff says they found out that the defendants had an eviction action going against them, and said there were a bunch of 'prospective' tenants knocking on the door constantly).  

Second-

Ex Brother-In-Law Repo Feud-Plaintiff suing defendant (men are former brothers-in-law) for truck.     Plaintiff took over payment on truck, and one payment before payoff, defendant repo'd the truck.  Defendant was brother in law, and plaintiff agreed to take over payments on a truck with 2 1/2 years left on payments.    Defendant had truck for 14 months, until plaintiff took over payments, title was in defendant's name.   Plaintiff claims he made last payments in May, and defendant claims he paid a last payment of $347 to pay off note in July.    Plaintiff put over $6k in payments when he had truck/car whatever, and then defendant claims the last payment of $347 that defendant was entitled to repo the truck. 

The story becomes clear, the $347 was from when defendant had truck,  Defendant will lose car, and get his appearance money after plaintiff gets the truck back, and title is redone to plaintiff.   Plaintiff just needs a statement from former loan company that vehicle loan is paid in full.  JJ will issue order that title and car/truck is plaintiff's, and that marshal should give truck to plaintiff.  (apparently defendant still has the truck/car).   Plaintiff gets truck back.       

$20,000 Child Support Payback-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for $1600 loan to pay bills.   Defendant says money was for mutual bills with plaintiff, when plaintiff moved in with defendant and son.  $1600 to plaintiff.  JJ says woman needs to move money into an account for her daughter, since she made the loan out of her kid's child support.   The $20k was from a settlement for plaintiff's daughter's back child support,  and plaintiff spent it all on herself.     Plaintiff lived with defendant for seven months, and plaintiff spent her food stamps on household food.   

Plaintiff receives $1600. (JJ says if plaintiff doesn't put it in a bank account for her daughter, then she's wrong.  My guess, the money is gone before the plane landed when she flew back home).  

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a recent rerun (rerun I missed the first time because that channel was having issues, and it's doing it again.  I really want to know how JJ gets interrupted, but every stupid commercial runs just fine.)-

First (New)-

I'm a Cash Guy, Not a 'Tax' Guy-Plaintiff suing former friend for the return of property, and for  filing a false police report, and arrest.   However, plaintiff admits he never pays taxes (right to the top of the list for people who shouldn't have come on this show, as JJ points out, the IRS has people that watch her show for tax evaders).     Plaintiff had most of the money for down payment, and a previous truck that defendant gave him, in return for work.      Plaintiff put his own $1,000 down on truck, but had to put the truck in defendant's name for financing.   Plaintiff paid $800 a month for truck, and wasn't paying for the truck a few months later.   Defendant's wife said either make the payment, or return the truck, but he didn't do either one.    Plaintiff claims he was trying to refi car loan, and they were negotiating with the finance company.  Payments were auto pay from defendant's bank account.  Defendant has the truck back.    

Plaintiff has no bank accounts, because the government wants our share of his earnings, for his various jobs, and a renter.  Defendant reported the car as stolen, which it was, and therefore the false arrest part of plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Defendant got the truck back, and the property plaintiff is suing for was in the truck (and probably a huge lie, like always).     (Plaintiff's annoying witness has so many metal studs in her face, that I bet she set off the metal detector in the court room).    Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant's counter claim dismissed (he has the truck back). 

Second (Rerun)-

Holistic Doctor Taken to the Cleaners-Holistic doctor/cleaning business owner Mathew Jadan, suing former employee for stealing cleaning clients from him.     Plaintiff started cleaning service 7 years ago, and is a holistic (Naturopathic) physician for two years (he practices in Michigan, but holistic doctors are not medical doctors in that state.) .    He employs 6 or 7 employees in cleaning service.   He pays employees $12.00 to $17.00 an hour, and charges clients $55.00 an hour.   Plaintiff claims defendant is a former cleaning employee, and stole his clients, and doesn't have a copy of the signed contract not to steal clients (no written copy is available of contract).   

Plaintiff witness says she lived with defendant, and told plaintiff that defendant's company now did cleaning for his former client.      Plaintiff receives $1320,  for poaching clients.    I know it's poaching, but plaintiff is awful. 

Carnival Daughter Sued by Mom-Plaintiff mother suing daughter over property, rent, bills, lot rent, from the mobile home.    Defendant was living in a trailer with her grandfather, grandfather died.  Defendant sold furniture and appliances from trailer, but claims plaintiff/mother gave her permission to sell the property.   (Mother/plaintiff's hair is grown out gray hair, with purple behind her head band)    Defendant claims mother said she could stay in trailer until it sold, it was a $700 trailer, but unfortunately no pictures (we all wanted to see what a $700 trailer looked like, but we never will ).     Back lot rent was $$936.   (Biological father of defendant's baby is dead, so daughter's current husband is kind of the baby's current father).     Cable bill is $821, but wasn't put in daughter's name.   Water bill is $900+.     Daughter says mother called CPS on her, after they had their argument.    $2852 to plaintiff. 

The juicy stuff is in the hall-terview, when daughter claims mother wanted daughter's husband, and only wanted the money after daughter said she wasn't giving up the husband.  

Edited March 30, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[ThePurpleArcher]

On 3/26/2020 at 6:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Mercedes Benz Tug-of-War-Plaintiff suing former friend for breach of car lease deal, and returning the car damaged  Plaintiff leased a MB for 8 months for a former assistant who left the country.   Plaintiff needed someone to make the lease payments for the term of the lease.     Defendant was supposed to pay the lease amount to plaintiff, once every 6 months.   After 19 months defendant didn't want the car, and after month 27, car had 9 months remaining.    There was no written agreement between plaintiff and defendant.   Counter claim by defendant is garbage according to JJ.   Defendant claims he returned car to plaintiff with damage that was on car when he received it. 

Plaintiff says defendant offered to fix car damage.   Defendant says he only made the repair offer out of friendship.  Plaintiff's estimate for car damage is $4,300.   Defendant's dealer estimate is less than $500.   

Counter claim is that plaintiff stole clients in car business from defendant.   (this is when JJ says if Byrd could fit in her robe, he'd take her job in a heartbeat.  Nope, not unless he removed the lace collar).  There is no non-compete contract between the litigants, so that's out the window.   $500 to plaintiff, no mileage because they had no contract. 

German Wirehaired Pointer Puppy Fail-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of deposit for German Wirehaired Pointer (GWP) puppy.   Plaintiff found GWP breeder through a friend, put down a deposit for a puppy from the defendant's next litter (63 days later), plus 8 weeks until release.   Deposit was $500 from plaintiff, and was paid.   Dog's pregnancy didn't take, but plaintiff decided on a refund, instead of waiting for the puppy.    Plaintiff never received check, and Pay Pal wasn't used either.    Defendant, despite saying she will return deposit, that deposit was non-refundable. 

Counter claim is because plaintiff told the truth online about defendant's business practices (defendant is a real estate agent.   After this case I wouldn't use her).      Counter claim thrown out. 

Plaintiff will get $500.  

 

I must say that defendant was damn sexy! 😅

[ThePurpleArcher]

On 3/27/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a recent rerun (rerun I missed the first time because that channel was having issues, and it's doing it again.  I really want to know how JJ gets interrupted, but every stupid commercial runs just fine.)-

First (New)-

I'm a Cash Guy, Not a 'Tax' Guy-Plaintiff suing former friend for the return of property, and for  filing a false police report, and arrest.   However, plaintiff admits he never pays taxes (right to the top of the list for people who shouldn't have come on this show, as JJ points out, the IRS has people that watch her show for tax evaders).     Plaintiff had most of the money for down payment, and a previous truck that defendant gave him, in return for work.      Plaintiff put his own $1,000 down on truck, but had to put the truck in defendant's name for financing.   Plaintiff paid $800 a month for truck, and wasn't paying for the truck a few months later.   Defendant's wife said either make the payment, or return the truck, but he didn't do either one.    Plaintiff claims he was trying to refi car loan, and they were negotiating with the finance company.  Payments were auto pay from defendant's bank account.  Defendant has the truck back.    

Plaintiff has no bank accounts, because the government wants our share of his earnings, for his various jobs, and a renter.  Defendant reported the car as stolen, which it was, and therefore the false arrest part of plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Defendant got the truck back, and the property plaintiff is suing for was in the truck (and probably a huge lie, like always).     (Plaintiff's annoying witness has so many metal studs in her face, that I bet she set off the metal detector in the court room).    Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant's counter claim dismissed (he has the truck back). 

 

At first, it sounded like a hot romance between the younger guy and the older guy, as JJ began the case by saying to the plaintiff "You and the defendant had a relationship for a while..."

Turns out they were just friends, as the plaintiff did work for the defendant. Nothing 'sexy' there. LOL! 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

A Roommate's Violent Eviction-Plaintiff suing former roommates for return of rent, and security, a false restraining order, and damaged and missing property.    Plaintiff has a video showing the eviction (violent is an understatement in this case).    Plaintiff had paid rent for May and June, authorities were called repeatedly to evict her, and plaintiff left at the end of May.   Plaintiff's boyfriend moved in, but extra rent was paid.   Defendants claim plaintiff didn't pay June's rent, but plaintiff has cancelled check copies for May and June.  Plaintiff paid last month's rent of $650, and wants that back.    The false restraining order case was resolved with a mediator, so that is thrown out.   

Property left behind is a bed, and room furnishings, and defendants claims the plaintiff moved everything out with her boyfriend's help.      Video of eviction is violent, records several punches by defendant woman, and plaintiff was physically forced out.   On May 28 the plaintiff went back with a police escort, and was served with a protective order by defendants.   You can tell defendant woman is losing, she looks sick all of a sudden.     Defendant man helped woman move her property out the day after the forced eviction.   Defendant woman gets the boot, but agrees to be quiet (she recovered quickly, didn't she).  Defendants have no counter claim about damages to apartment, and claim damages but didn't file a claim.    Byrd boots the defendant woman. (unfortunately, not a real kick in the butt she deserves).        Plaintiff gets $650 back for rent/security deposit.   Desk and bed plaintiff owned were gifts from a family friend, so nothing for that.  

Out of Work, Pregnant and Swindled-Plaintiff wants $750 rent back, but is suing for $1500, and is suing former landlord for security deposit.    Defendant wants defamation, water bill, and damages.     Rent was $750, with $750 security (she says PA gives you double security deposit back for landlord not telling you why they withheld money, in 30 days. ).   Plaintiff was pregnant, jobless, and landlord agreed she would move out.    Defendant says he filed for eviction, because she moved out after six months, but the lease was one year.   There is nothing in the lease about utility payments by tenants.   

(I really like the defendant's suit, shirt and tie.   However his contract is rotten).  $750 for plaintiff.    

Second-

Road Rage? Never Get Out of Your Car-Plaintiff stopped in the middle of a parking lot, blocking traffic to talk to someone for at least 5 minutes.  Defendant was cutting through the parking lot, finally squeezed past plaintiff, and defendant claims plaintiff cut him off three times in traffic.    Defendant finally gets out of his car, tried to grab her keys out of her car, and pounded on her window that broke.   Then plaintiff followed defendant to his home,   This situation could have end up much worse, good thing no one was a packing a gun.     Police did not arrest defendant.   

Plaintiff gets money for window, and door dent, $2500.    

Impounded Car Custody Scramble-Plaintiff suing former friend, and friend's boyfriend, over car payments they didn't make.   Plaintiff bought a car, and resold it to defendants a week later.     Defendants never re-registered the car in their name, or paid for it.    Plaintiff paid $2500 for car, and sold car to defendants for $3,000.    Plaintiff did not register car in her name, before selling to defendants.   Defendants were pulled over for broken taillight, (actually for DUI), and car was impounded.    Since car can only be taken out of impound by registered owner, car was never retrieved.   Usually, I dislike people who don't pay for cars, but it wasn't plaintiff's car to sell anyway.  Neither defendant paid for the car, or signed a bill of sale, or contract.   Defendants call the car borrowed from plaintiff. 

Case dismissed.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Are You Trying to Make Me Dislike You?-Plaintiff was buying car from defendant, and car was repossessed for never paying on time, and plaintiff wants return or value of Kia Soul, and her property from car back.    In 2016, the Kia was given to plaintiff in return for her making for the payments.   Defendant says plaintiff's agreement was plaintiff would pay the remaining payments, and insurance, as a type of rent.  Kia is now paid off, title is clear, and defendant has car.    Defendant's witness gets thrown out, sadly just an expression, and not launched out of a cannon.   

Plaintiff paid for car for almost 3 years.   Car payment was $350 for car, and $100 for insurance.   Plaintiff didn't pay for periods of time, made up payments, was constantly late.  Plaintiff had car for 27 months, owed $7,000+, and only paid $5500+.  Plaintiff claims in Nov 2018 defendant said send her $1450, and she would send the title to plaintiff.   

$5,000 to plaintiff.  (Defendant keeps chiming in to 'help' JJ).

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

 Defendant's car was repossessed, and it still had $300 owing on it.   Except as usual, defendant doesn't know how much of a lien the car had on it.   

Plaintiff gets $3451 for the car.  

Second-

Blind and Discriminated Against-Legally blind plaintiff claims former boss discriminated against her, after hiring her, as an assistant at his anger management school.   Plaintiff slapped new husband, was arrested, and anger management was part of the sentence, from the defendant's company.     Plaintiff claims when she brought documents that boss needed to sign for her to get subsidized child care to return to school, he refused to sign.   JJ is not as confused as I am about the plaintiff's bizarre claims, but she dismisses that. 

Plaintiff can read her phone, which is the usual small print, so I'm confused.    She only worked three weeks, and she was paid for two weeks, and is owed $300.   Plaintiff is also claiming boss told her to buy an iPad, even though she returned it to AT&T, that's dismissed.   Plaintiff claims even though she wasn't at work at an appointment, that she answered calls on the bus to her appointment.         

Plaintiff gets $300, even though she keeps interrupting JJ.   The plaintiff shouldn't get anything, since she won't shut up.   

Wedding Dress Payback-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for mortgage payments, and household payments, and her wedding dress.    Plaintiff borrowed $5,000 from defendant, that was equity in the house.       Defendant is suing her for down payment on the house.    They were shacked up for six years.   

JJ says plaintiff is $5,000 ahead financially.   Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant counter claim out also. 

(Hallterview, plaintiff says her witness in case today was her former maid of honor, who was doing the horizontal mambo with the defendant, apparently some kind of swap party).

Case by plaintiff, and defendant dismissed. 

[Ilovecomputers]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 JJ wants to know why defendant didn't give the car and title to the plaintiff.  Plaintiff owed $50 last payment.   

It was so refreshing to see someone who claimed to have made payments on something and actually had receipts to prove it.  I think JJ wanted to burst out in song when she saw the receipts.  JJ kept saying the defendant's boyfriend was some kind of loser for spending the money and not turning over the car, but the defendant seemed as much a loser.  Too bad tight-fisted JJ didn't give the plaintiff some interest on that money.  Seems to me that the car was to have been turned over to plaintiff two years ago, and the $3,400 won't go as far,

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, from 2016-2017-

First-

Give Me My Prize Money-Plaintiffs suing defendant over pool tournament organizer (defendant owns the league, he's the league operator) over their prize money.   Plaintiffs claim they are owed $600 ,   The league members pay a sanction fee, a price per person, and a price per game.   There are only six teams in the league.   Players were promised a banquet, a trophy, and prize money at the end of the season.   Defendant says you get a trophy and banquet at the end, but prize money wasn't guaranteed.    The banquet and trophies didn't happen either.     

Defendant claims plaintiff man assaulted him.  Plaintiffs claims the 'banquet' is a pot luck, and she doesn't care about trophies, just the prize money.    Plaintiff man claims the defendant actually assaulted him.    

Plaintiffs receive $600. (However plaintiff woman wants the other two teams' money also, $400, and $200, she's not getting that).

Lesbian Marriage Fail-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for money owed for a wedding dress, and impound fees.   Dress was $1,050, for plaintiff, and defendant says plaintiff broke the engagement.   Dress was for defendant, but plaintiff paid for the dress.    The other expenses for the wedding was for the hall, with a $250 deposit by plaintiff (usually non refundable, but refunded in this case).    Defendant kept the ring, given to her by plaintiff.   Each litigant paid for the other person's ring.     

Plaintiff bought the dress ($1.050 purchase price) on her credit card, and she wants the interest on the balance too.    Defendant has the dress, and is told to sell it, and give half to plaintiff.     Car was in both names, and defendant was driving, stopped for a traffic infraction, and didn't have insurance, so car was impounded.   Plaintiff paid $1200 to get car out of impound, and both names are still on the title.    Car is a 2012 Chevy Impala, and cost $20k.    Defendant hasn't paid on car in over six months, and have no insurance on the car.   JJ isn't figuring out the car issue.

$525 for plaintiff for half of the wedding dress cost.  

Second-

Illegal Entry and Photo Shoot-Plaintiff (condo owner) suing former tenant for property damage, and HOA fines.    Tenant was given 90 notice that lease would not be renewed.  $1840 was security deposit.   Plaintiff moved back into her condo, and defendant moved to a unit next door.    Plaintiff didn't do walk through, but did send a list of security deposit deductions for damage.   Defendant claims plaintiff moved in early before defendant moved out.   However, plaintiff has pictures day after move out, and the condo has trash all over. 

As usual, even though the defendant's dog used the back bedrooms as toilets, no rug money will be given to plaintiff.   HOA fines are still in play, for the defendant's dog that ran loose in common areas, damaged the common area rugs.     Defendant denies she hit the drive through gate, but that the gate hit her car.  Defendant's daughter is witness. and excuses everything her mother did.   Plaintiff and HOA claim defendant pushed traffic gate with her car, and not pushed it with her hands.     Plaintiff has pictures the day after move out by tenant, and the kitchen is full of garbage.   Defendant claims her she was going to throw everything in the kitchen pictures in the garbage.   However, the plaintiff pictures are from the day after move out, showing lots of trash.     

$525 to plaintiff. (To cover the fines from the HOA for defendant's dog relieving itself in the common areas, repeatedly.)   Plaintiff keeps the security deposit.      I can't believe the HOA allowed the defendant to move back into another condo, after the damages.  (I dislike both litigants, but the defendant is my idea of a nightmare tenant) .  (Hallterview is amazing, plaintiff claims she's calling Section 8 to complain about former tenant, current neighbor, breaking the rules.   Defendant's daughter is claiming her mother did nothing wrong, and accepting rent from Section 8 means the plaintiff is evil) (Bet it's rather frosty in that condo complex after this). 

Malamute Mayhem-Plaintiffs suing for vet bills from defendant's Malamute attacking their small dog.    Plaintiff saw the Malamute loose again a while later.   Defendant paid first vet bill.    However, plaintiff dog later had a hernia, and they want to be paid for the dog's hernia surgery, $956.    Defendant swears the hernia wasn't her dog's fault, and has a ton of excuses for why it's not her fault, and claims her dog only got out one time.    Hernia was right next to the bite mark.    First bill was paid by defendant $310.  

Defendant blames her dog escaping on the pool guy leaving the gate open.   Defendant finally put a lock on the gate.    Plaintiff saw the Malamute wandering off-leash after the attack also. 

Defendant's dog has been off leash wandering at least six times before and after the attack, according to plaintiffs.   (Defendant is just as nasty as her dog is.) 

$1.002 to plaintiffs. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

First Date Kidnapping-Plaintiff claims the defendant, an ex-con, kidnapped her on their first date, and forced her to co-sign a truck loan.   As usual, defendant's witness is his current wife.   Plaintiff's witness is an ex also, and she filed for a restraining order, and they haven't had the court date yet(witness dated him at one time, and was a roommate of defendant). Two of his arrests were for domestic violence (he was only released in June from jail).  

Litigants met online, on the first date she let him sleep over at her house (she has a 1 year old daughter), and she claims he forced her to sign the truck loan papers.    They agreed on day two for plaintiff to sleep over at defendant's house, with the daughter.     Plaintiff co-signed for his truck on day two.     (Doesn't plaintiff ever watch the ID channel?   Inviting someone you don't know into your house on a first date is really dumb, and a great way to end up in a shallow grave.  Bet she didn't know he was on crime number four before she brought him into her house on a first date, and slept over on date 2 with a 1 year old in tow).  (I wonder if defendant's wife/witness is still with him?). 

Truck is in plaintiff's name, and JJ told her to go get the truck, and then sell it.  No money to plaintiff, just the truck. 

Co-Signing Drug Catastrophe-Plaintiff and son are suing former friend for vehicle expenses, and removal of son's name from car title.    Defendant wanted a car, put $2600 down, and she had no credit.   Plaintiff son (they were co-workers, and dating) is on the loan, and is co-owner with defendant, and plaintiff has the car.   

Defendant loaned the  car to two friends, they were pulled over by police, with drug paraphernalia in the car.   $506 was the impound fee.  Car was never insured.  Plaintiff claims car currently has $5,000 worth of damages.  Plaintiffs say the damage was that bad when they retrieved it from impound, and defendant said mirror and tail light were damaged when she had it.   Plaintiffs didn't bring an estimate. 

Why would JJ pay the plaintiffs for damages, when they didn't insure the car?   $3200 to plaintiffs, and defendant won't get her expense money until she signs the car over to the plaintiff.  

Second-

Irreplaceable Violin Victim-Plaintiff/professional violin teacher, and performer, was in band with defendant, and claims he destroyed her violin.     She has already been paid over $11,500 the insurance company, hasn't actually replaced the violin, and still wants $3500.   

She has a letter claiming a replacement by the same maker would be $15k plus.   JJ dismisses case without prejudice to go back to Pennsylvania where she can have the appraiser in court.    Plaintiff claims defendant was drunk, but he says he had a medical emergency, confirmed by physicians.  

Ex-In-Laws' Exit-Plaintiff sing former sister in law, and brother in law (he was married to defendant's sister, she's defendants witness).    There are two separate loans to in-laws after ex-wife and plaintiff separated, for an electric bill to help defendant's grandparents, $1500 (she repaid $300), and motorcycle loan was to ex-brother in law.     Plaintiff's witness is current girlfriend (aren't they always?).   

Motorcycle loan was for $2000, and can prove he repaid $150. Plaintiff receives $3,050

Dog in a Tutu-Plaintiff with dog in tutu, and defendant (brother's fiance) are fighting over a cute little dog.   Dog had to go to vet for overdose on Cocaine, THC, and Meth left around the defendant's house.   (JJ notices the dog wants to say hi, to the defendant, and dog does.   But dog also is just as happy to greet all of the witnesses, and litigants, so it's not tied to the defendant). 

Plaintiff took care of dog for almost a year, after defendant became homeless, and defendant is still unsure of her future plans.     Plaintiff says in the beginning the dog had a lot of health problems that were the defendant's fault.   Defendant says the dog didn't get the drugs in her home, but plaintiff says differently.   

Defendant and her fiance (plaintiff's brother) don't seem to be capable of staying awake in court.    Plaintiff picked the dog up, with two police officers assisting, and took dog to emergency vet for a drug overdose.   (I wonder if dog's hefty vet bills included detox?   I bet they did).  Plaintiff gets the dog, and vet bills $1446. 

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Hostile Work Environment-Plaintiffs claim defendant didn't pay them for work, but defendant claims he advanced the couple so much money, that he owes them nothing.  The plaintiffs worked painting a house, and some handyman work on the same house.  Each week defendant paid them for their wages, minus what he advanced during the week. Both litigants are transients.   

Plaintiff says a hostile work environment existed with defendant, for example when plaintiff mixed the wrong paint.    Case dismissed (Ms. Monteczuma hasn't done too well since this either).    

Trampoline Park Accident-Plaintiff suing defendant (they both worked at a trampoline park), and plaintiff's iPhone was damaged.  Plaintiff's phone was sitting in the break room, on top of an empty, large pizza box, and defendant stabbed the pizza box.  When defendant took pencil out of box, phone was flipped into a bowl of punch and ruined the phone. 

As JJ points out, defendant should replace the phone.  Defendant claims plaintiff had insurance on the phone, so it shouldn't have cost plaintiff the full price to replace.    $300 to plaintiff, and defendant needs to leave mommy at home next time.  

Second-

Teen Road Trip Lie-Plaintiff mother suing daughter's ex for kidnapping girl, stealing mother's car, and wrecking the car.    However, plaintiff daughter borrowed mother's car with mother's permission, drove boyfriend to Missouri (mother thought daughter was going to Tennessee), and then the wreck happened. 

Plaintiff's husband had to drive to Missouri, and load car on a trailer and bring it home.    Plaintiff daughter drove the defendant to Missouri, and the boyfriend was driving and they wrecked the car.   Both airbags deployed, and front end damages, but no photo of the entire car damage.   Plaintiff daughter lied to mother repeatedly, and mother still claims her daughter wasn't in on the planning for the trip, and the lies.   I think the daughter should have paid for the car, since she is a liar, and is the one who took the car.  

Mommy dearest also contacted defendant's first sergeant, and had him ordered not to contact the entire family.    Plaintiff gets $4,000, basically rewarding the plaintiff's daughter for being a lying piece of trash.   

Botched Bodywork- Plaintiff suing defendant/former school mate for substandard body work on ancient truck (1966 truck).    Defendant used a lot of Bondo on the truck.   Plaintiff has estimate for paint job that will cost $1500 more, plus more body work.  Plaintiff will get his father's rifle back that he traded for the body work.    Plaintiff gets no credit for an unregistered motorcycle he traded too with defendant.   

No money for either side, just the rifle back to plaintiff. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Screaming Fit Freaks Mom Out-Plaintiff (property owner) suing former roommate/ friend for failing to give notice to move, damages to the home, and the unpaid balance of the lease.    Defendant claims when she gave plaintiff notice to move, plaintiff freaked out so badly it scared defendant's little girl.    Defendant lived across the street from plaintiff, wanted to rent her home out, so she rented a room from plaintiff, for $600 a month.    Defendant and 9 year old daughter moved into the spare bedroom at plaintiff's place.   Defendant paid rent on time for almost 18 months.    Around September, plaintiff said defendant needed to move because of a custody dispute with defendant's child's father.     Defendant moved on 28 September, and plaintiff wants 30 days notice, and October's rent.  

In September defendant says on 9 September plaintiff went off on defendant, and the screaming scared the daughter, so defendant decided to move out as soon as possible.   Defendant was the first renter for plaintiff, and didn't rent room as of six months later (plaintiff claims she was looking for a 'suitable' roommate, but hasn't found one in six months).     Plaintiff says the wall unit for the TV ruined the wall (wall holes are tiny, even I could patch them.  By the way, the wall mount for the TV was not done correctly.   Defendant should get a TV stand with a built in mount), the carpet needed to be replaced (call a carpet cleaner).   Plaintiff claims defendant daughter had lice, and that turned into bedbugs (it doesn't work that way).   Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage.  

No Shopping Together When You're Playing House-Plaintiff Stetson Denny, is suing his former live in girlfriend for the price of a dog they purchased together (A Cockaleer puppy, Cavalier King Spaniel, and Cocker Spaniel mix).    Dog was either $3200 or $2800, so JJ goes with $3,000.   Idiot plaintiff claims you can register a Cockalier with AKC (no you can't).  When the two fools broke up, they talked about splitting dog custody, but it didn't work out.  Defendant has dog, and has had the dog for a year.    Byrd confirms that the dog is a mixed breed, and not registered (we all knew that already). 

With interest, the $3,000 purchase price is probably closer to $5,000 by now, but JJ halves the remainder, and plaintiff gets $1400.    But from hallterview, defendant keeps the dog.    (How ridiculous to pay almost $5k including interest for a mutt).   (Thanks to SRTouch for the update.)

Dominican Republic Nightmare-Plaintiff./niece (26 years old) suing defendant/her aunt (32 or so) for her part of a vacation to the Dominican Republic, and both litigants went on the trip.   The plaintiff charged both tickets, and expenses on her credit card, and want $725 from defendant for expenses she never paid.    On other trips, each paid their own way.   On this trip plaintiff paid in advance for trip, but a week before the trip, defendant hurt her back, had to wear a back brace, and went on vacation because she couldn't get a full refund.   $728 to plaintiff.  

Second (Rerun)-

Elder Abuse and Kidnapping-Plaintiff son charged into a church service screaming that plaintiff sister kidnapped his mother, and also claims his sister stole $50,000 from her.   Plaintiff is suing for a false restraining order, harassment, and a bunch of other junk.    Another brother is witness for defendant sister.   Mother is living alone with the help of the daughter, and has a restraining order against plaintiff son.  (I automatically put plaintiff son in the nutso category, for the giant pile of paperwork, and post-it indexing).     Plaintiff brother's case dismissed.    

Defendant sister has a counter claim against plaintiff brother, for false allegations against her for elder abuse.      Plaintiff/brother had quit claim from parents to get deed to the house, in 2008.   When house was sold plaintiff/brother got most of the money, a third went to mother (about $180k), and the siblings (except Daniel) didn't get any money but their names were also on the deed.   Defendant's case dismissed also.   Defendant daughter was given $5,000 as a loan, that she's repaying.   

Plaintiff did go to the family church, and came into the service screaming sister kidnapped his mother, and stole from her.  There is a recording of the man screaming allegations, and the police being called.    I fear for the sister's safety, the plaintiff is totally fixated on her, and will never stop.   

If JJ had given any award to the defendant, then the brother/plaintiff would have been even more fixated on sister.      It's sad when the mother has to get a restraining order against the son.   Daniel Baleanu scares me, and he's actually sued not only the sister/defendant, and his brother.   Defendant goes off on JJ, and he's lucky Byrd didn't physically kick him out of the court, and I'm betting Byrd and security were ready to do that.    As my grandmother used to say, "That one just isn't right in the head".     JJ tells the plaintiff that he will never be the guardian of the mother, unless the family court agrees.  I shudder to think what would happen to the mother if the plaintiff was ever declared her guardian.     

Hallterview with plaintiff is disgusting.   He only cares about the money, and will never stop filing court cases.   

Cases dismissed.   (with plaintiffs like this, I'm very glad for Byrd's presence in court, and a couple of extra security people standing by). 

Edited April 2, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Ilovecomputers]

On 3/31/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Doesn't plaintiff ever watch the ID channel?   Inviting someone you don't know into your house on a first date is really dumb, and a great way to end up in a shallow grave. 

We'll probably recognize plaintiff on some future ID show.  Hey, "Web of Lies" producers, there's plenty of fresh material to be gleaned from JJ episodes.

[Florinaldo]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Elder Abuse and Kidnapping-

When that case was first broadcast, I thought that the plaintiff was bugfuck crazy and somewhat dangerous. After this repeat, I still think he is a loon, but I feel pity for the sorry mental and emotional mess he has made of himself. People who really should be scared are this family because he clearly is obsessed and will never quit, through the courts or other more direct means.

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims defendant daughter had lice, and that turned into bedbugs (it doesn't work that way)

When I heard that I said to myself that plaintiff must have been very dstracted during her high school biology classes.

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Dominican Republic Nightmare

Litigants never cease to come up with varied (and unfounded) reasons to get out of the debts they owe. I think this "I hurt myself before the trip an did not enjoy myself, therefore my niece has no right to be reimbursed for my expenses" is a new variant.

[SRTouch]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Screaming Fit Freaks Mom Out-Plaintiff (property owner) suing former roommate/ friend for failing to give notice to move, damages to the home, and the unpaid balance of the lease.    Defendant claims when she gave plaintiff notice to move, plaintiff freaked out so badly it scared defendant's little girl.

Kind of boring case. JJ got pretty harsh with P at times. JJ not happy with P trying to enforce strict 30 day notice in an informal rent agreement - nothing in writing, P admitted D was first ever tenant and she was not in hurry to find new tenant after D left, D paid on time for 18 months, and really didn't do much damage considering she lived in room over a year with a pre-teenaged daughter...... all in all, I think JJ decided before sitting down that P was just being vindictive and filing a frivolous suit....... oh, almost forgot the lice morphing into bedbugs - yeah, like that happens...... I'm just waiting til Raven, my house panther, grows into a panther for real....... I do wonder about D's custody battle - was dad was actually trying to improve daughter's living conditions or is daughter just pawn in ongoing bitter breakup...... not that I actually what to hear more details, but it would be nice to hear that daddy was really just wanting to get the nine year out of sharing a bedroom with mom and into her own room

Quote

No Shopping Together When You're Playing House-Plaintiff Stetson Denny, is suing his former live in girlfriend for the price of a dog they purchased together (A Cockaleer puppy, Cavalier King Spaniel, and Cocker Spaniel mix).    Dog was either $3200 or $2800, so JJ goes with $3,000.   Idiot plaintiff claims you can register a Cockalier with AKC (no you can't).  When the two fools broke up, they talked about splitting dog custody, but it didn't work out.  Defendant has dog, and has had the dog for a year.    Byrd confirms that the dog is a mixed breed, and not registered (we all knew that already). 

With interest, the $3,000 purchase price is probably closer to $5,000 by now.   (I'm sorry, I missed the decision).   But from hallterview, defendant keeps the dog.    (How ridiculous to pay almost $5k including interest for a mutt). 

Silly case that I was kind of surprised JJ let go on as long as she did..... well, she did get to empathize foolishness of dating/live in/almost marrieds spending thousands on..... well..... anything in a joint purchase - this time, a cute designer mutt (I'll skip the rant about pet shop puppies and how many shelter dogs could have been saved with a fraction of what they spent) - when they have low-paying minimum wage jobs...... oh, decision - JJ halved the lower guesstimate and ordered D to pay (IIRC) $1400

Quote

Dominican Republic Nightmare-Plaintiff./niece (26 years old) suing defendant/her aunt (32 or so) for her part of a vacation to the Dominican Republic, and both litigants went on the trip.   The plaintiff charged both tickets, and expenses on her credit card, and want $725 from defendant for expenses she never paid.    On other trips, each paid their own way.   On this trip plaintiff paid in advance for trip, but a week before the trip, defendant hurt her back, had to wear a back brace, and went on vacation because she couldn't get a full refund.   $728 to plaintiff.

'Nother silly 'why bother' case - JJ zipped through this one in no time...... auntie admits they have gone on 15 or so trips together and always paid their own way - apparently their birthdays are about six months apart and they take a trip for each others BD, but always pay their own way - auntie figures she shouldn't have to pay this time 'cuz she didn't have a good time..... ya ate the steak, lady....... yeah but it was a gift this time, and she was really just there to babysit - what, says niece P, why would I be giving you a trip as a gift on MY birthday!

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by SRTouch

[khyber]

I know eyebrow styles vary over the years but I draw the line at Groucho Marx.

[bad things are bad]

Quote

As usual, even though the defendant's dog used the back bedrooms as toilets, no rug money will be given to plaintiff.

Instead of asking for rug money, I'd go for damage to the underlying floor. My hardwood floors have a permanent stain from our old dog being incontinent, and she'd peed on a rug. Even if the floor isn't in good shape, the smell will linger and needs some professional help to get rid of 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Internet Romeo Smackdown-Plaintiff suing former fiance, and his new fiance over unpaid rent and utilities, an insurance payment, and over an engagement ring.   Plaintiff's diamond was used in the setting given by the defendant, replacing the small diamond that came with the ring.    Loser defendant swears plaintiff kept everything he owned, including the ring receipt explaining the size of the original diamond.      Defendant paid for the setting only, not the diamond.   Defendant man should have paid for dental work, not a ring.    The mounting cost $900+, but the diamond was plaintiff's stone.    Ring goes back to plaintiff.     

Unpaid car costs are thrown out.    Defendant wants his property from the plaintiff's home.  Plaintiff sold the small speakers the defendant left at her home., however, plaintiff has a text message from defendant saying plaintiff could sell everything he left behind.    In return for ring, defendant can pick up his computer, his fishing stuff, and his fishing stuff.   Defendant claims he couldn't pick up his insulin for two months, so he went without.   

Ring back to plaintiff, after property picked up by defendant

Sweet 16 Party Upset-Plaintiff suing former party planner for ruining her daughter's Sweet 16 party that flopped.  100-125 guests, provide decorations, event venue, party bus, food, etc.     This costs $2890.   There were actually 50 guests (that is a very cheap price for all of that, even with 50 people).      Some decor is nice, some looks like I made it (not good).  Plaintiff wants everything back, ignoring that she paid for the venue, the bus, etc, that were fixed costs, no matter how many guests.   Food was supposed to be wings, cake, party food, that never happened.      The party guests ended up eating 26 pizzas purchased by the defendant.     Defendant claims that plaintiff agreed to get $500 back.   However, plaintiff now wants every penny back.   

That will not work, in my view.   Defendant paid for the party bus, the venue, DJ, etc.  Decor budget was $300, and the glow in the dark balloons were $18 a package.   Cake wasn't great, decor.    Plaintiff gets $1800 for failed food, and decor.   Party planner has a lot of excuses.  

Second-

Boxing Coach Space Invader-Plaintiff (Boxing and exercise gym owner) suing former employee, boxing trainer for inappropriate touching of clients, violation of non-compete contract, and other nasty business practices.      Plaintiff was fired for inappropriate touches on clients, and there were repeated customer complaints about defendant's roaming hands.    Plaintiff claims he fired defendant, and then defendant poached clients.      

Defendant worked there for three months, and he was fired after numerous complaints from female clients about inappropriate touching.     Plaintiff submits letters, and emails from clients complaining about defendant.   When clients complained to defendant, he ignored complaints.     Charlando Peoples is also an actor, MMA fighter, and totally stuck on himself.   After a warning, and being put on probation, and more complaints, defendant was fired.  

Defendant's witness is a former customer of plaintiff, who followed defendant to another gym.  Defendant works in another job, but still trains two clients from the plaintiff's gym.   The only part JJ will consider is the defamation part of plaintiff's case.   JJ says the online postings by defendant are defamation.   Defendant gets $112 in back wages, but told to stop writing about former employer.   Plaintiff case dismissed, and if defendant keeps the online defamation, he can come back to court and talk to JJ about it.  

[announcergirl]

I ran here so fast to see what y’all are gonna say about today! I’ll wait 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Instagram Influencer's Sweet Tooth-Plaintiff/instagram influencer (I hate that word) suing defendant who was trying to get plaintiff to promote defendant's candy business, and for an unpaid loan to pay defendant's rent.   $1,000 was the loan, to get more candy inventory, but it was a business investment by plaintiff, not a loan.       Plaintiff was going to promote defendant's candy on the Instagram account to his followers.   

Defendant gave the plaintiff 50% of his candy company, in return for the $1,000 loan for his back rent.  Defendant claims because of a family member's murder years ago, that the death threats against him were traumatizing.   Defendant claims plaintiff encouraged the enraged customers, that the defendant didn't fill for the candy.   Defendant claims plaintiff didn't want repayment, but just to put profits back into the business.   Defendant never paid the plaintiff for his profits, and it wasn't a loan, but a bad investment.  Defendant is counter claiming for lost wages, death threats, and slanderous posts.     

Nothing for either party, money was a bad investment, not a loan, and defendant was awful at business. 

Leave My Child Support Out of This-Plaintiff suing former friend for money she loaned defendant when he was down on his luck.   They met through a business, and were friendly.   Defendant said he was in financial trouble, and plaintiff loaned him $2,000.   Defendant was supposed to pay plaintiff back when defendant's settlement came in from an accident he was in, from All State (he was rear ended by a police officer).     Defendant's children received a settlement ($2300), because defendant owed back child support.   Defendant claims the child support wasn't for the kids, but for other reasons (no that doesn't make sense to anyone but the defendant.    Why is this idiot trying to tell JJ about back child support?).    Defendant says child support was because kid's mother owed the county.

Defendant says All State was going to pay him over $20,000, but received nothing. 

Defendant says it wasn't a loan, but a gift.    $2000 to plaintiff. 

Second (Rerun)-

Swindled While in Prison-Defendant was incarcerated for a year , and comes home to missing car.  Plaintiff's girlfriend sues defendant for cost of car, and repairs.   Plaintiff claims her witness sold the car to her, and defendant told him to sell car.    Defendant had borrowed $2k on title loan on car, and he assumed title company repossessed car.    Plaintiff claims she bought car worth $2200 (Blue Book price) from her witness for $500. 

Plaintiff wrecked car a week after she bought it, and car was towed, and plaintiff claims accident wasn't her fault.      She got it back from the tow lot with a bill of sale she forged with defendant's signature.    $2293 is Blue Book on 2003 Expedition.    Plaintiff's witness sold the defendant's car to plaintiff, because witness claims defendant owed him money.   There is no lien on the car, because the insurance paid him the amount of the lien.  

When defendant located car, the police got it back for him, and he also got the insurance check from the accident.   Plaintiff is suing for accident insurance check , tow fee, and what she did to maintain car.   JJ tells plaintiff that the $750 was equivalent to renting car for the three months.     Cases dismissed.   

Junk Food Junkie-Plaintiff suing former roommates for a loan for their car.    Defendant boyfriend was stay at home step dad taking care of defendant girlfriend's two kids. 

 The loan to defendants was $750 from plaintiff.   Plaintiff wrote an agreement for repayment, by a certain date, signed by the defendants.   

Defendant case dismissed, and plaintiff gets $750. 

[ThePurpleArcher]

So many of these cases these days are quick, boring, and rather inane. I think these are the 'extra cases' which aren't good enough for ratings sweeps months, so they burn them off in 'off months' (March, April). I can't wait for May when sweeps begin again - hoping for better, entertaining cases. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Defective Pug Puppy?!-Plaintiff dog buyer suing breeder of Pug puppy, for a partial refund for a registered pure-bred Pug, and damages from a restraining order.    Plaintiff brought her young son as a witness, JJ excuses him from court.    Defendant breeds 2 or 3 litters of registered Pugs a year.    Plaintiff bought puppy for over a $1,260, and he was male, then months later plaintiff wanted a female Pug to breed, and have breeder do the breeding, in return for a female puppy.      Puppy ate a peanut butter cup, went to vet, and vet said dog has one undescended testicle, and plaintiff should neuter puppy, because Cryptorchid testicles can be genetic.        Plaintiff wants half or all of the cost of puppy back, plus damages for restraining order. 

Pug was neutered, so my guess is plaintiff wants more puppies to breed.   Breeder said she would return a full refund, but only if plaintiff returned puppy to breeder.    Plaintiff also contacted the state Attorney General Consumer Complaints office.    Plaintiff wants the puppy, and money too.   PLaintiff gets no money back, because she's keeping the puppy.   JJ said if she wanted to give the puppy back to the breeder, then she could get a refund.   

Defendant filed restraining order against plaintiff, after many people came with plaintiff to trespass on her property.   JJ says the restraining order was unnecessary.    However, as JJ says plaintiff is nutty.    

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Salvaged Car Fraud-Plaintiff suing mechanic for refund for fraudulent car repairs.  Car was purchased for $1400, and car is almost 20 years old.    Car needed brakes, tires, and smog check.   Plaintiff took car to defendant, and claims her mechanic says she was ripped off, but the witness didn't come to court.  Plaintiff is suing for $2450, for the mechanical work which is almost a thousand more than the purchase price.   Plaintiff paid $2380 for the mechanic's work, and the plaintiff reversed the charges.   The mechanic refunded plaintiff $1100+, but her bank tried to reverse the charges, she got $3750 total back from the mechanic.    Defendant mechanic said car was a salvage car, and he couldn't fix it, so mechanic reversed the charges for $1180 to plaintiff.    And then $1308 was refunded the next day to plaintiff. 

Plaintiff wants $2400 more back, when mechanic was paid $2400 that was already reversed. 

Plaintiff case is dismissed without prejudice, to return with a witness (didn't see her since, so I'm guessing no one wanted to come to court) 

Second-

Teen Corrupted by Drug Offers-Plaintiff was former tenant (room renter)of landlord who kept her security deposit, evicted her, and wants back rent, and house was being sold (Suing for $4500).   Plaintiff went on vacation, was moving out on 1 July, paid prorated rent for June/part of July.    Two days later landlord told her to get out now, so she packed her room up, and left for a friend's place.    

Defendant claims his 15 year old daughter, and her friend went to the house to swim, claims plaintiff solicited both girls to have sex with men, drink, and use drugs.    How ridiculous to believe that of the tenant.    Another parent who thinks their teenager is an angel, but is actually a total liar.     Defendant daughter claims plaintiff was drunk, on drugs, and offered her drugs on previous occasions.   (My view, why would tenant have to babysit landlord's teenager, and friends? Daughter and friend are the oldest looking 15 and 16 year olds I've ever seen).         

    Landlord gets zip, and his daughter is a total liar.    (I hope the plaintiff found a soft place to land after this, it's tough for foster kids who age out).   Other daughter claims she told mother about the drug offers before, and the mother said it was OK to go to the house anyway.   The defendant and his daughters are such liars. 

Plaintiff gets $400 security, and $400 rent back, and $400 illegal eviction, equaling $1200.   Plaintiff is homeless.   

Odometer Scam-Plaintiff claims defendant cheated him on a car trade.     When they traded cars, defendant gave plaintiff mechanical history of SUV, including mileage, but a year earlier the car had a much higher mileage recorded.  My guess is someone wrote the wrong mileage on one service record.     However, defendants claim they bought the car with that mileage, and they put 10,000 miles more on it.     

Plaintiff told to stuff it. and case dismissed.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Disabled Man Cheats the System-Plaintiff deadbeat tenant, fathered four children ( three are with the girlfriend 3, 2, 1), ) (he also has four older children too) since he was declared totally disabled, his girlfriend is his caregiver paid by the state.   He is suing former landlord for poor living conditions.   Girlfriend gets caretaker money, and welfare from the state, plus Section 8.   They didn't marry to get more money from the state (Iowa).   PLaintiff claims girlfriend, and mother of the three youngest, is only his caregiver, and no longer his girlfriend.   

Plaintiff didn't pay his portion of the rent, that was only $2 at first, then went to $106 half way through the year, and $113 later, out of $1643.  Plaintiff didn't pay the $106 or $113 ever.   So for five months he paid a total of $10 rent, and nothing else for the other 10 months, until Section 8 forced him to pay $800+.   In April he was booted out of Section 8, owed the $1643, and paid nothing.    Byrd is so generous to this man.  (I only put the different assistance received in this case, because it's relevant to the case).   Plaintiff is very proud of his non-payment on the rent, and other deadbeat activities.  

Plaintiff paid a $500+ security deposit.   Landlady is so lucky he moved, and is receives the two months rent, $3286.    Plaintiff claims the apartment had roaches, etc.   He is a total scammer along with his co-parent/caretaker, and a squatter.  

Defendant in hall-terview says the plaintiff is a professional scammer, has now been a squatter in two states.  

Mini-Mall Mayhem-Plaintiffs own mini-mall shopping center sue former tenant, for non-payment of rent.    Defendant is alleged to have left, didn't pay rent, and broke the lease.  Defendant claims the heat didn't work for a total of two months.    

Sadly woman plaintiff has a mole on her upper lip that greatly resembles a booger.   The lease copy from the plaintiff has handwritten addendums added, but not on  defendant copy.     Plaintiffs claim the heat was fixed, but defendant claims it wasn't.   

Case dismissed.   

Second-

Alcohol-Induced Car Battle-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for his car, and the return or value of an interlock breathalyzer (or whatever it's called).    He put the title in her name after he 'caught' a DUI charge.   Defendant ex girlfriend says he gave her the car for driving him around in it for four months.    Plaintiff put car in defendant's name because he couldn't get it out of impound after a DUI. 

Car title went from previous girlfriend, and was signed over to the defendant's niece, and plaintiff wants the car signed over to his sister-in-law.         Defendant claims plaintiff didn't drive his car, but drove another one without a license.   JJ suggests that plaintiff sue the defendant's niece for the car title.   Case dismissed.  

(Why does someone who doesn't have a license, lies about driving anyway, want the interlock device?    My guess is that if he gets caught driving without a license, it's one charge, but driving without the interlock is a prison sentence.)

Tragedy of Grandmother's Death-Plaintiff suing former tenants for unpaid rent, and damage to his house.    Plaintiff claims they owe three months rent.   Defendants claim they paid one month's rent, the second month they did work for house in lieu of rent, and it was a verbal agreement.    Defendants also claim the house was in terrible shape when they moved in, but lived there like that for over two years.  However, the defendant's painted the house before, but had to paint it beige by move out. 

They didn't pay on month two or three because they took out a huge loan to pay for the grandmother's funeral services.   However, non-payment was February, March, April, and loan was in the previous November.   

They said they moved because the grandmother died,    Grandmother and grandfather lived full time with the defendants.    Nice try by the defendant wife to get JJ's sympathy about the loan, and grandma going bye-bye, but it won't work.    

There are photos of damage for trash removal.     Security deposit covers trash removal (it must have been hideously trashed to cost over $600 to get trash removed).   Plaintiff gets $1795 for 3 months rent, and he keeps the security deposit too.  

Edited April 3, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[bad things are bad]

Disabled Man Cheats the System-

Jeez. As much energy as this scuzzball puts into cheating the system...it would be much easier to have an actual job. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

I Only Fear God and Judge Judy-Plaintiff (former Marine, who only fears God and Judge Judy, and Byrd really laughs when plaintiff says this.) is suing former tenant for cost of new radiator, lock change fees, and unpaid rent.   Plaintiff took in homeless defendant, and has a history of helping others.   Defendant wanted to a pickup truck for him to start a landscaping business, and when the argument happened, plaintiff kept the pickup truck.    

Defendant is obviously not well.   A month after defendant left, he went to court for a protective order against plaintiff, application for order is submitted.    Order application is bizarre.   Plaintiff has the truck back, and changed the locks.  However, plaintiff paid $888 for a lawyer for defendant in his case against defendant's sister over father.   Plaintiff receives his $888 for the lawyer back. 

Fake Dreadlocks Disaster-Plaintiff suing salon owner for return of money paid for dreadlock extensions (faux dreadlocks).   Plaintiff paid $240, plus $20 tip.  Plaintiff had hair extensions put in, and three days later plaintiff went back to salon for a refund.  Plaintiff says the dreads were too tight, and weren't washed before installation.   When plaintiff went back to the salon, she complained that extensions were ripping out her hair, causing scalp issues, and plaintiff removed her own extensions.      Plaintiff claims instructions on hair package say to rinse hair extensions out before installation, but instructions don't say that.     

Defendant says plaintiff did come back three days later, but had another procedure on that second visit, and that was free of charge.    Plaintiff needed two braids rewound, and the ends burned.     Defendant has been in business for 10 years, and JJ advises her to do the refund for good will for her business.    $240 for plaintiff.

Second-

Warning: Adorable Puppy in Court-Plaintiff suing former boyfriend over custody of adorable dog, Nugget, and claims he falsely accused her of assault.     Another plaintiff who thinks she the dog is her child.     Defendant says plaintiff's former apartment doesn't allow pets, so dog always lived with defendant.    Defendant paid for the dog on payments, by himself.   Nugget was $1500, and defendant paid all of that amount, on payments.     

Plaintiff put her credit card down for dog, but defendant paid all of the payments.  Plaintiff never paid the rent.    The moved in together in September, and plaintiff moved out in April.    Plaintiff sneaks in the mention that doggy finance company said they were going to repo the dog, so she paid four months on the dog.   Plaintiff also claims defendant's mother was paying the rent, not defendant.  Plaintiff claims since she had an Instagram account for Nugget, and that he's her child, that she should get the dog.   Defendant paid off dog contract right before coming to court.    

Plaintiff's name was never on the contract to pay for dog as a purchaser, and has no claim to the dog.  Defendant has a statement from credit company that he has paid off the dog purchase contract.  As JJ says, defendant owns the dog legally.   If defendant hadn't paid off the dog, then the loan company could have repossessed the dog, and resold it to plaintiff, but that's not going to happen.   Case dismissed, and Nugget goes home with defendant.   

(In the hall-terview plaintiff says she wants visitation, and defendant says never going to happen.   Plaintiff also says defendant broke into his home, and tried to steal the dog, that was when he went for the police were called. )

Edited April 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a recent rerun-(According to my online cable guide, this is the only new episode this week).-

First (New)-

Mom Gave My Dog Away-Plaintiff daughter suing her mother for giving her dog away.  Dog was with mother for 2 1/2 years, and Mother was hospitalized for quite a while during that period.     Plaintiff wants dog back.    Plaintiff and husband moved from Texas, to Washington in 2018, and dog stayed in Texas with the mother.   Mother had been taking care of the dog for a year before the move.    Plaintiff claims she had four dogs, and could only have two in the apartment.  So they either had to put two dogs with someone else, or rent two apartments.   

Plaintiff after 2 1/2 years, she decided to get the dog.     Plaintiff claims she left the dog with her mother for emotional support.     Plaintiff was snooping in mother's iPad, and found dog was rehomed, during the mother's critical illness.   Plaintiff claimed she paid for mother to keep the dog, and would have paid for vet bills.    During 2 1/2 years plaintiff paid nothing for the dog.  Case dismissed. 

Buy What You Can Afford-Plaintiff suing her brother, for missed car payments, and tickets on a car that's in plaintiff's name.   Defendant needed a car, but had zero credit, and he put down $3,000.   Plaintiff loaned him $300 for a car payment, and co-signed the loan.   Defendant paid the sister back the $300.    In January, 2019 defendant/brother stopped paying for the car, but was still driving it.    The finance company went after the sister.   

Defendant had no job, a new baby, and stopped paying for the car, and wanted his relatives to pay for his car loan.   Car was repossessed, and loan is still outstanding.    Plaintiff claims brother stopped paying a year before car was repossessed.        There is still $27000 left on car, but after auction there is still $12000 owed.   $5,000 to plaintiff, leaving her $7,000 short. 

Frightening Dental Scare-Plaintiff suing his former friend for an unpaid loan for dental bills.   Defendant has since married someone else.    Plaintiff says defendant called him, needed dental work, and couldn't get a Care Credit loan, because of bad job history, and terrible credit.  Plaintiff went to the dental office, and got a loan for $5500 total.    

$5,000 to plaintiff.    Deadbeat defendant never paid one penny on her own dental bill.   Bet the loan amount is well over $5500 by now.  

Second (Rerun)-

Mother's Day Drug Use-Plaintiff took defendant high school age girl into her home for over a year, never charged her rent.   Plaintiff is suing for unpaid rent, and damages.  As JJ says, No good deed goes unpunished, and never take in someone who has been kicked out by their parents.   

Defendant lived rent free while she was in high school, when she graduated she paid nothing, including rent to the defendant.  Defendant did give plaintiff $400 for two months rent.    Room was trashed around Mother's Day, and defendant is blaming the plaintiff's son.  Plaintiff wants room damages, and four months rent.  Plaintiff has photos of the ruined mattress,   

$972 for plaintiff.  

Fight Over Funeral-Plaintiff suing brother's widow (brother's  wife of two years or five years, and his only marriage).  Defendant is counter suing for a family heirloom's return.   Funeral costs $4131, and defendant borrowed it from plaintiff.   Defendant received a $7700 final expense insurance proceeds, but didn't pay plaintiff/brother-in-law back.   Apparently, plaintiff bought the giant, butt ugly broach, and he paid the late husband $500 for it.   

Defendant swears she sold a Corvette, and a boat to pay for the funeral.   Unfortunately, there was a the promise of a final expense insurance plan on the late brother.  

I don't like the defendant, and think she's trying to stick the plaintiff with the funeral costs, and thought he would never take her to court for them.   She also is not getting the ugly broach back, because plaintiff bought it fair and square.   Her story about giving it to plaintiff for safekeeping is garbage.     That is one of the ugliest broaches I've ever seen, and late husband/brother had it long before the husband died.    Defendant's daughter is a loon, and what's wrong with her teeth?     

$4130 to plaintiff, nothing to defendant.     

 

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama