Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts


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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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?

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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 by SRTouch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 6
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
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! 😅

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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,

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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 by SRTouch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 9

Share this post


Link to post

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 

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(In the hall-terview plaintiff says she wants visitation, and defendant says never going to happen). 

Good decision. If he lets her have visitation she will be there all the time and he will probably have to take her to court to shake her off; she may try to "visit" anyway even without his consent. He may be a bit of a dick, but the dog is better with him than with that obsessed neurotic ("The dog is my child", "I made an Instagram page for him").

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Frightening Dental Scare-

Defendant tried the frequent "I did not ask, he offered" defense. Litigants who do that usually forget the converse argument "but you accepted it dearie". Which makes it a contract and a loan.

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$5,000 to plaintiff, leaving her $7,000 short. 

At least she got some money back since the show pays out the award. If she sued him in real-life small claims she would never be able to collect with this deadbeat and would still owe for the full amount. Perhaps she can negotiate a settlement with the finance company for the remainder of the debt. He kept saying tht he was let down by people he thought were his family, as if they have a duty to support him and pay for his every whim.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

You Sound Like a Fool-Plaintiff suing defendant for medical treatment, rabies shots, and damages after defendant's poodle bit her.   Dog bit plaintiff in the apartment parking lot, dog was off leash, collarless, was wandering in the street without an owner.   Poodle bit her on the hand.       Plaintiff called animal control, and defendant's young daughter came out of the apartment complex, and dog owner got defensive.    Animal Control report says no proof of rabies shots, so plaintiff had to get four shots in her arm over three weeks.    Defendant's witness is  an adult friend of defendant, and they keep calling the plaintiff a liar.      (Defendant tries to charge the sacred desk, and Officer Byrd rather sharply tells her to get back).  (There is no proof dog was vaccinated for rabies before the bite.   Dog had to get rabies vaccines updated after the bite, to get dog out of impound.    Receipt of rabies shot from 2014, was only obtained the week before court).   

Defendant and her witness's excuses are ridiculous.     Defendant hasn't paid the impound fee either.   Defendant's witness claims dog was outside briefly, wasn't off the property, and never bit the plaintiff.   Defendant's witness is such a liar, and keep mouthing off at JJ, and calls the plaintiff a liar.    Animal control report says neighbor says poodle is frequently running loose.  Defendant claims plaintiff hates Latinos.   

Plaintiff gets $1500.   (I think the plaintiff should have received all $5,000 for having to take rabies shots, and put up with defendant's stank attitude). 

Gambling Getaway Gone Wrong-Plaintiff suing ex boyfriend for unpaid gambling loan, and property damage.   They went from Stockton to Reno, defendant claims woman gave him $800 so he wouldn't bounce a check, and plaintiff gets $800 for the loan back. 

All property damage claims are dismissed from both litigants.   

Second-

This is Not Show and Tell-Plaintiff suing former roommate for an illegal lockout.  Plaintiff was already in the condo, and defendant needed a roommate, and landlord matched them up.  This all occurred in Denver.    Defendant says she's only another renter, and not the landlord.  However, defendant is the one that changed the locks, after putting plaintiff's property outside.      After the lockout, defendant moved another friend/ tenant into the condo.    Defendant's counter claim is that plaintiff damaged her motorcycle.   

Plaintiff couldn't move his California King bed, a sofa, love seat, entertainment stand, dresser.  Defendant claims couch, ottoman, and love seat are in the garage at defendant's place.   Defendant says the bed is gone, but defendant tossed the dresser, entertainment center, and other large items outside, and they disappeared.   Plaintiff was going to move, rented a U-haul, but defendant had already locked him out, tossed his stuff, or put it into the garage.    Defendant claims to have hearing loss in the one ear, and defendant was napping, and couldn't hear the knocking.   (My guess is defendant hears what she wants to, and ignored the plaintiff coming to pick up his stuff).   

Defendant has some ridiculous counter claim about her motorcycle.  Defendant starts to charge the desk of Justice. 

Plaintiff is suing for replacing the furniture.   $2509 to plaintiff.  Defendant's stupid counter claim dismissed. 

Smoked Out-Plaintiff suing former landlord for return of security deposit, and rent.      Plaintiff paid $1200 for rent, and security deposit.    Defendant, and live-in both smoke, and they agreed to smoke outside.    Plaintiff moved his stuff into the room, found out the landlord and girlfriend were smoking indoors.     Plaintiff moved out the next day, after defendants were smoking up a storm in the house, and the defendant's in-laws were staying for quite a while, and were smoking indoors also.

Plaintiff receives $1200 back.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Man Shaken Up By Nephew's Murder-Plaintiff was renting a room from defendant (he had a two bedroom apartment), and she left.  Plaintiff is suing defendant/former roommate, former property manager (son of property owner) , and the boyfriend's mother (she owns the five unit apartment house).   Defendant kept plaintiff's security deposit and never returned it, and never turned it over to landlady.    JJ dismisses the case against the property manager, and the owner.    Defendant is counter claiming because plaintiff video taped apartment condition when she left.   

Defendant/former roommates all seem to leave rather quickly, and he never returns security deposits.   Only former roommate is still the defendant, because he never turned over security deposit from plaintiff to property owner or manager.   (Defendant says he's upset because his nephew was killed in a mass shooting recently).     

Defendant swears she caused a flea infestation from her cat, and other damages.   However, defendant's girlfriend and dog stay over often, so fleas could come from the dog too.   

Security was $1100, and plaintiff gets back $980.    Defendant case dismissed.  

Worst Case Car Scenario-Plaintiff suing former friend/defendant for damages to a third party's vehicle,  after friend gets into an accident while driving her uninsured car.   Defendant says plaintiff asked him to look at her car, and tell her what was wrong with it.   Plaintiff had no insurance.   The car in question wasn't driveable, plaintiff had another car.   Defendant had the car towed to a friend's house to work on it, and got it running.  He took the car for a test drive,   

Plaintiff says she was selling the car to the defendant, but it wasn't registered to him, or insured, and defendant didn't have the title.     Sale of car wasn't complete, car was registered to plaintiff, and she says Allstate covered the car.   However, she did not have insurance on the car, just the one she was driving (bet it doesn't either).   My sympathies are with the third party who had their car wrecked by the plaintiff's uninsured car.   Plaintiff wants to be paid for having an uninsured car, an idiot driving it, and for the idiot having an accident.    

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

Second-

Paving the Way to Unemployment-Plaintiff suing cement mason for jack hammering a driveway, and destroying her driveway.     Defendants claims someone on the internet hired them to put in a new driveway, plaintiff wasn't home, and neither was the person that hired them.    Defendants gave a $6,000 quote, but person hiring them wanted $300 first from the defendant to prove it was a legitimate bank account.   They sent the $300, and defendants jack hammered a lot of the driveway, and plaintiff was shocked to come home and see her driveway destroyed, since she never hired them.   

 Not surprising that they could never get in touch with the 'owner' who wasn't an owner, and was a scammer.   

Plaintiff receives $2268, plus $895, totaling, $3163 to replace her driveway.    (The two defendants never accepted that they were scammed, and had ruined a driveway that they had no right to touch).

The Magically Disappearing Dilapidated Car-Plaintiff suing former friend for the disappearance of her car.  Defendant towed plaintiff's car into his mechanics shop, after plaintiff inherited car from late uncle, fall of 2016.   Four months later car didn't pass emissions, but it was registered, pending passing the test,( it flunked).   Car is a 1994 Buick LeSabre (spelling?).   

From Fall 2016 to October 2018 car went back and forth to defendant's mechanics shop, and it was never registered.   In October 2018 car was brought back to mechanic, it was parked in front of his house, and towed for expired registration.   

Plaintiff claims she can't find her car, and defendant says car was towed to city impound, and defendant claims he told the plaintiff.    The mechanic must have been really cheap for that woman to waste over two years sending her car back and forth to him.   

 $1.002 to plaintiff.   (I wouldn't have given them a penny.    They drove an unregistered car for over two years, so they did not come to court with clean hands).    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/6/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff was snooping in mother's iPad, and found dog was rehomed, during the mother's critical illness. 

Despicable!  I get asked a lot to help friends and acquaintances with computer problems and people share their passwords with me on all kinds of applications, but I would never dream of snooping on anyone. I’m surprised JJ didn’t seem to pick up on that. 

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims she can't find her car, and defendant says car was towed to city impound, and defendant claims he told the plaintiff. 

My gosh, Judy had serious anger management problems in this episode!  I think there should be ratings for her shows, such as:

E- Educational (JJ illustrates the doctrine of “clean hands” or the four corners of a contract or other legal principles);

C- Cray, cray (plaintiff or defendant demonstrate crazy eyes or crazy behaviour)

X- Expertise (JJ demonstrates her expert knowledge in accident reconstruction, jewelry appraisals; normal wear and tear on leased premises, etc.); 

T- Talk Over Me Quotient (The decibel level reached in any episode while JJ, plaintiff and/or  defendant try to talk over one another. Additional points are added if JJ uses her ballpoint pen as a gavel; and

A- Admonishments.  Includes sharp criticisms by JJ to either party for drinking the water, crossing one’s arms, not standing up straight, for thinking they were coming to a tea dance or audition. 

What am I forgetting?

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Ilovecomputers said:

Despicable!  I get asked a lot to help friends and acquaintances with computer problems and people share their passwords with me on all kinds of applications, but I would never dream of snooping on anyone. I’m surprised JJ didn’t seem to pick up on that. 

My gosh, Judy had serious anger management problems in this episode!  I think there should be ratings for her shows, such as:

E- Educational (JJ illustrates the doctrine of “clean hands” or the four corners of a contract or other legal principles);

C- Cray, cray (plaintiff or defendant demonstrate crazy eyes or crazy behaviour)

X- Expertise (JJ demonstrates her expert knowledge in accident reconstruction, jewelry appraisals; normal wear and tear on leased premises, etc.); 

T- Talk Over Me Quotient (The decibel level reached in any episode while JJ, plaintiff and/or  defendant try to talk over one another. Additional points are added if JJ uses her ballpoint pen as a gavel; and

A- Admonishments.  Includes sharp criticisms by JJ to either party for drinking the water, crossing one’s arms, not standing up straight, for thinking they were coming to a tea dance or audition. 

What am I forgetting?

MA - We must always keep in mind how things work in "MY America"

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

(Defendant says he's upset because his nephew was killed in a mass shooting recently).  

You heard it hear first. In a few months "I/my partner/parent/neighbor/favorite entertainer had teh Covid and I was traumatized" is going to be an excuse for some bad behavior. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Stealing From the Disabled-Plaintiff /former tenant suing former landlord (owner of duplex, who lives in one side, and rents the other side out) for stealing from her bank account.  Plaintiff claims her landlady had the account number, and pin number, and used it to steal from her.  However, rent was $750, but the withdrawal was for $713 instead.   Plaintiff had a history of late payments, one month non-payment until well after the due date, so she was served with an eviction notice from landlady.   This all happened in Sparks, NV, near Reno.   Plaintiff paid 1 week of August, paid September, paid October on 13 October, and Housing court judge said to pay part of November, and use security deposit for the rest of November, and to move out of the apartment.   I wish JJ would stomp over to the plaintiff, and punch her right in that faded tattoo on plaintiff's neck.   

How dare the plaintiff call JJ, "Miss Judge Judy" .      

JJ says no proof of theft, no reason to get security back, since no payment for one month was ever paid.   Utilities weren't in her name, but that wasn't put in counter claim.    Damages are cleaning, holes in wall, etc. 

Both cases dismissed.  

Stalking and Harassment-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for unpaid loans, and the return of belongings (a spare laptop, and a BBQ grill).   Defendant claims stalking and harassment, but no police report.   What a shock, they met online.   Plaintiff loaned her money for her to buy items to resell at the flea market.     As JJ says, if plaintiff is so scared of defendant, then why doesn't she return his property.  

Plaintiff loans, and credit charges are dismissed.   Counterclaim dismissed.    Plaintiff has order to retrieve his grill and laptop in the next five days with a police escort. 

Second-

Repoed for a Crazy Amount-Plaintiff bought car from defendant, (2004 Saturn Ion) plaintiff still owed $60, so defendant repoed the car.  Defendant doesn't have title or registration, and claims she repoed car, and gave car away.   Defendant says car had bad memories about previous boyfriend, so she just wanted the car gone.    $1,000 of the down payment was for defendant to pay her car note off.  

 Plaintiff paid $1,000 to defendant, and defendant claimed she would pay car off (def. only had car for six months) at dealership.    $1560 was paid to defendant, she still owed nasty heifer $60, and it was repoed.     When plaintiff came to defendant's house to pay the last $60, the boyfriend took the car. 

Who the hell is the defendant's boyfriend?    I thought Charles Manson was in jail when this was filmed, not in JJ's court.  Defendant claims she gave car to friend of boyfriend.   JJ calls the man that defendant claims she gave the car to, but he doesn't answer his phone. 

Plaintiff gets $1000 (she drove the car for five months).   

Then, in the hall-terview defendant yells at someone to stop laughing, I'm assuming the boyfriend?  Or maybe one of the camera guys. 

Dog Grooming Business Fail-Plaintiff suing former roommate for value of dog grooming equipment, and lost wages for $4700.    Plaintiff moved in to the house in April, and moved out in July, and left her dog grooming stuff behind in the shed she used for her dog grooming business.      When blonde moved out defendant wasn't home, and the dog grooming shed was locked.  Defendant claims woman never picked her equipment up, so he eventually trashed it.   There is only one receipt, for a table.      

Defendant claims plaintiff never used the dog grooming equipment, never had customers, and JJ wants case to go back to Missouri.   

Plaintiff gets $100, and if defendant wants last week's rent $90, he needs to sue her locally.  This is to pay her for the equipment.     I would have given the plaintiff $10 to make up for the rent. 

Hallterview is hysterical. plaintiff claims man used her phone to dial all of her boyfriends. Defendant says a 21 year old always has their phone glued to their face, so he couldn't have used her phone if he tried.   Good point from defendant.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Your Personal Pain Means Nothing-Defendants are alleged to have done a ton of damages to a rental house owned by plaintiff.    Plaintiff says her medical issues prevented her from suing sooner.    Tenants had a one year lease, left a month early, and plaintiff's attorney tried to arrange a walk through, but it never happened.    There are dated move in photos, but move out photos are from a cell phone, and not dated.   $700 for ruined rug, and cleaning.  Sleazy former tenant pulls out regs citing 21 days to tell him of damages, but they left no forwarding address.   

Landlady has proof tenant refused walk through, in an email.   Tenant claims to have video and pictures day of move out, but he says he got rid of them.    Tenants claim they left a forwarding address, but they didn't even with the post office.    Landlady/plaintiff hired a skip tracer through her attorney, and there is email from tenant saying not to contact him in any way.    Defendant claims to be a contractor, there is no way in hell I would hire him after seeing the despicable way treated the landlady.    Also, I love how JJ told the defendants that they were either trying to cheat the landlady, or were stupid liars (I'm going with stupid liars, and I bet they get away with this garbage on every rental they have ever lived in.  ) 

Tenants used security deposit as last months rent, so that's gone.  Tenant won't shut up, and says house was falling apart, so why did he rent it?  Landlady says it took many months to fix the house for the next renter.   

Too late for landlady to get any money, case dismissed.   Plaintiff needs to get a new attorney, if they don't know about how to send certified letters to the house address, and they will either be forwarded or returned.  Case and counter claim dismissed. 

Second-

Watch his Case if You Have Children-Plaintiffs suing parent of child for throwing a rock and damaging their car.  Plaintiff witness is a neighbor's child.   Plaintiff noticed two days later her car was dented, and she asked a neighbor's son if he knew who damaged her car.   As usual, defendant claims her son didn't do this.    Witness's grandmother waited until plaintiff came to her door to have witness tell what he saw.  Defendant son gets the witness chair, and claims he doesn't know who threw the rock.      JJ says there isn't enough proof, and JJ suspects the plaintiff's witness actually did it.   

Case dismissed.  (My guess is in the rock throwing case the defendant said he didn't know who threw the rock, because if he admitted the plaintiff's witness did it, the child would beat the snot out of him when they got home.   I bet the bigger kid, the plaintiff's witness, is the neighborhood bully, and his grandmother doesn't care about that. )

Liar, Thief and a Cheat-Plaintiff suing former employer for unpaid wages for house painting. Defendant's witness is not available, and has no proof that plaintiff didn't finish the paint job.     

$300 lost wages to plaintiff.  defendant has zero proof of anything.   Defendant should have paid the man. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Sister Brother Breakdown-Plaintiff suing brother for rent, bills, unpaid utilities, and taking furniture with him that belonged to her.      Plaintiff owned a house, and moved to another city, and rented to brother.  Brother was supposed to lease/purchase the house.    Plaintiff moved in with another brother and sister, in another part of Texas.   Brother claims sister forced him to move into house, and purchase her house.   Brother never qualified for a mortgage for the house.    So brother was still paying rent, pending purchasing another house.     Then the sister/plaintiff moved back to the house, and brother still paid same rent to sister.     Sister says brother let propane tank run out, hurting the propane system.     

Plaintiff says brother took her bedroom set when he moved out.    Sister will have five days to pickup the bedroom set within five days.    Rent is thrown out, and so are the utilities.

Defendant/brother counter claim for two unregistered cars is dismissed.   Plaintiff gets her bedroom set if she picks it up within five days.

Neighborhood Hit and Run-Plaintiff claims neighbor across street backed across a two lane wide road, and hit her van parked on the street, then fled the scene.    Plaintiff didn't make a police report, because he thought neighbors would pay for the damage.      Plaintiff woman claims she, and her son saw the neighbor's car back up, and her van rocking, and other car driving off.    Plaintiff's don't know who was driving the car.  

Defendant wife says either brother or son drove van, and no one can prove that their van hit the plaintiff's van, but claims the van is only at her home occasionally.     Plaintiff says van is at the neighbor's house all of the time.     Plaintiff throws her husband under the bus, as the car driver.   

Plaintiffs receive $1100.

Second-

Mom the Mechanic-Plaintiff suing defendant over the value of plaintiff's car, and impound fees.   Car was deemed abandoned by the city, and towed to impound.   Defendant says she's an amateur mechanic, fixed the car, and then moved it to the street, and car was impounded.    Plaintiff paid $2200 for car parts, for a 20 year old car, and defendant was going to charge only parts and labor for repair.         Defendant was told by the city that car not registered to her could not remain on her property for more than 48 hours.   Defendant was going to be fined $200 a day for having the car on her property. 

As usual, defendant's phone croaked, and messages telling plaintiff to move the car are lost.    Plaintiff has the text messages.    Defendant claims car was repaired, and running, and she moved it to the street.    Plaintiff claims the car was not running, and had been gutted of all parts.   

Plaintiff paid $2200 for the car, and car dealer would only give her $500 on the car as a trade in.    Plaintiff receives $500 for the car.   

Dog Etiquette 101-Plaintiff suing defendant for injuries to her dog, after a dog fight.   However, plaintiff let her dog approach the other one, when the attack happened.    Plaintiff husband was holding dog leash, and walking the dogs.   Defendant was standing with her two dogs, and all were on a fire road.    Defendant stopped, and held her dogs while the plaintiffs passed the woman and her dogs.    Plaintiff let his dog approach the defendant's dog, and defendant dog lunged and bit the plaintiff's dog.  

As JJ says, defendant is not responsible for the vet bills, since plaintiffs didn't ask if the dogs were friendly, or anything else before allowing their dog to approach the defendant's dogs.   Just because a dog is friendly at a dog park, or other situations, then some are leash reactive.     Defendant claims plaintiff dog lunged?    

Case dismissed.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

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

Plaintiff miscarried at four months, and she wants half of the cost of the headstone ($400 is his half).   Plaintiff paid $400 for the burial, and the headstone was $800 more.  Defendant didn't pay for half of the funeral, so why would he agree to pay for half of the headstone?  There was no agreement for defendant to pay $400 for half of the headstone.   

Case dismissed. 

Adorable Little Girl Confesses-Plaintiff alleges defendant's little girl knocked over a sign, (a pole with a cement block on the bottom), and it damaged the plaintiff's car.  Plaintiff couldn't hear the loud boom over her own sound system.  Defendant mother says plaintiff was parking illegally, and so she shouldn't have to pay.     Little girl is in the witness chair, and admits she pushed the pole.   

JJ says it was defendant's mother role to control her daughter, and didn't.   (Kid might have been cute on the stand, but she sure looked angry when mommy lost).  (I hate those sound systems where the entire trunk is a giant speaker.   Fortunately, those systems are a great way to get a ticket here)   If that woman's music is so loud she can't hear a giant boom of the sign hitting, how does she hear ambulance sirens?   

$452 to plaintiff.  

Second-

Oil Doesn't Go There-Plaintiff let defendant move in with her for six months, and in month five defendant wrecked, and totaled out her own car.   Then she stole plaintiff's car, put oil in the hydraulic fluid port.    Defendant moved back with a relative after the car incident.   Plaintiff's witness is an employee of the mechanic's shop, but has no mechanical training.   Car is at Aamco transmission.   There is no proof that the defendant caused the damages. 

 Case dismissed without prejudice, to go back to Omaha so witnesses can come to court.

Lesbian Love Gone Wrong-Plaintiff is suing ex-girlfriend for damages, and stolen property.  They lived together for about two months, then broke up.   Defendant had a court order, and brought a locksmith to get her property from the house.    Plaintiff claims when defendant received her property, she took defendant's property also.    As JJ points out, the court paperwork says that defendant lives in the home, but it was always the plaintiff's home.  Plaintiff gets her passport, and charm back.     One more necklace will be returned to the plaintiff, but the rest of the jewelry are gifts so defendant keeps those items. 

Plaintiff gets some stuff back.   Cases dismissed.  

Incarcerated Son's Loan Loss-Plaintiff is suing other grand mother of her son's kids, for the value of a car, or the return of the car.  Plaintiff's son is in jail, and pre-incarceration a title loan was placed on the car to raise bail for loser son.    Plaintiff was taking care of defendant's two grand kids for CPS, family foster (baby was born addicted).     Defendant claims the kids went back to CPS because plaintiff refused to keep watching kids, and defendant's and her relatives' homes were unsuitable.    

Plaintiff says defendant daughter wanted the kids, but defendant grandmother doesn't pass DOJ rules to keep the kids in her house (Daughter lives with her mother, the defendant).   (Yes, I'm rotten, I really wanted to know why grandmother and others were unfit to keep the kids). 

Car is titled in plaintiff's name, order will give possession of car back to plaintiff, and she can sell it to pay off the title loan.   End of case. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Three Words No Man Can Say

I wonder how often JJ herself utters those three little words. Just about never since she fancies herself a grand polymath and supreme expert in all fields.

Would that make her an honorary male?

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Eyelash and Tanning Business Bust-Plaintiff suing former friend for unpaid loans, and unauthorized use of his debit card.    Plaintiff sold his home, and needed to start a business as an investment, and invested in plaintiff's eyelash, and tanning business.  Tanning bed was $1400, and plaintiff claims another $500 in check.  Defendant accepted a check for granddaughter's preschool from plaintiff  Defendant claims she remodeled his mobile home to repay him for the money, and helped him pack his home.    Defendant claims she bailed on the friendship when plaintiff sent her indecent photos on her cell phone.   Defendant erased the photos.

As JJ says, defendant should have paid the money back, if she thought plaintiff only gave her money because he had feelings for her.      $465 to plaintiff for the child's school.

Surprise Evidence-Plaintiff was living with defendant, before that they both lived in the plaintiff's grandparents home.     When plaintiff turned 18, she says defendant wanted the gas and electric bills in plaintiff's name, because of a bad history of non-payments to utilities, and bad credit.   Defendant claims the utilities were in the brother's name.  However, the utility bills are addressed to plaintiff.    Plaintiff says a previous residence of defendant were in the brother's name.

$763 to plaintiff.      

Second-

Lame Horse Trespassing-Plaintiff purchased a horse from the defendant, and wants purchase price of horse, and vet bills back.   Plaintiff claims horse was dead lame for the three weeks she had the horse, and she never rode the horse, but there are pictures on Facebook posted with plaintiff on the horse.    Plaintiff returned the horse to defendant's barn while trespassing, and defendants are suing for the vet bills of horse since she was returned.    

Plaintiff claims defendants knew she was dumping horse on them, but defendants say she was lying.   Plaintiff claims she called the vet, three weeks after she purchased the horse, and finally had the vet out, and dumped the horse on the defendants.   

Plaintiff will not get a refund of purchase price.    Picture of trail ride is plaintiff's boyfriend riding the horse.     

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant will resell the horse.  

I'm Tired of Paying for Weed-Plaintiff is suing former tenant for rent, late fees, and damages to property.     Defendant was growing pot, because he was sick of paying for his own weed supply.    Defendant claims he paid his every two weeks rent, then admits he didn't pay for two months.  Defendant claims he owes plaintiff nothing.    Defendant claims plaintiff knew he was growing weed at the house, and plaintiff denies that.      

 Amended lease, signed by both parties, say that defendant will keep place in good condition, because plaintiff was trying to sell the property.     Defendant claims plaintiff was trying to sell house, so he decided not to pay the rent.    Damages to house include 

Plaintiff receives $675 for rent.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

(These are 2 parts of the same case, they just both suing each other.  The ex-boyfriend has an adult daughter as a witness, he must look younger than he is.  As JJ says about the boyfriend, what's the attraction?)

You Can Have Him...Keyed on Car-Plaintiff claims defendant (ex girl friend of plaintiff's ex boyfriend)wrote "you can have him" on her car paint,   Defendant sent a photo of the car damage, saying "Look what I did".   Defendant was doing this with her older children sitting in her car watching.   JJ has everyone's favorite baby daddy in the witness chair.   

$4500 to plaintiff.

Baby Daddy Tire Flattener-Plaintiff (defendant from first case) suing everyone's favorite guy, Dwayne.  She spent the night at his house, he got jealous, she left, and about 4 a.m. the tires were flattened, and she claims Dwayne did it.  She also claims her garage, and car was spray painted, and I won't mention what he said.   Dwayne was arrested for probation violation, and police never followed up on tire flattening.  The writing on the windshield must be very nasty, because they blurred it.   

Second police report changes the story plaintiff told, where plaintiff claims it wasn't the defendant.     There is a statement by plaintiff that says Dwayne didn't do it.    Case dismissed.

Second-

I Wouldn't Let You Take Care of a Goldfish-Plaintiffs suing former caretaker for father for  unpaid loans, and attorney fees.  Defendant can't even remember when she worked for the plaintiffs, and took care of the father.    Defendant claims she worked from either only three months or a year, she's not sure of anything.   

Defendant's claim is she worked enough hours to be owed, $8,500 for her last month.  Plaintiff actually worked for about 9 months, they loaned her $3500 for a car, and a month later she quit, and never repaid anything.     

$3700 to plaintiffs for car loan, plus attorney fees.

How could anyone let the defendant take care of a helpless person?  

The Gift of a Hair Cut and Bed Bugs-Plaintiff let defendant rent her rental house (3 bed/ 1.5 bath, 2 doors down from plaintiff's residence).      Both litigants have a history of substance abuse, but plaintiff claims she's sober, and she claims defendant fell off wagon.  Plaintiff is suing for $5000 for a haircut, rent, and property damage.  

Plaintiff filed for damages, the same day she filed for eviction.     Did defendant get notice since she moved out on Sunday, law suit was filed on Tuesday, case was filmed on Wednesday?  Counter claim didn't serve notice either, so JJ just will look at two months unpaid rent only. 

 Bed bug claim by plaintiff is out also.   I wonder if defendant's current landlord, or host knows about the bed bugs?   JJ dismisses the damages, and other allegations, except rent, to go back to local court. 

$700 to plaintiff for the rent, everything else goes back to local court in Missouri.  (I have no idea about the haircut or why it's included in the title).   Defendant didn't counter claim for the security deposit,, so that's gone.    Apparently the plaintiff cut the defendant's hair, personally, I wouldn't admit I ever touched that woman's hair).     

  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/10/2020 at 6:02 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

How could anyone let the defendant take care of a helpless person?  

I don't know but the plaintiffs said she did a really good job.  She was kind of nutty to me.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I bet in the care taker case, that the price was right for the level of care.    She didn't even know how long she worked there, and so was so vague on everything else, it scared me.     I think the plaintiffs saying what good job the care taker did, was just a CYA move on their part.  

I checked my cable guide, and all of the episodes this week are reruns, and I'm betting that they ran out of new ones.     I don't know if they saved some for ratings sweeps month in May, but I guess we'll find out then.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

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

First-

Nervy Squatter Lawsuit-Plaintiff was renting condo from owner, overstayed lease, and was served a three day notice to quit in June, and left the end of August.    Plaintiff was shorting or not paying rent.   Defendant was a roommate of squatter plaintiff.   Plaintiff wants rent from roommate, lock change fees, and attorneys fee.    (Note to plaintiff, if you're eyes don't even open, then your fake eyelashes are way too big, and heavy).  JJ calls landlord to see if plaintiff ever caught up on the rent,   

 Defendant was locked out in June, back in condo in August, and moved out the end of August.   Plaintiff wants July rent from defendant, but plaintiff had locked her out.    Defendant had possessions in the condo in August, but didn't live there (after police were called by plaintiff twice, claiming defendant was a burglar).   Defendant had to get a restraining order to move  back in August (JJ says no rent owed from defendant). 

Nothing for plaintiff, or defendant. 

Well-Behaved Courtroom Dog-Plaintiff suing defendant for her dog attacking plaintiff's dog.   Plaintiff says defendant was outside the non-leash area, with her dogs off leash, outside the fenced/gated dog park. .   Defendant has a Husky, and Chihuahua, and Husky attacked plaintiff's dog.  The plaintiff's adorable dog is maybe 10 pounds or so, and is totally quiet in court.    Defendant's stupid story is that plaintiff was going to kick her Husky, and that made her dog defensive, and she claims there was no attack.      Tiny plaintiff's dog wakes up when JJ yells at defendant, and is still totally quiet.   

Defendant lies about her dogs being in the dog park, then went outside (supposedly gate to dog park was broken), and then came in dog park, and attack was all plaintiff's fault.    Injury photos are very bad, I'm surprised the little dog lived.   

$865 for plaintiff.

Second-

Thanksgiving Day Breakdown-Long term partners split up romantically, and become roommates.  Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for unpaid rent.   They broke up in November 2015, and became roommates, and defendant never paid the rent or utilities, until she moved out in June 2016.      Defendant gives JJ some carbon copies of checks, but doesn't have actual proof of any payments.

$2250 to plaintiff.

Sun Roof Strife-Plaintiff is suing defendant for sun roof damage.   Plaintiff needed a place to stay, and her two children, and paid no rent, but they were all living with a friend who was paying the rent for everyone.       Defendant says plaintiff was delivering pizza, and defendant was baby sitting plaintiff's baby in the car.    Defendant also borrowed plaintiff's car to drop of plaintiff's kid at school, and then said she dropped an ink pen in the sun roof track, and the sun roof broke.   

After the broken sun roof they all lived together for almost a year, then the court case was filed.   Defendant says they were all doing a police report, and that's when she dropped the pen.  Plaintiff says there was no accident, and no police report. 

 Plaintiff receives $580.58. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
SilverStormm

Community Manager Note

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

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

 

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size