All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[patty1h]

Ramble ahead.... blame it on quarantine.

Today was a rerun with an upholsterer suing the defendant for not paying her her fee for covering the seats in a vintage VW Bug.  Just glancing at the screen because I've seen this episode before, but I just noticed that the defendant has a tiny piece of paper on his shirt covering a logo or brand.   This is deliberate - someone on the show made the litigant put this tiny decal on his shirt.  I find this a little curious, that the show would censor a designer logo.  I know this is done on a lot of cooking shows, they put tape over the brand labels.  We all know that Nike, Polo, Ralph Lauren, etc. make garments and if you paid for it, why can't you wear it.  Are they afraid that another designer will get angry and not advertise on the show?    /ramble over/

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Ex-Boyfriend's Attack Caught on Video (2017)-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for payments on a horse trailer.   Plaintiff also claims an assault by defendant.   Plaintiff filed two orders of protection, but neither order was approved by the judge.   I think the assault video is staged.    Litigants purchased a horse trailer, and a truck to haul it. When they separated, in February 2016, the two men drew up a contract regarding the payments, but only of the trailer (it was in defendant's name).       Plaintiff wants $5,000 for the payments he made on the $10,000 on the trailer, which still has $9000 left on the payments because of interest on the loan.   

JJ suggests selling the 2 year old trailer, because the trailer still needs $9,000 paid, and only $1,000 equity on the trailer.     JJ gives the trailer to defendant, it's in his name, and is legally his.    

Plaintiff is awful, and should just stop bothering the defendant, and move on.  

Defendant's counter claim is for two false restraining orders plaintiff filed against him, and neither was granted.   Video shows more flopping by plaintiff than a pro soccer game.   Defendant says both testified about the protective order, and case was dismissed with prejudice.   Plaintiff is trying to re-litigate the case that was already heard, and dismissed for the assault.  If the plaintiff wants to he can refile locally in criminal court, but I hope this was dismissed too. As JJ says, tape was obviously a set up by the plaintiff.  

All cases dismissed.   

Don't Act Like a Baby-Plaintiff suing former roommate over unpaid rent.   Rent was $950, 2 bedroom, 1 bath.   Defendant didn't pay for 2 full months, and part of another month, and her boyfriend lived there too.   Defendant says she paid for one month, but shouldn't have to pay for 2 1/2 months.    

Plaintiff receives $775 for rent. 

Failed Engagement Fallout- Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for money he paid for a car, and for an engagement ring.   Each litigant paid $1600 each on purchase, and defendant kept the car.   Each litigant bought the other a wedding band, and that ring stays with each of them.  

For car JJ says to sell it, and half goes to the plaintiff. 

Second-

Beer Pong Gone Wrong-Plaintiff suing former roommates, both 18, for damaged property, unpaid bills, and return of rent (living in a rented house).     Defendants had a video of a party of underage people playing beer pong, brought home a Pit Bull, that was not house trained.  Dog was brought to the home without plaintiff's consent.    Lease had all three roommates on it, each paid $217 a month.    Over Christmas holidays, plaintiff was out of town for two weeks, plaintiff saw video of beer pong party, beer cans, and cigarette butts in the house, and lawn.   (JJ refuses to go to college kids' home, because of the filth, and germs).      There was a roommate agreement forbidding the dog, and parties without all roommates agreement.   Plaintiff says her dining room table finish was ruined by water damage, and table is cracked.    Defendants had a Yorkie with everyone's consent, but a Pit Bull without plaintiff's consent.   

Plaintiff had a right to move out because of defendants' breaking the roommate agreement.   Plaintiff receives her $217 security deposit back.  Table top is absolutely ruined.  Pit Bull chewed up coffee table. 

Plaintiff receives $1,029.    

Woman Attacked During Beauty Treatment-Plaintiff suing hair dresser for medical bills and lost wages from a dog attack.  Plaintiff went to defendant's house for hair services (from roommate), and defendant's dog bit plaintiff.     (On a personal note, never go to a hair dresser that can't even do their own roots for court). 

 Plaintiff says she was having foils put on, and dog ran into the room, and bit her twice on the hand.    Dog is a Rhodesian Ridgeback.   This was the first time plaintiff went to hairdresser's place for hair services, instead of defendant coming to the plaintiff's home. 

Defendant was previously homeless, and still lives with her witness (the dog owner, and hair dresser).   

Plaintiff submits doctor's report, and medical bills.   Plaintiff received six stitches in her hand, and missed work for a week.   Plaintiff needs a better hair dresser too.  

$1,000 for plaintiff.

 

 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

 I find this a little curious, that the show would censor a designer logo.  I know this is done on a lot of cooking shows,

I think two things are going on. For cooking shows, the shows themselves and the participants are purchasers and users of food and cooking products, and showing a brand may be viewed as an endorsement. These court show litigants are not any one that a normal person would take product advice from (except maybe bail/bond companies?). It might even be that some brands consider the appearance of their logo on any of these sad-sack litigants to be damaging to their image. Logos on these shows don't bother me, I just wish the fashion police would have some input on litigant attire so I wouldn't need eye-bleach so often.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Officer Byrd is Not a Jerk-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriendfor non-payment on a co-signed lease on a car.  Defendant brought his scantily clad current girlfriend to court, and Byrd boots her, after JJ says defendant only brought her to court to irritate the plaintiff.  Officer Byrd keeps looking at defendant, and looks like punching out defendant would be fun (and I agree). 

(funny note, JJ wonders if defendant is on any drugs, and he says he is regularly drug tested as he works for law enforcement, with communication antennas). 

 They leased car when they were together (leased in May 2016), and he took the car with him when they broke up.   Registration lapsed, and he didn't pay for it, so car was impounded.   Plaintiff wants lease out of her name, so it's no longer her responsibility.   Plus, plaintiff claims car had over $200 worth of tickets while defendant was in possession of it.  Plaintiff now lives in Georgia, and had to fly back to NJ to get the car out of impound. 

Plaintiff returned car to dealership, and was charged over $4,000+ and she gets $5,000.  (In the hall-terview, plaintiff says when car was returned from impound, it reeked of smoke, and had urine bottles all over the back seat.   I bet we now know how defendant passes those drug tests).  

You're a Bad Mother-Plaintiff suing former friend for illegal eviction, moving expenses, and other stuff.    Litigants moved in together, then they had a blow up, over their dogs.   Defendant mother has a bright lime green Mohawk sort of hair do.   

Defendant took plaintiff's dog, and her dog, and went to her mother's place, and refused to give up dog to plaintiff and police.  Local judge said plaintiff gets dog back, but defendant is appealing, so plaintiff still doesn't have his dog.   Another defendant that claims dog is like her baby.   

JJ tells defendant she's being a bad dog mommy to the plaintiff's dog she's trying to take for her own.     Plaintiff receives $800 after she evicted him even after he paid the rent that month, illegal eviction is another $800.   JJ tells defendant to return the dog, because eventually a judge will give the dog back.   I wonder if defendant will give the dog to someone else, or it will simply disappear?   My guess is the dog was long gone before they all arrived back home.   

$1600 to plaintiff.   (In hall-terview, defendant says plaintiff will never see his dog again.   What a jerk she is.)

Second-

Volkswagen Flip Feud-Plaintiff suing former customer for unpaid reupholstery on a 1996 VW bug defendant was restoring to sell.  Plaintiff quote was $3,000-$4,000 depending on the condition of the seats, defendant wanted to pay $750 cash.    Defendant counter suit over windows.  Defendant bought it for $2500 unrestored, which was a bargain, at 87,000 miles.   Restored value is $12-$19,000.   Receipt says $750 was deposit, not total.   

Defendant took the VW before it was finished, and refused to pay for the upholstery, or wait until it was finished.  Defendant took VW before headliner was done, or windows were reinstalled, and headliner was falling as plaintiff said it would.    Defendant gives JJ an invoice with no number on it.   

Plaintiff gets $2,000, if she gives defendant back his VW windows. 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Ashforth]

4 hours ago, funky-rat said:

I missed part of this one (pre-empted) but I know Home Depot rents tools.

So THAT'S where they get all the tools that appear on this show!

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Spaniel Mixed Blessings-Plaintiffs are suing former friend, and daughter, for the return of their dog.     Plaintiffs and five children, and dog,  were evicted by the previous landlord.    Plaintiff boarded the dog (for 6 weeks), , and then dog went to defendants.   Defendants took the dog after the kennel,  and say dog was matted, and nails over grown, and needed a lot of vet care after kennel.     Defendants had a dog for a weekend before the eviction.    Then when defendants had the dog after six weeks, was in bad condition.     

Then plaintiffs came to the defendant's party, and left the dog at defendant's home.   Plaintiff then claimed she wanted the dog, but never even came to visit or pick up dog.   Plaintiffs moved into a new townhouse, and claims the homeless shelter allowed pets.  JJ tells plaintiffs to get another dog, and leave the dog with the defendants.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (My guess is the plaintiffs wanted the money, not the dog.)

Choking Scare at Day Care-Plaintiff suing day care provider for medical bills, expenses, and punitive damages.   Plaintiff's child had a sticker in his mouth, and plaintiff came to day care, saw the sticker situation, and took child for medical care. 

Baby went to ER on the first day, and says baby had fever for five days after the sticker removal.  Nothing on the medical report links the sticker removal to the fever five days later.     

Plaintiff gets $200 for the ER visit.  

Second-

Family Living in Car Seeks Driveway Rental-Plaintiff was homeless, wanted to rent the driveway at defendant's home, for her and her children to live in plaintiff's car in the driveway.   Plaintiff says she was unlawfully evicted, vandalized her property, and harassed her.   Defendant says the argument leading to eviction was that she refused to allow plaintiff's married boyfriend to come to defendant's home.    Plaintiff wanted to rent the driveway to live in with kids, in her car.     $4400 a month was plaintiff's worker's comp.   Plaintiff had two cars, so college son could drive two daughters to school.  Plaintiff and two children lived with defendant,    Plaintiff moved from Arizona, to California a few years ago.  

Room was rented for $600 a month.    Plaintiff claimed she paid for the third month's rent, and defendant started sending her mean texts.    Defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay for the third month's rent, and when she asked for the rent, plaintiff got mad, and moved out.   Defendant says plaintiff was upset that she wouldn't let her married boyfriend come in the house.   So calling plaintiff an adulterer is accurate by the defendant.   Then plaintiff and two kids moved out.    

Plaintiff gets nothing for unlawful eviction, because she left voluntarily, owing rent.    She's suing for damaged property she moved out of the defendant's home, and claims defendant broke her valuable property.     This is the case where the plaintiff rented a U-Haul trailer, and loaded her stuff, but gave it to the mover who loaded the trailer for her.  Plaintiff claims she had no room left in her storage unit.      (How much stuff did that woman cram into one bedroom with her two daughter?).     Mover cost $300, and gave him everything he loaded in the U-Haul for her.  (Jinky Montiel, plaintiff, reminds me so much of a former co-worker, everything was a conspiracy with her too).  

JJ dismisses the property damage claim.     JJ does give $700 to plaintiff, for the last month's rent.    (I disagree, I think the plaintiff is a scam artist). . 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)- 

Time to Measure a Pit Bull's Head-Plaintiff suing over defendants' Pit Bull/Boxer mix's attack on her dog (a 16 lb Maltipoo), that was in plaintiff's fenced yard.     Defendants were walking their leashed Pit, and claim the plaintiff dog reached between the iron bars on the fence, and bit their dog.   Defendant claims the Maltipoo reached through vertical wrought iron fence, and defendant claims the Maltipoo chomped on Pit's nose.    Defendant wife claims the plaintiff dog made no noise, and was 'lying in wait' for their dog, and attacked silently.   

Plaintiff dog lost a couple of toes in the attack.    Defendant claims his insurance company denied the claim.   Defendants claim their dog's face and head is too wide to fit through the fence and bite the plaintiff.   Defendants seem very prepared for this case, I wonder if this is their first court case from their dog?  My guess is that it isn't their first rodeo with this dog.   

Plaintiff's son heard the commotion, and claims he saw Pit off leash, and defendant was pulling the dog back.    Defendant neighbor says he was harassed by plaintiff, because plaintiff thought the dog was his.   Defendant never said where he lived to plaintiff. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant dismissed.     

Salvaged Survivor-Plaintiff suing neighbor for return of money from a Dodge Challenger she sold him (salvage title) with a lien on it.   Car was repossessed by the lien holder.   (The defendant's neon red wig is bizarre, and hideous.   JJ should give me $5,000 for having to view this monstrosity on defendant's head, and her piercings that look like boogers).  The salvage title is submitted by plaintiff, but lien holder signature block was signed by defendant, which was fraud.     

$4700 to plaintiff.  

Second (Rerun)-

Baby Pepper-Sprayed During Fight-Plaintiff suing defendant who plaintiff claims was breaking into her house.    Defendant pepper sprayed plaintiff, and the baby inside plaintiff's house.  (Defendant explains to JJ that they had an 'altercation', not a 'fight').   

Plaintiff and defendant were both arrested, but charges were dismissed.  Protective order requests for both sides were dismissed.   There was a mediation over this, which didn't work.   Then, a subsequent court hearing with testimony about orders of protection, and both requests were dismissed.   JJ isn't going to hear that part again, just the baby that was pepper-sprayed (or maced).  

$2645 are the medical bills for the pepper spray on the baby, all of this happened after a previous fight over children fighting at earlier in the day.   Defendant claims plaintiff's mother wasn't holding the baby when she zapped her, but blames the plaintiff's mother, and claims plaintiff mother broke her own window.    Medical records say baby saw the doctor the next day, but plaintiff says baby doesn't have a doctor, and has no insurance.   Defendant's story is total bull stuff, and defendant is despicable.   However, defendant's sworn statement does say the baby was in plaintiff's arms when the pepper spray happened.  

Plaintiff receives $1500 for medical bills.  (Another case where someone should move).  

(I had to laugh at JJ saying women aren't usually the violent ones.   When I stayed in an extended stay for a couple of months, there were a lot of scary looking people, and the majority of them were women.)

Oops!   Sorry About that Shotgun Blast to Your Ceiling-Plaintiff thought he heard a burglar, fired a shotgun into the ceiling, police were called, and now ex-girlfriend won't return his appliances, and furniture.   Plaintiff was arrested, and spent 75 days in jail.    By the time plaintiff was out of jail, apartment was gone.    Six months later he called defendant, and asked where his apartment contents were, that defendant retrieved.   Defendant has living room set, dinette set, and it's at her father's apartment where she lives.   

$9000 was plaintiff's disability settlement, and he claims he bought the furniture with that money.   He also claims he told defendant that when her disability started, he wanted his furniture back. 

Defendant was denied for disability, then reapplied with the help of a lawyer, $2500 was her settlement for back payments, then the disability started.   If she has so much money, defendant should get that awful hair do, and eyebrows fixed.   

Plaintiff gets his furniture, washer, dryer, and other items back, with the help of a Marshal, and then defendant will get her appearance fee, if the furniture is in good shape. 

[pagooey]

On 5/5/2020 at 3:50 PM, DoctorK said:

It might even be that some brands consider the appearance of their logo on any of these sad-sack litigants to be damaging to their image.

Yeah. Nike, etc. are all "keep my name out your mouth."

I don't post often in this thread, but I hope everybody is healthy and safe during all the pandemic mayhem!

[lynny]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ dismisses the property damage claim.     JJ does give $700 to plaintiff, for the last month's rent.    (I disagree, I think the plaintiff is a scam artist). . 

The plaintiff was sketchy as hell and definitely lying about the property but that holier than thou bitch defendant definitely got her $700 and knew that the plaintiff couldn't prove it. 

[Ashforth]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff dog lost a couple of toes in the attack.    Defendant claims his insurance company denied the claim.   Defendants claim their dog's face and head is too wide to fit through the fence

I actually had this exact thing happen when I was walking my large dog past the dog park at my apartment complex. A neighbor's small dog rushed to the fence, going crazy and sticking its paws through the wrought iron bars. My dog lunged and before I was able to pull him back, he bit the small dog's paw. My neighbor told the apartment management that my dog stuck his head through the fence and bit her dog. I pointed out that my dog's head was too big to fit through the bars and it was impossible for him to bite her dog if it hadn't put its paws through the fence.

Nonetheless, I paid the vet bill because I'm a good neighbor and I could afford it and I needed to stay on the good side of management. But it was totally the small dog's fault (and of course the fault of its owner who was lollygagging around chatting up another neighbor in the dog park instead of keeping her dog from rushing the fence to antagonize a passing big dog).

[Carolina Girl]

I don't agree with the lecture JJ gave to the defendant who was swindled by the red headed asshole.  Yes, it was a great price for the car, but it was a SALVAGE title - which would explain why the price was so low.  

And that defendant.....I'm assuming she was trying to "disguise" herself on camera.  I'm sure she agreed to this so that she could get herself a free trip to L.A. and some of that split the litigation proceeds moolah.  Except she'll get $150 and plaintiff walks away with $4850.

What's the over/under, do you think, that she'll immediately turn around and try this scam on another individual, since she's getting the car back?

[SRTouch]

1 minute ago, Carolina Girl said:

I don't agree with the lecture JJ gave to the defendant who was swindled by the red headed asshole.  Yes, it was a great price for the car, but it was a SALVAGE title - which would explain why the price was so low.  

And that defendant.....I'm assuming she was trying to "disguise" herself on camera.  I'm sure she agreed to this so that she could get herself a free trip to L.A. and some of that split the litigation proceeds moolah.  Except she'll get $150 and plaintiff walks away with $4850.

What's the over/under, do you think, that she'll immediately turn around and try this scam on another individual, since she's getting the car back?

Yes, another blind spot in JJ's view of the way many live. There are lots of people who buy and sell items without knowing the true value of what they're buying and selling. Sure, everyone with a smart phone could check KBB value in seconds, but a whole lot of people don't. Just like everyone knows better than to buy a car without a test drive and mechanic check - yet people buy non running junkers and/or cars with check engine lights because they 'trust' the kind stranger selling the hoopty. 

[khyber]

I'm sure Judge Judy has no idea what a salvage title means. Usually its fire, flood or severe collision damage.  All these things have a huge effect on future value.

[Toaster Strudel]

JJ makes a lot of assumptions about dogs and fences that give me flashbacks of a graphic and disturbing dog attack video I once saw. The description is in spoiler tags, don't read it if you don't want the nightmares I got from seeing this.

Spoiler

There were two (or was it three?) pitbulls behind a fence exactly like the one in yesterday's episode, vertical metal bars spaced a few inches apart. The pits were on their own property. The person who filmed the attack was off the pits'property.

The video begins with a dog who is already injured with a broken leg suffering on the ground. The injured dog looked like a doxie with normal length limbs. The pits are barking and wagging their tails with excitement.

The injured dog manages to get up and limp and seems disoriented, and tries to walk away but instead walks along the fence, almost a foot away from it.

The pits jutted their snouts through the fence, grabbing the victim dog by its side. No part of the injured dog crossed the fence, and the pits didn't grab it by what one would assume would be a vulnerable area like the injured dog's legs, tail or face. No. It was grabbed by the skin off its side.

I'll spare you the rest.

The measurement of the pit's head was misleading.

The narrowest horizontal measurement of the space between fence bars isn't the proper criteria. If you measure how much space is available vertically then you have several feet.

Same goes with measuring the pit's head at its widest. The pit's head is a complex 3-dimensional shape that the animal can rotate. If the pit rotated its head 90 degrees then the 6 inches of skull width would have no problem getting through the fence vertical axis, and the limiting measurement would have be the skull's height. I'm simplifying it a bit because the animal can rotate its head on three axes, not the two I describe to make it easier to explain.

I'm not saying her judgment was right or wrong because no one really saw anything, or anything they'd own up to.

But her premise was mind-boggingly flawed, and the audience members looked dumbstruck by it. It's not the first time JJ doesn't grasp basic geometry when making judgments about attacks through fences.

[ThePurpleArcher]

I was waiting for Judge Judy to address the defendant in the Raggedy Ann wig (complete with nose rings) about her appearance, as she used to in the good ol' days. Something like :

"Did you think you were coming to a costume party ? Take those things out of your nose, and get rid of that hideous wig. I never saw anything so ridiculous in my life..." 

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Toaster Strudel said:

But her premise was mind-boggingly flawed, and the audience members looked dumbstruck by it. It's not the first time JJ doesn't grasp basic geometry when making judgments about attacks through fences.

You are misjudging her. You see, she analyses our world in non-Euclidian terms, far above the geometric abilities of us mere mortals.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The pit head through the fence was bizarre.    From the very easy way the defendant presented his evidence, and the list of excuses, I'm guessing this isn't the defendant's first time justifying his dog's actions.     Also, I suspect that since no one saw the attack that isn't a defender of the Pit, that the little dog was sticking through.   However, I find it ridiculous that the little dog attacked the Pit's nose, the way the defendant said.      I absolutely believe the plaintiff's son was lying about seeing anything.     

I don't think anyone should have received any money, because there was no proof.   I find it interesting that the plaintiff put the wire on her gate, and all of her fencing.     There was a big gap under the gate, and I bet the little dog was standing at the gate, and the big dog grabbed the paw then, and that's when the damage happened. 

I think with the gap under the gate, the Pit had plenty of room to grab the little dog.    

I find it ridiculous that the defendants had their dog right up in someone else's gate, with a barking dog on the other side.  

Edited May 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

You see, she analyses our world in non-Euclidian terms, far above the geometric abilities of us mere mortals.

The same way she does accident reconstructions without so much as nod to basic physics. Decades of law school don't make anyone an expert on all things.

[SRTouch]

On 5/7/2020 at 10:27 AM, Toaster Strudel said:

The measurement of the pit's head was misleading.

Absolutely - I didn't watch case, but I understand your point, & you're 100% correct. Another example - a good old American football has a diameter of approximately 5-6"  and about 11" long. Any kid can tell you that you can accidently throw a footbal through an 8" hole in a fence with no problem - now, if you TRY to throw the same ball through that same hole - well, that's a whole 'nother story

Edited May 8, 2020 by SRTouch

[Toaster Strudel]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

that the little dog was sticking through.

I'm not saying it did or didn't, because there was no reliable witness, but if you dare read the spoiler tagged content in my previous post, no part of the small dog needed to cross the fence for the pit to grab it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Stay Out of Big Limos, Lady!-Plaintiff is suing his former limo driver for three limo accidents.  The defendant was fired, but the defendant's husband was still working for the plaintiff (he's a former employee now also).   Plaintiff has 14 vehicles in his fleet, and has been in business for 42 years.   Employees are paid by check, and all taxes, and Social Security is withheld.   There is a signed letter by each employee stating that if an employee/driver has an 'at fault' accident in a company limo, then the insurance deductible is the employee responsibility.  All three accidents were at the woman defendant's fault.    Two accidents were on the same day.   

Plaintiff didn't turn the accidents into the insurance, therefore he had no deductible.    So defendant doesn't owe the deductibles.     Plaintiff's mistake was he should have fired the woman after the first, at fault accident.    I hate to break it to the defendants, but they probably work in an at will state, so they can be fired at any time.   

Plaintiff case dismissed,  

Defendant case for firing dismissed, they have no contract. Defendant wants future earnings, and he's not getting that either. 

Second-

Yorkie Struck and Killed-Plaintiffs suing driver/defendant for hitting and killing their Yorkie.   Plaintiff was walking three dogs, and it is alleged that he was also on his cell phone.     Yorkie was on a retractible/flexie leash.    One other dog was on a leash, and the Jack Russell was on a flexie too.   Plaintiff claims Boxer was also hit, but not injured.   Plaintiff was walking the three dogs, and claims he waited on the sidewalk, then when he went into the street the defendant hit the two dogs.    

Defendant was pulling out of his driveway, went to the stop sign and turned left.   Defendant's car hit the plaintiff walking across the corner on the left side of the street corner, across the intersection.    Defendant's pictures show the  neighbor's car parks on the corner where plaintiff crossed.    However, defendant didn't stop completely at the stop sign, and in the dark he didn't see the dogs coming out from behind the parked car.  Defendant claims plaintiff/dog walker was on his cell phone too.    The only vet bills are for the dog's cremation, and defendant paid the $159.    Plaintiffs want the cost to buy another Yorkie.   My question is how far out in the road was the Yorkie?    The defendant was on the right side of the road, and the dog walker crossed from the left side.   

Plaintiff receives $1200.    It was the plaintiff brother's fault, and they should have been buying their own replacement dog.  

Playing House Nightmare-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for car payments.    Litigants lived together for five years.   (What the hell is that fugly furry vest on the plaintiff?   It looks like she made her own out of road kill pelts).    Both litigants owned two cars, and both were bought on plaintiff's credit.    Defendant was supposed to make the payments, and he paid his own car off.    Litigants had a big fight, after man was 'caught' doing something, but still lived together for one more month when defendant moved in with his next girlfriend.   Plaintiff started making payments on defendant's car, after car finance people threatened to repo defendant's car, which was on plaintiff's credit.   Defendant didn't pay for three months, and plaintiff called police, and she went to get the car, and took the plates.   Next day plaintiff had the key, and she drove it home.   

Plaintiff paid one month of payments, tried to refi the car ($14000 owed), and couldn't.   (Defendant says plaintiff didn't want his new girlfriend in the car that was in her name).  Sorry, but plaintiff took the car back, so why should the defendant pay anything on the car?  Plaintiff also is whining because defendant didn't marry her.  

$5,000 to plaintiff, but her $14000 car payment still is garnished from her wages, and she's still going to pay $8,000 plus interest.   Plaintiff didn't really win. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Pretend She's the Ford Motor Company-Plaintiff suing for late payments, riding gear, and damages to a motorcycle she sold to defendant.  Defendant had a contract to buy motorcycle, made a couple of payments (there were weekly $100 payments), stopped paying.   She kept driving the motorcycle, and finally returned the motorcycle, a month later, with damages.  (Both litigants simply won't stop interrupting JJ, and defense witness won't shut up either).   

When motorcycle was returned to plaintiff, the $400 payment was made, and defendant wanted the car plaintiff had, that was used for collateral, from the plaintiff.   Defendant actually said that if the plaintiff was a dealership, she would have kept the bike until it was repossessed, because "that's how they do it in Texas".   Bike was $3750 from a dealership, and plaintiff decided she didn't want to keep the bike.    Bike was sold for $3600, $200 down, and still owed $3400.     Plaintiff is suing for $5k, not the $3400 owed.    Excessive mileage, and gear is not in contract.    

$3400 to plaintiff, and defendant gets her car back.  (Plaintiff wants to keep car too, not happening).    Defendant just won't shut up.   I loathe both litigants ,and defendant's witness too. 

Two Roommates for the Price of One-Plaintiff suing for return of rent, stolen property, and an illegal lockout.  Plaintiff rented a bed and bath from defendant, who lived in the other bed and bath in the apartment.    The plaintiff moved a boyfriend in too, but lease said each tenant will pay half of the rent, but boyfriend wasn't included in that lease.   Plaintiff's boyfriend paid nothing, but was living there full time.    Plaintiff claims she was afraid of the defendant's behavior.  Plaintiff brought in a portable AC unit too, 

When defendant realized boyfriend was a permanent resident, she wanted plaintiff to pay 2/3 rent, utilities.    However, plaintiff decided to move, but moved 8 October, and moved in 6 days early.    Plaintiff is not getting her prorated rent for October, and did not pay 2/3 instead of 1/2 in September.    

Plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed. 

Second (Rerun)-

Widow Robbed by Friends-Plaintiff/widow sues former friends, after she received a large settlement for the accident   Husband dies, plaintiff gets $20,000 settlement, and then defendants started asking for money.   Plaintiff wants unpaid loans, and the return of a television.      This is heartbreaking, plaintiff looks so sad.   The only money plaintiff has is from the remains of the settlement, and her survivor benefit of less than $1,000 a month.  

JJ pulls out the Karnak, Johnny Carson routine.    Right after the husband died, and defendants suddenly needed money.   Defendants claim plaintiff asked if the defendants needed money, and so money plaintiff gave them wasn't a loan.   

Defendant wife told plaintiff she needed money to pay her property taxes, so borrowed $1580.    Defendants claim money for property taxes was a gift.   The month before the property taxes, plaintiff loaned $1700 plus for truck repairs, and has no proof.   

Plaintiff bought a TV from Walmart, but defendants couldn't deliver TV because of a restraining order they have against their cousins who live or work at plaintiff's apartment building. (No I don't really understand this part either).   Defendant claims plaintiff bought the TV for defendants as a thank you gift. 

Defendants are suing for false allegations of elder abuse, and harassment.  (The person that did the investigation of financial elder abuse, and said there was no abuse, should be fired.   Sadly, it's exactly what I've come to expect of Elder Abuse, and Adult Protective Service investigations). 

Defendant claims her name is on plaintiff's bank account, and man says he's depositing money in her account.  

Defendant counter claim dismissed.    

Plaintiff receives $3280, and her TV.   I hope she gets the defendants' names off of her accounts, and checks her credit report to see if they opened credit accounts in her name.   

Edited May 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 5/4/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

ating Roommate Roulette-Two male former roommates are suing woman defendant.   Woman defendant moved out two months early, to her new boyfriend's home, and she was pregnant then also. Defendant claims new boyfriend she lives with is the father of the baby.    (A Maury show is in her future). 

Woman dated, or hooked up with both roommates at different times.    (So if I understood the case right, the defendant was girlfriend to first roommate, then was occasionally hooking up with second roommate, and then the current boyfriend? Ick!) (At least the second roommate looks embarrassed about his hooking up with defendant).    First defendant looks kind of proud of boinking defendant.  

Defendant claims she moved out because of harassment.  Defendant claims after she moved out (three months early), that her property was messed up, and she thinks men went through her stuff.   Plaintiff didn't move her stuff out for months, and now lives with her mother in another state, and boyfriend will move there too.   In hall-terview the second roommate (Mr. Hookup) says defendant got a restraining order against the current boyfriend

I think JJ dragged her story out about where she was living, who was the father of the baby  which roommate  was banging etc because she was personally disgusted with he casual attitude She went in guns blazing.

[chenoa333]

51 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ pulls out the Karnak, Johnny Carson routine

This was a great moment and a great case in favor of the plaintiff. I hope those 2 defendant scumballs rot in their own living hell.

[Ilovecomputers]

10 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

 

I don't agree with the lecture JJ gave to the defendant who was swindled by the red headed asshole.  Yes, it was a great price for the car, but it was a SALVAGE title - which would explain why the price was so low.  

 

I’ve noticed JJ seems to resent anyone turning a profit on anything. She didn’t approve of the price the guy paid for the old VW and went on and on about the blue book value of the red-carpeted/headed creature’s car. If two people agree on a price, it really doesn’t matter if someone’s getting a “steal.”  We’re all supposed to do our homework on the value of things, and the internet has all kinds of tools for that. She chided a litigant the other day for selling his house for a profit. “Everyone else is underwater on their house, but you made a tidy profit!”  What is her problem?!  

[Carolina Girl]

17 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

I’ve noticed JJ seems to resent anyone turning a profit on anything.

Except herself, of course....

She's probably smart to make this her last season, since I'm having serious problems with many of her rulings of late.  It's as if she's not actually listening to what some of the litigants are saying.  Judge's do not get to operate with "you should have known from the price that there was something wrong".  Why?  The car ran well, there was a salvage title, and as far as the plaintiff knew, the lien had been released.  

Oh I see - how DARE you not carry your trusty crystal ball and know that the plaintiff is illegally forging a signature.  (I'm still convinced that the red fright-wig on her was to disguise herself). 

Oh, by the way, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but apparently you can actually ask them to use a phony name when you are on the show.  A friend of mine sued someone over a gambling debt, appeared on JJ and when they called his case, the name they gave for him was completely made up.  Of course, this was some time ago, but it wouldn't surprise me if they have kept the practice going in order to get people to appear on the show (don't worry, we won't use your real name).  I know People's Court allows you to do this.  

[AuntiePam]

40 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

Except herself, of course....

She's probably smart to make this her last season, since I'm having serious problems with many of her rulings of late.  It's as if she's not actually listening to what some of the litigants are saying.  Judge's do not get to operate with "you should have known from the price that there was something wrong".  Why?  The car ran well, there was a salvage title, and as far as the plaintiff knew, the lien had been released.  

 

Like the neighbor in the dog case, the one who counter-sued for harassment, because the process servers kept trying to serve him with the lawsuit.  JJ said it was his fault because he didn't give correct info to the process servers -- but we don't know what he said to the server because JJ wouldn't let him talk.  Besides, is a process server going to take a person's word for it, when they say "You got the wrong guy"?  Not likely.  Having said that, I doubt there'd be $5K in damages, but it would have been nice to hear what the guy went through before the server found the right address.

Besides, it's not the neighbor's job to give the correct info to the process server.  That's where the plaintiff screwed up.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Vandalized Office, Mudslinging Business Partner-Plaintiff suing former business partner for vandalizing her office, and stealing her client files.  Litigants were in a tax business togetherr, and each want $5k from each other.     The defendant was in charge of check writing for the business, and paid herself over $13k.   Plaintiff fired defendant after defendant's husband was accused of sexual harassment in the business office, and defendant was told her husband wasn't to come into the office.   

Graffiti in office reads "Angel" in several places, the name of the defendant (Angel Canady-Larry).   I do not believe there is any way that defendant and her husband weren't behind the graffiti.       Office had been cleared out, because plaintiff took the furniture out.   

Both cases dismissed. 

Don't Believe Everything You Read Online-Plaintiff suing mechanic for damaging his car, and return of his deposit.  A 2007 Saturn, that needed a new engine, and was towed to the defendant's shop.    Plaintiff found defendant through an ad on Facebook, and a recommendation from his aunt.    The deposit to the mechanic was $1200 in December, and car was picked up six weeks later, and had to be towed home.  Defendant also lost his mechanic's shop during January.     Plaintiff claims nothing was done to his vehicle over the six weeks, except many parts were disconnected, and placed inside the car.  

Plaintiff has unhelpful estimates.  Plaintiff receives $1200 deposit back.

Second-

Harley Handshake Deal-Plaintiff suing motorcycle sellers for return of his deposit on a Harley, and the cost to get bike running again.   $14500 was the purchase price, and the price was $2000 down, and a kitchen remodel for the defendants.   JJ says verbal contract was completed, with an offer, an acceptance, and exchange of property, however contract wasn't finished.   Plaintiff did do some work on planning the kitchen, with elevations, and prints of cabinets that were prepared for the defendant's kitchen.   

Plaintiff wanted to borrow bike for a weekend trip, had the bike for three days after changing the starter.       Plaintiff returned bike, and defendant backed out of kitchen deal, and plaintiff claims defendant said he would give the deposit back.   Defendants didn't want to redo their kitchen, because they were going to move.    Defendant says he lives in the same house, and was never going to redo the kitchen.    Defendant says plaintiff wanted too much to redo the kitchen.

Plaintiff receives $2,000 deposit back.         Plaintiff gets nothing for the parts he put on the bike, because he used the bike for the 3 day trip. 

Rottweiler Puppy Death Drama-Plaintiff for return of money paid for a Rottweiler puppy.   Plaintiff selected a puppy from photos.    Plaintiff put down money on the puppy (she put down 1/2, $600), but puppy died.     Defendant had 9 puppies, and 3 died, and she sold the other six puppies.    The defendant took the puppies to the vet in August, but three more died in October, and no vet care for the three that died.   Defendant claims she offered another puppy, but plaintiff didn't want that puppy.    Defendant claims the five puppies she sold were all fine, but there is no proof of that.  

The only "contract" was the text message exchanges between the litigants.   Defendant claims deposit wasn't refundable.     Defendant claims the deposit was only $200, not $600, then plaintiff husband gave her 398.    A week after tail docking, the puppy died.   I'm wondering who did the tail docking?  My guess it wasn't the vet.     

Plaintiff receives her $592 deposit back.  

 

[stephinmn]

21 hours ago, chenoa333 said:

This was a great moment and a great case in favor of the plaintiff. I hope those 2 defendant scumballs rot in their own living hell.

The Petermeisters are from my hood, so I checked her facebook. She's a Trump supporter, even went to see his star when she was in LA, I am assuming for the JJ taping.

[chenoa333]

5 minutes ago, stephinmn said:

The Petermeisters are from my hood, so I checked her facebook. She's a Trump supporter, even went to see his star when she was in LA, I am assuming for the JJ taping.

My condolences to you. Lol!

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a recent rerun-(according to my cable guide, there are no new episodes next week). 

First (New)-

Drunk Minor Lost on New Year's Eve-Plaintiff suing defendant for damaging his road, driveway, and front yard.   The defendant destroyed the plaintiff's yard, making a U-Turn, and left parts of his car behind.   The plaintiff's property has No Trespassing signs,   Defendant (20 years old) is whining about his car damages  (2005 Mercedes S-class).    Defendant was driving to a New Year's Eve party, and claims he wasn't drunk (yes, he was).  

Plaintiff has a bunch of parts from under defendant's car.   (I hope some are parts of the oil pan, and hope the engine melted).     Defendant's witness looks likes like a bad liar, and was called at almost 1 a.m. to help defendant get out of the ditch.   Defendant was going to a party at the witness' house.    Defendant witness used his brother-in-law's Escalade to pull defendant's car out of the ditch.       

Plaintiff brought some car parts left behind, and says he has many large parts that he left at home because they were too big.     JJ doesn't understand how much work the plaintiff will have to redo the road damaged by the defendant.   Defendant is still whining about his car's damage, too freaking bad junior.   

$350 to the plaintiff.  

Deep Cleaning Disaster-Plaintiff wanted to get out of her apartment lease, and defendant took over the lease, and defendant paid for 2 weeks pro rated.    Plaintiff wants utilities, and apartment damage.   When defendant didn't move out on time in October, (lease was up 30 September), landlord's kept plaintiff's security deposit for damages.   My question is if landlords had given permission to sublease?   

Plaintiff tries to charge JJ's desk, Byrd almost has to tackle her.    The landlords charged for floor damages, repair holes, door and trim damages, and also charged to remove furniture (plaintiff left if for defendant).   The only damages the plaintiff admits to is for floor damage from her incontinent dog, and also had a cat.    Plaintiff had to pay $3,000 for the floor damage.     

It was $114 for the two additional days of rent.   utility bill was almost $600,  In hall-terview, defendant claims damages include footprints on the ceiling. 

Plaintiff receives $597 for utility bills. 

Second (Rerun)-

Six-Dog Pile-Up-Plaintiffs are suing neighbors for vet bills from a dog attack on the plaintiff's property (yards adjoin).   Plaintiffs have five dogs, but only one was attacked.  Defendants have five outside dogs (Rottie/Aussie mixes), and three inside Pit Bulls.   

Plaintiff claims they told the defendants to fix their fence.   Fence was built by defendants after plaintiff moved in (plaintiffs have 3 to 5 acres), but defendant's kennel abuts the plaintiff fence, and plaintiffs say the kennel is actually fully on their property. 

There is a plaintiff's witness neighbor that saw the attack.  The attack was after midnight. but neighbor has a spotlight that was on.    Witness says plaintiff's dog was cornered on their yard by three of the defendant's dogs, locked onto head and neck of the plaintiff's dog.   (Where are these people from?).       Vet report on plaintiff's dog says head and limb injuries.     

Plaintiff claims defendant kept cutting the wire fencing on plaintiff's property.   

Defendant's picture of his 'kennel' , as JJ says, looks like a garbage dump.   Have these people never heard of chain link with a bottom rail?   And if the plaintiff's think defendant's fence, and kennel are on their property, then get a survey, and sue to get it moved.   There is a video of the defendant agreeing to pay part of the bills, but says that's all of the money he has.    (What is wrong with the defendant?  He seems totally out of it).   

(My guess is that the defendant will be royally angry if he has to move that rotten kennel off plaintiff's property.     I think the plaintiffs would be smart to move if they can, because the defendant seems like the kind of person who would retaliate if he loses at anything). 

Plaintiff gets vet bills, $4000 (that's his half).   Total bills are over $8k.

[ThePurpleArcher]

As this season comes to a close in the next few weeks, we shoud start a 'Judge Judy' drinking game...

Take a shot every time JJ interrupts a litigant who's talking with "Just a second..."

Take two shots every time she threatens the plaintiff with,  "One more time and I'm going to throw you outta here and dismiss your case..."

Take three shots every time the plaintiff repeats the offense and JJ doesn't make good on her threat. 

Take a shot every time JJ says "Show me the receipts" and the litigant actually starts to approach JJ with receipts in hand. I believe JJ does this purposely to set up litigant and make then look like fools. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Cousin Helping Cousin Catastrophe-Plaintiff moved into cousin's place with her furniture into her cousin's home, and now he won't give it back, after she claims she left a domestic violence situation.   Plaintiff suing for stealing her belongings, and filing a false police report against her.  Cousin's witness (his girlfriend) says plaintiff didn't move in before her furniture was moved in.   Defendant says plaintiff moved a lot more furniture into his house than he agreed to.  Furniture plaintiff moved in was from a storage unit that plaintiff and ex had together.   Plaintiff wants bed, and couch  back, car parts and rims, and defendant claims plaintiff gave him the couch.   

Defendant says plaintiff never moved in, she just put her furniture in an empty apartment he either owned or rented.   Plaintiff has five days to pick up bed and couch from defendant's with a marshal's help.     Plaintiff doesn't want her bed back, and wants the money instead.   Plaintiff will get her couch back if she retrieves it in five days.   Restraining order case thrown out.  

Don't Run Away if You Did Nothing Wrong-Plaintiff (car owner) suing car owner, and driver over an automobile accident.   Plaintiff's daughter was driving, plaintiff's car.   Defendant's friend was driving defendant's car, and he fled the scene after the accident.   Defendant driver says he went to get help, because he had no cell phone, and he was distraught.    Plus, he forgot his cell phone at home (no one in the audience with a cell phone, left it at home today, after JJ asks).   

Car owner defendant claims insurance company contacted defendant car owner.   However, police report says they contacted the defendant car owner, who claimed to the police that she sold the car to a stranger, and she had no way to contact him.  (Does defendant driver even have a valid license?  His eyes point two different directions, and I wonder if he can even focus).  Defendant driver claims plaintiff ran a stop sign, but if that happened, plaintiff daughter/driver would have been cited by police.     Why would driver flee if it wasn't his fault.    Defendant car owner still has the title to the car.   Defendant car owner claims she was going to meet defendant and exchange money, and the title.   

Plaintiff driver claims she stopped at stop sign, but defendant driver was driving at 9:30 p.m. with his headlights off.  Defendant driver hit the plaintiff car, knocked her off the road, and into someone's yard.    Then, when plaintiff driver and passenger went to check on other driver, he fled the scene at high speed.    Defendant driver was never contacted by police, because Defendant car owner lied to them.   If the man stole her car, then why didn't she file a police report?   Defendants are such liars.     JJ doesn't believe plaintiff actually didn't run the stop sign.  Defendant claims he had automatic headlights.  

Case dismissed.  

Second-

Neighbor Nastiness Caught on Video-Plaintiff suing defendant over a dog bite.    Plaintiff saw, and videoed his neighbor walking his dog in the common area, and taking a German Shepherd size dump right next to the "clean up after your dog" sign.   When plaintiff was handing him a bag to clean up the poop, dog bit the plaintiff.     Plaintiff has seen the defendant leaving dog piles behind repeatedly, on the complex common area.   Defendant also grooms his GSD, leaves the hair to mess up the common area.  

Plaintiff and his daughter video, or take pictures of pet owners that abuse the common area of the condo complex.    The plaintiff's daughter took a video of the incident with the dog, and plaintiff.    Defendant didn't have a poop bag, and didn't care about the mess his dog leaves.  As JJ says, defendant is disrespecting his condo complex, and being a bad neighbor. 

Plaintiff is in law enforcement, and JJ tells him not to embroider his story.  (It says engineer under his name on the screen, so I wonder where the law enforcement part came from?  Or do they let people change professions on the show, for privacy?).    

Plaintiff receives $1000 for the medical bills.    

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

(According to my cable guide, there are no new episodes this week)-

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Hormone Balancing Out of Business-Plaintiff/former business owner, suing defendant for non-payment when plaintiff sublet to defendant.   Business was an all natural hormone balancing company, and sold furnishing, etc. to defendant, and had 3 1/2 years left on lease.   Defendant was opening a beauty spa.   

Plaintiff went out of business after 1 1/2 years, and sublet to defendant, then defendant went out of business.   There is also no written consent from premises owner to sublet to defendant, so it was an illegal sublet.   Original lease plaintiff signed says no sublet without permission.   (Plaintiff had another business that failed over 10 years ago, she defaulted on that lease also).  Plaintiff claims she didn't go out of business, but shut the business down, subleased to defendant, and started some other business. 

Defendant signed a lease with the landlord, but it was for a separate space in the same complex.   Plaintiff loses deposit on the business space, because subletting was illegal.  Plaintiff wants money for furniture, and items she sold to defendant.   The landlord sold some of the items to others, so that's off the tab.    Furnishings were only $500, but defendant paid $900 to plaintiff already, so that's dismissed.   

Defendant is counter suing for fraud.   Defendant claims landlord told her she had to leave all property behind when she went out of business, and that plaintiff lied, and said defendant never paid for any furniture.  There is a text from defendant saying she's leaving furniture to landlord to get out of the lease.    

Everything is dismissed. 

Wedding Photographer Thief Caught on Tape-Plaintiffs are suing their wedding photographer for destroying their wedding video, after he stole the videographer's camera.  The plaintiffs are suing for stolen memories, a first for me to hear about.    There is video showing the photographer stealing the video camera, and later photographer 'found' it, and claims it was a mistake. (No, getting caught on film stealing was the mistake).   You can see the video camera sticking out behind the pillar, but then the camera disappears into the photographer's bag.   (Funny moment, when plaintiff groom needs to show JJ the video of the theft, he charges the Bench of Justice.  JJ tells him to back up, and says only her Shih Tzu, and Officer Byrd get that close to her.  

 There are a lot of photos of the wedding ,but the video was taped over by the thief.    Plaintiffs receive what they ask for, $2,000.  (I think their wedding looked lovely, and it's too bad they don't have the video). 

Second-

High School Reunion Fail- Plaintiff suing defendant (Nancie Camello  )for unpaid loan to obtain an attorney.   The litigants went to the same high school, and defendant wanted money to pay for an attorney for a custody battle.    Loans were for $3500, and the next day $1,000.   After the loan was made, defendant claims plaintiff wanted her to date him.    Unfortunately, plaintiff received $60,000 worker's comp. settlement(he's spent all but $20,000).   The litigants agreed on $20 a month repayment, and defendant repaid nothing. 

The defendant has a disabled 18 year old, and a one year old that is the subject of the custody battle.   Defendant lives off of state aid, and her mother's help.    Plaintiff had no expectation of repayment.       Defendant is trying to paint herself as a victim, in my opinion, she's more like a predator.    The second he wanted repayment, she dumped him.   I hope the plaintiff never has any contact with this woman again, or she'll try to get every penny he has.  (I think JJ was trying to show the plaintiff that he was lucky to get the money back, and he should never do any more loans in the future.  )

Text messages say that if the father of the kid in the custody battle has to pay her attorney fees, then she'll pay him back in a lump sum, so it is a loan.  (Why would the judge make the defendant in the custody case pay attorney fees for the plaintiff?   She's the one that was suing, and I'm betting it's for child support.    I see no reason why the judge will make anyone but the plaintiff pay attorney fees, and court costs). 

Nancie just called JJ rude, I call it JJ being totally honest in this case.   

JJ points out that defendant was the plaintiff in the custody case, and had no real expectation of losing custody.   I suspect she wants a lot of child support.  

Plaintiff receives $4500.  

Edited May 12, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[jilliannatalia]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Nancie just called JJ rude, I call it JJ being totally honest in this case.    

Yes! I liked that part. JJ said, "You don't look like that much of a prize."    The litigant/professional user was offended.

Edited May 12, 2020 by jilliannatalia

[Ilovecomputers]

On 5/8/2020 at 2:38 PM, Carolina Girl said:

She's probably smart to make this her last season,

I have read JJ is coming to an end, but she already has a program set to take its place.  Can't remember the name.  Something like, "Judy's Justice."  

She was arguing with someone the other day ago about a packing slip that didn't list the price of the item.  She had never seen that before in, lo, these many years.  I think her wealth has her so far removed from ordinary life that she probably never has seen a remote start for a car, or a packing slip.  She probably has servants to take care of small details.  She does seem to be losing it a little and if I were one of her children, it would be cause for concern.  

[Ashforth]

1 hour ago, jilliannatalia said:

Yes! I liked that part. JJ said, "You don't look like that much of a prize."    The litigant/professional user was offended.

The Defendant was very pretty and seems accustomed to using her good looks to get what she wants, so it had to cut deep when JJ said she didn't look like a prize. HA!

I didn't like that JJ spent so much time ripping the Plaintiff for loaning the money when he 'knew" she couldn't pay it back. For a minute I thought she was going to say it was a gift and dismiss his case. Then she actually looked at the evidence that showed the Defendant had indeed promised repayment. Was that just for drama? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Defibrillator Pawn Shop Shocker-Plaintiff/pawn shop owner suing defendant for pawning stolen property.   Defendant took a plea on the theft charges too.   Defendant pawned 20 aviation head sets, and 9 defibrillators (theft of portable defibrillators is a big issue, endangering lives).  Defendant made restitution to the airport for the thefts.    Police confiscated 4 defibrillators, and 20 head sets, and pawn broker wants his money back, but has no proof of the numbers confiscated.   (Interesting note, Daniel Risis owns 11 pawnshops, so I can imagine it is hard to keep up with the number of items taken by the police.   I bet the police don't keep up with their paperwork back to the pawn shop owner). 

Defendant claims the pawn shop called the police.  Plaintiff claims the police came by the stores, and confiscated the items.    Items weren't pawned, but bought out right by the pawn shops.    JJ is ticked the pawn shop didn't call police.   However, I bet the police caught the thieving defendant, and he told them where he sold the property, then the police visited, and confiscated.   Defendant's witness just interrupted, and got the glare of death.  Plaintiff claims defendant said his late grandfather had airplanes, and that's where everything came from.  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Mercedes-Benz Deal of the Century-Plaintiff suing defendant over the purchase of a 2008 Mercedes C300, plaintiff wants his money back.    Byrd's Blue Book 2011 says $28,000, but plaintiff paid $18,000 for the car.   Plaintiff paid the asking price of $18000 in 2011, and it was repossessed in 2018.    Defendant brought his own old Blue Book.   Plaintiff says the car title is fake.  Defendant claims it was $18k down, and plaintiff make the payments remaining on the car ($6,000 plus interest up to now).    

Plaintiff claims the $18,000 car payment was complete, and that he didn't know about $6,000 remaining on the car loan.    The car title has the lien company misspelled on the title, and it has the defendant's home address as the car lien company.

JJ sends them back to local court, which since they live in separate states, mean plaintiff is SOL.  

Second-

Frantic 911 Call or Frenzied Fight-Plaintiff suing defendant over a cancelled wedding.   Plaintiff claims emotional distress, moving costs, storage fees, and that defendant vandalized her car, which is memorialized on video.    Litigants were engaged, lived together, and when they split plaintiff moved to a smaller apartment, and wants moving expenses (not happening).    Plaintiff had defendant's stuff in her apartment, then put items in storage and gave defendant the key.   Storage for the month was $60, and is dismissed. 

Litigants had two vehicles, and plaintiff's was in both names, and she claims defendant ripped the mirror off of her car.   This was because plaintiff claims On Star was locating her for the defendant, and when she had his name taken off of On Star, then the mirror ripping happened. 

What they should have done, was each car should have been signed over to one or the other litigant.    Defendant claims plaintiff damaged her own car.   Video of fight is shown, plaintiff looks like the aggressor to me, it wasn't just her car, but both litigants car.   The video does show hands reaching toward the mirror.    Defendant claims plaintiff lied about the damage, and they are both ridiculous.     

JJ tells defendant to sell the car.  Good luck getting full price to pay the loan off on defendant's car.    The next issue is the engagement ring, plaintiff claims defendant had it, and defendant claims plaintiff still has it.   Counter claim dismissed on engagement ring.

Defendant wants a bed frame, and office chair, but plaintiff has the receipts.    Claim dismissed.     Plaintiff claims for emotional distress is gone.   Moving costs, and storage fees are dismissed.    Engagement ring is dismissed.    Furniture and property damage dismissed.

Plaintiff says the counter claim was Fravulous, meaning frivolous.    

Debt Payoff for Dud Car-Plaintiff suing defendant, and son for the return of money paid on a car, and for credit card charges.   Counter claim is for insurance for car.   Plaintiff drove car uninsured, and unlicensed, for five months, and she never even tried to register it.   Then when car broke down, she paid nothing on it.    1997 Nissan Sentra is the vehicle in question, worth $625.       Plaintiff wants defendant to pay the credit card bill charges, defendant made.   Defendant has a lot of items stored at plaintiff's house in the garage, and she had five days to pick up items or she's lost them.

Car and credit card case dismissed. 

[Angeltoes]

Quote

She was arguing with someone the other day ago about a packing slip that didn't list the price of the item.  She had never seen that before in, lo, these many years. 

I work in a warehouse and see packing slips all the live long day.  It's not unusual at all to see them without prices.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Police Escort Drunk Vandal-Plaintiff claims defendant/ former roommate smashed his two TVs, stole his sneakers and his wallet.    The two men had a verbal and physical argument, about rent, and other issues.      Defendant claims plaintiff shoved him into the plaintiff's wall mounted TV, and it smashed.    Defendant went outside to leave, wanted his property back, so called the police for an escort. 

 Defendant, and police escort entered the apartment, and he retrieved his property.  Litigants are told to retrieve a copy of the police report.   No police reports were done. 

Sadly, defendant's old phone had the texts from plaintiff on it, but that phone had the inevitable accident that all phones on this show have, right before the court case is filmed.   Defendant claims the sneakers, and keys were given by his sister to the plaintiff.

$500 to plaintiff, and this totally boring case is finally over. 

Phone-Breaking Party-Plaintiff suing ex-friend for breaking his iPhone (why is it always an iPhone?).    They were horsing around at a party, and plaintiff claims defendant broke his phone. 

Case dismissed.   

Second-

Go to College or Lose Your Dog-Plaintiff/so-called father is suing his own son for the return of the son's dog.   So-called father said if son didn't go to college, that father would take away the son's dog.  Son decided to work at a movie theater for now, instead of going to college.    The father came on Judge Judy, who is a total dog lover, and wants her to rip the dog away from the son?    

Parents have been separated for five years, but never divorced.   Shared custody is a temporary court order, for five years now.    The parents have five kids, with shared custody, and both live about 20 miles apart in Florida.    Luna the dog is a Husky, and lives at father's house, but went with the son to live with mother pretty often. 

 Then the father decided defendant couldn't take the dog to the mother's house.  This was when the son decided not to go to college right now.  ALso, son refused to go to joint therapy with the father (bet the father picked the therapist too).       Somehow Luna ended up at the mother's house with the son.    

(I guess you can figure out which side I'm on.  Too bad the son didn't end up looking like his Mother, instead of daddy.)    (Why doesn't the son go to a trade school, or community college?     E-R would not be my choice for a basic degree.   Father just wanted to control his son for life.   I bet if the son had gone to E-R, then any time the grades weren't high enough for the father, then there would be more consequences.    I really think the son should do two years at a community college, and decide what he wants to do.     Also, he needs to apply for loans early, so he doesn't have to get private loans at higher interest rates)        

 Son/defendant says he didn't want to go to Embry-Riddle because of the lack of financial aid, and neither parent will help with tuition.   Father wanted son to apply for all of the grants, and get loans.   Why the E-R branch in NC?    They have a lot of campuses, including a residential one in Daytona Beach.    Why would the father want the son to go to an over-priced school, and have hundreds of thousands in private loans?)

Plot twist, the father who has been separated for five years, has taken up with some woman with three kids (about three years ago), and treats the girl friend's kids like his own.  He also has at least one more kid with the girlfriend.

Sister Cloey says she's fine with Luna being with her brother, and that's where she belongs.      Bet they'll be hell to pay after court when daughter gets home.  

Defendant keeps his dog.    The nice thing about this is the dog stays where it belongs, and son never has to bother with the father again.   Dog is marital property, by the way you only have to be separated for six months in Florida to get a divorce, and there is no legal separation in Florida either.    

Case dismissed, and son keeps his dog.  

Edited May 13, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Steph J]

53 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Phone-Breaking Party-Plaintiff suing ex-friend for breaking his iPhone (why is it always an iPhone?).    They were horsing around at a party, and plaintiff claims defendant broke his phone. 

But who broke the plaintiff's razor/beard trimmer?

Seriously guy, if you can barely grow it over your lip and you're not Amish, maybe just don't bother with the beard.

[SandyToes]

On 5/12/2020 at 8:05 AM, Ashforth said:

On 5/12/2020 at 6:20 AM, jilliannatalia said:

Yes! I liked that part. JJ said, "You don't look like that much of a prize."    The litigant/professional user was offended.

The Defendant was very pretty and seems accustomed to using her good looks to get what she wants, so it had to cut deep when JJ said she didn't look like a prize. HA!

I didn't like that JJ spent so much time ripping the Plaintiff for loaning the money when he 'knew" she couldn't pay it back. For a minute I thought she was going to say it was a gift and dismiss his case.

Yeah, it looked pretty much like it was going the "no expectation of payment" route (sadly), and the voila! The Defendant once again sinks her own boat.  Heh.  Justice prevails! And no, plaintiff's typically aren't awarded court costs in custody issues I would think.  

I did enjoy JJ's snide aside (hee! rhyme time!) about "if you can't afford the kid you've got, why have another one...."   Exactly.  If only someone could come up with a way to stop the madness......  In my cynical spells, it makes me wonder if a lot of these women find themselves preggers on purpose, in hopes of a long-time $$ deal -either as a spouse or support payments.  "I'm a dancer for an NBA team, and woopsie - preggars by my one-month boyfriend pro player! I didn't think you get get pregnant standing up/the first time/if he said so/the moon was full/it was the third Thursday of the month/if I ate popcorn and bananas right before, etc! Darn.  Guess I'll just collect $20,000 a month for child support!"  But then, I'm a horrible person, so it may just be me. 

I also liked how JJ herself seemed irritated by the broken phone case. Sheesh.  I figured the two guys are friends and wanted a trip to LA.

 

 

[Ilovecomputers]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So-called father said if son didn't go to college, that father would take away the son's dog.

I think the father said if the son went to college,  he would not be permitted to keep the dog in his college dorm room, so the father's plan was that Luna would come back to the compound.  The father must be some sort of Svengali, because JJ allowed him much more leeway than usual to talk, reminisce and generally just ramble on and on about all the house rules at that house.  Cloey spoke like a hostage.  Luna refused comment. 

Don't you have to be licensed to be a day trader?  The son probably saw "Wall Street" and figured that was the life for him.  Son's mom seemed to want to be a friend to her son, not a parent.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Child Deprived of Food on Dad Day-Plaintiff suing his child's mother over her limits on visitation, for a false restraining order, and defamation.      Plaintiff claims a false restraining order petition filed by defendant was just to harass him.    Daughter was 18 months old when defendant moved in with defendant's father.   Defendant lived with her father for one year, and no visitation with child's father happened.   Defendant claims to fear plaintiff, but never called police, or filed for  a restraining order.   The one time plaintiff saw his daughter after almost a year, defendant says she 'let him' see his child, and that was the only time in a year plaintiff saw his child.     Plaintiff hasn't seen his daughter since the one meeting, and it was over a year before the child custody hearing, which resulted in joint custody. Judge's order was agreed on during mediation, and there was visitation on weekends for the father. 

Plaintiff went back to mediation to get more time for visitation with his child.  About a year later, defendant claims the baby came back from visitation and claimed no one fed her.   Daughter is now eight years old.    Defendant claims she tried to go to family court, but instead defendant filed for an emergency restraining order, and plaintiff hasn't seen child since.      Defendant never went for modified visitation.    Defendant claims plaintiff reported her to CPS.   At hearing judge took testimony, and defendant's case dismissed.  Application for protective order says plaintiff assaulted defendant, but there are no police reports, medical proof, or anything else to back that up.     Plaintiff gets child from school on Thursday, but he says defendant doesn't send the child to school on Thursdays.   Judge dismissed order of protection because the only testimony was defendant's claims, and that judge went back to the same visitation schedule (plaintiff is supposed to get daughter from Thursday afternoon, to Sunday afternoon).     Police would not take the child from mother for visitation.   Unfortunately, plaintiff made a mistake on when child wasn't in school, it was a different month.  (To make this shorter, the litigants lived together for 1 1/2 years, then defendant disappeared with child for a year, and has been fighting legal visitation every since.   Then she tried to get a false protective order, instead of dealing with custody.   My guess, the 50/50 visitation means the defendant doesn't get child support). 

Plaintiff receives $2500 for the false protective order. 

Second-

What's a Broken Finger Between Brothers?-Plaintiff suing his brother over a broken finger.   They exchanged punches, and defendant broke plaintiff's finger, and plaintiff wants his medical bills paid.   What started this, plaintiff was loaned some workout DVDs to plaintiff, and the DVDs would stay at parent's house.   For two months plaintiff claims defendant took the DVDs, instead of keeping them in parent's basement.   

Then in the middle of the night defendant came into plaintiff's room at night, punched the plaintiff.    Then the fight began again.   Plaintiff claims defendant spit in his face, defendant was kicked out of the house, and plaintiff realized his finger was broken, and displaced.  Apparently, plaintiff broke his finger punching defendant in the face.   (I'm sick of the two whiners, and would like to punch both of them in the face). 

JJ starts lightly hitting Officer Byrd's arm, but Byrd just ignores it.   Apparently, JJ has no future in the boxing ring.   

Plaintiff gets $1200.  

Car Theft or Goodwill Donation-Plaintiff's mother died, and left a 2002 Chevy Cavalier (worth $625, in poor condition).   Plaintiff gave car to defendant to donate to charity (P. lives in Alaska, and D. lives in Washington state, where mother lived).    Instead, of donating the car, defendant registered the car, and then was in an accident, and totaled the car.   Defendant received $3,000 from insurance for the car.   

Plaintiff claims defendant was driving the car without insurance.  However, JJ points out liability only on an old car is normal.  

Plaintiff receives $650 for the car value to donate. 

Skateboarder Lucky to Be Alive-Plaintiff suing skateboarder for running into the side of plaintiff's car ($2815).    Defendant had a stop sign, ran it, hit the side of the plaintiff's car, and is still on crutches in court.   As JJ points out, defendant is lucky he wasn't killed.    Plaintiff car was driven by owner's son.  Defendant's daddy came to court, and is suing for medical bills.  Plaintiff had right of way, defendant didn't have right of way.    Defendant made a huge dent in the side of plaintiff's front passenger door.    Defendant was also with a group of skateboarders, and is the only one that didn't stop at the stop sign.  

Defendant broke his ankle in three places.   

Defendant case dismissed.   Plaintiff receives $2815 for his car.   

[ThePurpleArcher]

So since last week, during the middle of May sweeps (April 23-May 22) we are getting all reruns of Judge Judy, instead of first-run new episodes. What does this tell me ?

That production was shut down in March (when they would be filming these new cases) due to the pandemic.  'The People's Court' is airing new cases (though stretched out to do two cases in an hour instead of three) , and there is notice at times that these were filmed pre-COVID 19 (so December / January / February). Looks like 'Judge Judy' isn't so lucky. Let's hope things are back on track by September, otherwise this would be her last season. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

From Old Bus to Leaky Boutique-Plaintiff suing contractor for work on a bus to boutique conversion.   The bus/boutique leaked, and contractor claimed he fixed the leak, and never heard from plaintiff again.  Bus was bought from auction ($4,000), and is almost 20 years old.  Plaintiff had a more expensive contractor estimate, but went with a cheaper contractor.  $4200 was the estimate by defendant to seal the windows, and top emergency exit hatch, and plaintiff paid the $4200.   How can plaintiff claim top hatch leak caused rust and mold, but says it was after the hatch work, and not before?     There is no way the top hatch leaked worse after the tar was applied, than before the work was done. Plaintiff claims she sent messages to defendant about further leaks, but defendant says she never contacted him after the hatch repair.    Plaintiff's texts to defendant do not mention further leaks after initial repair, and the one follow up.   I suspect that the bus being driven with the emergency escape on the top sealed is not legal.    The local fire marshal will never pass that bus for use.  

Plaintiff hasn't repaired the bus, and she's using her car for pop up boutiques.    Are you allowed to limit the exits on a bus you intend to drive, and sheet rock over the windows?   Plaintiff doesn't want patches, but wants everything redone, and wants more money back than she paid originally.     Estimate for repairs are for resealing, $500, but the rest is to repair extras that original contractor never touched, or was contracted to perform.      (I wonder if plaintiff has a license to drive a bus? My guess is no.)

Case dismissed.  

Second-

Graphic Designer Hell-Plaintiff suing graphic designer for $1,000 to do a website, banner, business cards, etc.    Plaintiff claims defendant didn't do the work, but defendant gave enough proof to the bank that the bank reversed the charges, and paid the defendant.    Plaintiff claims she had to pay someone else $600 to do the rest of the work, but has no proof of the work she had redone.   

Plaintiff's witness keeps talking to the plaintiff.  JJ has to threaten to dismiss plaintiff's case to stop plaintiff's back talk.    Plaintiff said she did get her website, and materials, and it cost her $600 to another designer, so that only leaves $400 to make plaintiff whole.  JJ has to threaten to dismiss to get plaintiff to stop interrupting her.   Defendant sent the tracking numbers for the proof of design, and other information to Pay Pal for the dispute to the charges, by plaintiff, and Pay Pal did not refund plaintiff's money.  

$400 to plaintiff.  (Plaintiff now goes off on JJ. Plaintiff claims her witness was ripped off by defendant, but defendant denies even knowing the witness.)   

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SandyToes]

27 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff suing graphic designer for $1,000 to do a website, banner, business cards, etc.    Plaintiff claims defendant didn't do the work, but defendant gave enough proof to the bank that the bank reversed the charges, and paid the defendant.    Plaintiff claims she had to pay someone else $600 to do the rest of the work, but has no proof of the work she had redone.   

The plaintiff got money back? I turned it off when JJ started asking defendant how long it took him to design the materials. Having worked in advertising in a former life, one does not sit down and say, "Now I will design a corporate identity and materials" and have it done two hours later. Not sure that's where JJ went, but I was afraid it was, so I bailed early. Not the kind of day to be patient with her.  Admittedly, it looked like the def brought NOTHING with him to court, so that's a bad sign.  I was hoping JJ would contact the plaintiff's company so they could fax over a business card, etc. I'd bet she used the design.  And it is the DESIGN that takes the time, not the actual printing of the cards, etc.  Too much malarky on both sides it sounded like.  Good that they both got the majority of their appearance fees, so they came out winners.  

Far too much energy on an episode I didn't actually take the time to finish...... #coronabrain  🙄

[bad things are bad]

23 hours ago, SandyToes said:

it makes me wonder if a lot of these women find themselves preggers on purpose, in hopes of a long-time $$ deal -either as a spouse or support payments. 

Takes two...dude could either keep it in his pants or use some birth control. If your idea of a suitable sexual partner is a one night stand, then you should be very careful to have a pocketful of Trojans. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

The Joy of Music...Murdered-Plaintiff (violin buyer) suing defendant (violin teacher and seller) over the cost of a violin, and violin classes.   Plaintiff bought a violin for $700 from defendant, and she says that was over priced, and wants teacher to refund money for lessons, even though the teacher credited her for one lesson, and actually taught the second lesson until plaintiff got mad at defendant.   Defendant bought the violin for $500 from a violin maker who sells on Ebay, and replaced the strings, and sold it to plaintiff for $700.   Plaintiff wants $700 back, how ridiculous.    

(The violin teacher appeared as a performer at several years of Yanni concerts and tours, and has been teaching for years.    He's very accomplished in his field apparently)

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

It Was Not an Engagement Ring-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for unpaid rent ($1600), money owed, and money for car repairs.  Plaintiff also wants engagement ring back from defendant, but she says it wasn't a proposal or engagement, because she's never getting married again.      Ring cost $9,000, but woman claims it wasn't an engagement ring.  Plaintiff paid for defendant's truck repairs, in return for her driving the truck, but he moved out first, and truck went with him.      Defendant put $2700 down on the ring, and is still paying for it, even though he sold it (apparently still short on the payments remaining). 

Plaintiff will get the $1600 for rent, and defendant will get his property back if he picks it up in five days, with an escort.    Other loans, and the ring dismissed. 

Second-

I Don't Have Rent...Take My Car-Plaintiff suing for former roommate forproperty damage, and a broken lease.   Both litigants were on the lease, and were to split rent, and expenses.  Plaintiff paid the security, and first month's rent.   Defendant moved out first, when plaintiff moved out when the lease expired, plaintiff did not get his security deposit back, and has no list from the landlord why.      Plaintiff never tried to get another roommate to cover the rent after defendant moved out.   

There's a dispute of which person owned the dog that nailed the carpet, and who the damages belong to.  Defendant claims he found out someone else moved into the apartment with plaintiff, but plaintiff denies that. 

Plaintiff gets $300 for rent.    Defendant claims plaintiff said rotten things about defendant being transgender. 

Plaintiff will get one months rent, $300, 

Who Stalked Who?-Plaintiff and defendant met online (probably on stalkers. com dating site), and she claims he's stalking her, and is a friend of her ex-husband, because he's Facebook friends or something like that.   Plaintiff claims defendant stalked her, and filed a restraining order petition against him, but didn't show up in court.   Defendant claims that they never met in person until in court today.   Defendant says he doesn't know the ex-husband either, and has never met him.     Defendant claims plaintiff is stalking, and harassing him.   

Plaintiff says the speeding ticket defendant received some distance from her house is proof that he's stalking her.    Plaintiff still says defendant is a friend of her ex-husband, and they have mutual friends on Facebook (Defendant markets a law firm he works for, so I bet he has tons of 'friends').   Defendant still denies he ever knew who plaintiff's ex was, and doesn't know him. 

For the protective order hearing defendant hired an attorney (maybe from the law firm he works for), traveled seven hours for the hearing, and then plaintiff didn't show up in court.  Protective order application allegations from plaintiff are that defendant is a personal friend of her ex-husband, and is harassing her because the ex-husband can't come near her without violating a 10 year protective order.  

Plaintiff claims ex-husband, ex-brother-in-law, and defendant as Facebook friends,  Defendant has a lot of FB friends.    It took seven hours each way travel time for defendant to go to and from protective order hearing, which was dismissed.  

$5,000 for defendant on counter claim.   Nutso plaintiff claims she's going to refile the protective order application.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Hothead Landlord Caught on Tape-Plaintiff/ former tenant claims landlord/defendant  illegally evicted him, and kept his property.  Plaintiff wants security, illegal eviction, assault,  and property costs.    Tenant was renting a bedroom, in a four bedroom house.   Police came to talk to tenant, and detained him for 36 hours, no charges were filed, and tenant claims key pad was locked when he returned home. 

After police detained tenant he was packing up to move out,   Defendant says guests weren't allowed, but that's not in the lease (the guests were the defendant's children).  Defendant wanted to keep 'criminals' out, after the plaintiff was detained.   Plaintiff is upset that police were allowed into the house.  Defendant finally filed for eviction of tenant.   There is a video of defendant slamming door on plaintiff, and telling him to get out of the house.     

Each litigant blames the other for the destruction of a door.   

Plaintiff receives $500, for prorated rent, and security.  Defendant gets what he deserves, nothing. 

Courts Don't Help People Break the Law-Plaintiff suing father for return of money plaintiff paid for a car.   Plaintiff doesn't have a driver's license, it was taken away (apparently she has quite the rap sheet).  So plaintiff bought a car, put it in father's name, and she was driving car.   Plaintiff was caught behind the wheel of the car, and car was impounded.   Defendant/father got the car out of impound, and won't give car to plaintiff. 

Plaintiff wants the money she paid for the car, impound fees, and other things she's not getting.   Plaintiff claims father was supposed to drive her, and her children around in the car.   However, when the police caught woman, she was behind the wheel.   

Case dismissed.  

Second-

Old Fence = New Dog Attack-Plaintiff suing neighbor for vet bills, and fence damages for his small dogs.    Neighbors share a fence line.    Plaintiff came home and found his dogs injured, with the fence broken down, and tufts of hair all over his back lawn.   

As usual, defendant claims her big dogs are just fence fighting, and never hurt anyone's dogs.   Plaintiff believes the fence was repaired before he got home, by the defendant.   Animal control report says one of her dogs was tearing at the fence, broke a slat, and tried to get through the fence at the plaintiff's smaller dog.   JJ is upset plaintiff didn't block his doggy door after previous attack by neighbor's dog.  

Defendant still denies her dog attacked, even after the animal control report, and previous attack witnessed by another neighbor.   Defendant's big mouthed husband is booted.     Defendant's dogs had expired licenses, and rabies vaccinations were out of date.   

Plaintiff $2,000 for vet bills, but not for the fence damages.   

Gas Tank Full of Sugar-Plaintiff claims brother damaged his car, by putting sugar in the gas tank.    Defendant denies the sugar in the gas tank, but claims plaintiff kicked his car.    There is a video of brother kicking the glass out in defendant's car, of course since it's in a snow storm, and everyone is bundled up, no identification is possible. 

$1,000 for plaintiff, and $700 to defendant, so plaintiff actually receives $300.