Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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 by SRTouch
  • Like 2
  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
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?!  

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 2
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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!

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.    

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

(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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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 by jilliannatalia
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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  🙄

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Old fence= New dog attack did anyone else catch the defendant complain about the plaintiff's "measly ass fence"?

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Landlord Lock Out-Plaintiff/former tenant suing former landlady for illegal eviction, loss of property,.   Plaintiff's witness is his estranged wife, and wife was the legal tenant, and landlady knew plaintiff was living there on and off with estranged wife.      Landlady is counter suing for shed materials, back rent,   Landlady claims man was an illegal tenant, and she had every right to lock him out.  Landlady claims she didn't know plaintiff moved back, but she sometimes employed him as a handyman to build the shed for her.     Plaintiff witness/estranged wife, was moving out as of a certain date, and two days later the defendant changed the locks.  

Landlady claims the plaintiff changed the house locks, not her.    Plaintiff witness/ex-wife complains in text that locks were changed, but then plaintiff changed the locks.    Plaintiff is not getting back rent, and accepted rent from both plaintiffs, even though man was never on lease.  Legal tenant (plaintiff witness) gave 30 days notice to landlady, and she says plaintiff also said he was moving out.    Landlady's daughter claims she helped move man's property out, with the plaintiff's wife's help, and put them in the shed at the house.  Plaintiff witness claims the landlady's husband, and maintenance man moved plaintiff's property to the shed.  

 Landlady's witness that helped plaintiff witness move out plaintiff's property, is Dusty's the (the plaintiff witness/estranged wife/former tenant) witness's daughter.  

$5,000 to plaintiff for illegal eviction. 

Wronged Man Returns for Justice-Plaintiff suing defendant over a traffic accident.    The defendant's insurance company already said the plaintiff was at fault, but he thinks JJ will reverse that (apparently he never watched this show before agreeing to appear).    Plaintiff is suing for $250 for his insurance deductible.     Plaintiff's insurance paid plaintiff for his totaled car, and he had $250 deductible from that amount.      Defendant was driving a 1991 Toyota, plaintiff was driving a 1997 Acura. 

The front of defendant's car hit the back of the plaintiff's car (defendant's wild tie, and matching shirt is amazing), so it sounds like the accident was defendant's fault.   Plaintiff claims defendant ran a red light, and hit plaintiff in the rear from the side.     Defendant is standing there with his mouth wide open in amazement at the plaintiff's testimony.     Defendant claims he thought plaintiff hit him.   Defendant says he was going straight across the intersection, and plaintiff hit him.   

Photos show the defendant's car front hit the back passenger side of plaintiff's car.   Defendant is obviously suing because his car only had the bare minimum insurance coverage, and he didn't get anything for his car.   (Note to defendant, if you want to hit other cars, then get better insurance for your car).     Defendant actually claims the plaintiff slid sideways into his car.   

Plaintiff receives $250, and defendant is still deluded.   Defendant's hall-terview is bizarre, and he still claims the plaintiff was driving like a NASCAR wannabe, and hit him. 

Second-

Damages from Police Invasion-Plaintiff rented the front of her house (for the first and last time) to defendant.  Plaintiff suing defendants for damages from the police raid, utilities, unpaid rent. Police had a warrant on defendant, and broke down the front door.   Defendant couple and their child, plus a few other people  were living in the home.    They had a month to month verbal agreement, for $1200 a month rent, and half of the utilities.    In January, after the police raid she gave them a 30 day notice to quit, and defendants moved out in February.     

The warrant was on October 2016, for assault with a deadly weapon, and the case is still going on (this was filmed in 2017).   Defendant husband was held in jail for two months.   January rent was never paid. and on 2 January the 30 day notice was issued.    Plaintiff will get $1200 rent (no security deposit existed).    

Photos and bill for door are produced.   The front door damage was from the police raid, there is another door destroyed by defendant's dog, and the garage door has damage.   Defendant claims they paid $1200, for the first month's rent, and $300 the next month for the security, but there is no receipt for the security.    

Plaintiff receives $1690 for one month rent, and door damage.   Defendant's loss of dog (he had to give the dog away when they moved), defamation of character, and motel costs, everything is dismissed.   I love a defendant with a case for assault with a deadly weapon still going on in court is claiming plaintiff defamed him.  Dog was not allowed to be there, and guests not on lease, then the police raid happened.   Defendant claims the visiting relatives were baby sitting the 14 year old daughter, but plaintiff claims the daughter was left alone a lot.  Defendant's ridiculous claim dismissed. 

$1700 to plaintiff. 

Teens' Camaro Clash-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for the value of a 2002 Camaro, purchased for $900.   Plaintiff said he loaned the girlfriend the Camaro.   He also had a 2003 Camaro, and a 1999 Hyundai.    Camaro is in impound, and it will cost almost $2000 to get car out of car jail.         (What is wrong with plaintiff's speech?   New braces, or what?).     Car ran out of gas, and Camaro was pushed to curb by defendant's house, Camaro was taken to mechanic, and it needed a blown head gasket replaced.    Defendant claims she gave plaintiff $500 to plaintiff for 2002 Camaro.     

There is nothing in defendant's written statement that says anything about her buying the car, and getting it repaired.   

JJ dismisses everything, because she believes nothing the litigants say. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

 

I'm the World's Nicest Mechanic-Plaintiff was in a severe accident, resulting in a major brain injury (in a Hyundai Accent).      Plaintiff is accusing the defendant/mechanic of ripping her off.   Plaintiff was paid $1174 for the Hyundai Accent from the accident by the insurance company.  Plaintiff still drives the Element.  

Plaintiff's Honda Element (receipt from mechanic calls it a Honda Pilot) was fixed by the mechanic, and returned to the plaintiff.   Hyundai Accent (from the accident) was given to the mechanic, fixed up, and resold for $950.    Plaintiff expects sympathy because she spent her insurance claim payment on expenses, instead of the car.   

$174 for plaintiff (difference between car insurance payment, and what is owed to fix car).  (Plaintiff is still whining about the money she received.  She has a long history of suing for all kinds of social, and personal reasons.   Mechanic should try to help people that aren't full time litigants). 

Middle School Friends Fallout-(The litigants met in Middle School) Plaintiff suing former roommate for stolen property, unpaid rent.  As always, defendant claims he paid rent a lot more often than plaintiff says he did.  Defendant counter claim for hotel costs, and stolen property.   Plaintiff claims defendant stole and used his credit card, watch, and pistol.    Plaintiff claims to have a recording of defendant admitting thefts, but it died with his previous phone, just like always.  (What the hell did the plaintiff have done to his left eyebrow?   It looks like Morse code now). 

$800 (back rent for two months) for plaintiff.   

Second-

Morning After Pill Train Wreck-Plaintiff suing former boyfriend for damages resulting for him causing her to crash her car.    Defendant was going to take plaintiff back to his apartment, after an abortion pill, and he would take care of her after she took the pill, and defendant didn't believe her story.   Defendant left her apartment, went to his own car, and he saw plaintiff getting in her car, and they talked.   They argued again, with plaintiff in her car.    (As JJ points out, defendant should have kept his pants zipped, and he wouldn't have to worry about paternity and possible pregnancy). 

Plaintiff started her car, and when defendant grabbed her phone, she drove off, and had an accident.    Defendant claims if plaintiff was pregnant, it was probably her other boyfriend's baby, not his.  Sadly, plaintiff looks rather pregnant, and I feel sorry for that poor baby.   Her insurance covered the damage her car did to the neighbor's property, but she only had liability so they paid nothing for her car.     Police report is less than helpful.    (On a shallow note, horizontal stripes around her hips, and abdomen are not a good look for plaintiff). 

 JJ blames defendant for the accident, so plaintiff gets $1,530.    (If plaintiff claims paternity, then the defendant should get a DNA test.).

Transgender Jitters-Plaintiff wants moving costs, and rent, is suing former property manager.  Defendant was a property manager, and then lease holder for the property. It was an 8 bedroom house, with two sets of bunk beds in each bedroom.   It was a sober living house.   Defendant claims he never had 4 people in each room, even though there were enough beds in each room for that.    Rent was $450 a month, and plaintiff claims sometimes with 4 people in each bedroom.    Plaintiff gave 1 week notice of move out, and plaintiff claims defendant harassed her, and someone in the house wanted her to be a stripper (stripper person not in court).      Plaintiff claims defendant and others in the house didn't want to live  with a transgender person in the house.     So why didn't plaintiff and husband try to find a small apartment on their own?  I do realize that some places $900 a month won't buy much, but did they even try?    They must have found an alternative by now, so why not before the case was filed?    

Case dismissed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Couch-Surfing Son Sued by Mother-Plaintiff / mother suing defendant /son, damage to her car, impound fees, and lost wages, for wrecking her car.   Defendant plead guilty to 'failing to maintain a lane'. Defendant was living with mother for about a year before the wreck, accident happened in the middle of the night.   Plaintiff claims car was insured on the date of the accident, but son says car wasn't insured.    Defendant didn't have a license on him at the time of the accident, and didn't have one, and went to jail on an alias.    Defendant was charged with removing tags from car, and had expired registration.   Car was registered in Missouri, but accident happened in Georgia, and plaintiff and son, and didn't register car in Georgia (she lived there 10 months).   By the way, you may not reregister the car in Georgia, but you have to get insurance to the address you live at.  Insurance didn't fix plaintiff's car, because defendant wasn't on her insurance (it wasn't in Georgia anyway).  (I used to have the same insurance, American Family, and they don't operate in Georgia).  

Plaintiff did not have valid insurance when the accident happened.  Plaintiff is raising son's child, and only gets food stamps (from Missouri).    I guess she doesn't change her address with states for the child's benefit either.  JJ advises the son to have authorities in Georgia garnish the son's wages for his child support.  

$3121 to plaintiff.   (JJ only did that for the child, not the grandmother). 

Retaliatory Freeway Brake Tapping-Plaintiff suing defendant for an accident on the freeway, defendant is countersuing for his deductible.    Accident was deemed 60% plaintiff's fault.   Plaintiff say defendant was tail-gating him at high speed, and plaintiff tapped his brakes, and defendant went all of the way right.   Instead of getting out of defendant's way, plaintiff tapped his brakes, and defendant pulled back in front of plaintiff's car.    Then defendant tapped on his brakes, causing plaintiff to swerve, and the accident to happen. 

Case dismissed.  

Second-

Great Childhood Friends, Lousy Roommates-Plaintiff moved in with defendant, rent free.   Then plaintiff moved her boyfriend in for three or four days a week, and when plaintiff was asked to leave, and claims it was an illegal lockout.   Plaintiff wants $5k for moving costs, illegal lockout, and other garbage.   Defendant inherited a house from her father, and she invited plaintiff to move in, but pay expenses (utilities, taxes) but pay no rent.  Plaintiff was saving at least $400 a month by living with the defendant.     Plaintiff financed everything off of her student loans, bad idea.   Defendant wanted plaintiff's boyfriend to pay one-third, plaintiff one-third, and defendant one third of house taxes, and utilities. 

(JJ says she won't pay motel and moving costs, or pain and suffering, and plaintiff says "she won't allow it".   I hope JJ takes the money back). 

Plaintiff gets $500 for the loan, which was actually, from her student loans.  $150 for her TV.   Plaintiff gets $650, minus $92 for utilities, equaling $558.

Short Temper, Long Rap Sheet-Plaintiff suing ex boyfriend for vandalizing her home and car.  After the break up, the plaintiff claims the defendant showed up at her house, and plaintiff wouldn't let him into her home.    Then plaintiff says defendant damaged her house door, bashed her windshield, and damaged a tire.   Defendant was sent to anger management, which didn't work.  Defendant plead guilty to the windshield damage, and paid for the window.   

Defendant had other domestic violence cases before this case.   

Plaintiff gets $1,036 for the front door.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Unsupervised Teens Gang up on Younger Kid-Plaintiff mother is suing her son's friend's mother for her son punching a hole in a pool liner, during a pool party at plaintiff's house.     Plaintiff was having a pool party at her home for her son's birthday.    However, defendant son was pushed into the pool, and his arm hit the pool liner.    Defendant mother says her son was bullied at the pool party by the other boys.   Plaintiff says the bullying didn't happen, but she wasn't outside supervising.   

Defendant son/victim says the water was very cold, and he didn't want to go in the pool.  Defendant son says the bullying started when he arrived at the party.    Defendant son was pulled into the pool, and the older kids were pushing him inside the pool, and in the shoving match the pool was damaged.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.  She wasn't supervising at the pool, and was instead doing other things.    Plaintiff still sees nothing wrong with her lack of action.   She's lucky there wasn't a worse injury, or accident.   Plaintiff doesn't care at all.    She gets to fix her own pool. 

Don't Defraud he Government and Then Come to Me-Plaintiff suing her daughter for the return or value of a Nissan Altima, unpaid tolls, and unpaid tickets.   Defendant says she started driving the car in 2016 when car was purchased (summer of 2016, until January of 2019).   Car had mechanical issues, and was damaged in a shoot out on defendant's block (car is pretty much totaled now).    Defendant/daughter says she paid for car in full. 

Defendant purchased car, and car was in plaintiff's name because,  daughter had too many violations.   Daughter was still paying on a 2011 Altima that she was still paying on, when it's engine went,  and she bought the 2016 Altima.      Plaintiff claimed when the tickets, and violations were cleared up, and first car was in running shape, and defendant would give her the car. 

Car was in mother's name because daughter had too many tickets, and violations, and daughter couldn't register the car in her name.     Litigants violated the Clean Hands Doctrine, so case is dismissed.   

The best part is the daughter needed the car to get to and from her job as a Police Officer!    (In the Hall-terview defendant says mother is responsible for the loss of her sister, and a user.  Mother claims the tickets, and violations on the car totaled $13,000).      

Second-

Housekeeper Cleans Woman Out-(The plaintiff sounds like the people who think they're being generous to give broken, and other junk to someone who works for them, and the worker should be grateful)-Plaintiff says she didn't know what was in her storage unit.  Defendant says plaintiff told her to clean storage unit out.   Plaintiff suing for stolen property, and incomplete services.    Plaintiff was moving from Georgetown, TX to Cedar Park, TX, and defendant was to clean house after plaintiff moved out.   

Plaintiff said  payment was going to be what she wanted to give the defendant after they hauled everything out of the storage unit.   Plaintiff says she doesn't know what was in her own storage unit.  

Plaintiff won't shut up, and keeps interrupting JJ.   Plaintiff claims the defendant didn't clean the house at all, but cleaned the storage unit out.   

Plaintiff Motormouth thinks being old makes furniture valuable, and she's wrong.  Not everything is an antique.   I doubt her parent's bedroom set, and her son's teenage room furniture was even worth the cost to haul it.   

Defendants say plaintiff sold virtually all furniture to defendant's witness.   Witness bought $3,000 worth of furniture from plaintiff, and defendants moved furniture to witness's house, and they were paid $400.  Defendants cleaned for six days total, and are still owed by plaintiff.   

Plaintiff claims defendants were supposed to empty the storage unit, let plaintiff decide what she could sell (she had no room for any more furniture), and plaintiff would decide what to give the defendants.   Plaintiff was going to pay defendant for cleaning out filthy house and garage with the storage unit furniture. 

Plaintiff should see how much it would cost for commercial cleaners to clean up her filthy house and garage.   Plaintiff must have moved a lot of stuff, because the movers charged her $900 plus, for a move 30 minutes away.

Plaintiff thinks defendant should have cleaned the house, and settle for a referral to the home buyer she sold to.     

(OK, I've thought about this since the case aired today.    I wonder if Motormouth Nancy treats everyone the nasty way she treated the Latino defendants, and the beloved Byrd?  My guess is she does.  )

Plaintiff gets nothing, and I really think that's what she deserves. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Pomeranian Custody Battle-Plaintiff /daughter suing defendant /mother for the return or value of a purebred Pomeranian.      Plaintiff says one dog is hers, but defendant took custody of the second Pom. when ne'er-do'well daughter went to jail again.   Mother bought two dogs, and daughter claims mother gave her the one dog, and she kept the dog for two years, but also claims the mother gave her the second Pom.   Daughter claims second Pom didn't get along with mother's five other dogs. 

In 2013-2014 defendant moved into a trailer owned by her father, and stepfather moved into the trailer too.   In 2014 plaintiff gave the male Pom to  her stepfather to keep the dog for her, because she could only take one dog on her move to Denver.     (I have totally lost track of who lives where, who had custody of the dog, or who owns what home).   Mobile home that plaintiff lived in belongs to the father, not defendant or the stepfather.   

Then plaintiff moves back to the home city, and wanted the second Pom back from the defendant, and defendant still has the dog as of the hearing.   Plaintiff gets the second Pom back, per Judge Judy.    Mother says in court that she's not giving the dog back to daughter. 

   

Day Care Serial Conman-Plaintiff suing former day care customer for non-payment.    Defendant has full physical custody, and joint custody with the child's mother.   JJ wants to know former child care provider, and he was terminated as a customer, for non-payment.  JJ decides that defendant is a deadbeat child care customer.  Plaintiff wants $25 a day for watching defendant's child for 10 days total.   Defendant said that he was enrolling his child in a Crystal Stairs program,  and claimed to be a single father, but child's mother went with him.   (Crystal Stairs is a non-profit that gives low income families on public assistance, attending job training, or job hunting, child care assistance.    If the person has not been on public assistance, then they can get on a list for child care, but that list is really long).    

Plaintiff receives $250 for child care services she provided. 

Second-

Remodel Fail in Old Hickory, Tennessee-Plaintiffs hired defendant to do remodeling work, and they're suing for breach of contract.   Defendant was paid $3,000, another $1,000 he was paid was on a check, that  plaintiffs paid him, and then stopped payment on the check.  Defendant, and plaintiff witness tried to help settle this matter, but not after suit was filed.   Defendant's counter suit is for unpaid money.   

According to contract, the work had to be substantially completed, but no specific deadline was mentioned.    JJ mentions that the $4,000 that was going to be paid to contractor for a long list of remodeling work.   Total price was supposed to be $7500, but only $3,000 was paid.   It also cost plaintiffs $14,000 to finish the remodeling job. 

Plaintiff gets nothing.    $1,000 to defendant.

Woman's Weak Defense-Plaintiff suing her former roommate for return of her rent, and security deposit, and punitive damages.    Plaintiff says she gave her portion of the rent to defendant, but defendant didn't pay the landlord, and plaintiff won't get her security deposit either.    Defendant claims the lease expired in February, but had signed another 1 year lease, that didn't take effect until the month the defendant moved out.  Defendant move out with her then boyfriend, and didn't pay the landlord for February, or give notice to landlord, or plaintiff.  

The only cleaning on security deposit was rug cleaning.   The rest of the charges from security is for unpaid rent.   

$810 to plaintiff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ decides that defendant is a deadbeat child care customer. 

I agree with her. I remember this case from before, and once again I am fascinated by the defendant's psuedo military shirt. Does anyone recognize it? Is it some fraternal or veterans organization, or is it just a cutting edge style? I would hate to think that my laughing (at the sergeant's insignia on both sleeves, the general's stars on both sides of the collar and especially the name tape "COMBAT") was disrespectful to an actual veteran.

Edited by DoctorK · Reason: clarity
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

$40,000 Car Hangs in the Balance-Plaintiff and defendant lived together, and bought a $40K SUV together.   She's suing for the down payment on a Ford Explorer, and unpaid registration fees.  When they broke up he took the SUV, and there is still $28k left on the car note.   Sadly, both brought children into this relationship.    SUV was titled in plaintiff's name.    Plaintiff didn't report the car stolen, even though the title is her name, and defendant has been driving the car for two years.   As JJ said, if SUV wasn't being driven with plaintiff's permission, then she should have reported it stolen. 

Defendant is making the payments on the SUV.   There are registration and vehicle tax on SUV, and it's on plaintiff's record, and $1,286 is owed.   Plus, unless plaintiff signs the title, the defendant can't register, or pay the car taxes.  However, since defendant's car tax was due, they added $200 to plaintiff's bill.   

JJ tells plaintiff to cooperate with defendant to get the title, and registration, changed, and get the SUV off of plaintiff's record. Complicating things is the litigants keep getting back together, and breaking up, over and over.  

$1286 to plaintiff. 

Collegiate Car Crash-Plaintiff suing defendant for car damage.   Plaintiff was driving a 2009 Nissan 270Z.    Defendant was driving a 2016 Scion Ion, and didn't have insurance (I suspect she bought insurance when she bought the car, then either didn't pay or cancelled it after it was registered.   It was terminated by Allstate, and then she claimed to have Progressive, and didn't have that either.)    There are signal lights control all four directions, plaintiff had a green light, turned right, from the highway, and onto campus.   The frontage road that defendant was driving on had a stop sign.   

Plaintiff's car damages are $3251.00, and he gets that. 

Second-

Shady Dog Thief-Plaintiff claims ex -boyfriend's brother stole her dog, and defendant won't tell where dog is.     JJ points out defendant's witness can't even find the knees to his pants. (Pants are those ripped jeans).   Defendant claims the plaintiff owes money, and she'll get the dog back when she pays up.  

Plaintiff's dog is in Minneapolis, and JJ tells defendant it's a long walk home to Minnesota.    If defendant doesn't shut up about his personal issues, then  I'm going to offer Byrd money to beat the snot out of him.   

One reason defendant can't leave Minnesota is something to do with parole.  Byrd goes to tell defendant to shut up, and stays right next to him, and confiscates his phone.  Plaintiff claims man sold the dog.   Dog is a poodle mixed with a beagle, really cute.   JJ threatens to yank defendant idiot's appearance fee.   Defendant and wife live in North Dakota, but he's in Minnesota for 'personal business' (criminal charges related, apparently). 

Defendant says his sister is dog sitting.  Plaintiff wanted the defendant to train and take care of the dog.  JJ and plaintiff suspect defendant already sold the dog. 

JJ is issuing an order for a marshal to help get the dog back, and then jabber jaws defendant will get his appearance fee.  (I suspect the vindictive defendant gave the dog away or something, and I bet the plaintiff will never see the dog again).     Plaintiff and her witness claims the defendant sold the dog, and can't get it back. 

Niece and Nephew Bailout-Plaintiff suing niece and nephew for a loan for bail, and for the value of a car.  The aunt/plaintiff has custody of the niece's two children for over a year.  Niece purchased the car to get herself back on track,, and regain custody of her two children.     

When defendant woman had a dirty drug test, that's when aunt took car back.  How does a non-custodial parent get to bring the kids to her house?   Even after a dirty drug test? 

Visitation is now supervised, and at the CPS office only.   Defendant and plaintiff swear the court order said aunt had to buy her a car, and defendant says car was a gift.      

(Leavenworth KS has a lot of prisons, for the state and federal systems.   Their tourism motto used to be "How About Doin' Some Time in Leavenworth", which is certainly appropriate for the two defendants)

Case sent back to small claims court in Leavenworth, KS.  JJ strongly suggests that CPS do an immediate home visit to see where the children are living, and how they are.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

 Daughter was still paying on a 2011 Altima that she was still paying on, when it's engine went,  and she bought the 2016 Altima.  

So, ummm, why do you keep buying Altimas?

It's probably not the car's fault, I'm going to take a wild guess and say they aren't exactly current on their maintenance, but if an engine blew on a relatively new car I owned, I would not be inclined to acquire another one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$40,000 Car Hangs in the Balance-Plaintiff and defendant lived together, and bought a $40K SUV together.   She's suing for the down payment on a Ford Explorer, and unpaid registration fees.  When they broke up he took the SUV, and there is still $28k left on the car note.   Sadly, both brought children into this relationship.   

And then added at least one more!  Despite JJ telling the woman to cooperate, I have absolutely no expectation that she will.  She refused to hear anything JJ said. 

Caught the last 30 seconds or so of the niece/nephew custody car thing. Yowza. The niece was a piece of work, and I literally only heard agree to answer questions, and then the only thing she said was, "I don't recall."  What was JJ trying to get info on? REALLY wish there was a follow-up version of this show sometimes! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Go Find Yourself Another Harlequin Great Dane-Plaintiff suing former neighbor for the return or value of a Great Dane, and punitive damages for having the dog spayed.   Counter claim if dog is awarded back to plaintiff is board for taking care of the dog.    Plaintiff paid $1200 for the two month old dog, in 2014.   Plaintiff had a Staffordshire Terrier, and Great Dane for a few months.    Then plaintiff moved in with her boyfriend six weeks after she bought the dog (2015), and his Pit Bull didn't like the puppy, and plaintiff gave dog to defendant to dog sit.   Defendant had the dog spayed (so plaintiff wanted to breed the dog, I'm guessing).   

After two years, defendant still has the dog,  Plaintiff claimed she paid defendant for dog food.    Plaintiff paid no bills for the dog.   Over two years, plaintiff claims she visited dog every two weeks.   Plaintiff says she was waiting for a settlement for her father's estate, and then would get her own home, and get the dog back.    However, plaintiff had her own place when dog was 10 months old or so, but never got the dog. 

Defendant received a bag of food twice in the two years, and says she only saw plaintiff twice in two years.    

Defendant keeps the dog.    Plaintiff told to get another dog.  She only had the dog for six weeks, and almost never visited, or brought food. 

Judge Judy Shares Her Husband's Approach to Telemarketers-Plaintiff suing former business partners for the return of money, and jewelry.    Plaintiff received a phone call from the male defendant, promoting a telemarketing investment business, and she was dumb enough to do that.   (JJ's husband tells the telemarketers where to go, and how to get there).    Defendants talked plaintiff into joining their pyramid scheme, where the idiot makes money by conning other people into joining the pyramid scheme.   Plaintiff whines because she was never paid for cheating other people that she recruited into the scheme.  Defendants want training costs, and making false allegations.     Plaintiff didn't have enough cash, and some jewelry for collateral.  Plaintiff paid $4,000 cash, and the jewelry.   The product was downloads teaching you to make money online, by getting people into the business (pyramid scheme).   Defendant says they sell digital licensing franchises.  

(In my opinion,  plaintiff joined the scheme, recruited others to join the scheme, and that makes her a criminal.  She did not come to court with clean hands.)   Defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay him anything, but paid his partner $3500 cash, and the jewelry.

$3500 to plaintiff.   Plaintiff gets her jewelry back from the  wonderful Officer Byrd in the hall-terview.   (

As JJ says, plaintiff was stupid, and is lucky to get her money back.  The two defendants split the $3500.    The female defendant

Second-

Pregnant Ex-Lover Anger-Plaintiff suing former live-in boyfriend for return of rent, moving costs, and security deposit.     They were shacking up, three months later it ended.    Plaintiff took out a personal loan for $4k for moving, security deposit, and rent.    Security was $1450, and rent was $950.    As usual, defendant has no proof he paid security and first month's rent. 

Plaintiff moved out in March, and went back to apartment to pick up some of her things, and discovered another woman living there.   Plaintiff rented a U-Haul, and moved out in Mid-March, and discovered the evidence of new furniture, TV, belongings of Heather (his children's mother, and their kids living there).    Man has 50/50 custody, and after plaintiff moved out he claims Heather only came over to send kids to school, but plaintiff says woman was living there.  (Sadly, plaintiff became pregnant, and claims defendant told her to get an abortion or move out.   Plaintiff moved out, and sadly will be tied to the loser defendant for years to come.  This is child number four for defendant). 

Plaintiff gets $1450 security back, but no moving costs.   Plaintiff also bought almost $1,000 of appliances, and defendant paid her $800 for those, and she'll get $150 more. 

$1606 to plaintiff.  Plaintiff does not get money for the loan, because she had no expectation of repayment.   Defendant claims to be a victim.  

Attending a Funeral or Arrested-Plaintiff suing former tenant for unpaid rent and damages.  Plaintiff rented a 2 story home to defendant, and defendant paid $1100.   Plaintiff claims defendant didn't pay from July to September (defendant claims he paid cash, and has no receipts).       Defendant owes $3300 for three months rent.   

Plaintiff has no proof of damages.    Defendant was out of town in September at a family funeral, however plaintiff claims man was in jail.    Counter claim by defendant is for property landlady took when he was at the funeral (or jail).      Defendant has no proof of the funeral he went to.    Defendant also left his girlfriend behind at the plaintiff's house, and she was told to leave also (apparently not on lease).  

 Plaintiff gets $3300 for rent.    ANd plaintiff gets today's award for hysterical faces, during the defendant's testimony.         

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Landlord Beaten With Lead Pipe-Plaintiffs (brother and sister) / former tenants are suing their former landlord for return of rent, security deposit, and a missing laptop.    Female plaintiff was evicted from her previous apartment, and moved into a room in the defendant's place.   One night the plaintiffs had a party with five friends, and invited a bunch of strangers from the bar home.   They came home after 3 a.m. in the morning and were noisy. with their drunk friends.   Landlord asked them to be quiet, and a couple of hours later he heard a lot of noise from upstairs, and went to tell them to leave.    

 

When defendant objected to the noise,  some of the visitors beat him up, and he was beaten with a lead pipe.   (JJ mentions Rip Van Winkle, and over half of the audience don't know who Rip is.   JJ then says it's time to die.     Byrd is grinning when JJ says she's not mean).   

Plaintiffs lived there without paying rent for over two months.   Plaintiffs were served with eviction papers on 1 June, and they moved out on August 6.     Plaintiffs over stayed at the apartments.     Plaintiff also claims she doesn't know the names of the drunks at the party who assaulted the landlord, and are totally lying.    The landlord was badly injured by the drunken party goers, and the police haven't found the criminals yet.   Plaintiff claims she left her lap top behind, and she's totally lying. Plaintiff case dismissed.  (Plaintiff's woman's hair style is hideous.  It looks like I was cutting it, was interrupted, and never finished, and no sane person will let me cut their hair.   It's the mullet from hell). 

Landlord did see a doctor, and didn't feel better for over eight weeks.   

Plaintiffs both claims they don't know who the attackers were.    Plaintiff woman also says that she doesn't feel sorry that landlord was attacked, and that he 'overstepped' when he told the drunks to leave, and later evicted them.      Woman plaintiff really expected JJ to give them everything they asked for, and is totally pissed off.     

Landlord is told that since tenant invited people back who assaulted him, the they are responsible for the landlord's injuries, and landlord receives $5,000. 

 (Landlord was struck in the back, and as he said, if he had been hit in the head with the same force, he would be dead.     As JJ rightly says, the landlord may be mobile now, but who knows what his long term effects will be.)

Second-

(Not Very) Controversial Judge Judy Decision-Plaintiff realtor suing web designer defendant for not doing the web site she wanted.  Apparently, this is not the first web designer she's hired for the same job.   (Note to defendant, lipliner outside your lips in a dark color is passe).   Total cost of website was $3500, with defendant paid $1300 already.   Plaintiff claims the website was never posted on the internet.  Defendant sent user name and password to defendant, and says it was posted on the internet.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.    (I don't know why my cable guide called it Controversial, and IMDB and the JJ website too, but it wasn't). 

Housekeeper Steals Customers-Plaintiff cleaning service owner suing former employee for soliciting clients away from her business.   Defendant was hired with a contract, to do cleaning services, and contract said no stealing clients.   One of the ex-clients, and present client of defendant is the witness.     

JJ gives the plaintiff $5,000 for lost client.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

HOA President Accused of Leaks, and Lies-Plaintiff suing HOA President of lying about damage to plaintiff's condo (first floor apartment) from upstairs neighbor's (third floor apartment) plumbing issues.  Plaintiff has two videos showing proof.   Defendant is not only the condo owner, but the HOA president, and owns the management company, so it's a total conflict of interest.    Plaintiff's apartment was repaired by insurance, there were added items that defendant would pay out of pocket for.   Then an additional leak happened from the defendant's apartment (washing machine drain line leaked).    This apartment/condo building must be very old, there was asbestos, and the pipes with leaks look like galvanized. 

Part of the additional work was asbestos removal in the common area (hallway).    Common area damages.    

Plaintiff receives $2900.

Harley Motorcycle Work-to-Own Fail-Plaintiff suing former employer for wages, and a Harley Davidson.   Plaintiff was supposed to do excavation work for defendant, in return for a motorcycle.  and some wages.    Plaintiff claims defendant never paid him everything, kept the bike.   However, defendant claims plaintiff was a bad worker.

$3850 to plaintiff for wages, and the motorcycle that defendant still has. 

Second-

The Smell of 14 Cats in the Morning-Plaintiff bought a condo, and rented it to the defendants who had 14 cats, and 7 kittens, and the results were horrible to live with.  (I can almost smell the ammonia from just hearing 21 cats in one home).   Plaintiff was in college, when he moved to Norman, OK for law school, and now practices law there, he rented the condo.    Defendants lived in condo for three years, and were often late, but still owe partial rent for the last month.    Neighbors started calling plaintiff about the cat stench from the condo.   The maximum number of cats was 14, including kittens, and found homes for them (now the strange singing/meowing, voice of the defendant man starts).   Lease says 3 cats maximum.   

Plaintiff never gave permission for more than three cats.   I love the plaintiff, he has move in condition of the condo, the damages in photos, and original photos are from defendant's facebook page.   There are a lot of facebook photos, of many cats and kittens (different photos show different coat colors, and patterns).     On move in, apartment was immaculate, and in great physical condition.    In hall-terview the defendant male's voice is more normal.   

Bizarre note, the male defendant has a weird voice in court, a cross between meowing, and speaking.   Last time it was suggested by posters that it was Tourette's, or stuttering mitigation, or he's part cat.   Male defendant's hairstyle is interesting too, resembling cat ears.   

$5,000 to plaintiff for cleaning (won't even begin to remediate that smell, you have to remove drywall, all trim and baseboards, clean floors under carpet, or other materials, and it still might not get rid of the smells.  If you have pop corn ceiling, that will hold the smell also, and curtains and other fabrics).   I pity the neighbors of that condo. 

Store Owner or Drug Dealer-Plaintiff alleges that the neighbor in the  apartment building accused him of running a drug business, and filed a false protective order against him.    Plaintiff claims he only operates a store for building residents for juice boxes, and milk, and doesn't actually live in the unit.     Plaintiff also has an attorney he's used since he was 18, but can't find the number.    Plaintiff also claims he only has the store open to help people, and spends most nights at his girlfriend's place.   Plaintiff didn't bring any bills for his business, and claims the building manager knows about the business.  

After defendant called police about alleged drug activity by plaintiff, he made death threats against her, and she received a protective order.  (Plaintiff was selling his products out of two separate apartments, and the day-room in the building).   When the day room closes at 4:30 pm, he starts selling out of the apartment until late at night.       The plaintiff's attorney doesn't know him, the receipt for cash isn't a number the attorney uses,    Madonna Homes, the complex this happened in is only for elderly, and disabled people.     

I want to know how plaintiff and fiance qualified to move into a building for elderly, and disabled?    

Case is recalled, and attorney doesn't know the plaintiff, and his receipt isn't from his office. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.    Defendant is getting evicted from apartment complex because of plaintiff's harassment.    Counter claim dismissed. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Weed-Eating Foreclosure Theft-Plaintiff suing defendant (she supervised for a company that keeps foreclosed property looking good) because he claims he wasn't paid.   Defendant says work truck went down, and work was on hold for a couple of weeks.   Plaintiff says defendant owes him $4500,  $791.50 is what defendant says she owes.   

Counter claim is plaintiff destroyed and stole equipment, a weed eater, and a generator. Defendant says he never stole or destroyed anything.   ( I really like the defendant, she keeps great records). 

Plaintiff had a work /utility trailer on his property that belonged to the defendant's company.   When police came to pick up trailer, he slashed the tires, so his case is dismissed.    The trailer tire damages, and equipment loses negate the unpaid salary, so everything is dismissed. 

Don't Do Your Niece Any Favors-Plaintiff suing niece who defaulted on a car loan in plaintiff's name, car loan was four years old.   Defendant wants her trade-in value back, and down payment.   Car was repoed after four years.   Aunt/plaintiff claims defendant stopped making payments, so plaintiff stopped paying car note.   Plaintiff claims defendant bought another car.   

$5000 payable to credit union that held the note, they agreed with plaintiff to settle for that.  

Second-

Resisting Arrest While Dating a Teenager-Plaintiff (23 year old caregiver) is suing ex-boyfriend over impound fees she paid for him.  They were still dating until January 2019.   Defendant was dating his witness, at the same time for about a year.   

Defendant's witness is still in high school (she's now 18), so he's a two timer cradle robber too).    Car was impounded for unlicensed driver, and illegal modifications, man was also arrested for resisting arrest.   Man was arrested for resisting arrest, when car was impounded, and  a couple of months later too.  On one occasion he ran from the police, and his current child girlfriend was left behind in the car.   (He has a long record since 2011).   

High school girl is a fool.  Girl was in car during one arrest.  $3325 was the impound fee and fines.   Man also plead guilty and has 80 hours of community service.    High school girl is apparently prego too.   

$3325 to plaintiff.

Baby Mama Drama-Plaintiff suing baby daddy (6 and 3 years old), over an assault. Both litigants have been incarcerated in the last year too.   Plaintiff was jailed for Robbery 2, and DUI, and assault 4.   Defendant was jailed for breaking a no contact order with plaintiff, and Domestic Violence 4. 

Plaintiff doesn't have medical records.   Case dismissed until plaintiff gets medical records.  Assault dismissed.  Plaintiff claims she dropped laptop after the assault.   While plaintiff was in jail, she gave check to defendant to take care of their two kids, and he wasted most of the money. 

Case dismissed for plaintiff.  

Buddy Pass Fail-Plaintiff ($1,000 paid for pass) suing defendant over a buddy pass for airline travel.   Defendant wasn't allowed to sell buddy pass, but could only loan the buddy pass. Defendant also didn't pass probationary period, and no longer works for the airline.  Sadly, courts can't enforce illegal agreements.   

$0 to plaintiff. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Handicapped Senior Accused of Raging Vandalism-Plaintiff (caregiver) is suing her client for damaging plaintiff's car when she was pitching a fit.  Plaintiff was taking defendant on an errand, and when defendant got mad about something, and pounded on the dashboard, while screaming all kinds of nasty things.    Defendant threatened to not certify plaintiff's hours, so she wouldn't get paid. 

$836 to plaintiff.

Second-

Co-Worker Embarrasses Man Online-Plaintiffs are suing defendant/ co-worker/roommate for unpaid rent and car damage.   Plaintiffs, and defendant worked together, and when defendant became homeless they offered him the couch for $150 a week.     Defendant was in home for five weeks.  ($600 a month to sleep on the couch!)  Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car, and plaintiff said she didn't notice the vehicle damage until after defendant moved out.   Plaintiffs will not get vehicle damages.    

Back rent is $100, to plaintiffs.       However, plaintiff woman should ashamed at posting her nasty rants on social media.   

Ex Gets Short End of the Lizard Stick-Plaintiff suing her ex-boyfriend for lizard support, a false restraining order, and expenses.    They lived together at his mother's house, he moved out two years ago, and left their two dogs, and the six lizards behind, but visits the animals occasionally.    Plaintiff took care of the defendant's mother, and all of the animals.   Plaintiff pays the rent since defendant moved out.   JJ has plaintiff sign over title to defendant's old vehicle (to get her liability for the vehicle canceled).     Plaintiff will keep the dogs, and if defendant doesn't pick up his lizards in the number of days JJ specified, they will be going to lizard jail.   There is no contract for pet care.   

Defendant says he visited his late mother (I'm guessing from the photo of the woman on his lapel, she has died), often, but plaintiff says he came to visit less than once a month.     Defendant says plaintiff tried for a false restraining order, and his property is messed up or missing.    Plaintiff keeps the dogs.   

Plaintiff filed for a restraining order, and says defendant threatened her (it was only posted on his social media, but didn't mention plaintiff's name), and stalked her after the mother died.  (As they say where I live, the defendant just ain't right in the head.  If the plaintiff is smart she moved far away from where he lives)

Cases dismissed. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Defamation Travesty-Plaintiff (tow company operator) suing for defamation.    Defendant's roommate posted that the tow operator has a long criminal history, is a thief, and has a long criminal history.   Defendant circle a couple of paragraphs that are probably off some internet message board (no not a reputable, accurate board like this one), and there is no proof of a criminal history.   The roommate of defendant is dismissed from the case.   $5,000 to plaintiff.   

Defendant son is suing for $347 for towing, and alleges that he was illegally towed.    Defendant son parked in an apartment parking lot, and claims there's nothing saying no parking.    Plaintiff has parking lot pictures, showing you need a visitor's pass, and permit only,   There is a sign saying no parking without permit, or visitors pass.   

$5,000 to plaintiff.    Defendant case dismissed.    

Explicit Text Photos Cause Crash-Plaintiff suing defendant for car damages.   Plaintiff's car was parked, when defendant hit plaintiff's car.    Defendant was driving his leased car, but insurance was in girlfriend's name, and his insurance wasn't effective until the next month anyway.  Accident was in February, but insurance wasn't starting until March.   

Plaintiff found out about accident by defendant texting him.   Defendant's text says he was drinking, and some girl sent him a picture of her private parts, and that's when he hit the plaintiff's car.   Defendant says the drinking remark was just a joke, he didn't hit the car, but he checked with his girlfriend's insurance company to see if he was covered for the accident. Defendant claims plaintiff hit his car.     

$1124 to plaintiff, defendant case dismissed. 

Second-

Gun Owner Lets Man Rot in Jail-Plaintiff was in jail for 8 years, and is suing former landlord for return of rent, and property.  As a convicted felon, plaintiff could not be around guns, and was arrested for felon in possession.    The gun was the defendant's, and she waited days to tell police it was actually her gun, and plaintiff didn't know it was there.    Plaintiff lied about being convicted of a crime, on the application, but a lot of other things weren't listed on application either.   (The police were doing their job, searching a parolee's place, and had no way of knowing that Annie Oakley had an arsenal laying around.  Convicted felons are not allowed to live, or even be around firearms). 

Defendant accepted $4,171 for six months rent in advance, a month later police did a parole search, and found defendant's handgun registered to defendant.   Plaintiff was arrested, and a few days later plaintiff's sister called the defendant and told her why plaintiff was arrested.  Defendant has quite a collection laying around her house too.   Instead of calling police, defendant finally talked to the parole officer, and finally told him about the registration, and that she owned the gun.     Defendant evicted man, kept the rent for the remaining five months he prepaid.   

Plaintiff gets $5,000, and defendant gets what she deserves, nothing.   

Car Smashing Mania-Plaintiff suing for car payments, DMV fees, harassment, etc over a car sale (2006 Honda Accord) for $4,000.   Down payment $300, and $200 per month until paid in full.   Plaintiff had full coverage on the car, but defendant didn't like the amount the plaintiff had on car.   Contract says liability is responsibility of plaintiff, and that would have no legal liability for accidents, or damage.   Defendant is proud of the fact she smashed the windows of the car on the plaintiff's property, before she repossessed it. 

$1630 to plaintiff, defendant gets nothing.

  • 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