All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Freak-Out Video-Plaintiff suing landlord (I think it's a house with two sections)  for a false restraining order, changing the locks, and return of rent, and her security deposit.    Plaintiff lived with her three children, and a niece. in the unit.   

Plaintiff claims the defendant's live-in girlfriend's cat got into plaintiff's quarters, and she claims the cat is vicious (I think the cat is the only sane one) There's a fascinating, psycho level video of plaintiff shrieking at defendant.      Plaintiff claims defendant changed the locks, with her children, and niece inside.   Defendant claims her keys didn't work, but they did when she returned after a protective order put her out, the keys worked.     JJ thinks plaintiff was lying about the lock change.     

Part of the protective order proof is the video made by defendant of plaintiff going nuts, threatening defendant, and his girlfriend.    Plaintiff is threatening the defendant, and his girlfriend on the video.   Plaintiff wants security back, October's rent (while she was out from the protective order, but her relatives stayed).   Plaintiff is still living in the same place.   

Plaintiff's garbage is all dismissed.    (I hope plaintiff and her relatives are actually moving out in a week). 

Stolen iPhone, Guilty Teenager-Plaintiff suing defendant for her child stealing her son's brand new iPhone, and breaking it.   Plaintiff used the phone tracker to trace the phone to a schoolmate's home (the defendant) on the same day, the 19th.    Phone was stolen from plaintiff's son back pack. 

 When plaintiff went to the house on the 19th, but no one answered the door.   When plaintiff and husband came back the next day, the 20th, defendant asked why she was there, and plaintiff said she tracked her son's phone to the house.  Defendant said, "What makes you think the iPhone is here?", except plaintiff didn't say what kind of phone it was.     Plaintiff says the defendant got loud, and defensive.   

Defendant's story was her son found a broken iPhone, and she told him to turn it in at the school office, but phone was still at her house.    Defendant son's story is he found a broken phone, brought it home, and threw it in the back yard, and never took it to school to turn it in.     On the 20th, both set of parents, and defendant child went to the principal's office, and defendant son was pulled out of class.  When they went to the home, plaintiffs, defendant mother, and son went back to the home to get the phone out of the back yard.   

Plaintiff receives $1400 for the iPhone.    

Second-

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

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

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

$950 to plaintiff, in lieu of going back to that snake pit to get his stuff.  

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

[parrotfeathers]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

Yes, it was sad.

[TVMovieBuff]

On 11/19/2019 at 12:29 PM, funky-rat said:

She had a speech impediment, and I think that made her affect seem off.

I felt that she was very obedient to her parents and was told to behave well in court and she did. She was adorable. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Pregnancy False Alarm Vandal-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for vandalizing his car, and stalking (after they broke up).     Litigants met on the internet, and had a very short relationship.       Defendant told plaintiff she was pregnant on 4 June (in less than 10 days after they met!) .    Defendant claims they were still hooking up until mid-August.   Plaintiff says the couple stopped hooking up in mid-June right after her pregnancy announcement, and they only met the first time at the end of May.     Police report on 15 June by plaintiff claims she was harassing him.     In June plaintiff's tires were slashed.    Defendant claims they were boinking each other through August.   

Car vandalism was over Labor Day, 2016.   Plaintiff recognized defendant's car, and claims she was visiting his friend across the street. September 6 (Labor Day weekend) plaintiff claims his car was keyed, after defendant was told to leave a friend's party to avoid the plaintiff, who was invited to the party.     Defendant went home (across the street), and went back across the street to the party, claiming plaintiff's witness  texted her to come back to the party.  Plaintiff has text messages of the defendant admitting she keyed his car, 

 They only started dating on 26 May, and defendant claimed to be pregnant on 4 June, and she claimed it was plaintiff's baby.   

As JJ points out, who was the father?   It certainly wasn't the plaintiff.  They met on 26 May 2016, she told plaintiff she was pregnant on June 4, and broke up on 12 June.    Defendant claims though the litigants broke up after three weeks of 'dating' that they were still friends with benefits for several months (I don't believe her).   

Plaintiff receives money for car keying damages, $1800. 

Mustang Mishap-Plaintiff sold a Mustang for $700 to defendant, in May 2015.    Defendant had the signed title, car was never registered in defendant's name, and car was impounded in August 2016.   

Defendant claims the car was going to be taken for parts, and it didn't need registration.    Defendant didn't have funds to register the car.   Defendant said plaintiff needed to go to the DMV to sign a release of liability, and he would have registered the car (with no money, and no smog test?)    Defendant had the car for 15 months, and never registered it.   Defendant claims he only drove the car one time, and that's when it was pulled over and impounded by police.  So loser defendant gets the car back, and hopefully registers it this time. 

Plaintiff will have to pay impound fees, $1665, because the defendant never registered the car.     

Second-

Bookkeeper Caught Stealing-Plaintiff suing former bookkeeper, who was convicted of stealing from plaintiff's business.   Plaintiff says he loaned $2800 to defendant, but thieving defendant says it was only $1200.   

 Defendant wrote plaintiff a check for $2000, that says 'partial payment', and check bounced.     Defendant claims plaintiff made frequent loans to employees.    Defendant was supposed to make restitution as a part of her sentence, and claims restitution covers the amount of her loan.   Criminal court restitution was either $1200, or 658.00, not sure which.   Defendant's husband is makes a lot of excuses, and is lying.   Plaintiff says they still owe him $1300.    

(The worst part of embezzlement, is that they virtually never get jail time, and restitution is a total joke).

Plaintiff receives $1300.    

Friend Bailout Bummer-Plaintiff suing defendant for an unpaid loan to pay legal fees ($5,000).   Plaintiff claims defendant wanted money for legal fees, and defendant says he hasn't needed legal fees for many years.    A year after the loan, defendant paid plaintiff with two checks totaling $5,000, but defendant put a stop payment on one check, and there wasn't enough in the account to cover either check.  

Defendant's checking account statement does not show any account balance.  Defendant is sent out to get proof that he has $5,000 in the checking account.   The day defendant wrote check, defendant had a balance of less than $500, and the replacement check was written when account had about $300.   

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Father Reports Suspected Child Abuse-Plaintiffs (child's father, and grandmother) suing one year old child's mother /defendant for threatening plaintiff over a CPS report.   Plaintiff, and defendant have a little child together, and defendant has two other children of her own.    Plaintiff grandmother claims she made loans to defendant for home repairs, after litigants were never in a relationship, this is dismissed.    Loans are dismissed.    

Plaintiff filed a CPS report over little son's injuries, he had abrasions, marks on face, scratches, a bad mark next to child's eye.   The photos are sad to look at, even through the blur the show put on them.   Defendant claims all injuries were from plaintiff, and not her and current boyfriend.   Doctor's report says bruises are not consist with a fall, the bruises and scratches are on the child's chest, back, face, and other places.    Unfortunately, CPS gave the child back to the mother full time.   So defendant's CPS false claim report is dismissed.     

Defendant claims plaintiff did all of the injuries, and she's lying.    CPS didn't do their job in this case. 

Everything dismissed, and JJ suggests that plaintiff father keep his eye on baby.

Pit Bull Bites Man in Behind-Plaintiff suing fellow dog owner/defendant Pit Bull owner for her Pit Bull biting his behind.   Plaintiff brought his Corgi to a dog park, defendant claims bite on plaintiff's behind was plaintiff's fault.   Defendant claims plaintiff tried to kick and punch her dog.    

Plaintiff said defendant's dog was being aggressive, and when he went to rescue his 10 month old Corgi, defendant's dog bit him in the fanny.    How refreshing, plaintiff has medical bills, and just wants out of pocket medical expenses.    He also wants lost wages, and isn't getting that. 

Defendant took Cujo, after the attack, and left without leaving her name or any contact information.   Animal control had to track her down to find out animal's rabies status, and I hope they charged defendant too.   Plus, I hope her homeowner's or renter's insurance will be contacted too.    It took months to find the defendant.        (Defendant is such a jerk.    She doesn't care that her dog bit someone, and had to have a full rabies series).   

$3,000 to plaintiff (I wish JJ had given all $5,000 to the plaintiff).   (Hall-terview by defendant is delusional). 

Second-

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed, and both litigants are ousted.   Defendant claims plaintiff stole her money out of the bank by stealing her identity.   (Defendant should freeze all of her credit accounts, change banks, and never have anything to do with the sister, or the rest of the relatives again.   )

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

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

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

Both cases dismissed. 

[configdotsys]

On 7/10/2020 at 6:33 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Stolen iPhone, Guilty Teenager-Plaintiff suing defendant for her child stealing her son's brand new iPhone, and breaking it.   Plaintiff used the phone tracker to trace the phone to a schoolmate's home (the defendant) on the same day, the 19th.    Phone was stolen from plaintiff's son back pack. 

 When plaintiff went to the house on the 19th, but no one answered the door.   When plaintiff and husband came back the next day, the 20th, defendant asked why she was there, and plaintiff said she tracked her son's phone to the house.  Defendant said, "What makes you think the iPhone is here?", except plaintiff didn't say what kind of phone it was.     Plaintiff says the defendant got loud, and defensive.   

Defendant's story was her son found a broken iPhone, and she told him to turn it in at the school office, but phone was still at her house.    Defendant son's story is he found a broken phone, brought it home, and threw it in the back yard, and never took it to school to turn it in.     On the 20th, both set of parents, and defendant child went to the principal's office, and defendant son was pulled out of class.  When they went to the home, plaintiffs, defendant mother, and son went back to the home to get the phone out of the back yard.   

Plaintiff receives $1400 for the iPhone.    

The only thing missing from this case was JJ telling the defendant teen's mother that this was not going to be the last time she was in court with him. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Off-Road Vehicle Swindle-Plaintiff suing an ATV buyer for stopping payment on the check, after "As Is" vehicle stopped working.   Plaintiff advertised an ATV, for $3400, and defendant wrote a check, for the entire amount, and then defendant stopped payment on the check.  Fortunately, plaintiff held title until after check clears, and still has it.   Plaintiff tried to cash check, but his credit union wouldn't cash it.    So plaintiff talked to defendant, who agreed to bring cash in exchange for the title.   There is a text saying defendant has cash, and will swap for the check, title, and bill of sale.    Defendant bought the ATV back, and will have to pay $2500 to rebuild the engine.

Plaintiff receives $2500, will rebuild, and sell the ATV.   

Uninsured, and Driving Drunk-Plaintiff suing for crashing into plaintiff's parked car while defendant was driving drunk.    While plaintiff was looking at an apartment to rent, they heard a crash, and defendant had crashed into his parked car.   Defendant is counter claiming for medical bills, and is claiming plaintiff was backing out, not parked.   

Defendant only tries to submit medical bills, because as JJ says, medical reports will say if loser defendant was drunk or stoned.    Police report is submitted, and confirms plaintiff's story.     As usual, defendant had no insurance, and his license was suspended.   Defendant told police he swerved to avoid a deer, and hit a parked car.   Police officer says defendant was drunk, and refused blood or breathalyzer tests.   

$3,000 to plaintiff. 

Wipe That Smile Off of Your Face-Plaintiff suing daughter for costs associated with repo'd car.       However, the plaintiff/mother co-signed for the car.   Defendant claims she was paying the payments, and was up to date, but car was repo'd anyway.   Plaintiff claims defendant didn't pay over three months of car payments, so it was repo'd.   Defendant claims she paid late one month, but paid the other two months on time.   (Strange note, mother and daughter both have the same, garish, shade of dyed red hair.   I get suspicious about collusion, and scamming when everyone has coordinating outfits, and have a hard time keeping a straight face).     

Defendant has no proof she paid the missing payments.   Car was sold at auction, and shortfall was over $10K, and mother is on the hook for this.  Plaintiff had to pay July and August, not daughter.  After plaintiff couldn't find someone to take over the payments, or make the payments herself, she called the finance company, and said to repo the car.   She's still $5,000 in hole.    

 $5,000 to plaintiff.   

Second-

Muzzle Your Pit Bull- Plaintiffs suing neighbor defendant/Pit Bull owner over an attack on one of plaintiff's Pit Bulls, for vet bills, punitive damages over the attack.    There was a minor dust up on day one.   The next day, defendant's roommate was walking one dog (plaintiff girlfriend was walking the other dog too), when defendant's dog attacked the Pit walked by the plaintiff's roommate.          Defendant is getting the grieving grandfather letter that warned his kids about having a 3 year old grandson around a Pit, that mauled the baby.    

Defendant dog attacked the plaintiff's dog two days in a row, and muzzles her dog, and still keeps the animal, because "it's her best friend".     Day two, roommate was walking the plaintiff's dog on leash, the defendant's dog attacked the plaintiff's dog.   Defendant claims her dog was in her apartment, and attacked her dog inside her apartment.   .   Defendant wants her medical bills, and boarding for her dog until her lease runs out. (A landlord that has guts! Apparently the attacking dog's owner was told to move out).  

$422 for vet bills, to plaintiff

Rebellious Grandson Rent Control-Plaintiff suing her step granddaughter, and daughter's boyfriend for rent, and return of property.    Plaintiff grandson went to live with his step sister (the defendant), and plaintiff is payee for grandson's Social Security payments, and she gave the step-granddaughter some money, but kept the rest.     Grandson was an issue at defendant's apartment, and was told to leave, and the rent refund is gone.    Defendant has already packed up grandson's stuff, ready for pick up.  Plaintiff / grandmother lies about threats from defendant step-granddaughter.   Defendant told grandma she was not welcome on her property, and that's her right.   

I wonder if any of the grandson's money is left?   I bet it's all gone right in grandma's pocket.   As soon as grandmother sends a $575 money order to plaintiff, she will mail the grandson's stuff back.   If the money order isn't received in 15 days, the matter is over and defendant's can trash the grandson's stuff.       

Plaintiff has to send $575 to defendants, or property is trashed. 

I Should Have Let My Wife Speak-Plaintiff suing defendants for a $1,000 loan to move, after they were fired from job at mobile home park.    About 10 days before the defendants were fired, they were looking for a place to live.   Defendants had two days left to move, and borrowed the money from plaintiff.   Defendants claim that plaintiff engineered their firing, because he wanted defendant's job.     

$1,000 to plaintiff, and defendants absurd counter claim is dismissed.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

You're Not Cute, You're Obnoxious-Plaintiff is suing former friend for crashing her motorcycle.  There was a party at the plaintiff's home, and defendant's car was blocked in.    So defendant claims plaintiff told him to take her motorcycle, of course she claims he's a liar.    Defendant didn't have a motorcycle license, and crashed the bike.   

Sadly for the citizens of New Hampshire, defendant is a contract state employee.   It would be a Kawasaki Ninja, and motorcycle was under 'storage' insurance, because owner had surgery, and it wasn't supposed to be driven.     

Plaintiff gets her money for the motorcycle, $4167

Newlyweds vs. Dueling Piano Show-  Plaintiff/musician is suing defendants for the balance of money, for performing at their wedding (they do dueling pianos), for $4,000 paid up front.

 The wrong date was on the contract (plaintiff had it down for October, but defendants put a date in September, so it was defendants' fault).   It was hard to get substitute musicians, but plaintiff did, and they performed.   However, JJ thinks because all plaintiff did was find other musicians, and paid them $1200 extra, that plaintiff received money for doing nothing (Wrong JJ, in my opinion).     JJ says plaintiff wasn't obligated to help the defendants, and his case is dismissed.   Bet this is the last time the plaintiff spends money on a client that puts down the wrong date.   

JJ says since new musicians cost $1200, and defendants paid $4,000, JJ says plaintiff profited $2800. 

Second-

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

There was an argument in July 2019, with adult son, and plaintiff/father, and ex-wife/defendant, son, his girlfriend, and their baby.   Defendant received an order of protection, that excluded him from his own house.   When plaintiff got the defendant, and rest of the cast of thousands out of the house, he found everything gone in the home, except the stove and fridge.    Defendant thinks she had the right to take everything with her.    Plaintiff's parents paid cash for the house, and plaintiff repaid them.     After the furniture theft by defendant, plaintiff bought a few items of furniture, and is transferring his job location, so doesn't need furniture.   Defendant is counter suing for a fridge, and title for travel trailer. 

 Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant gets nothing, and deserves less. Defendant told to negotiate a buy out on the travel trailer with plaintiff, that's not going to happen. 

Procrastinate Now-Plaintiff suing brother and sister/defendants for missing and damaged property ($1100).    The litigants were all living together, and about a year ago there was a fight with the brother.   There was an order of protection against plaintiff, and it has since expired, and plaintiff wants her property back.    Plaintiff was given the right to go with a police escort to get her property back, a year ago, but plaintiff didn't pick up her property.      Plaintiff says she had no where to take or store her furniture.   Plaintiff's items were put in a back storage area, and plaintiff never picked her property up in over a year.   

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

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

[bad things are bad]

Quote

JJ says since new musicians cost $1200, and defendants paid $4,000, JJ says plaintiff profited $2800. 

I'd disagree as to the amount of the profit (his time and effort was worth something) but I think he came out way ahead. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes, both older reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Daughter Steals $10K from Mother?-Plaintiff suing daughter for her settlement ($18,000) she entrusted to her daughter, so mother wouldn't spend it foolishly.   Daughter claims mother told her to spend on daughter's wedding, mother says that's a lie.   Plaintiff received a disability settlement for COPD, and Asthma.   Plaintiff has been off work since 2002, and applied for disability after quite a few years on welfare.   Plaintiff was turned down the first time she applied for disability, hired an attorney and received disability the second time.   Plaintiff says she called daughter to hold the $18,000 check, so mother wouldn't waste it. 

Plaintiff has a lifelong history of alcoholism, and finally went to rehab for a month in 2016, and has repeated failed attempts to get and stay sober.   Plaintiff claims the $10K was not a disqualifier for qualifying for disability.    Plaintiff gave daughter cash, wanted $8000 to bank for CD, and daughter was supposed to hold cashier's check for $10k, $5,000 to CD, and keep the rest held back, and $3k for daughter's wedding.   

(Mother claims her sworn complaint, and statement is really wrong, and she's really being robbed by her daughter). 

Case is dismissed.    Sadly, daughter's hall-terview where she says she's over being her mother's parent, and putting up with mother's lies is probably the best way to go forward.    You can't convince me that the mother is still sober.  

Hawaiian Cash Flow Fail-Plaintiff suing daughter's former friend for a expenses paid for a group trip to Hawaii.    There have been several other previous trips with plaintiff, her daughter, and friend going along without incident, or loans.   The arrangement was defendant paid for airfare, and that was paid by defendant's parents.  There were no extra hotel costs, and defendant paid for her own food.  

Defendant and plaintiff's daughter had an argument, and are no longer friends, so now the money was a loan, not a gift.    Defendant says argument was because plaintiff, and her daughter kept making remarks about defendant's mother, and other personal issues. 

Idiot plaintiff advances on the Sacred Desk of Judge Judy, and Byrd has to stop her.  Doesn't she ever watch this show?    Unfortunately, there are texts about owing money for dolphin excursions, etc. totaling $375, but some aren't really separate costs.   

Plaintiff gets $250.   

Second-

Wild Pigs That Bite-Plaintiff claims neighbor's pigs destroyed her garden, and wants to be paid for the destruction.    Police report says defendant admitted they were her pigs.   They live in a rural community.    Defendant has four pigs, that are all over 100 lbs.    Defendant says two weigh 30 lbs, and two weigh 50 lbs.   Plaintiff has pictures of the pigs, and they aren't 30 to 50 lbs.    Plaintiff has a video of the pigs destroying her garden, on her property, from July to October.    Defendant claims her pigs are always penned.    The pigs are destroying the plaintiff's playground area, and rooting up the back yard.   Plaintiff has called police four times, and seven times asked the plaintiff to keep her pigs confined.    Plaintiff says the pigs bite, and her children, and others in the neighborhood can't play outside because of the danger.       

Defendant brought baby pig pictures, and only one showing the big spotted pig in a kiddy pool, and it's the same pig as in the video.    Plaintiff says there have been 24 citations for animals at large from sheriff, and one from the health department for biting a neighbor.  Defendant keeps claiming that's not her pig, but are wild pigs, then JJ suggests shooting the destructive, and biting pigs is an option. 

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

Sinking Boat-Plaintiff is suing for the return of a boat trailer from defendant.   Boat was stored, and plaintiff was authorized to sell it.    $2800 was the price (only the boat top was for sale, but defendant wanted the boat).    Defendant borrowed the trailer to transport the boat.   Defendant says she's not returning the boat trailer, because plaintiff sold her a bad boat.   I guess she can't read two words, "As is".   The first time the boat was launched it sank.     Defendant bought boat in July, husband and son-in-law worked on boat, launched it and it sank.    She didn't take it to a mechanic until November, and didn't return the boat trailer then either.   In November woman finally got an estimate to fix the boat, then put it in storage, where it still remains.   

Defendant is counter suing for fraud on the boat.    Defendant bought a 30 year old boat, and should have had an expert examine it.    Defendant claims plaintiff lied to her, said boat was wonderful, and perfect.     

Plaintiff receives his trailer back, with the help of a marshal.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Siberian Husky Breeding Battle-Plaintiff suing her Siberian Husky co-owner, and landlord for assault, deposits on dog, punitive damages, and dog costs (or something like that).   Plaintiff claims defendant said if she didn't give the dog back, that defendant would claim plaintiff assaulted her.   Plaintiff rented a home on defendant's property.    At six months the litigants entered into a co-ownership breeding agreement, with unlimited breeding rights, and AKC papers will be given to co-owner after all payments are made, and have physical custody.   Plaintiff was given physical custody in January of 2018, and still has the dog, and dog goes to defendant.       Payments are complete, so defendant gets the dog, and should receive AKC paperwork with both names on it.    If either litigant breeds the dog, which ever one owns the female keeps all of the puppies.  

There is another puppy, that was from defendant's litter, and plaintiff sold one puppy for $1,000, and kept the entire amount, instead of paying defendant $500.      

These people are a registered puppy mill, with 20-30 puppies at a single time on the property, with both litigants.  (Co-ownership is very common for show dogs, or breeding animals, usually because they have a proven competition record in the show ring, making them more valuable for breeding).

Assault was late at night in plaintiff's rented home, and defendant, husband, and son were already in the owners home, demanding the dog, and defendant said she would tell police plaintiff assaulted her.   Then plaintiff claims defendant pushed her down, and plaintiff was injured.   Defendant wanted the dog, after dog was at plaintiff's home for breeding.     

Defendant claims she wanted dog back early because plaintiff was threatening to neuter the dog, unless she bought the dog's share of the breeding stud fee.  Plaintiff was going to sell the dog, and do an emergency neuter the next morning.    Plaintiff claims dog was not to breed standard, and defendant is running a puppy mill. 

 The reason the threat about assault was effective is because plaintiff has a past arrest record.    Defendant is counter suing for dog (she has that), and for a false restraining order.   Dog is given back to defendant, and looks so happy to be with defendant, and her husband.    The one puppy from a litter that plaintiff sold for $1,000, and plaintiff didn't tell the buyer that the other four in the same litter died of Parvo.  

Plaintiff claims defendant landlord has cut chains on her part of the property, put holes in the roof, and other harassment, but still lives on the defendant's property.    (Note to plaintiff, that's why JJ is going to tell you to move, now).   There is a stay away order from plaintiff against defendant in place.   Defendant will do paperwork, so plaintiff can sell her puppies for $7500 total.   (I'm really hoping the plaintiff finally got evicted from the defendant's property). 

JJ says they should split ownership up, and defendant will pay the plaintiff (actually JJ will pay) $650 for the dog.    Plaintiff can sell the five puppies she has, and still is whining about the stud dog ownership.   Plaintiff will get $650 for the stud dog, and when paperwork is done by the defendant, then plaintiff can sell her puppies, and defendant gets full ownership of the stud dog.  

Second-

New Year's Eve Airbnb Destruction-Plaintiff /landlord condo owner, suing former Airbnb renter for cleaning costs, damages.  Plaintiff owns two condos at one site, and three other condos.    Defendant (23 years old) rented plaintiff's rental for one night, New Year's Eve.   Rental was $460 for one night, for eight people, for 3 bedroom condo.    Defendant's usual home is a rented house, with roommates.    The condo group turned out to be more than eight.    Defendant claims ten strangers showed up, wouldn't leave, police were not called, and he's blaming damages on the others.      

Plaintiff was contacted by the condo neighbors (the other condo he rents out, a very nice, quiet family group), and he went to the condo, and saw 20 people walking out of the condo and getting into Ubers.      There were even more drunken hooligans inside the condo.   The plaintiff brought a video of the booze fest, with at least 40 or more people in the three bedroom condo.      Plaintiff says everything was sticky, scuff marks on the sofa seats, spilled booze on the rug, two tears in the sofa.      Clean up was $210.  Video is of a bunch of 40 or more 20 something drunks, in a packed condo .   (I'm hoping Airbnb has a list of banned renters, and defendant is on it). 

Plaintiff gets extra clean up fee, the neighboring rental price for one night (he refunded one night of rent to the nice renters in the other condo), extra guests fees, etc.  $1171, and will get $350 security deposit forfeited by defendant.    (I think the plaintiff should have received the $30 per extra guest fee for all of the extra people). 

Foolish Love Affair-(I'm not sure I'm getting all of the switches, etc. in the right order, but these litigants are lucky they didn't end up on ID channel as victims).    Plaintiff and defendant (they're step sisters) moved in together, defendant and her boyfriend broke up, and he left.   Plaintiff met some loser, moved in with him, and that lasted a week.   Defendant and her kid moved in with some boyfriend too.      Plaintiff and defendant's boyfriend signed the lease, so defendant woman and her kid could have a place to live.    Defendant was going to pay 2/3 of the rent, plaintiff 1/3, both wanted to move out to live with boyfriends, (neither boyfriend stayed around for long), and plaintiff wants more of the break lease fee from the defendant.  

Plaintiff gets $100 for the washing machine, and I think that's it.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes, both 2016-2017 reruns-

First-

Child Support Feud-Plaintiff grandmother suing grandchild's mother (former daughter in law, with two of her grandchildren), and her husband(they have three children) for an unpaid loan.   Defendant and wife were behind in a mortgage from plaintiff's son, and defendant man wanted to use child support for the mortgage.  Plaintiff's son gave defendant $400, and was going to pay him $1100, but didn't do the $1100.   Defendant wife and plaintiff talked, and they borrowed it from the plaintiff, $1000, and $1100 the next day.   On the way to pickup the money, the defendant was told there was an issue in the house purchase, but the deposits were made anyway.   Defendant claims the $2100 was for back child support for plaintiff's son.  Repayment was supposed to be from defendant's tax refund, that would be credited to the son's money owed for child support.   (Defendant and son's ex-wife have two kids together, and one more on the way).

Latest dust up was grandson wanted to live with the father, over Christmas vacation, but son didn't return to his home.   Defendant took police to get grandson from father and grandmother's house.    When grandson was picked up at father's house, son was high as a kite, and so was the father.   Grandmother lies about trying to sign that same grandson out of school illegally.     

Plaintiff case is not going to get cash, but defendant will send $2100 through the child support office, to pay back the loan, and reduce the plaintiff's son's child support bills.   

Everything dismissed.   Grandsons live with ex-con plaintiff's son, and the grandmother .  

Don't Prey on My Daughter-Plaintiff suing former neighbor for a damaged storage shed, and property inside the shed.   Plaintiff's late mother owned two properties, one was bought by the defendant.     When mother went into rest home, and later died, plaintiff moved out and rented a room.   Plaintiff says the neighbor talked the druggie daughter into selling neighbor the wrecked shed, and contents for $75.   Plaintiff claims she could have lived in mother's house, after mother died, except the city of Clarksburg condemned the house.   Neighbor who bought house, bought shed from plaintiff's daughter, and shed was on condemned the property.

Plaintiff wanted shed back, so defendant returned it, it was in bad shape, and didn't survive the move.    Plaintiff wants $4,000 for the shed and contents.     

 Plaintiff mother is a real jerk.  The only one who is preying on the daughter is her own mother.   Plaintiff just wouldn't stop talking about the daughter's drug issues.  (My guess is the plaintiff's daughter is only in court because the mother doesn't trust her home alone). 

Plaintiff claim dismissed, because it's garbage. Defendant didn't even get the $75, and JJ gives that back to defendant. 

Second-

Ex-Lover's Expensive Mistake-Plaintiff and ex-boyfriend bought a $28,000 car on payments, and then she dumped him.    Defendant has no drivers license, and hasn't had a license for years.   Plaintiff used her car for a trade in on a first car, and when they broke up her name wasn't on the title, so she had no claim to the car.    Then they bought the $28k car together, with her name on the registration, but he was making payments.      Defendant was driving when they were pulled over for speeding, and since defendant has no license, they received a ticket.  Plaintiff will not get paid for the traffic ticket.   

Defendant says when his brother got out of his unfortunate incarceration, defendant and brother got an apartment together.     Defendant says he discovered that plaintiff was making the car and insurance payments without his knowledge, but he says that he couldn't reverse the charges. 

When plaintiff started to do payments, and insurance from defendant's bank account, he reversed the charges, and dumped her. Plaintiff made the $1,000+ payment from defendant's bank account, and then dumped him.   Plaintiff gets nothing for the traffic ticket, because she let defendant drive without a license.   

 Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Shoot My Dogs If You See Them-Plaintiff suing defendant for vet bills, after dog attack,on her dog.  Plaintiff wants to be paid for her ruined garden, from his cows escaping and violating her garden (Yes, plaintiff said her garden was violated)..    Defendant has American Bulldogs, and the attacking dog got run over a couple of months before the court case.     

Defendant claims his dog couldn't get out because of his world-class fencing, and that's a lie, because his dog got run over.    When plaintiff let her dog out into her yard, she saw two of defendant's dogs savaging her mini Schnauzer.   When she came out, the two dogs ran back to defendant's yard.   

Plaintiff says part of the fence is two rails, not full wire.   Defendant told plaintiff his dogs didn't do it, and if she saw them on her property again, shoot them.      Poor attacked Schnauzer had a lot of problems, and huge vet bills.   

(This case depends on if it's a fence out state, or a fence in state.  In a fence out state the property owner has to fence to keep animals out of their property.    In a fence in state, the animal owner has to fence their animals in, and is responsible for damage by their animals on other property).     

$2600 to plaintiff for her dog's vet bills, and nothing for her garden. (If plaintiff is smart, she'll move away from the defendant.     Defendant has a very nasty glare all through the case, and I suspect he will hold a grudge against her forever).

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Bad Blood Leads to Spilled Blood-Plaintiff/mother suing defendant / daughter  for vandalism, and the return or value of a litter of dogs.    Mother was convicted of assault, after cutting her daughter with a knife over an altercation over puppies.  Mother/plaintiff claims daughter was beating her, and that's why she attacked with the knife.    Several years ago, daughter got a Chihuahua from mother, daughter says the dog was a gift to mother, and free to her.   Daughter's Chi. had a litter, and that's when the fight started with Mother.   Daughter's dog has litters of unregistered Chi puppies, and sells puppies for $300 each.    First litter was five puppies, second litter was six, and one died, third and final litter was five puppies, and daughter still has four waiting on the right home.    Mother was given a Chi, and bought a male Maltese, and breeds cross-bred dogs on purpose.    

Daughter's Chi, bred with mother's Maltese stud.   Plaintiff claims she didn't know daughter's dog was in heat, but text messages show that's a lie.     Four remaining, unsold puppies from third litter are six months old that daughter owns, and have no vaccinations.   

JJ is right, the mother, and the daughter are irresponsible amateur dog breeders.  JJ gives a deserved rant to defendant about being a responsible breeder, and should have given the same lecture to the plaintiff/mother.   Plaintiff claims daughter came to her house to steal two puppies, and that's when the argument, and stabbing happened.    Mother was convicted of assault, and had two or three days in jail.

I've been thinking about this, and the two or three days in jail right after the attack for the mother doesn't sound like jail.   It sounds like a 5150 psychiatric hold.   I bet the mother was ruled too impaired to go to trial.    I bet mother uses the 'not competent to stand trial' defense pretty often.  

The two puppies stolen from the mother were sold by the daughter.   Mother claims the remaining two puppies were given away, but daughter claims to have proof that mother sold the puppies.    Plaintiff gave away two puppies, or sold them at five weeks old.    Plaintiff has no proof that daughter came in, and vandalized her home while plaintiff was in jail.   Daughter claims she was in the hospital at the time, because of her wounds.   Daughter chimes in that mother's dogs are never vaccinated either. 

There is a video of the aftermath.  That's when the defendant's crying starts.    Defendant claims mother cut her arm and hand, but didn't bring any medical records.   The producers blurred the actual wounds, but there is a huge puddle of blood on the porch behind the defendant.   Plaintiff claims daughter attacked her, and has no proof of an assault by daughter.   

 Case dismissed.   (Daughter has restraining order against mother, and I hope it's permanent, and enforced).   Plaintiff / mother shows her true colors in the hall-terview, with rants and raving about everything.    The mother scared me, and I can't imagine the daughter, and her family having to be any where near the mother.    In the mother from hell case, the mother and daughter both admitted that none of the puppies get shots, no matter what age they are.     I loathed mother and daughter in that case, but I did feel sorry for the daughter getting slashed by the mother, especially when I saw the size of the blood puddle on the porch.     I'm guessing that Mommy Dearest's 5150 status (crazy as a loon) keeps her from ever being convicted of assaults or anything.   Daughter needs to move far away from the mother, and stay away.    A restraining order will not stop the mother from another attack. 

(This is a very sad case, and I feel so sorry for the defendant.   She needs to get far away from her mother, before something worse happens, and needs to get proper shots and vet care for the puppies). 

Second-

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff gets $5,000.   

(For those who wonder, the stench from growing marijuana plants is apparently very rank.   They've had house flipping shows that pointed out the growing pot plants have a very bad stench).

Edited July 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[parrotfeathers]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(This is a very sad case, and I feel so sorry for the defendant.   She needs to get far away from her mother, before something worse happens). 

A hard episode to watch.   Very, very sad.  

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gets $5,000.   

(For those who wonder, the stench from growing marijuana plants is apparently very rank).

Interesting about the smell.  Maybe he was smoking it while he was in his hot tub.  Guy was a real jerk anyway.  Would hate for him to be my neighbor.

[bad things are bad]

Quote

This is a very sad case, and I feel so sorry for the defendant

I didn't feel very sorry for her, they were both horrible amateur dog breeders, daughter couldn't be arsed to take the puppies in for shots (which of course would have cut into the profit margin)

Dreadful people all around. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. repeat episodes, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Child Hit by Car-Plaintiffs are suing defendant for hitting their 7 year old daughter while she was crossing the street (daughter had a broken tibia, and knee injuries).   All medical bills were covered by medical insurance, so parents are looking for pain and suffering.    There was a neighborhood BBQ, at 4 p.m. in neighbor's yard.     Defendant's car was insured, and registered, and he had a valid driver license.   The next day after the accident the plaintiffs consulted an attorney, and attorney declined to press a civil suit, because parents had no case.  The attorney took the case for compensation, but six months later attorney dropped plaintiffs as clients.    I wonder if the defendant's future earnings were the goal?   He's a medical student, and graduated since this case was filmed. 

Defendant lives in the neighborhood also.   The parents didn't see the accident, and admit they were not watching the little girl.    The defendant was following his witness up the street, and defendant says the girl came out between parked cars, and darted in front of the car.   Plaintiff child is shorter than the cars she was coming out from behind.     Parents are lucky child wasn't killed.  

Plaintiffs are sent out to get the insurance paperwork.    Medicaid paid the medical bills, so there are no medical bills outstanding.   Attorney dropped the plaintiffs as clients, and defendant's insurance company cancelled his insurance (bet he's either riding with the General now, or the state insurance pool).   

Defendant was driving his stepmother's car, but car hadn't been changed to his name and insurance yet.   Little girl testifies, and has been coached.    

$1,000 awarded to child for pain and suffering.    Defendant wasn't speeding, the child darted out from behind parked cars, wasn't being supervised, and sometimes an accident is just that.   

Second-

Angry Brother Vandal-Plaintiff suing brother for getting mad in an argument over Halloween candy, and claims he destroyed a TV, and slashed plaintiff's tires.   Plaintiff let brother host a crab dinner at her apartment, and there was an argument with the sister over the phone .  The argument was about him eating her kid's Halloween candy.   (Note to litigants, candy is half price all over town on Halloween and for days after, so next time buy a few bags for yourself).       Plaintiff witness says man was angry after arguments with sister, and poured a full pitcher of water into the TV, and then he slashed the sister's tires.  Plaintiff says front door was propped wide open, two TVs were full of water, and the police were called.    

Defendant brother says the plaintiff's witness is lying about seeing him do this, and claims witness is an ex-friend with an ax to grind (or maybe he took her candy too).   

 $1500 to plaintiff.   

Don't Give Away My Cat-Plaintiff suing for defendant stealing his cat, and giving the cat away.    They are both long haul truck drivers, plaintiff went to visit his fiance in the Philippines, and needed a cat caretaker for the 30 days.    They were supposed to meet up in May, and plaintiff would get the cat back.    They were talking on the phone when plaintiff returned to Phoenix,   Defendant claims plaintiff didn't contact him for over two weeks after returning, and it ended up being two months caring for the cat.        Defendant told plaintiff that he had to go on the road to get more money, and his pregnant fiance couldn't change the litter box.   So the defendant found a lovely home for the cat, and plaintiff gets nothing.  Defendant is counter suing for lost wages, and pet supplies, for $3500.  

The defendant and fiance advertised for a home for the cat, and it apparently has an owner that doesn't leave the cat for two full months.     Defendant will not get pet sitting fees, no contract with plaintiff.    Instead of three weeks, the cat was there eight weeks.   Defendant has no receipts, so no money.   The defendant actually cancelled several trips to stay home and scoop cat litter.   

Both cases dismissed. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Father Pulls Knife on Friend-Plaintiff suing defendant over purposely damaging his motorcycle.    Plaintiff claims defendant came out of his house with two 10" butcher knives, defendant claims plaintiff came after him with a pipe.   Motorcycle was $4500, and was stored at plaintiff's friend's garage, at friend's house.    Plaintiff claims defendant deliberately knocked the motorcycle over, after plaintiff claimed defendant's dog chewed up the motorcycle cover, and scratched the motorcycle.   Then the fight started (why can't there be a video of this one).  Plaintiff called 911, and picked up a pipe from his car truck for self defense, and put pipe away after defendant walked away.  Motorcycle is 13 years old, and plaintiff claims the bike value went up.  

Defendant claims plaintiff was screaming all kinds of filth, threatened him with a pipe or crowbar.    Estimate to fix bike is over $3k, but only worth $1500, so plaintiff gets $1500. 

Deceased Woman's Feuding Friends-Plaintiff/caretaker suing defendant / deceased patient's daughter.   (Another person to avoid in Reno, NV, including the Walmart parking lot slammer from the other day).    Plaintiff was caretaker over 5 nights a week, and brought groceries too (but paid for nothing).    Plaintiff wants to be paid for doing extra duties, outside of the five duties she was hired for.   Extra duties that plaintiff wants payment for include helping the patient in and out of bed, and changing her bandages.  There was no salary, just room and board in return for the five nights of overnights.    Plaintiff wants wages for the other two nights she stayed in the house, for free.   

Plaintiff claims to have a contract proposal, it's not signed by anyone, and will be dismissed by JJ.    Case dismissed for rotten plaintiff.   Counter claim by defendant is for rent and utilities for staying in the house, after mother died, for several months, dismissed because there was no contract.    Plaintiff is despicable.  (Defendant should have had the attorney working on an eviction order, and presented it to plaintiff at the funeral). 

Second-

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

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

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

 $500 to plaintiff, no mileage because they had no contract. 

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

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

Plaintiff will get $500.  

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes, probably 2016-2017-

First-

If You Love Your Child...Don't Do This-Plaintiff is suing ex-girlfriend for damaging his guitar while dropping off their child for a custodial visit.     Plaintiff has 45% custody, and defendant has 55% custody of the 8 year old son, and plaintiff pays about $200 a month child support. Defendant doesn't remember exactly how much she makes, and how she gets by on $20,000 a year, and $1,000 a month rent.   During the custody drop off, the defendant is alleged to have damaged the plaintiff's guitar (he's a professional musician).    Plaintiff wanted the son a few hours early for a family event, and defendant was late for the custody exchange (plaintiff had to take defendant to court over her late drop offs, and pick ups).    Defendant was supposed to drop son off at Noon, but actually showed at 7:00 pm.    

When defendant finally gets to plaintiff's house, seven hours late, she demanded money for day care expenses, refused to leave plaintiff's house until he paid.    Then defendant grabbed plaintiff's guitar, and said she was taking it, and left.    Plaintiff called police, and has report about door damages, and guitar damages.    

Plaintiff says defendant pushed her way into the door, damaging the door hinges.   Guitar was in a soft case, and when police arrived, and told her to put the guitar down.    Plaintiff says defendant slammed the guitar down against another guitar case, and cracked the guitar in three places.    Two Luteiers (people who repair guitars, lutes, etc, I probably misspelled this) couldn't repair the guitar.    JJ give the defendant the speech about not putting your kid in the middle, but I don't think the plaintiff is.  

Defendant really is enjoying telling her side on JJ.   Defendant really thinks the guitar damage is hysterical, and I think I know who the nut case is.   Guitar was originally $3900, it's an anniversary model.   

JJ is right, they have joint custody, and there is no reason the plaintiff should pay extra money to defendant, who claims she makes so little.   

Since when is an all day summer program for an 8 year old $214, equaling $428 a month? 

$2145 to plaintiff for guitar, minus $214, equalling $1931 (or something like that).   I'm hoping when the son was older, he opted to live with the father full time, and mommy has to pay child support.     Defendant won't shut up, and keeps taking jabs at the plaintiff. 

Second-

Heartbreaking Mother/Daughter Identity Theft-Plaintiff daughter (23) suing her mother for identity theft, ruining her credit.      Daughter lived with mother for a year at about 17, before that stepmother, grandmother.    When daughter was 17, she lived with the mother, and that's when the identity theft happened.    Mother/defendant admits to being incarcerated on three counts of identity theft, and was incarcerated for two years.    Defendant claims she never stole daughter's identity, or signed up for an apartment lease, or utilities, using her daughter's name. 

The daughter found out about the identity theft when she received an eviction notice on her mother's apartment, when daughter was 17, and mother was using her social security number, and name.      There is also a utility bill in daughter's name, but she never lived there.   The credit report for daughter is full of evictions, past due utility charges, and other financial items, totaling $10k.       

Daughter lives with stepmother, paying $100 a month, and Section 8 pays the rest, at the time of the show filming.   Daughter doesn't qualify for a car loan, to drive Uber, because she was refused because of the bad credit report.  Daughter can't even get a bank account with many banks because of the back charges.    Daughter should write the mother off, and file police reports on the thefts.    Then as an identity theft victim, get another social security number, and dispute everything she can on the credit reports.  

The defendant is a total jerk, and doesn't care that her daughter is crying to being ripped off by the mother.  

(My personal opinion is embezzlers, and identity theft should be punished with real time in jail, meaning years.   Must identity theft (75% I've read) is relatives.  I'm shocked the so-called mother actually received prison time before, and I hope prosecutors saw this case, and sent her back to prison for years.   Embezzling, and identity theft need to be punished for what they are, they're stealing a person's entire life).   

$5,000 to plaintiff.    Defendant should be ashamed, but never will be.  

Deer Takes Another Car Down-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for unpaid loan to buy a car.   Defendant needed a car, so plaintiff took out a cash advance/loan for loser ex.   

It's hysterical when defendant says he has no loan on the car, because he pays the dealership every month (that's called a car loan you idiot).    Byrd seems to think defendant is funny, and stupid.   (The audience members are trying very hard not to laugh, and get yelled at).  He doesn't understand insurance deductibles either.  

What a shock, car was bought in July, paid in August, and he stopped making payments in October, in November he hit a deer, and had no gap insurance, and a $500 deductible.   The lack of gap insurance is telling to me, that usually comes with insurance unless you've had issues before.   Defendant never paid the down payment back, $1800, and $1937 with first month's insurance.   Six weeks after the car purchase, defendant dumped her.   However, plaintiff says she dumped him after he became controlling.         Car was repossessed after defendant stopped paying, after the wreck in November.   

$1937 to plaintiff.      

Edited July 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Homeland Security Fraud?!-Plaintiff suing defendant's over their failure to get her a special visa approved (no, I don't understand why people fall for this scam).     Plaintiff (originally from Slovakia), paid the defendants to complete her visa application to stay in the U.S.    Defendants have a visa facilitating business.     Plaintiff received a special visa, and it was going to expire in a year, after a DUI by defendant, but DUI was before the paperwork was put in.    Visa renewal was not approved, because of an incomplete application.   Plaintiff paid $1,000 to defendants for their assistance in the renewal, but that was after the application was submitted.   Plaintiff had to get a sponsor, and job to submit with her application.    DHS returned the application because it was incomplete.     The first application through the defendants was approved, it was the renewal that was denied.   

Why is someone being given a  visa to be an entertainment manager in a bar?   As JJ says, it's a waitress job.     Plus, a DUI is a disqualifying reason for visas.   I hope someone from DHS was watching the visa episode.     I couldn't stand the plaintiff, and the way she was blaming her mistakes, on the defendants.      

Plaintiff's case dismissed.   

Where's My Rottweiler Puppy-Plaintiff suing dog breeder for his deposit for a Rottweiler puppy.   Plaintiff wanted a puppy, and a $495 deposit would hold the puppy.     Defendant lied about due date, and never gave the plaintiff a puppy.   

$495 to plaintiff. 

 

Second-

Off-Leash Dogs Result in Puppies-Plaintiffs (mother and adult son) suing neighbors/defendants for their dogs, being dogs, and having cute little puppies.  Plaintiffs are suing for vet bills after their dog was attacked on their property, by defendants' dog.   Counter claim by defendants is for threats, and harassment.   Both houses are side by side, but on sizeable lots (plaintiff's yard is 4 lots together).  Dog incident happened in plaintiff's driveway, dogs were off leash, but on plaintiff's property.   Plaintiff was in his mother's house (next to the driveway), and daughter was letting dogs out of gate, to go to plaintiff's yard.    Plaintiffs have a Chiweenie, and a Papillon, and two other dogs (1 more Chiweenie, and a Pit cross).   Defendants claim the plaintiffs dogs are on their yard constantly, and the Pit cross actually came into defendant's home several times.    

Plaintiff was in his mothers house, saw his four dogs, and defendant's small dog getting into it.    Defendant claims her dog was bitten, and later had three cute puppies.   60 days after incident, defendant's dog had five puppies (one puppy died).   Some of plaintiff's dogs aren't neutered, because idiot plaintiff grannie wanted to breed him (the Papillon).    Byrd gets a kick out of the puppy pictures.    Plaintiffs get zero money, for vet bills, or anything.   However, defendant's dog was on plaintiff's property (they claim no leash law in their locality).  Defendants still don't keep their dog out of plaintiff's property.   

I don't think anyone should get money for anything, but defendant's didn't keep their dog penned either, and still don't.    Actually, I hate everyone in this case, but the plaintiffs more than defendants.    Defendants claim plaintiff man harassed them by coming over, after there was another dog attack.  Defendants claim plaintiff's son came on defendant's property, threatened to kill plaintiff's dog if it came on his property again.   Police report is submitted.   Defendant claims woman plaintiff blocks the road and won't let her pass, screams at defendant's 14 year old daughter, and other nasty things.   

All claims dismissed, with advice from JJ to defendants on how to make police reports to fix the harassment by plaintiffs, and defendants. 

Even Officer Byrd Thinks This is Funny-Plaintiff suing neighbor for cost of a vehicle, and punitive damages for stealing the car.  Plaintiff bought a junk car to fix up, and give to his son.   Some men came to the defendant's shop, claims car had liens, and they took the car.   There were no liens on the car, and car disappeared (a mechanic named Tony gave the car to the 'repo men', Tony was fired after this, he's incarcerated).    Defendant offered to give plaintiff a good deal on another vehicle, which makes Officer Byrd laugh.    (My guess is defendant sold the car). 

   Plaintiff paid $816 for parts for the car, plaintiff receives $1,016. .  

[configdotsys]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Heartbreaking Mother/Daughter Identity Theft-Plaintiff daughter (23) suing her mother for identity theft, ruining her credit. 

You know, in all the years I've been watching this show, the cases in which this type of thing happened really made me sad. People getting pulled over in cars for speeding or whatever and saying they are their sister, putting kids' names on utilities and not paying, etc. There have been a reasonable number of identity theft cases on JJ over the years and the lowlifes never seem to care about the havoc they create on someone's life as the person tries desperately to clear their name.

It's just such a vile, disgusting thing to do.

[poise2]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Heartbreaking Mother/Daughter Identity Theft-

This case made me so sad the first time I saw it that today I just fastforwarded through it, couldn't watch it again.

 

That poor girl clearly did not have any kind of stable upbringing, bouncing around from house to house. Had no understanding of banks or credit because no one ever taught her. But is still trying to do the right thing for herself, going to community college and working as a nanny. But because of her horrible mom, her credit is destroyed to the point that she can't even get a bank account and has to use one of those scammy pre-paid cards with huge fees as her "bank," and that's how she ended up learning about the world of credit and financing. Terrible.

 

I could not bear it to see her tearing up saying that she just wanted to live with her bio mom (like a normal young girl growing up) because she loved her and she couldn't understand why her mom didn't love her back. Meanwhile her absolute see-you-next-Tuesday of a mom sat there looking indignant that she didn't totally get away with using her daughter for identity theft and destroying her credit. It just made me so sad to see, the daughter really seemed to be trying to do the right things with her life despite her challenging upbringing, going to school as best she could and working, but was just stomped on without any reason or remorse by her mom.

 

I really hope that young girl finds success and happiness in life and is able to get back on track despite the huge handicap of her mom.

Edited July 21, 2020 by poise2
add detail.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. repeat episodes, 2016-2017-

First-

Voter Fraud and Rabbits-Plaintiff is sing her former foster daughter for the items she claims she stole from her home.     Plaintiff committed voter fraud, by filling out the provisional ballot for the defendant, and put it in the ballot box (totally illegal).     Plaintiff was foster mother off and on, for several years.    Defendant claims plaintiff changed the locks, and wants her property back that she couldn't get out of the house.    After the first time defendant was removed, defendant claims plaintiff committed Social Security fraud, and it's still under investigation. 

Plaintiff has done a bunch of internships for SICU (a union) (unpaid too).    When defendant went to the polls to vote, she was told that she had already voted.  Defendant has charged the desk twice, and Byrd is not happy.     Defendant will receive her sewing machine, rabbits, and items at the plaintiff's home (she will retrieve her items with a police escort). 

 Plaintiff's buddy lies to JJ, after plaintiff gets snotty with JJ.    I hope the local foster authorities will bar the plaintiff from having foster children. 

The items that plaintiff claim were stolen by defendant, were all gifts, including the cell phone.   

 B$*#& plaintiff sasses JJ about the cell phone defendant has, when told to forget it.    Plaintiff will get tablet back when defendant picks up her stuff.   

Case dismissed.     

Judge Reveals Secret to Living Longer- (The secret from a gerontologist is: To live to be 100, don't fall)-Plaintiff is suing over damages to his vacation rental (a condo in Florida).   Defendant and his mother, plus others were staying at plaintiff's place.   Ceiling fan wouldn't turn on.   So 83 year old mother stood on bed to pull the chain, and fell off the bed., and hit and broke a wall of mirrors during her fall.   Defendant claims the mattress wasn't firm, and that caused his mother to fall (he's counter suing for $3k for pain and suffering).   For once, the plaintiff has pictures before and after.   Defendant's mother didn't go see the doctor, and wasn't hospitalized.   

$540 to plaintiff to fix the mirror.     

Second-

Professional Driver Crash-Plaintiff suing defendant for car insurance deductible, over a car accident, when defendant made a U turn in front of him.         Plaintiff was going straight, defendant was behind  the plaintiff, defendant went to turn right, realized that he missed a turn, then made a U-turn instead, crossed in front of plaintiff, and the defendant's car was hit.       Both litigants were insured on the date of the accident.  

Defendant was a school bus driver at the time.   Defendant witness (passenger with defendant) swears she saw the cell phone light on plaintiff's phone reflecting on his face.   She testifies she could see him looking down at his phone while he was driving.    Plaintiff's insurance declined to pay his deductible, because he was on the phone.  JJ thinks plaintiff was looking at his phone, and hit the defendant.  (I hope the details of the accident are right, but I'm not sure of anything).

Case dismissed.   

The Ultimate Sister Betrayal-(Another inspiring relationship case of familial love)-Plaintiff suing sister for unpaid dental work charges.   Plaintiff opened a dental care charge card, to pay for defendant sister's dental work, and defendant refuses to pay.   

Defendant says the extra dental work was the plaintiff's fault.   The care credit bill is $7,013.    Defendant admits that the bills are hers.  Defendant claims she paid $550, but left the proof at home.    Defendant's defense for not paying the dental charges is that sister punched her in an argument over defendant boinking plaintiff's guy.   

The argument with plaintiff was when defendant was in the hospital having the plaintiff's boyfriend's baby (this is defendant's second kid with the same man).  After the dental work, defendant refused to pay after she found out plaintiff was seeing the sleazy boyfriend again.   Plaintiff is still seeing the father of defendant's kids.   

Plaintiff receives $5,000, leaving her still $2000 in the hole.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, recent reruns-

First-

Mother/Daughter Take Down of Used Car Salesman-(This is worth watching for the video)-Plaintiffs bought a used car from defendant salesman, and are suing him for selling her a bad car, and for an illegal repo.    When car was repo'd the two harridans are shown on video attacking and chasing the defendant. 

Plaintiff bought a 2013 Ford Fusion with over 102,000 miles.    Plaintiff claims she paid over $19,000 for it, and owed $9,000 on it (actually paid $3500 down, and owed was just under $8,000).   The loan was over 26% interest.   Quamish Elder is the plaintiff.   The first payment was a month late, and car was repo'd a couple of weeks later.    Because of the late and missed first payment, the borrower/plaintiff now owed almost $8,000, because the loan came due.   With the interest, the car total for all payments equal $19000, for a $12000 car.   

Plaintiff claimed car went in the shop, because extended warranty she purchased didn't cover what was wrong with the car.   Defendant paid for the first repair, and refunded the second repair to plaintiff.     (Note to plaintiff: If you have decent credit, you won't have to pay 26.75% interest).     As JJ points out, for $3500, plaintiff should have bought a used car for that amount, and not financed the car.      The plaintiff's mother needs to stop sticking Christmas bows in her hair.   Also, there is nothing wrong with driving a car with the master key, that's the kind of key you use for the car.    

Video shows the two harridans coming after the defendant, and him running, and locking himself in his office.  JJ will discuss the assault for the counter claim.    Defendant claims the plaintiffs attacked him on three occasions:    

First time was a tirade over the phone.   Second time was when plaintiff came to the dealership, making threats,  and she called someone to kick defendant's fanny, and police escorted plaintiff off the dealership property with some man who showed up at the same time.   Third time is the video of the assault with mother and daughter trying to pull the door to defendant's office open.       (The video of the two women trying to assault the defendant is epic). 

Defendant didn't see a doctor for his injured finger.    

Plaintiff case is dismissed, defendant receives $500., for the video assault.     

Second-

Truck Driver Cries Thief-Plaintiff /truck driver suing former employer for stealing money from his pay check.    Truck driver drove a semi flatbed truck and trailer, and there was an accident.    Plaintiff picked up load, an airbag in the rear end blew out, that could cause brake failure in the truck, but not the trailer.   JJ steps out to call the mechanic that works for defendant, and that plaintiff talked to about the air bag.    Mechanic says he remembers the brake issue, and fixed it.     Accident was plaintiff driving, parked, pulled the brake on the truck,   Thirty minutes later and sees his truck going down the hill, plaintiff ran after the truck, climbed in, and put the brakes on, and stopped truck after causing damages to a car.   

Defendant took $2374.00 out of plaintiff's paycheck, instead of turning the damages into the insurance company. 

Plaintiff receives $2,374.00, and defendant gets nothing.

Judge Judy Makes the Dreaded Call-Plaintiff is suing her former roommate for damages to the apartment, and unpaid rent. (moved out 3 months early).  However, but only one month was without another tenant, and didn't pay one other month.    Police were called on several occasions by plaintiff, when defendant and his boyfriend were having drunken fights.   Plaintiff says the $500 security by defendant will be needed to cover damages (defendant blames plaintiff's incontinent dog for the stains).   Defendant claims the police were called once on him, but also called on her own mother, a neighbor, and other times.    

Defendant claims that plaintiff moved someone in immediately, and that plaintiff said if he would move immediately, she would forget the one month's rent.   JJ is going to make the dreaded phone call to the new tenant.    Phone call results in the roommate ratting out the plaintiff to JJ, and there was no vacant room at the apartment.   

$1600 for plaintiff for one month's rent, and $400 for something else.  

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mother/Daughter Take Down of Used Car Salesman-

Mother tried to come off as the calm peacemaker but the video showed she is as much of a savage harridan as her daughter. And both of them are dumb as bricks since they do not understand, even after explanations, how a car sale, a warranty and a repaying a loan work. Defendant should have gotten more in damages. I have a feeling they are not finished with him.

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The Ultimate Sister Betrayal

Defendant is a deadbeat and her sister's affair was just a convenient pretext for not repaying the debt in full.

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I hope the local foster authorities will bar the plaintiff from having foster children. 

I wonder if the show is proactive in such cases and forwards a recording of the episode to the relevant authorities. The plaintiff would certainly deserve a thorough investigation.

On 7/21/2020 at 12:14 AM, poise2 said:

mom sat there looking indignant that she didn't totally get away with using her daughter for identity theft and destroying her credit.

As I recall, when JJ asked her how many times she had been incarcerated for identity theft she replied 2 (or 3) very matter-of-factly, as if it's something every parent does. I wonder how many other times she did it without getting caught.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes, probably 2016-2017-

First-

BB Gun Play Date With Dad Gone Wrong-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for vandalizing her car after an argument.       Plaintiff claims it's been about two years since the defendant spent time with their 8 year old son.     Plaintiff says the defendant was going to keep the son until almost 9 p.m.  Defendant's idea of quality time is shooting BB guns with dad.   But the defendant didn't want to keep the 8 year old until 9 p.m., so he drove the kid home.    Defendant claims that he had to help someone move that evening, and that's why he wanted the son gone, but he finally admits that a lie.   

After father and son visited, the plaintiff/mother had a date, and defendant wanted son gone, so he drove the son home to mother's place.    The litigants start arguing, defendant grabbed plaintiff's car keys, and threw them the empty lot next door, and then defendant keyed her car.   

Doofus defendant has a 19 year old, who doesn't live with him, and a 12 year old son that does live full time with defendant. 

Defendant claims plaintiff dropped charges, but there is no proof, and plaintiff said she didn't.   

$549 to plaintiff.

Bullets and Boyfriends-Plaintiff suing former roommate for stealing his TV, and borrowing his car, and returning it riddled with bullet holes.    Defendant says he went to the grocery store, but instead went to pick up his brother, and go see the brother's girlfriend.    When defendant's younger brother went to the girlfriend's, there was an argument.  Then bullets started flying.

As JJ point out, if defendant had only gone to Publix, (a lovely grocery store, that does not have flying bullets in their parking lot)  as planned, the car would not have been riddled with bullets.      Funny note, defendant is getting subtitles, since he won't stop mumbling.   

Plaintiff receives $2700 for car damage, and the TV. 

Second-

Creative Estate Planning Bust-Plaintiff mother was trying to prepare defendant daughter for a future without the mother, is suing for mobile home title, and an unpaid loan.  Defendant says mother wanted to purchase trailer for daughter, to reduce her assets (sound like for Medicaid).   Mother thought she was getting sick, so she bought the trailer, put it in daughter's name, and said that when plaintiff dies, it would simplify things.       When the plaintiff said she was going to take the daughter to small claims, and then Judge Judy, the daughter said she was going to evict the mother from the mobile home that mother purchased, and put in daughter's name.    The defendant is never going to sell the trailer, and split the money with the other two adult children. 

Defendant / daughter says she's not going to throw mother out of trailer.   JJ asks daughter to sign a life estate order for the mother to stay in the trailer, and daughter refuses to do that.    Defendant says mother split trailer into two apartments (no permits, so illegally done), to rent out the back of the trailer.     Katherine Perdue   (not related to the rich chicken family), of Harker Heights, TX (at last, a place I've not only heard of, but visited), says her only job is taking care of a disabled child (I don't know if this is a job, or her own child).    As JJ says, there is nothing she can do to force the daughter to give the mother a life estate on the trailer the mother purchased, and made the mistake of putting in the daughter's name.     A local attorney told the plaintiff that already.      

Defendant whines that the mother was not a real mother to her for many years.    Daughter never paid a penny for the trailer.   Trailer lot rent is $250 a month, and trailer was $4,000.   Mother also loaned daughter $5,000 for purchasing a trailer for herself, and daughter never repaid that either, and sold it, and never paid the mother a penny of that either. .    

JJ suggests the mother move in with someone else, and stick daughter with trailer, and lot rent since it's in the daughter's name.   Mother wants assistance from her home health aide, and daughter says the aide stole from the mother.    Daughter says mother dumped her at age 3, and didn't come into her life until she was 46 (7 or 8 years ago).     When JJ tells defendant she's a lousy daughter, unless she's going to sign a life estate on the trailer, and the audience applaudes.       The defendant claims she'll sign a life estate, so the mother can live in the trailer the rest of her life.   (Sorry, but I've been around a lot of trailers, and how good can a $4,000 trailer be?)

Case dismissed, and daughter will sign the life estate for the mother.  

Watch Out for Deer-Plaintiff is suing defendant over car accident, for damaging plaintiff's yard when defendant drove onto the yard.   Police left message for plaintiff about the damage, and truck was on his front yard too.      Accident happened around midnight, and claims a deer ran out in front of him, the accident happened, and defendant got a ride home.    Defendant drove across the yard, hit a tree in plaintiff's yard, and swerved across the road into a ditch.     

Defendant had no insurance, because he bought the truck recently, and didn't get around to insuring it.    He refuses to say when he purchased truck, but decided to drive it on a Saturday, when his insurance company was closed.   He was allowed to pick up truck from impound without proof of insurance.     (That wouldn't fly in Philadelphia, on Parking Wars).    

Plaintiff receives $4200.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Honey, Can My Ex-Lover Move In?-Plaintiff's ex needed a place to stay so he let her move in, he's suing his ex-girlfriend for unpaid balance on a car, tow fees, and .     Plaintiff's ex-gf is the defendant, and they were living together.   His prior girlfriend/fiance (she's plaintiff witness today) was his former live-in, needed a place to stay, so they all moved in together.   Defendant bought plaintiff's car, was making payments, and plaintiff claims def. stopped making payments.   Defendant says she paid for the car in full.    Plaintiff claims def. agreed to pay $5K for car, but def. claims it was in poor condition, and worth $1285-3180.    

As JJ says, her husband's ex-wife is a nice lady, they all get along, but if Jerry suggested the ex-wife needed a place to stay, and he wanted to move her into JJ, and Jerry's house, she would get his head examined.  

Plaintiff lost the paperwork on the car sale, but has some video of the sales agreement, and defendant signing the $5,000 sales contract.    Lying idiot defendant is now toast.  Car broke down, and tow truck driver has the car.   Defendant owes $5,000 minus $1225, she already paid.  

 Plaintiff receives $3775.    

Grandmother Charges for Day Care-Plaintiff /grandmother, suing her son's ex-girlfriend for loans made to her while son was incarcerated, and for babysitting for defendant's child.    Defendant was supposed to apply for state childcare subsidy, and didn't apply, so plaintiff doesn't get that.    Plaintiff rented a car for the defendant to drive, and to visit son in prison.   Defendant paid some on the car rental, but not all.    $500 loan to defendant.   Defendant is being obnoxious, and threatened with the Byrd boot.   

$785 to plaintiff (if defendant would have kept her mouth shut, it would have been less).

Second-

I'm the Father of That Child-Plaintiff suing defendant for attorney fees, and lost wages when defendant filed for a paternity test.     Litigants were boinking about the time the child was conceived.     Plaintiff says the DNA test was frivolous.   Defendant's case was dismissed with prejudice, and time has expired to refile.   Plaintiff claims child is her husband's, and husband died since child was born.   Plaintiff was boinking defendant, they separated, she met and married husband, they separated many times, and she was separated from husband when he died.   This all happened in 2008 or so.   Plaintiff had friendly relationship with defendant after son was born.     In the paternity case, the defendant waited too long to reapply to get the DNA test.   I didn't like the look of the plaintiff's new boyfriend either.   

My understanding is that if you're legally married, that any children born are legally the husband's legal child for inheritance, and social security reasons.     I'm betting the child receives Social Security payments for the late husband, since the child was legally considered his.  

Plaintiff actually got a protective order against the defendant.   Plaintiff case dismissed against defendant.   JJ gives a very wise lecture to plaintiff, about children needing fathers if possible.  

Musical Festival Mayhem-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of property withheld after an argument at a music festival.    They were at Bonnarro festival in Tennessee.    Plaintiff's stuff ended up in trunk of defendant's car, and at the end of the festival (they're from two different cities in Virginia), the litigants argued, and defendant went home.      Defendant made it to her in-law's house, and set the property down on that front porch. (defendant car ran out of gas), wanted to go home, dumped plaintiff's stuff on the in-law's door step, and left.    Defendant is counter suing for the festival ticket costs.   

Plaintiff has a list, and photos of her makeup, clothes and other stuff that disappeared.   There is a picture of defendant wearing a shirt that belongs to the plaintiff.      

Plaintiff will receive $2,000 for her items that defendant ripped off.    Defendant case dismissed.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. episodes, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Exotic Fish Mass Funeral-Plaintiff suing tropical fish seller over a dozen diseased tropical fish she purchased from him.   In a matter of days, plaintiff's fish were decimated by the disease from the sick fish.   Agreement says that any fish that arrives dead, then they will replace the fish by sending a replacement fish.  They only replace fish that arrive dead.   The agreement also says new fish should be quarantined for two weeks, and gradually acclimate the fish to the new tank.   The fish guarantee only says they replace fish that defendant sells them, and arrive dead. 

 The only issue are the nine new fish purchased from defendant, so either they get replacements or $270 back (bet defendant changed the contract FAQs about guarantees since this case).   

$270 to plaintiff.

That's No Excuse for Driving Drunk-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for stealing money from her purse, and car damages (defendant is plaintiff's on/off boyfriend, who is also married to someone else).  After the drinking at the club, defendant drove the plaintiff's car to his home, and plaintiff claims some money was stolen from from her purse, which was in the trunk of the car .   Defendant didn't want to drink any more, but drove plaintiff's car home after the accident.  The next morning, plaintiff went to pickup her car, and caused a scene, and claims he damaged her car, and stole her money.     

Plaintiff receives $575 for car damages, and that's it.  

Second-

Foster Care Horror Story-plaintiff is suing daughter for unpaid electric bill, in mother's name.   Plaintiff put her daughter into foster care when she was 10 (daughter says at 8).    Then daughter reappears as an adult, with four kids, and a couple of years ago she needed the electricity turned back on.   Defendant says she didn't ask the mother to pay for the electric bill, but it was a gift to the grandchildren.   Plaintiff put electric account in her name, and claims daughter would pay for the bill.   Defendant and her fiance, and her four children now live in Massachusetts, and she's not currently working. 

Defendant says mother wasn't much of a mother, and owed her.   Vivian Hammond (the mother) has been on fixed income, disability for six years.   Mother is in a return to work program (Ticket to Work program), under SS disability, and she can earn any amount for the nine months.   Then for three years, mother can't exceed her disability amount ($1300 a month) or SSD is cut off.   

Oldest son moved in with his grandfather, at 10 years old,  and daughter was dumped on the foster system at 10 (daughter says she was 8 because she misbehaved.    Plaintiff claims daughter was expelled in second grade.   Daughter was sent to a hospital at 8 or 10, then the county home, then foster homes (not relatives).  I'm not liking the mother at all, the daughter may have been a handful, but foster care at 8?   Plaintiff claims the son went to live with the grandfather for educational purposes, but why was the daughter dumped into foster care then? 

Defendant claims her only income at the time of the electric bill was PTSD disability for her daughter, and she had no other income.   My view, so-called mother had no expectation of repayment.   Daughter apparently has a history of bad credit, and skipping on utility bills.    Plaintiff was actually babysitting the kids while daughter was in a previous apprentice program, and daughter has been in more than one apprentice program.       Mother slams daughter, and says she could buy Xbox, and wigs, but didn't pay for the electricity.     Daughter says the games, etc for the kids were gifts from godparents.  

Plaintiff had no expectation of getting repaid, and Byrd and JJ aren't paying that electric bill, so case dismissed.  

Lose the Ring If You Don't Like Him-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for his share of down payment ($2600), and fees for a boat the litigants purchased together, and the return of an engagement ring.  Plaintiff claims he was engaged to defendant at the time of the boat purchase, but defendant says they weren't.    Plaintiff put down initial payment, and says the litigants would finance the boat together, but boat is only in defendant's name.     Defendant keeps the boat, and will sell it.       

Plaintiff's name isn't on the boat, and he's not getting boat money back.   The ring is given back to the plaintiff.  

Case dismissed.   

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Dumpster Diving, Meth Use, and Theft?-(Part 1 today, Part 2 tomorrow).     Plaintiff / landlord is suing former tenants for stolen and damaged property, and clean fees after he evicted them from his house.   Defendants say all of this is a crock, they were perfect tenants, and this is retaliation because the plaintiff's young daughter was taken out of his custody by social services (This man must be over 60, and the daughter was 13). .    The house has seven bedrooms, and plaintiff has been renting bedrooms for a lot of years.   Defendant man lived there for five years, then a month after meeting the defendant woman, he moved his girlfriend in, with another bedroom rented for her two children, ages 10, and 4.     

Plaintiff says daughter moved out to a family friend's house at 13, and still lives with the friend, then defendant woman claims the daughter lives with her mother in Florida.   On going argument with daughter is over not doing dishes, and feeding her pets (according to plaintiff). 

Defendant woman claims the daughter was afraid of the plaintiff,   The 30 year old defendant woman claims the 13 year old was a close friend.

Plaintiff claims defendant man fell back into meth use after the girlfriend moved in, and though he was current on the rent, he was causing other problems with the house.    Plaintiff claims the defendant woman said boyfriend was selling items he found dumpster diving, stealing from people, and reselling her property too, and ripped her money off that was in savings.    

Defendants say man wasn't working a regular job, but was dealing with court issues, and has a handyman service.    Rent was $1500 for the two bedrooms in the house.    Both defendants look totally zonked to me, especially the woman.  

 

Plaintiff claims the tenants wrecked the bedroom, and stole property when they moved out.    After plaintiff's daughter moved out, social services investigated a complaint against plaintiff, and he thinks one or both tenants called social services.   Another tenant is the witness for the plaintiff, and guesses the defendants were the daughter's buddies, and sympathized with her, and influenced her to move out.  I find it strange that two adults are such close buddies with the plaintiff's 13 year old daughter, and defendant doesn't even have custody of her own kids. 

Defendant woman says when she gets a permanent location, and a job, she can get her kids back from social services.    Defendant woman then gets loud, and hysterical about why she hasn't done the work to get her kids back.   One child is with his father, the other one is with defendant's mother.    Defendant woman only has a promise of a job, but not a real job yet.  

Defendant woman has lost custody of her two kids, and claims she's cooperating with social services, taking urinalysis tests often to get her kids back.   I'm believing the plaintiff, over the defendants.   

Defendant claims she has all of the rights to her children, so why doesn't she have them with her?    The defendant man says they live in motels.   CPS has a closed case against the defendant woman, but she needs a permanent place to live, and a steady job to get her children back.

After defendants' were evicted, and plaintiff and witness say defendants trashed the room.    Defendant woman has two audio tapes, that will be played tomorrow on Part 2.  

(This is a great day for me.   The last time this was on it was preempted by a NASCAR race, so I only saw part 2).   This is part 1, part 2 is on tomorrow 

Second-

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

Defendant counter claim ended with the clothes carton return, and the car issue dismissal.  Because defendant sold the phone, and iPad, plaintiff is told to keep the clothes defendant shipped to her, and sell them.   Phone was $1099.   (iPhone 11), iPad was $1006. 

Plaintiff gets $2,000 for the iPhone, and iPad.   Defendant will now get her cartons of clothing back. 

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

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

Plaintiff gets $3216

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Good Samaritan or Stalking Friend-Plaintiff suing defendant/ former friend for the return of a TV (5 years old), a broken phone, and gas money ($550).    Defendant claims plaintiff stalked her. (Defendant's beige underlay material on her lace dress makes it look like she's not wearing anything under it).   Plaintiff loaned defendant a TV.  Defendant says TV wasn't a loan, but a gift.    TV is still at defendant's former home, when she moved out to avoid an abusive ex.      Plaintiff gets nothing for TV.   

Plaintiff claims defendant broke her phone, while defendant was pushing plaintiff out of the apartment she was in then.   Plaintiff claims they were in a relationship, but defendant says they were just drinking buddies.  Plaintiff came to defendant's new apartment, defendant told plaintiff to leave, and pushed her outside.    Plaintiff claims defendant threw her phone out.     

Case dismissed.  

Blindside Collision-Plaintiff suing  defendant/motorist for car damages from a car accident.    Defendant was driving her witness' car, which was fully insured.    Plaintiff loaned her witness her car, (her live in boyfriend).   

Plaintiff was in left lane, driving straight, and a truck was in right lane by plaintiff, defendant claims she was waved out from a side street to make a left in front of plaintiff.   Plaintiff says truck next to him in the right lane was turning right to the street, that the defendant was coming out of.     Defendant pulled out to make left turn, and plaintiff hit her.      Defendant swears the plaintiff was behind the truck, swerved around it, and hit her.   Either way plaintiff had right of way.   Both cars were insured.     

 $1250 to plaintiff

Second-

Pocket Pit's Owner Attacked by Chow?!-Plaintiff suing neighbors for their dog attacking him, and his dog, and is suing for medical bills, and vet bills.   Defendants' dog was being walked by a six year old, dog is a Chow, and weighs over 60 lbs.   Plaintiff has a 21 lbs. pit looking dog, and defendants have 3 dogs (2 small ones, and the Chow).     Plaintiff was going to walk his dog on a leash in front of his house, when defendant's dog, also on leash, attacked plaintiff's dog on plaintiff's property.    

Plaintiff says defendant's dog ripped the leash away from the little kid (he weighs the same, or less than the dog), and defendant's dog attacked his dog, and plaintiff was bitten while saving his dog from the defendant's Chow.    Defendants say the plaintiff was only bitten because he got in between the dogs.   Chow has a history of aggression to other animals.    Defendants claim this their dog's only bite, but dog wasn't up to date on rabies shots at the time of the attack.

$1256 to plaintiff for vet bills, and deductible for medical costs for plaintiff .  

Homeless Teen Meets Good Samaritan-Plaintiff suing defendant for medical expenses, clothes, and other money he spent on the defendant.  Defendant was homeless, kicked out by parents, and living in a cheap motel with a friend a few times a week.  Other times the defendant was sleeping on the beach.     Plaintiff rented a room in the motel, and the 48 year old plaintiff started living with the 19 year old defendant.   

Plaintiff is trying to sue for room costs, food, medical expenses, and clothing he bought the defendant.   

Plaintiff case dismissed because it's garbage.   

Back to Mommy?-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan.    They lived together for about three years, then defendant moved back in with his mother.     The two were going into a business together to flip cars bought at auction, and split the proceeds.   Plaintiff says she made the defendant a loan to start the business, $7500 and only has a copy of the front of the check.  

Case dismissed without prejudice so plaintiff can collect more evidence, and file again in local small claims court. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Dumpster Diving, Meth Use and Theft-(Part 2 of yesterday's case)- Plaintiff claims the defendants made a false report to CPS, and he claims the defendants false report made his relationship with his daughter fall apart .   Plaintiff's 13 year old daughter left his home after a fight, and 30 year old defendant claims girl is her best friend (I may be friendly with people that much older, or younger than I am, but I never considered someone like that a best friend, defendant woman is a few sandwiches short of a picnic).   

Audio tape is submitted by defendants of plaintiff yelling at them.   Plaintiff was the landlord to defendants, and told them to leave his house immediately.   The plaintiff has been contesting daughter's custody with ex for years.   Plaintiff witness (building manager, and fellow tenant) says before and after room pictures show lots of filth and damage, including the bathroom vanity being stolen. 

There was a 55" TV in the defendant's room, and a 65 " too (why the two TVs?).   Defendants claim they were buying TV from plaintiff, but only paid $100.   Price was claimed by defendants to be $400 or $500, but defendants took TV with them, and pawned it.    

Defendant claim the plaintiff kept a lot of their items.  Defendants claim the mirror over the vanity fell off of the wall, and smashed the vanity.  However, vanity is totally missing in the after pictures of the suite of rooms.  Defendant man moved in five years before this, and then woman and child moved in (defendants only met a month before move in). 

I wonder how JJ would react if CPS was investigating her, and her child moved out permanently?   I bet not very well.   I understand the plaintiff being angry, and telling the defendants to move out.  ( I remember reading how ticked JJ was about a son or stepson being accused of malfeasance in his business dealings, so a CPS investigation would not go over well).       

After the CPS call, the defendant's daughter  left before CPS removed her, and moved in with family friends, and then with her mother in Florida.   However, why does the defendant woman talk about one kid, and then defendant talks in the hall-terview about getting her kids back?  My guess is she lost custody of one kid a long time ago.   

The plaintiff's story about drugs, and the defendants is sounding more believable every second this case continues.  Defendant woman claims the landlord, and witness trashed the rooms after they moved out. 

 Damages are a missing bathroom vanity.   Plaintiff witness manager says defendants never said anything about damaged vanities, or mirrors, and defendant has no proof of the damage being reported.   

Plaintiff finally got rid of their stuff, but it took 10 days to move it out, and they kept everything for 30 days plus, after that.    Plaintiff and defendants had a lot of communications about the move out, but defendants never showed up to get their property.      JJ wants to know where the defendants stuff is.    Defendants had a lot of excuses why they couldn't show up for move out, including someone tried to blow up the male defendant's car, car died, car needed work, and wanted to make appointments at strange times.   

(Plaintiff claims male defendant is on Meth, and claims defendant woman told him about male's issues.   Sadly I think both defendants are on something.  Defendant woman has a goofy smile though the entire case.   She also claims the plaintiff lied to get a restraining order against the defendants.  I bet Officer Byrd isn't doing the crossword puzzle during this case, and I bet the security guys are close by).  

Defendant woman, and man, and son are moving to Mexico, bet daughter won't be going with them, and the son won't if CPS hears about this case.  

JJ doesn't like the plaintiff.   (JJ again proves landlords shouldn't come on this show).   

$400 to plaintiff, for the TV.   

Second-

I'm a Cash Guy, Not a Tax Guy!-Plaintiff suing former employer for non-payment of wages, and so he didn't pay employer for a truck he was buying from him, and a false police report.   Plaintiff was pulled over in a felony stop by police over the truck.    Plaintiff receive a truck that wasn't working well, so he gave it back to the defendant.   Then defendant said he could finance the truck for the plaintiff, because plaintiff does various jobs, and works for cash, so defendant had credit.   

Litigants had a falling out, and plaintiff wasn't working for defendant any longer, and plaintiff stopped paying for the truck, during the refinance process to get loan in plaintiff's name.      Plaintiff claims he was falsely arrested after a report the car was stolen.   However, defendant told police a friend was using the truck he purchased in his name, and friend was going to pay the car note.    Defendant was right to report the truck as stolen.    

JJ's right the truck was stolen by plaintiff.   

Plaintiff claims the truck no one could get into had a lot of his property inside.  There is no proof of anything that was actually in the truck, or missing from the truck.

Defendant says his wife already beat the plaintiff in local court.

Case dismissed.  

 

[parrotfeathers]

On 7/23/2020 at 5:40 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gets $2,000 for the iPhone, and iPad.   Defendant will now get her cartons of clothing back.

Isn't that the defendant with those RIDICULOUS eyelashes?  Hurt me just looking at them. 

[NYGirl]

I'm so angry with the repeat plaintiff today who paid child support for his 1 15 year old daughter and kept getting it reduced because:

(said in whiny voice) he had to take care of himself!! (end voice)

In the halter view he said that his wife was lazy and living off the $180 he paid each month for his daughter.  $180!!!!! $180!!!!! (which Judge Judy said couldn't feed a goldfish for a month or her dog for a month).

God did I really want to punch him.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First (2017)-

Family Movers and the Police Chase-Plaintiff suing her former friends (father and daughter) over a rental car that was impounded by police, she wants $5,000 for the rental car costs.    Plaintiff's hoarder father was being evicted from storage units, and a home, some delivered to plaintiff's home (huge mistake).   Defendants were family friends, and worked about 20 days moving stuff (defendants say 45 days), and were to be paid $10 an hour.   JJ will estimate 30 days of work, equals 240 hours, $2400 total wages (plaintiff didn't keep track of hours, or days worked).   Plaintiff gave them $1000 up front. still owing $1400.   

Defendant man says he was given the Jeep Cherokee, for a down payment of $2500, man was going to work off.    Then pay $200 a month to pay off.    JJ will call the Jeep paid,    Jeep is in Reno, NV, impounded by police, and title was never signed over to the defendant.   (On a shallow note, how much younger is the plaintiff's fiance than plaintiff?)

Plaintiff will have to get a copy of the title, and sign it over to defendant man, and call the payment for moving even.  Plaintiff will sign the title over to plaintiff.  

Plaintiff rented a car, (after her Mercedes was crashed by defendant man) it was used by defendants to travel to and from the moving venues.   Defendant daughter gave it to her boyfriend, who ended up arrested with daughter, by the police during a police chase.   Plaintiff wants $5,000 for letting the defendants, and boyfriend to drive the Hertz car, and to get it out of impound.    Defendants weren't on the rental contract as drivers.   JJ looks at the rental contract.  (Officer Byrd would love to kick the plaintiff's fanny for her dithering, and not giving JJ what she asked for).   Title to impounded Jeep will be signed, and given to defendant man.   

Defendant daughter claims plaintiff gave the keys to the boyfriend.   Daughter claims they were arrested after a police chase, and boyfriend is still in prison.   Daughter denies she knows why boyfriend was arrested, after the police chase while eluding.   Daughter claims they lived with plaintiff for three weeks to move, and clean house.    Defendant daughter claims plaintiff said they were going to open a thrift store.  Plaintiff claims parents were hoarders with a full house, and yard, and multiple storage units.   

Everything for both sides dismissed, and defendant man gets title to Jeep signed over.  (All of the litigants, and witnesses are idiots).

Second-

Mother Leaves Toddler in Car-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend, Baby Daddy over an assault, ramming her vehicle. and other garbage.     Plaintiff trespassed on defendant's property, found him with another woman, left her two and six year old children in the car alone (Defendant is only father of the two year old).   Plaintiff was supposed to meet defendant at defendant's mother house, and she claims he would give her some money.     (Defendant is wearing the large, shirt, with fold marks, I'm suspecting nasty tattoos, or something inappropriate under it).    Defendant said they were going to meet at a neutral place, because he knew the plaintiff wouldn't be rational if she saw the new girlfriend.    

There is no custody support order for the two year old.    She just would call the defendant, ask for money, and they would meet and he would pay her.     Defendant claims they didn't agree to meet, or come to his mother's house (he doesn't live there), when the defendant's new girlfriend was there.     Defendant said he told plaintiff not to drop in at his place, his mother's place or anywhere else.  

(Quinton Fitcheard has a cute posting on FB [it pops up when you search his name], saying "Love You, Mrs. Judy"-it's actually hidden now.  He looks really familiar to me.    )

Plaintiff claims she called defendant, he didn't answer, and so at 8 p.m. she saw his car at his mother's house.   Plaintiff left her children alone in the car, she walked into the house without permission, and went to the family room where the defendant was (actually she said, Man Cave).   Plaintiff demands money from defendant, and he asked her why she was in his mother's house.     

He's counter suing for stalking, and car damages.    Plaintiff sat down in Man Cave, and refused to leave.     Plaintiff was sitting there chatting with defendant's sister about going to a strip club, meanwhile the two children were sitting alone in the car outside.   Plaintiff claims defendant grabbed her hair, dragged her outside, and threw her outside.   (I personally would like to do the same to her).

Police report claims defendant assaulted her.    Defendant says he told woman to leave, several times, and claims she lunged at him, and he was fending her off.   Defendant claims she bit him, punched, and kicked him, and several others.    When defendant finally went outside, defendant claims she pulled her car in front of his, and wouldn't let him leave.   

JJ says plaintiff started all of the trouble, and he shouldn't have gone to his car until plaintiff left.   Plaintiff didn't file for a protective order, mostly because at the hearing there would have been eight witnesses against her.    JJ suggests child support with automatic deductions by the court, with fixed court ordered visitation, and have a neutral exchange place.    

JJ tells plaintiff to leave the defendant alone.    Both cases dismissed.  

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Airbnb Surfing Fail-Plaintiff / Airbnb owner suing former tenants for a cancelled trips, cleaning,  abuse of property,  and harassment.  Plaintiff claims tenants were a nightmare, used her vegan kitchen to cook meat, so she had to replace pots and pans.     Defendants stayed a month, but claim the plaintiff wouldn't let them used the air conditioner.    $436 was the payment for the 3 weeks.    

Airbnb is near Sacramento, and two defendants were long distance, trying to save money by surfing Airbnbs.  On arrival the defendant said they couldn't use the kitchen for meat, etc.   After 3 weeks they agreed on $800 a month.   Defendants paid only for the 3 weeks, paid for June, and in July or August they didn't pay for those months. (What kind of pension is defendant woman on?  $1800 a month for life, no adjustments).    Defendant claims it was so hot upstairs that the "toilet water boiled".     

Defendant woman claims it was too hot and uncomfortable, but stayed July and August without paying anything, and didn't move.    Oh no!  The "ate the steak" analogy again.    On June 18 defendant woman, and plaintiff had an argument, and defendants claimed they were leaving, and they didn't leave until the end of August.   

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer, and plaintiff lost in court already.   Court agreement was that squatter defendants would leave by 1 September, and plaintiff wouldn't sue for July and August rent.   Plaintiff shouldn't have been allowed in court, this was all decided locally. Defendants are despicable squatters.  (I had to laugh, JJ says the 'ate the steak remark', and the defendant woman says it was a Vegan kitchen, and they never cooked steak.)   JJ has to explain what 'ate the steak' means in excruciating detail.  

Cases dismissed.  

When Trampolines Attack- Plaintiff is suing neighbor for her trampoline (Jessica Sunrise Shilquist) damaging his property, when a wind storm blew it on his property.   Trampoline landed on plaintiff property, against his house, and ended up on his  truck.     

Defendant claims her trampoline is innocent.    Defendant bought trampoline, and a big wind storm came up.   Defendant is a renter, and didn't have renter's insurance until after this. 

$691 for roof repair, $65 for railing, $500 (deductible) for truck=totals $1255. 

(My guess is trampoline wasn't secured at all, and defendant is lying.  It's not an act of God either, God doesn't furnish trampolines).   

Second-

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

Plaintiff (I'll call him Mr. Deadbeat) wants extra money, because there were $17k of over payments, and that can't be paid back before daughter ages out.   My guess is that daughter, and daddy won't have any relationship after this (probably never had one anyway).      In 2018 child support went to zero, so Mr. Deadbeat isn't getting his extra money back.   And Mr. Deadbeat says the judge was wrong, and says it to JJ.  Mr. Deadbeat stopped working in 2014, claiming he's 'being disabled', but started a company then too.   Mr. Deadbeat admits to four trips to court to reduce or eliminate child support, defendant says 

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

Plaintiff's witness stands up and interrupts.   JJ yells a "Sit" order loud enough that I bet every puppy watching this show just planted their fanny firmly on the floor.   Plaintiff's witness gets his stupid rear tossed.     

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

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

Mr Deadbeat's case is tossed.  (By the way Mr. Deadbeat, child support is to support the child, not to bank it, especially at that minimal level of payments)  ($180 a month is $5.00 a day.   The kid could barely pay for a meal a day at McDonald's for that). 

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

$967 to plaintiff.   

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Never Say a Judge Made a Mistake

JJ started the case by saying she was not revisiting a decision made by another judge, but she managed to find a way to do it anyway, citing "moral" reasons and the "court of equity" principle, which she applies rather infrequently and arbitrarily. The guy was whiny and a penny-pincher, but he had the law and court decisions behind him.

[bad things are bad]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims it was so hot upstairs that the "toilet water boiled".  

That little gem deserved more attention! You mean to say the house was 212 degrees??

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Gun Play and a Knife Fight-Plaintiff suing former roommate for damages resulting from a false arrest.    Defendant purchased a car from a friend of the plaintiff, and plaintiff wanted a commission of $250 over the car sale.    That started the disputes between the two litigants.   ON the date of the argument, plaintiff was in the kitchen, girlfriend was napping after work, and defendant says plaintiff threatened him with a gun he pulled from his left pocket (plaintiff is a gun licensed security guard, who is right handed, and legally carries a gun).    Defendant called police, claims the plaintiff threatened to shoot him, and plaintiff was arrested, spent two days in jail, and his gun was confiscated.  

Plaintiff admits he asked the defendant to stop using his personal kitchen utensils, not cleaning them after, and the fight was on.   Defendant now claims the plaintiff pulled the trigger on the gun.   I think the defendant is more than a few sandwiches short of a picnic.   He's embellishing in court, from what he told the police.   I don't believe the defendant at all, but I don't like the plaintiff either.  

JJ believes the defendant, and awards him $1500.   Plaintiff case dismissed.

Most Respectful Bad Driver Award-Plaintiff is suing a bicycle rider for hitting his car while the plaintiff was turning right.   However, the very polite plaintiff is full of poo-poo, because there is a big sign saying "No Right Turn".   When plaintiff turned right, illegally, he crossed the bicycle lane, and hit the defendant.     Plaintiff claims the No Right Turn was only when the construction people were present, but nothing on the sign says anything about conditions.    Defendant is lucky he wasn't killed.   It looks like plaintiff hit defendant near or in the crosswalk.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Second-

Online Dating Fail-Plaintiff suing former boyfriend (met through a dating website).   Plaintiff went from California to Arizona, defendant moved to Arizona, and then litigants moved in together a few months later, in plaintiff's rental house. 

Plaintiff lived part time in her late mother's trust house in California, and in a rental house with defendant in Bullhead City, AZ.   Litigants only have a lease signed by them, not the landlord.    Plaintiff wants her items she bought for the house back, most of which are gone, so she's not getting money for those.   

Case dismissed. 

Who's Telling the Truth?-Plaintiff suing former tenant for unpaid rent, property damage, and various property she claims defendant took.

Plaintiff claims she paid the security deposit, but the receipts don't state they're from the rental in question, and are many months before move in.      When plaintiff's boyfriend moved in and rented a room, the defendant evicted him.   Plaintiff presents room payment receipts, but didn't pay in full, and has since moved out.       

Defendant says he moved out because of on-going drug use in the house, and other issues.      Plaintiff claims defendant trashed the room, and had bed bugs.   Plaintiff claims the bed bugs got into the wall socket, and infested the light switch (Is that even possible?)     

Bike will be returned, and $500 to plaintiff (I think). 

Restraining Order Roommates-Plaintiff suing ex-roommate for return of rent, legal fees, and a false restraining order, plus belongings back.   Litigants rented a multi-bedroom place together, rented  bedrooms to other tenants.   Defendant claims he paid the entire security deposit, and landlord gave the deposit to plaintiff.   Plaintiff also wanted to move her boyfriend in, and a large dog (no pets was in the lease).    Plaintiff looks like a bunny boiler to me. 

Plaintiff claims receipts for a previous house were the receipts from this house in question. Plaintiff didn't pay for the last 4 months rent.    Fortunately, plaintiff moved after being a squatter for the last four months.    All of plaintiff's property is not with the defendant.    $250 to the defendant for the security deposit.   

Plaintiff receives what she deserves, nothing. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Recipe for Childcare Disaster-Plaintiff is suing son for damaging and stealing her belongings, after he locked her out of their shared home.    Plaintiff claims the son, and his current wife have custody of Noah (one of his children), after a CPS case in Colorado.    Plaintiff says she saw signs of abuse on Noah (small bruises, etc), after son and his children moved out of the shared home with plaintiff, wife, son, now wife, and the passel of children.    Plaintiff was worried about Noah, so they sent money for Noah's mother to come where they live (in Indiana).   

Defendant claims mother was getting into illegal activities,, couldn't afford the trailer, so she gave it to defendant, and mother and wife moved out to camper trailer. 

So there are four children less than 4 years old, with defendant wife taking care of her infant twins, two kids under four by someone else, and Noah.    So defendant wife was a stay at home mother to all five kids, and some kids went back to the other parent or to defendant wife's mother, leaving her with Noah, and infant twins.   

Defendant claims plaintiff and wife were getting into illegal activities, but they all moved in together in mother's trailer, and mother and wife moved into a camper trailer.   Defendant claims one plaintiff tested positive for meth use, after a domestic at the home.   (What is wrong with the defendant wife?   She's shaking her head, and twitching). 

The child Noah is now in a foster home, and supposedly coming back to defendant's home. There is a case open on Noah with CPS.   Plaintiff claims that Noah's mother sees her kids often. Defendant claims plaintiff's wife tested positive for meth use, and Noah went to foster care, and the other kids went to other family.   One other child of defendant wife, is with wife's mother, and the twins are with the wife's mother too.   

Plaintiff claims she had property in the locked garage at the house, and is suing for two sports jackets, a sports gumball machine (branded with some team's colors and logo).   

There is no proof of the missing items value, so plaintiff case dismissed.   

Defendant case is dismissed, because he's a jerk.   I feel sorry for little Noah going back to his father's home.    

Frat Brothers Fight-Plaintiffs are suing former fraternity member and roommate for moving out of their frat house, and breaking the lease. .    However, you don't have to be a member to live in the housing, and the plaintiffs didn't try to replace the defendant.   Defendant's grades were below fraternity requirement, and he was booted out of the fraternity,  However, defendant signed a lease, and was still obligated to pay for the housing.   

(On a personal note, I hate the beard, and funky hair on one plaintiff, and the other plaintiff shouldn't have done whatever he did to his eyebrows).  Defendant's daddy whines that his son signed the lease, but never moved into the frat house.   

$3950 for plaintiffs for broken lease.  

Second-

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed, and counterclaim dismissed.  

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

Case dismissed as a scam. 

[Debcares]

On 2/27/2017 at 7:28 PM, Toaster Strudel said:

The daycare case was epic.  I can't believe this woman is taking care of 12 children ALONE (he husband has a job now).  She's using the older kids to take care of the youngest ones! Unbelievable.  Like JJ said... that's HER job.  Not the siblings'.

I want to know that she had her license pulled and maybe criminal charges!  Anyone know???

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

   Defendant claims it was so hot upstairs that the "toilet water boiled".   

My episodes are all over the place so I saw this episode yesterday. And who would sit on a toilet where the water was "boiling"? They were just trying to scam and surf around Air BNBs. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Infant Breaks Leg in Day Care-Plaintiff parents suing day care owners for medical bills, after their four month old son broke his leg at the day care.  Plaintiff had several old children in the day care for a few years, and then put the baby at the day care from 7 weeks, to 4 months, when the injury happened.     Defendant was watching between 10 and 12 children, (4 to 6 child care children. and 3 of her own) without helpers.    Defendant was actually licensed, and still is.   How on earth can the defendant still have a license to run a day care?   As JJ says, the Idaho authorities are idiots for not yanking this woman's day care license. 

Plaintiff dropped the baby off, and a few hours later the day care provider called, and said the baby wouldn't stop crying.    The defendant is blaming the injury on the 9 year old sibling (plaintiff's kid), she says the baby cried, and she told the 9 year old to pick up the baby.   Defendant says, the plaintiff's 9 year old was dragging the baby across the floor by the legs, and that's how this happened.    Defendant claims she told the 9 year old to "play nicely".   Defendant is despicable.     Investigators said they couldn't prove it wasn't an accident, so no action was taken against this fool's day care license.   Defendant says when she called the mother about the baby crying, that the plaintiff said the baby was crying because it was constipated.   This is outrageous.    If anyone dragged the baby, my guess is it was one of defendant's kids. 

My guess is the CPS in Idaho is either incompetent, or defendant is related to someone, so nothing happened to the investigation.   

 Then the defendant called the plaintiff mother to pick up the baby, and the baby had to have surgery for a broken leg.   

Plaintiff $5,000 ($4,000 medical bills, and $1,000 for pain and suffering). 

Hair Straightening Trauma-Plaintiff suing former hair dresser for causing her hair to fall out (Note to others, if the hair dresser that's going to do your hair has a hairdo that looks like the defendant's, don't do it!).      Defendant claims the plaintiff had her hair straightened, and then had someone else braid the hair, and that caused the breakage.    Plaintiff had her hair straightened for a long time at the salon, stopped and went natural for three years.   Then went back to defendant's salon for a straightening (this was her third straightening appointment with the defendant, .   Defendant is suing for slander, and defamation of character.  

Hair was relaxed on 20 October, and two months later was the first complaint to defendant about breakage.    This was after several wash, and roller sets on the hair, and plaintiff claims there were no other chemical, braiding or other procedures on her hair.      Plaintiff wanted her hair relaxed more often than the two month gap schedule the defendant recommended, but she demanded that her hair needed relaxing more often.     There is no way plaintiff didn't have a more immediate reaction from the relaxer.      (My personal guess is that plaintiff dyed her own hair, or braided, or had a weave or extensions put in, but did something to her own hair very soon after the straightening.   Dying or other chemical processes will make the hair fall out when combined with straightening). 

Plaintiff claims the third relaxing the defendant used a different method and product on her hair.   She also says that her hair wasn't staying straight, so my suspicion is she went elsewhere to have more relaxer put on, and that's why her hair fell out.    You don't get a treatment, and then have chemical burns show up two months later.   

Plaintiff will be getting nothing.     Defendant has no proof of plaintiff's slander (though JJ says plaintiff has been talking all over town about her hair loss)..   

Cases dismissed.

Second-

 

Dysfunctional Household-Plaintiff and father suing defendant /former girlfriend for a false restraining order, and attorney fees defending against the restraining order.      Defendant filed a restraining order against the boyfriend, to get him out of the apartment to move her new boyfriend in.    Plaintiff /boyfriend lived with defendant for three years, with her two minor children.  Plaintiff father moved in when he had health issues.   

Litigants broke up, but lived together with their kids (2 are hers, 1 is his), for a while.    The new boyfriend wears an ankle monitor, for criminal reasons.     Defendants didn't want the boyfriend, and his ankle monitor around the kids.   (I bet it's a condition of him staying out of jail to never be with minor children). 

Defendant filed for a restraining order, to get rid of plaintiffs, and move in boyfriend (new boyfriend can't live (he's a registered sex offender with an ankle monitor).  New boyfriend was also convicted for drug offenses. 

 Defendant claims her 8 year old was hit on the arm by plaintiff, and they didn't report to the police for over a week.   Then defendant filed for the protective order, so she could get the plaintiffs out, and she could keep the apartment.  Defendant did this to avoid going to housing court, or moving to another location.    

Plaintiffs had to hire an attorney to defend against the protective order, because adult son carries a fire arm at his security guard job (convictions for domestic violence means no more license to carry fire arms).   

Plaintiff's get some property back from defendant, they also receive motel and moving fees, and $700 security deposit.   

 $2300 for plaintiffs, defendant gets nothing.   

 

My Tenant, the Vandal-Plaintiff suing former tenant for vandalizing her rental property.    Defendant moved out in (defendant is confused, and says she either moved out in June 2016, or August 2016).  Apparently the actual move out was August 2016.    $550 was the security and pet deposit (supposed to be $850).   

Plaintiff/landlady found out multiple people not on lease, including defendant's husband, nephew, nephew's girlfriend, defendant's two brother, and two other people, were living in apartment.      Original roommate moved out very quickly after signing the lease.     

One resident included defendant's husband, who she's trying to serve divorce paper on (he has 'anger issues' according to defendant), but defendant can't find him for divorce paper service.  Defendant did not take pictures of apartment condition, and didn't do a walk through, or notify the plaintiff when she was moving.   

I love the plaintiff, she has before, and after pictures of the apartment.    There are large holes punched in the wall, discarded cigarettes on the carpet, and lots of trash.   Plaintiff hired some outside repair people, and her husband and son to do the extensive repairs to the apartment.   

Defendant claims in hall-terview that someone else must have broken in, and damaged the apartment after she left.  

$5,000 to plaintiff.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Anger-Fueled Conspiracy Theory-Plaintiff /former tenant is suing former landlord/defendant, and another former roommate for filing a false restraining orders against plaintiff.     Plaintiff (Jeffrey Morgan) has not taken ordered anger management, because he doesn't need it.    There are up to 10 tenants in the house at one time.         Landlord was granted a temporary order, and plaintiff was evicted.    Then, the order was vacated, so plaintiff moved back in for a few months.   Then a 3 day to quit notice was taped on door of plaintiff's room, after plaintiff broke the window to defendant / tenant's room.   Defendant tenant is a hemophiliac, and the broken glass was next to him, and scaring the defendant, who got another restraining order against plaintiff.     

Defendant tenant filled out the protective order application, with the help of his mother, and another tenant.    Plaintiff's doctor sent text messages about plaintiff's anger management issues.    Restraining order trial was dismissed.    Plaintiff claims everything was a conspiracy between tenant and landlord, against plaintiff.    

Plaintiff was evicted for non-payment of rent, and I hope they changed the locks.   Sorry JJ, but a hemophiliac having broken glass hurled at him, is appropriate for a restraining order. 

Defendants are counter suing for an unreturned cable box, and damages to property.   As JJ says, defendant tenant had every right to file for failed protective order.    Plaintiff still claims the restraining orders were a conspiracy by the landlord, and this can't be proven, because it's garbage.     Plaintiff says he was evicted with a restraining order against him in 2012.   

I'm so glad the hunky, and protective Officer Byrd is next to JJ, because plaintiff is seriously out of control, and a few sandwiches short of a picnic.    Plaintiff was evicted through housing court for non-payment.     (JJ can't stand the landlord, because he rents to a lot of people?   If that house looks like what I think it does, I bet it has a ton of bedrooms, and is the only affordable housing for people that don't have the huge income to afford an apartment, or other home.      I bet it's not the only house in the neighborhood with a lot of tenants either )

Both cases dismissed.

Second-

Ex Wives on the Prowl-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend (Kantako Brown) for assault, security deposit return, and over paid rent.    They met on online dating site, and plaintiff moved in with him, put down security deposit, and signed two year leases, and moved out in 2019.    Plaintiff claims she moved out because of harassment from more than one ex-wife of defendant.  There was also one other roommate with the two litigants.   

 Plaintiff says when she left, she claims she paid rent until another roommate moved in, but claims defendant said roommate was paying less than their share.   Defendant says plaintiff moved in and out of the apartment several times.    Plaintiff's witness is Jeffrey, the roommate after she moved out.   Jeffrey was paying $600, plus $100 for part of the utilities.   However, plaintiff was paying $900 for rent.   (I really dislike the defendant.   Is he stoned?)

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

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

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

Plaintiff gets $2100.

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

$1,000 to plaintiff.   

[One Tough Cookie]

On 7/27/2020 at 6:45 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

used her vegan kitchen to cook meat

I don't mean to insult any vegans, but I found that hilarious.  I HATE fish, especially when it's being cooked--but I wouldn't take my husband to court over it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I loved where the Airbnb tenant said to JJ's ate the steak remark, that she didn't cook steak ,because it was a vegan kitchen.  

[7EasyPayments]

I am a person with a penis, so I suppose my 'boxes' aren't connected according to the Torah of JJ. 🤣

Given her herstory with husband, ex-husband, then SURPRISE!!! husband redux - I fine with that !!!!

A compliment from a cuckoo is actually an insult. 😈 😂

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Auto Accident With a Twist-Plaintiff suing motorist who rear ended the plaintiff's car, but didn't have insurance.   That's where it gets very strange.   Mr. Boykins, the defendant, admits he rear ended the plaintiff's vehicle that was stopped at a traffic signal.    Mr. Boykins agreed he would pay for the damages, and to show good faith the defendant gave the car title (he carries it in the glove box, by the way you should never do that) to the plaintiff to hold it.   A month later defendant paid nothing, so the plaintiff came to pick up the car.   Defendant called the police, and the car was taken to impound.    Defendant told police it wasn't his car, it was a relative's, and other garbage.   

Defendant's counter claim was dismissed, because he came to court without clean hands.  Defendant's car is in the impound lot, and probably still is. 

Byrd looks up the value of the plaintiff's hideously old car (it's not in the sacred car value book).    The plaintiff's car is a  1990 Honda Civic.

Plaintiff receives money to pay for minimal repairs.

Mother Son Drama!-Plaintiff mother suing her son for unpaid balance of furniture she sold him, and $1,000 for a car down payment.    Mother is raising two children from son, son has another child with him, and there's another one with the child's mother.   Defendant says he owes his mother nothing, everything was a gift, and the fact she's now a single mother and raising his children for him, means nothing to him.   Defendant also mentions that he pays nothing for the three children he had, and never did anything for.   

Plaintiff moved from one state to another, and son wanted to buy the bedroom set for $1,000, and only gave his mother $200, and worked off $200 by helping the mother move.    Plaintiff also paid all of the people who helped her move, including her son.  

Defendant needed a car, and claims the $1,000 plaintiff loaned him for the car was a gift.    However, after defendant hit a deer, and totaled the car, he claims he doesn't have to pay for the car any longer.  

$1,000 to plaintiff.   

Second-

Dangerous Drinking!-   Plaintiff is suing ex-girlfriend for false police report and arrest, and stealing his stuff.   There was a hunting rifle, and hunting gear in the truck that disappeared. .   Plaintiff and defendant were both drunk, but defendant is proud of the fact she wasn't as drunk as the plaintiff.  Plaintiff was in jail for four days.  Police report says both litigants were very drunk, 

Defendant filed petition to get restraining order.  Plaintiff claims defendant filed exact same allegations to get restraining order against ex-husband, but has no proof.    Defendant's mother seems to think allegations her daughter is a drunk is somehow amusing. 

There is no proof of plaintiff abusing the defendant.   Defendant claims after plaintiff's arrest, she moved the truck to guest parking.   She left everything in the truck for his mother to pick up, with the keys near the truck.   However, he couldn't find his truck keys, and a lot of property disappeared out of the truck.  Plaintiff even has a receipt for the rifle.   

Defendant's uncle claims he saw items in the truck when defendant moved the truck to the guest parking spot, and she had the keys to the truck then.   However, defendant 'lost' the keys, so plaintiff's mother had to get AAA to tow the truck.   Defendant's mother is just as pathetic as her daughter, and just won't shut up.     Defendant still claims the rifle was a gift to her.   

Defendant claims the plaintiff claimed she stabbed him, but says he stabbed himself, and tasered himself, and his own father. 

Both sides need a group rate to rehab.   

$800 to plaintiff for the rifle.  

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[7EasyPayments]

Crazy In Alabama is way more thorough than me.

All I have to say is the woman in the husky-shot-dead episode (her family's dog!!!) was dummmmer than a pile of chicken sh!t!!!!

And she has children.......😬

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Pet Massacre Met With Gunfire-Plaintiffs and daughter are suing defendants for the value of 36 chickens and 1 duck that were slaughtered by their Husky.    They all live in a rural area, plaintiffs raise chickens as pet.     Plaintiff adult daughter saw the slaughter by the Husky, and shot and killed the dog still in the chicken coop. 

There is security video on the plaintiff's security camera of the slaughter that took over four hours.   The same day the defendant posted on Facebook that their identical Husky (and their Great Dane), went missing again.   

 Defendant keeps claiming that though her dog disappeared the same day that the plaintiff daughter killed the dog, and defendant's dog never came home, she keeps claiming her dog didn't kill the chickens.     Defendant wife refuses to accept reality, and so does the husband.      The defendant claims other dogs went missing the same day as their dog, and when they give the pictures of the other dogs to Officer Byrd, he really looks like he would like to whack the defendant over the nose with the papers. 

Plaintiffs when they saw the posting, they contacted the defendants to look at the dog, and they sent someone else over to look.   The defendant husband claims it was his support dog, and worth $1200, and neither one went to look at the dog, and still claim that it wasn't their dog. 

$1700 to plaintiffs, defendants claim dismissed.  

Defendants in hall-terview  keep whining that their dogs didn't get out, and that doesn't explain the missing poster for both dogs.   Defendants say plaintiffs should have fenced their dogs out). (After the nasty looks from defendant wife, I think the plaintiffs should move before something awful happens to them, or their property).  

(When I was a kid, my aunt and uncle always had one male Dalmatian at a time.   The dogs were all unneutered, roamed the neighborhood, they ignored the neighbors complaints.    All three dogs eventually died from being poisoned.    No one knew if they got into something, such as rat poison, or puddled antifreeze.   Instead of keeping the replacement dogs in the yard, they would get another one, and let that roam until he was poisoned.  The only thing that fixed the situation was, my relatives moved.     I wonder if it's a coincidence that one time when my aunt and uncle were out of town, someone broke in and destroyed their house?)

No Insurance, You're a Criminal-Plaintiff suing fellow motorist for causing an accident, when defendant merged into plaintiff's lane.   Plaintiff's car had insurance, and as usual, defendant's car didn't have insurance.  Defendant still claims the fault in the accident was plaintiff.  Defendant is counter suing for lost wages, medical bills, etc.      Plaintiff couldn't find the defendant, but finally found def. witness by getting his name off of the police report, and found his facebook account.  Police report says defendant merged into plaintiff's lane, hit front corner of plaintiff's car, then his car spun,  and hit the barrier.      This happened two years ago, and defendant never got a police report, or contacted plaintiff.   Defendant witness claims he saw everything.   JJ doesn't believe the witness,  and I don't believe him either.   

 $4500 to plaintiff. 

Second-

Food Truck Fail-Plaintiff suing defendant over not completing her food trailer, supplies, and labor costs.   Plaintiff bought a used trailer, and wanted to open a food truck (hot dogs, etc), and her previous experience was running an ice cream truck.    Plaintiff claims the estimate was $1200, plus materials, $1400, totals $2600.      Defendant says he was not going to do the work himself, but his partner would do the work.    Defendant is a caregiver in a group home, and doesn't do remodeling.    

Trailer was never finished, and in unusable.     Trailer is sitting on defendant's property, in pieces.   

Plaintiff will receive $4,000 for the trailer, and if defendant wants to repair the trailer and sell it, he can.     

Maltipoo on the Property-Plaintiff/landlord suing defendant /tenant for unpaid rent, and damages to his property, caused by her dog.   Plaintiff rents rooms in the main house, and his family lives in the back with his wife, and twins.    Defendant was a month-to-month tenant.    $635 was rent, including utilities, and she only paid the first month, and no receipts, as usual.    Amount withdrawn by defendant on month two is way short of the cost for rent, or utilities.     On month two, after no rent, plaintiff gave her the eviction notice (she lived there August to October).     

Defendant was pet sitting  for a dog (Maltipoo), and her room has a huge hole in the wall, bad carpet damage, and all is blamed on the dog.   Plaintiff gets two months rent and utilities.   

Plaintiff Defendant is counter claiming for constructive eviction (what she didn't learn to say unlawful detainer yet?).       Defendant claims she paid two months rent, without proof of bank withdrawals or receipts.      Defendant claims she was given a 30 day notice, and was thrown out illegally. 

 Plaintiff claims some of the damages were done by defendant's dog siting dog.    Plaintiff will receive two months rent and utilities.      

$1300 to plaintiff.    (I think plaintiff should have received more, for damages). 

 

(I'm only thorough because they're reruns, so sometimes, I can find the old analysis, copy and paste, and update it.  I also can fix all of the goofs in the original.     However, when I have to do the entire episode, then that's when I miss what they put on the screen, or show over JJ's shoulder.   That's one reason I missed what happened with the Great Dane, in the chicken killing Husky case-thanks for catching that).  

Edited July 31, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[7EasyPayments]

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Pet Massacre Met With Gunfire-Plaintiffs and daughter are suing defendants for the value of 36 chickens and 1 duck that were slaughtered by their Husky.    They all live in a rural area, plaintiffs raise chickens as pet.     Plaintiff adult daughter saw the slaughter by the Husky, and shot and killed the dog still in the chicken coop. 

There is security video on the plaintiff's security camera of the slaughter that took over four hours.   The same day the defendant posted on Facebook that their identical Husky (and their Great Dane), went missing again.   

 Defendant keeps claiming that though her dog disappeared the same day that the plaintiff daughter killed the dog, and defendant's dog never came home, she keeps claiming her dog didn't kill the chickens.     Defendant wife refuses to accept reality, and so does the husband.     Did the Great Dane come home?   If they said that it did,  I missed it.   The defendant claims other dogs went missing the same day as their dog, and when they give the pictures of the other dogs to Officer Byrd, he really looks like he would like to whack the defendant over the nose with the papers. 

Plaintiffs when they saw the posting, they contacted the defendants to look at the dog, and they sent someone else over to look.   The defendant husband claims it was his support dog, and worth $1200, and neither one went to look at the dog, and still claim that it wasn't their dog. 

$1700 to plaintiffs, defendants claim dismissed.  

Defendants in hall-terview  keep whining that their dogs didn't get out, and that doesn't explain the missing poster for both dogs.   Defendants say plaintiffs should have fenced their dogs out). (After the nasty looks from defendant wife, I think the plaintiffs should move before something awful happens to them, or their property).  

(When I was a kid, my aunt and uncle always had one male Dalmatian at a time.   The dogs were all unneutered, roamed the neighborhood, they ignored the neighbors complaints.    All three dogs eventually died from being poisoned.    No one knew if they got into something, such as rat poison, or puddled antifreeze.   Instead of keeping the replacement dogs in the yard, they would get another one, and let that roam until he was poisoned.  The only thing that fixed the situation was, my relatives moved.     I wonder if it's a coincidence that one time when my aunt and uncle were out of town, someone broke in and destroyed their house?)

No Insurance, You're a Criminal-Plaintiff suing fellow motorist for causing an accident, when defendant merged into plaintiff's lane.   Plaintiff's car had insurance, and as usual, defendant's car didn't have insurance.  Defendant still claims the fault in the accident was plaintiff.  Defendant is counter suing for lost wages, medical bills, etc.      Plaintiff couldn't find the defendant, but finally found def. witness by getting his name off of the police report, and found his facebook account.  Police report says defendant merged into plaintiff's lane, hit front corner of plaintiff's car, then his car spun,  and hit the barrier.      This happened two years ago, and defendant never got a police report, or contacted plaintiff.   Defendant witness claims he saw everything.   JJ doesn't believe the witness,  and I don't believe him either.   

 $4500 to plaintiff. 

Second-

Food Truck Fail-Plaintiff suing defendant over not completing her food trailer, supplies, and labor costs.   Plaintiff bought a used trailer, and wanted to open a food truck (hot dogs, etc), and her previous experience was running an ice cream truck.    Plaintiff claims the estimate was $1200, plus materials, $1400, totals $2600.      Defendant says he was not going to do the work himself, but his partner would do the work.    Defendant is a caregiver in a group home, and doesn't do remodeling.    

Trailer was never finished, and in unusable.     Trailer is sitting on defendant's property, in pieces.   

Plaintiff will receive $4,000 for the trailer, and if defendant wants to repair the trailer and sell it, he can.     

Maltipoo on the Property-Plaintiff/landlord suing defendant /tenant for unpaid rent, and damages to his property, caused by her dog.   Plaintiff rents rooms in the main house, and his family lives in the back with his wife, and twins.    Defendant was a month-to-month tenant.    $635 was rent, including utilities, and she only paid the first month, and no receipts, as usual.    Amount withdrawn by defendant on month two is way short of the cost for rent, or utilities.     On month two, after no rent, plaintiff gave her the eviction notice (she lived there August to October).     

Defendant was pet sitting  for a dog (Maltipoo), and her room has a huge hole in the wall, bad carpet damage, and all is blamed on the dog.   Plaintiff gets two months rent and utilities.   

Plaintiff Defendant is counter claiming for constructive eviction (what she didn't learn to say unlawful detainer yet?).       Defendant claims she paid two months rent, without proof of bank withdrawals or receipts.      Defendant claims she was given a 30 day notice, and was thrown out illegally. 

 Plaintiff claims some of the damages were done by defendant's dog siting dog.    Plaintiff will receive two months rent and utilities.      

$1300 to plaintiff.    (I think plaintiff should have received more, for damages). 

The genius female defendant posted on FB that the Great Dane missed the Husky, it was shown onscreen.

Her lying and stooooopidity really got under my skin. 🤪

[PrincessPurrsALot]

On 7/29/2020 at 4:07 PM, One Tough Cookie said:

I don't mean to insult any vegans, but I found that hilarious.  I HATE fish, especially when it's being cooked--but I wouldn't take my husband to court over it.

I guess you won't be getting your 15 minutes of shame fame then. 😁