All Episodes Talk: All Rise

CrazyInAlabama · November 10, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First-(2017)

Electric Scooter Pet Collision!-Plaintiff (Cheryl Huettel) suing defendant (Harry Orange II) for defendant's dog scaring her, and her dogs got loose (Great Dane, and 40 lb mixed breed), and her electric scooter fell over, and scooter was damaged. Plaintiff has one dog tied to the scooter, and one was in her hand (smaller dog), with leash wrapped around her wrist. Great Dane's leash is attached to the scooter frame.

Plaintiff says they were on their usual route around the neighborhood, and defendant's dog ran out of the garage, and barked at plaintiff's dogs. Defendant's dog is a Shih Tzu/Poodle, Charday, so a small dog. Plaintiff says Great Dane was scared by the little dog, pulled the scooter faster than it could go, There is a video of the entire incident. In the end of the video, plaintiff stopped the scooter, and Great Dane pulled scooter over.

There is no dog barking, or the defendant calling his dog back. Plaintiff is such a liar, no barking dog, no sight of the little dog on the video, or any proof that the defendant's dog was out.

Defendant says plaintiff came to his home four or five times, and during the original incident defendant was at work, so he couldn't be calling the dog back. Defendant is counter claiming for trespassing, and harassment.

Plaintiff also told police defendant was harassing her, when she was actually at defendant's home. So is the mobility scooter for mobility issues, or for dog walking? Defendant says both dogs are leashed to the scooter.

Claim dismissed, and counter claim dismissed.

Back and Forth Truck Fail!-Plaintiff Sharlene Foy suing James Hunt for the return of money plaintiff paid for an 18 year old truck ($ 2800), defendant is a mechanic. Defendant says plaintiff filed the lawsuit before he finished the work on the truck, including replacing the transmission. Plaintiff paid for truck, and transmission replacement. Defendant is suing for mechanical work on truck. Plaintiff paid $900 down, and plus later paying an additional $1150, and bought some parts for the truck also.

Mechanic says truck is finished and ready to drive.

Plaintiff receives $2195 back for the truck.

Second-

Smoking, Squatting and Blaring Music?!-Plaintiff Michael Pastori was living in his car, and defendant Diane Stemmler invited him to live in her house. Defendant says plaintiff was a squatter, who smoked in her house, played loud music around the clock, and defendant said he refused to leave her house. Plaintiff separated from wife six years ago, and seems rather stoned. Plaintiff was living with his parents, got tossed out, and was living in his car, and then moved in with defendant, into her basement.

Plaintiff wanted to rent the basement of defendant's house, in return for working on the space. Defendant said she would rent basement for $1,000, and some work on the property. Then months later defendant contacted her, and plaintiff said he was living in his car, and she agreed for plaintiff to move in for a short time. Plaintiff only paid $200. It wasn't working out, so defendant called police, and said plaintiff hadn't paid her.

Defendant claims to only have a couple of plaintiff's items, and the rest were already picked up by the plaintiff. Defendant will give vaccum, baby wipes, and some other item to her nephew to give to plaintiff.

Plaintiff gets items back via defendant's nephew returning them. Counter claim dismissed.

Assault Rifle Rift?!-Plaintiff Jessie Gaffield suing his father Richard Gaffield, Sr, over an assault rifle AR-15, and handgun defendant didn't return. Plaintiff says defendant asked to borrow an assault rifle, and a handgun, then plaintiff found out defendant was using them for collateral. Defendant says his girlfriend used them for collateral for a drug debt, and claims guns disappeared after that.

Defendant lied to son about why he needed the guns, and claimed he wanted them for protection, but they were for collateral for the druggy ex-girlfriend.

Plaintiff receives $1059

CrazyInAlabama · November 11, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one an older rerun-

First (New)-

Marriage Certificate Extortion?!-Plaintiff James Potts suing former landlord April McDermott for a car, and security deposit $1200 (this was paid by VA). VA paid for 5 months rent for plaintiff, and security to defendant, for her guest house he was renting. Defendant also says plaintiff was an online minister, and performed her marriage ceremony, but refused to file the certificate. Rent was 1200 a month, but only paid $150 in January. Plaintiff brought a friend over, friend met defendant, fell in love, and wanted plaintiff to be ordained online, and perform the ceremony, in January.

Plaintiff has a certificate from Universal Life Church, and performed the ceremony in January. Plaintiff bought a used car from defendant for $1,000. Plaintiff paid to renew defendant's car registration, and purchased car for $1,000. Defendant says VA paid the $1200 security deposit, and she deducted the $1050 he didn't pay for rent in January. After defendant wouldn't sign the bill of sale for car, plaintiff refused to certify the wedding license.

So now plaintiff has Bill of Sale, and can register the car at DMV.

Plaintiff still owes $1050 for the shortfall in the rent. Why does defendant think she should keep the VA security deposit? Defendant is counter suing for performing a fraudulent wedding, and a parking ticket.

Plaintiff will receive $785 for security deposit back.

Parking ticket was $200, is unpaid after a year, but it's in the defendant's mothers name, so defendant can't sue for it. There's no proof plaintiff committed the offense.

Defendant will be remarried in November in Vegas, and it will be performed by a licensed officiant. Plaintiff didn't pay for the cruise following the marriage.

Fraudulent wedding allegation is that plaintiff refused to sign marriage certificate, in return for car title. Then plaintiff found out he had to pay a one day fee to San Diego County to perform marriages, so plaintiff couldn't sign the marriage certificate. JJ missed the point, because the plaintiff didn't pay a one day registration fee to the county, he couldn't legally perform marriages or sign marriage certificates, because it's fraud.

Plaintiff case dismissed for not signing the marriage certificate.

Second (Rerun)-(I think 2014 or 2015)-

Shocking Family Beatdown!-Plaintiff Adrian Gamez suing defendants (husband Richard Dupont, wife Dupont, and Demetri son, over them assaulting him in a parking lot. Defendants Dupont are counter claiming for attorney fees. Plaintiff saw defendants park in a handicapped slot, and when he asked if they're handicapped, they attacked him, and beat him. Husband defendant pinned plaintiff to the ground, while wife and son were kicking plaintiff, and stomping his hands, plaintiff grabs defendant husband's nuts, and defendant lets go, then re-tackles the plaintiff. Plaintiff punches woman, and punches out son.

Video of assault is disgusting, with husband tackling plaintiff, and son kicking the plaintiff while he's immobilized on the ground, and defendant woman claimed plaintiff tried to rape her. Husband is a car salesman, woman is a teacher, son is useless. Fortunately, a Good Samaritan videos the assault, and woman lying about assault, and passersby intervened, and called police. Defendant woman lies right in court, and lies about police report.

The police report has several witness statements that directly contradict everything defendants said. I'm very glad after defendant woman assaulted the plaintiff, he punched her in the face, and I really would like to do it also. All three defendants should have been charged with assault, and criminally charged. The idea that defendant woman is a teacher of some kind is disgusting. SHe was assaulting the pinned plaintiff in the face with her keys.

Defendants' counter claim denied, because it's garbage.

Plaintiff receives $1500.

Life Insurance Loser?!-Plaintiff Andre Valentine suing Durrell Graham, for the balance of payment plaintiff made on defendant's late father's life insurance policy. Plaintiff claims defendant asked him for money to collect on the father's life insurance. Defendant would have to pay the last payment of $752, to collect the $20k worth of life insurance, so he borrowed it from plaintiff.

As usual, plaintiff's phone was destroyed, so texts are lost.

Defendant had to pay the premium of $752, and would receive $20k. That sounds like more than one missing payment.

Defendant never paid the $752, and it turned out late father owed a lot more than $752.

$1600 to plaintiff.

ItsHelloPattiagain · November 11, 2020

On 11/9/2020 at 6:55 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says his girlfriend will never walk the dogs again, because she can't control them. Defendant's girlfriend comes back in to testify. Girlfriend says she doesn't know if plaintiff's dogs were on harness, but claims the pit bulls were. Whitney Falk, defendant's witness was walking dogs after dark, dogs were on harness, when dogs stopped, and claims noise startled the dogs. Then the dogs met in mutual combat, and she's blaming the Chi cross for the attack. Two 60 pound dogs, vs. a 16 pound dog. Statement by defendant is garbage. Defendant is still enraged that his dogs have to be muzzled. And I hope when they're out without it, someone notifies the authorities.

Defendant was giving me some Tiger King vibes with his hair-do. I've noticed some of the recent cases coming from the San Diego area and there are some "interesting" folks living there. A little like the light version of "Florida Man" (still have some rogue relatives living out there).

CrazyInAlabama · November 11, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Coming to America...to Sue My Daughter!-Plaintiff mother (Beverly Artis Fraser ) came back to the U.S. from to sue her daughter (Zakiya Stewart ) for the balance of a loan for a car, and car rental fees. Plaintiff lives in Denmark, and Plaintiff lied in her complaint, and says the loan was to get daughter's car out of foreclosure, but daughter bought another car instead. Defendant says she didn't know her mother was back in the U.S., living with another daughter (Takisha Artis), and never contacted her since May when she came back to the U.S.

Plaintiff claims she tried to reach her daughter/defendant, but defendant says that's garbage. Defendant says the estrangement started when she was 8, and mother placed her in foster care. Daughter/defendant says she didn't ask mother for money, and mother saw the repo., and says plaintiff agreed to help daughter with money.

First communication with defendant was talking about the car rental. The mother's messages, and emails have no dates or other specifics on them. The first dated message is 2016. Defendant received the contract before she received the money from mother. Daughter says mother demanded a lot of her financial information, and defendant didn't feel comfortable with all of that information.

Sadly, the daughter's mistake is she's hoping that someday her mother will care about her, and that will never happen.

Defendant made one payment to mother, but claims mother's current husband told her stop making payments.

$3160 to plaintiff

Reckless Driver, Wrecked Car?-Plaintiff (Tobi Ferguson) suing her daughter's friend, defendant (Sonny Crawford). for taking the car, and damaging the car. Plaintiff's two children wrecked two cars, and daughter has reckless driving conviction. Daughter was driving plaintiff's car, because she's a taking a younger sibling to school, and claims she didn't even know the car was gone until the accident happened. Daughter says defendant was driving, and car ended up wrapped around a tree. Plaintiff says her daughter was driving the car in mother's name, because daughter needs to get her kid to school. Daughter Tia Cooper moved to California now,

Daughter testified car was taken without her permission, but defendant says that's a lie. Defendant was driving, and claims they switched driver's and plaintiff's daughter took the car home. Then daughter called him, and claimed he damaged the car. JJ says car damage was done by daughter, and should have been reported to plaintiff's insurance.

Case dismissed.

Second-(2017)

Man Pays Ex-Lover to Move Out?!-Plaintiff (Vanessa Smith) suing her ex (Bradley Betland ) over a move from Minnesota to Texas, and plaintiff moved back to Minnesota after this. Plaintiff wants moving expenses (from Texas back to Minnesota), locksmith fees, and emotional distress. Defendant wants lease breaking fees, and half of the rent. Plaintiff claims defendant said that if she wanted her stuff back she had to sleep with him, in front of her father.

JJ questions that there is a contract for defendant to pay for plaintiff's move back to Minnesota. Plaintiff wanted $1500, but defendant said he had no money, and he paid to move everything to Texas. JJ doesn't see a contract, and as a graduate of the LA Law, and Law & Order school of TV law, I don't either.

Plaintiff claims she wouldn't have left her $10k motorcycle behind if she knew defendant would keep it. Plaintiff says defendant has her mother's washing machine, a Harley Davidson mug, swing chair, and lock fees because he sent her the wrong key to the storage locker. Defendant said he had to leave the washer behind for the next tenant he subleased to, along with a fridge, and stove he bought for the apartment.

(What the hell is going on with the plaintiff's hair? It looks greasy, and wet, not attractive). Plaintiff is a home health aide, but claims to be on disability too. (Actually she says wait staff later on, not home health aide).

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant case also dismissed.

Wedding Venue Disaster!-Plaintiffs (Charlotte Stute and Derek Wilson) suing defendants (Dorothy Brasher and partner ) over wedding venue fiasco. Plaintiffs hired the defendants to find a venue for them, with a deposit of $2400+, but the venue returned the deposit. Defendants had only being doing wedding bookings and planning, for about a year. Contract submitted is with venue site, Hidden Meadow, not the defendants. Deposit was returned to plaintiffs.

Defendants knew the venue wasn't going to have more weddings at their facility, but didn't notify the plaintiffs for two months. Defendants said they were negotiating with the venue site to find another venue, or persuade the original venue to host a couple of weddings. Plaintiffs were found another venue on their own, after they found the second venue operators were unable to be there for their wedding, and the defendants would have to do the day of operations for the wedding.

Venue was much more expensive, and all inclusive, so plaintiffs lost their deposits.

Case dismissed.

(Actually the car was wrecked on a tree in the 4 p.m. case, but on top of a chain link fence in the 5 p.m car wreck case).

Edited November 12, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · November 11, 2020

58 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

car ended up on top of a chain link fence.

???WHAT?

CrazyInAlabama · November 11, 2020

5 p.m. both new-

First (New)-

Waking Up to Car Nightmare?!-Plaintiff Reanna Collins received a call at 4 a.m. from defendant Nicholas Brown, and her car was on top of a chain link fence. Defendant is alleged to have taken car without permission, but he says he had permission, and didn't wreck her car. Plaintiff claims she gave man a ride to her home, and fell asleep putting her kids to bed. Then came the ominous phone call. Defendant called her at 4 a.m. saying he wrecked her car, and she needed to pick up car before the tow truck came. This was in Moses Lake, Washington.

Plaintiff took significant other's car, left the kids with him, and went to the accident site. Car was on top of nine chain link fence posts, and fence, and defendant saying he was sorry. Tow truck was needed to tow car off of fence, for $350 to get it home. There is no accident report, and she didn't claim on insurance. She claims the police were at the scene, but they didn't do a report, or take down any information, and there were three officers at the accident.

JJ is dismissing the case without prejudice, until plaintiff sends a police report indicating who was driving, and says the defendant was driving, and she will get the $3,000 she's requesting.

Earnest Carpenter or Broke Hustler?!-Plaintiff Rosie Watson suing defendant / carpenter Keilon Young over a refund for construction of steps for her rental property. She paid him $800, another man showed to do the work, and job was never finished.

Defendant says he was to replace some stairs, paint them, replace some rotten wood. Defendant says the litigants went to Home Depot for supplies together, from the $800 deposit. Supplies were about $300, but plaintiff claims he's lying about the purchase of supplies, and trip to Home Depot.

Plaintiff claims defendant is a hustler, cheats people constantly, and only went to Home Depot and purchased one can of paint with her, three days after the deposit was made. Rosie Watson claims some man named Charles showed up, did an hour's worth of work, and never came back, and Keilon Young never showed up either. Picture of steps shows one railing sanded, about 1/10 of stairs were primed and that's the only work done ever on the stairs.

Defendant claims they purchased a lot more than one can of paint, and he worked a lot longer on the stairs, and claims they were more finished than the plaintiff photo shows, but has no proof.

$800 to plaintiff. (Plaintiff's hall-terview is hysterical.

Second (New)-

Vet Loses Australian Shepherd?!-Plaintiff Tiffany Best suing veterinarian Dr Angelina Beeks for losing her dog for seven days after a spay surgery.

(It's too long to tell here, but I know of a case where a boarded dog 'died' at the vet while owners were on vacation, and they came back from an emergency trip to this sad news (pre-cell phone days) but a vet tech caught up to them outside, and told the people that the vet lied, and dog was still alive. Woman was trying to find out where the dog went, but never did as far as I know. Never knew the ending to that.

Vet claims dog backed out of it's collar, and it wasn't her fault the dog ran away. The vet is a mobile clinic, and mostly does spay and neuter in high desert. She did three years in Ross University in the Caribbean, and one year at vet school at LSU. She gradated in 2014, and is only licensed in California, worked for 3 years at another clinic, and then opened her mobile only service. Plaintiff was going to have dog spayed, but a neighbor dog jumped the fence, knocked up the Shepherd, who had nine puppies. Two months after puppies were all adopted, plaintiff scheduled the spay with defendant.

Dog went to defendant's mobile clinic, escaped, and after seven days dog found her way home, with actual vet services repaid, and emotional damages. Plaintiff says dog was a mess after wandering for seven days. Dog was left at mobile unit which is parked outside of defendant's home. In the middle of the next morning, Garrett's surgical tech called the plaintiff and said the dog was missing. Vet is blaming dog loss on vet tech Garrett. Garrett blamed vet's son who is helping her as a vet tech. Plaintiff says vet had major attitude about the dog loss. Plaintiff contacted a couple of rescues, and seven days later the plaintiff's dog dug under plaintiff's fence, and got in the yard at owner's back door. It was over 100 degrees all week when the dog was missing.

Plaintiff presents the $204 vet bill, and had to pay more to get her spayed. Plaintiff made flyers about the missing dog, $70. Plaintiff would like to pay others who helped look for dog back for gas. Christopher Beeks says dog pulled out of her collar, and someone left the gate open, and dog ran out the gate. He's working as a tech at mother's clinic, but was a bartender.

Dr Beeks claims plaintiff was nasty after dog almost died after her son's negligence resulted in the dog escaping. Dr. Beeks said she would have done spay for free after plaintiff found her dog. That vet wouldn't be allowed near an animal I owned after she blamed her son's negligence on plaintiff. Plaintiff says she was only turned off by defendant's attitude after she blamed the plaintiff for the dog loss, and in court says it was partially plaintiff's fault.

JJ is not putting up with defendant's rotten attitude, and negligence. However, plaintiff will not be getting $5,000 either. JJ points out if dog was permanently lost, then she could get the actual cost of dog.

$328 to plaintiff for vet bills.

DoctorK · November 12, 2020

56 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is a home health aide

A funny tidbit, just after she claims she is a "health care aide", she let it slip that she is actually on the "wait staff". An important job but not health care. Her hair didn't grate on my nerves nearly as much as her exaggerated facial expressions, it looked like someone in a TCM silent movie from the 1910-1920s. Come to think of it, her hair also looked like something out of a very old movie.

CrazyInAlabama · November 12, 2020

20 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

car ended up on top of a chain link fence.

This was the 5 p.m. wreck, not the 4 p.m. wreck where the car was smashed into a tree by the lying daughter of plaintiff.

I'm so glad that the woman who said Home Health aide changed that to wait staff. It's bad enough getting older without wondering if you'll someday be a the mercy of someone like her.

Edited November 12, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · November 12, 2020

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Vet Loses Australian Shepherd?!

I quickly grew annoyed with the defendant's artificially cherry and bubbly attitude as she droned on and on with her rehearsed story; JJ let her do it because, well it was all about small dogs.

I felt pleased when her true character showed up as it was revealed that she initially asked for 10 k$! The usual breed of greedy litigants. And she tried to play the oh-so-innocent naive girly-girl, ignorant about such things, when questioned about the amount.

I am ready to believe she turned nasty when talking to the vet.

On the other hand, the defendant's argument of shared liability was absolutely full of shit. At least her son was honest and readily admitted he was the one who let the dog get away.

I was glad that JJ did not let her love of puppies and dogs cloud her judicial judgment, or what is left of it, and awarded the plaintiff nothing above what she truly deserved.

Edited November 12, 2020 by Florinaldo

ItsHelloPattiagain · November 12, 2020

19 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I am ready to believe she turned nasty when talking to the vet.

On the other hand, the defendant's argument of shared liability was absolutely full of shit. At least her son was honest and readily admitted he was the one who let the dog get away.

If my vet "lost" one of my dogs, I would have lost my mind as well. Before I had switched vets, I took one of my dogs to a "spay and neuter" type clinic. I came back to pick my dog up and found the vet and several of the vet techs smoking in the reception area - the air was grey with cigarette smoke. Since I'm one of those weirdos that thinks my pets are my children, I was not pleased.

The vet acting like the dog getting away wasn't her fault was worse. Why not take responsibility? Why blame the plaintiff who gave the dog to the vet tech? Why not mandate a slip harness on every dog? (my last vet always did those slip harnesses as I had pugs and their heads are smaller than their necks).

CrazyInAlabama · November 12, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First-(2017)

Newlywed Yelps Against Caterer?!-Plaintiffs Reyna Hoffman-Benbow (bride) and Chris Voisard (mother) suing caterer Gitri Harper over failures at the wedding. Defendant says bride and mother never signed and returned the contract. 160 guests came, and only 120 were on original prospectus, and caterer says 180 showed, and she wasn't paid for extra people. Defendant was supposed to furnish set up at 5 p.m., arrived at 4 p.m., (bride says set up was supposed to be at 3, and caterer arrived at 5:15 p.m.). Caterer has reasons for being late arriving (traffic jam). But plaintiffs didn't give an accurate number of guest coming, and the people who showed up. $7633 was paid to the caterer for dinner, set up, servers, bartender. Caterer plus four others were serving at the reception. appetizers, entrees, bread, whole lamb, and a lot of other food (Sounds like My Big Fat Greek Wedding reception).

Caterer says she provided bartender but some man on plaintiff side says he was bartending, but bar was the responsibility of the plaintiffs. There were no leftovers. Plaintiffs are complaining about lack of leftovers. But when you contract for $5,000 for 120 people, and 180 attend for $7633, that's still a good deal. A few days after wedding bride threatened to write nasty yelp review about caterer, unless,

Plaintiff's email admits there was a bartender supplied by defendant. (Entitled fool plaintiff, if you invite 60 extra people, then you won't have leftovers). Defendant says the guests were all drunk.

Cases dismissed.

Bride Hates Her Wedding Photos-Plaintiff Heather Martin suing photographer Brittny Carl about her wedding photo quality, for negligence and breach of contract. Plaintiff paid $700 for the photographer. The contract was made over Facebook messages, for $700 for the entire day of the wedding. Plaintiff submits the wedding pictures, JJ will look at all 164 photos. Bride submits the worst pictures of the 164 photos, and they're spectacular, and I see nothing wrong with the pictures.

Plaintiff claims the photos are out of focus, but they look fine to me.

Case dismissed, because it's ridiculous.

Second-(2017)

Officer Byrd Settles Case! aka Stolen Service Dog case-Plaintiff Annie and James Brown suing defendants, her father Robert Scharat and former roommates (male) Erin Fitzgerald for custody of their dog (father has the dog, for three years) and roommate had custody of the dog for almost four years, and false claim to CPS. Defendant says she moved because defendant's girlfriend was threatening to call CPS about plaintiff's mothering, and the home she was living in. Plaintiff wants dog that defendant father raised from a puppy (I think this is the case from the other day about "Stolen Service Dog" that didn't air) , and has been with roommate for four years (Erin Fitzgerald), and defendant roommate keeps the dog. JJ tells woman to adopt another 'service' dog, since she hasn't ever been the dog's owner, or seen the dog for four years.

Plaintiff woman says she left home because father/defendant's girlfriend and defendant threatened to call DCF/CPS over baby's raising. Plaintiffs claim all house damages were caused by other people, including Erin the defendant. CPS showed up at current house (plaintiff husband's place), and had a complaint. Good luck proving who called CPS, it's not going to be released. In the house that plaintiffs, and defendant roommate lived in all damages are claimed to predate the plaintiff's tenancy, including the bathroom damage to the shower stall, that was redone in 2011. Erin/defendant is counter suing for house damages to home defendant roommate, and plaintiffs lived in, and Erin still lives in.

Plaintiff says she moved because defendants called CPS, and now she says the CPS people showed up after they had already moved in to plaintiff's father-in-law's house. Plaintiff husband claims shower was fine when he lived there. It's a fiberglass shower, and entire unit will have to be replaced.

Why does plaintiff woman keep fidgeting, and bouncing around?

Everything dismissed.

Dancing Beer Bottle to the Face!-Plaintiff Jada Gamble suing George Evans III for knocking her tooth out with a beer bottle at a house party at college. Litigants were at a house party, after midnight when the incident happened. Plaintiff claims she wasn't drinking.

Plaintiff says she met up with her friends at the party, friend needed to use bathroom, when George tossed his beer bottle and knocked out her tooth. Defendant says he was dancing, when he hit her tooth accidentally.

Litigants will split cost of tooth, plaintiff receives $600.

CrazyInAlabama · November 12, 2020

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

First (New)-

Sister Sues Thieving Sister?!-Plaintiff Cheryl Culjat sister suing other sister Carla Young, who lives with her ex-husband she calls her "Wasband", for stealing her furniture out of a storage unit. Plaintiff rented storage unit five years ago after moving back to Boise with her Wasband. In December 2018 plaintiff sister needed a storage unit, and defendant put second unit in her name for sister. Plaintiff says she used 2/3 of second storage unit, and defendant's furniture filled the other 1/3. Plaintiff was evicted from previous housing, and now lives with her father at his house, and gets disability, and takes care of father. Plaintiff claims father is charging her rent.

Defendant says father had a home nurse, and VA home care, then plaintiff moved in, and plaintiff's daughter lived there for a while too, but since moved. Defendant says father isn't charging plaintiff rent, but she pays cell phone, and uses her food stamps for the household of the father's home. Plaintiff says in lieu of rent she pays the phone bill, and food bills, including food stamps.

Storage unit was $103 a month, and plaintiff only paid one month, $103 for the unit. Plaintiff never paid for the storage unit except that one time. Defendant told plaintiff to either pay the storage unit, or remove her furniture, told her in April that sister's stuff was moved to granddaughter's house (bed, various tables, dresser, etc). Defendant left everything else she considered useless stuff in storage unit. In June of 2020 defendant delivered the rest of the plaintiff's stuff to father's garage for plaintiff, except for the few items in granddaughter's house. Defendant also says the storage unit items were from another storage from before last eviction of plaintiff.

Defendant counter suing for cost of storage unit.

JJ says if plaintiff wants used furniture back from defendant's granddaughter, then she has to pay plaintiff the $1100 for the storage unit. When plaintiff pays defendant $1100 (not from the show), then within five days defendant will rent a U-Haul, pick up the furniture from granddaughter, and leave it in father's garage for plaintiff.

Mercedes-Benz Meets Costco!-Plaintiff Martha Andrade suing other driver for accident in parking lot. At the time of the accident plaintiff had no insurance. Defendant (I couldn't even begin to figure out his name, so I omitted it, instead of screwing it up) was sitting still in a red zone, waiting for a parking space when he was hit by plaintiff., JJ asks defendant why he was parked in a red zone.

Plaintiff is suing because she had no insurance, and received a collection notice from defendant's car insurance (Mercedes-Benz 2010 was totaled), I guess for his deductible. The picture shows plaintiff's minivan's passenger side hit the defendant's driver's side front headlight corner. (I wonder why MB was totaled?) Plaintiff says she just barely scratched defendant's car, so she didn't total it.

Defendant says he was standing still, trying to find a parking space, when plaintiff hit him. Defendant failed to file a counter claim for rental or other charges.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2014)-

Love Triangle Assault!-Plaintiff Sheri Webster suing boyfriend's wife Nancy Marquez for an assault. Cheating husband, Deshan Marquez is witness for defendant wife. Defendant wife claims plaintiff attacked her first. Plaintiff and husband were co-workers, and then boinking. Plaintiff claims defendant husband said he wasn't married, and lied. Plaintiff says defendant found out about the affair, in March of 2014, claims defendant wife assaulted her.

Defendant found out about affair after it had been going on for over two years, when plaintiff told her about affair, and that was in February 2014. Defendant wife says plaintiff sent her a FB message, asking if she was married to Deshan Marquez or not. Defendant asked if plaintiff was the tramp who picked husband up every morning for a ride to work.

After this defendant husband claimed he was still single, even though he's been married to defendant wife since 2009. When defendant confronted husband, he still claims he's not married to plaintiff. Defendant wife sent a marriage license copy, and plaintiff wanted to meet defendant wife in person to talk. Plaintiff claims cheating husband said his wife was a jealous ex trying to break up his relationship with plaintiff. Then the two women talked at the work parking lot in February.

Plaintiff did not stop her relationship with defendant husband. Plaintiff claims defendant wife confronted her at her car in the parking lot while both were coming to pick up cheating husband, then plaintiff drove around to the front of the building. On March 22, plaintiff says wife punched her through an open window, pinned her down in her seat, scratched her. Sorry, plaintiff knew defendant husband was married, and still kept having her affair with him. Plaintiff says she put her car in reverse, and got away from defendant wife. I'm not saying assaulting someone is right, but plaintiff was lucky that defendant wife didn't shoot her.

Defendant wife's response is "It's not my fault she can't fight". Defendant wife claims she was standing outside her car, when plaintiff verbally assaulted her, and hit her with her car. No proof of that.

$5000 to plaintiff for medical bills ($3500) plus punitive damages.

(I remember this case from years ago. I bet this isn't the first time the wife caught him cheating. I didn't feel a lot of sympathy for the girlfriend though, she knew he was still married, was still canoodling with him, and like most side pieces, probably thought he would dump the wife for her. I had to laugh at the wife's "It's not my fault she can't fight" statement. That's not the first time that's been said on this show, and always by women).

Can't Buy Me Love!-Plaintiff Victoria Jayka suing Benjamin Godfrey defendant ex-boyfriend for a broken lease, $2300 total bill. Defendant didn't pay $750 for half of his break lease fee.

$750 to plaintiff

Edited November 13, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

babyhouseman · November 13, 2020

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Love Triangle Assault!-

That was one of the craziest cases I've ever seen. The wife said she was going to stay with him. He was no prize.

KittyMom4 · November 13, 2020

On 11/11/2020 at 6:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Waking Up to Car Nightmare?!-Plaintiff Reanna Collins received a call at 4 a.m. from defendant Nicholas Brown, and her car was on top of a chain link fence. Defendant is alleged to have taken car without permission, but he says he had permission, and didn't wreck her car. Plaintiff claims she gave man a ride to her home, and fell asleep putting her kids to bed. Then came the ominous phone call. Defendant called her at 4 a.m. saying he wrecked her car, and she needed to pick up car before the tow truck came. This was in Moses Lake, Washington.

Plaintiff took significant other's car, left the kids with him, and went to the accident site. Car was on top of nine chain link fence posts, and fence, and defendant saying he was sorry. Tow truck was needed to tow car off of fence, for $350 to get it home. There is no accident report, and she didn't claim on insurance. She claims the police were at the scene, but they didn't do a report, or take down any information, and there were three officers at the accident.

JJ is dismissing the case without prejudice, until plaintiff sends a police report indicating who was driving, and says the defendant was driving, and she will get the $3,000 she's requesting.

This story was so hinky, so many missing parts here. Like how did he get the keys to her car? She said she just met him at her neighbor's party or something? Then she fell asleep putting her kids to bed (been there, done that), woke up and noticed she'd missed several calls from the defendant, finds out he crashed the car so she goes to the scene, leaves the scene to get a truck to get the car out of the ditch, comes back and it's being towed and not once do you ask the responding police officer for a police report or give a statement that the car was stolen????

What I think happened: Plaintiff was drunk, at some point allowed defendant to take car, passed out, woke up to the mess and decided to play stupid. Either JJ knew there was a scam here or figured out that she was never going to get the whole story from either of those two idiots and sent them home to duke it out in their hometown court.

20 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

The vet acting like the dog getting away wasn't her fault was worse. Why not take responsibility? Why blame the plaintiff who gave the dog to the vet tech? Why not mandate a slip harness on every dog? (my last vet always did those slip harnesses as I had pugs and their heads are smaller than their necks).

On 11/11/2020 at 6:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff presents the $204 vet bill, and had to pay more to get her spayed. Plaintiff made flyers about the missing dog, $70. Plaintiff would like to pay others who helped look for dog back for gas. Christopher Beeks says dog pulled out of her collar, and someone left the gate open, and dog ran out the gate. He's working as a tech at mother's clinic, but was a bartender.

Dr Beeks claims plaintiff was nasty after dog almost died after her son's negligence resulted in the dog escaping. Dr. Beeks said she would have done spay for free after plaintiff found her dog. That vet wouldn't be allowed near an animal I owned after she blamed her son's negligence on plaintiff. Plaintiff says she was only turned off by defendant's attitude after she blamed the plaintiff for the dog loss, and in court says it was partially plaintiff's fault.

JJ is not putting up with defendant's rotten attitude, and negligence. However, plaintiff will not be getting $5,000 either. JJ points out if dog was permanently lost, then she could get the actual cost of dog.

$328 to plaintiff for vet bills.

@ItsHelloPattiagain, agreed! Wth?? My vet ALWAYS places one of those slip collars on my dog when they take him to get weighed, and my vet has an actual office, not a ranch or whatever the defendant had. I want to give her credit for providing a service that people who live in those areas don't have easy access to but she still has culpability here! Her nonchalance about the whole episode disturbed me. Basically shrugging and thinking the dog would wander home eventually? Truly happy he did.

The plaintiff was kind of reaching with the amount she was looking for. I think if she'd just asked for $500 JJ would have awarded it.

bad things are bad · November 13, 2020

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sorry, plaintiff knew defendant husband was married, and still kept having her affair with him.

She said she didn't at first, and Prince Charming had a smooth (well rehearsed, I'm sure) response to the accusation. But JJ is right, wife should be directing her anger 100% at skanky husband.

CrazyInAlabama · November 13, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Father Rescues Daughter From Predator Danger?-Plaintiff Brittney White (Sainted Single Mother of Two-SSMOT) suing her ex Calvin Jones because he didn't want their 2 year old around some boyfriend who was alleged to be abusing an older child at the plaintiff's home. Plaintiff is suing for an assault, and other charges, she's blaming on the ex. Situation was her 8 year old was being abused in her home, and so defendant took custody of the 2 year old. Plaintiff wanted ex/defendant to take the 2 year old during the CPS investigation. Custody is 50/50 now, of the 2 year old. Defendant took physical custody for a few days during the investigation, and he didn't want his 2 year old going back to the same situation. Plaintiff is suing for a false CPS report, and an assault. Defendant is counter suing for damages from plaintiff's assault, and a false assault allegation.

Plaintiff claims defendant assaulted her when she demanded her child back. The CPS investigation wasn't over until four days after plaintiff demanded her 2 year old back to her home, and plaintiff claims the 8 year old possibly being abused had "nothing to do with the 2 year old" (Like hell it didn't). As JJ says, father / defendant was right to keep the daughter during the investigation.

The plaintiff says accused abuser has no contact with the 8 year old who accused him. I wonder where the father of the 8 year old is? As JJ says, it's a sad day when the 8 year old had to tell the people as school what was happening, and couldn't tell her mother. I bet the child did tell the plaintiff. Defendant says plaintiff was under an order that she couldn't be around children during the investigation, but she had the 2 year old with her, and went to pickup the 8 year old. Defendant has voice mail, and letter from Children's Services, and the Children's Hospital about picking up the child from them, and outlining the safety plan for the 2 year old.

Another mother who thinks the father only gets to see a child if she lets him. Defendant was right to protect the 2 year old.

Some witness for defendant says plaintiff assaulted the defendant, and threw bricks at defendant, and his truck. Bad for plaintiff that the police were at defendant's house right after this happened. Plaintiff went home, made an assault complaint against defendant, he was arrested, and in jail, and letter saying charges were dismissed without prejudice. Defendant also lost his job over this. Pictures of defendant's damaged truck are submitted.

Plaintiff case dismissed. $5,000 to defendant.

Second (2017)-

Don't Miss Date Night!-Plaintiff Lateisha Ruhl suing her ex Jerome Pipkins for vandalizing her car (scratched car, and slashed tires). Litigants lived together, both were on the lease at the apartment. Then plaintiff went back to her husband, again. That's not ex-husband, but current husband. Plaintiff still lives in her family home. Defendant says he went out with friends, instead of going out with plaintiff. The litigants argued, and plaintiff left for her house, with husband, and never returned.

Plaintiff claims defendant vandalized her car, but has no proof. Every time the two litigants fought, she would move back in to the husband's house. Defendant also visited plaintiff at her home with husband frequently. Plaintiff witness was hanging out with his friends on his front porch, and claims he saw defendant outside for a long time, across from plaintiff's house. Then when plaintiff witness went to use his bathroom, all of his buddies went with him, and when they came outside, defendant had left the area. (Do guys go to the bathroom in a group?)

Plaintiff witness simply won't stop 'assuming' understanding' etc. Plaintiff witness says defendant came back later too. (I bet I can guess who the new side piece is for the plaintiff). There are no witness statements attached to plaintiff's police report.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

nora1992 · November 13, 2020

Anyone else craving steak for dinner? There was a definite theme today.

Silver Raven · November 13, 2020

The defendant in the case where she didn't get money because her house wasn't a legal rental looked like she had been hit over the head with a shovel lots of times. It didn't have anything to do with being (presumably) trans, she just looked haggard.

CrazyInAlabama · November 13, 2020

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

First (New)-

Covid Inspired Start-Up Turns Violent?!-Plaintiff Chantea Jackson-Washington decided to start a mobile beauty salon because of Covid, and is suing her former employer (chair rental at salon), defendant Lucretia (Cree) Munns Salon owner Munns leases the salon from the shopping center owner. Plaintiff wants hair extensions that she left behind at previous salon when the salon shut down because of Covid, but defendant says she doesn't have them. Plaintiff is suing for defamation from defendant on Facebook. Plaintiff says defendant owed her $1200 on FB for booth rent, this is the period when the salon was shut by Covid, and defendant didn't pay up rent until after salon reopened. FB postings weren't done until September.

Defamation by plaintiff dismissed, hair extensions are gone. Counter claim by defendant is for plaintiff filing a restraining against defendant for a threat to put gun to plaintiff's head, and other nasty statements (18 pages of statements from FB). Defendant claims plaintiff took wigs, and blow dryer, and they are returned in court, but defendant wants the money, not the items back. Defendant claims she should pay her $1200 rent for when salon was shut down.

Both Cases dismissed. (My question is does plaintiff owe the chair rent, when the salon was closed? The salon owner did receive the government aid, and paid her lease, but why should she get chair rent from the other beauticians when they couldn't work at her facility?)

You Ate the Steak: Now Pay for It!-Plaintiff Michael Taylor (I'll call him Man Bun) suing for return of rent, for a time when plaintiff and his mother lived in defendant's rental property. they were renting from Lucy Wilde. Plaintiff wants return of rent, moving costs, and damages for an illegal lockout (It's legal because defendant wasn't supposed to be renting it, according to the Housing Authority). The plaintiff and mother moved into a place that defendant owned, $1400 a month was the rent. Plaintiff paid rent until December, when he complained to Housing Authority, when Housing Authority said it was uninhabitable.

However, defendant wants back rent for the time plaintiff didn't pay the rent, but still lived in home.

Plaintiff will not be getting rent back, because he ate the steak by living there. Defendant will not get unpaid rent, because it wasn't a legal rental.

Cases dismissed. (I agree with defendant, that plaintiff and his mother are professional squatters).

Second (2013)-

Not So Sweet 16-Plaintiff Thomas Sprankel suing mother of Sweet 16 daughter, for non-payment of $8900 for party at the Golden Hotel. Defendant Yolanda Jiron-Lozoya gave a deposit of $400, and contract is signed by defendant and ex-husband (father of Serenity, the 16 year old). Ex-husband is on probation in Colorado, and can't come to court in California (driving under revocation). Plaintiff says defendant stiffed him, and a bunch of other vendors (they have to file separately). Plaintiff tried to charge the credit card defendant gave him, the day after the party for $8900.

Defendant and ex reversed the charges on the credit card, but since that's fraud then ex-husband can be charged if plaintiff pursues charges in Colorado. Defendant claims they contracted for $4500, not the $8900 that the invoice, and contract call for. The contract was to cover the venue (hotel), food, cake cutting, clean up fee, and other items. Defendant says she wasn't happy with the quality of the party, food, items, etc, so she claims she shouldn't have to pay it. Defendant claims tables were too close together at dinner, claims she didn't like the food,

Defendant paid only the initial $400, and thought the plaintiff should have settled for that. Defendant claims prime rib was too rare, but it usually is (I don't like anything but well done, so I never would order prime rib for an event).

The day after the event, the plaintiff ran the ex-husband's credit card, and it bounced. I hope the hotel pressed charges against the ex for the credit card.

$5,000 for plaintiff.

Breast Cancer Faker!-Plaintiff Crystal Lopez says defendant Julia Alameo lied about having breast cancer, and accepted $8500 for treatments, and expenses, but defendant never had breast cancer. Plaintiff says defendant friend told her, and said she had breast cancer, and needed money for treatments, and expenses. The two women had been friends since high school. JJ calls defendant a very sick lady, and says she hopes one of defendant's diagnosis was from a psychiatrist. Defendant says she had a breast lump, and never had a lumpectomy, mastectomy, and was sent for a sonogram (ultrasound), and no further treatment occurred. Defendant had no further tests or treatments.

However, defendant accepted $500 to pay for the ultrasound.

The money defendant took from plaintiff totaled about $8,000. Plaintiff should have contacted police, and filed criminal charges.

Defendant didn't tell plaintiff she didn't have cancer until almost three months later. Defendant says she was diagnosed with other female issues. Plaintiff says in November that defendant had a fake IV needle in her hand, went on a trip to Vegas, used a walker. I hope that plaintiff told her story to the local newspapers too, so the woman wouldn't pull this again.

Defendant's hall-terview is hysterical, she claims plaintiff slept with her ex-husband, and broke up her marriage.

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Edited November 14, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Toaster Strudel · November 14, 2020

If you are uninsured, have an accident, and are NOT a fault, what happens? (I am not American, I don't know how that works)

DoctorK · November 14, 2020

7 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

what happens

The way it is supposed to work as I understand it, is that the person who has no fault assigned to them has no liability for the other driver's losses, but the driver at fault is liable for the damages to the uninsured driver. It may get complicated if the uninsured driver is cited for no insurance but in theory that should not be relevent, liability is all about who is at fault. (TV judges often don't seem to follow the same rules as real judges.)

Zahdii · November 14, 2020

8 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

If you are uninsured, have an accident, and are NOT a fault, what happens? (I am not American, I don't know how that works)

A few years ago I knew a couple who got in a minor accident that resulted in body damage to both cars. However, neither driver was insured. In our state, if you're caught driving uninsured, your car is towed and you have to pay the towing fee to get it out. But you have to provide proof of insurance before you can drive it off the lot, otherwise, you have to tow it away.

So, both drivers got insurance, got their cars, and drove them home. Neither owner could ask their insurance carrier to pay for the damages because the accident happened before they were insured.

The at-fault couple had a faint hope that the owners of the other car would agree to each car owner pay for the repairs for their own car, because they all worked at the same place, both cars were old, and both couples were living paycheck to paycheck. Didn't happen.

The owner of the other car got three estimates on what it would cost to repair the damage and sued for the lowest amount. They went to court and the at-fault couple lost, as expected. They were given 6 months to pay. As the guy was telling me about this, he said that once he heard that they were going to be sued, he and his wife started asking for extra shifts and doing odd jobs to start saving to pay for the repairs. They only let it go to court because it gave them an extra few weeks to save up money. Plus, they had to pay back the money they borrowed to get insurance and get their car back.

The thing that really bothered them was the owner of the other car never got their car fixed, they got the money directly and then didn't use it on their car. Then he admitted that it was understandable because the other owner had three kids, whereas he and his wife were older and all of their kids had moved out. It was pretty fascinating to hear him seem to whine in one sentence and then admit that he understood what the other people were going through in the next. He even told me that the other people were behind on their rent and since they got a payout from him, they got to keep their house and not go homeless. Then he said something like "If they'd had insurance, it would have paid for the repairs. But then the insurance company would have come after me and my wife for the money they paid out to the other car. It sucks." You'd think at this point that this guy had come to terms with what happened, but then he said "Now we have to work extra hours to pay them, when if they'd worked extra hours they wouldn't have been driving around without insurance."

LetsStartTalking · November 14, 2020

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Covid Inspired Start-Up Turns Violent?!-Plaintiff Chantea Jackson-Washington decided to start a mobile beauty salon because of Covid, and is suing her former employer (chair rental at salon), defendant Lucretia (Cree) Munns Salon owner Munns leases the salon from the shopping center owner. Plaintiff wants hair extensions that she left behind at previous salon when the salon shut down because of Covid, but defendant says she doesn't have them. Plaintiff is suing for defamation from defendant on Facebook. Plaintiff says defendant owed her $1200 on FB for booth rent, this is the period when the salon was shut by Covid, and defendant didn't pay up rent until after salon reopened. FB postings weren't done until  September.

Defamation by plaintiff dismissed, hair extensions are gone. Counter claim by defendant is for plaintiff filing a restraining against defendant for a threat to put gun to plaintiff's head, and other nasty statements (18 pages of statements from FB). Defendant claims plaintiff took wigs, and blow dryer, and they are returned in court, but defendant wants the money, not the items back. Defendant claims she should pay her $1200 rent for when salon was shut down.

Both Cases dismissed.

You Ate the Steak: Now Pay for It!-Plaintiff Michael Taylor (I'll call him Man Bun) suing for return of rent, for a time when plaintiff and his mother lived in defendant's rental property. they were renting from Lucy Wilde. Plaintiff wants return of rent, moving costs, and damages for an illegal lockout (It's legal because defendant wasn't supposed to be renting it, according to the Housing Authority).    The plaintiff and mother moved into a place that defendant owned, $1400 a month was the rent. Plaintiff paid rent until December, when he complained to Housing Authority, when Housing Authority said it was uninhabitable.

However, defendant wants back rent for the time plaintiff didn't pay the rent, but still lived in home.

Plaintiff will not be getting rent back, because he ate the steak by living there. Defendant will not get unpaid rent, because it wasn't a legal rental.

Cases dismissed. (I agree with defendnat

First Case (Hair Salon) - This case was too far complex for JJ to hear for a 'tv show'. Small business owners such as hair salons were really caught between floors during the pandemic, as state and local communities had different regulations on what would open, and what would not. Added to that, the federal gov't as well as state and city gov'ts were helping small businesses with their payrolls and their rents - and small business owners were at their mercy as all three levels of government were trying to work together (I know my state was one big mess in all this for small business owners).

Cree was trying to explain this to JJ, and it looked like she had all her forms and paperwork to back this up. She did not 'default' on her rent for business or personal reasons (or mismanaging finances) - she was caught in a battle between government rulings. When she reopened in June, she paid her rent that was due (sounded like she got the financial aid from the government by then). JJ wasn't having it.

Chantea, on the other hand, was a self-employed hairdresser who paid rent to the owner - jut like the owner paid rent to the landlord. She also owed for those 12 weeks, whether she had clients or not - just like Cree owed for those 12 weeks. As a self-employed hairdresser, she also qualified for similar government aid as Cree did, and owed rent for her chair. For some reason , JJ didn't want to hear this.

As I said, this was too complex for JJ's 'court'.

AS for the second case, between the plaintiff and defendant (and from what I could see of the defendant's witness) I thought Judy was holding auditions for a revival of 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show'. I couldn't focus on the case, as I was distracted by their appearances.

Whenever there is a 'dog case' on - especially the never-ending pit bull attacks - I no longer watch. As a dog lover, I can't bring myself to hear about dog attacks and know the outcome of the case before it even starts.

CrazyInAlabama · November 16, 2020

On 11/14/2020 at 10:50 AM, LetsStartTalking said:

Whenever there is a 'dog case' on - especially the never-ending pit bull attacks - I no longer watch. As a dog lover, I can't bring myself to hear about dog attacks and know the outcome of the case before it even starts.

This weeks new episodes will not be good for dog lovers. Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, will have a dog case on the second episode (I get those at 5 p.m.). And Tuesday's first 4 pm rerun is Husky Attacks Yorkie.

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns-

First (2017)-

Domestic Abuse or Working the System?!-Plaintiff Sainted Single Mother of One (SSMO) Toni Meadows suing her ex Martin Gustafson for vandalism, false restraining order, and lost wages, returned property. The litigants and her 17 year old son, lived together a home purchased, and paid for by defendant (home is in his name). Plaintiff SSMOO claimed an assault, but no medical or police records, and she managed to get a protective order barring defendant for 10 months from the home he financed, and was paying for. Plaintiff was a hairdresser, and did leatherwork, and earned $20k. Defendant earned $72k as a union carpenter. Down payment was $1,000, and defendant paid the mortgage of $1300 a month.

After two months, plaintiff filed for her first restraining order, and this did not get the man removed, even though the plaintiff says it did. Then she filed another restraining order, and the judge threw the defendant out of his own house for 10 months. Plaintiff SSMOO paid nothing for mortgage, taxes, utilities, etc., while the defendant paid everything on his own house that he was barred from. Defendant's legal bills to get back in his own house are $17,000, plaintiff supposedly paid $2,000.

Plaintiff is despicable. When defendant said he gave up, plaintiff was going to pay for the $206k mortgage, with an income of less than $20k. Plaintiff never paid a penny for the house, when the defendant was barred from the house. As JJ says, the mortgage people wouldn't touch a mortgage of that amount for plaintiff. Why do I have the feeling that plaintiff learned how to steal this man's house from practice?

Defendant is counter suing for vandalism, attorney's fees, bills, etc. (What the hell is up with that hairdo over plaintiff's left shoulder?) Defendant said he would only discuss the house sale, if plaintiff dropped the restraining order. They started sleeping together again (I'm so glad she didn't get knocked up). She filed the petition to drop the restraining order, and plaintiff claims he was trying to drive her out of the house. Good for defendant.

No, plaintiff SSMOO doesn't have "equitable rights". When plaintiff paid nothing while she was squatting there with her son. I bet you that if that SSMOO had the house signed over to her, it would have been on the market at a bargain price before the week was out, because it would be pure profit for her.

Plaintiff and son finally got ejected by the courts. After they resumed their screwing around, she tried for another restraining order, no medical records, and claims she didn't need medical care after being thrown down the stairs by defendant.

Plaintiff case thrown out, because it's garbage.

Defendant receives $3500.

Second (2017)-

Short Romance, Long Headache!-Plaintiff Cherie Katona SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One, age 7) suing ex Brian Nagles for unpaid loans. First an airplane ticket, that defendant didn't even go on. Defendant says he never asked to go on the trip to Nashville, or any other money plaintiff gave him, and that would mean he left his 12 and 15 year old children alone at home, because plaintiff didn't invite them. Defendant says plaintiff gave him a $400 car, and he sold it a few months later. SSMOO never paid her a penny back, during their relationship. However, SSMOO had no expectation of repayment.

In May defendant lost his job, and couldn't pay his electric bill, so plaintiff gave him the money.

$428 for plaintiff for the electric bill, and that's all.

Sparrow Breaks Lease?-Plaintiff Jodi Mcgrath suing Susan Rozanc / former landlord for security deposit of $1320 (Please tell me I don't hear the "ate the steak" story three days in a row!) , and illegal eviction. Plaintiff was a month to month tenant in a duplex that defendant purchased. Previous owner gave $1320 security to defendant. Defendant gave a 30 day notice to plaintiff, but plaintiff broke her foot, and wanted to stay longer, and said that she didn't pay July's rent, but it should be taken from the security deposit, but security isn't for unpaid rent, but damages.

Defendant took $999 out of $1320 security deposit. Plaintiff says the agreement to pay $732 for the last month her agreement, but plaintiff didn't pay $732 either.

Plaintiff gets $330 from left over security deposit, pending defendant case. Defendant is suing for lease violations, a sparrow in the house, two houseguests. (I bet it's illegal to keep a sparrow or other wild bird as a pet).

$330 to plaintiff.

Amusement Park Pass Fraud-Plaintiff Vicky Koubec suing Ms. Barkalow defendant over four annual Platinum passes to Disney World, but the passes were already used by someone, and refused by the park. The platinum passes are good for all four parks, an annual pass to the parks, free parking, and meals. The vouchers are worth $729 each, but purchased for $400 each from defendant. Defendant received $1600 cash from plaintiff. Defendant says she won the four vouchers from a local radio station, until she sold the vouchers to the plaintiff. The park employees confiscated the vouchers, saying they had already been redeemed, and were worthless.

I wonder how many others defendant sold the passes to? Defendant told to take the passes up with the radio station that she won them from.

Plaintiff receives $1600.

Edited November 16, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Silver Raven · November 16, 2020

So that woman said under oath that she didn't remember throwing a lighter, but in the Hallterview, she said she got mad at him and picked it up and threw it at him

CrazyInAlabama · November 16, 2020

5 p.m. First one New, second one a rerun-

First (New)-

Red Light Crash? Emergency Room Dash!- Plaintiff Ms. Riley suing other driver Ziro Leyva over a car accident. Plaintiff had liability insurance, but defendant had no insurance. Defendant ran a red light, and was driving a co-worker's car, and the car was uninsured at the time of the accident. Plaintiff's insurance paid $5,000 to her for bodily injuries, but nothing for her car. Plaintiff's insurance company, and attorney said there was no insurance on the car. JJ calls plaintiff's attorney to ask about the insurance issue.

Defendant has a counter claim for the value of the car, that he didn't even own on the night of the accident, he bought the car the next day, but the car was already totaled. However, I bet they thought they would pull a fast one, and get paid for the car by plaintiff's insurance. That doesn't work when you run a red light, and crash into someone the way defendant did.

Plaintiff ended up in hospital, was in the hospital, and needed physical therapy for quite a while.

It was a four way intersection, and when signal turned green plaintiff turned left, when defendant hit her car. while running a red light.

$5,000 to plaintiff.

(I believe nothing the defendant said. Who the hell buys a totaled car the day after they hit another car, and total both cars? The answer is no one. My guess is that defendant thought he could buy the co-worker's car, and then sue the plaintiff's insurance company with the help of one of those personal injury accident attorneys, and make big bucks. By the way, the TV commercial attorneys only take your case when the other driver has insurance, and you are not at fault in the police report)

Softie or Sucker?!-Plaintiff Carmen Vera Melgar suing Michael Reshad Hardman ex-boyfriend over an unpaid loan. Defendant co-signed for loan for school tuition, and later to get her car out of impound. Tuition loan was paid off by plaintiff long ago, no payments by defendant. When defendant lost his job, plaintiff loaned him money over a three month period. Plaintiff didn't add up the amounts she loaned defendant, and considers paying for dinner a loan. Sworn statement by plaintiff says $3500, but only can estimate how much she loaned him in each of the three months.

Defendant is smart, he doesn't recall any loans. I think I like that, because I loathe the plaintiff. Notation on plaintiff's withdrawal shows the defendant's middle name, and look faked to me.

Plaintiff receives $1288

Second (Rerun)-

Woman Busts Ex-Lover's Front Tooth-Plaintiff Danielle McGuire SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) suing the father of her children, Nathan Stone, for her property, and unpaid bills. Plaintiff is (Sainted Single Mother of Two) SSMOT, they lived in defendant's mother's home, with their two kids. Litigants had an argument, plaintiff left with her clothing, but wants furniture bought for the house back. Plaintiff has to prove what furniture she purchased, JJ tosses the Spring bills. Plaintiff gets her air conditioner back.

Defendant claims they were gifted the dish washer, but plaintiff had it delivered to her mother's home, with a refrigerator (who would move a refrigerator from the plaintiff's mother's house to defendant's house?). Then defendant says the new fridge went to plaintiff's mother's home, and the older one was given to plaintiff for defendant's house. Plaintiff wants bunk beds, and mattresses, and she gets that. A heater goes back to plaintiff,

Plaintiff is claiming that what she bought after she left should be paid for by the court. Defendant has texts over the previous three months offering plaintiff to come and get her items. Plaintiff will get an order to get the bunk beds, mattress for bunk beds, and heater, with police escort. Plaintiff refused to get a police escort before to pick up her items from defendant (he said she needed one).

After the big bust up, plaintiff came to pick up the kids from defendant after a visit (he keeps them while plaintiff works in the evenings), plaintiff demanded the TV, and a play station, and defendant refused. Then defendant says plaintiff threw a lighter at him, and broke his front tooth. Plaintiff claims defendant has abused her repeatedly, and claims defendant was previously charged with domestic abuse.

Plaintiff claims the kids weren't there (defendant says they were), and claims defendant attacked her, and she defended herself. You can hear the kids on the audio tape, so they were there. However, plaintiff can't remember why she went to defendant's house without the kids. (I absolutely believe the defendant, and only question why he had two kids with this loon. Defendant isn't a saint, but plaintiff is awful, and obviously aggressive).

Plaintiff has a voice recording on her phone of their argument. Recording is defendant telling her to stop bothering him. And the children's voices are on the tape too. Defendant becomes emotional about his kids being there during her assault on him.

Defendant $675 to fix his tooth, and plaintiff has an order to pick up her stuff with an escort (bunk beds, and mattress, and heater only).

Edited November 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

LetsStartTalking · November 17, 2020

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. First one New, second one a rerun-

First (New)-

Red Light Crash? Emergency Room Dash!- Plaintiff Ms. Riley suing other driver Ziro Leyva over a car accident. Plaintiff had liability insurance, but defendant had no insurance. Defendant ran a red light, and was driving a co-worker's car, and the car was uninsured at the time of the accident. Plaintiff's insurance paid $5,000 to her for bodily injuries, but nothing for her car. Plaintiff's insurance company, and attorney said there was no insurance on the car. JJ calls plaintiff's attorney to ask about the insurance issue.

Defendant has a counter claim for the value of the car, that he didn't even own on the night of the accident, he bought the car the next day, but the car was already totaled. However, I bet they thought they would pull a fast one, and get paid for the car by plaintiff's insurance. That doesn't work when you run a red light, and crash into someone the way defendant did.

Plaintiff ended up in hospital, was in the hospital, and needed physical therapy for quite a while.

It was a four way intersection, and when signal turned green plaintiff turned left, when defendant hit her car. while running a red light.

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Do I need to be the first to say that Ziro was one of the cutest, sexiest, and most polite 20 year old litigants JJ has ever had on her show? And she acted like a crazed pit bull with him?

He presented a police report to her which showed neither driver was at fault. The police report also said he had AAA insurance on the car. She didn't believe the police report for either fact. Since when does she believe the police are lying in a report ? She always asks for police reports to back up what the litigant is saying.

On the other hand, she called the plaintiff's lawyer who went by her first name only (no last name). The law firm didn't answer the phone (since when do law firms not answer a phone? they even have 24/7 answering services now just not to miss a call!). I believe she did reach them, and they didn't wish to talk to her since she has nothing to do with this case (the whole scene where she called and quickly hung up suggests this part was heavily edited). So to save herself from embarrassment, she pretended they didn't answer the phone.

Still, with all that sketchiness - she believes the plaintiff. She doesn't believe the defendant armed with police reports.

She also didn't believe the defendant paid for the car he bought, as he promised to do so the next day. Since when does she not believe in responsible people ?

Edited November 17, 2020 by LetsStartTalking

DoctorK · November 17, 2020

22 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Do I need to be the first to say that Ziro was one of the cutest, sexiest, and most polite 20 year old litigants JJ has ever had on her show?

To each their own, but he struck me as a smarmy dishonest person who tried to pull a scam by claiming that he bought the car the day after he totaled it. Also, police reports that don't identify who is at fault seem to be cases where they have no way to determine it, then the insurance companies fight it out. Also, the police do not verify insurance coverage at the time of the accident, it can be expired, cancelled or something else which the cops have no way of knowing. I also suspect that at times, they will just take someone's word for it that they have insurance with [fill in the name of some insurance company you last saw an ad for]. I wish JJ had followed up on the insurance status of the defendant so we would know one way or the other. As always, YMMV.

arejay · November 17, 2020

It seemed to me that the scraggly blond had made a left turn in front of oncoming traffic.

DoctorK · November 17, 2020

4 minutes ago, arejay said:

made a left turn in front of oncoming traffic.

According to her, she waited until she got the left turn arrow then was turning when the defendant ran a red light from the oncoming direction. Would have helped if there were any witnesses. I think the pictures of the damaged cars tended to support the plaintiff.

Edited November 17, 2020 by DoctorK

arejay · November 17, 2020

Ok, I thought she said she waited until it was clear. I was only half listening.

CrazyInAlabama · November 17, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns-

First (2017)-

Generous Aunt; Ungrateful Niece?-Plaintiff Susan Griffin suing niece Melanie and Chris Heyer, unpaid loan, locksmith fees, property damages. Niece and husband, plus four children rented plaintiff's home for eight years, and plaintiff loaned defendant money for truck repair $5100, and he paid $2200 back (it's a loan). Plaintiff is aunt to ungrateful niece. Defendant stopped paying the loan for truck repairs, and still owe 3,100. Defendant claims they did everything for aunt. Then aunt lost her job, and needed help. Defendant is SAHM, and claims aunt stopped helping defendants when aunt lost her job.

$1500 a month for home rent for aunt's home, and never raised the rent over eight years. Then when aunt needed money, and wanted to raise the rent $50 a month, and defendants refused. Defendants moved to another house for 3 bed/1 bath for $1650, and then another house 3 bed/2.5 for $1650. Damages are dismissed, and defendants have a ridiculous counter claim.

Defendants owe $2900 rent, and damages. Defendant ungrateful woman says she had violations on her driving license she didn't know about because she says plaintiff withheld their mail.

Plaintiff gets $2900 for the unpaid loan.

Husky Attacks Yorkie?!-Plaintiff Nachelle Pena suing defendant dog owner for vet bills. Defendant Jason Vanegas says the plaintiff's Yorkie barked as his Husky at the dog park, and despicable defendant is blaming the Yorkie's ball protective behavior, and barking for the attack. Defendant had two large dogs at the dog park that day.

Yorkie starts barking like crazy in court, and witness says "We didn't lose the case did we?" Dog is looking off screen, so I'm guessing at a crew member. Then Vanegas claims his Husky was only playing with the Yorkie. He also blames the dog's injuries from someone falling on the dog. Vet bills and reports for Yorkie are submitted. JJ points out to plaintiff that scrappy Yorkie doesn't belong at Dog Park, and I absolutely agree. Plaintiff should have had her dog in the small dog area, not playing with the Husky in the large dog area. Plaintiff says this wasn't her first time having the dog in the large dog area, not helping her case. However, Yorkie was badly injured, and bills add up to $ .

Police report is submitted. Poor Yorkie had a puncture wound, and broken ribs. Defendant says the Husky had the ball, and not Yorkie, and Yorkie tried to grab the ball. Dog Park does have a small dog area, but owner had dog in large dog area.

There is an unnotarized statement about the Husky being aggressive often, thrown out.

Case dismissed.

Second (2017)-

Give Me Back My Pomeranian!-Plaintiff Terror Hughes (That's what the caption says) suing her stepdaughter Talisa Hughes over not paying for a Pomeranian puppy. The mixed (not pure bred) Pomeranian puppy, Mocha, was sold to stepdaughter, after purchasing the dog for $300, and resold to stepdaughter for $110, owing 190. Officer Byrd takes custody of Mocha, who loves Officer Byrd on sight, and Officer Byrd tells JJ to hurry up and decide, because he doesn't like dogs (Mocha is licking Officer Byrd). Dog has never been to the vet, and defendant puts dog in a cage when she works full time.

Defendant has three very young children, and dog is at home alone all day in a cage. Plaintiff says she wouldn't give dog up even to a good home, that's not going to fly with JJ. Plaintiff bought puppy at four or five weeks of age, never took her to a vet, and dog is underweight. Mocha is four months old, very underweight, not wormed, no shots. I hate both litigants.

Plaintiff get paid $300 for Mocha and JJ owns the dog.

Audience applauds wildly.

Epilogue: I love this case, JJ keeps Mocha, and pays the disgusting plaintiff what's owed, and she finds her another home with a member of the production team. Dog now has a loving home, and vet care, and is so much better off. There was so much uproar from fans, that JJ posted a video about the adoption.

Engagement Ring at Stake!-Plaintiff Lester Frisby suing former fiancee Crystal Chester for the return of an engagement ring, and a cell phone. I do like the plaintiff's red jacket. Defendant says ring isn't an engagement ring, but a commitment ring, and it looks like an engagement ring to me. As JJ says if the marriage doesn't happen, then the ring goes back to the person who paid for it.

JJ says commitment is a contract also, so ring goes back to plaintiff, and he can sell it and probably get $2,000 for the $4,000 ring.

JJ now discusses the cellphone. Dismissed.

Ring returned to plaintiff.

Boyfriend Embarrassment?-Plaintiff Emily Strouch suing ex-boyfriend Benjamin Godusevich for unpaid loans, and debit card charges, and money taken without permission. Defendant still owes $80. Plaintiff sells plasma, and the company puts money on the debit card, and that adds up to $272, so now $300 total. Now total is $360 for defendant's loans, and charges. Also,

Plaintiff receives $512

Edited November 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · November 18, 2020

5 p.m. first one new, second one rerun-

First (New)-

Be Quiet, You're Winning!-Plaintiff Val McLemore suing her former landlords Vincent and Elizabeth Saldias after the walk through with the rental. Plaintiff rented the 2 bedroom one bath for three years, with a one year lease, converted to month-to-month. Plaintiff wants her $900 security deposit. Vincent Saldias did the walk through with plaintiff. (I love the plaintiff's lovely blue hair). Defendant didn't point out damage written or verbal to plaintiff at the walk through, on 12 March 2020.

Defendant sent an itemized list (they vacated on 30 March), on 20 April 2020 after plaintiff asked where her security deposit was?

Defendant claims tenants didn't pay their last 13 days of occupancy. JJ asks for photos of damages. Plaintiff claims walk through was 12 March, but 30 day to leave notice from plaintiff is dated 13 March. The back yard weeds are at least two feet high, and didn't grow in a couple of weeks. JJ alleges that the friend of defendant that parked a trailer at the house wasn't paying rental.

$900 to plaintiff

Grocery Store Slam Scam?!-Plaintiff Jaymes Smith suing Gary Maxwell Jr over defendant backing into plaintiff's car in the parking lot, plaintiff is suing for $1,000 deductible. Defendant car was owned by his girlfriend, and he's asked if it was insured at the time of the accident, Debbie Antou is car owner, and car wasn't insured. Plaintiff was coming from Stater Brothers grocery, stopped for pedestrians to clear the parking lot, and was ready to make a right turn after pedestrians moved.

Defendant claims plaintiff hit the side of his car (not possible the way he describes accident scene and damages). Plaintiff shows where he was parked, went to the end of the parking lane, and defendant was parked, and backed out into the side driver's plaintiff's truck. Car damages were $2500, with $1,000 deductible paid by plaintiff.

At the accident scene, the plaintiff and defendant exchanged information, including insurance. When defendant's car was found to be uninsured at the time of the accident, the police called him about the car not being insured (it lapsed by two days, and owner was shocked. Yes, that's sarcastic).

Don't uninsured drivers, and car owners get tickets, or cars impounded any more? Actually, I've lived in states where parking lot accidents, or other private property wouldn't have a police response unless someone was injured.

Damages to defendant's car was to his rear bumper, obviously it was defendant's fault.

Plaintiff receives $1,000.

Second (Rerun)-

You're Either an Idiot or a Liar!-Plaintiff Cody Tyler suing former friend Justin Walsh for two fraudulent checks plaintiff cashed for defendant. Plaintiff was asked to cash a check by defendant, because defendant doesn't have a bank account.

Defendant said she received first check from Margaret ???, and second check from Margaret ??? for yard work. Plaintiff is out over $800 for the checks and overdraft fees. No police report was made, by defendant, and $800 is a lot of pay for yard work?

Defendant's check writer was named Jane, not Margaret (plaintiff had check copies, not defendant). So a person named Margaret gave him checks written by Jane. Defendant didn't report the bad checks to the police, because "I don't talk to the police".

Plaintiff was homeless at the time of the check cashing, and really needed the money that defendant stole from him. Plaintiff says defendant wrote the checks himself

Plaintiff receives $870.

Pablo the Chihuahua Loses Teeth in a Fight-Plaintiff Alicia Rauch suing former roommate/landlady Leslie Johnson for vet bills, illegal lockout, and an assault. Plaintiff rented a basement apartment from defendant (home owner), and moved in with Pablo the 6 year old Chi. Defendant acted very off from medical, and drug issues. Defendant's witness tries to interrupt JJ, and is told to stop.

Plaintiff lived there less than two months. Plaintiff says when she was out, defendant grabbed the dog, took it upstairs, another dog and Pablo got into a fight, and Pablo had to have a lot of teeth extracted. Plaintiff had told her dog was not to be taken to play with the defendant's dogs. Plaintiff only brought the bill to court, but no vet records.

Pablo had a fractured canine tooth, and all of the rest of his teeth (except one) were extracted. Pablo has a history of liver, cardiac issues, and collapsing trachea, and periodontal disease. throughout in his life. (Teeth issues are very common in small dogs, like Chihuahuas)

Plaintiff is not getting the dental, and vet bills paid. Plaintiff texted landlady that she would be moving out by 30 January. Fortunately, plaintiff already took the dog to her husband's house, and still lives there. When plaintiff came home that day, the locks had all been changed. Door knob, and lock were both missing, so plaintiff called for police escort to get into the apartment to take her personal items (room was furnished).

Plaintiff says defendant/landlady was acting erratic, and was very volatile so plaintiff decided to give notice, and move at the end of the second month. Plaintiff has texts from defendant saying that 10 days before plaintiff wanted to move, defendant sent a text saying she was throwing plaintiff's stuff out in the street (Plaintiff had paid for all of January, and move out date was 30 January, not the 20th when defendant evicted her).

There are no medical records for assault, but there are photos. Plaintiff claims she was grabbed around the throat, and has scratches on her legs. Plaintiff had a witness to the assault, but defendant claims plaintiff witness is worthless as a witness, because she didn't see the start of the fight. Defendant was arrested by police after assault. Photographs of plaintiff after assault look bad, bruising, and scratches.

Rent was $600, including utilities, and plaintiff gets $1100 (for illegal lockout, and remaining rent). I totally believe the plaintiff.

$1250 to plaintiff, and defendant has a meltdown. (Another case where Officer Byrd wasn't doing a crossword puzzle through the case, and I'm sure the security people were on high alert).

Edited November 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Bigfatcat · November 18, 2020

Is there some kind of janky wig store or mobile truck that sells wigs outside Judg Judy's studio? There has got to be.

LetsStartTalking · November 18, 2020

1 hour ago, Bigfatcat said:

Is there some kind of janky wig store or mobile truck that sells wigs outside Judg Judy's studio? There has got to be.

That's what I was wondering. And they had a special on 'Easter Egg Blue' and 'Daffodil Yellow' the day of this taping. The RBG wig was sold to Judge Judy a long time ago. It's no longer in inventory.

LetsStartTalking · November 18, 2020

Am I the only one who is enjoying the show without the 'audience' (re: paid actors and models) behind the litigants ? Sometimes I would focus on the people or one person behind the litigants, and not pay attention to the case. Now it looks like they're standing in an empty basement - which I kind of like better to concentrate.

KittyMom4 · November 18, 2020

On 11/17/2020 at 12:03 PM, DoctorK said:

To each their own, but he struck me as a smarmy dishonest person who tried to pull a scam by claiming that he bought the car the day after he totaled it. Also, police reports that don't identify who is at fault seem to be cases where they have no way to determine it, then the insurance companies fight it out. Also, the police do not verify insurance coverage at the time of the accident, it can be expired, cancelled or something else which the cops have no way of knowing. I also suspect that at times, they will just take someone's word for it that they have insurance with [fill in the name of some insurance company you last saw an ad for]. I wish JJ had followed up on the insurance status of the defendant so we would know one way or the other. As always, YMMV.

He was a lying liar who lies. He was speeding, ran a red light, no insurance, he's a jerk.

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Be Quiet, You're Winning!-Plaintiff Val McLemore suing her former landlords Vincent and Elizabeth Saldias after the walk through with the rental.

The landlord was a scam artist, The lawn wasn't mowed? I loved the fake "bill" he submitted as well. Glad she got her money, maybe she and her friend can get better wigs.

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Don't uninsured drivers, and car owners get tickets, or cars impounded any more? Actually, I've lived in states where parking lot accidents, or other private property wouldn't have a police response unless someone was injured.

Damages to defendant's car was to his rear bumper, obviously it was defendant's fault.

Plaintiff receives $1,000.

I wish they were made to have giant signs put on their vehicles that say I DRIVE WITHOUT INSURANCE. I hate irresponsible people who just shrug and say "so what?" while the rest of us who make sure we dot our i's and cross our t's are left to pay for their mistakes.

24 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Am I the only one who is enjoying the show without the 'audience' (re: paid actors and models) behind the litigants ? Sometimes I would focus on the people or one person behind the litigants, and not pay attention to the case. Now it looks like they're standing in an empty basement - which I kind of like better to concentrate.

Me too, you could always tell the ones who were looking to be noticed, tons of make up, weird expressions, etc. I was able to tune them out but Mr. Keps would constantly point them out while I was trying to hear the case, I found that very annoying!

CrazyInAlabama · November 18, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Here's $30K; Go Furnish the House-Plaintiff Jesse Williams JR. suing ex-girlfriend Emmerick for filing two false protective orders, Two litigants lived together for a long time, plaintiff received a settlement from work, put all of the money down on a house, paid all of the mortgage, and bills. Plaintiff gave defendant $30k to furnish the home, they they split up, and since deed is in both names, defendant is trying to get the house. Defendant filed for an order of protection, and plaintiff was put out of his own house (he's the only one who paid anything on this house). Because plaintiff was foolish enough to put defendant's name on the deed, plaintiff will have to sue in local court, and sell the house, and make some kind of settlement on the house.

Defendant tossed out of the courtroom for being a gold digging tramp. Defendant will not sign a quit claim deed, and plaintiff is in trouble.

Defendant was counter claiming for the furniture, and appliances in the house, that's dismissed. However, plaintiff says when he finally got back in his house, defendant had stolen all of the furniture, appliances, and anything she could remove. Plaintiff is broke

Plaintiff case dismissed, and he's advised to go back to a local court.

Judge's Verdict on Prom Dress - Awful!-Plaintiff Florence Traore and daughter (age 19) suing seamstress Nichole Alexander over a prom dress plaintiff hired defendant to make for the plaintiff daughter's prom. Dress costs $400, and was the first time defendant sewed for the plaintiff. (The original prom dress picture example is a low cut, mermaid, skin tight). Fabric was $100 additional. Plaintiff bought the wrong fabric, and then bought another piece of fabric.

Dress is shown in court, and bears no resemblance to the skank picture plaintiff and daughter wanted, the workmanship is hideous. (I find it hard to understand why anyone is paying for their teenage daughter to wear something as provocative as the dress plaintiff wanted).

Seamstress/defendant's picture of the dress plaintiffs wanted is still cut down to the waist, and all lace, but still doesn't look like the picture. The defendant says plaintiff didn't want lace at all. The night before the prom, the plaintiff and plaintiff's daughter went to seamstress house, and tried on the dress. Mother saw the dress too that night. For the second fitting, the plaintiff daughter is the only one that saw the dress. Daughter didn't tell defendant she didn't like the dress, and took it with her. Daughter bought another dress for the prom. Daughter says seamstress dress was cut too low, but the pictures are both very low cut, or open lace.

Plaintiff case dismissed, daughter didn't dislike the dress, only the mother.

(Mother says she's going to another court, nope that's not happening after she signed the court papers for this case agreeing to binding arbitration).

Second (2017)-

Single Mother Breaks House Rules-Plaintiff mother Angelia Burts suing her daughter Shaniqua Williams SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) (22 years old children are 4 and 1) for broken windows, and damages. Daughter paid no rent, only some food stamps, and lived in mother's house for five months. Defendant is also on some kind of welfare.

Defendant was evicted, and moved to mother's house with her two children, but plaintiff's two other children lived there. Defendant didn't have a key to house, and plaintiff says daughter is a neglectful mother. Plaintiff also didn't allow defendant's boyfriend to stay in her house either. Plaintiff says defendant was arguing with her sister, and claims defendant broke into the house through the window. Defendant was coming home with her boyfriend with the two kids after a weekend away. Plaintiff says daughter didn't call and say she was coming home, because she doesn't get along with her sister, and mother doesn't want the boyfriend in the house either. Daughter arrives at house, knocked on the door, but no answer, and defendant knocked on the window to mother's bedroom. Daughter claims the window breaking was an accident. Plaintiff had defendant arrested after the altercation with sister, and the window breaking.

$550 for window repair, and fines from landlord. Defendant's counter claim dismissed.

Father Steals from Incarcerated Son?!-Plaintiff David Danino suing his father Jacob Danino for selling plaintiff's car when he was in prison, and for personal property. The car was a Mercedes 2007, with a loan on it, and when plaintiff went to prison, father picked up car, and dealer took $2000 to pay off the car loan. Defendant wants the $2000 back from son for the loan.

Plaintiff also lost the truck he was living in, but truck was repossessed by dealership. Plaintiff now has the Mercedes back in his possession, and all liens are paid off. Defendant also was asked to clean out the plaintiff's apartment, and plaintiff is suing over the illegal eviction in a separate small claims case in another court. Plaintiff claims father has a whole list of personal property belonging to the plaintiff, and it's not returned. Father says repo company had the property in the truck, because he had been evicted from the apartment

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Father has $2,000 lien on Mercedes.

Edited November 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · November 19, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

TV Appearance Fee Held Ransom?!-Plaintiff Chloe Raymond-Smith (a very young age 19) suing Alphonso Cruz for return of money she paid him for a car, $3200, and he resold to someone else. Car was listed on Facebook Marketplace. The bill of sale was written by a friend of plaintiff, named Nick, but she can't remember his last name (it's Koe or Poe). Plaintiff paid $3200 for car through payments, on Venmo, and another app. When plaintiff took tow truck, and went to pick up car, defendant said car was gone, and hung up on her.

JJ askes defendant what's wrong with him, apparently terminal gall, and stupidity.

JJ tells defendant that when he pays plaintiff her money, he will receive his $500 appearance fee. If no money is paid to plaintiff then show will pay plaintiff $3200, but defendant will receive nothing. (Officer Byrd is really enjoying JJ's ruling).

(I agree with the other posters, sleazy Mr. Cruz will never give up the $3200, in return for $500. I hope his car engine grenaded on the middle of the freeway on the way home, and the transmission fell out at the same time).

Freeway Pile Up!-Plaintiff Paulo Recio suing fellow motorist Jerome Joseph plaintiff was first car in three car pile up, and is suing the last car #3 for car damages. Defendant says police came to accident, but only asked people in first car (Recio) and second car, for their proof of insurance, but didn't ask him. Defendant was driving his grandmother's car (since totaled in another accident), and wasn't insured, and police failed to cite him for that.

Traffic was stopped, Car #3 Recio was fully stopped, and car #2 was also stopped, and Car #1 Joseph wasn't paying attention, slammed into the back of Car #2, and pushed that into the rear of Car #3. Defendant Joseph was speeding at the time of the accident, failed to stop in time, slamming into the rear of Car #2, and causing that car to hit Car #3.

Defendant was on his phone at the time of the accident. Defendant was driving for Postmates at the time, looked at his phone for the map, and hit the plaintiff's car, and the other car. I wonder if defendant's car was insured, but he wasn't a legal driver for that car?

Cause of collision on police report is defendant, speeding, and looking at his phone while driving.

Plaintiff receives $1200 (or he can get it fixed, and come back to court with the actual costs). (Plaintiff says defendant was trying to leave the scene before police got there, and failed).

(I think someone should explain to JJ that some states don't even respond to accidents unless there's an injury, and if it's on private property, can't and don't write tickets. Other places they're overwhelmed, and leave accident investigation to the insurance companies, and that way the officers don't spend endless days testifying in court about some fender bender. I hated the defendant, he could have killed people, and doesn't even care. I'm betting that he was driving grandma's car when it was totaled after this accident too. )

Second (New)-(first case graphic dog case, with another idiot owner)-

Outrageous Dog Owner?!-Plaintiff Gary Wong suing fellow dog owner Ronald Nebreda for his broken glasses, and vet bills for his 10 lb miniature Poodle. In March and September, plaintiff says defendant's vicious dog attacked his tiny poodle twice. In March, poodle was on leash, when Nebreda's dog attacked and bit his poodle. Nebreda claims his dog was being watched (Siberian Husky/ German Shepherd mix) in the garage, by his neighbor. Garage door was wide open, when defendant dog attacked the plaintiff's dog. Defendant said he would be neighborly, and pay part of the bills. (Sadly defendant's witness has about 4 teeth, and can barely talk). Bills were $1487, and defendant refused to pay.

In September, plaintiff was taking out the garbage, and going to walk his dog on leash, when he saw Nebreda's dog unleashed, and free. Then Nebreda's dog attacked the tiny poodle again, and Nebreda got off his useless ass, and called his dog off. Defendant claims the poodle came to his garage, and the poodle was on his property when it was nipped by the vicious defendant's animal.

As JJ says, defendant's story is ridiculous.

$4500 was the September bill,

Plaintiff receives $5000.

Forbidden Pandemic Eviction?!-Plaintiff Angela Estrada suing former tenant Madison Borrecco over house damages, lock changing fees, late fees, and utilities. Tenancy was from June 2018, and on June 2019 became month to month, and lived in the house until May 2020. There was a pandemic moratorium for non-payment starting in March 2020, and she couldn't evict for non-payment. Tenant paid late, but still paid the entire rent owed, but late, and late fees are dismissed.

Plaintiff says the defendant painted all of the bedrooms, didn't even take the painter's tape off. However, plaintiff hadn't painted the house in five years. Plaintiff kept the $1,000 security deposit, and she wants $4,000 from Officer Byrd's wallet. JJ wants to see photographs of damages. Front security door wouldn't close, and had been pried open by tenant. $360 for security door. The tenant never changed the air filter in three years, and JJ blames that on plaintiff/landlord, (House rentals I've had tenant had to clean or change filter).

House was renovated 11 years ago, when plaintiff inherited it, but only changed carpets five years ago, and painted five years ago also. Sorry, paint job by tenant sucks, but house desperately needs paint, and new carpets.

With one month vacancy, house was rerented.

Plaintiff gets $143, over the $1000 she kept of the security deposit.

(First new case Friday is a dog poisoning case)

Edited November 19, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

LetsStartTalking · November 19, 2020

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

TV Appearance Fee Held Ransom?!-Plaintiff Chloe Raymond-Smith (a very young age 19) suing Alphonso Cruz for return of money she paid him for a car, $3200, and he resold to someone else. Car was listed on Facebook Marketplace. The bill of sale was written by a friend of plaintiff, named Nick, but she can't remember his last name (it's Koe or Poe). Plaintiff paid $3200 for car through payments, on Venmo, and another app. When plaintiff took tow truck, and went to pick up car, defendant said car was gone, and hung up on her.

JJ askes defendant what's wrong with him, apparently terminal gall, and stupidity.

JJ tells defendant that when he pays plaintiff her money, he will receive his $500 appearance fee. If no money is paid to plaintiff then show will pay plaintiff $3200, but defendant will receive nothing. (Officer Byrd is really enjoying JJ's ruling).

Freeway Pile Up!-Plaintiff Paulo Recio suing fellow motorist Jerome Joseph plaintiff was first car in three car pile up, and is suing the last car #3 for car damages. Defendant says police came to accident, but only asked people in first car (Recio) and second car, for their proof of insurance, but didn't ask him. Defendant was driving his grandmother's car (since totaled in another accident), and wasn't insured, and police failed to cite him for that.

Traffic was stopped, Car #3 Recio was fully stopped, and car #2 was also stopped, and Car #1 Joseph wasn't paying attention, slammed into the back of Car #2, and pushed that into the rear of Car #3. Defendant Joseph was speeding at the time of the accident, failed to stop in time, slamming into the rear of Car #2, and causing that car to hit Car #3.

Defendant was on his phone at the time of the accident. Defendant was driving for Postmates at the time, looked at his phone for the map, and hit the plaintiff's car, and the other car. I wonder if defendant's car was insured, but he wasn't a legal driver for that car?

Cause of collision on police report is defendant, speeding, and looking at his phone while driving.

Plaintiff receives $1200 (or he can get it fixed, and come back to court with the actual costs). (Plaintiff says defendant was trying to leave the scene before police got there, and failed).

TV Appearance Fee:

Let's analyze Judge Judy's option for the defendant, Mr. Cruz...

Defendant can either refund the $3200 to plaintiff and get $500 in return, or keep the $3200 and not receive the $500 appearance fee. This is not a hard choice to make for Cruz - why would he return $3200 for $500 in return? Keep the $3200 and tell Judge Judy 'See ya!'

(The plaintiff will get her $3200 back from the show anyway plus $500 from the show, so she's fine).

Let's analyze the plaintiff, Chloe Raymond-Smith:

In my best Judge Judy voice I can muster:

"Miss Smith, where did you think you were coming today? To an audition for 'The Bachelor' as one of the bimbos looking for TV sex? This is a court! You come prepared ! Now tell me what is Nick's last name, or I'll dismiss your case right now!"

Freeway Pile-Up:

Jerome Joseph had a police report (just like the other defendant Ziro did the other day) and this time Judge Judy believed everything on the police report. Imagine that ? I felt bad for Jerome - he was either very nervous or had a speech impediment, and was very conscious of his stuttering. I wanted to give him a hug !

Forbidden Pandemic Eviction:

Judge Judy pointed out recently the government's block on witholding eviction during a pandemic was ONLY for those people who had lost their income during the pandemic - and they had to show proof. I don't believe the tenant proved her income was effected by the pandemic, and I don't think she mentioned she was even a victim of the pandemic ! Let me know if I'm mistaken... Otherwise, the eviction was lawful in June, 2020.

Edited November 19, 2020 by LetsStartTalking

SRTouch · November 19, 2020

1 hour ago, LetsStartTalking said:

TV Appearance Fee:

I was thinking the same thing - no way is he going to trade that envelope of cash for $500 appearance fee...... if he had any intention of returning anything he would have brought the money to court - or better yet return it before the case was heard

Quote

Freeway Pile-Up:

Jerome Joseph had a police report (just like the other defendant Ziro did the other day) and this time Judge Judy believed everything on the police report. Imagine that ? I felt bad for Jerome - he was either very nervous or had a speech impediment, and was very conscious of his stuttering. I wanted to give him a hug !

Kid had two strikes before he opened his mouth. ALL the court tv judges (well, probably all judges) had unlicensed drivers. This guy was admittedly at fault, his story had holes. Thing I was thinking was that his employer should have maintenance copy of his insurance if he was in fact a food delivery driver....... back when I delivered pizza that info was stored on the computer and we couldn't log into the system without current drivers license and insurance

Quote

Forbidden Pandemic Eviction:

Judge Judy pointed out recently the government's block on witholding eviction during a pandemic was ONLY for those people who had lost their income during the pandemic - and they had to show proof. I don't believe the tenant proved her income was effected by the pandemic, and I don't think she mentioned she was even a victim of the pandemic ! Let me know if I'm mistaken... Otherwise, the eviction was lawful in June, 2020.

Hmmmmm, but was it even an eviction? We'really talking about a month to month rental - tenant (eventually) paid the April and May rent by the end of May, but was landlord within her rights not to let tenant stay past end of June.....

of course, case really not about an eviction, but about owed rent (plus late fees) and 'a lot of damage.' Problem seems to be landlord is another one of those who wants to renovate only the tenant's dime - which always revs Judy up. Tenant lived there for 2 years and never changed the ac/heater filter (landlord writes date on filters so she knows when they were last replaced). JJ declares such routine maintenance is landlord's responsibility (didn't we just see MM on TPC jump all over some tenant in a rented trailer who never replaced his filters). There are some landlords who cone around and do routine checks and replace filters - after all it just makes sense to protect their property - so not sure why JJ jumps all over this landlord for what is obviously a filthy and clogged filter - other things I agree landlord was over reaching and she is caught lieing about brand new carpet which turns out was put in prior to the previous tenants (turns out carpet was 5 years old, not 2) - yeah, tenant did lousy paint job - but she tried, and unless she really screwed up in would say after 2 years probably needed painting anyway (painted 5 years ago)........ really, want I see is mainly filth and sloppy clean up attempt, not major disaster entitling landlord to thousands (she already kept the $1000 deposit and I think wanted additional thousands)...... as JJ goes down list I'm getting why she is being so hard on landlord because of the over reaching...... replacement cost on 5 year old carpet and full charge the 5yo paint....... really, I'm wondering if P will end up even keeping the $1000 deposit (not sure if tenant has countersuit asking for anything back) but we'll see after commercial if she can come up with something. When we get to broken windows I can'tell help but think maybe reason tenant had broken/missing windows was because the ac wasn't working because of that filter........ JJ calls the case even though landlord is still trying to show her evidence - her decision is tenant owes $1143 minus the $1000 deposit landlord kept - net $143 to P....... basically $400 cleaning, a couple hundred for missing/replacement windows, $300 for bent up security door and something about a plumber and clogged toilet......... guess JJ had something more important to do than earn her megabucks she's paid for these cases - tenant had a folder of evidence and pictures she picked up at the end, but don't think she actually presented anything into evidence

Edited November 19, 2020 by SRTouch

NYGirl · November 19, 2020

Boy did Judge Judy give that landlord the third degree in today's episode. What does it matter how he became the homeowner. It had no basis on the case.

The plaintiff moved his 3 daughters into the 2 rooms he rented in the house and was on a month to month. He can be evicted at any time for any reason.

I felt sorry for the landlord. JJ was looking at him with distain

Edited November 20, 2020 by NYGirl

CrazyInAlabama · November 19, 2020

I keep wondering why JJ is so hard on landlords, or people who buy an income property, rent it out, and then sell at a profit years later when the market improves? Or rent out a property when they move elsewhere, rent it for a few years, and then sell it? That's one way to keep the economy going, and make money.

I was very worried for a while, I kept getting that system error note again. All fixed now. Thank you to whoever fixed it. The good news is no dog cases today, but two new ones tomorrow.

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns-

First (2017)-

Commission Mission! -Plaintiff Pierre Rhodan was arrested in a company truck, on company time, and is suing Chris Stefan his former boss, . Plaintiff says he was going to be given a raise, but then was fired, and trespassed from the property. Plaintiff wants unpaid commission from an unpaid side job for company, and wrongful termination. Plaintiff worked at a Pet Expo, loading and unloading, and worked at the expo selling pet dryers for grooming (he upsold the dryers, talked buyers into buying more expensive models), and plaintiff says he was never paid the commissions. However, the Pet Expo was February, and worked at the company until July.

Defendant says plaintiff wanted some time off on 3 July, and plaintiff claims owner said days off were OK. Plaintiff was arrested in June for a seat belt violation, in a company truck on company time. Plaintiff needed the time off for court cases, not the seatbelt case, and for his son's medical needs. Plaintiff doesn't say what the other court appearances were for. Plaintiff says the same day that defendant was going to give him a $2 an hour raise, he was fired.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Buddy Pass Fraud?!- Plaintiff Brady Boynton suing Nigel Gilbow for money lost on two buddy pass plaintiff bought from defendant. They met on craigslist when defendant advertised the pass, and plaintiff bought two passes, one way each. Defendant had 16 buddy passes, and plaintiff used 5 trips on the buddy/companion pass, but they're meant for someone to go with an employee. However, defendant got fired, and the buddy passes were cancelled.

Plaintiff wants the money for the passes, and taxes. Defendant is counter suing for plaintiff stranding him in Phoenix. Plaintff paid $5,700+ he claims via Western Union. Defendant charges plaintiff taxes on the tickets, went round trip to Israel, Argentina and back, twice, Dallas, Phoenix, Boise, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Vegas, and all were business class. Defendant has a list of the many trips the plaintiff took.

Plaintiff is swilling the Water that Must Not Be Drunk like he's very thirsty, or guilty.

This sounds like an "Ate the Steak" case, plaintiff had plenty of travel for $5700. Defendant was fired by the airline.

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage. Mr. Boynton gets the Byrd Boot.

Defendant went on a truck trip with plaintiff, and claims plaintiff stranded him in Phoenix. They were on the way back to Phoenix, plaintiff left him in Phoenix. JJ points out that the tickets were buddy passes, not to resell.

Defendant case dismissed too.

Second (2017)-

Pants From Thailand for Sale!-Plaintiff Cindy Gilmore suing defendant Chennel McDanielfor their inventory for their business, pants from Thailand. Plaintiff makes the pants, and give them to defendant on consignment. Pants are made in Thailand, but plaintiff still calls herself a manufacturer, nope, just an importer. Plaintiff claims defendant sold the pants, but didn't pay the plaintiff the money from the consignment sales.

Defendant says her rent went up, and other issues, but didn't pay the consignment fees to plaintiff. Defendant did return some pants to plaintiff. Plaintiff says inventory that defendant owes for is $. However, plaintiff still shipped more inventory to defendant, with defendant owing payments. $916 was owed on 2 June, but plaintiff still shipped more pants to defendant. Defendant witness is kicked out for not shutting up. Litigants are sent outside to figure out what is owed to the plaintiff. Plaintiff shouldn't have given defendant more inventory, when she hadn't paid for previous inventory.

Plaintiff owes for 349 pair of pants, but defendant says it's 95 pair of pants. $1685 is the amount owed on email from plaintiff to defendant.

$1,685 to plaintiff.

Take My Loan Out of the Tip Jar!-Plaintiff Thomas Hagen suing former friend Melissa Smith for an unpaid loan. Plaintiff loaned bartender/manager $2,000 for legal fees, and interlock device to defendant after her two DUI's. Defendant claims plaintiff (a regular bar customer), would take the loan repayment back from tips he would usually give her. Plaintiff says he has a text that defendant would pay back the $2,000 by July, but she never paid him.

JJ figures, plaintiff repaid nothing. Defendant was finally fired.

Plaintiff receives $2000.

Edited November 19, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · November 19, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Real Estate Mogul Sues Section 8 Tenant?!-Plaintiff landlord April Wash and Mon Lin suing former tenant Maria Nunez for unpaid rent. Plaintiff owns 40 single family, and some multiple dwelling, and some offices. Maria Nunez rented in November 2018, for a 2 bed, 2 bath unit in a fourplex, Ms. Nunez was on Section 8. Apartments rent for $3500 (3 bed 2 bath), or $2700 (2 bed 2 bath). Plaintiff received section 8, plus $944 from tenant. Plaintiff has rented other homes/apartments under Section 8. Contract says $1756 was tenant portion, but defendant only paid $944.

Plaintiff wants $16,000 from tenant, even though the plaintiff accepted the $944 rent for tenant, her daughter, two grandkids, and sometimes the grandfather. Plaintiff screwed up, and shouldn't get a penny, because she accepted the $944 for the three years of the lease. As JJ points out, where in hell is tenant supposed to get $16000?

Plaintiff's daughter is an attorney, but never evicted the defendant/tenant for the non-payment.

For the past five months, tenant claims the Section 8 went down to $624 a month. Plaintiffs accepted $944 in June, $944 in July, and July $250, August $2056, September $624 from tenant. October $624 from tenant.

Plaintiff and attorney daughter never moved to evict tenant.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Tenant will move in December. (A historic day, I agree with JJ about a tenant landlord case).

Thank Your Lucky Covid Stars?!-Plaintiff Giles Jennings suing former landlord, Maria Roumbos, for the return of security deposit, and return of rent for a few days. $1850 was security deposit, on a furnished one bedroom. Next tenant rented the apartment unfurnished, and when movers took the furniture out, defendant claims apartment was dirty. There is a little floor trash from under the bed, and who says it was the same tenant that left that, since the apartment was furnished?

$686 to plaintiff for the rent, and cleaning fee.

Second (New)-

Be Nice, It’s Judge Judy’s Birthday!-Plaintiff Ronald Mendez rented a room in John Gryga defendant's house, and is suing for illegal eviction of himself and his family. Plaintiff moved in, then moved. Rent was $500 a month, then one daughter, and the other daughter moved in, so rent went to $800. Plaintiff bought a bunkbed, and first daughter lived in the room with him. Then the second adult daughter of plaintiff moved in too. Another man was property manager, when plaintiff moved in, named Jerry, then defendant was managing the home about 2014, and then bought the house.

Then defendant wanted plaintiff and his daughters out, in 2019, and finally defendant moved into the house himself. Defendant says two daughters, weren't on the lease, and then another daughter moved in, also not on lease, and in 2018, plaintiff rented two rooms, for $800 a month. Plaintiff's wife was also going to move into the two bedrooms rented at defendant's house. Defendant says he bought the home in April 2019, from the original owner. Defendant says he issued a 60 notice to quit on 11-11-2019 to plaintiff. Eventually defendant filed for eviction of plaintiff. Defendant says plaintiff moved back into the house in 2014. but plaintiff claims he lived in house from 2011.

Plaintiff claims defendant didn't tell everyone he had bought the house. So what! Plaintiff also says the November notice, with an end date of January 2020, shouldn't work because of Covid. Defendant bought house in 30 April 2019, because it was going into foreclosure. Defendant paid the back amount to the bank, assumed the mortgage. House was a short sale, and previous owner, Jerry sold the house to defendant.

Jerry, the previous owner agreed to transfer the house to defendant, if Jerry could still live in the house. Jerry was about to be foreclosed on, so he made a good deal. I don't understand what JJ has against the defendant buying the house. It was for sale, and he purchased it, and the previous owner missed a huge mark against his credit. I hate to break it to JJ, Zillow estimates are not accurate.

Plaintiff, wife, three daughters, all live in a rented house, but not until May, 2020. For $3000 a month. However, in April plaintiff didn't pay rent. Plaintiff should have brought the elusive Jerry to court, instead of having his two daughters in court.

Sorry JJ, but the passive-aggressive plaintiff and his family should have moved out when the eviction date happened.

Plaintiff didn't pay rent for January, through April, adding up to $6400 (they had two rooms at $800 a month).

Both cases dismissed. (Sorry, but house was in bad shape, with a lot of work needed, and didn't even meet the amount that Zillow says because it needed a lot of expensive work).

(Happy Birthday Judge Judy!)

(Tomorrow's new episodes both have dog related cases).

Edited November 20, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

DoctorK · November 20, 2020

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

take the loan repayment back from tips he would usually give her. Pl

I agree with the final result but if JJ thinks that 20% is a big tip on a bar tab, she doesn't spend a lot of time in bars.

BusyOctober · November 20, 2020

Lady with the 40 income properties and her daughter had a lot of nerve bringing a case over THEIR error in rent. Let’s assume the 40 units she has are all 1-&2- BR a units. I think she said she gets $1700 for the 1 BR, and $3k for 2 BR. Let’s do some math...if 1/2 her units are 1BR: 1700 x 20 x 12mos= $408,000. 2BR: 3000 x 20 x 12mos = $720,000 for a grand total of $1,128,000 of rent collected per year (assuming full occupancy of course). Even factoring in COVID and loss of rent payments for 2020, this lady has been pulling in some serious income over the years! And to demand $16k in “back pay” of her supposed short fall from this one tenant (who receives government housing assistance FFS) is ridiculous. Maybe this land lady and her attorney daughter should spend more time reviewing her property financials to catch any discrepancies sooner, and less time at the medical spa getting Botox and face lifts. Neither one of those woman could blink!

Florinaldo · November 20, 2020

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Real Estate Mogul Sues Section 8 Tenant?!

The argument that the mother was not at ease in English because it is her second language was obviously a ploy to gain sympathy and make it look like she had been taken advantage of. She understood perfectly JJ'S questions and replied cogently, all in English. Furthermore as JJ said, "numbers are her first language" and she should have been the one to spot the mistake much earlier, without shifting that responsibility to her tenant.

As for the daughter, is she a practicing lawyer? She seemed unsure of the law, was not able to develop a solid argument and kept acting like a schoolgirl. I think she may have got a trophy diploma which just hangs on the wall without any other real use.

Also, I do not believe I would trust the judgment and professionalism of an attorney sporting such long sharp nails and having that big ugly tattoo on the back of one hand. Perhaps she moonlights as a biker chick...

plumbago blues · November 20, 2020

OMG! Did anyone else find it beyond ironic that a current Covid Edition of JJ featured a litigant with such a sore throat she couldn't even talk???? Man, anymore, just clearing one's throat in public, behind a mask, causes mass eyebrow raising. Funny.

12 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

Maybe this land lady and her attorney daughter should spend more time reviewing her property financials to catch any discrepancies sooner, and less time at the medical spa getting Botox and face lifts. Neither one of those woman could blink!

That daughter has erased her Asian features. I was surprised that she was related to the lady.

ItsHelloPattiagain · November 20, 2020

23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I was thinking the same thing - no way is he going to trade that envelope of cash for $500 appearance fee...... if he had any intention of returning anything he would have brought the money to court - or better yet return it before the case was heard

You think there's an envelope with $3200 sitting on his nightstand?!? ***laughs heartily ********

14 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

Maybe this land lady and her attorney daughter should spend more time reviewing her property financials to catch any discrepancies sooner, and less time at the medical spa getting Botox and face lifts. Neither one of those woman could blink!

That was a weird combo there. The landlady has 40 properties. She has to know what she was doing. Perhaps the "bird in the hand" doctrine should have been taught to her daughter in "law school".

CrazyInAlabama · November 20, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Pick Axes and Sucker Punches?!-Plaintiff Jasmine Huntsman suing defendant mother Delashawn Green, and daughter Fiance Brown for vandalizing her car, took turns pick axing her front door, and many windows, and is suing for $5,000. Defendants say daughter defendant was in plaintiff's home with her brother, and they were arguing. Then daughter says plaintiff sucker punched the daughter, and injured her, and the protective order plaintiff filed for. Defendants are counter suing for $5,000

Plaintiff claims defendant daughter came to fight her at her home, when the attack happened, and claims she was trying to break up a fight outside. . Part of the claim is that plaintiff was driving for Uber, and she couldn't drive because of the car damages.

Plaintiff claims the mother and daughter attacked her house, and car with the pick axe. Police report doesn't say plaintiff claimed the defendants did the damages.

Each side was given $5,000, so cancelled each other out. I absolutely believe the assaults, pick a

Second (2017)-

Teen Breaks Off Ankle Monitor!-Plaintiff grandmother Barbara Miller is suing her Marquette Foster, granddaughter, and Mishawn Gray, her daughter. Plaintiff says she got custody of granddaughter at 3 months, stayed until age 11, then mother wanted her back, and grandmother got sick, and gave custody back. At age 12 grandmother had custody of Marquette again, Custody changed a few times, and at 14 granddaughter went into placement, and back to mom, in placement again, and back to mother. Granddaughter had an ankle bracelet, broke it to do naughty things, and then took grandmother's card, and charged clothes, and other things, at grandmother's and at mother's home.

Granddaughter accessed grandmothers Amazon account, and her card was tied into the account. As JJ says, when the granddaughter used the card at grandmother's home, it was grandmother's role to stop her. Only bills since December 2016 when granddaughter lived with her mother, and granddaughter charged a lot starting in June 2017. Defendant charged a lot of movies on Amazon, and her own Amazon Prime membership. Granddaughter ordered hair off of Wish . com using grandmother's card.

Defendant mother is counter suing for grandmother keeping Marquette's social security checks, but it was for months that granddaughter was in placement, and not in either home. Granddaughter was getting SSDI, and that started in 2015.

Plaintiff receives $600 for the charges while criminal granddaughter was living with mother. Mother's counter claim for SSDI payments are dismissed, because daughter wasn't with her either during that time period.

Dangerous Dog Euthanized-Plaintiff Anna Aldava suing sister's neighbor Angela Dougherty over a dog attack by defendant on plaintiff's sister's property. Defendant's dog broke through the fence, and attacked the plaintiff's cute little dog. Defendant claims the fence was in disrepair on the day of the attack, on the small dog. Defendant had fixed the fence many times over the years. Plaintiff cute little dog is adorable, and I'm surprised it's alive after defendant's dog attacked it.

Defendant put her dog down, because it was the second attack by her dog. Defendant keeps whining about the fence condition. On the previous attack, the other dog had cancer and died from the attack. Defendant still keeps whining about why the fence was bad. My guess is that defendant probably will get a replacement that's just as dangerous as her previous dog was. Defendant dog was only 2 1/2, and had two reported attacks. Defendant also whining about having to get rid of her other dogs, and pay court fees.

Plaintiff receives $3553 for vet bills.

Edited November 20, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Sign In

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ItsHelloPattiagain

bad things are bad

AZChristian

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment