All Episodes Talk: All Rise

LetsStartTalking · December 24, 2020

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first episode first case new, second case?, second episode rerun-

First (2020) new-

Buffalo Head Mystery (2020)-Plaintiff Michael Carpenter is suing defendant for the stuffed buffalo head that was in her bar, but plaintiff claims was his stolen buffalo head, and disappeared from the bar after plaintiff wanted the buffalo head back. Defendant Kimberly Morales is the bar owner. Plaintiff says he took the buffalo head to a taxidermist 40 years ago (he's 70), and his father picked the head up, but he never got the head back. For many years, plaintiff claims the buffalo head in the bar was his, and came to Ms. Morales by her recent purchase of the bar from the previous bar owner. There is no way of knowing what plaintiff's father did with the buffalo head he picked up from the taxidermist. My biggest question is why did the plaintiff's father pick up and keep the buffalo head from the taxidermist? Was plaintiff out of town (incarcerated? On a trip to Mars?).

Plaintiff asked previous bar owner where he got the buffalo head from (hearsay, inadmissible). 10 years ago, plaintiff claims he found his buffalo head in the bar was the same head he had mounted, and was hanging in the bar. Plaintiff had no room to hang the head until recently, and then he went to get the head. (Buffalo heads aren't that distinctive, so I think he's out of luck). Plaintiff is moving to Wyoming to open a restaurant, and has three semitrucks to move his stuff, including the buffalo head he wants back. Defendant has a bill of sale for the bar, and says two buffalo heads were loaned, but it doesn't say who they were loaned from. The one buffalo head is still hanging in the bar, but plaintiff's buffalo head is gone, and defendant claims some other customer picked it up over a year ago.

Case dismissed, defendant doesn't have the damn buffalo head. Defendant says another person came with proof, and took the head. Defendant says even plaintiff's daughter told her that the head wasn't plaintiff's buffalo head. Plaintiff can get another one for about $100 and up on ebay.

Plaintiff ridiculous case dismissed.

Stop Stinking Up My House! (2020)-Plaintiff Divanny  Ledesma suing former landlord Allison Hunt for security deposit. $1700 was for two months rent, and security deposit. Plaintiff moved in mid-September, and moved out in October, before plaintiff's notice until November.

Landlady thinks because $1700 check was written by plaintiff's parents, then that is important.    Plaintiff says defendant's rules were ridiculous. Plaintiff says defendant didn't like the smell of cooking eggs, and other items.

Plaintiff says between Sept. 30th and Oct. 5th, she figured out from the HOA documents that the room rental was illegal. On Sept 30th plaintiff gave notice, and then on October 5th, plaintiff said she woke up to defendant pacing, and peering in her bedroom window. Plaintiff moved out on the same day. Plaintiff moved in temporarily with a co-worker, and rented an apartment with another co-worker, she found the apartment the same day she moved out. JJ doesn't believe that plaintiff found another apartment on the same day she moved out of defendant's place, signed a lease, and moved in. That is pretty quick if the new landlord does a credit check, and other procedures before signing the lease.

Since plaintiff lived there the first five days of October, so she owes the October rent. Defendant claims plaintiff stained the granite in her brand new house. Defendant seems to have confused landlord with mommy. Defendant claims half of security deposit isn't refundable. Defendant wants to see a picture of the granite, with a bill to repair it, $130. Defendant claims there is an oil ring on the counter that was the plaintiff's fault. (Defendant's granite wasn't properly sealed I bet).

$400 security back to plaintiff.

Buffalo Head Mystery

RBG Judge Judy presiding:

Once again, Judge Judy went to post-graduate law school to deal with a buffalo head hanging on a wall in a saloon. Obviously, she didn't give a buffalo's ballsack about this case, but she wasted 15 minutes on this case.

Stop Stinking Up My House!

RBG Judge Judy presiding:

Boy, did JJ get this wrong. She kept telling the defendant 'you're not her mother', when the defendant was telling her she had to teach the 21 many things on a daily basis. Obviously, JJ doesn't spend one-on-one time with many 21 year olds these days. If she did, she would realize that the majority of them - both male and females - need to be 'coddled' by older adults. They grew up with helicopter parents for the past 20 years, and now expect any other adult to helicopter over them once they 'go out on their own'. They need to be coddled, they need everything done for them - they were not raised to be independent and think and do for themselves. I know this for a fact because I work with them each day at a college. I, myself, have to remind them I'm not their parent - but I realize they are completely lost if I (or another adult) don't guide them. They need constant hand-holding.

So yes, the girl may be 21 but I do believe she needed a 'mommy', and the landlady knew that as well. JJ scolded the landlord and said 'living with a roommate is not for you'. She should have scolded Divinny and said 'living on your own is not for you'. Divinny - who lied through her teeth - needed to return home.

BTW, am I the only one who thought Divinny looked like a female impersonator ? I really wasn't too sure if she was a she. But maybe that's just me...

Edited December 24, 2020 by LetsStartTalking

CrazyInAlabama · December 24, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, both reruns-

First (2017)-

HOA President Accused of Leaks, and Lies-Plaintiff Sam Salemnia suing HOA President Stuart Schlig for lying about damage to plaintiff's condo (first floor apartment) from upstairs neighbor's (third floor apartment) plumbing issues. Mr. Schlig owns the third floor condo. Plaintiff has two videos showing proof of the leaks from the third floor, passing through the second floor unit, and the plaintiff's first floor unit.

Defendant is not only the condo owner, but is the HOA president, and also owns the management company, so it's a total conflict of interest. Plaintiff's apartment was repaired by insurance, there were added items that defendant would pay out of pocket for. Then, an additional leak happened from the defendant's apartment (washing machine drain line leaked, again).

This apartment/condo building is about 45 years old, there was asbestos, and the pipes with leaks look like galvanized. Part of the additional work was asbestos removal in the common area (hallway). Defendant still says plaintiff is a liar and a crook.

In the hall-terview, defendant still claims plaintiff is a liar, and a crook, and claims his condo pipes don't leak. Defendant keeps saying the leak isn't in his condo.

Plaintiff receives $2800.

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

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

Second (2017)-

Sneaky Boyfriend Discovery-Plaintiff John Hall III suing his former live in boyfriend, Saverio Franciosa over laptop damage, and an unpaid loan ($200). However, the video of defendant destroying the laptop, right after he got up, is a total scam. I agree with JJ, they're a couple of scammers that just wanted a free trip to L.A., and TV money. Months after they moved in together, plaintiff looked at defendant's phone, and found defendant was cheating, and sexting other men. Plaintiff has a video of defendant smashing the laptop, but the defendant doesn't look like he's just out of bed, he's fully dressed including sneakers and a ball cap.

Laptop wasn't replaced by plaintiff. Defendant claims his phone insurance replaced the phone.

Cases dismissed, because the litigants are liars.

Mommy Dearest Debt-Plaintiff Jane Kelly suing former friend Elizabeth Henke, for damage to a rental home, caused by defendant's daughter. Residents of the house were the defendant's daughter, and a 16 year old granddaughter. Plaintiff rented home to defendant for her daughter, and was the guarantor on the lease, and for damages. There is actually a signed lease, and defendant signed as guarantor of her daughter's rental.

Plaintiff says the damages were almost $1000 more than the $1550 security deposit. Defendant claims landlord said she could have a dog, as long as it wasn't a certain breed. Plaintiff/ landlord denies that a dog was allowed ,without tenant going through the property manager/real estate office, and paying a pet deposit. Plaintiff said the defendant had to go through the realty company, and do a pet deposit for the dog, but she never did. Plaintiff says there were no pets allowed in the lease, and carpets were five years old. Defendant admits she had at least one cat that wasn't allowed also. Defendant's daughter had a Shepherd/Husky mix, and a cat. Defendant daughter claims all the damage was there when she moved in. Plaintiff also says the bedroom had damages from smoke too.

Plaintiff's realtor did a walk through with defendant daughter on move in, and plaintiff did a walk through with defendant daughter on move out. The damages include destroyed window screen, a spa cover the dog destroyed, back yard is full of big holes, smoke damage in the bedroom, scratched doors from dog.

(After five years, replacing the carpet is a good idea, to get top dollar from another renter, or if you're going to sell the property. Especially since the defendant's daughter had a big dog, and the cat, and who knows how many other animals). $1550 was the security deposit, plus additional damages, and plaintiff wants $852 more for damages

Defendant daughter apparently had a bad history, according to the remark that plaintiff slipped in to her testimony.

$500 to plaintiff, and she keeps the security deposit. (I think the damages paid to plaintiff should have been $1,000).

Edited December 25, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · December 24, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one 2018 rerun-

First (2020)-

Covid Destroys Wedding Celebration!-Plaintiff Ardella Wade suing defendant, event coordinator Amy Ulkutekin (First Comes Love) for doing her (she eloped in 2019), and wanted to have a big wedding party. March date was postponed, changed to July, and that was impossible too. Plaintiff Bridezilla paid defendant $1200. Signed contract says it must be in writing, no refund even in event of Force Majeure, or Act of Nature/G-d. Refund will only for planning not done, but not in case of pandemic.

Bridezilla doesn't seem to understand that she signed a contract, and is SOL. Contract says anything paid out already by defendant will not be refunded, but company will try to work with client to plan a new event. Bridezilla still wants her money back for the day of services. She claims planner did minimal work, not a lot. The venue that was booked The Prado at Balboa Park, in San Diego gave bridezilla a full refund, some other vendors gave her partial or full refunds. However, it was nice of the vendors/venue to give refunds, but not required by their contracts either. Some only gave back the payment, minus the non-refundable deposit.

Defendant received $1200, $600 deposit, and $600 for services for coordinating and paying booking fees up front. Defendant paid $954 in booking fees, and other costs. Defendant doesn't have a staff, but third party contractors who get paid by the type of job they do, and what level of service. Defendant has shown she's done a lot of work, meetings, bookings, etc for the wedding, easily $1200 worth.

Plaintiff case dismissed. (I wonder if the bride and groom are still together? That might be why she's fighting so hard to get all of the money back). Plaintiff should have settled for refund of unused time and services, $265 that defendant offered her. Now plaintiff gets nothing.

Second (2018)-

Children in Kitchen Lead to Alleged Assault?!-Plaintiff Mary Buzzard suing former roommate defendant Joshua Beaumont over a false restraining order, broken phone, and unpaid lease from December to June (he moved out in November). lease. Plaintiff and defendant leased an apartment together, after the argument. Defendant moved his girlfriend and her three kids into the apartment a lot of the time. Plaintiff objected to the three unsupervised kids running riot in the apartment, while defendant and his girlfriend were closed up in the defendant's room.

JJ is wondering why plaintiff and her boyfriend didn't move in together, instead of the roommate. The relationship was new between plaintiff and boyfriend, and boyfriend had a lease obligation.

Defendant and girlfriend have five kids now (two were his, two were hers, and then they produced another one since. But the defendant, and girlfriend and four kids were there on weekends. The day of the argument, all of the kids were at the apartment, and the four kids were running loose in the apartment, In spite of defendant and many more people there, (including plaintiff's two kids on weekends), the two litigants split the rent and utilities evenly, however, defendant used two smaller bedrooms for his brood. At the time of the argument, there were three kids in the kitchen unsupervised (two 8 year olds, and a 6 year old), and defendant and girlfriend were 'sleeping late'.

Plaintiff objected to the kids being noisy, and unsupervised. Defendant claims plaintiff said mean things about his or girlfriend's kids, and that plaintiff punched him in the jaw.

Two days later defendant filed for a restraining order, claiming plaintiff punched defendant in the face, jumped over the defendant, and assaulted the girlfriend. Protective order was denied. Defendant told judge he needed a restraining order to get out of the lease.

I believe the plaintiff's story, and think the defendant is a big liar and mooch. Plaintiff should have known better than to move in with defendant, after she admitted she helped him break the lease at his last rental.

JJ says the defendant has the right to move from an unsafe environment. However, I think the person that should have moved should have been plaintiff. Why should the plaintiff's boyfriend have broken his own lease, and shacked up with plaintiff? Maybe they don't believe in shacking up.

Plaintiff case dismissed. I think she should have received the rent for December, since it would be impossible to get another roommate that quickly.

Because of sports events, my Fox channel is out for Friday the 25th, and next week there are no new episodes. However, they usually pull out some good reruns, so it's O.K.

Edited December 28, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · December 25, 2020

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Covid Destroys Wedding Celebration!-

Another obdurate bride who wants her money back for her pretentious celebration. Only this one did not occur because of COVID, i.e. force majeure; props to the defendant for explicitely having that clause in her contract.

Plaintiff is focused on the fact that the celebration did not occur to mean that defendant did not do any work that she does not recognise (willfully?) that planning and setting up plans is indeed real work. She does not listen to any of the rational aguments JJ presents and of course remains entrenched in her ridiculous position. She is lucky that other vendors were generous (probably overly so) in giving her partial or total refunds.

I agree with @CrazyInAlabama that the marriage might also be on the rocks. Maybe the groom realised what kind of capricious shrew he married.

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think she should have received the rent for December

Yes, one month would have been an adequate decision. But certainly not the truly greedy amount she was asking for all the remaining portion of the lease. She came across as bad-tempered and inclined to violent reactions; I would not have lasted a week with her (or anyone else for that matter, let's be honest).

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

HOA President Accused of Leaks, and Lies (...) Defendant is not only the condo owner, but is the HOA president, and also owns the management company, so it's a total conflict of interest.

Defendant is exactly the type that gives a bad reputation to all HOA presidents and other officers. I know several and none of them would have engaged in such dishonest behaviour and outrageous denials of basic facts. He seems so well ensconced in his position that plaintiff and other owners will have to suffer his arbitrary and self-serving regime for quite some time.

Edited December 25, 2020 by Florinaldo

VartanFan · December 26, 2020

On 12/24/2020 at 7:24 PM, Florinaldo said:

She is lucky that other vendors were generous (probably overly so) in giving her partial or total refunds.

Ugh - this smug plaintiff. She was ridiculously lucky that other vendors gave her anything back. She ended up with a lot more money in her pocket than she was entitled to and should be thanking her lucky stars about that.

LetsStartTalking · December 26, 2020

On 12/24/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one 2018 rerun-

First (2020)-

Covid Destroys Wedding Celebration!-Plaintiff Ardella Wade suing defendant, event coordinator Amy Ulkutekin (First Comes Love) for doing her (she eloped in 2019), and wanted to have a big wedding party. March date was postponed, changed to July, and that was impossible too. Plaintiff Bridezilla paid defendant $1200. Signed contract says it must be in writing, no refund even in event of Force Majeure, or Act of Nature/G-d. Refund will only for planning not done, but not in case of pandemic.

Bridezilla doesn't seem to understand that she signed a contract, and is SOL. Contract says anything paid out already by defendant will not be refunded, but company will try to work with client to plan a new event. Bridezilla still wants her money back for the day of services. She claims planner did minimal work, not a lot. The venue that was booked The Prado at Balboa Park, in San Diego gave bridezilla a full refund, some other vendors gave her partial or full refunds. However, it was nice of the vendors/venue to give refunds, but not required by their contracts either. Some only gave back the payment, minus the non-refundable deposit.

Defendant received $1200, $600 deposit, and $600 for services for coordinating and paying booking fees up front. Defendant paid $954 in booking fees, and other costs. Defendant doesn't have a staff, but third party contractors who get paid by the type of job they do, and what level of service. Defendant has shown she's done a lot of work, meetings, bookings, etc for the wedding, easily $1200 worth.

Plaintiff case dismissed. (I wonder if the bride and groom are still together? That might be why she's fighting so hard to get all of the money back). Plaintiff should have settled for refund of unused time and services, $265 that defendant offered her. Now plaintiff gets nothing.

RBG Judge Judy presiding:

The defendant was 100% on target with her defense. She had all her bases covered, especially with "the event of Force Majeure" clause. Judge Judy, much to her chagrin, knew the defendant was correct and on top of the game. She was a no-nonsense business woman, who owned her own business - something Judy abhors. The plaintiff pretended she never got emails of the documents sent to her (she probably didn't OK the sender, so they went into her spam folder). She also knew she was in the wrong once Judge Judy explained it to her, but she thought by playing obstinate she would get her way (she seemed like a woman who never heard the word 'no' in her life). I'm glad JJ didn't even give her the $265 in the end.

I don't know if anyone caught this, but... as they were leaving at the end (and the announcer was saying 'and on the next Judge Judy...'), the defendant turned to the plaintiff and said something to her before she went through the swinging door (her witness followed). The plaintiff looked surprised and answered her but her mouth was pixelated so we couldn't read her lips - so this tells me she must have swore at her. I'm sure the defendant didn't say anything too nice to her when they were face to face. However, for the 'hall interview' she wished the bride nothing but the best.

DoctorK · December 26, 2020

8 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

The plaintiff pretended she never got emails of the documents sent to her

That nasty woman repeatedly said she never got them, until the defendant showed documentation, suddenly, it turned into "I don't remember getting them". She was a blatant liar, and I wonder how many of her vendors were told the same "all of my other vendors refunded everything" story, and how many actually refunded all of her money.

VartanFan · December 26, 2020

8 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

I don't know if anyone caught this, but... as they were leaving at the end (and the announcer was saying 'and on the next Judge Judy...'), the defendant turned to the plaintiff and said something to her before she went through the swinging door (her witness followed). The plaintiff looked surprised and answered her but her mouth was pixelated so we couldn't read her lips - so this tells me she must have swore at her. I'm sure the defendant didn't say anything too nice to her when they were face to face. However, for the 'hall interview' she wished the bride nothing but the best.

YES! To be a fly on the wall...I didn’t think they needed to pixelate. OK, maybe i just wish they didn’t.

Florinaldo · December 26, 2020

8 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

I don't know if anyone caught this, but

I saw that but forgot to comment about it. It's too bad the mike either did not catch it or the production chose not to broadcast it. It did not look like a pleasant encounter and confirmed my very negative opinion of that plaintiff whom I described earlier as a shrew. She must be so used to have it her way that this decision must have stuck in her craw.

I did not get the feeling you did that JJ was sorry she had to decide for the defendant, despite her usual prejudice about people in business. I think she also grew to despise the nasty bride; plus the facts of the case were incontrovertible, even for JJ.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Florinaldo

LetsStartTalking · December 27, 2020

11 hours ago, DoctorK said:

That nasty woman repeatedly said she never got them, until the defendant showed documentation, suddenly, it turned into "I don't remember getting them". She was a blatant liar, and I wonder how many of her vendors were told the same "all of my other vendors refunded everything" story, and how many actually refunded all of her money.

I wondered the same thing - did the others actually refund her money ? In the long run, it doesn't matter. The defendant is running her own business and not in competition with other vendors she dealt with. She covered her ass, and did right by the legal books.

nora1992 · December 28, 2020

Was the 12/25 show new? I hadn’t seen it before. Was the plaintiff getting disability because her great aunt with dementia called plaintiff names, triggering PTSD? Was there more to that? If not, then isn’t everyone entitled to disability? I’ve been called nasty names by dementia patients, too.

Schnickelfritz · December 28, 2020

Yes, it was new but almost no one saw it. Our local station ran it at 3am Saturday morning. That was one of the most head ache inducing episodes I've seen in a long while. Have you ever seen more family members on disability who were also taking care of each other as in-home health aides? And yes, the defendant was getting disability for being yelled at by an aunt. Must be great work if you can get it. NOT!

CrazyInAlabama · December 28, 2020

4 p.m. rerun episodes-

First (2017)-

Busting at the Seams in Hot Springs-Plaintiffs Thana and Marshall Sanson suing vacation rental landlord John Cooksey, and plaintiffs want a refund for the week of rental. As the title says, this happened near Hot Springs, Arkansas. The rental rules are 12 people maximum, and renters were bringing 24 people. Defendant discovered the extra people right before the family arrived. (If this is on a septic system, it could be disastrous. A well might not be able to keep up with the water usage either. My guess is anywhere that would hold 24 people, would cost a lot more than the defendant's vacation rental. I find it laughable that the plaintiffs are suing the defendant, when they broke all of the rules). Twelve live in Hot Springs Village, five live nearby, so already up to 17 guests. Rented for 7 days and 7 nights for 12 people. The plaintiffs claims they had another seven at the other rental property, but everyone was going to be at the Cooksey rental house. $3,424 was the rental price.

Defendant's house was the only one with a swimming pool, and plaintiff says only 12 would be at the Cooksey rental, and 12 staying at other locations, but everyone would gather at the defendant's house for meals, and swimming. The guests were plaintiff's uncles, cousins, kids, and various relatives.

When Mr. Cooksey found out about the 24 people, he told the plaintiff woman that was a violation of the rules, and he has security cameras, and would be looking at them. Plaintiff woman lies out her ass, and says defendant said he would refund her money, and find someone else to rent the home. However, he didn't find out until the plaintiffs arrived on the morning of the rental. The plaintiffs rented a large place at a state park that could accommodate the entire group.

The day before the visit, defendant called plaintiff woman to confirm the number of guests to 12, and she said maybe 3 more, and there's a no party policy, and that would include only 15 people, not 9 more.

Plaintiffs lose every penny, and deserve that. What horrible people the plaintiffs are.

Lawn or Love Business?!-Plaintiff Lena Wendtlandt suing Melissa Buck over loans for lawn business. However, defendant says plaintiff wanted a different relationship that defendant refused to have with her. Plaintiff's first loan was for a truck, $5,000. Title loan on truck was $3400, and plaintiff claims she paid that off.

Defendant claims plaintiff and plaintiff's former partner encouraged defendant to start the lawn business, and bought items that defendant said were too much, too soon for the business. Plaintiff claims she spent $1100 on the lawn care items. Defendant says she has records of what she paid the plaintiff back. Defendant also said at the time plaintiff was buying and setting up the lawn care business, that plaintiff was on worker's comp, and wasn't supposed to have outside employment (she was employed by the fire department), because of their no moonlighting policy, and worker's comp rules.

JJ not satisfied the money was a loan, so case dismissed. (I suspect the money was only a loan after the break up)

Second (2017)-

Pocket Pit's Owner Attacked by Chow?!-Plaintiff Carl Young Jr suing neighbors Merri and Peter Francis, and adult son Charles Francis for their dog attacking him, and his dog, and is suing for medical bills, and vet bills. Defendants' dog was being walked by a six year old, dog is a Chow, and weighs over 60 lbs. Plaintiff has a 21 lbs. pit looking dog, and defendants have 3 dogs (2 small ones, and the Chow). Plaintiff was going to walk his dog on a leash in front of his house, when defendant's dog, also on leash, but kid walking Chow had lost the end of the leash, and Chow attacked plaintiff's dog on plaintiff's property. Plaintiff says the dog jumped his dog without warning. Defendants didn't see this, until after it started.

Plaintiff says defendant's dog ripped the leash away from the little kid (he weighs the same, or less than the dog), and defendant's dog attacked his dog, and plaintiff was bitten while saving his dog from the defendant's Chow. Defendants say the plaintiff was only bitten because he got in between the dogs. Chow has a history of aggression to other animals. Defendants claim this is their dog's only bite, but dog wasn't up to date on rabies shots at the time of the attack. (My guess is the dog is so uncontrollable at the vet's office, that they told the defendants to muzzle the chow before entering the office). Defendant's dogs not registered, or had shots.

$2500 to plaintiff for vet bills, and deductible for medical costs for plaintiff.

Homeless Teen Meets Good Samaritan-Plaintiff Jeffrey McBride suing defendant George Zavala for medical expenses, clothes, and other money he spent on the defendant. Defendant was homeless, kicked out by parents, and living in a cheap motel with a friend a few times a week. Other times the defendant was sleeping on the beach.

Plaintiff rented a room in the motel, and the 48 year old plaintiff started living with the 19 year old defendant.

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

I am not happy with plaintiff's case, or anything to do with him.

Plaintiff case dismissed because it's garbage.

Back to Mommy?-Plaintiff Stephanie Derrick suing ex-boyfriend Patrick Howard for an unpaid loan. They lived together for about three years, then defendant moved back in with his mother.

When the couple broke up, he moved back with Mommy. They were still seeing each other, and that's when the car flipping business came up. The two were going into a business together to flip cars bought at auction, and split the proceeds. Plaintiff says she made the defendant a loan to start the business, $7500 and only has a copy of the front of the check.

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

Edited December 28, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · December 28, 2020

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Man Ejected From His Own Home!-Plaintiff Donna Miller meets man who has a home, the plaintiff gets restraining order against defendant William Zarbok , and he's ejected from his own home. Plaintiff woman suing ex-boyfriend defendant (brief relationship), for false arrest on the order of protection. She started moving into his home three months later. In July, there was an altercation, and plaintiff filed for a restraining order. There is no police report for July, and JJ wants to read the protective order application, and police report. The woman did receive a restraining order, and the man was barred from living in, or going to his own house. (I know that there is a huge problem with domestic violence, but it shouldn't be an excuse for taking the defendant out of his own house, and allowing the plaintiff to stay there). When plaintiff moved in with defendant, her daughter moved into the plaintiff's owned townhouse. She had places to go, but stayed in a house that wasn't hers.

A former employee claimed defendant threatened him, but it was dropped. Plaintiff called the parenting consultant (custody mediator for children of defendant's previous marriage), and made all kinds of allegations. Plaintiff claims she works in the medical field, and is a mandated reporter (Tell me she's not another caregiver to vulnerable people).

They both had no contact orders, but plaintiff kept contacting defendant (it's very common to pull this, to get the other person arrested, but it failed this time, and blew up in plaintiff's face). Plaintiff got arrested for violation of the No Contact / Protective Order.

Plaintiff's case is dismissed.

Father Son Car Project Fail!-Plaintiff Edward Kirby II, and son Kristian Kirby buy car to work on as a family project. When the car was finished, ex-wife, Lisa Ann May mother of son needs the car, and claims she'll pay the son for it, but doesn't. Defendant titled car in her name, and son's name, and she would be renting the car from the son, for $55 a week.

Defendant was supposed to pay $55 a week, (after her previous car was repossessed), she still has the car for 5 months, and son should have $1,000 plus, and claims she had to get used tires for the car, and other lame excuses. Defendant is still driving the car with bad ball joints! At least defendant has full insurance, but I wonder if she's really paying for it? Defendant only paid $500 total for a car she had for five months.

Another Mother of the Year candidate?

Plaintiffs get the car back, and will resell the car.

Second (2018)-

My Brother Broke My Arm!-Plaintiff Brenda Brown sold a 2007 Impala to her brother, with money down, and $225 payments every two weeks until it was paid off. Defendant Robert Brown, and fiance Latasha Hutchison stopped paying the regular payments on the car, plaintiff says there was more than one payment left. Plaintiff says the defendant slammed her arm in the screen door (I suspect one of those metal screened security doors), and broke her arm in two places. Defendant says plaintiff came in his house, and he hurt her arm getting her out of his house.

How cute, defendant brother, and his girlfriend have matching dye jobs. Oops! Apparently, defendant girlfriend is wear a cheap wig, not just a bad dye job. (Wig is obviously from the Judge Judy show Bozo the Clown wig collection available to litigants)

Plaintiff was foolish enough to keep the car under her insurance. Plaintiff says $1.050 left on car payment, and man wasn't paying her for insurance either. Plaintiff finally got $225 back, and title, and registration were taken from her purse by defendant. Defendant says case was thrown out when plaintiff didn't go to court, because of family pressures. The defendant girlfriend has the car now.

Defendant girlfriend claims she saw the plaintiff slash the Impala tires, no police report available. Vandalism in police report is a month after the lying defendant says.

The pictures of the arm, and the X-rays are horrible. The defendants also applied for a restraining order against the plaintiff.

$5,000 for the plaintiff. She should move far away from the defendants, and cut off anyone who told her that you don't prosecute family.

Ex-Con Hops on One Foot for Judge Judy-Plaintiff Ciarra Spates suing ex-boyfriend Charles Clay for car damage, bail, and assault, and sadly JJ doesn't want to get into the strange relationship between the two people.

Defendant was in jail for five years, plaintiff had three kids during his incarceration (not his), and started up the star crossed relationship after he got out of prison. Defendant moved right back in with plaintiff and her children.

Defendant was driving plaintiff's car (no license), when he had an accident. Plaintiff has some stupid story about defendant forcing his way into the car, and the driver's seat right before the accident. Car had insurance, but defendant wasn't insured.

JJ has fool defendant hop on one foot, after he says he drove the car without a license because plaintiff told him too.

Plaintiff says she was driving defendant, and others to the probation office, and defendant to the DMV, and it varies dramatically from her sworn statement. She claims when she got out of the car the defendant hopped in the driver's seat, and took off with the car. Defendant claims she asked him to drive.

Insurance company refused to cover the accident, and plaintiff has nothing to show that. Defendant was arrested for driving without a license, and for an unpaid traffic ticket. Defendant also rear ended some innocent other driver. Plaintiff was arrested for obstruction of justice by letting defendant drive her car. Plaintiff gets nothing, including the bond money she paid for defendant's bail.

$0 for anyone. (I love JJ's decision on this one, and the village fool jumping around like a deranged bunny rabbit in court. I like that plaintiff got arrested also.)

Edited December 29, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

LetsStartTalking · December 29, 2020

4 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said:

Yes, it was new but almost no one saw it. Our local station ran it at 3am Saturday morning. That was one of the most head ache inducing episodes I've seen in a long while. Have you ever seen more family members on disability who were also taking care of each other as in-home health aides? And yes, the defendant was getting disability for being yelled at by an aunt. Must be great work if you can get it. NOT!

This ran on time on my local station Christmas Day. It always intrigues me when litigants work together to screw the government and get more than they legally deserve, and then the whole plan inevitably falls apart. Then they team up to turn on each other, and take it to Judge Judy.

Silver Raven · December 29, 2020

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Lisa Ann May mother of son

She sure didn't look like the mother of a 16 year old.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$5,000 for the plaintiff. She should move far away from the defendants, and cut off anyone who told her that you don't prosecute family.

But both she and her brother said all is forgiven and they're still family.

CrazyInAlabama · December 29, 2020

4 pm reruns-

First (2017)-

Don't Steal My Little Sister's Money-Plaintiff Melana Greer suing her sister's guardian Jodi Lorta (a former family friend) for transferring money from younger sister's Corey Greer bank account to her own. Younger sister claims defendant assaulted her, and defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her. Defendant was guardian/foster parent for a brother, who aged out, and younger sister, who now lives with plaintiff sister. Plaintiff sister claims money was stolen out of her work wages, in a bank account in both names (sister was a minor). Defendant is suing over house damage, while the younger girl was her legal ward, so that's dismissed.

Then, the defendant claims ward was driving her van, and it was towed. Defendant's van was parked at plaintiff's father's house, and didn't have current license, and registration. (I totally believe the plaintiffs, and can't stand the defendant. I don't believe there was no money coming in for the brother and sister that defendant was guardian for those years).

The younger plaintiff's wages were from working at Culver's (for those who don't have a Culver's, it's the home of the Butter Burger, which is supposed to be wonderful) for four full months, and submits her bank statements. Her take home pay was $3655 during that period.

Plaintiff would put in money in the account, and defendant would transfer money out, to pay the cable bill $75 a month (for the entire household, woman, plaintiff, two grandchildren, and defendant's husband). There are a lot of transfers from plaintiff's account, to defendant's account, and withdrew a lot of money. Defendant claims she made her own deposits to plaintiff's account, and then transferred back to her own account at the same bank (No, that makes zero sense). (On a tacky personal note, defendants bad dye job makes her look like a Muppet).

Plaintiff woman says she never withdrew a penny from the account. Defendant received no money from any source for the plaintiff's care. Plaintiff would cash her checks, and give the cash to defendant to put into the account. Plaintiff did keep 25% of the cash for herself. The plaintiff's cell phone was a prepaid cell, and cost the defendant nothing. Plaintiff loaned $100 to defendant, and bought Christmas presents for with a December check.

JJ doesn't think defendant stole money, but covered bills for household. Defendant took care of two children for five years, without any money paid to her (at least the defendant says she wasn't getting any money for the two children she was guardian for.).

$1500 to plaintiff. (Defendant's hall-terview is "it is what it is", the guilty party's usual statement).

Second (2017)-

Dog Smashes Into Car?-Plaintiff Yolanda Boatwright suing dog owner Christian Sementelli for damages to her car from defendant's dog running into the car. Plaintiff was driving straight when defendant's dog ran out of a parking lot across the street, and ran into her car, Defendant says dog wasn't out of his control.

Defendant drove into the parking lot of a store, with the dog, and his girlfriend, dog got loose, and ran to the grass median in the parking row. Then dog ran towards the road, into the path of the plaintiff, who was going straight on the highway, on the far lane from defendant, and something hit her car. It was the dog that hit the car, dog had no leash or anything else. Then defendant ran across from the parking lot, and then plaintiff saw the damage to her car. Plaintiff's husband was in the car also, and is the witness.

Plaintiffs told the defendant to go to the vet, but they would have to talk about car damage after the vet visit. Defendant claims the plaintiffs were turning left from the road, into the parking lot, and ran over his dog. However, plaintiffs were going straight on the far side of the road.

Photos of the car are submitted by plaintiff. Dog hit on the left side of the car, between the driver’s door, and wheel well. Defendant is a jerk, and is trying to blame all kinds of medical issues with the dog on the plaintiff. Defendant is also claiming previous damage on the passenger side of the car was somehow blamed on the dog.

$998 to plaintiff for car damages.

Domestic Violence and the Paint Job!?-Plaintiff Robert Fitzgerald suing former friend, Derek Radburn for unpaid wages for painting. Defendant claims plaintiff is just ungrateful. Plaintiff was earning $100 a day, cash, working a day at a time for the defendant. Plaintiff was charged with domestic violence against former fiance, and ended up in jail. Defendant says plaintiff's girlfriend hit plaintiff, and that plaintiff should take photos, and press charges.

Defendant put up bail, $1500 so plaintiff could get out of jail. Plaintiff's fiance dropped charges, and defendant received his $1500 back (it took a long time for the bail refund). Plaintiff's fiance keeps trying to chime in, and I'm hoping she gets booted.

Then plaintiff claims he worked 10 days for defendant, and is owed $1,000. However, defendant claims plaintiff only worked one day for him, so only is owed $100. There is no proof that plaintiff worked the 10 days, and all would have been 'off the books' and 'under the table'.

Plaintiff receives $100

Edited December 29, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · December 29, 2020

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Teenager's Night in Prison!-Plaintiff Daystene Shehee bought a car from defendant, Halisha Stevens. Defendant reports car stolen, and she gets arrested and 24 hours in jail. Plaintiff suing for car cost, and for having her arrested on false charges.. A 2008 Pontiac G-6, for $2000, and plaintiff never paid her according to defendant. Plaintiff says they agreed on $1700, and she paid the defendant in cash. Cute Mumu on defendant, but too tight. Defendant claims she gave the plaintiff the car for a test drive, and to get a notarized statement. Defendant wanted her license plates back, and her work badge, title, and stuff in the car, so she reported the plates stolen instead of calling the plaintiff.

Plaintiff buys and resells cars for profit (car flipper), and wanted to buy G-6 for $1700, and resell for $2,000. Defendant claims she received no money, but she's obviously a naughty liar. Defendant's mother called the police, and claims the car was stolen, and the plaintiff did it (Car was in mother's name, Ruth Brinson).

Plaintiff gets car back, with a marshal's assistance. Plaintiff told officer who stopped her that she knew the plates would be reported stolen. The message to the plaintiff by defendant says, drop off my license plate, and work badge. Car was impounded, and defendant wants impound fees, and she can forget that, and the cost of a new title.

Plaintiff gets the car, defendant gets nothing, and deserves less.

Completely Hideous Bridal Gown?!-Bridezilla plaintiff Shannon Dowdell suing defendant fashion designer Gayla Rogers for fee to do wedding dress for Bridezilla. Plaintiff wants money for emotional distress, new dress, cost of making first dress. $350 (Actually paid $365), and materials for dress were paid by plaintiff. Plaintiff spent $1500 for new dress she actually wore to her wedding. Contract states that the contract is closed (complete) on the final payment for the dress, when the dress is picked up.

The designer inspiration dress is a body suite (opaque), and a see through chiffon over-skirt, open all the way in front, and shows everything. Bridezilla / plaintiff has a picture of what she wanted, and the original dress in court. I remember this, it's a sheer skirt, with a body suit that isn't sheer, and the original designer dress is on a model who is very pale, and the sheerness of the skirt isn't as visible.

The skirt doesn't even fasten except at the waistband, and the skirt front is open to the waist. The plaintiff is a different contrast, with the chiffon layered skirt, so the dress, and skirt looks a lot more see through, and skimpy on the bride.

There is nothing wrong in the construction of what the defendant made, except it's in horrible taste for a wedding. The defendant made what she was asked to do, but it's really tacky in my opinion. I can't believe anyone would be daring enough to appear at a church wedding dressed like the bride wanted to appear in the first dress. Actually, I can't imagine appearing in public in a see through dress.

JJ is right, the contract was completed by seamstress, and bridezilla would have looked trampy in the dress she wanted dressmaker to make.

Nothing for anyone.

Second (2018)-

Intimately Transmitted Disease Drama!-Plaintiff Michelle Boatwright woman suing ex-boyfriend defendant Jonell Brown because in the breakup he told her he had a sexually transmitted disease (if you really want to know, gonorrhea), but plaintiff tested negative. Plaintiff also suing for unpaid loan, threats, and defamation. Plaintiff and defendant only met three times face-to-face, loan was to cover Mercedes key fob replacement. Defendant borrowed $361 from plaintiff, it was paid to the Mercedes dealer directly. Defendant admits he accepted the money.

Defendant has a lot of reasons why he was too busy to pay the plaintiff back. When plaintiff pressed the defendant about repayment, he sent a text to woman that he had gonorrhea, and said he would post that on Facebook about her. Plaintiff tested negative.

Plaintiff gets her key fob fees back, and $1250.

Dog Destroys $3,000 Mattress!-Plaintiff Chelsea Caston, and ex-roommate defendant Michelle Sagarminaga, were a bad match. Plaintiff claims defendant's Sheltie ruined her mattress, and she had to throw it out. Plaintiff claims the mattress damage happened when she and her French Bulldog were out of town, and she tried to clean the mattress, but mattress was ruined.

Plaintiff says she lives with her boyfriend, but is going to pay the lease every month until it ends. Plaintiff also says that if they can come to an agreement, that she may move back into the apartment, but only if the mattress is replaced. Mattress was a gift, so no receipt. Defendant claims plaintiff's dog ruined some of her clothes.

Plaintiff gets $600 for a new mattress, and is not moving back in with former roommate, but will pay the lease out. It may not seem like very much, but the previous mattress was a gift, and she's not using it anyway (she's apparently living with the boyfriend).

Edited December 30, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · December 30, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Dangerous Football League?-Plaintiff Dale Illingworth coaches a team in youth football, entered a tournament, and found his kids weren't as experienced as the other teams were. Plaintiff is suing for return of entry fees, gate, and attorney's fees, and defendant Mike Garrett, tournament organizer refuses the refund. Plaintiff claims the other teams that beat his kids were a huge mismatch, same ages, but plaintiff claims the other teams were more seasoned. Plaintiff's team lost twice, including one kid getting a concussion. Two kids on plaintiff's team needed head injury clearance, and they couldn't play. Plaintiff claims his team was guaranteed a three game tournament. (If the plaintiff was that worried about his kids, then he would have pulled out of the tournament, and not had his team participate).

Are the plaintiff's red shirts, the team colors or something?

(Obviously JJ doesn't know that some kids play football the second they can stand up. Disgusting, but true).

Case dismissed.

Property Brothers They are Not!-Plaintiffs Scott and Robertson Kunz, suing former tenant for stealing appliances from their rental home. Plaintiffs wanted to get into real estate investments, and this was their first house, and they now have two houses. The house was three bedrooms, and three baths. Plaintiffs bought the house with the defendant, Anthony Sorey, and three other tenants already in place. They four tenants were renting the house together, the defendant, his nephew, and two more. Then plaintiffs found out that they could get $1800 a month rent, instead of the current $1200 a month.

They sent a notice that new lease would be $1800, then after not paying that for even one month, the plaintiffs moved to evict tenants for non-payment. Housing court mediation gave the tenants 20 more days to move out, and 10 months later the squatters were still there.

Everyone moved out except defendant (last of four tenants). Defendant put appliances out on the front lawn for the trash pick up, and the next morning they were gone. Defendant claims a plaintiff told his nephew to get rid of appliances. Tenants were all finally evicted. Defendant claims he cleaned the house out, but plaintiffs claim the basement, and the rest of the house was packed with garbage.

Plaintiffs say it cost $40,000 to get house repaired, and replace everything the tenants sold or stole. House is still being rehabbed.

Defendant and nephew stayed 10 days after the last month move out date, but still paid nothing, and plaintiffs had to go back to housing court again to get rid of them. (Defendant seems a bit stoned in court, and needs a good dentist immediately). On his way out of court, the defendant is swilling the Water That Must Not be Drunk like he's dying of thirst.

Case dismissed. (plaintiffs wanted 10 year old fridge, and other old appliances replaced).

Second (2017)-

Financial Elderly Abuse?!-Plaintiff Dawn West owned a consignment / resale shop, and is suing former friend Alisa Smith Cumbra for defamation, slander, and a false restraining order filing (it was dismissed). Defendant also applied for a restraining order against plaintiff, but it was also dismissed.

Plaintiff was charged with financial elder abuse. Defendant refinishes furniture, and plaintiff has the resale shop. Slander on internet against plaintiff was alleging she committed elder abuse by cheating an 80 year-old woman who had consigned furniture through the plaintiff.

Defendant alleged plaintiff stole furniture from the 80 year old, and was selling stolen property. Texts with plaintiff, and defendant say plaintiff took property, and gave furniture owner no money. Plaintiff sells online so the furniture was taken to plaintiff's home. Plaintiff claims she deposited $110 to the consigner's bank account, but brought no proof. Plaintiff took truckloads of furniture and items from the older woman.

All restraining order applications were dismissed. There are phone messages from plaintiff threatening the defendant over the restraining order filing. Defendant says protective order filing was before the threats, so that's dismissed too.

Cases dismissed.

Speeding, Crashing, Suing?-Plaintiff Alecia Siehl suing former neighbor Chazzlin Davidson (That's really her first name) for totaling a car the plaintiff sold defendant. Defendant purchased a car from plaintiff in June, registration was never transferred to defendant, and there was no valid insurance on the car when the accident happened in October. Litigants didn't really know each other before defendant saw "For Sale" sign on car (they lived in the same apartment complex). Police report from defendant says driver was going to fast for conditions, and fine was $686.

The other car owners in the accident are coming after plaintiff for car damages, because plaintiff was still the legal owner of the car. Plaintiff had cancelled her insurance on the car, before the accident. Plaintiff's letter from insurance company is bizarre, and thrown out. Plaintiff didn't submit the cancellation of financial responsibility for the car, that are supposed to be submitted to DMV to change the registration, until after the accident.

Defendant had no insurance on the car at the time of the accident.

JJ advises the plaintiff to settle with the victims of the accident, and then sue defendant for the short fall. (Since plaintiff didn't come to court with clean hands, then I bet she's going to lose that case too).

Case dismissed.

Edited December 30, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · December 30, 2020

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Scary Healthcare Rip-Off-Plaintiff Deanna Clark, caregiver (sort of) suing defendant Lorie Broyles for not paying her. Defendant was caregiver to elderly woman, and wanted to go on vacation. Lorie Broyles was the current caretaker, and wanted to go on vacation, and found plaintiff to substitute. Defendant hired plaintiff (unskilled acquaintance) for 10 days, and plaintiff says she didn't get paid. The defendant would have had to put in a time card, as if she was working, to pay the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims she was going to be paid $500.

When friend of defendant dropped in twice, some stranger was at the house, not the plaintiff. The stranger was some guy named Mike, that the plaintiff knows, and Dianna too.

JJ gives nothing to either side, because the little old lady was not cared for.

Senior Tricked Into Nursing Home Facility- Plaintiff Richard Cobb Jr. worked with a car rental place, and had a long term rental or lease, only in his name. Defendant Kenya Molden would pay for car rental, and insurance, so she could visit the aunt. After a while, plaintiff told defendant he was cancelling the rental, and her name was taken off of his insurance, (she had a history of DUI, and tickets, and that caused the price to go up).

Defendant claims her 100+ year old great aunt was tricked into being put into senior care, and her house was going to be sold, and the relative that put the great aunt into the home was going to take the proceeds. Defendant was trying to get conservatorship over the great aunt. Defendant didn't have a car, and need one. Defendant got tickets on the car, and only paid one ticket. Defendant wasn't making payments either. When defendant stopped paying, the car was repossessed.

Plaintiff case is dismissed, because there was no contract.

Car Thieves Don't Get Far With Lemon!- Plaintiff Mwelu Mataya bought a car in bad shape, had it towed to the defendant's shop for repair. Defendant John Perry was working on car, parked it on the street, and it was stolen, but broke down almost immediately, and abandoned, and was impounded. Plaintiff wants to be reimbursed for tow costs, impound, and cost of car.

Defendant says car was parked on the street by tow truck driver.

Plaintiff has recording from the impound tow company saying it was impounded, and sold at auction. Defendant failed to keep car safe, and I'm guessing it was dropped off after hours.

Plaintiff gets $1200, the price he paid for the car originally.

Second (2018)-

Don't Even Think About Writing Hate Mail to Judge Judy- (A pit bull is accused of inflicting over 40 puncture wounds on a neighbor's dogs. Tell me we don't get to hear the heartbroken grandpa letter again). Plaintiff Laurie Brunye and Lindsay DeMas daughter suing for $5,000 defendant landlord, Laura Hughes, and former tenant Luis Pelayo, for vet bills for the dog attack. Grandfather (defendant) bought the dogs because they were on sale, and for his grandkids. German Shepherd ended up with over 40 punctures from the marauding pits. (no, they are pits, not boxers).

After the attack, landlord gave a 3 day notice to quit to tenant, partly because of the attack, and partly because there were multiple tenants in the house that were not on the lease, and many more than were allowed by the lease. The landlady/defendant says she rented to an adult couple, and the tenant moved in grandchildren, adult daughter, adult son, and various other people into the house, and none were on the lease. (We get to hear the letter from the heartbroken grandfather who had a grandson ripped up by a pit bull, I used the mute button).

Plaintiff, house owner claims defendant needed to fix common fence, because the defendant's dogs ripped it apart. Defendant landlady rented house to dog owner, and gave him a three day eviction for violating the terms of the lease, for having a ton of people in the house who were not on the lease, and the dogs. Landlady claims no one told her about the dogs, or fence, and that's a total lie.

The defendants see the pictures of the attacked animal (German Shepherd), and don't care. The Shepherd was in its own fenced property, and the pits were seen in the yard. Defendant landlady had previously been notified by the neighbors about the condition of the fence, from the tenant's (defendant's) dogs. Landlady called tenant told him that the dogs were not on the lease, and the tenant told her the dogs were gone, which was a lie, and that was right before the attack.

$5,000 for the plaintiffs.

Man Can't Get Ex-Wife Out Fast Enough?!-Plaintiff Katie Ann Morgan has daughter, and her mother has guardianship of child. Plaintiff was living with her mother, they argued, and plaintiff needed a place to live. She rented a room from her ex for $350 a month rent. Plaintiff paid Robert O'Connor defendant, (her ex husband) the $350 for renting a room at defendant's home, and is suing defendant for illegal eviction, and other ridiculous things. Plaintiff only lived at defendant's house from 3 August to 12 August, and paid the $350 to ex on 5 August.

Plaintiff gets $300 back.

Painful Tooth Extraction Payback!-Plaintiff Raquitha Johnson, mother paid for defendant daughter Sierra Johnson, to have dental work done, mother bought a car, and put it in daughter's/defendant's name. Plaintiff also wants insurance, and registration paid, but she receives nothing. Defendant claims the grandmother paid for insurance, registration and inspection. Daughter took out a title loan, and never repaid that either.

Plaintiff gets nothing. Plaintiff had no expectation of repayment.

parrotfeathers · December 31, 2020

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I used the mute button).

I used the FF button on the DVR. Great minds think alike.

CrazyInAlabama · December 31, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Car Payment Meets Child Support!-Plaintiff June Stahr suing ex-boyfriend Gregory Russell Jr for an unpaid car loan. Plaintiff is a Sainted Single Mother of One (SSMOO), with defendant. Car pink slip was in both litigant's names, and loan was in plaintiff's name. Defendant claims he put down $2500 on car, then refinanced car to get the remainder with a lower interest rate, by borrowing the money from plaintiff's boss. First loan was 22%. Remaining loan was still $2900. Defendant keeps saying that plaintiff signed loan over to him for zero. Defendant was paying child support after they split up.

Car is now in defendant's name. Defendant claims the tax refund will go to plaintiff for the car loan, and for their daughter. Plaintiff claimed the child's tax deduction on her tax return, and received $1,000 for one year.

JJ decides $1600 to plaintiff, to pay for the car loan.

Unlucky Van Story-Plaintiff Vivianne Penzol suing mechanic Luis Rodriguez for unfinished work on a Mercury Villager Van. Insurance company totaled the car after an accident, paid her $1,000 , and she paid the insurance company $175 to buy the salvaged van back. Plaintiff agreed for defendant to fix the van for her. Van is only worth $1,000 per Officer Byrd, and plaintiff was paid $1,000 by the insurance company.

Defendant wanted $2,300 to fix the van, and has had it for 8 or 9 months. Why did plaintiff pay $2300 to fix a van, that was only worth $1,000? Defendant claims van could be finish within two months.

This case is just wrong, and I don't see how $2300 will fix that van, the body work alone would be more than the mechanical work the plaintiff paid for. Plaintiff submits photos from January, however, defendant says they were taken in the previous October. Plaintiff claims mechanic went to her father, and asked for more money to fix the van, and plaintiff wants that paid to her also (nope, not happening). Defendant has pictures of current van condition, and they're not much better either.

Why do I suspect that JJ has been played by the plaintiff, with the help of the defendant?. Plaintiff is not getting her rental car bills either. Plaintiff already bought another car.

$2300 to plaintiff. (Because JJ says there was no substantial work done on the van).

Second (2017)-

Caught Cheating?!-Plaintiff Tiffani Lefoon, SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One) registered nurse, suing former boyfriend, Brandon Maddox, father of her child for cost of a truck, property damage, and unauthorized debit card charges. Plaintiff claims the police had to retrieve her house key, but defendant kicked in her front door. When defendant's (professional musician) old car broke down he needed $2,000 for a truck, because he was sending money home to support his two other sons, 9 and 5. Defendant claims the $2,000 for the truck was a gift, and he still has the truck. They broke up right after he got the truck, and while plaintiff was 3 or 4 months pregnant.

There is no child support paid for plaintiff's child. Plaintiff claims defendant is her last musician boyfriend, ever.

Defendant never paid for the truck. After plaintiff caught defendant cheating at the motel, the police had to get her key back. Plaintiff went to work after catching loser cheating, and came home and door was kicked in, and TV was broken, two interior doors were broken also, and the front door. At that time the only missing items were the clothes and shoes belonging to the defendant. Defendant claims plaintiff was home when he came for his clothes, and shoes.

There is a video filmed after that of defendant looking for his birth certificate, a month after moving out. Defendant came in through the window. Plaintiff's video shows the window being broken (it has a metal grid over it, with chains), and she says she didn't have his birth certificate, and other I.D.s.

$2,000 for plaintiff for damages.

No Drinking, No Partying, No Random Boyfriends?!-Plaintiff Suzanne Hudak, suing defendant Sommer Lund, former room renter in her home for damages, not covered by security deposit. Plaintiff moved in September, $350 a month, with two cats. A friend moved into another room with one more cat at the same time. Signed lease says no drinking excessively, no random boys, no partying, but that is written in later, on the written lease. There are no initials from tenants about the added restrictions.

Plaintiff disliked the drinking and partying, but that's written in later, so not binding. Boozing it up, random boys, smoking on the property, etc. JJ says you can't say that no one can smoke anyone on your property, so I guess the medical campuses that do that are wrong? If it's in the lease, and signed by both parties, then it would be legal. Writing it in yourself after the lease is signed is not legal.

Landlord claims the cats from the defendant, and the other former tenant cats were in one room. Landlady claims all of the carpet was new, but previous homeowner had cats in that room, but had cardboard on top of the carpet to protect it. (I bet the previous owners didn't sanitize the floor under the previous carpet, so the cats would be attracted to the carpet in that room)

No rent is owed by defendant, because the landlord drove tenants out. No before and after pictures were taken.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Edited December 31, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · January 1, 2021

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Man's Face Caught in Blacklisted Dog's Mouth!-Plaintiff Michael Beason was walking near his back yard fence, when the neighbor's Rottweiler attacks him over the fence, defendants Todd Barth, and Erin Lembke owned the Rottweilers (they are pit crosses). Defendant adopted out one Rottweiler, and kept another one. Defendant wife says plaintiff threatened to sue them if they kept the dog there, so they adopted him out (I wonder if the new owner knows the dog is dangerous?). Defendant has three kids 50/50 custody, children are 11, 9 and 5.

He has three small kids, part time custody with the Rottweiler. Defendant wife was in the back yard, after dogs started barking. Woman left the garage to go to the back yard, and saw the plaintiff opening the gate (by her fence, but on plaintiff's property), and the dogs attacked the man, and gashed his face. Plaintiff is suing $1k +, for bite, but not getting anything for his subsequent back surgery. Plaintiff has the ER bill (his part is $75), and police incident report.

Defendant dog owner claims this is the first bite for the dog, but plaintiff has the Sheriff's report of a previous bite that was never reported. Previous bite was also on the plaintiff earlier. The Sheriff's report confirms the previous bite by the same dog. Claim was made to homeowner's insurance by plaintiff, and insurance company had already declined to cover the pit cross/Rottweilers, so the bite wasn't covered. Bite pictures are awful.

Defendant counter sue for fence costs, and false restraining order. Defendant admits he knew dogs weren't covered by insurance. (If you or your animals get attacked, make an animal control report. This dog probably would have been put down if the first attack had been reported by plaintiff.) Plaintiff should have filed a personal injury suit against the house owned by the defendant. Plaintiff keeps trying to submit bills for his back injury, and finally gives Officer Byrd the ER bill, and incident report.

Defendant man tries to lie, and say that there was no prior bite, but the Sheriff made a report that the dog bit plaintiff before. Defendant woman claims no one knows if plaintiff, or defendant's dog bit the plaintiff on the previous time.

Defendant woman is the owner of the dogs, and she moved in after defendant man bought the house. (Homeowner's insurance is through Badger Mutual, and they don't cover Rottweilers, or Pit Bulls, and dogs are a combination of the two, so insurance was denied for the dog coverage)

Defendant case dismissed.

Plaintiff gets $5000.

Bengal Cat Breeding Debacle!-(Did the plaintiff and defendant coordinate their tops? They match perfectly. Also, top matches defendant's hair dye, which is hideous).

Plaintiff Kristen Absher suing defendant Stephanie Morris for money owed for Bengal cat. Defendant bought one Bengal from plaintiff, a neutered male for $1300, and then wanted another one, so she could breed Bengals. Defendant picked up second cat, and then reversed charges for $1400 on Pay Pal. Plaintiff sold a neutered male to defendant, and was paid in full, and then sold an unspayed female for $2,000, but $1400 was reversed.

Defendant claims the plaintiff would take $600, and pick of litter, but plaintiff says she never agree to anything like this.

Plaintiff says the defendant made payments through Pay Pal for the cat. Defendant paid in full for the cat, $2,000 through Pay Pal. Then, defendant disputed charges for $1400. So was defendant going to buy another male cat? Or what.

Defendant's male cat escaped, and was squashed by a car. I'm hoping cat wasn't replaced, she's not a good cat owner, and I hate the idea of her becoming a breeder of the cats.

We can never know the answer, but if the female wasn't spayed, and the male was neutered, what was the defendant going to breed the female to for a litter? The defendant's story makes no sense.

$1400 for plaintiff.

Second (2018)-

Endangered Child Rescue!-Plaintiff Michael Seybold suing his girlfriend's daughter, Ivory Clark, for car window damages, and trash she left in his house when she moved. Defendant's child gets locked in plaintiff's car by defendant, and passes out as adults frantically try to open vehicle. Defendant (daughter of live-in of plaintiff, with her two little kids) got her kids locked his car, and plaintiff smashed the car window to get the kids out. Defendant says her mother, Tina locked the kids in the car, not her.

Locksmith can't get in the car, (when the kid hit the key fob too many times, the locks wouldn't unlock) baby is in distress, plaintiff broke his window, and the grandmother takes care of the baby, not the mother. Plaintiff had the window replaced, and had more keys made so the lock in couldn't happen again. Text message from daughter (kid's mother) says she'll pay with her tax refund for the window and keys.

Defendant daughter was booted because she doesn't work, go to school, or do anything but sleep late.

Defendant's daughter (mother of kids) left a lot of junk behind when she moved, and they had to get a dumpster to get rid of mattresses, and other junk she left behind. The defendant says she's underage, so nothing is her fault. Defendant moved in with shack up, and left all kinds of junk behind, and some stuff that she moved in, or bought later, and then abandoned it. Plaintiff also says he let defendant and her boyfriend come back for stuff, and they took nothing.

Defendant's boyfriend says they replaced everything, and don't need anything but the money, so they get nothing.

$400 for plaintiff.

Child Surrogacy Meets Plastic Surgery!-Plaintiff Vianna Diaz, suing half-sister Valerie Gutierrez-Reynoso, defendant for two loans, $2150, and $2350. Too bad the plaintiff didn't loan her enough to get those awful looking roots done.

Plaintiff needs only one loan back, to pay lawyer fees for her own suit against surrogate parents she suing for not paying her everything.

In July defendant went for plastic surgery consultation, to get a bigger rack. Defendant is going to Tijuana for the ginormous boobs she wants. Defendant says that there is a condo inherited from late mom, and the proceeds will pay for the new boobs for her, and claims her sister doesn't need the money. Plaintiff was in the process of suing the parents of a surrogate pregnancy for more money (she carried twins for someone else), and only needs the $2350 for lawyer fees to sue the parents of the children.

JJ brings up the fact that the defendant's three kids (14, 11 and 4), have no college fund either, except what the grandma put in for the kids. but mommy can get bigger boobs. Why do I think that the bigger boobs will be used at her evening job until 1 a.m.?

I hate both of these women.

$2350 for plaintiff. (the best part is that when the litigants are leaving they exchange words, and the audience gasps, and Officer Byrd follows them out. I wonder what they said? I guess we'll never know).

Edited January 1, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

KittyMom4 · January 1, 2021

On 12/18/2020 at 12:03 PM, SRTouch said:

Ok, just watched the early rerun episodes. First one notable because 'no evidence' lemon car buyer actually won over the crooked used car salesman. I think only reason P won and got her money back was that JJ HATED the crooked salesman (also light on evidence). JJ wanted to rule against D, but scatter brain P wasn't providing anything to go on....... eventually JJ used the 'call a friend' lifeline and got what she needed from P's friend. P got back amount she claimed she paid, even though D claimed she never paid that amount. Again, neither side had evidence, but JJ really didn't like D not having a receipt since he supposedly works for a dealer........ wonder what that dealer thought when he heard D was taking cars home with him, selling them, not giving receipts and customer claims to have paid way more than D turns over to business.

That whole case was shady! I felt for the plaintiff because she desperately needed a car but to buy it from your Auntie's "Friend" who shows up at your Auntie's house with no paperwork? Bizarre. Definitely not the brightest bulb in the package. And that shady dealer saw her coming a mile away, I believe he asked her for sexual favors in lieu of payment too, scumbag.

CrazyInAlabama · January 1, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

House of Stolen Cards?!-Plaintiff Miercoles Bell claims the defendant, Antwon McNeese stole his collectible cards. They do something about having the best cards, I absolutely understand not one word their talking about. JJ says she finds it amazing that when the plaintiff's cards disappear, and then they were posted for sale by the defendant on the same day. JJ says she will believe the plaintiff's cards were stolen, with a confirming police report. Police report doesn't match the plaintiff's testimony.

Plaintiff has a FB post trying to sell the 21 stolen cards, and defendant claims he didn't do it, and defendant says they were other cards he posted for sale that day.

Defendant gives JJ the card pictures of what was posted for sale on the same day as the theft, and they are different from the stolen cards. Plaintiff's witness claims defendant not only told him he stole the cards, but offered him some of the cards. JJ Case will be recalled after JJ's sushi lunch, with defendant showing JJ his ads for the month of the theft, and the month before that.

JJ says the posted cards by defendant aren't the plaintiff's cards.

Case dismissed, because plaintiff can prove nothing. I don't believe the plaintiff's witness, Andre Macklin, either. I think the plaintiff has no proof, so he lied to the police, and changed his story to JJ.

(This is the case where Amy Schumer the comic was in the audience, she's sitting behind the defendant's left shoulder).

Judge Discovers Tampering of Evidence?!-Plaintiff Marvin Hawthorn suing former landlady Rita Cassaro over his illegal eviction from a furnished room. Landlady wanted him out, and plaintiff claims it was an illegal eviction, because he didn't have to move for three more days. Plaintiff moved in with relatives on the 27th and 28th, and landlady claims nothing was left in the apartment when she did the lock out.

Plaintiff is suing for hotel costs for four days, but the dates on the receipt from plaintiff are changed by him.

JJ says that she can see he had an alternative place to go. Plaintiff also claims his computer was stolen by defendant, but there is no proof of any property left behind, let alone a computer.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2017)-

Hot Mess of a Long-Haired Cat-Plaintiff Renee Martin suing ex-boyfriend Dean York for an unpaid loan to pay vet bills. Plaintiff used her Care Credit card.

Plaintiff claims defendant was uncontrollable, so JJ tells him to put down the Water That Must Not be Drunk, and he instantly does.

The litigants were dating, but not living together. Plaintiff has two cats, and defendant has one cat, and the loan was for vet bills for shaving because of mats, and catch up on routine shots. Shaving was $70, and then exams, worming, shots, sedation for the grooming, and the total is now with interest, and late fees is now $576. The original bill was almost $400, and interest and late fees were charged, so the total is now $576. Defendant claims he didn't promise to pay the bill, so he didn't. Plaintiff claims defendant promised to pay the bill off within the six months interest free period.

Plaintiff claims man abused the cat, kicked the cat out of his way. I agree with JJ, I find it hard to believe that the plaintiff who claims to be a cat lover, would continue to date the defendant who she saw abusing his cat all of the time. Defendant had the cat for 2 1/2 years, and never took the cat for shots (totally indoor cat). The vet bill was $576 after all of the interest, and fees. JJ's parting remarks make me think she believes the desperate plaintiff's story about cat abuse, and I don't believe the plaintiff.

$576 for plaintiff.

Shoddy Bathroom Remodel-Plaintiff Donald Hall contractor is suing neighbor Laura Ranes for unpaid balance to remodel her bathroom. Plaintiff is a licensed remodeling contractor. Plaintiff was remodeling the bathroom in his neighbor's condo. Plaintiff is on disability (I'm guessing law enforcement,) and SSDI or SSI, but claims he doesn't do heavy work, and limits his income to the amounts of his disability rules. I suspect that's why he wanted partial payments, over a few months, to keep under the income limits. He also subs out some work too.

Bathroom remodel was $2100 left, and defendant claimed the work was faulty, shoddy, and she refuses to pay him. Plaintiff received $1700, and worked over two months on the bathroom. Defendant is upset about the quality of the work, and plaintiff's refusal to fix the problems with the bathroom. Defendant paid another contractor $600 to fix the bad work, and complete the job. The pictures from defendant's cell phone that the work isn't great on the drywall, and paint.

Plaintiff claimed he would fix the last few items in one day, and wanted the money from defendant right then, $2100. Plaintiff claims there is an email from defendant claiming she loved the bathroom, and how nice it turned out.

Plaintiff contracted $3800 for the total job, so defendant will have to pay plaintiff some of the remaining $2100.

$1500 to plaintiff. As JJ says, they deserve each other.

Edited January 1, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · January 1, 2021

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Dual Driving Disaster-Plaintiff Tracey Ratliff claims defendant Tahzay McJetters rammed her car, and defendant had no insurance. Plaintiff only had liability. Plaintiff claims defendant hit her, defendant says the opposite. After colliding, the plaintiff hit a parked car. Both litigants were extracted from the vehicles, and taken to the hospital. Plaintiff claims she was going straight, and defendant turned left across the intersection. Defendant says he was going the other direction, and plaintiff hit him.

None of the plaintiff's photos show the point of impact damages to the plaintiff's car. Plaintiff's pictures are of the ambulance, other cars, and not the point of impact. Defendant's car damage was on the passenger side, so plaintiff's story is bull. Both drivers were taken to the hospital by ambulance. Officer Byrd tries to explain to the plaintiff what the judge needs, but there just isn't proof of damages.

Defendant's counter claim for impound fees for his uninsured car are denied.

The case is dismissed due to lack of credibility by the plaintiff.

Aggressive Accounting-Plaintiff Antrice Williams suing defendant / tax preparer Jeanita Ross of JMR Tax Service, Detroit Michigan, for illegally refiling her taxes. Defendant has done taxes for 20 years, and has had her own tax business for 2 years. Defendant did plaintiff's taxes, sent it in, and plaintiff was going to get a refund of $5648, minus fees so it really was $4833 Then after a dust up, the plaintiff claims the defendant illegally re-submitted her taxes, and she owed the IRS most of the refund.

I think defendant's IRS enrolled agent requirement is for her to notify the IRS of fraud, and plaintiff's return was obviously fraudulent. There is no way that the taxes submitted the first time were correct, or the refund wouldn't have been lowered to almost nothing after being resubmitted.

(My guess is that preparer had the electronic information to submit, and when the plaintiff called about her taxes, discovered that something like EIC or Head of Household was not legal. So, preparer sent the updated information.

Plaintiff gets $5k. (In my opinion, plaintiff shouldn't have received a penny, and I hope the IRS audited her after this. In my view, there is no way the first tax return's information was given correctly to defendant's company. I suspect it was a false claim for either Earned Income Credit, or Head of Household).

Second (2018)-

Stealing Workers and Money?!-Plaintiff Sharon Groleau homeowner is suing defendant/contractor William Joyner for not finishing her house remodeling. Plaintiff was given the trailer by a friend for free, but defendant says she paid $5,000. Defendant says he was not given a chance to finish the job, after plaintiff hired his workers to do the remodeling directly. Defendant says plaintiff paid him $1800, and a $500 Home Depot card, and with other gift cards it totaled $5800. The first contract was for $1400 for flooring and additional contracts were to cover water damages.

Defendant says walls were only drywall, and ruined siding. I bet this trailer was taken away in a giant dumpster truck.

Defendant says he left the supplies at the trailer, after plaintiff fired him, and hired his workers, and plaintiff's witness who can't even sit in a chair in court.

Plaintiff claims she paid $3500 in cash, and $2500 in gift cards. (where does anyone get $2500 in gift cards from Home Depot)

Plaintiff gets $2500

(Next week the first episode is at least one new case, who knows what they'll fill in with after the first case)

Edited January 2, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

LetsStartTalking · January 2, 2021

According to my DVR, new episodes return in the first half hour the week of January 4.

seacliffsal · January 3, 2021

I am glad that they are rerunning older episodes as I enjoy seeing them and don't always remember everything about them. I was so tired of the trend (and with People's Court) of showing episodes from just the previous month and am glad to see the older episodes.

One Tough Cookie · January 3, 2021

On 12/11/2020 at 5:52 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

rent money for gas.

hmm....I'd have my mortgage paid if is the gas I'm thinking about.

CrazyInAlabama · January 4, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Fit of Drunken Rage?!-Plaintiff Constance Cochran (aunt) is suing defendant (nephew) Roy Newman for breaking her house window, and a small loan. Plaintiff claims defendant was angry over her wanting the loan repaid, and broke into her house, breaking the window. Plaintiff claims nephew threw a log from the back of his truck through her bedroom window (she's a renter, so angry landlord in her future). House window bill is $339. There are a lot of charges from the landlord, because plaintiff is being evicted, so her charges include the window, attorney fees, and JJ guess is that she hasn't paid her portion of Section 8 rent, and plaintiff finally admits she's being evicted for not paying her portion of the rent for two months.

Plaintiff claims nephew vandalized her car, but isn't in her name, so she gets nothing for the car, so plaintiff can't sue for the car damages.

Defendant claims aunt was angry with him, and shot his rear windshield out of his car.

Defendant gets $60, plaintiff case dismissed.

Social Security Theft?!-Plaintiff Marcus McLeod suing defendant/former family friend Chrissy Harris for stealing his social security disability money. Plaintiff gets social security disability, since he was six for a back issue, and is now twenty-two. Plaintiff is also a record producers, and sells online.

Plaintiff is asked if he makes a lot through the music someday, if he'll still take the disability, and he says yes he will. Plaintiff says his mother set this up years ago. Plaintiff needed a place to stay, so moved in with defendant, and she became his payee. Defendant was the payee for five months, and plaintiff claims defendant kept two months of his SSD. However, there was a two month lag between moving in with defendant/payee, and her actually getting the rent money. Plaintiff had back surgery at six years old, but recovered, and later played basketball, still plays basketball, so why still on disability?

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2017)-

Broken Jaw Party Foul!-Plaintiff Scott Richie, Jr suing defendant Jordan Nielsen for breaking his jaw, and choking him, for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Plaintiff went to a party at defendant's house, but was invited by the defendant's roommate, Dakota who plaintiff assaulted, but claims it was mutual combat. Plaintiff went to pick up two other party goers, and when the plaintiff arrived at the party, he says everyone at the party was drunk. Plaintiff was leaving to go home, when defendant assaulted him, and claims defendant's witness also punched him repeatedly.

Police report is submitted by plaintiff. Plaintiff says he met with police later too, but there is no further report, and no one was arrested over this assault. Defendant witness Drew Manning was also in the fight.

Defendant claims plaintiff wasn't invited to party, and was drunk. Defendant claims plaintiff wanted to fight him, and he was only defending himself. Defendant says plaintiff's witness is also his witness, Skylar. However, the mutual witness says plaintiff, defendant, and defendant's witness were all drunk and fighting. Start of the issue is that plaintiff had slept with a previous party host's girlfriend, and the boyfriend was at the defendant's party.

The fight happened in Iowa, but plaintiff didn't go back there to finish filing charges, so police charges were never filed.

Everything dismissed.

Quick! Hide the Pontiac?!-Plaintiff Charlene Moore suing ex-boyfriend Brian Theard, for money she invested in a car, stolen property, and punitive damages. Defendant is counter suing for the return of a stolen car. They lived together, and bought a Pontiac and a Mercedes. Defendant says he paid for both cars, and plaintiff paid nothing for the cars. When they broke up the plaintiff stayed at the original apartment, and kept the Pontiac, and she would take over the payments. Defendant took the Mercedes. Defendant was getting notices that plaintiff wasn't paying the last $2,000 on the car loan, and called the finance company, found there was actually only $500 more on the loan.

Plaintiff had paid $1500 on the car, leaving the last $500, which defendant paid off. When he went to take the Pontiac back, defendant found that plaintiff had changed the locks on the car. Defendant claims plaintiff was paying on car, but fell behind, and plaintiff kept hiding the car with friends, in various locations. Defendant claimed he paid for both vehicles, except for $1500 she paid on the car. (This is obviously not plaintiff's first time hiding a car from the repo men).

Plaintiff gets the Pontiac back, and defendant gets $500 for the car loan he paid off.

Edited January 4, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · January 5, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Double-Whammy Car Swindle-Plaintiff Tara Durn is suing defendant/mechanic Enrique Delavera because he didn't fix her car. Plaintiff was rear ended, and then that collision pushed her into the car in front of her, and first driver fled the scene. Plaintiff only had liability, from Geico. Geico is still negotiating the claim with the front car that plaintiff hit the second time. Plaintiff didn't bring the police report, or anything from the insurance company. She has photos of her front and back car damage. (My question is without a police report, or insurance paperwork, how does JJ know the accident happened the way the plaintiff says? Or that she had insurance at all?)

Plaintiff took her car to defendant for collision repair, after some woman referred her to defendant's repair shop. Plaintiff claims the estimated damages are $5-6,000, but the mechanic shop is not a body shop. The car was towed to defendant's shop, and was going to be fixed on defendant's spare time, not at work. Plaintiff claims the money was her life savings. Plaintiff wired defendant $3,000, and second payment was $2,000. Defendant ordered parts for car, but he didn't get them, and didn't fix the car. Amazing coincidence that the car repair and payments were $5,000 total, just exactly matching the court limit. JJ says defendant didn't do anything to fix car. (I hate that plaintiff doesn't have police report, insurance company information, or anything else? There is zero evidence that the plaintiff's car was actually rear ended, and then rammed the car in front, except plaintiff saying so. )

$5,000 to plaintiff (no police report, or anything else? I'm sensing scam)

Off-Leash Dog Blamed for Crazy Fall-Plaintiff Kathy Gray suing dog owners Lovetta and Jason Farrell for vet bills for plaintiff's dog being injured. . Plaintiff has three Shih Tzus, and defendant has one dog. Defendant dog was on leash when (plaintiff says defendant dog wasn't on leash) they all got outside (they were all in a California fire area, and staying at a hotel). Plaintiff and her three dogs met defendant, she claims defendant husband's dog was off leash, and the two people had an argument. Defendant's dog never touched the plaintiff's dogs, or was even within eight feet of plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims the trip that resulted from her dogs' leashes wrapping around her legs caused the plaintiff to fall, and she landed on the her dogs. Then plaintiff says she fell back on her dogs, and blames it on her dogs barking, and defendant's dog barking. Then plaintiff claims she fell off the curb, landed on her dogs, and her dog was injured.

Good point by JJ, if defendant's dog was off leash, then how could the owner have stopped his dog's advance?

(After the verdict, the defendant wife keeps saying that her dog is a service dog, however the dog is a therapy dog, not the same thing at all. However, the defendant's dog never barked once in court, and the plaintiff's dogs never shut up).

Leaving the litigant stand plaintiff yells at defendants, "You think this is funny, don't you". Plaintiff is hysterical in the hall-terview. I bet the plaintiff will try to keep after the defendants, and I hope they show the arbitration agreement JJ's court requires, and future cases get shut down.

Plaintiff ridiculous case dismissed.

Second (2014)-

Pawnshop Payback?-Plaintiff Wendy and Rosalio Magdaleno are suing defendant / pawn shop owner Sheila Christiansen for selling jewelry she pawned without giving her a chance to pay it off. They pawned the jewelry for $2100, and have pawned, and redeemed the same jewelry several times. When the defendant doesn't get the money to redeem the jewelry by the due date, the jewelry is either sold or melted for the gold.

JJ asks if plaintiff has the $2100 to redeem the jewelry? They answer that they don't. Case will be recalled when the plaintiffs have the $2100 in hand.

Then case is recalled, and JJ asks defendant if she has the plaintiffs property. Defendant says "Maybe". Items were pawned in 2012, and had three months to redeem the property, The items expired in the first of March, and the letter was sent by defendant saying that the time would expire in 30 days. The letter was sent to the pawn receipt address, which is right off of husband's driver's license. Husband signed the pawn ticket, with the wrong address on it, but it matched his I.D. The letter to plaintiff Rosario's home address matches his driver's license address.

The wife went in and paid the interest twice, in March, and July, 2013. The jewelry finally expired, and went through the grace period on the end of September 2013, and when they finally came in during October they were told the pawn was forfeited.

JJ says since the people have dealt with the pawnshop for so long, and if the jewelry hasn't been melted, then JJ says that pawnshop should let them redeem the jewelry. However, pawnshop owner says she's only willing to return the jewelry, if they pay her for everything they've lost because it expired, including guns, bicycles, and other items. They're going to need more than the $2100 for the jewelry.

JJ says to let the people redeem the three tickets only for the jewelry, and if pawnshop still has the jewelry not melted, then she should call plaintiffs or the court and say she has the jewelry. Plaintiff will either get nothing, or get a chance to redeem their jewelry. (My guess is if the jewelry wasn't melted before the case, then it certainly was the second the defendant got to a phone).

(If I was the defendant, I would ban the plaintiffs from the pawnshop).

Edited January 6, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · January 5, 2021

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$5,000 to plaintiff (no police report, or anything else? I'm sensing scam)

Indeed. How come when plaintiff kept responding she did not bring the requested pieces of documentation to court, JJ did not trot out her usual "Where did you think you were coming to: the beach?"

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Off-Leash Dog Blamed for Crazy Fall

Some plaintiffs do not understand that making themselves appear as unpleasant as possible is not a winning strategy, especially when you have a weak or non-existent case.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Florinaldo

Steph J · January 5, 2021

57 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Off-Leash Dog Blamed for Crazy Fall-Plaintiff Kathy Gray suing dog owners Lovetta and Jason Farrell for vet bills for plaintiff's dog being injured. . Plaintiff has three Shih Tzus, and defendant has one dog. Defendant dog was on leash when (plaintiff says defendant dog wasn't on leash) they all got outside (they were all in a California fire area, and staying at a hotel). Plaintiff and her three dogs met defendant, she claims defendant husband's dog was off leash, and the two people had an argument. Defendant's dog never touched the plaintiff's dogs, or was even within eight feet of plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims the trip that resulted from her dogs' leashes wrapping around her legs caused the plaintiff to fall, and she landed on the her dogs. Then plaintiff says she fell back on her dogs, and blames it on her dogs barking, and defendant's dog barking. Then plaintiff claims she fell off the curb, landed on her dogs, and her dog was injured.

Good point by JJ, if defendant's dog was off leash, then how could the owner have stopped his dog's advance?

Leaving the litigant stand plaintiff yells at defendants, "You think this is funny, don't you". Plaintiff is hysterical in the hall-terview. I bet the plaintiff will try to keep after the defendants, and I hope they show the arbitration agreement JJ's court requires, and future cases get shut down.

Plaintiff ridiculous case dismissed.

I couldn't help but laugh every time they cut to a shot of the Defendants' dog, looking chilled out AF.

SRTouch · January 5, 2021

10 minutes ago, Steph J said:

I couldn't help but laugh every time they cut to a shot of the Defendants' dog, looking chilled out AF.

OTOH, in court P's 2 little yappers just yapped away........ and P did nothing to quiet them. Granted some dogs take extra training, but P as much as said her dogs are always barking and doesn't look to me like she does anything to correct or train them. In fact she let them stand in front of her and bark...... anyone else think that's the opposite of what she should have been doing.

nora1992 · January 5, 2021

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Indeed. How come when plaintiff kept responding she did not bring the requested pieces of documentation to court, JJ did not trot out her usual "Where did you thibk you were coming to: the beach?"

I didn’t think it was a scam, however ill-prepared the plaintiff was. She was suing over post-accident events, and had the proof of payment and car damage. How many times has JJ claimed that she only wants to see the evidence she asked for, while admonishing people for “playing with their papers” in an annoyed tone? The defendant had nothing to do with the accident, so the accident papers would have answered JJ’s curiosity, not the case before her.

SRTouch · January 5, 2021

14 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

I didn’t think it was a scam, however ill-prepared the plaintiff was. She was suing over post-accident events, and had the proof of payment and car damage. How many times has JJ claimed that she only wants to see the evidence she asked for, while admonishing people for “playing with their papers” in an annoyed tone? The defendant had nothing to do with the accident, so the accident papers would have answered JJ’s curiosity, not the case before her.

I think that plaintiff goes through life in a dazed and confused state. Why else would she hand thousands to some guy based on a reference from a casual acquaintance without even getting another estimate. Ok, car wasn't drivable - but still......

I'm thinking another case where JJ had her mind made up before a word was spoken and overlooked one plaintiff's weak case to slam the one she didn't like....... she did the same with the little yappers case - did that defendant even say anything?........ THIS time I agreed with JJ's rulings, but often I'm left scratching my head wondering.

Edited January 5, 2021 by SRTouch

Florinaldo · January 5, 2021

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

TOH, in court P's 2 little yappers just yapped away........ and P did nothing to quiet them.

Not only was she lying, she just did not care about her dogs' behaviour in court, which made me to think she has the same attitude in daily life.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I think that plaintiff goes through life in a dazed and confused state.

She was lucky that JJ had her mind made up before turning on the connection to the hearing room and took an instant dislike to the defendant, because her allegations were rather weak. JJ interrupted the "mechanic" so often, did he ever have to opportunity to describe any real work he might have done, which could have opened the door to a "quantum meruit" defense? Something JJ could of course not allow in his case.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Florinaldo

bad things are bad · January 5, 2021

That case was just weird. Why wouldn't you call a shop to see if it could fix your car? If you called a mechanical shop, they're going to tell you they don't do body work--different skill set, different tools.

You don't just tow your car to a place and hope for the best. And the "mechanic" was going to have another shop do the work...clearly the car could not be repaired under a shade tree. Every person, every decision, in this case made no sense at all.

CrazyInAlabama · January 5, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Disabled Helping the Disabled? -Plaintiff Charles McGuire, Jr. suing defendant/ex-girlfriend Naomi Jeanette Maness. Defendant was being paid by the state to take care of her grandmother, and no longer does. While defendant was being paid as a caretaker for her grandmother by the state, she was also receiving disability. Plaintiff received a $44k settlement, and $119k settlement from Worker's Comp.

Plaintiff and defendant met online, he went and picked her up at the grandmother's place, and 12 hours later she moved into plaintiff's house, along with defendant's friend. Plaintiff was denied disability, and appealed and won, and received a settlement for disability, and worker's comp. Plaintiff supported himself off the books, and hired an attorney, and won a lot of money. Plaintiff received the settlement, bought a mobile home, and he claims defendant spent $7,000 of his settlements.

Plaintiff claims the defendant made $7,000 in charges while they were shacking up, but not after she moved out. Defendant counter claims for property she left at the mobile home, and had to rent trucks, and get the police to stand by, The defendant's claim is going to be thrown out too.

Plaintiff case dismissed. (Plaintiff's witness, who never speaks

Highway Barricade Collision-Plaintiff Phillip Wiggins suing defendant Kris Garcia (he's the son of owner of the Ford SUV Vanessa Ayala, son is 20, so much cheaper for insurance because of son's age), for a car accident. The two vehicles were going the same direction passing through a construction zone, plaintiff was in the middle lane, and says defendant in the left lane started hitting construction barricade barrels, and barrels started flying. I wonder if neck collar plaintiff is wearing is necessary? (Defendant's SUV looks like a Ford Explorer or Expedition).

Defendant son says plaintiff was 'rushing' him into the barricades. Both litigants were due at work by 6:00 a.m., and the accident was about 5:30 a.m. There was also a sign a half mile before the barrels, to move right, because the left lane was closed ahead.

Plaintiff's car (Toyota Camry) had front end damage, and photo of defendant's car shows a barrel stuck underneath it. Defendant's insurance company sent plaintiff a letter saying the son is explicitly excluded from coverage by the policy holder Vanessa Ayala (his mother).

However, Ms. Ayala put car and insurance in her name, and because son is 20, excluded him from insurance policy as a driver, so he wasn't insured, and insurance won't cover the accident. Watch JJ go ballistic about that, and I am glad about that. This case is two years old, and I bet the son is still driving a car in his mother's name, and not on the insurance either. Vanessa Ayala lies to JJ, and says she tried to get insurance for the son.

Defendant Garcia still drives the SUV constantly, still uninsured. Vanessa Ayala shows no remorse about her son driving without insurance, and neither does he.

Plaintiff receives $1,265.

Second (2017)-

Someone Stole My Car! – Plaintiff Melysa Juengel suing defendant/ex-boyfriend Luke Wesner (also known to me as Man Bun), they're from Medford, Oregon. While living together, both litigants bought one car, with both names on the title, when they separated, he took the car. They broke up in March, and defendant had the car for a year, and the following February things got worse, defendant didn't pay (he was a day late).

In March, plaintiff called the car in as stolen, and she got the car back. Car was not stolen, but co-owned by both litigants. Police impounded the car, and it had to be towed, and plaintiff had to pay towing, and other bills, and that's thrown out. Plaintiff's current live-in gets the Byrd boot, because he won't shut up (I enjoyed the Byrd boot). Mr. Wesner is told to sign the relinquishment of title/registration for the car, so when plaintiff pays it off, he can't take it back.

Defendant is told if he doesn't sign the title/registration transfer, then he'll be walking back to Medford, and the show won't be paying for that.

Car is signed over to plaintiff, and defendant will pay plaintiff for his tickets,

Plaintiff receives the car relinquishment document, and $870 for the tickets.

Edited January 6, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · January 5, 2021

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

F)

Off-Leash Dog Blamed for Crazy Fall-Plaintiff Kathy Gray suing dog owners Lovetta and Jason Farrell for vet bills for plaintiff's dog being injured. . Plaintiff has three Shih Tzus, and defendant has one dog. Defendant dog was on leash when (plaintiff says defendant dog wasn't on leash) they all got outside (they were all in a California fire area, and staying at a hotel). Plaintiff and her three dogs met defendant, she claims defendant husband's dog was off leash, and the two people had an argument. Defendant's dog never touched the plaintiff's dogs, or was even within eight feet of plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims the trip that resulted from her dogs' leashes wrapping around her legs caused the plaintiff to fall, and she landed on the her dogs. Then plaintiff says she fell back on her dogs, and blames it on her dogs barking, and defendant's dog barking. Then plaintiff claims she fell off the curb, landed on her dogs, and her dog was injured.

Good point by JJ, if defendant's dog was off leash, then how could the owner have stopped his dog's advance?

Leaving the litigant stand plaintiff yells at defendants, "You think this is funny, don't you". Plaintiff is hysterical in the hall-terview. I bet the plaintiff will try to keep after the defendants, and I hope they show the arbitration agreement JJ's court requires, and future cases get shut down.

Plaintiff ridiculous case dismissed.

Second (2014)-

Pawnshop Payback?-Plaintiff Wendy and Rosalio Magdaleno suing defendant / pawn shop owner Sheila Christiansen for selling jewelry she pawned without giving her a chance to pay it off. They pawned the jewelry for $2100, and have pawned, and redeemed the same jewelry several times. When the defendant doesn't get the money to redeem the jewelry by the due date, the jewelry is either sold or melted for the gold.

JJ asks if plaintiff has the $2100 to redeem the jewelry? They answer that they don't. Case will be recalled when the plaintiffs have the $2100 in hand.

Then case is recalled, and JJ asks defendant if she has the plaintiffs property. Defendant says "Maybe". Items were pawned in 2012, and had three months to redeem the property, The items expired in the first of March, and the letter was sent by defendant saying that the time would expire in 30 days. The letter was sent to the pawn receipt address, which is right off of husband's driver's license. Husband signed the pawn ticket, with the wrong address on it, but it matched his I.D. The letter to plaintiff Rosario's home address matches his driver's license address.

The wife went in and paid the interest twice, in March, and July, 2013. The jewelry finally expired, and went through the grace period on the end of September 2013, and when they finally came in during October they were told the pawn was forfeited.

JJ says since the people have dealt with the pawnshop for so long, and if the jewelry hasn't been melted, then JJ says that pawnshop should let them redeem the jewelry. Ho

6 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

22 hours ago, SRTouch said:

TOH, in court P's 2 little yappers just yapped away........ and P did nothing to quiet them.

Not only was she lying, she just did not care about her dogs' behaviour in court, which made me to think she has the same attitude in daily life.

wever, pawnshop owner says she's only willing to return the jewelry, if they pay her for everything they've lost because it expired, including guns, bicycles, and other items. They're going to need more than the $2100 for the jewelry.

JJ says to let the people redeem the three tickets only for the jewelry, and if pawnshop still has the jewelry not melted, then she should call plaintiffs or the court and say she has the jewelry. Plaintiff will either get nothing, or get a chance to redeem their jewelry. (My guess is if the jewelry wasn't melted before the case, then it certainly was the second the defendant got to a phone).

22 hours ago, SRTouch said:

22 hours ago, SRTouch said:

From of these look the male plaintiff gave the pawnbroker I was thinking he'd get the Mexican Mafia on her,

22 hours ago, SRTouch said:

OTOH, in court P's 2 little yappers just yapped away........ and P did nothing to quiet them. Granted some dogs take extra training, but P as much as said her dogs are always barking and doesn't look to me like she does anything to correct or train them. In fact she let them stand in front of her and bark...... anyone else think that's the opposite of what she should have been doing.

But we do have to thank her for the EPIC Halter View we had in a LONG TIME.

Edited January 5, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

CrazyInAlabama · January 5, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021) –

Bicyclist’s Ignorance of the Law! (2021) -Plaintiff bicyclist KaLynda Watts suing defendant car driver Alyssa Mincher over an accident, in California, at 7:30 a.m. However, plaintiff was riding against traffic, which is illegal in California. Plaintiff consulted an attorney, who refused to accept her case. Plaintiff says after defendant hit her, that defendant said she was 'late for school', and left the scene. Plaintiff was riding to school, crossed an apartment driveway, coming up on the passenger side of the defendant's car, and when plaintiff crossed in front, defendant hit her while making a right turn. As JJ says, defendant couldn't have seen the plaintiff coming from the wrong direction, and she came to a full stop, and then plaintiff crossed in front of the defendant's car.

As JJ points out the accident was plaintiff's fault, and not the defendant's fault. However, JJ points out she should have given her information to the plaintiff. Plaintiff says she hasn't ridden her bike since the accident.

Plaintiff case dismissed, because she was at fault in the accident.

Moving In; Moving Out (2013, season 18)-Plaintiff Jenny Keffler suing former roommate/defendant Amber Aragon for breaking their lease to move in with her boyfriend. Plaintiff found another roommate for the end of the lease, and had to pay $400 for the late fee. Defendant claims she was going to pay the $350 ($50 late fee), because she claims plaintiff withheld the defendant's worker's comp check.

Plaintiff receives $100, after giving defendant $250 for her security deposit.

Second (2014)-

Mutual Custody Combat? -Plaintiffs Ianiesha Williams and Denzell Glen suing defendants Dominique Adams SSMOT(Sainted Single Mother of Two with plaintiff man), and her mother. The defendant SSMOT never left the children with plaintiff when they were in relationship. Then defendant SSMOT moved to Texas, and then moved back. Defendant SSMOT claims the litigants lived together.

There was a custody exchange, and when defendant SSMOT went to drop the kids in apartment parking lot where defendant and her mother live with the kids, Defendant claims the plaintiff's new girlfriend said something about "here's my baby", so defendant SSMOT attacked plaintiff woman, and cracked some teeth. This was a court mandated custody visit, and when defendant SSMOT saw the new woman, she walked back to her apartment, and told her mother that she wasn't letting that B**** have her kids. Then Defendant's mother went to the car, and started confronting the plaintiff woman. And defendant woman said that she wasn't going to allow visitation. Plaintiff woman claims the defendant and her mother both attacked her.

Defendant woman also claims since there wasn't a court order for visitation in place, that taking the children to Texas was her right, and claims she gets to decide custody and visitation.

(Incidents like that are why so many custody exchanges happen at McDonald's or other places with surveillance cameras inside, and in the parking lot). Plaintiff woman is suing for medical bills from the assault. Plaintiff man claims his dashboard was kicked, and put a hole in it. Plaintiff man hasn't seen his children since this incident, in October. JJ advises that the plaintiff man should sue for full custody, because defendant is ignoring the visitation order.

There is an order from November that the parents must arrange visitation. Both defendants have a rotten attitude, and I hope the plaintiff did get full custody. (This has been six years, so the little boy would be 10 now, and the baby would be in elementary school by now).

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

CrazyInAlabama · January 6, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Repo Skirmish ?!- Plaintiff Michael Smith Jr. suing defendants tow company CFO Mike Langley, and tow driver Randall Hutchinson over plaintiff's car repo, plaintiff claims defendants damaged his car. Plaintiff stopped paying the car payments for five months, but his father was paying the car insurance policy (car was in father and son's names, and car was on father's insurance policy). Plaintiff had an accident in October on the father's insurance, for hood and headlight/front bumper damages (tow driver has documentation that damage hadn't been repaired by plaintiff and was still there the next June when car was repo'd). Plaintiff and father both claim different amounts for their car repair, and who fixed the damages, that the tow company can prove was still on the car. Plaintiff claims someone else caused the accident, but plaintiff's damages mean he hit the parked car.

Tow driver came to get car about 11 p.m. Tow driver did a temporary hookup, and moved down the road to secure the car, and that's when plaintiff came up to the car. Tow driver says when he came to repo the car. that he let the plaintiff get his stuff out of the car. Then plaintiff said, "How do you stop people from taking the car while they're cleaning it out?", and he was sitting in the driver's seat, So tow driver told him to leave. Tow driver say plaintiff pulled a knife out of his pocket, and then told girlfriend to go inside the house and get the pistol. Plaintiff called police, and claims the defendant tow driver assaulted him, and he has no medical records proving that.

Tow truck driver called 911, then the sheriff's deputies arrived.

Plaintiff and defendant cases dismissed.

Second (2017)-

Costa Rican Vacation Con?!-Plaintiff Lane Morgan suing former friends, Sanaz Favier, and Maureen Humphrey for unpaid travel expenses for a trip to Costa Rica. All three litigants were friends, decided to go to Costa Rica on vacation together. First plaintiff was going to go with one friend on his air miles, and when second defendant decided to go a regular air ticket was purchased, and paid for. They had nine nights at hotels, split three ways. Each defendant paid $110 each for the plane points for the tickets.

Plaintiff claims the women owe $396 each for their part of the hotel, in two separate rooms. Plus, the third night in another hotel, that was $186. On another night defendant woman got her own room. Then on day two, defendant Sanaz Favier met some guy, and wanted him to go along, Then the defendant ditched the guy, and plaintiff paid $104 for the man's bus ride back home, because defendant wanted to strand the man.

$459 to plaintiff, and this boring case is over.

Teen Mother vs. Godmother-Plaintiff Brooke Harden, and her 17 year old daughter Ashley Lovejoy, are suing her godmother/defendant Riba Allen for hotel costs, and withholding daughter's mail. Daughter was pregnant with second child, and plaintiff mother was homeless, and she asked defendant to take the daughter (17 years old), and her one year old into her home. Plaintiff mother would pay defendant $200 a month, and some food stamps.

Plaintiff daughter got locked out, and damaged the front door breaking back into the defendant's place, and defendant is suing for a broken door. Daughter's godmother takes the 1 year old every weekend, and daughter locked the keys in the house, so she jimmied the door open, damaging the door. Defendant came home, sees the front door is jimmied, calls the police thinking she had been burglarized.

Plaintiff claims defendant called her, and said the daughter needed to leave her home. However, JJ says defendant was taking care of plaintiff daughter, and she was under defendant's supervision. So defendant will pay for her own door. Defendant submits door pictures, but since plaintiff daughter was 17 at the time, plaintiff is not responsible for the daughter, and defendant will not get door money. Defendant hands over the mail to plaintiff. Plaintiff now lives with a friend with her two children.

Case dismissed.

Edited January 6, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · January 6, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Illegal Covid Haircut Con?!(2021) -Plaintiff Julie Bossard (hair salon owner) suing defendant Manny Baker over his unauthorized credit card charges, and return of property. They met on "Plenty of Fish". Defendant's hair needed cutting, so he went to plaintiff's hair salon (closed due to Covid), for an illegal haircut, and stayed in Spokane, near where plaintiff lives. Defendant used to sell walk-through bathtubs, in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, he used to be a general contractor. Equipment purchased included a tractor/trailer, but plaintiff repo'd that already.

Plaintiff gave defendant one of her credit cards shortly after they met, and that card had a zero balance. She later gave him another card, with a $10k balance on it. Defendant claims he paid the charges off on the first card. Defendant bought supplies using plaintiff's credit card, for his side business. (Defendant and former wife had a construction, and development business, with a $5 million bankruptcy). Plaintiff claims she gave defendant the credit cards to go into a sewer business together. Plaintiff says defendant gave her the $1500 to pay off his supplies on the first card. Then for the second card, defendant didn't pay anything.

Plaintiff will get a pump, and a sewer camera back, worth $5600.

No money to plaintiff, just the property back.

False Arrest Fallout (2013) -Plaintiff Sandra Nicole Labry suing defendant / ex-roommate Jonathan Taub for motel costs, a false arrest, and return of property, after she had to move because of his police complaint that resulted in her false arrest. Plaintiff says she's a singer/entertainer, and a caterer on the side. Defendant says she was prostituting at their mutual apartment when he was at work. Plaintiff says she supports herself from 'friends' who give her money. Defendant says plaintiff didn't pay her rent, and claims after she was hospitalized, she says defendant locked her out, stored her stuff, and called a locksmith to let her back in. Plaintiff claims the police told her to break in (not buying that).

What a nasty, sordid case this is. I'm believing the defendant's story, not the plaintiff's.

Defendant claims plaintiff's stuff is stored, and he will give her the key.

JJ says both sides are liars, and I agree.

Second (2018)-

Eight Kids is Enough-Plaintiff April Chambers has five children, and Jamie Mejia, defendant left her three children and a dog at plaintiff’s apartment for three weeks, but children were abandoned by the mother. Mother of the year candidate case today. Plaintiff is suing for pet deposit, child care costs. A woman with three kids leaves them with a woman with five kids, supposedly for a few days vacation in the Dominican Republic. The kids were actually there long enough to get registered in school. Defendant never paid a penny to plaintiff. Agreed on price was $200 a week, but after that plaintiff had to do so much for the defendant's children that she wanted more money. Plaintiff was gone for a month.

By the way, Mommy dearest actually went to the Dominican Republic to get married, and then had to do the paperwork, etc. to import her new love muffin. (How can a woman who is homeless afford six months in the DR, and to import the husband? And who is sponsoring the husband? ). I loved when Judge Judy said she was going to report the woman to CPS for abandoning her children. Defendant wants money for reporting her to CPS

Plaintiff receives $900

Bleeding Puppy Neglect-Plaintiff Aimee Uribe/ puppy broker for a dozen breeders, suing defendant Sahil Sharma for a puppy she was reselling to him. This is the heartbreaking case of the puppy broker (she gets puppies breeders don't want to keep to sell) who sells dogs for$2800 to the village idiot. Puppy has a bleeding problem, and village idiot buyer doesn't take puppy to the vet for months. A new variation on puppy mills, and two despicable people who sell, and buy the poor creatures. Defendant bought the puppy, and plaintiff claims she refunded the money to defendant. (Puppy broker, equals puppy mills, even if the dogs are AKE

Defendant claims plaintiff refunded the money, but plaintiff says it was an accidental refund. However, plaintiff claims he never received the AKC paperwork. Defendant also claims French Bulldog puppy had was lethargic, and had a bleeding problem, but was purchased in February, and didn't see a vet until April. Sounds like Giardia.

$2800 to plaintiff

Wheelchair Bound Honeymoon Cruise-Plaintiff Auxerre Adore suing defendant Christina Lutz for not paying her caregiving fees when she was caregiver for defendant on the defendant's honeymoon cruise. Plaintiff was supposed to be paid double for the cruise, because she was the only caregiver. Then we have the wheelchair bound woman who owes her care giver a lot of money for her hours, but caregiver claims plaintiff didn't pay. Plaintiff claims she was fired when they returned. Hours should have amounted to almost $1,000.

It was for the woman's honeymoon on a cruise, and they married on the ship. Defendant is counter suing for the price of a cruise, because she paid for plaintiff's ticket, and a friend of plaintiff. The cruise was for three weeks, caregiving was $1,000 a week (only one caregiver, not the usual two). Defendant paid around $2700 to plaintiff.

Plaintiff's claim is dismissed. Defendant counter claim is dismissed also.

configdotsys · January 7, 2021

On 12/24/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one 2018 rerun-

First (2020)-

Covid Destroys Wedding Celebration!-

On 12/26/2020 at 12:09 AM, LetsStartTalking said:

RBG Judge Judy presiding:

The defendant was 100% on target with her defense. She had all her bases covered, especially with "the event of Force Majeure" clause. Judge Judy, much to her chagrin, knew the defendant was correct and on top of the game. She was a no-nonsense business woman, who owned her own business - something Judy abhors. The plaintiff pretended she never got emails of the documents sent to her (she probably didn't OK the sender, so they went into her spam folder). She also knew she was in the wrong once Judge Judy explained it to her, but she thought by playing obstinate she would get her way (she seemed like a woman who never heard the word 'no' in her life). I'm glad JJ didn't even give her the $265 in the end.

I am very, very late to the party on this case because my DVR is just backed up with stuff but I loved this case. I loved the defendant's preparedness. It reminded me of a case a long time ago in which a nurse from Canada worked in a Michigan hospital and got her car towed while out out to lunch at a diner. The scammy tow company claimed that she parked, left the lot and left her car there all day but the nurse/plaintiff had all of her ducks lined up and more. She had the placard, the time she entered and left the garage, her own time card, I mean, this gal was preee-pared. The defendant in the Bridezilla case reminded me of her. God help Mr. Bridezilla.

LetsStartTalking · January 7, 2021

1 hour ago, configdotsys said:

I am very, very late to the party on this case because my DVR is just backed up with stuff but I loved this case. I loved the defendant's preparedness. It reminded me of a case a long time ago in which a nurse from Canada worked in a Michigan hospital and got her car towed while out out to lunch at a diner. The scammy tow company claimed that she parked, left the lot and left her car there all day but the nurse/plaintiff had all of her ducks lined up and more. She had the placard, the time she entered and left the garage, her own time card, I mean, this gal was preee-pared. The defendant in the Bridezilla case reminded me of her. God help Mr. Bridezilla.

I remember that case about the nurse. I've never seen Judge Judy so impressed with a plaintiff as she was with her. I thought at the end of the case Judge Judy was going to offer her a job to 'clerk' for her. 😄

Edited January 7, 2021 by LetsStartTalking

bad things are bad · January 7, 2021

No JJ for us yesterday because, well, you know, sedition and all that.

KittyMom4 · January 7, 2021

On 1/5/2021 at 8:14 AM, nora1992 said:

I didn’t think it was a scam, however ill-prepared the plaintiff was. She was suing over post-accident events, and had the proof of payment and car damage. How many times has JJ claimed that she only wants to see the evidence she asked for, while admonishing people for “playing with their papers” in an annoyed tone? The defendant had nothing to do with the accident, so the accident papers would have answered JJ’s curiosity, not the case before her.

I think she was a space cadet but I agree, the accident was not the issue, the repair was. The defendent was shady and had no intention of fixing her car.

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Illegal Covid Haircut Con?!(2021) -Plaintiff Julie Bossard (hair salon owner) suing defendant Manny Baker over his unauthorized credit card charges, and return of property. They met on "Plenty of Fish".

What is wrong with these women who so readily handover their hard earned money and freakin' dignity to these losers they meet and know for 72 hours??? Manny was an asshat douchebag a 100 times over, I could tell that just by his smarmy smile. I was in the online dating game for a while, as soon as "bankruptcy" or "back child support" came up I bolted. C'mon ladies, he ain't that good looking!!!!!!

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

What a nasty, sordid case this is. I'm believing the defendant's story, not the plaintiff's.

Ew, this case was so gross I wanted to shower in bleach. Both of them were disgusting.

4 hours ago, configdotsys said:

I am very, very late to the party on this case because my DVR is just backed up with stuff but I loved this case. I loved the defendant's preparedness. It reminded me of a case a long time ago in which a nurse from Canada worked in a Michigan hospital and got her car towed while out out to lunch at a diner. The scammy tow company claimed that she parked, left the lot and left her car there all day but the nurse/plaintiff had all of her ducks lined up and more. She had the placard, the time she entered and left the garage, her own time card, I mean, this gal was preee-pared. The defendant in the Bridezilla case reminded me of her. God help Mr. Bridezilla.

I remember that case! Ms. Bridezilla sure thought her poo was perfume, didn't she? The "Well everyone else gave me my money back, she should too" defense was ridiculous, as was her "DAY OF WEDDING" objections. Would you really pay someone that much money to NOT do any background/research? You think you're just gonna show up and they're going to have ESP'd all your ideas?

I had 2 weddings that had to be downsized last year due to covid. In both cases the venue was willing to give back all but the deposit (a hefty chunk) as per their contract or allow them to postpone to 2021. I get that Bridezilla was disappointed but she signed the contract.

CrazyInAlabama · January 7, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Car Takes a Hood Pounding -Plaintiff Michael Rice suing defendant Frederick Jackson for denting his car hood. Defendant is the mobile home park manager (15 acre park, with over 200 mobiles on it), who plaintiff claims confronted him when plaintiff was driving the wrong way. Plaintiff was in the mobile home park working on a construction job at the mobile park, meeting with a site manager for the mobile park for trenching utilities for the entire park. Plaintiff was driving a Corolla, Was meeting the site manager, when plaintiff pulled into the entrance/exit to the mobile park, because the defendant said plaintiff was driving the wrong way. The entrance and exits are clearly marked with signs, and arrows on the road.

After telling plaintiff to turn around, defendant wouldn't move, when plaintiff kept inching forward to make defendant move. Plaintiff told defendant to get out of his way. Then plaintiff says defendant dented his car hood.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

If Your Bed is There, You Are There! -Plaintiff Tyreese Galloway, and girlfriend Celeste Westerby are suing defendant/former roommate Austin Flores. The three bought a huge TV set, and other items. Because the plaintiffs shared a room, the roommates were to split rent and utilities 50/50. Plaintiff male didn't like defendant's constant parties, underage drinking, and underage drunken guests. Plaintiff confronted defendant over the behavior, and underage drinking, and so defendant moved out. Rent was $1260 ($630 for each side). This is another renter who moves out, leaves their stuff at the residence, and doesn't think that they have to pay rent for the space their stuff is occupying. However, plaintiff told defendant to leave. However, defendant didn't move his bed out until August, so he has to pay his half of August's rent.

Plaintiffs are told that unless they want another roommate, figure out how to afford the apartment without roommates. Defendant will have to pay for August, but defendant claims Tyreese was mean to him, so he didn't move out until late August.

$680 receives for two months, because defendant didn't actually pick up his bed until the end of September $840 minus $160 for defendant's security deposit. ANd on Halloween at a certain time, plaintiff will put kitchen table outside, and if defendant doesn't pick it up, too bad.

Second (2017)-

Felony Kickbacks?!-Plaintiff Kevin Maher suing former friend, and business associate, Christina Garnica for unpaid gardening, and legal fees. Plaintiff is a private investigator, and defendant was a claims adjuster, and sometimes referred plaintiff business. Plaintiff claims defendant said that all others adjusters she referred work to gave her kickbacks, and plaintiff refused to give kickbacks (plaintiff also said defendant wanted him to provide her with sexual services). Defendant had plaintiff's gardener clean up a property for her, and defendant refused to pay gardener, and defendant wanted plaintiff to pay the gardener for her. Plaintiff did pay the $400 for gardener, so the gardener wasn't working for free. Plaintiff also paid a paralegal firm $400 to prepare paperwork to sue defendant over this $400. Plaintiff told defendant's boss about the kickback scheme, and defendant was fired.

Plaintiff also says things changed in their friendship after he made clear that he wasn't interested in her romantically. Defendant did quid pro quo to have gardener/handy man do other work for her, and wanted plaintiff to pay the $400 to gardener / handyman.

Defendant is counter claiming over a false termination. Defendant can forget that, she was terminated for a good reason.

$400 to plaintiff.

Pomeranian Puppy Problem-Plaintiff Kelly Minister suing ex-boyfriend Devon Henderson for the return of her Pomeranian puppy. When litigants were living together, a friend gifted them with the Pomeranian puppy. After that the unhappy separation happened, and defendant took the puppy with him, and plaintiff would visit the puppy sometimes.

Then defendant told plaintiff that if she paid him $1000 (she says $500) for the dog, he would give up dog to her. Plaintiff claims she paid the $500 for dog to defendant. Then defendant came and took the dog back after that. Defendant claims plaintiff owed him $500 more, but plaintiff says she doesn't owe the money. Defendant came and took the dog back, while ex was taking a shower. (We all know exactly what was going on then too).

Defendant brought his current girlfriend to court with him. Girlfriend doesn't seem too thrilled about the shower story. Then, the girlfriend says defendant gave the dog to her as a present.

JJ tells defendant to return the dog to plaintiff, and then he'll get his expense and appearance money. JJ is preparing an order to retrieve dog. Defendant said that he won't give dog back, and JJ jumps all over him, and says he's getting no money from the show. I wonder how this turned out?

Case is recalled, to ream out looser defendant over the dog statement. Defendant came to court from L.A. and, the dog will be back to plaintiff or he can walk home, and will not get appearance money. I hope plaintiff got the dog back, but I doubt it. Defendant threatens on national TV that he's going to break into plaintiff's house, and get the dog back. However, defendant came from Spokane WA, and will get no ticket home or appearance money, and the friend who is watching the dog will surrender custody to a neutral person so plaintiff can get her dog back, and no money until then.

Edited January 7, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · January 8, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First –

Domestic Violence Aftermath?! (2021)-Plaintiff Calvina Zeno suing defendant/soon to be former mother-in-law Regina Marzette for a Samsung tablet. MIL lived with the plaintiff and husband, and claims they all had a joint bank account. Defendant claims someone stole the tablet (from two years ago). Plaintiff claims she's filing for divorce when she gets home. MIL claims plaintiff hasn't filed for divorce and won't, and plaintiff alleges she left because she was a victim of domestic violence. MIL claims only daughter-in-law was an authorized user on the card, and the only one who made charges. Plaintiff claims she hasn't used the card since she left the husband, so the credit card bill is marital debt.

In the divorce, the judge will decide who is responsible for the debt on the credit card.

Cases dismissed.

Judge Schools Oblivious Tenant! (2012) -Plaintiff Phillips Lyons, Jr suing defendant/former landlady Inez Munoz, and her daughter Roxanna Munoz for return of security deposit, and damaged property. Plaintiff claims damages came from a roof leak (he should have had renter's insurance). Plaintiff gave 30 day notice in July 2020, and still wants to be paid for wrongful eviction. Plaintiff wasn't evicted.

(I think plaintiff should change his name to "Phillips Lying Jr"). Landlady says $200 for trash left behind, and photos to prove it. Plaintiff claims it was his damaged property left behind. Landlady has bill for cleaning, and trash removal, $200 each, equals $400. Landlady claims she had to clean up the apartment for a month, before next tenant moved in, and that's a lie.

Defendant keeps $200 for trash removal. Plaintiff receives $700 for the remainder of the security deposit.

Trying Truck Times (2013) -Plaintiff Amy Laughter suing defendant Chris Draper for a $900 loan to fix his truck. Defendant knew that plaintiff received money from her late mother, and he wanted a loan, and repaid $100. So plaintiff gets $800 for the loan. Defendant's stupid counter claim dismisssed.

$800 to plaintiff.

Second (2018)-

Designer Breed or Straight Up Mutt? -Plaintiff Maria and Elisio Rodriquez suing defendant over a puppy that grew too big to be a purse dog, defendant Ben Asher sold them a miniature Maltipoo. Another case of buying a puppy mill designer mutt, and expecting to win at Westminster the next week. When you buy a dog at a pet store, it's from a puppy mill, many times the papers are not the exact breeding they claim, and there is no health testing, or screening, and I’m betting no worming or shots either.

Yes, plaintiff kept dog in a cage except when she was carting it around in her purse, and claims her carpal tunnel means she can no longer lift the dog. Dog is chunky, probably from lack of exercise, and overfeeding. Just two people who swore that they were buying an expensive dog that would be what they wanted, didn't do their due diligence, and then had a dog that was too heavy for the wife to tote around like a grocery sack, and claim it was an emotional support animal (I'm just guessing on that). I've known quite a few people with carpal tunnel, and they could lift as much as the dog weighed, and dogs were born to use their feet and legs, so the fact I bet they toted the dog everywhere might be a reason it weighs more than it should. I wonder how much extra food they're feeding it too.

Plaintiffs still have the dog, and it's outside the courtroom. Plaintiffs did no research, know nothing about the puppy's genetics, or parents.

Plaintiff dumped the dog on their son to take care of.

As JJ says, don't buy puppies from a pet store.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

(One place where I lived there was a small chain of pet stores. They paid the breeder about 10% of what they sold the puppies for. The puppies were all kinds of cross breeds, with AKC papers they managed to work out (sort of phony, mostly claiming well-bred dogs were the parents, and they weren't), and the dogs back then (the early 1990s) sold for about $1,000 and up. Then the pet store owner bought a bunch of his supplier's dogs, and then turned everything out together in a big lot with limited shelter out of town. He would have combinations like Beagle and Bassett Hounds turned out together, and whatever the puppies look like is what he sold them for. The pet store had guarantees, but knew you wouldn't sell the dog back once you fell in love with it. The pet store finally was put out of business, but not for anything to do with being a animal abusing jerk).

The most I've ever paid for a dog was $200 from a shelter, so the plaintiffs get zero sympathy from me. I feel sorry for the dog, and wonder if it's really still owned by the plaintiffs.

Settlement Vultures Swoop! -Plaintiff Alexa Boggs suing friend's father Steve Debo defendant over a loan for his boat. Plaintiff is 18 or 19, and is a close friend of the defendant's daughter, and had a settlement from a car accident, and received $15,000. When plaintiff received the settlement she lived with her grandmother, got an apartment for herself, and her new baby. Then defendant wanted a $3,000 loan for the boat repairs.

There is a murky account record of movements, and transfers.

Plaintiff claims defendant signed a notarized statement about repaying the $3,000 but that is not available. Defendant doesn't remember signing any statement about repayment.

JJ dismisses case without prejudice so plaintiff can refile locally. (My guess is that JJ sent it back to the local courts in Ohio so plaintiff could get better proof of the money withdrawls, and maybe find the notarized statement that she claims defendant signed).

Edited January 8, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · January 8, 2021

On 1/6/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff says she's a singer/entertainer, and a caterer on the side. Defendant says she was prostituting at their mutual apartment when

AKA stripper/prostitute

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