All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Carolina Girl]

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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.    

Interesting that she sent it back to the original jurisdiction.  I've always wondered (does anyone know?) if your case is kicked out or kicked back do you still get to split to potential judgment pot or are you just paid your appearance fee?

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Let's Grow Marijuana?!-Plaintiff /landlord Christina Bequette suing former tenant Shawn Black over his modifications to her rental home to make house into a marijuana grow (in Colorado where pot is legal)..  Plaintiff says defendant changed a five bedroom home into a two bedroom home. 

Plaintiff leased house with option to buy for two years, it ended up being four years, he never qualified for a mortgage, and when she evicted him, she found he turned the house into a grow op (for weed).   Defendant says he enhanced the house, says his work fixed the house, and he's suing for $5000.   

Landlord says the septic tank cover was destroyed by the defendant.     It would help if the plaintiff would stick to the subject, brought pictures of the damage, and stopped dithering.     Defendant says the plaintiff wanted to be partners in the grow op, with him, and knew about the modifications.    (I remember plaintiff from last airing, she's a homeopathic practitioner, who claims hydrogen peroxide will cure autoimmune diseases.   I'm believing the defendant after seeing everything this woman advertises about pot products being useful, and advertising ).    There is nothing in the lease about defendant having to take care of the septic tank servicing. 

Hopefully plaintiff's property manager Michael,  will be more coherent.    The septic tank needs to be replaced, and plaintiff thinks defendant will pay for that ($5,000 won't touch a new septic tank, it's just a temporary patch so they can sell the house).    Tank wasn't serviced since 2005, property was purchased in 2008, and septic was never serviced.   

Defendant moved out a year ago, and septic tank has been inoperative since, plaintiff wants to fix up house, and sell it. (I lived and bought and sold property in Colorado, and I'm hoping the idiot plaintiff disclosed the fact that the septic tank hasn't been touched in over 10 years, and who knows how long before that?   The disclosure form when I lived there (that was 20 years ago) was over three long pages, and if she omits something, or lies, she's toast. )  (When I was selling my house with a septic system in Alabama, I had to get the septic pumped, and serviced, and it was certified for a year for the next owner).  Defendant admits that when he was moving out, his nephew drove a truck over the septic tank, and broke the lid.   

$2500 to plaintiff. 

Woodworking Hobby Fail-Plaintiff David Decaro suing defendant/former friend Libby Riley over woodworking tools he loaned to the defendant, so she could start a woodworking hobby.    Plaintiff claims he stored the items at defendant's place, and he let her used the items, while he stored them.   

Defendant sold the table saw to a friend.  Plaintiff claims defendant had his table saw, other tools, since October/November, and he wanted the items back in January.   However, defendant returned nothing, and already sold what she could.  

JJ tells defendant to return plaintiff's items with in five days, and says the signed agreement for court says she has to obey JJ's ruling or she gets nothing.    Defendant claims she will.

Second (2017)-

Adoption Turmoil? -Plaintiff Matthew Giaba suing his adopted son's sister/ defendant Karina Hernandez for unpaid car payments, tickets, and damages on a car plaintiff co-signed for with the defendant.   Adopted son, and brother to defendant, is witness for the plaintiff.   

Plaintiff has co-signed with his son, and son has paid his car off, and defendant wanted a car, and plaintiff co-signed for defendant's car.    Defendant stopped making payments, because car was repossessed, over the parking tickets that accumulated (defendant claims the brother was responsible for the tickets), and car was impounded for the amount of the tickets.    (If defendant says 'tooken' again, I'm going to scream).  

Defendant quit her job, and stopped paying for car.   She claims she was paying on the car.     Plaintiff will have to pay the remaining balance on the car, after the repossession for non-payment, and the car is totaled.    Defendant claims her brother received so many traffic tickets on the car, that it was impounded.   

However, car was wrecked by defendant three months before she stopped paying on the car, and she had no insurance on the car (insurance required by the car loan, and state laws).      Plaintiff didn't even know about the car accident by the defendant, until finance company sent him pictures, and bills.  The interior of the car is totally trashed, and that didn't happen in an accident.  

The amount owing on the car is over $9545, plus fees equaling 10,4450, and car is totaled.    $5,000 to plaintiff, leaving him on the hook for over $5,000 more. 

Harassment and Deception? -Plaintiff Rasheena Phinisee (I like that name, I've never heard of either part of it before), suing her friend's mother for money she paid for a car, and harassment and deception.  Plaintiff bought car from defendant, Mary Williams, taking over the payments.    Plaintiff paid money for the car note, and insurance (she was assuming the loan), by paying the defendant every month.   Then plaintiff found out insurance wasn't being paid for by defendant, and defendant refused to give plaintiff the insurance card.  Then plaintiff stopped paying.    

Plaintiff claims she was told by defendant there were a few months left on the loan, but claims it was three years.   Car is now parked in front of plaintiff's friend's house, since she had it towed on the night she got it back from the defendant.  Defendant will get the car back (via tow truck), and plaintiff will get a partial refund, because she drove the car for three months.   Rasheena wants every penny of the $2100 she paid defendant back, and that's not happening.   Defendant claims the plaintiff assaulted her, and harassed her.  Defendant says she saw plaintiff, and two friends vandalize the car. 

$2148 was paid to defendant, and $1398 will go back to the plaintiff, (that's minus the car rental), and defendant will pick up her car.  

Edited January 8, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Pandemic Eviction Prohibition?!  -Plaintiff Steven Davis / landlord suing defendant Jade Packer for unpaid rent, and property damage.   Plaintiff claims give defendant a Pay or Leave notice is not an illegal eviction during Covid.   Plaintiff claims that defendant didn't pay her $999 rent (plus utilities, for a two bedroom), and it wasn't for Covid related problems.    Defendant didn't pay June 2020's rent, and on 13 June plaintiff issues his 3 Day Pay or Quit notice, and nothing in the text string between the litigants doesn't mention a job loss. 

Defendant did move out, but there is a lot of trash left behind, a broken wall, and a lot of garbage.   Defendant quit her job, and didn't qualify for unemployment.     Also there are piles of furniture, and junk that defendant left outside for months before she moved out.  

JJ is deducting security deposit, minus the damages of almost $900.    She's also not allowing drywall repair which looks like it took the entire $500+ plaintiff paid to have it repaired.   Defendant quit her job, she wasn't laid off by company, so I'm not sure the moratorium extends to her. 

Defendant didn't pay rent for June or July.   $1334 to plaintiff, and not for rent, because JJ said it was Covid related.    I'm betting he'll win when he takes her to eviction court, of course he'll never see a penny from her either.  My guess is the defendant's claim of not knowing about eviction or housing court was bull pucky, and she's another professional squatter. 

Unauthorized Wig Slashing?! -Plaintiff Teray Wilson suing defendant Reginald Nichols for cutting her four wigs, and he was only supposed to curl and style them.    Plaintiff saw defendant style and work with wigs, and extensions before.     However, plaintiff Teray says when she went to pick her wigs up from defendant, they were cut and unusable.    The four wigs were purchased from a wig maker, for a total of $1490, from a lady in Sacramento.   

Defendant says he sent pictures to plaintiff when the wigs were ready, and he brought the wigs out to her car.  

(Defendant did say that when he flat ironed the wigs, they were uneven, so he trimmed them.  However, wouldn't you have to keep flat ironing them to keep the wig even after that too?) 

$1520 for plaintiff to replace the wigs.  

Second (2018)-

Cute Way to Sell Alcohol, Rules the Judge! -Plaintiffs Jamie and Michelle King used defendant's venue for their event, but are suing defendant/dance studio & venue owner for cancelling the event.    The  dance studio/venue owner/defendant only allows booze to be given away at the venue, but the plaintiffs charged $10 per person for a bracelet that was listed in their advertisement as "drink all night for $15".     The plaintiffs lost, and the defendants were stunned.      T

They claimed the event was to raise money for the community, (teenagers without fathers) but they aren't a legal charity, and were charging admission, and for booze, and giving door prizes.       Plaintiffs claim they were hosting a musical event, but contract says private fund raiser, and also says no alcohol sales.  $5 admission, $15 for those over 21, talent was paying to perform $50 each.    If the plaintiffs weren't charging for booze, then why was the ticket higher for those over 21.  The flyer for the event says you buy a wristband for $15, and unlimited booze all night.   Also, as JJ points out venue owner/defendant has the right to cancel the event the day of because it was on the contract as a fund raiser for a charity, and it was actually a for profit event with $10 extra for booze (venue has no liquor license).  

I wonder if the local liquor license authority was watching this episode, and I hope they investigate further events by the plaintiffs.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant claims plaintiff defamed her, also dismissed. Hall-terview plaintiff wife says they own two day care centers and wouldn't serve liquor to minors.     

Google the People You Date! -Plaintiff Jeffrey Lambert suing defendant Kailani Shaffer for unpaid rent, rental for using his car.   Plaintiff and defendant met online, and she moved in part time at his place, and after she wrecked her car, he loaned her his car for $15 a day.     Plaintiff says defendant sent horrible emails, and messages to his elderly mother.   Defendant used the rental car for a month.    

Defendant's counter claim is garbage.    

The defendant's nasty text to plaintiff's mother is awful.   Defendant's only defense is "that's not his birth mother".

$4100 (or something like that) or $450 for the car, I was so appalled by the text, and the defendant's nasty remark, that I wasn't paying attention. 

Edited January 10, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

30 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Pandemic Eviction Prohibition?!  -Plaintiff Steven Davis / landlord suing defendant Jade Packer for unpaid rent, and property damage.   Plaintiff claims give defendant a Pay or Leave notice is not an illegal eviction during Covid.   Plaintiff claims that defendant didn't pay her $999 rent (plus utilities, for a two bedroom), and it wasn't for Covid related problems.    Defendant didn't pay June 2020's rent, and on 13 June plaintiff issues his 3 Day Pay or Quit notice, and nothing in the text string between the litigants doesn't mention a job loss. 

Defendant did move out, but there is a lot of trash left behind, a broken wall, and a lot of garbage.   Defendant quit her job, and didn't qualify for unemployment.     Also there are piles of furniture, and junk that defendant left outside for months before she moved out.  

JJ is deducting security deposit, minus the damages of almost $900.    She's also not allowing drywall repair which looks like it took the entire $500+ plaintiff paid to have it repaired.   Defendant quit her job, she wasn't laid off by company, so I'm not sure the moratorium extends to her. 

Defendant didn't pay rent for June or July.   $1334 to plaintiff, and not for rent, because JJ said it was Covid related.    I'm betting he'll win when he takes her to eviction court, of course he'll never see a penny from her either.

Dear Lord, she  looked like Orca the Whale. Someone should tell her tight, flesh colored tight top wasn't doing her any favors.  And the plaintiff should have called the Fire Department in his town, she'd be out of there asap. 

[Florinaldo]

41 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Pandemic Eviction Prohibition?!

JJ did not allow the 500 $ drywall repair because, according to her Ph. D. in Advance Home Repairology, the drywall should have been done at the same time as the painting and by the same person. She did not want to listen to the landlord's argument that the two jobs were done by different people. I think she was just ticked off that he did not present the bills in the order that would have fit her her August Preferences.

The defendant saying the big dent in the wall was probably caused when she sat down too hard was one of the most believable replies ever on this show, considering her bulk.

[LetsStartTalking]

On 1/5/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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. 

 

Sorry - JJ was completely wrong on this one. Completely.

If Watts was walking across the apron of the driveway (where it meets the road and the sidewalk crosses) and Mincher hit her, it would be Mincher's fault. Same with the bike. Mincher had a 2 ton piece of metal which is a 'dangerous weapon' to a bicyclist or pedestrian. Mincher's responsibility is to look BOTH ways to make sure no one is in the way - including the bicyclist, no matter which way she's going - before she pulls forward into the street. Mincher had the car, she had the responsibility.

At one point asked Watts if Mincher looked like a crazy woman. 'She doesn't look crazy to me', Judy responded. Keep in mind, Mincher showed up to court with purple and white striped hair and ruby red lipstick, looking like an Easter Bunny Hooker. Yeah, she looked perfectly normal.

[LetsStartTalking]

On 1/8/2021 at 7:00 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Unauthorized Wig Slashing?! -Plaintiff Teray Wilson suing defendant Reginald Nichols for cutting her four wigs, and he was only supposed to curl and style them.    Plaintiff saw defendant style and work with wigs, and extensions before.     However, plaintiff Teray says when she went to pick her wigs up from defendant, they were cut and unusable.    The four wigs were purchased from a wig maker, for a total of $1490, from a lady in Sacramento.   

Defendant says he sent pictures to plaintiff when the wigs were ready, and he brought the wigs out to her car.  

$1520 for plaintiff to replace the wigs.  

 

Why in the world would a hair stylist cut wigs? Did he think they grew? Does he know the difference between a wig and real hair ?

[Jaded]

13 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Why in the world would a hair stylist cut wigs? Did he think they grew? Does he know the difference between a wig and real hair ?

People have wigs cut and styled quite frequently to try to make them look more realistic and/or to thin out the amount of hair they come with. It's not uncommon at all. Reading this thread made me want to go on YouTube to look at wig styling videos. I've always wanted to try one but I have a big head that I've had trouble finding hats to fit since I was really young so I've been scared to follow through with purchasing. Not that anyone needed or wanted to know my personal thoughts about wigs.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Jaded

[configdotsys]

12 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Sorry - JJ was completely wrong on this one. Completely.

If Watts was walking across the apron of the driveway (where it meets the road and the sidewalk crosses) and Mincher hit her, it would be Mincher's fault. Same with the bike. Mincher had a 2 ton piece of metal which is a 'dangerous weapon' to a bicyclist or pedestrian. Mincher's responsibility is to look BOTH ways to make sure no one is in the way - including the bicyclist, no matter which way she's going - before she pulls forward into the street. Mincher had the car, she had the responsibility.

At one point asked Watts if Mincher looked like a crazy woman. 'She doesn't look crazy to me', Judy responded. Keep in mind, Mincher showed up to court with purple and white striped hair and ruby red lipstick, looking like an Easter Bunny Hooker. Yeah, she looked perfectly normal.

I was wondering where the speech about "You are have control over a two thousand pound piece of machinery, so you are responsible for..." like she has done in many cases when bicyclists and pedestrians were foolishly doing something that got them hit.

I thought the defendant came across as an oblivious, entitled little snowflake. The look on her face throughout the case screamed, "I'm above all this," and "I shouldn't have to be dealing with this, I'm special." 

 

[AlleC17]

On 1/5/2021 at 1:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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. 

 
 

 

 

While I have no issues with P losing the case, what if it had been a pedestrian walking against traffic (which as far as I know) is allowed?  Doesn't the driver have some duty of care to look both ways?  I always do because we have pedestrians all over the place and even if they are in the wrong, I would prefer to take the few seconds to look rather then hitting someone with my car.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Vindictive Tool Thief -Plaintiff David Kinsey suing defendant/ex-wife Marilynn Kinsey for the value of tools.   Plaintiff built a big workshop, on defendant's land, and it was used as a big workshop, and even after plaintiff moved the tools remained in the shed. When litigants divorced plaintiff lived in his residence with defendant and then moved in next door with his former mother-in-law's house.     Then plaintiff moved in with his girlfriend, and everything hit the fan.     Defendant never told plaintiff to move the tools out, and she has to return them to plaintiff.

Defendant counter claim is for half of the children's sports costs, according to the divorce decree.   When plaintiff moved out of the mother-in-law's house, plaintiff stopped paying the sports costs.  Defendant did not send plaintiff a bill and record of what the sports costs that were owed were.   Defendant is going to take him back to court when the children turn 18 for college costs, and the decree says defendant can take plaintiff to court, and try to get college costs paid by plaintiff.    Defendant never gave notice to plaintiff on the amount claimed for the children's sports teams cost.   

Plaintiff has five days to pick up the tools, and equipment.  

Teen Driver Fail! -Plaintiff Darryl Stone Jr. suing defendant, 16 year old driver, Nicholas Satcher, and his parents Steven, and Nicole Satcher. (owners of the car) over car damages from a car accident.   Defendant side swiped the plaintiff's car, defendant was on the parent's car insurance.  Defendant says another car swerved in front of him, and cut him off, and he avoided the other car, and hit the plaintiff.    Defendant was moving over to the right lane and getting ready to exit the highway.   However, he claims he was cut off by an approaching car (not the plaintiff's car) from the left lane), from the right lane.    Then defendant's car went left, crossed into plaintiff's lane on his left, and side swiped the plaintiff's car.

So if the defendant driver admits it was his fault, why are we in court?     Defendant's mother is looking at JJ as if what she's saying isn't making sense, and I bet she'll deny forever the accident was her son's fault.  

$3500 for plaintiff (if the parents put it through their insurance, instead of paying $2200 a year for the son to be insured, it would have gone way up).

Second (2017)-

Suspicious Church Fire Payday?!-Plaintiff / SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One)  Lisa Hankins suing the defendants /former landlords Shannon and Laura Lastinger for stealing insurance money from her.   Single mother living in a building on church property gets renter's insurance.   A few weeks later she has a fire, and collects $12,000.   

Plaintiff's witness is now her roommate, and they were friends first, and he saw everything that happened.     The church owns 70 acres, with the church, and many out buildings on it.  A former garage was converted to a studio apartment, for plaintiff and daughter.   Plaintiff is now assistant manager at a dollar store.    Plaintiff couldn't make a rent, so she prepaid the rent from her tax refund, for 10 months.    Plaintiff paid rent in cash, in February 2015, and then February 2016.   Rent was $500 a month, so $5,000 for the first 10 months, and February 2016 was $5,000 (for 10 months).  

Plaintiff couldn't afford to pay her rent, but she bought renter's insurance, and the fire was February 2016, right before the plaintiff paid her $5,000 rent in cash for the next year.   Plaintiff has no record of start date of the renter's insurance, and only bought it in October or November of 2016, and her rent was due in February 2017.     There is no report to the fire department either.   

What a coincidence, she buys renter's insurance, but couldn't afford anything else, and right before the fire was supposedly was broke.   She only bought renter's insurance right before the second year started, and then the fire happened.    There is no way on earth that she had $12,000 in property in a studio apartment.   There were two claims, church had insurance on the building, and plaintiff had insurance on her furniture, appliances, clothes, etc.    What a total scam. 

(Personal tacky remark, what the hell did defendant woman do to her hair? Same hairdresser as the plaintiff?  Both bad perms.)    Plaintiff filed a claim for her property damage (it covered clothes, appliances, and other items), and church's insurance covered the structure plaintiff was living in.       

Plaintiff was suing church for their money.   She's now living with her witness and current roommate Manuel Lopez.   

JJ dismisses this phony claim.   

Cabin Renovation Gone Wrong?-Plaintiffs Dennis McGrew, and Nancy Barberis suing defendant Morgan "Max" Miles for misuse of funds.     Plaintiffs hired defendant to remodel their cabin, and plaintiff's grandson was supposed to help.    Defendant also had a Home Depot credit card, and another of plaintiff's credit cards, and is accused of misusing the plaintiff's funds.  Defendant claims plaintiff wife is a dictator, and is mad because plaintiff's grandson's girlfriend went to the cabin remodel with him.     

There is no contract, and JJ says defendant will get paid for the work he can prove he did on the cabin.   Plaintiff's claim that defendant bought a lot of items at Home Depot, and claims items returned to Home Depot should have been credited to the plaintiff's credit card.   Plaintiffs claim defendant instead received cash cards for the returns, and kept the money.    Plaintiff's business manager has proof of purchases, but no proof of where the items went, or proof that returns were given in cash cards.   Defendant says returned items were credited to the Home Depot account belonging to the plaintiffs, that supplies were originally bought from.   Plaintiff's business manager is their witness.  

Plaintiffs also claim defendant didn't finish the work he was supposed to do at the cabin.   I believe the defendant, and every thing he said about his side of the case. 

Case dismissed, because there is no proof of the defendant's work, and no proof of the plaintiff's charges against the defendant either.   (This is not good, the plaintiff wife looks, sounds and acts like someone I used to know.).

Edited January 12, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[LetsStartTalking]

17 minutes ago, AlleC17 said:

While I have no issues with P losing the case, what if it had been a pedestrian walking against traffic (which as far as I know) is allowed?  Doesn't the driver have some duty of care to look both ways?  I always do because we have pedestrians all over the place and even if they are in the wrong, I would prefer to take the few seconds to look rather then hitting someone with my car.

Yep, that's my point. And JJ has said this a thousand times over - you have a 2,000 pound weapon behind your hands, so you are responsible.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

You Shouldn’t Own an Animal! -Plaintiff dog owner Lori Gladstone-Silva, and husband Fred Silva suing defendant dog sitter Shannon Bishop (boarding/doggy day care) over her Goldendoodle eating a rubber ball.    Plaintiff wife claims dog has Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and is a huge puppy, and dog was boarded with defendant several times in two months.     Then, plaintiff extended her visit to Mexico, and she sent a text to defendant to get special diet food for him, and then dog got sick.   Plaintiff had defendant take the dog to the vet, and claims defendant switched the dog's food, and that caused another IBS attack.   (Who vacations in Mexico in June, during Covid and extends too?).    (Poor dog, another Covid puppy bought in April, and bet he finds another home when they can travel all of the time.    The got the puppy in April, puppy was sick on and off, then they took the longer vacation in June).   Then they used another pet sitter, and then they left the dog with defendant twice after the June trip when the dog got sick. 

Then for the last incident, plaintiffs went to Palm Springs, left the dog for two days, and dog was sick, taken to vet that morning, and had surgery that evening.   A chewed rubber ball is shown as evidence.   Defendant says the ball is nothing she has at her facility, she uses indestructible balls, and if they get worn, they're thrown in the trash.       Then after the dog's surgery, plaintiff started trashing defendant's dog sitting and day care online. 

Vet's report says foreign object was found in dog, and was probably consumed within 24 hours of surgery.   Defendant texted plaintiff woman dog was lethargic, and throwing up.   JJ is blaming the pet sitter, because defendant had the dog during the day before the onset of illness.   It is possible dog ate a ball at defendant's place, but the 24 hours guess by the vet is only an estimation.   However, dog was picked up in the evening, and was sick then, but the plaintiff didn't take the dog to an emergency vet, but waited until the next morning, and dog had surgery that evening.      Defendant shows Facebook posts by the plaintiff wife,   JJ says the defendant's counter claim is dismissed, the FB posts aren't defamation.      (I know I'm not a vet, but I've had a lot of dogs over the years, and I don't think the 24 hour limit on the dog eating part of the ball is realistic.    I've had dogs eat something they shouldn't, and they're fine for days, and then they start feeling ill, not the same day.    The vet was guessing, and I bet that's because the vet didn't want to have the plaintiff on their back about it.     It was a generic ball, and if the plaintiff goes to dog parks, or her dog is ever in a park or anywhere else, then you'll see balls left behind a lot.  So I'm betting that the dog could have eaten the ball at any time in the same week, and I bet the owner wouldn't notice.   I wonder who takes care of the dog every day at home too, because I bet it isn't the owner.   I'm very glad JJ was on a TV screen, because that plaintiff was very angry at her). 

JJ says plaintiff should have taken the dog to the emergency vet, but plaintiff claims defendant should have.   JJ says plaintiff's lifestyle is not conducive to having animals, and that's right.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second (2014)-

Ex-lover Assault Story – Plaintiff Betty Harris is suing ex Joshua Floutin for breaking their apartment lease, and assault.  However, defendant says plaintiff was drunk, attacked him, and he was defending himself.   Defendant moved out of the apartment, with his daughter, after the assault.   Defendant paid his portion of the rent through October, even though he moved out three months before.   He told plaintiff she had three months to find another roommate, but she didn't and plaintiff is suing for rent for the last three months.

Plaintiff's Golden Retriever was sick, needed IV's and medication every hour, and she wanted the defendant to 'be there for her' with the dog.  

The police report plaintiff filed was only her story, because police witnessed nothing.   Plaintiff hit defendant, and then he pushed her away, and then she pushed him. and she claims he threw her on the bed, and punched her in the back.   Plaintiff also gets blackout drunk on occasion, and has had physical altercations too. 

Plaintiff case for rent dismissed, and assault also.  

Edited January 12, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[nora1992]

Dog sitter is the most honest person I’ve seen on JJ in a long time.  JJ gave her an opening, asking if the dog was sick at any time before sitter texted owner.  Quick as a flash, sitter said nothing happened until the second day.  A dishonest person would have claimed that the dog had seemed off earlier, less than 24 hours in the sitter’s care.  She sunk her own case, and if JJ hadn’t disliked absentee owner so much, it might have cost her.  As it is, I hope she gets some of her business back now that the attitude of the part-time dog owner is on film.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Sister Love Gone Wrong! -Plaintiff Alyssa Olsen suing defendant/sister Dominique Grasshoff, and her friend Chritine Prater over a very expensive car that plaintiff financed, and put in plaintiff's name, because defendant sister had bad credit.  Plaintiff wants the remaining payments, and for a detailing for the car.    After six months defendant sister gave car back to plaintiff, saying she couldn't afford it any longer.   Two months later, Christine Prater took over the payments, and it went fine for a year.  Prater applied for a loan from the same bank that had the car note.    Prater needed $4k to pay down loan, because car was only worth $13k, not the loan amount of $17k.    Plaintiff was paying for the car for months, had it listed on Auto Trader, and a for sale sign on the car, but no one wanted to take on car loan, and pay the difference.   

Then defendant Grasshoff took the car back over, never tried to get a loan for it, and then dumped it back on the plaintiff after a few months, but defendant never got a loan.      Plaintiff wants defendants to pay the remainder on the loan.   Defendant Prater claims she was making double payments to plaintiff for six months, but claims that plaintiff didn't make the payments.

JJ dismisses the case against defendant Prater.    However, defendant sister thinks she owes nothing.   

Car was sold by the lender at auction, and the remaining shortfall is $4, 489 for the half of the shortfall.    Navy Federal is trying to work with the plaintiff.  

Who Stole My Clarinet? -Plaintiff Nicholas Long is suing defendant Raymond Sanchez for missing belongings, including his childhood clarinet. Plaintiff allowed defendant to move into the apartment, because plaintiff was still paying on it, and plaintiff had property in the apartment, including the clarinet.   When plaintiff moved his property out, he went looking for a lot of his property, (clarinet, two swim trunks) When defendant moved, he said he would ask the people who helped him if they saw plaintiff's clarinet.  

Defendant claims he never saw the clarinet.   

Case dismissed.  

Second (2017)-

28 Police Visits in Two Weeks ?! -Plaintiffs Jason and MIchele Ebert (wife, and sister of defendant) suing defendant/Brother-in-law (BIL) Tracy Hatch for property damage, lodging fees, attorney fees, and a false restraining order.    Plaintiff wife's mother was living in the big house (2 houses on the property, that plaintiff purchased), and plaintiff wife's mother, younger brother, and BIL lived there.    Plaintiff wife paid all of the bills for the mother.     Plaintiff wife (property owner) suing brother / defendant for damages from his Chihuahuas peeing everywhere, and damages by the defendant.    Defendant is alleged to have broken windows, holes in the garage door, damages from the dogs to the floors. 

 Plaintiff mother had two potty trained dogs, but plaintiff wife said defendant's dogs were not potty trained, and one had a litter also.    PLaintiffs want attorneys fees for the false restraining orders.   Plaintiff paid all of the bills for her homes, on the property that mother was living in with her two useless brothers.    Mother moved into the little house on the property, but wanted to live in the big house with her two unemployed, useless sons.  (When mother left, she took younger son with her, not defendant, and defendant doesn't live with the mother now). 

Mother later moved to another town, and plaintiffs cleaned up and repaired their house, and moved back in, after evicting the defendant.   Defendant claims plaintiff sister is violent, and shut off the water (plaintiffs had to do that to fix the septic tank back up).    Defendant claims plaintiffs stole the mother's fire wood, and tried to blow up the mother's trailer up, and claims the garage door was broken by plaintiff husband.

Plaintiff wife/sister says the police were called 28 times in two weeks, on the brother.  (I believe everything the plaintiffs say, and think what they say about the defendant is totally true). 

Defendant was granted a one year restraining order against plaintiffs.  So plaintiffs had to move to a motel until mother and brothers were off their own property.    Video is shown of defendant threatening to kill the plaintiffs.  

(My view, the mistake was letting the mother move defendant brother in).   Plaintiffs have a restraining order against defendant now.    

Plaintiff gets $4,000. 

Ex-Friend Repo Drama! -Plaintiff Cheryl Still suing defendants Crystal and Matt Combs, for $1200 for a car she sold them.  Defendant woman only paid for six months of insurance, and claims the car was loaned to them, not sold to defendant.     

Plaintiff claims car had a cracked windshield when returned, but defendant man claims the windshield was cracked when they 'borrowed' it. 

Then plaintiff wants $59 for a new tire.   There is no photo of car before defendants took it over.   There is a big photo of a windshield crack.   Plaintiff still has a $1200 car, and jJ says to sell it.

Plaintiff receives $59 for tire, and money for windshield replacement. 

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

The Fate of $60,000 Worth of Yogurt! -Plaintiff Michael Scharbach suing defendant/truck driver Marc Herrel for the use of a company credit card at casinos in two states, and loss of a load of yogurt (truck ran out of fuel, so refrigeration failed).  Plaintiff claims there were two debit card purchases, $313, and $415, at Route 66 Casino in Albuquerque.   Plaintiff was called by defendant, and defendant claims he lost his truck key, and then paid a roaming mechanic for the key.   Then defendant claims he lost the card, and that plaintiff should have reported the card stolen, and disputed the charges.   

Defendant had the card the next day after he claims 'he lost the card'.     Plaintiff has another problem, he never reported the charges to the police.   In Oklahoma, defendant charged almost $800, charged on the 'missing' debit card.    When defendant came back to the trucking company headquarters, defendant was fired.  

Plaintiff hasn't file police charges against defendant yet, but will.    As JJ points out, other employers need to know who they're hiring.    Defendant says plaintiff hired him on a 1099, and no taxes.   (The employer doesn't have to deduct taxes, and benefit charges for independent contractors). 

Plaintiff receives $3131.

Second (2014)-

Stolen Pit Bull Puppies- Plaintiff Marlon Leon and Corey Credic suing defendant Natalie Abbey over her theft of their Pit Bull puppies.   Out of seven puppies in the litter, two died shortly after birth, but plaintiff didn't take the other puppies to the vet.   Plaintiff Leon's dogs are all kept at the grandmother's house.      Since plaintiff Credic paid plaintiff Leon $300 for a puppy, he's told to get his $300 from Leon.   Plaintiff Leon says they were registered, but they're UKC, not AKC of course.   The second puppy was cared for by a neighbor, not taken to a vet.  Plaintiffs dogs, and puppies are always outside, even in the cold, without shelter. 

Plaintiff says he asked neighbor defendant about the dogs, since she's a dog walker that works at a vet. 

 Defendant Natalie Abbey says the puppies were huddled against the house wall, and were skinny, lethargic, and sick.    This was the second litter of the same mother dog, owned by Marlon Leon.     The four remaining puppies were rescued by defendant, and taken to a vet, and one was adopted out, and three were taken to a rescue.   The defendant's neighbor called her for help with the first puppy, and it was taken to a 24 hour emergency vet, and puppy was euthanized.    One puppy was surrendered to the vet clinic.   the remaining four were taken to defendant's home, puppies were warmed up, and later a friend of plaintiff came for the one puppy.    The defendant called animal services immediately about the puppies.    Defendant kept one puppy, and that one was adopted out.  The other two were surrendered to a shelter.   

(I loathe the plaintiff and his puppy buying friend.   The backyard breeder hadn't even registered that he owned the dog, and that's only one parent anyway.    Bet the paperwork to change ownership, and registration is still waiting to be filed.    When he left court and said he was going to do the registration, and sell the puppies for $1,000 to $1,500 each, that said exactly why he was into breeding the puppies.).

Plaintiff's case dismissed.   

(Several years ago, I knew someone who showed dogs, but they only bred their own replacement dogs, and were very active in rescue situations for the breed.    UKC wasn't his favorite, but the one he really disliked was CKC -Continental not our friends to the North.     He knew someone who sent a registration application, with a photo of his guinea pig, and received 'registration' papers from CKC for a made up dog breed).  

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The Fate of $60,000 Worth of Yogurt!

Does the defendant think that his wavy beard style is attractive? I do not know how much time he wastes achieving that look, but it makes him appear like a douchebag (and a lying one to boot).

[SRTouch]

54 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

The Fate of $60,000 Worth of Yogurt! -Plaintiff Michael Scharbach suing defendant/truck driver Marc Herrel for the use of a company credit card at casinos in two states, and loss of a load of yogurt (truck ran out of fuel, so refrigeration failed). 

What a load Defendant tried to sell. He was so wrong it was laughable, but how he tried to share the misery. He may well be right about the company not filing proper tax papers - could well be right about the rules requiring independent drivers to own the truck - but that has zippedty doodah with his using the company debit card to run up hundreds of dollars in withdrawals at casinos in multiple states.

Quote

Second (2014)-Stolen Pit Bull Puppies-

How remarkable is it that I seldom watch cases where they're arguing about potential dog abuse, but I recognize this old case almost immediately? Backyard breeder has multiple puppies dieing, instead of taking them to vet , he takes them to a neighbor to see if they can save the rest of the little money makers, then sues because a kind hearted woman took them to the vet. Not even sure if the puppies were saved, I was just so disgusted, not sure how D ended up with the puppies, but thankful she stepped in - I stopped watching before the end

Edited January 13, 2021 by SRTouch

[KittyQ]

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Stolen Pit Bull Puppies- Plaintiff Marlon Leon and Corey Credic suing defendant Natalie Abbey over her theft of their Pit Bull puppies.   Out of seven puppies in the litter, two died shortly after birth, but plaintiff didn't take the other puppies to the vet.   Plaintiff Leon's dogs are all kept at the grandmother's house.      Since plaintiff Credic paid plaintiff Leon $300 for a puppy, he's told to get his $300 from Leon.   Plaintiff Leon says they were registered, but they're UKC, not AKC of course.   The second puppy was cared for by a neighbor, not taken to a vet.  Plaintiffs dogs, and puppies are always outside, even in the cold, without shelter. 

Plaintiff says he asked neighbor defendant about the dogs, since she's a dog walker that works at a vet. 

 Defendant Natalie Abbey says the puppies were huddled against the house wall, and were skinny, lethargic, and sick.    This was the second litter of the same mother dog, owned by Marlon Leon.     The four remaining puppies were rescued by defendant, and taken to a vet, and one was adopted out, and three were taken to a rescue.   The defendant's neighbor called her for help with the first puppy, and it was taken to a 24 hour emergency vet, and puppy was euthanized.    One puppy was surrendered to the vet clinic.   the remaining four were taken to defendant's home, puppies were warmed up, and later a friend of plaintiff came for the one puppy.    The defendant called animal services immediately about the puppies.    Defendant kept one puppy, and that one was adopted out.  The other two were surrendered to a shelter.   

(I loathe the plaintiff and his puppy buying friend).

Plaintiff's case dismissed. 

 

This case was shocking to me. The plaintiff seemed delusional about how well he took care of his dog and puppies. The poor things were out in all weather, with no shelter, and apparently didn't get appropriate food. The fact that 2 puppies (or even 1) died didn't seem to bother him very much. To the very end, he was insisting that the puppies were healthy and in good shape according to pictures he had, although the defendant had reports from the vet and shelter to the contrary. 

[One Tough Cookie]

On 1/11/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

You Shouldn’t Own an Animal! -Plaintiff dog owner Lori Gladstone-Silva,

I can't believe JJ did not shut her microphone off--she didn't shut the fuck up the whole episode. I honestly think she goes thru life tossing her hair extensions a just steam rolls people until  she gets what she wants because people are just exhausted listening to her. She thought she had an iron tight case, but she came out looking like a fool. 

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I loathe the plaintiff and his puppy buying friend).

He was one of the worst pet owners I have seen. He is a bogus breeder (UKC? papers, WTF). Leaves new puppies out in the cold with no shelter, after two of the litter die, doesn't take the rest to a vet?  Animal cruelty folks should be all over his ass. And that arrogant, ignorant piece of crap folds his arms and maintalns that he takes great care of the puppies? Complete piece of garbage breeder.

Edited January 13, 2021 by DoctorK
spelling

[Back Atcha]

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

He is a bogus breeder (UKC? papers, WTF)

I agree that he's a worthless backyard breeder, but we hear UKC more and more.  From the 'net. The United Kennel Club is a kennel club founded in 1898 in the United States. In contrast with the American Kennel Club, which is non-profit and which only clubs can join, the United Kennel Club is a profit-making corporation, open to individuals. UKC registration of purebred dogs is a means by which UKC records a dog's ancestors and event participation in UKC licensed events. This information is invaluable for breeding decisions and the overall breed health and vitality.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Paraplegic’s Dying Wishes Ignored?!- Plaintiff sister Dorris Duncan suing defendant /roommate  Carolyn Reed for return or value of property taken without permission, after plaintiff's late brother died. .     Defendant lived with brother and took care of him for the last five years, but the plaintiff/sister was paid to be brother's caretaker ($1,000 a month, for 20 years by the state).        Sister worked in corrections (a canteen manager, not corrections officer) for the state full time, but still scored $1,000 a month to 'care' for brother, and he died with very bad bed sores, so she wasn't doing her job.    The

sister's ridiculous demand for the computer, fax, and printer for sentimental reasons was totally bogus, she just wanted to make every penny off of the brother she could.   Brother told plaintiff/sister that he left money in his safe for the defendant after he was gone, but defendant didn't know about the bequest.    The second the brother died, the sister and husband took the safe from the house, and gave nothing to the defendant. but sister also grabbed the insurance policy to cash in too.   When safe was opened, there was $7,000 in the safe, and defendant only received $5510, not the $7,000, so sister ripped off $1,490 for herself.   Brother died without a will according to sister, but safe was opened at her home, so there could have been a will too.  The honest thing to do would be to open the safe at the brother's house, with the defendant watching.     Plaintiff claims defendant stole brother's computer, printer, fax, Bose speakers, jewelry, and household items.     Defendant says she only took an electric trash can, and her own clothing, and belongings.    Unfortunately, defendant can't prove how much money was in the safe, and for assault (strangers assaulted her at the funeral, and she thinks plaintiff did it). 

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage.   Defendant has no proof, so receives nothing.   (In the hall-terview nasty plaintiff says defendant was thrown out by her family when she came out of the closet, that was another low blow by a disgusting, greedy person).

Mommy Stole My School Money! -Plaintiff Kenneth Travis suing defendant/so-called mother, Teresa Travis for cashing and keeping his financial aid check, $2438.    Her 'defense' is that she needed the money, and son wasn't paying her bills.   Mother says she took the check because son didn't go into the Navy, and he wasn't paying her bills.  Son made the mistake of having a joint account with the mother.   

$2538 to plaintiff.  I hope he closed the account with the mother's name on it. 

Second (2017)-

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

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

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

Plaintiff gets $1200 (half of the medical bills).  

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

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

Plaintiff receives $650 for the car value to donate. 

Skateboarder Lucky to Be Alive-Plaintiff Kim Todd (car owner), and driver/son Taylor Todd is suing skateboarder Jesse Lawson (Jesse is underage, so plaintiffs are suing the father of defendant) for running into the side of plaintiff's car ($2665).    Defendant had a stop sign, ran it, hit the side of the plaintiff's car, and is still on crutches in court.   As JJ points out, defendant is lucky he wasn't killed.    Plaintiff car was driven by owner's son. 

Defendant's daddy came to court, and is suing for medical bills.  Plaintiff had right of way, defendant didn't have right of way.    Defendant made a huge dent in the side of plaintiff's front passenger door.    Defendant was also with a group of skateboarders, and is the only one that didn't stop at the stop sign.   The three skateboarders were doing this after dark too. 

Defendant broke his ankle in three places.   Defendant case dismissed.   

Plaintiff receives $2665 for his car.   

Edited January 13, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

Bloody Off-Leash Mayhem! (2021)- Plaintiff Michelle Kirby and co-owner Tim Lin suing defendant /dog owner Neekharika Vinod for defendant’s German Shepherd Dog (GSD) attacking her dog, Pappy a Min Pin.   Plaintiff took her Min Pin to an informal off-leash area, with plaintiff's larger foster, another friend's Berniedoodle, and defendant's GSD.       Defendant claims plaintiff's Min Pin was yapping, and snapped at the GSD's face.   

Plaintiff says her dog barked at the bigger dog, and GSD picked her dog up in his mouth.    After the attack, plaintiff rushed her dog to the vet, and dog had to have surgery.   Defendant paid the first $850 on the vet bill.  

Plaintiff claims this isn't the GSD's first dog attack, but that defendant's dog attacked larger dogs, and defendant always claims the other dog caused the fight.   Why did plaintiff let her small dog play with the GSD after she knew of other attacks?   The plaintiff has no case.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Return My Motorcycle (2013) -Plaintiff Lawrence Giavelli suing defendant Regina Perkins over his motorcycle.    Plaintiff was between places, and wanted defendant to store his motorcycle for six months, instead he left it for three years.   When plaintiff wanted defendant to ship the motorcycle, she wants $250 a month storage fees, plus the shipping costs (she lives in Oxnard, CA, and he's in Brandywine, MD).  Motorcycle is 12 years old now, and hasn't been touched in three years.  So plaintiff paid $1500 in 2009 when he bought it, and he wants $1500 for it now.  Defendant had no contract with plaintiff, so she's not getting storage money.  

Plaintiff told to go get his motorcycle back, within 24 hours, and he will spend $700 to ship it to Maryland.   Defendant's ridiculous counter claim dismissed. 

Second (2014)-

Kids in Rolling Car Collision- Plaintiff Loretta Russo suing defendant Brett Yoches  for car damages.  Defendant left his car parked with his two children in it, the car rolled across the parking lot, and hit the plaintiff's parked car, and hit the plaintiff's car.   Defendant's defense is that the children did nothing wrong, and his car didn't really hit the plaintiff's car. 

Plaintiff saw the collision happen, fortunately plaintiff's daughter, and grandchild weren't standing at the car door, or they would have been smashed between the two cars.  Either defendant didn't put car in park, or daughter put it into reverse, or neutral.     Defendant claims there was no collision.   

Defendant claims his car was parked several spaces over from the court drawing, and it couldn't hit the plaintiff's car.   Defendant claims the curb corner stopped his car from rolling.     Defendant is such a liar.   JJ sends the defendant's 10 year-old, and 9 year-old, out of court so she can rip defendant a new one, and the audience applauds.  

Plaintiff receives $1,600 for her car damages.

Thieving Cousin -Plaintiff Aaron Raines (female) suing cousin/defendant Charles "Lydell" Burton over the theft of an iPad computer.   Plaintiff claims her roommate/witness saw defendant in their home earlier in the day, and after that iPad was gone.  Plaintiff shows texts from defendant, pretending to be a friend,    There are no witnesses that saw defendant take the computer.    

However, defendant has no story that is logical, or believable.

JJ believes the plaintiff, and nothing the defendant says. 

Plaintiff receives, $576.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Bloody Off-Leash Mayhem!

The Dumb Bleach Blondes Anti-Defamation League should really sue that plaintiff for bringing shame on all of them because of that stupid defense she kept repeating.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Where’s My Harley Money?! -Plaintiff Evangeline Haro-Jarrett suing defendant Mark Acosta over a Harley bike he was selling for her.   Plaintiff originally bought it for $14,000, six years before, and the sales price was $8,000, Blue Book was $8700 and defendant's witness bought it, but plaintiff claims defendant only paid her $1800.   Plaintiff gave defendant the title, he sold it to his witness.    Defendant witness (buyer) says bike had been wrecked.   Defendant claims he paid her over time, because she needed cash.   Defendant says there was no contract, or meeting of the minds.

Defendant is a crook.  

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Choose a Defense…Any Defense! -Plaintiff Myiesha Nunn  suing defendant/former friend Charles Byars for wrecking her car.   Husband of plaintiff took defendant to pick up car, defendant drove car to plaintiff's home, and on the way he wrecked the car, plus hit another car, and owes a deductible for the other car he hit.    Defendant says the plaintiff's car was hit from behind.  Unusually, the drivers are all licensed, and all insured.   Since defendant was hit from behind, by a Ford F-150, and he nailed another car, a Honda.  

Defendant claims there was one hit from the rear by the pick up truck, and claims the pickup truck hit him again.   However, defendant's sworn statement says plaintiff's husband caused the accident, making the defendant swerve, and then the pickup truck hit him.  

Officer Byrd is enjoying the stupid stories from the defendant.

$3,000 to plaintiff, and defendant is an idiot. 

Moped Spill! -Plaintiff Brandon Anderson (Moped rider) suing defendant (car driver) Sophia Austin for her causing an accident.    Plaintiff was going east on his moped, and says defendant either turned left in front of him, or his guess is she was making a U turn from the right / curb lane, and pulled in front of his moped, she was pulling out of a parking space on the right side curb.     Defendant was driving a Cadillac something (don't know what), and didn't have insurance.   

Plaintiff had the right of way, and he swerved to avoid her, and either laid the moped down, or scraped her car.

Defendant's stupid story is she wasn't making a U-turn, but pulled out of a parking space, at 10:30 p.m.  She blames everything on the plaintiff.  To go home, defendant's best route would be to make a U-turn, and hit the freeway.

Plaintiff receives $5,000 for medical bills, and moped repairs. 

Second (2017)-

Lifetime Protective Order Against Neighbor?!-Plaintiff Orville Moiten suing neighbor Arthur Sutton for purposely damaging his gate.   Plaintiff says this is the fourth time the defendant ran into his gate.   The litigants have been neighbors for about 20 years, and live across the street from each other.    The start of the fighting was seven years ago, when defendant did some unsatisfactory work on plaintiff's house, and defendant's contractor license was suspended.  There was a criminal case against plaintiff, and he plead guilty, and defendant has a lifetime protective order against plaintiff.     This all happened in Dorchester, MA.   Moiten's order of protection was only a temporary one, and is gone now.  Mr. Moiten was arrested twice for the restraining order violations, but both were dismissed.  

Plaintiff says defendant backed out of his driveway, and hit plaintiff's gate.   A police reports is submitted from the second gate bashing.   Gate is a double, five foot high gate of chain link, and the gate really gets hit solidly.    Plaintiff says the gate has been bashed four times by defendant.   

The video of the gate being hit by defendant is submitted, by plaintiff.   Police report doesn't say who hit gate, but video shows defendant's pickup truck hitting the gate.    Defendant fixed the gate the first time, but not the other three times.   

No receipts are submitted by plaintiff for the gate repairs he paid for.   Defendant claims the plaintiff beat up defendant's wife, and children five years ago.   Plaintiff's order of protection was temporary, and has expired, and subsequent attempts to get another order against defendant have been unsuccessful.    (My question is, have either one of these people thought about moving?) Plaintiff says he will never move, and my guess is defendant never will either.  

Defendant's wife has been unsuccessful in getting her husband to stop this garbage.

Plaintiff also complains that defendant throws bread on plaintiff's side of the street, and it's causing issues with birds that it attracts, and defendant thinks that's funny.  There is a video of defendant tossing a lot of bread across the street in the direction of the plaintiff's house, and right on the sidewalk and front yard of plaintiff's house.   Gayle Taylor-Sutton (defendant's wife) testifies, and claims both men are childish, but that plaintiff is worse.    Plaintiff has been arrested twice for violating the restraining order, and both cases were dropped. 

I decided I like the plaintiff a lot more than the nasty defendant.  JJ decides the defendant is nasty, and provocative, and his counterclaim is dismissed.    

Plaintiff receives $800 to fix his fence.   

Edited January 14, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[VioletMarx]

On 1/7/2021 at 10:15 AM, 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! JJ even complimented her on how prepared she was, the only time I remember that happening.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Newbie Pleasure-Boat Collision! – Plaintiff Bradford Greer suing defendants Richa Adhikari and Suraj Poudel over a boat accident at Lake Havasu.    Plaintiff was waiting to launch his boat at the boat ramp, and defendants' rented boat was already launched.    Plaintiff saw the boat rental instructor telling defendants what to do to leave the launch area.   Plaintiff says once you have your boat launched, you should follow directions to reverse and clear the way for the next boat.   However, defendants didn't know how to clear the launch area.   Apparently, defendants don't have a freaking clue about how to operate a boat.  (Plaintiff was not driving his boat, his daughter was, however he was driving the pickup truck for the boat and trailer, and backing down the boat ramp to launch the boat.    He was right there, and saw enough to know what the fool defendants did.    Defendants are lucky no one was injured.)

Defendant has only piloted a boat twice, and this was the second time (first was nine years ago).    Plaintiff has used the launch ramp 1,000 times, over his 31 years living there.  Plaintiff says the rangers supervise the huge boat ramp, tell people when to launch, and direct everyone.  Defendant hit plaintiff's boat and damaged it, but JJ doesn't think that's important.   Defendant wife says this was only the second time her husband has driven a motorboat, and the last time was nine years ago.     The defendant's boat also had the defendants, and six other passengers (boat has seats for 15).  Defendant husband thinks someone telling him the theory of how to run the boat is good enough.

I'm just glad that defendants didn't sink either boat, or injure the passengers on it.   Defendant wife says her boat backed up, and plaintiff was behind them (not possible, if plaintiff launched second).   

Plaintiff says defendants rear ended his boat, while his adult daughter was driving their boat.   The front of defendant's boat hit the rear of the plaintiff's boat.    There is an incident report from defendants to the rental company their boat came from.   Defendant wife claims they were coerced to sign the agreement to the rental company to fix the boat. 

(Plaintiff/boat owner wasn't steering the boat, but driving the truck to launch it from the trailer, his daughter was actually at the wheel.  The boat launch is like the ones you see on the funny home videos where someone is backing up to launch, and keeps on going with their pickup disappearing underwater.)

$5500 is the cost to fix plaintiff's boat, so he receives $5000.     

Second (2019)-

$44,000 Child Support Bill -Plaintiff Stacy Fox suing ex-, father of her daughter, Joseph Valenzuela for part of daughter’s annual Disney pass, and car parts. Defendant owes $44,000 back child support, and he works under the table, and so they can't garnish wages that don't technically exist.    Plaintiff is suing defendant for part of daughter's annual Disney pass, and car parts.    His excuse is he was in jail for two months, then was unemployed, and then made little money.    He has three other kids  (11, 7 and 1) after the daughter with the plaintiff, with defendant’s witness.   

 The defendant's current wife, and mother to his three other kids is sitting there smirking like she'll never be stuck with the bills for her kids someday too.   The deadbeat defendant is considering doing annual Disney passes for himself, three kids, and current wife, when he owes $44,000.  Then deadbeat decided he couldn't afford the Disney passes, and since the plaintiff's daughter's mom already bought a Disney pass for the kid ($619 for a year for one), and defendant agreed to pay for headlights for car daughter has.   

JJ gets defendant deadbeat's social security number, and tells plaintiff to get a lawyer, get tax returns, and application information on car loan application, and then go after him for the money.  Deadbeat defendant is a total liar about his income, and will never pay her.     

JJ gives the plaintiff no money, because it's the wrong court, and she needs to go after his money for the child support.  

Drug Addiction Duo-Plaintiff Deborah Clark is suing defendant, and former caretaker Keith Riavez for unpaid rent, and a loan for $1800.  Defendant got kicked out of house when he had drugs in the house, but claims landlady plaintiff brought in more drugs than he did.   Plaintiff woman got hurt, and man was supposed to move in and help her, then later pay $100-150 a week rent, and drive Uber.    Collateral for the loan was a sleep number bed, and speakers, she loaned defendant $1800 to buy the car for the Uber gig.     

She tossed him after she found the drugs, and he's blood red, and crying, and he looks like he's about to collapse.     Defendant claims he left the Sleep Number bed in her house, and then it disappeared.     Defendant claims the plaintiff's medical marijuana smoking caused him to relapse on crack.     Defendant is suing for U-haul and storage and moving fees.   

JJ doesn't award rent to the landlady, who always lived alone before the man moved in, and won't be renting rooms now.  Defendant now lives with his ex-sister in law, and has been clean for four months now.   

 Plaintiff gets $1800, for the loan only.    I think JJ should have paid the defendant for the Sleep Number bed too.

(I feel so sorry for the defendant, he is obviously fragile, and I believe what he says about the plaintiff)

Edited January 16, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[seacliffsal]

Regarding the boat crash incident-towards the end of the case, the plaintiff admitted he wasn't there and didn't see the crash as his 17 year old daughter was the one driving the boat.  JJ did not say one word about how could he have known what happened when he wasn't there?  For whatever reason, JJ just accepted his version of things even though he wasn't there.  What was up with that?  He spoke as if he was the one driving his boat until the very end.  Having lived on a major lake, I would definitely have questions for the 17 year old, yet JJ really didn't ask her anything.  This was so out of the ordinary for how JJ would normally respond when finding out the person giving all of the info wasn't even there.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Don’t Treat Me Like the Help! -Plaintiff / salon owner Jovel Jernigan suing defendant/booth renter and braider Shamakae Draughan, and plaintiff wants the four months rent left on the lease.  .     Defendant claims plaintiff wanted her to do shampoos, rinse color, etc., but defendant is a booth renter, and not plaintiff's employee.   Rent for plaintiff is $1,200 a month, with three tenants/booth renters, and all renters pay $300 per week.    So plaintiff makes $3600 a month rent, and she pays landlord $1200 a month.   Defendant signed a six month contract, paid in full the first two months, and says she left when plaintiff wanted her to work with chemicals, and color on plaintiff's customers.    Defendant isn't certified for color work, and didn't want to do chemical work, and when defendant told that to plaintiff, plaintiff told her to leave, so defendant left.     Defendant also said she wanted more time for her school, and family, but the plaintiff's demands were the last straw.  Plaintiff says defendant had so many customers that the waiting room was full of her customers, and no one else had room for their customers. so why would defendant have time to do plaintiff's work for her?  

Plaintiff says she was being a mentor to defendant.  Plaintiff was treating defendant like an employee, not a tenant.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, because plaintiff is a jerk. 

Motorcycle Mystery -Plaintiff Nancy Aldredge-Foster suing defendant/ex boyfriend Sandy Leach for removal of property.    Plaintiff claims when ex-boyfriend moved out 2008, that the motorcycle defendant left behind was charged to her, and she didn't find out the landlord put a lien on her credit for 9 years.          Plaintiff moved out, but left a motorcycle behind at defendant's place, and when plaintiff moved out in 2010, she left the motorcycle behind.    JJ wants to see the paperwork showing the motorcycle was the cause of the lien.

Plaintiff case dismissed, no proof. 

Second (2017)-

Dial 911 for Murder?!-Plaintiff Ashely Jensen suing defendant / former landlord Eula Compton for unlawful eviction, harassment, one month's rent returned.      One time, landlord called police, and said tenant had been murdered.  When police came to check, tenant was fine, and landlady was smelling strongly of alcohol.      Plaintiff moved in July, and in September landlord claimed plaintiff stole a laptop (iMac) that came in the mail.   In November, plaintiff was accused of stealing some Halloween decorations.    Landlord says she never asked the tenant about thefts.     On December 7 plaintiff's boyfriend stayed overnight.   On December 7 they had a minor verbal spat, over Mr. Grady (boyfriend) watching too much porn on his phone.   David Ridenhauer, defendant's boyfriend adds nothing to the case. 

On December 8, at 7 p.m. defendant called the police, and said tenant was murdered (plaintiff's witness is a Sheriff's Deputy), however, police records say defendant called police about 9:30 a.m., and first officer came at 10 a.m., and witness came second at 1 p.m.    Police report says plaintiff hadn't paid her rent for that month, hadn't been seen in weeks, and her boyfriend had killed her, and defendant said there was a lot of blood in the apartment, and a dead body.    Police found defendant drunk at the 1 p.m. visit, and the plaintiff was fine, and at work.    Plaintiff says the argument

Plaintiff moved out after the police visits, and wants her rent back. because of harassment from the landlord.   Landlord denies drinking in the morning, obviously a lie.  Plaintiff submits notes from defendant, after giving her a 30 day notice, and rented to another person that already wanted to move into plaintiff's apartment.   Defendant also claims plaintiff's boyfriend broke a chair in the hall, which he denies.    Plaintiff didn't get $25 check fee from security deposit.    

Plaintiff receives the $30 from security back, and the last month's rent.   $425, plus $1450 including $1000 for harassment. 

Unfit for Children?! -Plaintiff Erica Prater suing defendant Miranda Grasper for four months rent, and property that was destroyed ($3,000).    Plaintiff and child or children, moved back in her mother.  Plaintiff left the townhouse, but still paid defendant four months rent, but defendant wasn't paying the rent.  Defendant was evicted for non-payment of rent.   Defendant moved back in with her mother too.    

Plaintiff left furniture behind, instead of getting a storage unit.  But when defendant was evicted the furniture disappeared. 

Case dismissed for lack of proof, and credibility. 

Edited January 15, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Wrongful Pandemic Eviction?! (2020)- Plaintiff Holly Law suing defendant/landlady Kyra Dorman for wrongful eviction, return of rent, and evicting her during Covid.   Lease is strange, plaintiff claims her signature was forged.   Lease says room rent was $600 a month, but $300 if a current college student.    Plaintiff claims rent would be $360 (300, = Verizon $40, and one time of $120). and claims the e-signature had the signature erased.   Plaintiff doesn't have a copy of the lease, but she lied about being a college student to get the lower rent.  Plaintiff claims she ran into personal issues(knocked up), and couldn't start school.     The written lease wins, and plaintiff is a total jerk.   Plaintiff lived in the rented room for two months, and moved out in September without telling the defendant she was leaving, until two weeks after she left.  

Eviction is dismissed, because plaintiff moved out without being evicted.   (JJ says after plaintiff dithers on, not answering anything, that she has a long memory, and she'll get even with whoever booked this case, and I absolutely agree).  I seldom want to slap pregnant people,, but this plaintiff is making me rethink this.    Plaintiff prepaid a lot of rent. 

Defendant claims plaintiff took an iphone, a bracelet, and other jewelry, but has no evidence of theft.  

Plaintiff gets $1,000, since she paid so much rent, and everything else dismissed. 

Christmas Day Hit-and-Run (2014) -Plaintiff Michael Copel (witness/fiance Andrea Jackson), car owner is suing defendant Christopher Bailey  (owner is Pennie Langston) over a hit-and-run accident on Christmas Day.  Plaintiff says she was looking at their car damage, when defendant climbed out of his SUV, looked at his damages, and climbed back in his car, and left.   Plaintiffs got the license plate number.    When plaintiffs were looking at the car damage defendant cruised by staring at the car and driving slowly, and then went by again.  Plaintiffs were talking to 911, and gave them the license number, and a description of the driver.

Defendant didn't get a ticket for leaving the scene of an accident.    Plaintiffs said defendant seemed to be impaired too.   

Defendant's wife, and car owner swears her husband, and car didn't do this.  Police saw fresh snow tracks leading to defendant's garage, and no one answered the door.  JJ says defendants are a perfect match for each other.  

Plaintiff receives $3791 . 

Second (2019)-

You Look Scared to Death..I Like it!-Plaintiff Tami Mohler is suing defendant John Moorhead for printing equipment she sold him.      Defendant claims the printing equipment was accurately described, and says he paid in full for the equipment.      It was screen printing equipment, and it was in self-storage, and then in the shed behind her house.    He paid $2200, instead of $4200.    Plaintiff's picture showed a brand new piece of equipment, but the actual equipment was used, and old.  Plaintiff claims idiot defendant wanted to pay $2200, and the other $2000 in payments. 

Defendant hadn't actually looked at the plaintiff's equipment, but sold his older, slower machine the day before.  

Plaintiff gets $2,000.   Byrd has to repeat that defendant needs to leave, NOW.

The Bank is Closed!-Parents plaintiffs Malika and Michael Hall (Mom and Stepdad) suing deadbeat daughter, Jessyca Brockington with a cold shoulder sweater (doesn't that defeat the purpose of wearing a sweater, with her bra straps handing out the shoulder cut outs?) owes for credit card charges, car payments, and insurance.    Mother put money in the account every two weeks, depending on what daughter needed for school. 

When defendant came home from college, she wanted mother's name off of her account.   Then, defendant daughter (total idiot, must take after dad), gave her banking information to some scammer friend of hers.  Daughter dropped out in May, and was financially cut off.   Then Chauncey, her friend that she doesn't even know his last name, said he would put money in her account, so she gave him her account information.    $2514 went bye-bye, but defendant refuses to tell the police the man's information.    Defendant was surprised that Chauncey ghosted her too. 

Defendant says she doesn't owe the parents the money, because she was scammed, and didn't get any money herself. Air head.   

Plaintiff receives $2514.  (Since defendant says she dropped out in May, my guess is she was told she wasn't getting even the bare minimum grades to keep going for the next year, and the school said "Bye, Felicia".   I'm wondering if Chauncey even exists, or if the daughter squandered the money, and thought her mother would shell out more?).     

(Next week's new episodes are Monday, and Tuesday, only reruns on Wednesday, Thursday both episodes are new, and the first one Friday is new.)

Edited January 16, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[KittyQ]

RE: The Bank is Closed!

The defendant / daughter is either massively naïve or perhaps unable to understand that no one is going to give you money for nothing, especially if it involves providing them with your bank account info.  Perhaps I'm not viewing this correctly, but I couldn't tell whether the defendant's way of speaking is an affection or if she's kind of high. 

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Wrongful Pandemic Eviction?! (2020)

During the hallterview, Defendant said "I am confused". No kidding! That is exactly why she did not get any money: she got lost in her story, did not have her evidence at hand and could not follow the simplest question from JJ, including calculating basic sums.

One wonders how people like her can function through even the most ordinary uneventful day.

Plaintiff is a liar who obviously knows her way around court cases.

 

[nora1992]

1 hour ago, KittyQ said:

RE: The Bank is Closed!

The defendant / daughter is either massively naïve or perhaps unable to understand that no one is going to give you money for nothing, especially if it involves providing them with your bank account info.  Perhaps I'm not viewing this correctly, but I couldn't tell whether the defendant's way of speaking is an affection or if she's kind of high. 

How did the defendant make it to college and remain that clueless?!?!  She said SHE was the victim.  What is she learning in school?

[configdotsys]

I watched the boat episode twice and for the life of me do not understand what happened. I was desperately trying to understand all the boat jargon and just could not picture the situation and what could have happened there. I have zero experience with boats. This was one case in which a diagram was needed because I'm still completely lost.

Please excuse my parking/car reference here. I'm just trying to understand:

Are these boats in the equivalent of parking spots and some one waves one out, so that person backs out and drives away? Then the next one is waved out, backs out and drives away. Did the defendant back out of the spot but not drive away? So the plaintiff sat there watching someone trying to tell them to drive away? The plaintiff said something about five lanes which lost me too. Did the defendant who had not driven away, hit reverse and backed into the plaintiff's boat? This case just had me completely baffled.

I laughed at the defendant wife saying, "I took responsibility for the damage we did to the rental boat, only." Well, the damage you did to the rental boat was because you were clueless and hit the plaintiff's boat, you nimrod. 

I thought JJ found out way too late that the daughter was driving so she couldn't discount what the father/plaintiff was saying. The daughter was 17, you know, one of those "as soon as their mouth moves, they're lying" kids so JJ may have had a lot more inquiry of the daughter had she known from the jump that she was driving the boat.

I thought JJ was very cranky with the plaintiff at the beginning of the case.

Edited January 16, 2021 by configdotsys

[LetsStartTalking]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Wrongful Pandemic Eviction?! (2020)- Plaintiff Holly Law suing defendant/landlady Kyra Dorman for wrongful eviction, return of rent, and evicting her during Covid.   Lease is strange, plaintiff claims her signature was forged.   Lease says room rent was $600 a month, but $300 if a current college student.    Plaintiff claims rent would be $360 (300, = Verizon $40, and one time of $120). and claims the e-signature had the signature erased.   Plaintiff doesn't have a copy of the lease, but she lied about being a college student to get the lower rent.  Plaintiff claims she ran into personal issues(knocked up), and couldn't start school.     The written lease wins, and plaintiff is a total jerk.   Plaintiff lived in the rented room for two months, and moved out in September without telling the defendant she was leaving, until two weeks after she left.  

Eviction is dismissed, because plaintiff moved out without being evicted.   (JJ says after plaintiff dithers on, not answering anything, that she has a long memory, and she'll get even with whoever booked this case, and I absolutely agree).  I seldom want to slap pregnant people,, but this plaintiff is making me rethink this.    Plaintiff prepaid a lot of rent. 

Defendant claims plaintiff took an iphone, a bracelet, and other jewelry, but has no evidence of theft.  

Plaintiff gets $1,000, since she paid so much rent, and everything else dismissed. 

 

At one point, Judge Judy had the nerve to say, 'This case is boring me.'

YOU ? It's boring you ? What the hell do you think it was doing to your viewers ? I was distracted by the wallpaper peeling in the corner of the wall in my room - I found that more interesting and entertaining. YOU were bored ? At least you were getting paid to listen to this. You expected us to do it for free.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-Cancelled by local programming, for the holiday.  

Second (2017)-

Beauty School Dropout?-Plaintiff wanted to learn microblading, and signed up for a three day course at the defendant's beauty school, and wants pain and suffering, and refund of the course fees.     

Defendant's run a beauty academy that trains students in doing microblading, and other permanent make up techniques.     Defendants used to own a beauty college, and now concentrate in the permanent makeup sector, at two locations, and have certifications for the beauty college (from the state cosmetology board), and the permanent makeup (that's a different certification, from the state health department).

Original contract is submitted, for a microblading three-day course, at $2200.   Contract says 3-day course, non-refundable, plaintiff only went on two days, and not the first day, only went on the 30th and 31st.   Plaintiff was supposed to go on the 29th, 30th, and 31st.   Plaintiff claims what she wanted to learn wasn't taught to her satisfaction.    Plaintiff was supposed to bring a live model, and do that person's brows, but didn't do any procedures on the woman.  

However, the contract says 3 day of class, and plaintiff only went for 2 days.   Plaintiff claims defendant forged her signature on the contract, but the signature looks the same as her signature on her statement to this court. 

As JJ says, the plaintiff had the opportunity to go to all three days of the course, but only did two days, so she didn't qualify for a certificate.   Defendant says plaintiff threatened him that she had just won a court case, so she wanted a refund or else (She tried to fight an eviction, through unlawful detainer right before this course).    Plaintiff claims she has a cosmetology background, so she didn't need hygiene training for a beauty procedure, in my opinion I bet that everything the plaintiff is complaining she missed was taught on the first day of the course, when plaintiff bailed on attending.    

Defendants are counter claiming for the plaintiff trying to extort her course payment back, and harassing the owners of the school.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant counter claim dismissed.   

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Landlord’s Day-in-Court Nightmare!  -Plaintiffs / former tenants Jonathan and Sarah Santibanez are suing defendant/former landlord Dave Shaffer over security, and a bonus to move out during the Covid moratorium.  Landlord was going to pay tenants to move so he could sell the place, a bonus and security to leave by 1 October 2020, and cooperate with realtors doing showings, all outlined in a letter to tenants.    There is nothing saying cooperation with the realtor is required.   House still isn't for sale, since move out 1 October, because of improvements defendant is making to house.   However, house wasn't listed, so there was no broker to cooperate with.   If tenants hadn't moved out, then defendant wouldn't have been able to evict them, because of court closures, and Covid eviction moratoriums. 

Defendant's witness is his future broker on the house.   Broker must have wanted to come on the show to promote his real estate business, because he's useless for anything else.  Defendant says cooperating was to let the broker look at the house any time he wanted to.    

$4050 to plaintiffs

Friends Don’t Let Friends Become Roommates!  -Plaintiff Emily Foley suing defendant Amber Moonier over an apartment they were going to move into, but didn't.   Plaintiff transferred $1500 into defendant's bank account, but after apartment told litigants that apartment wouldn't be ready on time, plaintiff could either wait for another apartment, or get refunded.   

Plaintiff says defendant received a refund for everything but the credit check, and application fees.   Defendants said she would only give plaintiff $400, because she purchased a kitchen table for the apartment, and other items for the apartment.    

JJ finally drags out of the defendant that she kept the kitchen table, and is using it at another apartment she lives in now.   Also, defendant says she had to pay for renter's insurance on the first apartment, but did get a full refund back.   Defendant is giving me a headache, and JJ is about to have Officer Byrd whack the snot out of defendant with a flyswatter.  

(My view, plaintiff is lucky she never moved in with defendant). 

$1350 to plaintiff.  

Second (2014)-

Mother & Daughter Gang up on Ex -Plaintiffs Mariah Russom suing defendant/her mother's ex-boyfriend, Jason Kirkland, for loans.    Plaintiff and her 40 year old mother Danae Russom (plaintiff witness) were having issues with another sister, so moved in with defendant.   Plaintiff didn't pay any rent for the two months they lived there.    Plaintiff witness mother, claims she paid rent, but defendant says he paid mother/girlfriend's mortgage one month, and she paid his much lower rent.    Plaintiff bought defendant's son a bed, a lawn mower for the house, and says she has receipts for $346.   Mariah says the bed cost almost $1,000.     

When plaintiff and mother moved in, defendant did not get rid of any furniture.    Plaintiff says defendant sent his couches to plaintiff's sister, and plaintiff and mother put their couches in defendant's house.   When plaintiff and witness moved out they took their couches, but didn't return the couches defendant loaned to the plaintiff's sister.    Defendant has the text on his phone about the furniture, when he asked for his couches back, and witness says she would return them with a police escort, which never happened.       After the big argument, plaintiffs moved out, and took all of their furniture with them.   Defendant says his son offered to move into the smaller bedroom, so plaintiff could have a bigger room.   Defendant says TV in question that plaintiff claims she paid for, was free with her furniture purchase.   

The defendant doesn't dispute owing for the lawn mower.   Defendant is countersuing for car damages, by plaintiff, and furniture.    

Plaintiff also claims defendant stole her grandmother's ring.   Plaintiff mother moved in with boyfriend, before divorcing her previous husband. 

Plaintiff wants $386.   Defendant keeps the son's bedroom furniture, and loses the older couches.    Defendant says plaintiff ran truck into a pole, and she's a liar.   Plaintiff tries to submit some list of alias of defendant.     Mother/witness moved out in September, but Mariah lived there for two weeks without her mother, into October.  Estimate to fix defendant's truck is $1880.    

Ruling is $346 for lawn mower, but defendant gets $1880, so $1534 to defendant. 

  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Incarcerated Mechanic Runaround ? -Plaintiff Talia Sidney suing defendant Nicholas Rowland over a 20 year old car (car was 1997 vintage, and cost over $2k).     that needed a transmission replaced.  Parts and labor would cost $800, plus transfer case.   Plaintiff and her witness claim they paid $400 cash to defendant.   Car went to mechanic in April, and in June plaintiffs were told car needed a $500 transfer case.   

Then he disappeared, and defendant's girlfriend said that defendant was in jail, for back child support.  Defendant claims he wasn't in jail, but defendant's fiance told plaintiffs defendant was in jail, and this was at the end of June.   Plaintiff woman claims they were told by defendant's mechanic that the car was impounded.   Defendant claims after two months of no contact with plaintiffs, he set car on the street, and it was impounded.   As JJ says, apparently defendant bought the wrong transmission, so he had to change the transfer case to fit the wrong transmission.  

$400 for transmission to plaintiff, I don't know if they received more money to get the car out of impound.  

Annoying New Girlfriend Alert! -Plaintiff Robert Tremayne suing defendant Nathan Atkins (plaintiff's daughter's ex-boyfriend, and father of her kid) for an unpaid loan, $5,000, to pay his bills.    Defendant brought his new girlfriend to court, just to be annoying.    Defendant says he was supporting plaintiff's daughter while she was taking care of their new baby, and another child from another relationship.   The defendant and plaintiff's daughter have 50/50 custody, so no child support, including taking care of the plaintiff woman's first kid.

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

Highspeed Hit-and-Run -Plaintiff Kenadasha Barber suing defendant/former friend, Cierra Goss,  for taking her car without permission, and crashing it.   Defendant stayed with plaintiff at plaintiff's place for about a month, and claims plaintiff sent her to the 7-Eleven at 2 a.m. to buy milk for plaintiff's son.   Plaintiff denies that she ever authorized defendant to go to store, or drive her car.    Defendant claims a truck with headlights off, ran her off the road, and she hit the truck, and a parked car

Police report says alcohol involved,  Vehicle 2 was hit by Vehicle 1, and then Vehicle 1 fled at a high speed, and hit Vehicle 3, which was parked. 

$5,000 to plaintiff

Second (2017)-

Family Business Money Triangle-Plaintiff stepdaughter Natasha Franklin is suing stepmother, Charmain Franklin for an unpaid loan, and a false restraining order.  Defendant is stepmother to plaintiff.  Defendant says the loan is being paid back, and she didn't miss any payments.    Plaintiff, Erick Franklin, is husband of defendant, and father of plaintiff (soon to be ex husband, there is no legal separation in Florida, so I hope defendant sped up the process of divorcing this entire set of moochers).    All of the family lived in New York, but all moved to Florida.   

Plaintiff witness (husband)  is on disability, stepdaughter barely ever worked (she did collections for American Express, and later worked at Macy's, but didn't work after moving to Florida).   

Plaintiff father/husband got a settlement, of $20k, and gave that to the defendant to start her online business.    Business supports husband, stepmother, plaintiff's daughter, and her two children.    Plaintiff, and her father got a loan when they moved to Florida, as co-signers.   Loan paid for the move, furniture, and supplies for the business.   

Since 2012-2016, defendant's business supported everyone (a cast of thousands, just like in the old movies).      Defendant is from Canada, and received a green card.   (If defendant was smart, she would move back to Canada, and get away from the entire plaintiff family).     Plaintiff daughter said in her statement that the $20k was a loan, but it was a settlement for the father's car wreck (settlement was in 2012).   

Defendant actually started her business in 2008 in Canada, and just continued it in the U.S.      By 2014 and 2015, defendant was supporting husband, stepdaughter, her two kids, and ran her business.       Then stepdaughter moved out, and actually had a job for a year, and then moved back home.   

Stepmother/defendant has already paid back $11,000 of the $20,000.    Plaintiff daughter never paid rent, and was supported by defendant except one year.    Stepmother/defendant felt threatened by plaintiff daughter (I wouldn't want to cross the plaintiff daughter either).  In November, defendant's son came to visit, and stepfather, and son argued.   Stepfather/plaintiff witness says son objected to how his mother was being treated.   Stepfather was arrested, and held in jail for seven days, and was finally released.     

Plaintiff/daughter says she didn't file a protective order, but defendant/stepmother did while plaintiff/stepfather was in jail.   Defendant called police when stepfather/husband pushed her.     JJ thinks defendant over reacted.     (I don't agree with JJ.  If someone puts their hand on me, especially with a pending divorce action, then I would file charges against the soon to be ex husband, and get a restraining order against the entire bunch). 

The plaintiff and her father want the remaining $9,000 of the loan, after defendant supported all of their useless butts for years on end.    Judging from the nasty looks, and stank attitude of the stepdaughter/plaintiff, I would have file for protection too.  Since house is in defendant's name, then JJ says to file for eviction for stepdaughter, her kids.   I hope defendant divorced the husband too.    Plaintiff father, and defendant aren't divorced yet, so the $20k loan is marital debt.     

Home down payment came from the business for $60,000 in 2015, however, that means defendant paid the down payment, all utilities were in her name, and no one else ever paid rent (in the daughter's case) or part of the mortgage.   The entire useless lot of Franklins, excluding the defendant, are living in a house paid for by defendant.    Plaintiff claims that telling her to pay her own utilities on a house that she squats in is stalking (No, it isn't).    JJ advises defendant that the debt is mutual, and dismissed. 

Defendant wrote to plaintiff Natasha, and said she's cutting the utilities, and Natasha says that's harassment.  I hope Natasha took her father with her, if she ever moved out.   SInce the father has a low income, and plaintiff daughter doesn't work, then I guess the ever generous Officer Byrd must be paying for where ever Natasha was talking about moving to.  

(My view is once the plaintiff husband co-mingled the funds, that they became marital property, and hopefully a divorce judge would say the $11k defendant paid off was more than sufficient.  However, the plaintiff daughter claiming it was a bank loan was garbage.     I hope defendant got the plaintiffs bounced out of the house she paid for, or at least forced a sale.  However, plaintiff's might have established tenancy under Florida law, so might still be there). 

Case is tossed.

Edited January 20, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Video Reveals Harassment Truth! -Plaintiff Aviran Kayvan  suing defendant Alan Hanft over a false restraining order defendant filed against him, and attorney fees to fight it.  The two men are the tenants in separate condos in the penthouse.   Then plaintiff started renovations, and defendant claims to be afraid of the plaintiff, and his dog.    The video of the argument shows defendant yelling and advancing on the plaintiff.   

Plaintiff took down his side of the awning (solid metal, from the 70's apparently) , but condo didn't make plaintiff put the awning back (they're still in negotiation with the HOA).    Fine over awning removal for HOA could be almost $10k, and is still on-going.  There are nine condos on the penthouse level.   Plaintiff is suing for nearly $5,000 attorney fees after defendant filed a protective order application against him.    The awning removal in November 2019 was the start of defendant's allegations against plaintiff.

Defendant doesn't look reasonable to me.   For some reason, defendant is gazing off to the left, not even at the camera, but looking down and left.   Defendant claims on 9 May 2020, plaintiff was mean to him, and that was when the video happened.    Defendant is counter claiming for attorney's fees, harassment, and other stuff.    The video shows that defendant is the aggressor, and totally out of control, and plaintiff doesn't do anything to defendant on the video.   

Defendant is told to show his emails to the HOA about plaintiff, and the only thing the HOA contacted him about is the aluminum outside awning (which sounds ugly as hell to me).    Defendant is warned to stop interrupting, and stop acting strange by JJ.   

Protective order application by defendant was dismissed.   Defendant still lives in building, and filed for protective order in June 2020, and hearing was in August, but postponed, and in September 2020, defendant withdrew the application.  Defendant also claims plaintiff lives in the unit, but he hasn't lived in the building since the gut renovation of his condo started.   

(I'm very happy to watch the plaintiff testify, and his accent is adorable, so I'm glad he came on the show.   I'm hoping that the HOA, and plaintiff can settle the awning issue, and have him replace it with something that is equivalent, and the fine will go away.   The HOA board seems to realize that defendant is a pushy bully, too bad for him he ran into someone who would not back down from him.)

$4875 to plaintiff for attorney fees, and now $5,000 with the fee to subpoena the CCTV film footage from the HOA for the protective order hearing.   

Second (2019)-

Sublease Nosedive-Plaintiff Jamar Taylor sublet apartment from defendants, Carolina Johannson and Michael English, however it wasn't a legal sublet, so now plaintiff wants his rent back.   Plaintiff claims defendant said it was legal to sublet, and plaintiff wanted his name added to the lease.   

Plaintiff gave a month's rent and security, and when asked if he was subleasing by the manager, he lied to management.   Michael English tells JJ what hearsay is, big mistake.  Plaintiff claims Michael English told him that he was the building manager, and Michael English denies that.   

Plaintiff stayed through July, and supposedly paid his rent, and was told by complex to leave by the end of the month.      Plaintiff gets security deposit back.    Defendants were evicted from the rental because they got caught subleasing to plaintiff, and that is forbidden by the lease.      

Defendants receive nothing, they broke the lease when they subleased. 

Plaintiff gets $1,000 for the security deposit back. 

Pick-Up Fraud-Plaintiff Deborah Bube suing mechanic Louis Philpott, who was going to rebuild a truck engine for her son's truck.    $4300 was the agreed amount, ($1200 for labor, and $3100 for engine and parts).     Mechanic got a cheaper motor, it was bad, but put another rebuild in it.   Plaintiff drove truck for three days, and motor failed, serpentine belt came off.   

Plaintiffs paid $1150 to get it fixed by someone else.     Plaintiff gets the $1150 paid to the other mechanic.    

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[basiltherat]

In the condo awning case, the plaintiff was a real bully who picked on the defendant, who obviously has mental/emotional problems.  Plaintiff picked at it like a scab and seems to have enjoyed making defendant act loony tunes.  But, alas, no evidence and no leaving of "feelings" at the courtroom steps.  Ah, such is condo life!

[One Tough Cookie]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Plaintiff, and her father got a loan when they moved to Florida, as co-signers.   Loan paid for the move, furniture, and supplies for the business.   

And I am sure Byrd is helping out also!

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, basiltherat said:

the plaintiff was a real bully who picked on the defendant, who obviously has mental/emotional problems

I agree that defendant has mental issues, but I disagree that plaintiff is a bully. At most he is rather arrogant and pushy and likes to skirt the HOA rules for his own interests.

Defendant is an annoying kook who is probably paranoid about chlorophyll in tree leaves. He is the kind of neighbour no one should have to endure, in a condo buidling or in separate dwellings.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Family Business Money Triangle

A case demonstrating that being habitual leeches is an inherited trait. The Canadian defendant was much too much of a pushover to let the loathsome family take advantage of her.

Dad was dumb enough to think JJ was complimenting him when she described the scheme by which he pays nothing and still gets to profit from the sale of the house (and live in it free of charge).

Edited January 20, 2021 by Florinaldo

[LetsStartTalking]

54 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Video Reveals Harassment Truth! -Plaintiff Aviran Kayvan  suing defendant Alan Hanft over a fasle restraining order defendant filed against him.  The two men are the tenants in separate condos in the penthouse.   Then plaintiff started renovations, and defendant claims to be afraid of the plaintiff, and his dog.    The video of the argument shows defendant yelling and advancing on the plaintiff.   

Plaintiff took down his side of the awning (solid metal, from the 70's aparently) , but condo didn't make plaintiff put the awning back.   There are nine condos on the penthouse level.   Plaintiff is suing for nearly $5,000 attorney fees after defendant filed a protective order application against him.    The awning removal in November 2019 was the start of defendant's allegations against plaintiff.

Defendant doesn't look reasonable to me.   For some reason, defendant is gazing off to the left, not even at the camera.   Defendant claims on 9 May 2020, plaintiff was mean to him, and that was when the video happened.    Defendant is counter claiming for attorney's fees, harassment, and other stuff.    Defendant is told to show his emails to the HOA about plaintiff.    Defendant is warned to stop interrupting, and stop acting strange by JJ.    Fine over awning removal for HOA could be almost $10k, and is still on-going.  

Protective order application by defendant was dismissed.   Defendant still lives in building, and filed for protective order in June 2020, and hearing was in August, but postponed, and in September 2020, defendant withdrew the application.   Defendant also claims plaintiff lives in the unit, but he hasn't lived in the building since the gut renovation of his condo started

$4875 to plaintiff for attorney fees, and now $5,000 to subpoena the CCTV film footage for the protective order hearing.   

 

 

I had a tough time following this case due to the sexy distraction named Aviran Kayvan.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Father Figure Accused of Evil Plot! -Plaintiff Syed Moinuddin  suing defendant (his ex's daughter) Marrisa MIller for unauthorized use of his credit cards, and loans.    Plaintiff says step daughter and mother lived with plaintiff from age 2 to 4, and had a relationship/friendship for years, daughter is now 21.    Defendant says mother wasn't romantic with plaintiff (not believing that).     Defendant lived with plaintiff rent free as an adult, at two periods.    Plaintiff claims the laptop he bought defendant was a loan, not a gift, and cost $1390.   Plaintiff made the hideous mistake of putting defendant as an authorized user on a credit account, to build her credit history, with a $200 limit.    However, defendant took plaintiff's bank account information, so money came right out of his bank account.   In October defendant spent $1,000 on credit card.  

Defendant says she never went over $200 a month, but then slips up, and says that the limit on the card was $2,000.    Defendant claims card was in both names, but that's a lie, and over spent the $200 limit every month.   

$1433 to plaintiff for the card charges, and JJ says laptop was a gift. 

Phantom Driver at Fault?! -Plaintiff Charles Garner suing defendant Cynthia Garner for rear ending his car.   He was driving below the speed limit, at 11 p.m.,  when a dog came out in front of him, and he hit the brakes, and defendant hit his car in the rear end.  Defendant claims she came to a full stop, when someone else rear ended her car, and caused her to hit plaintiff's car.   So nothing is her fault. 

Defendant submits the police report, which proves her testimony is pure horse s$*%.    Police report notes damage to the front of defendant's car, back of plaintiff's car, and no evidence that defendant was rear ended.  Plaintiff hired an attorney when defendant's insurance (Progressive) was taking forever investigating his claim against plaintiff, and still hadn't paid him for car damages.    Defendant says her father came to the scene, and saw the glass on the ground behind her car, and the picture is no proof at all.    Damages on plaintiff's bumper, and trunk area are bad.  Defendant's rear end damages don't look fresh, and are very minor, and it's the tire cover on the back of her car.   

Plaintiff only had liability on the car, because comprehensive didn't cover much but theft or fire.    Plaintiff hired an attorney until Progressive refused to pay damages on plaintiff's car, from defendant hitting him.   Then plaintiff hired an attorney to go after Progressive. 

(My guess is defendant lied to Progressive about the accident, and that's why they didn't pay the plaintiff).  Defendant claims her insurance company said she wasn't at fault, because she claimed she was stopped, when she got hit.    

Plaintiff receives $3600.

Second (2017)-

Heartthrob Concert Chaos!-Plaintiff Michelle Miller mother suing defendant mother Lisa Moore for concert tickets, and limo, plus for bullying, and an assault.    This was a concert trip for a nine year-old's birthday party, including the limo ride (limo was only to go to the concert, not roundtrip).    The birthday party was a concert trip to see a Jacob Sartorius  concert.   Plaintiff mother wanted to take her daughter, and defendant's daughters to the concert, plus a friend and her daughter, and hired a limo.    So plaintiff's daughter heard about the concert trip, and then defendant (daughters were friends of plaintiff's daughter, but not friends anymore), and the friend and child went too.   

Defendant said her daughters could go to the concert with plaintiff's daughter.   Plaintiff purchased the tickets, and then defendant claims she hadn't agreed to pay for the tickets yet.   However, plaintiff purchased tickets for her own daughter, and later purchased tickets for defendant's daughters , at first the plaintiff was willing to buy the tickets, and defendant was told the tickets were $162 for defendant's daughter.    The limo was booked the day after the ticket purchase by plaintiff, and plaintiff wanted defendant to pay half for the limo, but defendant claims the price for limo kept changing.     Litigants can't agree on how much the limo was, and who was paying for what part of the limo ride.    (The reason the third each is plaintiff, defendant, and plaintiff's irritating witness were using the limo).    The day of the concert is when the limo arrived, and when defendant found out about the limo.      Plaintiff is awful (and so it that stupid looking wig she's wearing).   (Also, the third mother, Tracy is staring at JJ with her mouth hanging open, not a good look).

Defendant says  the day before the concert was when she found out about the limo being hired, and the strange 'contract' for the limo is submitted.    After the concert was when the defendant was told about the limo cost.    Limo cost $434, split three ways.    Then defendant posted pictures of her own children at the concert, and then the limo price demanded by the plaintiff was $394.   Then the bullying charge was added by the plaintiff to her case.  (Limo ride was only to the concert, not back home). 

Plaintiff claims text message from defendant the night of the concert started the feud.   Plaintiff daughter was invited backstage, when plaintiff 'just happened' to meet the star's manager, and plaintiff's daughter went to meet the star.   

After the concert the daughters started arguing.    Plaintiff added bullying to the law suit, after the original filing.   Plaintiff claims her daughter received mean texts, and other bullying incidents.    (In hall-terview plaintiff calls defendant a lousy mother, and says she hopes defendant moves away)

Plaintiff receives $306 for the limo ride, and tickets.       

Edited January 20, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

23 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

I had a tough time following this case d😏viran Kayvan.

Yeah, he was kinda hot, wasn't he?!?☺️

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2019)-

Equestrian Bucks Responsibility-Plaintiff novice horse owner Patricia Tougas sues trainer/saddle fitter Christine Murray over refurbishment of a saddle that didn't work out, and second saddle.       Defendant re-flocked the used saddle, plaintiff didn't want it, and then wanted a new saddle from the trainer.   The new saddle was $1600, and defendant fitted the saddle to the horse on site at the barn for $75, and witness and plaintiff rode the horse in the saddle.    Plaintiff claims her witness heard all of this at the fitting.  Plaintiff claims she was clearly dissatisfied, and defendant should have known this.   Defendant offered plaintiff the option of trials with demo or used saddles, but a new saddle can't be returned, and sold as new, so sold at a discount.  Plaintiff says she wants a full refund, tax, and fitting fee, and no re-stocking fee.  

Plaintiff wanted her regular trainer to evaluate the saddle, and then wanted to return second saddle.   Defendant said that she would refund the saddle minus restocking fee, and no marks on saddle.    Money $1360) was refunded on saddle minus restocking fee (15% restocking fee), and plaintiff cashed the check, so case is done.   Plaintiff says she can't tell that the saddle was new, so she really is a novice rider. 

This is where JJ utters the classic statement, "Your behind, your saddle".  As JJ says, since all of this happened at plaintiff's barn, she should have had her trainer come to the barn to look at the saddle fit. (My guess is trainer would charge to go evaluate the saddle, and plaintiff wanted to wait until her usual lesson to have trainer see the saddle fit.   I absolutely believe the defendant's theory, that plaintiff bought the used ebay saddle, which was cheaper, and that's when she wanted to return the new one, which could no longer be sold as new.   If I return something to Best Buy or my local furniture company, I can either get a store credit for the purchase amount applied to buying more furniture, or I lose the restocking fee, which is at least 10%).

Plaintiff also lied in her complaint to the Better Business Bureau, and trashed trainer online.  I saw the BBB complaint, and it doesn't even match what she said in court, and is still up on the BBB site (it still is as of today's rerun),.    ( JJ should have given defendant money for the BBB complaint that is full of lies.   Saddle fitters work on reputation, and word of mouth, so this will impact defendant's business).  

Cases dismissed.    (Once you collect sales tax on a sale, you have to submit it, and you're not getting that back from the state if you do a refund.)

Second (2018)-

Childhood Friend Feud! -Plaintiff Wynette Freeman suing defendant Zahraw Al-Amin for repossessing the car defendant sold to plaintiff by taking over the payments.     Defendant 'sold' car to plaintiff for paying car payments, and insurance on car.   However, defendant was two months behind on payments, when she transferred the car to plaintiff, which amounted to owing $1200.   Plaintiff took the Greyhound bus to defendant's house, took the car.  Registration on car was long expired too.    Defendant claims the car was current on registration, and insurance, and defendant repossessed the car, after 3 1/2 weeks, and car is now parked at defendant's father's place in Georgia (I hope the car company watched this and repo'd the car).       Plaintiff paid car up until May, and the back payments, then defendant repo'd the car.      So the payments by plaintiff totaled $2300, but defendant claims plaintiff had payments cancelled by bank.    However, JJ has a statement that plaintiff cancelled the $2300 worth of payments.   

Plaintiff says she's nervous, and JJ says "I only consume litigants on Thursdays, and this is only Wednesday".  

Plaintiff did cancel the payments, so she lied to the court.

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

Gun Pawning Dilemma! -Plaintiff Jeffrey Augustadt,  and fiance Destiney Thurston suing defendant/mother Elizabeth Thurston, and are suing for illegal eviction, stolen tax refund, and stolen guns.  Plaintiffs were living with defendant. for about three years, mother and daughter argued, and plaintiffs left because defendant told them to get out.     Defendant wants a rifle and shotgun back that he says plaintiff kept.    Plaintiff man says defendant swiped his tax refund too.    One gun was purchased for them by a neighbor, and they paid for it, because defendant is a convicted felon (my guess), and can't legally own a gun.   

Illegal eviction dismissed.    Plaintiff man wants his personal belongings, and the two guns back.   JJ asks where the two guns are, and defendant says she pawned them, and then the guns were put into evidence by the police, but case was dropped.  Defendant isn't allowed to have firearms (guessing convicted felon?).   

Tax money coming up, plaintiffs work, but defendant never has.    Plaintiff man was paying $300 a month to the household, for room rent, and utilities.    Plaintiff claimed defendant's two children on his tax return, and received $1700 refund, because defendant doesn't work, so can't file for her own two children.     The scam was that in return for plaintiff filing for defendant's two kids, he would give her $1,000.   A total scam, and the IRS caught on, and audited, and took the money back.    (I'm wondering how many other people have claimed the defendant's kids to qualify as head of household, and get a bigger refund?    I felt so sorry for the daughter, she just wanted a mother, and never will have one). 

Case dismissed. 

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

5 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant

She looked like a nasty bitch who forgot to wash her hair.  I do feel for the daughter being bounced around. 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, One Tough Cookie said:

looked like a nasty bitch who forgot to wash her hair. 

 

A lot of litigants on court shows make wonder if the hotels the shows Put them in do not provide complimentary shampoo.

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by DoctorK

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ should have given defendant money for the BBB complaint that is full of lies.   Saddle fitters work on reputation, and word of mouth, so this will impact defendant's business

I agree, but JJ's usual logic applied: if you do business or advertise on the Web, then you are fair game for negative comments, no matter how egregious. That seems to include nasty lying complaints to the BBB. Plus, there is her usual prejudice against small-time entrepreneurs who try to make any kind of profit.

[nora1992]

10 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I agree, but JJ's usual logic applied: if you do business or advertise on the Web, then you are fair game for negative comments, no matter how egregious. That seems to include nasty lying complaints to the BBB. Plus, there is her usual prejudice against small-time entrepreneurs who try to make any kind of profit.

But the plaintiff had a point when the defendant collected and kept the sales tax despite reversing the sale.