All Episodes Talk: All Rise

DoctorK · January 21, 2021

Okay, today we had a video game creator who bought a house (for the first time) who believed that the seller concealed a plumbing problem. Having had a few problems on my first (and only) home purchase, I was expecting to feel a lot of sympathy for him. Then he opened his mouth and came across as a complete fool who repeatedly talked over the judge and clearly wasn't listening to her. I was surprised that JJ spent as much time as she did trying to explain to him why he was wrong. I am still scratching my head over his statement that the plumbing backed up when his washing machine put 212 gallons of water down the drain. Really, exactly 212 gallons? My full sized washing machine with the high water level set uses about 15 gallons for wash cycle, same for rinse cycle, so I am flabbergasted at the 212 gallon figure. I sort of wish JJ had listened to the plumber who may have been able to explain what actually happened. The plaintiff was such an annoying and indignant dweeb that I really couldn't feel very sorry for him.

Edited January 21, 2021 by DoctorK

CrazyInAlabama · January 21, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2108)-

Rent Control and the American Dream!-Plaintiff Kenneth Scalir suing defendant Eric Polvika/former room renter for room rent. Plaintiff was living in a rent control, SRO in California, and rented the room to defendant, which was illegal. Apartment was one bedroom, 940 sq ft, for $1040 a month, and tenants had the bedroom. . Plaintiff claims the management allowed him to have a roommate, and paid 10% extra for that (he didn't actually pay 10% more rent). When management found out about defendant/tenant, management brought eviction proceedings against plaintiff. Plaintiff was going to be legally evicted, for having an unlicensed tenant. Plaintiff said defendant was his seventh tenant since he had lived there (he lived there for 20 years).

Plaintiff says when management found out about the tenant, they filed to evict the plaintiff, and claims he stopped paying rent. Defendant is counter claiming for property the plaintiff withheld. Plaintiff withheld rent, and after the eviction process was over, the judge said no more roommates, and he had to pay the back rent anyway. The order from housing court says that plaintiff could stay, but would have to pay 10% extra for any tenant, and plaintiff paid the rent he withheld. Defendant was locked out by plaintiff

Plaintiff still lives in the apartment, but has no tenants.

Plaintiff case dismissed because it's ridiculous.

Defendant wants his property back, and now lives in a halfway house, and has an order to pick up items in the next five days, with a police escort,

Outrageous Drinking and Driving Excuse!-Plaintiff Sabrina Campbell suing defendant/ex boyfriend Curtis Davis for unpaid bail. Defendant was arrested for going 127 mph, and was legally drunk, and arrested for DUI. Because plaintiff paid the bail for defendant, and defendant never paid for his bail, now plaintiff's wages are being garnished. Defendant says it's the plaintiff's fault, because she asked him to pick her up, so it's not his fault. Defendant was in jail for 14 months.

$4746 to plaintiff for the bail.

Second (2017)-

Vacation Disaster-Plaintiff Mark Cremieux is ex-boyfriend of defendant, for an unpaid loan to take a vacation, defendants are mother Peggy Herbert, and daughter Megan Crystal. Plaintiff claims he loaned defendant $5,000 for the vacation, but defendant claims it was his part of a family vacation to Disney World. Defendant says there was no talk of repayment. Litigants, and her daughter lived in plaintiff's house.

Plaintiff says defendant never worked, and her only income was food stamps. Defendant says she was working at housekeeping, and babysitting during this time. Disney World trip was defendant, her two adult daughters, a friend, and grandchildren, and plaintiff went too. Trip was $13,000, and plaintiff gave her $5,000, or loaned her $5,000. Defendant says she bought the plaintiff's air ticket, wardrobe, and other expenses from the $5,000, and spent almost $3,000 out of the money on him.

Plaintiff is not getting the money back, because he went on the trip. Defendant also not getting her counter claim paid.

New Franchise Owner Upset-Plaintiff Tamara Williams suing cousin Josiah Johnson for the cost of a plane ticket to Utah. Plaintiff purchased a franchise (tile, carpet cleaning business), and part of the requirement is franchise owner, and employees had to go to Utah (from Massachusetts) for training, and plaintiff paid for defendant's plane ticket. Plaintiff has no employees, made no money so far. (Defendant is a disabled war veteran, but only receives Social Security Disability, with a payee).

Defendant claims he wasn't supposed to pay for his own airline ticket. Defendant had a medical emergency, and cancelled the trip the day before the departure. Defendant claims he went to the hospital.

However, plaintiff claims defendant wasn't sick, and didn't go to the hospital. Plaintiff claims defendant's sister said he didn't go to the hospital. Plaintiff is told to provide proof that defendant agreed to go to the training in Utah, and pay for his own airline ticket.

Defendant counter claim dismissed. He wanted to be paid back for uniforms he bought for the business, but has no receipts, or other proof.

Plaintiff receives $850 for the airline ticket, because defendant did say in text he will talk about payment.

Edited January 21, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · January 21, 2021

5 p.m. both 2021-

First (2021)-

Novice Homebuyer’s Fatal Mistake! -Plaintiff/first time home buyer Joshua Vasile suing defendant Nathaniel Combs over issues with the house plaintiff bought. Plaintiff and his family moved in, and claims the plumbing was faulty, and defendant should pay plaintiff for the problems. Plaintiff alleges intentional fraud.

Plaintiff had an inspection, but claims inspector didn't look at the plumbing. House is in Tehachapi, California. They bought house for $15,000 off the list price, Defendant bought house in November 2017, and previous owner only had the house for a few months before selling it. So I suspect he bought from flippers, which doesn't worry me, some flippers do a good job. Defendant, wife and two small kids lived in the house for three years. House was purchased for $15,000 below list, so plaintiff should just stop whining.

Originally defendant wanted three days past closing to move out, However, JJ establishes the family of defendant lived in the house for almost three years, and lived in the house until a few days before closing, and husband stayed behind to clean the house before closing.

This case went to mediation first, before court. Plaintiff says mediation didn't work, and no settlement was reached. Plaintiff claims defendant and family couldn't have been living in the house, so that's why JJ wanted to know about the dates that defendant lived in the house.

PITA plaintiff brought his plumber to court to testify. Plaintiff says the washer caused the sewer to overflow. Plaintiff claims washer overflowed three days after move in, and sewer line had to handle 212 gallons of water from the washer (Huh?). If there was an inspection problem (plaintiff didn't want to pay extra for a sewer/plumbing inspection). However, depending on the state (this happened in California) the home inspector may not have any liability after closing, and some have inspection insurance. Since plaintiff didn't pay for a sewer (suspecting a camera down the drains) inspection, the inspector won't be held liable. (That's my opinion, as a graduate of hundreds of TV judge shows, and watching L.A. Law, Law & Order for years, and also Boston Legal).

My prediction is plaintiff will go down in JJ history as a real PITA. Plaintiff just asked JJ how many houses she's bought (he should have asked penthouses, and mansions).

I'm wondering what the new residents did to the drains, and the washer? It cost the plaintiffs $6500 to fix the plumbing.

Plaintiff case dismissed. (Producers will give a copy of the case to plaintiff, so he can watch it over and over, until he understands, but he never will understand) (Defendant says the washer drain was acceptable on the inspection report, and that the real issue according to the plumber was a clogged toilet).

The homebuyer case was hysterical. The hall-terview with the defendant saying the washer had nothing to do with the drain/sewer issue was so funny, that it was a stopped up toilet instead that caused the flood. The defendant's household was himself, his wife, and two little kids. Plaintiff's household was himself, his wife, and apparently other family members, so I'm suspecting someone either flushed something they shouldn't or someone uses a ton of toilet paper too. Some people also treat a toilet and garbage disposal as the same items, and that can cause a lot of problems with plumbing.

I wonder if the plaintiff only had a short inspection, that was cheap, and didn't want to pay to have sewer, and drains inspected? Since the house sold for $15k less than list price, it wasn't the situation of the highly competitive L.A. market, where in multiple bid situations home go for many thousands above asking, and buyers waive all inspections. The homebuyer was too cheap to get a full inspection, and what happened after that was his fault. My guess is that he previously lived in apartments, and when something went wrong you called management to fix things. I'm betting the plaintiff, wife and family members who moved into the house were nightmare tenants for previous landlords.

I knew someone who worked his way through college managing a lot of rental houses for a big landlord, and he said you wouldn't believe what people flush, or dump down a garbage disposal, and clog plumbing up repeatedly.

Second (2021)-

Things Husbands Should Never Do! -Plaintiff Paul and Carol Misso are suing defendant/painting contractor John Sterling over a bar for their house that was never finished. Husband and wife couldn't decide on the paint colors for their bar, and painting contractor was caught in the middle. Plaintiffs just bought the home, and wanted to do some renovations. Plaintiffs had a picture of what they wanted, and defendant did a sketch for the bar. Entertainment center is huge, with a central portion, and two huge end units, and defendant was supposed to match the bar to the entertainment center.

$2400 down for materials, and $2900 for a few other materials and labor. Plaintiff husband picked the materials, and paint color, and then wife didn't like what defendant did. JJ sees the sketch of what the dry bar was supposed to look like, and the cabinets, and wine fridges that are still boxed up.

Major objection to work done by defendant is color. Plaintiff husband said white was what he wanted, by his wife was unhappy. Defendant was talking to husband, asked him about a sample board color, and no mention was made to match it to the other cabinet, so husband said white was fine. The color match issue is husband's fault, because he's the one that told the painter that the color was fine.

Plaintiffs have two choices, either defendant will complete the dry bar, and the plaintiffs will pay the rest of the $7900 (they paid $5,000 already) that they haven't paid him. Any additional paint change will be extra.

Or the plaintiffs won't get they money back, and will have to pay someone else. In the hall-terview the plaintiff wife says they'll go with someone else to finish the dry bar. I think it's ridiculous that the defendant has to get permission from wife for anything, when it's a joint project. If the wife was the only one with an opinion on the project, that should have been in the contract, and noted that she was the only person to consult. The part the wife is whining about is if they change the color from what the husband agreed to, they will have to pay a few hundred extra. So instead, they'll go to someone who will charge a bundle to finish the projects, and repaint the cabinets.

Edited January 22, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · January 22, 2021

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Novice Homebuyer’s Fatal Mistake!

It was rather excruciating to follow plaintiff's explanations as it quickly became clear that he and his wife were real estate babies, ill-prepared, ill-equipped and ill-informed as to what buying a house entails.

He was unable to understand that as a home buyer, he had the obligation to make the necessary verifications before the sale, including paying for a truly thorough inspection.

He mentioned at one point that the was expecting "help" from the seller. I get the feeling that for all his life he has indeed been helped by other people: parents, friends, relatives, acquaintances, and that he has not learned to function on his own, as a true adult, and has been molded into a sort of constantly puzzled wide-eyed man-child. Being responsible seemed a completely alien concept to him.

As defendant said in his hallterview, "welcome to being a homeoner!".

On 1/21/2021 at 6:41 AM, nora1992 said:

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

That point was rather obscured by the mound of obfuscations on the part of the plaintiff. In some jurisdictions a seller has to remit sales tax pretty quickly to the relevant government authorities, and then getting it back may take some time. I forget if such issues were even touched upon.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Florinaldo

KittyQ · January 22, 2021

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

It was rather excruciating to follow plaintiff's explanations as it quickly became clear that he and his wife were real eastate babies, ill-prepared, ill-equipped and ill-informed as to what buying a house entails.

He was unable to understand that as a home buyer, he had the obligation to make the necessary verifications before the sale, including paying for a truly thorough inspection.

He mentioned at one point that the was expecting "help" from the seller. I get the feeling that for all his life he has indeed been helped by other people: parents, friends, relatives, acquaintances, and that he has not learned to function on his own, as a true adult, and has been molded into a sort of constantly puzzled wide-eyed man-child. Being responsible seemed a completely alien concept to him.

As defendant said in his hallterview, "welcome to being a homeoner!".

I haven't bought / sold nearly as many houses as JJ, but my experience is that there is usually something unexpected that pops up. If you are lucky, you learn about it before closing and the seller is willing to work with you to make corrections. As a seller, I've also been disappointed by buyers who were informed of issues that existed and still finagled the purchase price down. But enough about me - what I thought the plaintiff didn't appreciate is that he bought the house at 15K less than the listed price and the cost of the plumbing repairs were less than that, so he can rationalize that he came out ahead, all things considered.

Carolina Girl · January 22, 2021

Oh my God - that wussy little pudding that bought a house made me wish TV was interactive and I could smack that little asshole in the face. I loved that "how many houses have YOU bought" snotting at Judge Judy. I'm imagining a hell of a lot, dipshit, and I'll bet she had an inspection each time. Pissed off about plumbing but then admits he didn't want to pay for the extended inspection because it costs more - oh hell, dummy, where the hell was your damn REALTOR during all this? Who the hell doesn't have the damn PLUMBING inspected along with the roof and the electrical wiring? These are the three of the biggest cost items for a home.

Tell, me, Tapioca, did the owner specifically steer you away from an enhanced inspection? Did he say you didn't need one? No. And as Judge Milian is SO fond of saying "the cheap comes out expensive". YOU are the one who didn't want to pay the extra, say, $500 for a perfunctory video inspection and as a result, you now face a steep plumbing bill. Too bad. You are so set on blaming someone else for your own stupid failure to perform due diligence that you can't even see that you and you alone were the architect of this situation.

And really? 217 gallons of water? Even when I didn't have a high efficiency washer, 217 gallons were not involved. I think the "plumber" expert witness was a guy looking for a nice chunk of change and the dude didn't have the money for repair without the judgment.

KittyQ · January 22, 2021

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Major objection to work done by defendant is color. Plaintiff husband said white was what he wanted, by his wife was unhappy. Defendant was talking to husband, asked him about a sample board color, and no mention was made to match it to the other cabinet, so husband said white was fine. The color match issue is husband's fault, because he's the one that told the painter that the color was fine.

So, the husband made a bad decision about color and the contractor gets sued? That seems extreme. Isn't the simplest thing to do just tell the guy to change the color? I think this is just paint, not stone or some other really expensive material, so how much could a change of color cost?

bad things are bad · January 22, 2021

I was impressed that the home buyer kid was so young and able to afford that much, I guess video game development pays much better than what I do!

CrazyInAlabama · January 22, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Yappie Yorkie Takes a Hit?!-Plaintiff/Yorkie owner Debra Stokes is suing defendant/ German Shepherd (GSD) owner Nicole Christener for vet and medical bills, and punitive damages. Plaintiff says defendant's dog was off leash, and attacking her, and her Yorkie. Defendant's dog grabbed plaintiff by the leg, and she fell, then realized her Yorkie was in the defendant's dog's mouth. German Shepherd mix did not have rabies or other vaccinations. Plaintiff says defendant's dog was quarantined and euthanized after the attack. Plaintiff was standing on her own yard, at the side of her own house. As usual, defendant is blaming the plaintiff and her dog for the attack.

Plaintiff was on her property, with the dog on a leash, and when defendant and dog trespassed on plaintiff's property, plaintiff picked her dog up, turned towards her porch, and the defendant's dog attacked her. GSD went after plaintiff's face, and leg, and Yorkie fell out of plaintiff's arms. Meanwhile, defendant and the two men with her did nothing. At this point the GSD was holding the Yorkie by the neck.

Plaintiff says defendant said to her that the neighbors complained about the GSD, so she had to chain him in her back yard, and would jump the fence.

JJ is adding the vet and medical bills with her Calculator of Justice. Medical bills were $103, $149, and vet bills were $103, and $157 (I think that was it). Plaintiff had to stay home for a week, but has doctor's note saying to stay home.

Defendant doesn't get it, 10 day quarantine to see if the dog has rabies, and I bet the restrictions on the GSD were too much for defendant to want to do. Also, no renter's or homeowner's insurance.

$2500 to plaintiff.

World’s Worst Music Deal?!-Plaintiff Jordan McGraw suing defendant/ singer Robert Walker for not showing up at the event he was booked to perform at, and he wants airfare repaid, and punitive damages. Teenage singer offered a headliner gig at an event in Detroit, and plaintiff paid for air fare for defendant. Plaintiff claims everyone worked for free, because the others were working for the publicity, and plaintiff would keep the profits from the ticket sales.

Defendant says he didn't go to Detroit because the air ticket was only one way, and defendant's name was no where on the flyer. Plaintiff says he would buy the return ticket with profits, and since there were no profits, I bet defendant would be stranded. After expenses plaintiff says he didn't make a profit, and actually owed money. Defendant was told he was expected to sell tickets to the event.

Plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed.

Security Deposit Dog Drama! -Plaintiff / former tenant Ashely Setzer suing defendant /former landlord Regina Lettieri for her security deposit ($750). However, defendant withheld the deposit because plaintiff had her dog going potty, and poopy on the lawn at the rental. There was no written lease, just an oral contract. Plaintiff lived on the second floor of the house, in a separate apartment.

Defendant rerented the apartment after plaintiff moved out. Defendant has had other tenants over the years. Defendant claims damages to lawn (no photos), a cabinet (bad photo).

$750 to plaintiff.

Second (2017)-

Frantic 911 Call or Frenzied Fight-Plaintiff Gina Nash suing defendant/ex-fiance Allen Mimes over a cancelled wedding, for $1100 for emotional distress. Plaintiff claims emotional distress, moving costs, storage fees, and that defendant vandalized her car, which is memorialized on video. Litigants were engaged, lived together, and when they split plaintiff moved to a smaller apartment, and wants moving expenses (not happening). Plaintiff had defendant's stuff in her apartment, then put items in storage and gave defendant the key. Storage for the month was $60, and is dismissed.

Litigants had two vehicles, and plaintiff's car was in both names, and she claims defendant ripped the mirror off of her car. This was because plaintiff claims On Star was locating her for the defendant, and when she had his name taken off of On Star, then the mirror ripping happened.

What they should have done, was each car should have been signed over to one or the other litigant. Defendant claims plaintiff damaged her own car. Video of fight is shown, plaintiff looks like the aggressor to me, it wasn't just her car, but both litigant’s car. The video does show hands reaching toward the mirror. Defendant claims plaintiff lied about the damage, and they are both ridiculous.

JJ tells defendant to sell the car. Good luck getting full price to pay the loan off on defendant's car. The next issue is the engagement ring, plaintiff claims defendant had it, and defendant claims plaintiff still has it. Counter claim dismissed on engagement ring.

Defendant wants a bed frame, and office chair, but plaintiff has the receipts. Claim dismissed. Plaintiff claims for emotional distress is gone. Moving costs, and storage fees are dismissed. Engagement ring is dismissed. Furniture and property damage dismissed.

Plaintiff says the counter claim was Fravulous, meaning frivolous.

Everything dismissed.

Debt Payoff for Dud Car-Plaintiff April Nielsen suing defendant Suyapa Ventura, and son Freddy Rojas for the return of money paid on a car, and for credit card charges. Plaintiff 'bought' the car in return for paying off the defendant's $1400 credit card bill. Defendants counter claim is for insurance for car. Plaintiff drove car uninsured, and unlicensed, for five months, and she never even tried to register it. Then when car broke down, she abandoned it. 1997 Nissan Sentra is the vehicle in question, worth $625.

Plaintiff wants defendant to pay the credit card bill charges, defendant made. Defendant has a lot of items stored at plaintiff's house in the garage, and she has five days to pick up items or she's lost them.

Car and credit card case dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · January 22, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Daughter Gambles with Dying Mother’s Money?!-Plaintiff Christine Espinoza sister suing defendant sister Sandra Espinoza over a car that was supposed to be plaintiff's car from mother, but defendant swiped it. Car was supposed to go to defendant, but then plaintiff called the bank/finance company to see what payments are remaining, and so plaintiff did the pay off on the car, and grabbed it. Defendant claims she paid the two payments (April and May) that mother skipped, and paid in June. Plaintiff got the car for $3700, and has the title. Defendant has actual possession of the car. Defendant says her mother signed car over to her over six months before the mother died.

Defendant says plaintiff also grabbed a lot of possessions of the mother, without an agreement with the other two sisters, there are also two more sisters, and two mother brothers.

Now we get to the juicy part of this sad case. Defendant is asked if the joint bank account with her mother was used for daughter to gamble at the casino. Plaintiff's sister in law is the witness. She testifies that plaintiff and witness found out that defendant had control over some credit cards only in mother's name, and was doing cash with drawls of at least $3,000 for gambling money, defendant's own bills, and psychic hot lines, etc. None of this was for the mother, just the defendant. Defendant claims she had permission to do this, but mother was in the early stages of dementia.

Defendant's witness is a friend of the late mother. Witness says in the last year of mother's life Sandra (defendant) was the full time caretaker. Witness says she never saw the plaintiff before today in court. Sadly, this case is exactly what the defense witness says mother didn't want to happen, with the family falling apart.

Defendant has been driving the car for months after the mother died, and can't prove she paid any payments on the car over the $1200.

Plaintiff has the title, but defendant has the car, and has been driving it for months. Plaintiff wants the car.

However, JJ awards $3700 to plaintiff for the money she paid for the loan, and that money will be paid when the show gets confirmation when the plaintiff signs title over to defendant. (What a sad, sordid case. I bet the sisters will never stop whining about who cheated who, and the split in the family will never heal).

Second (2018)-

Bully or Best Friend? -Plaintiff Jacquelyn Shaw (mother) and son Leo Shaw (he is 17, but has the mental capacity of a 10 year old) suing defendant Ryan Bancewicz over an iPhone, and Apple iWatch that mother says defendant stole from her son.

Someone stole Leo's iPhone, and Ryan Bancewicz got the phone back, and will only give it to Leo if he's paid $350. Ryan has no proof that he paid anyone for the iPhone. Plaintiff mother had to tell Leo that defendant isn't his friend, and never was. Leo gave the defendant a necklace of his mother's, to get the iPhone back from defendant. Then the mother asked her son about the necklace, and to get that back Leo gave the defendant his iWatch to get the necklace back.

JJ tells defendant that he is going down the wrong path, and his foster father (in court) agrees. (Someday the defendant will take advantage of the wrong person, and end up in jail).

Plaintiff receives money for the iWatch.

Gather ‘Round for Judge Judy’s Driving Class! – Plaintiff Blake Davis suing defendant Michael Kerner for an automobile accident when he was driving in the median. Plaintiff was making a left turn out of a parking lot, to go across two lanes of traffic, across the median lane, and then wanted to turn left. However, the defendant was in the median lane and hit plaintiff, when plaintiff crossed his lane without being able to see.

Happens all of the time here, with the same result, and it's the person coming out of the parking lot that is held responsible. Plaintiff thinks because his insurance company didn't hold him responsible, that he didn't cause the accident. Plaintiff claims it's not a travel lane, or a turn lane until 500 ft. further away. Defendant did get a ticket for misuse of the median for travel. (I totally hate the ones that try to get in the left turn lane a block before the left turn lane starts).

So defendant wasn't in a turn lane, and so I'm thinking it was his fault, and he was trying to beat the left turn signal.

I agree with defendant's insurance company, and it's 50/50 responsibility.

Claims dismissed for both litigants.

Edited January 23, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · January 23, 2021

8 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

he cheap comes out expensive"

Yeah, my DIL is Cuban and says that. We heard Judge Millian say that a lot.

I just wanted to smack the house plaintiff. He could not listen to JJ and his halterview and apparently showed he Just. Did. Not. Get. It. Or he did, but thought he could talk his way to winning his case.

Edited January 23, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

CrazyInAlabama · January 25, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Parties, Police and Payback? -Plaintiff Waynenita Perryman suing defendant Noah Herzenstein for traffic tickets, impound fees, return of a dog. house damages, and unpaid rent. They worked together, and roomed together in a house (she owns the house, and rents it out), Defendant says since the house was paid off, he shouldn't have to pay rent (taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities). Defendant lived in the house for nine months, and never paid his $400 a month rent. Defendant claims he paid for four months, but not the other five, so much for defendant's statement he didn't need to pay rent (He owes $2,000).

Defendant also used a car belonging to plaintiff. Defendant says the car is in fine condition, but it was impounded, and had a bunch of tickets on the car. Ticket information was sent to defendant's address, and then car was impounded for being parked in the wrong place, and plaintiff had to pay the tickets, and impound fees to get the car out of impound.

Plaintiff lived in the house, with her then husband, and their five children for four years. Plaintiff re-rented the house, after defendant moved out. Defendant claims he lived alone, but plaintiff says defendant had multiple roommates, and parties that resulted in three police visits.

Defendant says the photos of damages are the plaintiff "Peeing on JJ's leg, and telling her it's raining".

$3243 to plaintiff for the car, and house damages, and punitive damages, adding up to $5,000.

Bernese Mountain Dog Custody -Plaintiff Carol Burke (dog breeder) suing defendant Jaime "Jimmy" Cortez over her sale to defendant of a Bernese Mountain dog puppy, plaintiff wants either the return of the dog, or the value of the puppy. The defendant has a video of the dog opening his Christmas presents. Defendant confuses me, he says he's not going to breed the dog, but didn't neuter him either. The litigants were neighbors, and defendant's first Bernese died of cancer, and plaintiff transferred custody of the puppy to defendant, in return for showing the dog, and breeding him as a stud when the puppy was older. Then the stud service would be for free, in return for the puppy.

Defendant refuses to allow plaintiff to show the dog, and hasn't neutered him. (The bigger dogs it's better to wait to neuter them, for bone growth reasons, and maybe others, consult your vet for their opinion).

Defendant says the vet said to wait until full growth (4 years old), and then neuter the Bernese Mtn. dog.

Defendant breeched the contract, and is given the choice of giving the dog back, or the plaintiff gets the amount she would have earned from the puppy, $2100. Dog is now three, and defendant makes the right choice of keeping the dog. Plaintiff also wants to be reimbursed for a surgery that she helped pay for, for the puppy, (Plaintiff's co-breeder also helped pay). Co-breeder and plaintiff paid $3200 for the surgery.

$2100 to the plaintiff for the price of the puppy.

Second (2017)-

Double Salary Snafu?-Plaintiff Greg Martini suing former employee, Henry Plantz, for return of wages that were double the defendant's normal wages. Defendant opened, and shut down the ice rink daily, checked the register, and prepared the bank deposits for the plaintiff's business. Defendant was an hourly employee, for $10.00 an hour. Defendant went from hourly to salary in January. This was actually a pay cut for defendant, to eliminate overtime costs to the company.

A month later the plaintiff told defendant that there would be a raise in store for him, and after a few paychecks that were a mistake, the defendant quit. The paycheck went from $951 to $1700, for four paychecks.

JJ thinks someone who was told he was getting a raise, worked seven days a week, with long hours should expect to get a smaller paycheck? JJ thinks the defendant should have told the plaintiff about how much money he received.

Plaintiff receives the overpaid amount back, $4,321 minus the money taken out of the defendant's paycheck, so plaintiff gets the $3,457.

Edited January 25, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · January 25, 2021

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2019)-

Adopted Daughter Kills Mom's Dog- Plaintiff Elizabeth Meadows is suing her biological daughter Amanda Clegg for the death of her Pug puppy. unpaid loans, moving costs, and a car loan. Plaintiff (biological mom of defendant) reconnected with her daughter she placed for adoption, and it was a terrible idea.

Daughter is dog sitting Mom's 8 week-old puppy at Mom's house, after bio. Mom's older Golden Retriever bites puppy, and it dies. (Strangely, both women have the same hairdo). Daughter moves to Utah, and then moves in with Mom. Plaintiff wants moving costs of moving daughter to Utah to live with her. Moving costs thrown out. Unpaid loans to daughter by Mom, and cost of used $1,000 car, were both before daughter had job.

Bio. Mom claims daughter was in abusive family, and her adoptive mother sought out Bio. Mom for daughter at 18, it was a closed adoption. Unpaid loans, and car loan are crossed out, no expectation of repayment, and it was for everyday items. I believe nothing the bio. Mom says about the relationship, the adoptive parents, or the lovely young lady that the defendant has grown up to be.

When daughter called that puppy had been attacked, and was dying, Bio. Mom and step dad came home, and want to be repaid for hotel room (JJ throws that out). When JJ tosses the loans, and other items out, the plaintiff glares at JJ.

Bio Mom plaintiff wants punitive damages for death of puppy. However, they had out of town trip scheduled when they got the puppy. (Actually, I wouldn't have left my older Lab with an 8 week old puppy, she was rather possessive, and didn't tolerate up start puppy attitude. Plus, a pug puppy at 8 weeks would be super tiny compared to the Golden. I doubt it took much force to cause the seizure, and bleeding in a tiny puppy like that.

Plaintiff keeps saying what defendant told to the plaintiff's husband, but husband didn't come to court to testify, so that's hearsay. (What was up with the horrible panty, elastic lines on the plaintiff? Either control tops that couldn't control, or a Spanx knock off that wasn't properly fitted.

Plaintiff says older Golden Retriever was playing with the 8 week-old Pug puppy, (after 10 days of peace with the Golden, and Pug), and then bit puppy. Daughter calls Bio. Mom, says there is nothing she could do to save the Pug. Puppy was bleeding, and seizing, and it died very quickly. (Byrd to the rescue with Kleenex). Apparently, the blanket on the floor was the same one the older dog used quite a few times. I agree with JJ, this was plaintiff's dog, that bit a puppy she also owned, and didn't say to keep them separated. Accidents happen, and dogs will be dogs.

Plaintiff dog case thrown out.

Case dismissed. (In hall-terview both litigants are not having further contact, and I agree with defendant that plaintiff was looking for a reason to dump her).

My view is that the best thing that ever happened to the defendant is that the plaintiff gave her up for adoption. I hope that the defendant has found a better life, and never associates with the biological relative who sued her. I wonder if the Plaintiff's husband realized before this what a jerk he is married to? Since the husband didn't show in court, I'm guessing he has a clue now. I'm wondering if bio. birth vessel didn't want to have a 20 year old around, because people will judge her for getting pregnant at 15 or 16, and it makes her look older, and older is something she's desperately trying to prevent.

Second (2020)-

Brutal Vandalism for Parking Mistake! - Plaintiff Jessica Camacho suing neighbor Jennifer Rumps-Miller, for damages to her car after plaintiff accidentally parked in defendant's spot. Plaintiff's assigned parking space is #60, and defendant's is #64. Plaintiff came home one night, and parked in defendant's parking space, and she had lived in the complex for six months. Defendant is alleged to have poured detergent on the car, keyed the car, ripped off all three windshield wipers, defendant claims she only poured mild detergent on plaintiff's windshield, to express her displeasure, and left a note about parking in the wrong space. (How do you accidentally part in spot 64 when you're assigned 60, after living there, and parking in that garage for six months? Plaintiff is a jerk, but defendant is a much bigger jerk).

The next day about noon, plaintiff came to look for her car, realized she parked in the wrong spot. Claims there was laundry detergent all over the windshield, and windshield wipers broken off. Pictures show liquid detergent on the windshield, and on the car sides, and down the doors.

Two women met in the complex office. Plaintiff paid $250 to fix the windshield wipers (two front, one back). Plaintiff wants all vents flushed, because of the detergent. Plaintiff claims car was dented, and car keyed, but it's not in the police report.

Plaintiff sued for $4,000. The after picture after detergent washed off shows corroded black trim, and blue stained car paint and decals. (I'm not liking either litigant. Defendant's apologies are pathetic, are total lies. Now defendant says she broke one windshield wiper blade, and arm).

I think driving to the show today was not good for the defendant, because staff will go out and photograph plaintiff's car damage. Why is defendant still whining? We all know the show pays the award. Staffer photo shows some trim corrosion, and car finish is now matte, not shiny. (Sorry JJ, I think defendant did exactly what she intended to do) (Also, defendant needs to get her hair color fixed).

Plaintiff receives $3500 (In my opinion, plaintiff should have received $5,000 for putting up with the lying defendant).

Edited January 26, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

nora1992 · January 25, 2021

Sad rerun today with the biological mother of the century and the newfound daughter. It seems like birth mommy dearest wanted to be a force for positive change without having to do any heavy lifting. If this is the alternative to abuse experienced in the adopted family, my heart goes out to that young lady. I hope she finds happiness.

basiltherat · January 25, 2021

That "mother" was the most despicable creature ever on JJ -- the more so because of the juxtaposition of her "beauty" and the load of mean, inhuman crap that came out of her mouth! I couldn't watch it all the way through again.

NYGirl · January 26, 2021

As soon as I saw the litigants I tripped on myself trying to grab the remote and change the channel. I hated that plaintiff and I felt so sorry for the daughter. She did nothing to her...why did she hate her so much?? Narcissist???

Edited January 26, 2021 by NYGirl

parrotfeathers · January 26, 2021

3 hours ago, basiltherat said:

That "mother" was the most despicable creature ever on JJ -- the more so because of the juxtaposition of her "beauty" and the load of mean, inhuman crap that came out of her mouth! I couldn't watch it all the way through again.

Oh I remember that case well. That poor girl. Hope she got her life straightened out. That woman is beyond despicable. if she were my daughter I'd disown her.

poise2 · January 26, 2021

The birth mother was the roughest looking 36 year old of all time, too.

ItsHelloPattiagain · January 26, 2021

OH my stars, one of the most unlikeable young women was on today - the girl who was SUPPOSEDLY pregnant with the platinum fright wig who led on the young man who slept with her (he wasn't a prize either, but just clueless and not manipulative like SHE was). Her mother was a blind piece of work herself. I'm a grandmother but even I know that there are pics of ultrasound on Pinterest that can be used to "fake" a pregnancy. And Blondie even sent them pics of her friend's baby in the hospital. Ugh, Ugh.

Meanwhile, the chick who wanted to charge the defendants $7000 for five stitches in her arm (done by her plastic surgeon Daddy) when bitten by an old dog was my second JJ selection today. I know why she sent to Cedars-Sinai - so she didn't have to wait at Kaiser and her father wouldn't know she was off partying and getting bitten by old dogs. And $3000 at Cedars and they didn't even stitch up her arm? Puleeeze.

CrazyInAlabama · January 26, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Man Endures Eight Rabies Shots After Attack! -Plaintiff Kerwin Layton suing neighbor Michael Young for medical bills, pain and suffering, and destroying evidence after defendant’s two Pit Bulls attacked him while plaintiff was walking around the block he lives on. There were five shots on one day, and three more to follow, and this was required because the dogs were not vaccinated. Plaintiff was walking on the public sidewalk, and the two dogs came out from some bushes, and bit him. The bite occurred in front of the defendant's property.

As usual, defendant has the same dogs, and keeps saying they're great dogs. Defendant submits pictures of his dogs, and plaintiff says the pictures aren't the same as the dogs that bit him. The picture difference, and animal control report are the basis for plaintiff's claim about tampering with evidence. Defendant was cited by animal control for dogs at large. Defendant keeps claiming his dogs were never out of the yard.

Plaintiff receives $5,000, and JJ would have awarded him more if she could.

Grief and Grit -Plaintiff Eric Jones / landlord is suing defendant Sarah McMahon over non-payment of rent, and cleaning, and trash removal fees, and damages. Plaintiff purchased a house and lived in the house for six years with his family. When plaintiff moved out, he rented the three bedroom house to defendant, who lived there for 3 1/2 years, until she was evicted for non-payment of rent. Defendant lived in the house with her husband, two children, and her father. Defendant fell behind on rent, and some time during that period her father died, but that doesn't excuse the disgusting mess defendant's family left behind in the house.

After father died, defendant's source of income was from being father's VA caretaker, so she stopped paying rent, and eviction started later.

$4952 for plaintiff for damages, and rent.

Second (2017)-

Take Your Anger Management Classes...or Else!-Plaintiff Crystal Benavidez bailed defendant /ex-boyfriend Richard Grieve for bail repayment, and her windshield. After his arrest for $2815, after his arrest for disorderly conduct (plea bargained down to that). Plaintiff felt sorry for him after his arrest after their fight. Since defendant never took the anger management class, and so plaintiff's bail money is forfeited. Defendant was seen banging on the car hood, and broke the windshield, and this is in the police report.

Plaintiff claims the defendant broke her windshield. Defendant admitted in police report that he grabbed the plaintiff by the shoulder and pulled her hair. Defendant didn't realize that not taking anger management (now said on national TV, in front of 10 million of us), that the judge can issue a bench warrant, and have him arrested. ( I need anger management, I want to take a big pair of pliers and rip that nose ring right out of his nose).

Another witness that was driving by, that neither litigant knows, says he saw the defendant yelling at the driver in the car, pulled her hair, and punched the victim several times in the car, with his fists three to four times. Defendant still says it's all a lie.

Bail is $2815, so plaintiff gets that.

Don't Let Friends Drive Your Car-Plaintiff LaTrae Sarden bought a car, lost his license (either before or after he bought the car, he's very unspecific), and his mother wanted the car gone, so he stored it on defendant's mother's property. Car was never titled by defendant. Defendant Jonathan Williams agreed to have car parked on his mother's property for a while, but defendant was driving the car, had an accident, and paid plaintiff $1300 for the car.

Defendant's mother got sick of car being there, after five or six months, so defendant sold the car for $300 to someone for parts, so he didn't need a title.

Plaintiff gets $300 for the parts.

Edited January 26, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

NYGirl · January 26, 2021

2 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

OH my stars, one of the most unlikeable young women was on today - the girl who was SUPPOSEDLY pregnant with the platinum fright wig who led on the young man who slept with her (he wasn't a prize either, but just clueless and not manipulative like SHE was). Her mother was a blind piece of work herself. I'm a grandmother but even I know that there are pics of ultrasound on Pinterest that can be used to "fake" a pregnancy. And Blondie even sent them pics of her friend's baby in the hospital. Ugh, Ugh.

Meanwhile, the chick who wanted to charge the defendants $7000 for five stitches in her arm (done by her plastic surgeon Daddy) when bitten by an old dog was my second JJ selection today. I know why she sent to Cedars-Sinai - so she didn't have to wait at Kaiser and her father wouldn't know she was off partying and getting bitten by old dogs. And $3000 at Cedars and they didn't even stitch up her arm? Puleeeze.

Today was "Liar Liar Pants on Fire Day". I remembered both cases and hated the "pregnant" defendant and the girl who had her father stick her up but didn't want to say so. I would have given her nothing at all.

Niconeb · January 26, 2021

Judge judy episode where 2 elderly ladies are in court and one says she takes all her vaseline and the other one says "my crotch is cracking"

nora1992 · January 26, 2021

Is this the week of despicable litigants? Just when yesterday’s birth mother set a low standard, Miss Byes comes along.

augmentedfourth · January 26, 2021

At long last, I am FINALLY caught up with my DVR! Phew! In no particular order:

The case about the dry bar being the wrong color was the exact kind of stupid fluff I needed today. Just like JJ, I could perfectly envision the husband telling the contractor "yeah, white is fine, go with that" and the wife later being all "WHAT?!" Too bad the wife didn't realize that that's not the contractor's fault. Also, this exchange had me cracking up:

JJ: How did you find the contractor?

Plaintiff Husband: Very pleasant.

She laughed, too, and then clarified what she meant, by a referral, etc.

I agree that the whiny sack of pudding (perfect description!) who just bought his first house has never, ever been told that something is his fault in his entire life. When my husband and I first bought our house and then had kids, I always said if I could ban one phrase for the rest of my life, it would be "How was I supposed to know?" No one gave me the adulting/parenting handbook and I intentionally kept it from him out of spite. Sometimes you just have to figure shit out on your own and hope that none of the lessons are too expensive. I agree with the defendant's closing hallterview line: welcome to being a homeowner. There's always SOMETHING going on that needs to be dealt with, and you can't just shove it off on other people.

Agreed that the plaintiff in the penthouse awning/harassment case was very nice to look at and that there was something more than a little off about the defendant. I don't know if I'd believe that the plaintiff never did anything to push his buttons a little bit, but I don't think I'd want to live next to the defendant, either.

This is going back a bit, but I was highly entertained by the woman with the little yappy dogs who tripped over her own leash and got injured and the defendants' dog was just flopping around on the rug the whole time. As soon as JJ dismissed the case, the plaintiff started yelling, her dogs started up with the yapyapyapyapyapyapping, and the defendants' dog...*flop*.

CrazyInAlabama · January 27, 2021

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2019)-

Teen Fakes Full-Term Pregnancy- -Plaintiffs Abraham and Christina Revello (mother, father, and idiot son Alejandro Gonzales), suing son's ex, Tayia Byes (now Oswalt), over fraud, DNA costs, etc. over her fake pregnancy. Defendant proudly announces when they had sexual relations. Plaintiff parents paid for attorney fees, DNA tests, etc. Defendant is wearing a wig that is so cheap, and tacky, it matches the defendant's personality. Defendant mother believes her demon spawn daughter, gave her a shower, but never went to any doctors visits, or went to the hospital.

Defendant took a pregnancy test, and claims it was positive, in March. Def. also claims positive in April at hospital. Defendant claims she had a miscarriage in October (at 8 months? That’s not a miscarriage, but a stillbirth, and would have involved a lot of medical bills). Defendant Tamina Smith. mother claims daughter was really pregnant.

I want to see the medical records on this, because I believe nothing defendant daughter says. Plaintiff father says he and his wife offered to go to doctor's office, and go with defendant's parents, but defendant claims her parents are both deceased (so who is the mother of defendant standing next to defendant?). Plaintiff parents have texts backing up what they said, claim she sent ultrasounds, and other information regularly. (On Pinterest, and other internet sites, there are pregnancy test pictures, ultrasounds, and baby pictures, so nothing defendant sent plaintiffs was real).

Defendant daughter claimed she was going to permanently move to the Dominican Republic, where they have no extradition, and she would sue for every penny she could get. She also said she would never come back to the U.S. Defendant mother denies her daughter is a liar.

Plaintiff claims defendant told them she had the baby, and sent a picture of a baby to plaintiff parents, and other birth information. Defendant admits the baby picture is someone else's baby, but this is supposed to be after her own 'miscarriage' (is an 8 month still called a miscarriage? As far as I know, that is a still birth, and a death certificate is issued, and there would be a lot of bills, and medical records).

Plaintiffs get $5,000. (JJ tells plaintiff's parents to either spend a lot on investigators and attorneys, and sue in civil court. But they may never know if there was a baby or not. My guess in no baby. Also, since the money award pool on this show is $5,000, then that means all the defendant received was a free trip to L.A. In Colorado, where I lived for years, every birth/stillbirth, etc. needs a death certificate).

Second (2020)-

Judge Shares Grand Children's Misadventures! - Plaintiff Ariella Simoni suing defendants (father) Michael Sobolev, and (son) Evan Sobolev for a dog bite that occurred in a party in defendant and son's home.

Plot twist, plaintiff says it cost $7,000 for her plastic surgery for her bite, but her father is a plastic surgeon, and did the surgery. Party was when defendant's parents were out of town, Defendant son had the party, and some visitors brought booze of their own. Party goers brought their own booze, and no food, to soak up the booze. Dog was older, and has died of old age after this incident (The party and bite were almost two years ago).

JJ tells the story about stolen dinghies by drunken teenage partiers, when her grandchild had a party, this involved four or five sunken dinghies.

ER wasn't covered because it was out of network, and the surgical place was actually daddy's practice of plastic surgery. As JJ says, why didn't plaintiff go home to have her father look at the bite? (My guess is plaintiff didn't go home, because she was drunk off of her gourd). The ER visit was $3,000 that would have been covered by plaintiff's family health insurance through Kaiser, but Cedars-Sinai was out of network. Plastic surgery for the bite wouldn't be covered by insurance, because it was life altering. (I think they leave bite wounds open sometimes, for healing purposes.)

Plaintiff is asking for $7,000 for 5 stitches put in by her father.

Defendant son didn't tell parents about the bite for months after the party and bite, until the law suit paperwork arrived. Son was 17 when this happened, and plaintiff was also 17 then.

Plaintiff receives $1500 for pain and suffering only.

Freewheeling Landlord! - Plaintiff Kevin Mandour (rented a used car lot from defendant) suing defendant Mr. Grisham for return of a security deposit for a used car lot he was leasing from the defendant. Security deposit was $10k at the beginning of the lease, and at the end of the lease defendant kept $4700 from the security deposit. Defendant says during the lease the plaintiff didn't pay for trash, and water, and one month's electricity ($77).

Defendant says lease calls for trash and water payments by plaintiff. It says on lease within 10 days of bill receipt they will be sent to the plaintiff for payment. Instead of sending a notice to plaintiff, this defendant deducted the bills from the security deposit.

Plaintiff receives $4700

Edited January 27, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · January 27, 2021

22 hours ago, NYGirl said:

As soon as I saw the litigants I tripped on myself trying to grab the remote and change the channel. I hated that plaintiff and I felt so sorry for the daughter. She did nothing to her...why did she hate her so much?? Narcissist???

Apparently she made the fatal mistake of searching for her bio mother,. I think she was a one of those women who can't believe shes turning 40 and can't handle it without the some and fillers an and wants the girl out of life. Forever. hated her..

basiltherat · January 27, 2021

Mommie Dearest probably found out that it made her look older to have a "grown" daughter!

KittyQ · January 27, 2021

The fake pregnancy case - My goodness! That defendant was something else! I wonder what her original goal was - did she believe the plaintiff's family had money and figured to force a marriage in an effort to get some of that money, or was she planning a longer con, getting some support money for the non-existent child. Everything that she said was so contradictory and confusing, and yet she seemed so confident even as her lies were exposed. What did her mother think when she heard that her daughter said that her parents were dead? I'm wondering if Mom might be trying to figure out how to protect her own assets from this apparent sociopath.

Carolina Girl · January 27, 2021

14 hours ago, KittyQ said:

The fake pregnancy case - My goodness! That defendant was something else! I wonder what her original goal was - did she believe the plaintiff's family had money and figured to force a marriage in an effort to get some of that money, or was she planning a longer con, getting some support money for the non-existent child. Everything that she said was so contradictory and confusing, and yet she seemed so confident even as her lies were exposed. What did her mother think when she heard that her daughter said that her parents were dead? I'm wondering if Mom might be trying to figure out how to protect her own assets from this apparent sociopath.

I can't figure that out either. From the testimony, I gather these were just two workers who met up at her house, did the nasty, and never had a relationship. She says "St. Patrick's Day", he says sometime in February. Wonder if she was just looking for him to pay some sort of support before the birth and after and when the parents stepped in realized it wasn't going to be that easy. Why send the photo of the baby? I think she was after some sort of monetary gain. Why tell his parents that her own were dead? Doesn't make any sense.

And what was that whole thing about running to the Dominican Republic? Someone needs to inform her that we most certainly DO have an extradition treaty with DR (signed in 2016). And if you were being accused of making up a pregnancy, wouldn't you voluntarily bring the bills for the doctor visits and any proof of a hospitalization for a premature stillbirth? And why the hell didn't she bring that idiot "Alexandra" that she says went to all the doctor visits and took her to the hospital? My theory is that either Alexandra doesn't exist or she was TOTALLY unwilling to perjure herself on national television, and especially to Judge Judy.

And frankly I was glad to see her award the plaintiffs $5,000. Of course, the money won't come out of the lying little snake's pocket, but at least she's been exposed on national television as a fraud and a liar (which probably explains the wig as some sort of "disguise"). Any guy going out with her would be wise to wear not one, but TWO condoms.

basiltherat · January 27, 2021

Nah, guys need to find one of the other kind of woman on JJ's show -- the kind that give "loans" to losers they just met three seconds ago but must jump on right.now!

CrazyInAlabama · January 27, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Vocab Lessons for Vandalizing Teenagers?!- Plaintiff William Holland is suing defendant/ex-girlfriend Madison Kent for keying his truck after they broke up. Plaintiff doesn't know what 'subsequently' or 'exclusively' means. They broke up two years before the incident happened. They broke up at 17 or 18, and they're now 19. Then plaintiff heard that defendant broke up with the new boyfriend, and they texted, just as friends. Then litigants were at a friend's party, and that was when plaintiff asked defendant and her new Love Muffin, to leave. After they broke up, she came to a party with her new boyfriend, and plaintiff asked her to leave because it was making him uncomfortable, because he still had feelings for her. Then his truck got keyed. (I bet the line of suspects to key his truck, or punch him out is very long, because I don't like him just from watching this case). Defendant's boyfriend was an invited guest at the party, and plaintiff was a jerk for asking her to leave. Defendant said she wasn't leaving, so plaintiff says party host told defendant to leave.

Plaintiff claims he saw the defendant key his brand new truck. (I don't believe him. I think someone who still can't stand to see his girlfriend that broke up with him two years later, and her new boyfriend, is not rational).

$1100 to plaintiff (What was JJ thinking. The plaintiff was so happy to force the defendant to come to court. He sees anything as a date. They broke up two years ago, and he's still so upset when he sees her with another boyfriend, that he wants her to leave? He is totally lying about seeing her key his truck, and if he did he would have called the police right then, and wouldn't have waited three hours to call the defendant about it).

I Wouldn’t Sue My Son- Plaintiff/mother Karen Wyman suing son/defendant 22 year old Justin Wyman for a $2200 loan to make the down payment on a leased car. This happened two years ago, and was traded in on another car recently. Plaintiff bought the first cars for her older children. Then what plaintiff gave him was a car that her father gave her. Plaintiff also gave another brother money for a down payment on a second car too.

I wonder why only one car down payment was a loan, when the other brothers were given cars, and in one case, a down payment on a second car? Defendant says relationship soured after he moved in with the mother's ex, his father, and I think that's exactly what happened.

Plaintiff receives $2069 for the down payment.

Second (2017)-

Sardines, and Dr. Pepper Vandal-Plaintiff Samantha Hines suing ex-boyfriend Timothy Peck, Jr for a bad check she cashed on his behalf, return of tools, and bank fees for the bad check. Defendant Timothy Peck Jr. answered a craigslist ad, to have their cars wrapped in return for money. Litigants never had the cars wrapped, but plaintiff received some of the money for an auto detail shop, to have the cars wrapped. There were two checks, one to each litigant, and plaintiff deposited both checks. Defendant can't have a checking account, because while he was incarcerated, and divorcing the soon to be ex, he bounced checks, and the bank would make him pay the money back before he gets an account. $1488 was plaintiff, and $1850 for defendant, and both were deposited by plaintiff into her checking account.

Plaintiff claims she cashed the $1850 check, and claims she gave defendant the whole amount in cash. Defendant says she paid him with a pack of Marlboro Reds, and a $20 bag of weed. (This is when Byrd says JJ is the person writing a check at the grocery store that holds up the line. JJ says she uses cash for groceries).

Defendant claims the plaintiff ruined his fiancee's car (she's his witness), and plaintiff says car isn't in defendant's name, but her property. So the plaintiff admits she vandalized the car, in front of 10 million people. Defendant's new fiancee was incarcerated a few months after break up with plaintiff.

Five days after the deposits, the checks were returned by the bank as bogus. They broke up after this, a couple of weeks later. Plaintiff paid a lot of her debts off before finding out the checks were bogus. Plaintiff claims she was leery of paying the check money out, so only withdrew the money from his check. The bank account shows she did withdraw her $1488, so she's a liar.

Defendant claims plaintiff put fish oil in the car vents, etc. Defendant bought a new car for fiancee, and JJ tells defendant to have his current squeeze sue plaintiff.

Plaintiff claim dismissed over the checks.

Motorcycle T-Bone Crash-Plaintiff Alondra-Soto Castillo suing driver that hit her while she was on her motorcycle, for a totaled motorcycle, damages, and lost wages. Defendant Priscilla Valdez (car is owned by defendant's mother) received no citation for not having insurance, or the accident. What a surprise (not at all) defendant didn't have insurance on the day of the accident. Police report confirms the defendant was at fault for the accident.

Plaintiff was riding motorcycle straight, and defendant was coming from the other direction, turned left, and received no citation by the police for driving, or lack of insurance. Plaintiff bounced off of defendant's car. Defendant still says accident wasn't her fault.

Defendant failed to yield to on-coming traffic. Plaintiff only had liability on her motorcycle but missed a month of work.

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Edited January 29, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · January 27, 2021

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2019)-

Canine Sucker Punch-Plaintiff Jerome Bogart (Goldendoodle owner) suing defendant (Akita owner) Abbe Minor for vet bills ($411) for a horrific attack on his dog. Defendant's boyfriend Joseph Fonicello had Akita at car show, defendant claims her dog, a 17 month-old Akita, has never bitten.

Goldendoodle was on leash, and plaintiff asked "Is your dog friendly", and defendant boyfriend said "Not really", so plaintiff tried to avoid dog. At the outside award ceremony, Akita was passing by plaintiff, with the boyfriend, and attacked without warning, grabbing Doodle's nose, throat, and then paw. Doodle's pictures are awful. No surprise, Akita wasn't injured. Other people at the event separated the dogs, and saved the Goldendoodle. Akita's award (which I bet is what defendant was carrying in court) was for Best Pet. Defendant tries to blame everything on the plaintiff and his dog.

Defendant girlfriend claims Goldendoodle barking shows it's aggressive too, total garbage (there is a video of Goldendoodle barking a little at another dog on TV, that's not vicious). However, there was another complaint (two months later) by a neighbor, that the Akita got out, ran across the street to neighbor's property, and Akita attacked the neighbor's two dogs, and one dog was injured. Akita was quarantined, and defendant paid $500 vet bills.

Two attacks in two months? Akita needs to go to the farm with grandma (Yes, we all know that means a dirt nap). How many attacks in Connecticut are required until a dog is put down?

Akitas are guard dogs, don't back down, and this particular animal will keep on attacking any time it gets a chance. Akita owner, and her boyfriend just don't get it. I feel sorry for the animals, and people who will suffer for the defendants' ignorance, because this animal will attack again. My guess is there are probably other attacks by now, and I only hope potential landlords, and insurance agents saw this episode. (Defendants are still as deluded today, as they were during the show). Fonicello keeps interrupting, and JJ has to tell him to sit down.

Plaintiff gets $411. Byrd has to tell defendants to leave, and waves bye-bye to them. If looks could kill, then defendant's glare at JJ would have annihilated her.

Homeless Five-Child Family Payback-Plaintiff Lynn Harrington suing former co-worker, September Johnson, over a car she bought from plaintiff. Defendant paid $400, and stopped paying (total purchase price was $1500). Defendant's story is that she is the Sainted Single Mother of Five (SSMOF). She and companion, and children ended up in a homeless shelter, but didn't return car, or pay for car either. Car deal was over a year ago, and defendant drove car, and eventually junked it. JJ asked why defendant didn't give car back to plaintiff.

Hall-terview is interesting. Plaintiff found out title hadn't been changed, after she was contacted about unpaid tickets. Defendant is still claiming she did nothing wrong.

$1100 for plaintiff.

Second (2013)-

Take the Bar Fight Outside- Plaintiff Autumn Maniaci suing defendant father Gregory Gonzalez, and daughter Alex Gonzalez (a figure skater) for attacking her outside of a bar. Defendant daughter had been thrown out of the bar, and father saw the plaintiff and his daughter, and claims the plaintiff charged his daughter from 100 ft away, and so the defendant attacked the plaintiff. Plaintiff says after she left the bar that defendant daughter confronted her, and then the father attacked her. Plaintiff says she was smashed against a door, had to get stitches for a head wound.

Plaintiff submits medical records. The shoes plaintiff was wear that night are super high, and clunky, no way she was charging anyone that night. A lying witness for the defense testifies to a bunch of lies, supporting the defendant. Lying defendant witness says defendant only blocked plaintiff, and they both fell down.

Plaintiff receives $1500 for medical bills.

Edited January 28, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

DoctorK · January 28, 2021

If I followed this case correctly, all of the sons (including the defendant) got one car for free as a gift. The defendant wanted to lease a nicer car (a dubious decision) and asked Mom to help him out with the down payment. I was on Mom's side, defendant was playing the "you're not fair, you gave my brother more than me", an argument that grates on my nerves. If Mom fronted another sibling for a down payment for a leased car (after the free one from Mom) I missed it. Was the other son's lease down payment not a loan?

CrazyInAlabama · January 28, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018-

Evicted by Mom?!- Plaintiff/ son Derrick Hadley, and his long term fiance, Kelly Maguire, wife, is suing defendant/ mother Mary Bowes-Deveau, and step dad Robert Deveau for evicting them by getting a false restraining order, instead of going through eviction proceedings. Plaintiffs had lived with mother before, moved out for years, and then moved into stepfather, and mother's place. Plaintiffs lived on the third floor of defendant's house, which is a separate apartment (it sounds very nice). Plaintiffs were living in one room with his fiance, and their five year old.

Four months after moving in, plaintiff called the police after mother wanted $100 a week, but plaintiff signed agreement that they would pay $100 a week, instead of $0 or $100 a month plaintiff now claims. Plaintiff son says mother wanted him to run errands for her, and wanted her rent, and tried to take their door off of the hinges. Police said take plaintiffs to eviction court. A week later a marshal showed up with a restraining order so fiance had to move out, and the next day they came back to bounce plaintiff son out. Plaintiffs are suing for property, left behind. A week later plaintiff went back with a police escort to get their property. but claims defendants still have a lot of his property. Defendants deny the property.

Case dismissed.

My Father Defrauded Me! - Plaintiff Jameika Smith / daughter, suing father/defendant Robert Smith for ruing her credit when he used her credit to get an apartment. Plaintiff says father had a lease on an apartment in her name, and she didn't know about the lease until the collection agency started calling. Defendant says daughter knew about the apartment. Plaintiff says all of the information on the apartment lease is her father's information, and she had nothing to do with this. Defendant claims daughter was supposed to move into the apartment, and changed her mind, so he couldn't afford to live there, and gave up the lease.

Plaintiff works as a nanny, in North Carolina. Defendant/father lived in Maryland, and that's where the apartment is. Plaintiff did live, and work in Maryland for a while. This was in College Park, MD, so I'm wondering what police response plaintiff will get trying to pursue this.

JJ wants to see a signed lease. Leasing office wouldn't send a copy of the signed lease. Why would the plaintiff get an apartment in Maryland, if she was moving back to North Carolina? They is no proof of who signed the lease, so no money for the plaintiff.

Everything was signed electronically, and everything for the lease has the defendant's information on it.

Plaintiff case dismissed, due to lack of proof. However, lying, cheating defendant, says the daughter went with him to sign the lease, and pick up the keys. Case dismissed, and JJ tells woman to get proof from the leasing company. She should file police charges against this man.

Second (2017)-

Mermaid Mural and Assault at the Yogurt Shop-Plaintiff Ginger Hawver suing yogurt shop owners, defendants Michael and Deborah Jones, because they painted over her butt ugly mural, and breeched her contract (she wants $5,000). Plaintiff wants the usual, $5,000 for the blow she's been dealt. Plaintiff wants the unpaid balance for the mural (she claims it took 200 hours), harassment, and an assault. Plaintiff is a substitute teacher, and does art on the side. Plaintiff was going to get $325 for the mural, plus the supplies included. Plaintiff was paid $150 up front for supplies, so only $200 is remaining. The alleged assault was after five months of work on this masterpiece, plaintiff was fired, and claims male defendant pushed her out the door. No medical records are submitted, no police report, no physical injuries are proved. Sketches are submitted, and photos of the five month point are submitted. Only part of the 35' long mural is submitted.

Defendant claims the mermaids on the mural are by another artist. Only some of the kids on the beach scene are done by the plaintiff, but others were not her work. The sailboat, and crude dolphins (they look awful) are plaintiff's work, and it looks like a little kid did it. Defendants pay $200, because they owe that. The fact there is no written contract, and no finish date, and defendants brought in real artists to do some of the work, because they wanted to get the mural finished. The defendants hated the mural, and painted over it. Plaintiff still claims it was 200 hours of work.

Plaintiff claims the defendants only painted over the mural because she filed a lien against them. Plaintiff claims the defendant husband punched her.

Note to plaintiff, tears in the hall-terview work better if you actually have tears coming out.

Defendants submit the 911 tape on the last day plaintiff worked, to get their key to the shop back.

$200 to plaintiff, I hope defendants have a restraining order to keep plaintiff away. (My suggestion is that the defendants should have bought a wall mural for the yogurt shop. Even I could install that in an hour. They aren't expensive, and would be up in one day, not five months, and would look better than the plaintiff's work).

Stylist Wars-Plaintiff Adrian Muskelly /salon owner (My Blessings Salon) issuing former chair and station renter for booth rent, and lock changing fees. Defendant Dominique Williams, claims plaintiff breached the lease. Plaintiff is leasing the shop from someone else, and has four operators, including herself, doing hair there. There is a written lease for six months, and a cancellation period of two weeks from either party. Defendant claims the contract requires the plaintiff advertise the shop, but it doesn't. Defendant claims it was a verbal agreement, but there is a written contract, no written amendment was executed, so verbal is out.

Defendant paid two weeks rent for February, and owes five months rent to plaintiff. Defendant says she had no clients, so decided not to pay plaintiff, for months. What was stopping defendant from doing her own online advertising? Or some other way to promote her services? I don't understand why she had no clients, because usually stylists that are good get regular clients that come back over and over.

I am livid! When JJ stops trying to explain the back rent to defendant, defendant makes a smart remark about JJ being useless. Defendant is shaking her head like a bobble head doll. I loathe bobble head dolls, and the defendant.

Plaintiff is suing another former stylist too, and that person also left owing rent, and is defendant's witness.

Key fee is $25, Total to plaintiff is $2,425. So leaving court defendant is reminded by Officer Byrd to leave her papers behind, and toss her papers on the table from the gate, what a b-word.

Edited January 28, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · January 28, 2021

59 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case dismissed, and JJ tells woman to get proof from the leasing company. She should file police charges against this man.

If she files a report for fraud, the police should have more authority and resources to get the relevant information from the leasing company than she was able to obtain as a private citizen. Unless they are one of those lazy-ass PDs who always reply "this is civil matter".

Back Atcha · January 28, 2021

On 1/27/2021 at 3:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I bet the line of suspects to key his truck, or punch him out is very long, because I don't like him just from watching this case).

I'm in line and I brought Judge Judy. She decided she made a judicial error and wants to pummel him--and explain what "pummel" is AFTER she does it.

CrazyInAlabama · January 28, 2021

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2019)-

Bleaching Baby Daddy Clothes Goes Live-Plaintiff Pierre Lewis Jr. suing for ex-girlfriend (and baby mama) Princess Paynes, for bleaching all of his clothes after their nasty breakup. Defendant, Princess Paynes, was brilliant, and thought live streaming her vandalism on Facebook was a good thing, after she found out he had another girlfriend. Plaintiff was off work for three years after a work accident. Defendant's first live streaming video is her bleaching every item of his wardrobe. Current plaintiff girlfriend in giggling through this. Princess Paynes is the defendant, and she still doesn't have a clue that it's called vandalism. Plaintiff gets $4,000 for his clothes.

Defendant wants money because plaintiff is alleged to have broken her door down the day after Bleachgate Live happened. She also claims she put his bleached stuff outside. (How can Princess open her eye lids with the huge fake eyelashes she's wearing?).

Defendant claims plaintiff broke down the door, slammed her head into the wall, and hit her roommate. Princess has zero police reports, photos, medical reports, so no proof. Defendant claims someone (alleges plaintiff or his girlfriend) slashed her tires, with no witnesses or proof of that either.

$4,000 to plaintiff, nothing to defendant.

Lien on Me, Shame on You-Plaintiff Makayla Amos is suing defendant Ryan Patterson for selling her a car with a lien on it. Defendant bought car, took out title loans the car he sold plaintiff. Defendant sold car to plaintiff for $580 down, but still owed more than that to title company, but didn't tell plaintiff about the title loan lien. A while later plaintiff looks outside, and car is gone (repossessed).

JJ's theory is that defendant sold the car to the plaintiff so the title loan company couldn't locate it, and repo it. He had one title loan for $900, and paid it off, then had the second title loan for $1300, on the car he sold plaintiff, and he paid nothing on that loan.

Defendant bought car for $1300, had a lien for $1300, and plaintiff was going to pay him $2300 (minus the $580 she already paid him).

Plaintiff gets $580.

Second (2108)-

Vandal Carves His Own Initials on Car?!- Plaintiff Casey Hutchins/homeowner suing defendant James King, for a bad stucco job on his house, and vandalizing plaintiff's car. It is alleged that defendant carved his initials multiple times on the plaintiff's car. Plaintiff also claims that the stucco job was not complete, and defendant ghosted. $450 was the contract on the stucco, with half paid up front.

Plaintiff hired private detectives to find the defendant, to serve the lawsuit on him. Plaintiff will receive $225, plus $88 for materials, totaling $313 for the stucco job.

Plaintiff filed a complaint with the state contractor licensing board against James King, and James King was notified. Letter to plaintiff from the contracting board outlines the disposition on the complaint, and it was sent to the county D.A., that James King be criminally prosecuted for contracting without a license. Defendant wasn't notified about the complaint, because the contracting board had no way to reach an unlicensed contractor. The months from having defendant hired, until the complaint came through, nothing happened to the plaintiff's property, or vehicle. Defendant asks JJ why he would carve his initials into the car, and JJ says because he's a moron. Then, a couple of days after the contract board decision, the vandalism happened.

$1602 is the vandalism remediation, plus stucco fees, and plaintiff gets $2,000.

Storming the Mini Bar – Plaintiff Mercedes Ciono is suing defendant/former friend Norhan Askar for using her credit card, for smoking in a motel room, and raiding the mini bar. Defendant prepaid the room with her debit card, but when she arrived at the hotel, she didn't have the debit card and I.D. at the motel, she needed both. So, defendant asked friend to use her I.D. and credit card to secure the hotel room. Then a drunken defendant smoked in the room, and raided the mini bar. SInce plaintiff's credit card and I.D. were used, the bill was sent to her.

$498 for plaintiff.

CrazyInAlabama · January 29, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Screaming Dog Owner’s Gruesome Discovery-Plaintiffs Janie Litton (mother), and Farrah Cortez (daughter) suing neighbor/ American Bullie owner , Antione Fisher, for his dogs coming through plaintiff’s doggie door, and killing her two Chihuahuas. Plaintiff had her dog, and her daughter's dog, and came into her own house, and saw the one Chi dead in the living room, and the other dog was dead in her bedroom, and there was blood everywhere. Plaintiff looking for the other dog, opened her back door, and the American Bullies, (one full grown and one a puppy), ran towards her. Plaintiff went to defendant's house, and said his dogs couldn't fit through the doggy door (I had dogs, and doggie doors for years, my friend's Rottweiler fit through her cat flap into the garage, so size is not an issue for dogs fitting through any size doggie door).

Plaintiff says defendant's dogs chewed through the fence, into her yard. They tried an experiment, and his friend or brother brought the dog to her yard, and called the dog, and dog came into plaintiff's doggie door into her living room. The dog that came through the doggie door was the adult dog, that weighs about 60 pounds, and dog fit through the door easily.

Defendant is a backyard breeder, and shows American Bullies. Williamson County banned the defendant's two dogs, and they are at some relative or friend's house now. Defendant is counter suing for emotional distress, the value of his two dogs, and a false police report. Stupid counterclaim dismissed. Defendant stuck his father with the two dogs for a couple of days, and the dogs got out, so defendant gave a dog to his brother, and to some stranger.

Plaintiff receives money for the dogs, and for cleaning up the blood, including changing the carpet out, and cremation for the dogs, $5,000.

Motorcycle Moocher?! -Plaintiff Valerie Kidd, suing defendant Robert Dixon over a loan he never repaid. Defendant rides with a motorcycle club, and plaintiff hangs out at the clubhouse. Plaintiff doesn't ride motorcycles, just hangs out with motorcycle riders (they call them Backpacks). Plaintiff loaned money to the defendant, and never he never repaid her. Defendant is counter claiming for an assault, and slander.

Defendant was broke, and told plaintiff he needed money, and so she loaned him $1,000 in cash. Because plaintiff knocked his hat off at the club, he lost standing with his biker club.

Plaintiff receives $1,000. Defendant's claim dismissed.

Second (2017)-

Teen Assaults Woman With Mace-(I remember this one, I really hoped that Officer Byrd would mace the spoiled brat. I bet Officer Byrd and the security crew were close by for this case)-Plaintiff Cassandra Griffin was sitting in a nail shop getting a pedicure at the Pink Lotus Nail Salon, and the 13 year old teen defendant, Adriana Sterling, daughter of Bar'Jah Sterling walked into the salon, and maced the plaintiff. after saying she was going to mace her. Plaintiff wrestled the mace away, and police were called.

Plaintiff wants medical bills, and punitive damages from the assault. Defendant's mother doesn't care, never will, and JJ can stop telling the defendant's mother about teen's future. Defendant had a confrontation with plaintiff a couple of years ago, over tag football, at least according to defendant, and her mother. Defendant daughter claims plaintiff grabbed her hair, and was swinging her around over the football argument.

After the salon macing the result of criminal charges was minor teen had a three year protective order keeping her away from plaintiff. This protective order was in lieu of criminal charges, but the daughter has no consequences from mother.

Defendant mother keeps saying the daughter was protecting herself, and carries mace all of the time. Why would someone who claims to be afraid of the plaintiff, and clearly saw her before entering the salon, then go into the salon?

Plaintiff submits medical bills, but because of her health insurance, there were no medical bills that were not paid by Kaiser. The lawyer plaintiff consulted sent her to the chiropractor, that plaintiff is not getting that. (funny note, right after the chiropractor/lawyer statement by plaintiff, a couple of local personal injury attorneys advertised on my local channel).

$2500 to plaintiff. Defendant's idiot mother is still making excuses for her in the hall-terview.

When Old Cats Attack-Plaintiff Nichole McClure suing neighbor Betty DalPorto for vet bills, after defendant's cat attacked plaintiff's dog. Plaintiff was walking her dog on a leash, and defendant comes along with her own dog on leash, and with defendant's vicious cat trailing behind. Plaintiff says cat attacked her dog, without warning. Defendant claims her cat ran out from under a car, and attacked the plaintiff's dog, and claims it was self defense.

This gets even better, when plaintiff says the number defendant gave her to discuss the vet bill was totally wrong, not a number or two reversed, etc. but four last digits are wrong. Defendant says there is no leash law for cats in California, but JJ points out the cat doesn't have to be on a leash, but the owner is responsible for damages. Pictures of the poor dog are bloody, and horrible to look at.

Plaintiff receives $305.

Edited January 29, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

Silver Raven · January 29, 2021

Judge Judy lives in a world where even if you know your mother's cell phone number, you should also know her landline number.

CrazyInAlabama · January 29, 2021

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2019)-

Teen Bullied Because She Smells Like Pot-Plaintiff grandmother, Arvella Tomer is suing mother (Sainted Single Mother of Four, SSMOF) Tiffany Washington, of her 11 year old granddaughter over a false police report that grandmother was kidnapping granddaughter. The school personnel had called the grandmother, and said child smelled strongly of marijuana on three occasions, and child was being bullied.

Grandmother also gave granddaughter a phone to keep in touch, but mother took phone. Defendant has several other children also. Sadly, plaintiff's son is incarcerated. Defendant claims school never called the grandmother (plaintiff), and has zero emotions about the child, the pot smell, bullying, and anything else.

Plaintiff claims the father of two other children of defendant (9 and 7), was calling granddaughter from prison to find out what defendant was up to. Defendant has four kids, the 11 year old with one prisoner, the 7 and 9 year old with another prisoner, and a 14 year old child who has a father that isn't in jail, at least the day of the case filming, but who knows about before, or since that time.

Defendant's boyfriend claims he doesn't live with defendant, so JJ calls boyfriend's mother to find out if he actually lives with mother or defendant. Mother also says defendant boyfriend doesn't pay rent to her. Boyfriend is with SSMOF at least 60% of the time. (JJ is not amused by boyfriend's lies, about him paying mother rent, and that he's not living with defendant). Defendant is counter suing for a false CPS report, and kidnapping her daughter.

JJ tells grandmother to sue for guardianship of granddaughter, and see if she can get full custody. When grandmother went to pick up child at school, defendant called police and said grandmother was kidnapping the child. CPS was already at the defendant's house when grandmother went to drop child off. Grandmother claims she has a photo of table full of marijuana, right next to kids, and JJ says show it to the family court judge. SSMOF claims child took pot picture, with cell phone given to child by grandmother. Boyfriend of SSMOF keeps laughing, There is a video from SSMOF showing harassment by grandmother. (I hope the grandmother goes to family court, and gets the child permanently). SSMOF says she only has one marijuana plant.

Cases dismissed.

Second (2020)-

Coronavirus Charity Case!-Plaintiff William Reed, suing former roommate and landlord William Quigley, for return of rent, and constructive eviction because defendant made plaintiff's life miserable, and emotional distress. Room for plaintiff was paid for by a charitable organization, Lutheran Services and they paid six months rent in advance. Plaintiff said his home burned down. Rent was $600 a month according to plaintiff, but $800 a month according to defendant.

Defendant (William Quigley) says he received $4800 over six months, from Lutheran Services. Defendant has rented rooms in his home before, and had another tenant for a few months. In March the rent from Lutheran Services ran out, and because of Covid plaintiff claims he couldn't be evicted. Defendant is claiming for damage to property, and rent after 31 March. Plaintiff had five roommates in his previous home that burned down. Plaintiff says he always had a job, has a car he's still paying on, and is still employed. Plaintiff stayed for two full months after his lease, and the Lutheran Services money ran out. Plaintiff's mother pays his car insurance, and car payment. JJ will call mommy.

Wow! She's calling from her bench! (I guess this is the Covid phone call method now).

Plaintiff claims defendant locked him out, but defendant says he took plaintiff's key but doors weren't locked. JJ says plaintiff doesn't qualify for the Covid eviction moratorium. Plaintiff was never unemployed for 2 1/2 years before this case, always has someone paying his car note, and insurance. Damages claimed by defendant are flooring, (I'm not liking either litigant, and I'm very irritated with the defendant).

Plaintiff is now living in an Airbnb in Long Beach, and before that he was in a Hilton, since he left defendant's home. Plaintiff pays $60 a night, and pays well over twice what defendant's place cost.

Everything dismissed. The plaintiff is so deluded it's scary.

(Next week the first episode is new Monday through Friday).

KittyQ · January 30, 2021

1 hour ago, Silver Raven said:

Judge Judy lives in a world where even if you know your mother's cell phone number, you should also know her landline number.

Perhaps because I'm old-fashioned, it seems likely that the mother's landline has been in place for quite some time, so expecting a son to know that number isn't that far a stretch. It is possible that the mom has given up her landline and only uses cell phone, but then wouldn't the son know that?

One Tough Cookie · January 30, 2021

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Everything dismissed. The plaintiff is so deluded it's scary.

I smelled "conniver and conman" from the start.

Edited January 30, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

nora1992 · January 30, 2021

1 hour ago, Silver Raven said:

Judge Judy lives in a world where even if you know your mother's cell phone number, you should also know her landline number.

I don’t answer calls from unknown numbers. If important, a voicemail will be left. JJ didn’t get that memo apparently.

KittyQ · January 30, 2021

Teen Assaults Woman With Mace

It seemed clear from the description of the nail salon event that the girl was looking for payback. Defendant and plaintiff both said that she asked "Do you remember me?" before spraying the mace. That sounds like something a person would have picked up from a movie or a video game. I think this girl is going to graduate to more violent activities, if she hasn't already. The mother is in deep, deep denial, at least for now.

Florinaldo · January 30, 2021

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Teen Bullied Because She Smells Like Pot

Mother and grandmother seem like equally dubious parenting options for that child.

As for JJ, by repeatedly shouting "not a kidnapping!" she may have encouraged meddlesome grandma to up the ante and interfere even further next time. Same with her pointed advice to go to family court.

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Coronavirus Charity Case!

Another entitled freeloader who has the audacity to sue after playing the system and the defendant. Although I agree that him not knowing his mother's landline number was not as damning a piece of evidence as JJ made it out to be, his story and explanations made no real sense.

Back Atcha · January 30, 2021

22 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

Judge Judy lives in a world where even if you know your mother's cell phone number, you should also know her landline number.

Judge Judy lives in a world ... we can add SO MANY of these. Here's mine:

Judge Judy lives in a world where SHE would NEVER take her children to court over an unpaid loan.

That's because Judge Judy is a multi-millionaire. "Sheindlin is famously one of the highest-paid women in daytime television — she pulled in $47 million every year for just 52 days of filming. Forbes estimated her net worth to be $440 million in June 2019, naming her one of the richest self-made women in America. Mar 4, 2020"
Does JJ have ANY IDEA how some people struggle to live day-by-day? Loaning money is a hardship and never being repaid is WORSE! My children and I NEVER borrowed money from my mother; at time the three of us each worked two jobs. My sisters and their kids borrowed money from her often (some...never repaying her), but the saddest thing is that she got that money by borrowing on her credit cards.
Judy is one of the "little people" only in size.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Back Atcha
Italicized!

Schnickelfritz · January 30, 2021

14 hours ago, KittyQ said:

Perhaps because I'm old-fashioned, it seems likely that the mother's landline has been in place for quite some time, so expecting a son to know that number isn't that far a stretch. It is possible that the mom has given up her landline and only uses cell phone, but then wouldn't the son know that?

The son said that she had moved to KC not that long before after retiring as a nurse. He also mumbled at one point that he wasn't sure if she even had a house phone.

One Tough Cookie · January 31, 2021

On 1/29/2021 at 6:22 PM, Silver Raven said:

Judge Judy lives in a world where even if you know your mother's cell phone number, you should also know her landline number.

I'm such a dinosaur I use my landline--my cell stays in the bottom of my bag, turned off. But I rarely go out and those who want to get me know to call that first.

Edited January 31, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

Back Atcha · February 1, 2021

7 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

I'm such a dinosaur I use my landline--my cell stays in the bottom of my bag, turned off. But I rarely go out and those who want to get me know to call that first.

DITTO...tho' not really a dinosaur, just rarely need to be using the cellphone. My outgoing voicemail message on the cell lets people know that it's rarely turned on..."and if you know me, call my home number."

SRTouch · February 1, 2021

On 1/29/2021 at 9:12 PM, Florinaldo said:

Although I agree that him not knowing his mother's landline number was not as damning a piece of evidence as JJ made it out to be,

Once upon a time I knew a few phone numbers. I rarely dial a number anymore - just scroll down a contact list and hit call. 1 number I'll always remember is my parents' number. Not sure how long my parents had that number, but all through my growing up, my 20 years in the Army, and beyond. At a guess, at least 40 years (longer if you ignore the area code, which changed)

Sign In

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ItsHelloPattiagain

bad things are bad

AZChristian

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment