All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Florinaldo · March 17, 2021

13 hours ago, NYGirl said:

I see this a lot lately where she takes a disliking to one litigant and like a dog with a bone doesn't let up on them. I feel this case was very unfair to the defendant.

I believed she may have been all fired up to give her patented "four corners of the contract" spiel, and then got fustrated because the provision in question was indeed written plainly within those four corners.

On 3/15/2021 at 6:57 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Real Estate Agent Angel or Devil?!

I am still trying to figure out why the defendant offered to pay for the paint job out of his commission. It does not make financial sense because the cost of painting would have wiped out most of his fee. Unless he desperately wanted to be rid of that difficult to rent listing and of the owner, who seems to be a real pain as a customer; she does not even have multiple properties to rent so there is no real incentive to give her special treatment. I think that the onus of painting the place should have fallen on her; if she is too cheap to do it, then she loses out on a rental and her long-term losses would be far in excess of the agent's one-month commission.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Florinaldo

CrazyInAlabama · March 17, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Neuter the Puppy or Lose the Puppy! -Plaintiff / breeder Linda Moore suing defendant Rodney Larson over the cost, or return of a Pomeranian puppy. Plaintiff bought a puppy from defendant, which she still has. Plaintiff did breed a litter, and now has five, but only keeps the dogs Plaintiff sold one female to defendant, for $500, and he paid $200 down, and owed $300. So plaintiff drove to defendant's house, with the intent of repossessing the puppy. Defendant refused to give up the puppy, and then claimed he would pay the $300. However, plaintiff was appalled at the conditions, and the number of dogs at defendant's home. Defendant has eight dogs in his house, and about 30 outside (it sounds like a puppy mill). Defendant supports himself by breeding and selling all kinds of dogs, German Shepherds, and other breeds. JJ points out that plaintiff drove six hours to collect the money at defendant's house.

Defendant claims the Pomeranian won't be bred in his program, but isn't going to spay the female. JJ says she won't pay the defendant, and wife's expenses until it is confirmed that Pomeranian is spayed. Plaintiff has ads showing that he breeds and sells 28 breeds of dogs. (What's to stop defendant from taking another dog to a vet that doesn't know the Pomeranian, and claiming that's the dog in question? Getting that one spayed

JJ gives defendant six weeks to get dog neutered, and confirmation will be supplied to the show, or JJ will give plaintiff an order to get the dog back. Defendant's defamation counter claim is dismissed.

Plaintiff receives $600 for dog, and travel expenses.

Hog Hunting, Deer Shooting- Plaintiff Candice Bowers and husband John Bowers is suing defendant / landowner Louie Esparza over her denial of a hunting lease on his property. Landowner leases land for hunting, but says there are legal limits for each species, and that defendants went way over the limits. Plaintiff prepaid, and wants every penny back. However, defendant told plaintiffs their lease was cancelled after they hunted turkey, and deer for six months on the lease. Plaintiffs had leased for one year, and then the second year is when their lease was terminated. Plaintiffs claim they have no idea why their lease was terminated. It cost $2,500 for the year of hunting.

Defendant says other hunters with leases said plaintiffs 'harvested' many times the legal number on his property. The written rules are that hunters have to notify defendant before leaving property how many animals they killed. Defendant says plaintiff husband told him about the excess carnage, after defendant was called to property after plaintiffs and another hunter were arguing about frog legs. Defendant says John Bowers told him in a phone call about the fight over frog legs, During that conversation, defendant says plaintiff husband boasted about killing numerous hogs, and white tailed deer, and never told defendant about it. Plaintiffs also moved a full trailer onto the property he was leasing, and claims he didn't kill any animals the first year.

I disagree with giving anything to the plaintiffs, they treated the land like they owned it. Also, I agree that the plaintiffs lied about their hunting, how many animals they killed, and everything else they said. Why would plaintiffs put out feeders, build shooting lanes, and other work if they weren't hunting?

$1250 to plaintiffs for the six months of lease.

Second (2020)-

Homeless Ex Assaults TV?!-Plaintiff Allen Cox suing former girlfriend Stephanie Glover that he allowed to move in with him, and says defendant stole his cash, $2700 and broke his TV. Plaintiff let homeless defendant move in to help her out. During an argument plaintiff says defendant broke the TV, other property, and stole $2700 cash. Defendant and plaintiff lived together, and then when he moved, and he took defendant back to her mother's home. Two weeks later, defendant was kicked out by her mother, and she stayed with plaintiff for a while. Defendant also has a drug problem. A few days later they had an argument over defendant's drug use.

Defendant threw bottle at TV, now has no picture. But defendant slept in same room as plaintiff after the TV was broken. Next morning the defendant went to her meeting, and the transit company that escorts her called asking where she was. Plaintiff went looking for her, and didn't find her, and his cash was missing. Defendant's sworn statement, and testimony keep changing.

Plaintiff has a property investment business, and sells leggings online. and he's also a student with loans and grants. Police report shows the cash theft right after the theft. Text messages from defendant admit the theft of the cash.

$2700 to plaintiff.

Massage Therapist Payback-Plaintiff Debra Sams is suing former employer, Amanda Docksteader for nonpayment of wages. Plaintiff claims one check bounced, and then another two checks that couldn't be cashed because funds weren't available. (Defendant's Bozo red hair is hideous). As JJ says, the existence of the checks proved plaintiff worked for defendant, and if she had any problem with the quality of work, she shouldn't have continued to employ her, and should have paid her wages that she owed her. Defendant is counter suing for lock changing fees, and some other garbage.

Defendant claims she told plaintiff not to cash the check yet. $1824 is the first check amount, which bounced. Then plaintiff worked for defendant for one more week, and that's when she received the other two bad checks. Plaintiff's mistake was not taking the first check to the police, and continuing to work for defendant.

$2380 to plaintiff.

CrazyInAlabama · March 17, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Unbelievable ATV Story! (2021)- Plaintiff Teresa Anderson suing defendant Blake over a used ATV plaintiff bought from him. Plaintiff claims defendant guaranteed the used ATV, and would pay her for repair costs. Plaintiff picked up the ATV at defendant's place, with a trailer. Plaintiff bought the ATV in May, and only drove it twice, once in June, and once in July. After two months, ATV was not working right, and was sent to the mechanic. On July 4, plaintiff sent defendant a text saying she only rode the ATV twice, and it had broken down. The mechanic's bill was $3200, and plaintiff wants that from defendant.

"Guarantee" was verbal, no bill of sale, just the signed title. Defendant denies he ever said he would fix the ATV, or pay repair costs, or ever gave any guarantee on the ATV.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

A First for Judge Judy! (2021) – Plaintiff Nathaniel Allenby, and fiance Alexandria Lothian suing former landlords Antoinette Fusco, and husband Stephen 'Pat' O'Hara for vandalized car, security deposit, rent back, and harassments, and punitive damages. There was a written lease for the house, 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2 parking spaces, and other storage spaces. However, Antoinette Fusco claims they just rented a room in the house, and the lease was printed off of the internet, and there is nothing about plaintiffs renting a room, with other people living there as tenants too. Vandalizing of car is dismissed, no proof of who did anything to the car.

There was another tenant that was renting a room in the house also. The lease says both plaintiffs rented an entire house, and this was signed by both parties. There were two tenants in the house at various times, and one living in the garage which was also leased to the tenant.

Since the defendant's violated the lease, the plaintiffs will get all of their rent back. (This is a first for Judge Judy).

Plaintiffs receive $1300 for security deposit, and four months rent back, $5,000 court maximum.

Redecorating Disaster (2013)- Plaintiff sister Claudette Stepp suing defendant sister Denise Persson for trashing and painting her room in plaintiff’s house, while defendant was pet sitting. (Plaintiff's wig is hideous, probably from the producer's wig closet maintained for people who think no one will recognize them when they wear a cheap wig). JJ is not impressed by plaintiff claiming sister not only painted the room hideous, hard to cover colors, but ignores the stoner party that defendant threw too.

$500 to repaint for plaintiff.

Second (2020)-

Taser-Wielding Neighbor! -Plaintiff Channel Barnes suing neighbors in a four-plex, Brittany Ponce and father Richard Ponce. Plaintiff claims defendant father hit her car, and he admits hitting it, but says the car was parked illegally, and in the way. Plaintiff wants her $500 deductible, rental car fees, and harassment. Defendant daughter SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four), and her four children moved in to the four-plex, and her boyfriend (father of SSMOF's youngest) argued with plaintiff over where the boyfriend parked. Plaintiff claims she couldn't turn into her garage or park in front of her patio, because of the boyfriend's car. Plaintiff wanted to park next to her patio, which is not a restricted parking area. Plaintiff daughter says she told boyfriend not to park there, but he didn't listen.

To get into, or out of the plaintiff's garage, the boyfriend would have to move his car. Defendant daughter mentions that if plaintiff parks in front of her own patio, then other tenants can't access their garages. Defendant father says he hit plaintiff's van when he was working on daughter's new car, and plaintiff has the garage adjoining daughter's garage. When defendant father backed up, he hit the driver’s side of plaintiff's car, resulting in a $500 deductible. Was plaintiff in a legal space either?

Harassment case plaintiff claims people walking by are 'mean mugging' her (Is that the same as "He looked at me funny?"), and she thinks everyone is going to attack her, or come in her apartment. Plaintiff claims defendant father is parking beside her patio, and claims the father, and another sister of the defendant started calling her names. Plaintiff isn't suing defendant sister, so that's dismissed. Plaintiff and defendant father were videoing each other. Plaintiff also says there is 'high traffic number of people' going in and out of defendant's apartment. Implying that defendant and relatives are dealing.

Defendant SSMOF really has nothing to do with this case, just the father, and boyfriend (boyfriend isn't in court). Defendant father claims plaintiff pulled a taser on him, as a threat, and I believe him. Defendant father also says plaintiff called him a drug addict, and other slurs.

After the incident CPS showed up at defendant's house, what a coincidence.

(I hate the way plaintiff kept trying to claim the defendant, and her father were involved in drugs. The remarks she made about traffic in and out of the defendant's apartment was very obvious that she was claiming they were dealers. I suspect that if the plaintiff moved out, that the other tenants would have a party the next day. I think if the landlord is smart they would either put parking spaces on the patio side, or mark it no parking, and enforce it).

$500 to plaintiff for deductible.

Edited March 17, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · March 17, 2021

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Unbelievable ATV Story!

Even her multiple layers of thick make-up could not hide the fact that even the plaintiff did not take her own claim seriously.

24 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A First for Judge Judy! (2013 maybe?)

I don't think it was from 2013 since there is no audience and everything is done virtually (except for poor Byrd).

Plaintiff had a stupid looking haircut and tended to dramatically overstate the pain and damages they had to live through, but the defendants made a truly cosmic bungle by drawing up a lease agreement which contradicted the basic facts of the tenancy. And they kept whining during the hallterview, of course, whereas it was entirely their fault.

As a bonus, JJ got to trot out her "it can only modified in writing" lecture she was forced to repress yesterday.

CrazyInAlabama · March 17, 2021

4 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I don't think it was from 2013 since there is no audience and everything is done virtually (except for poor Byrd).

Plaintiff had a stupid looking haircut and tended to dramatically overstate the pain and damages they had to live through, but the defendants made a truly cosmic bungle by drawing up a lease agreement which contradicted the basic facts of the tenancy. And they kept whining during the hallterview, of course, whereas it was entirely their fault.

As a bonus, JJ got to trot out her "it can only modified in writing" lecture she was forced to repress yesterday.

I fixed the date. The defendants were despicable landlords, and even though the plaintiffs had zero evidence of who did it, I bet either of the defendants was capable of vandalizing the plaintiff's car.

Can you imagine if someone was housesitting for JJ, and painted her bedroom like that? She would shoot them on the spot, and we'd never find the body.

I was so sad at the Pomeranian case, because you know that man won't spay that dog, and I really wish JJ had given the dog back. Since that case was over 2 years old, I'm wondering how many litters that the Pom has had? Because I bet the first thing that man did was sell that dog to someone else for a puppy mill dog, so even if the plaintiff did get JJ's order and go to the house, then I bet that dog was long gone. He doesn't care about JJ's money, he's selling over 28 breeds of dogs, and fully supporting himself, so he doesn't care about JJ's money.

Florinaldo · March 18, 2021

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Can you imagine if someone was housesitting for JJ, and painted her bedroom like that? She would shoot them on the spot, and we'd never find the body.

That is for sure.

One amusing aspect of the case was that the plaintiff whined about how her room was repainted in a stoner/hippie look. Yet, she was dressed and coiffed as if she was coming from an audition for a new community theater production of Hair.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Florinaldo

CrazyInAlabama · March 18, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Homeless and Helpless?! -Plaintiff Michael Holden suing defendant/ex-girlfriend Lupita Gutierrez for a pool table, and other property, an illegal eviction, and false accusations to police. Litigants lived together, in defendant's house, and then broke up. Defendant sold the pool table for $300. Defendant owns the house, and there was not a written lease with plaintiff. For once JJ calls a live-in in defendant's house, a guest not a tenant. Illegal eviction is tossed out.

Defendant says plaintiff left his bed behind, and two TVs go to plaintiff, plus a lawn mower, BBQ pit, tires with rims, dishes, play station, surround sound speakers, DVDs, and other boxed items go back to plaintiff. Pool table was sold for $300, and fridge too. However, defendant was unemployed, and sold the fridge and pool table, but she also paid for the move. Defendant pays $162 a month for storage, but plaintiff never paid for storage or moving costs. Defendant lost the house to foreclosure

JJ wants to know when plaintiff sent a letter, or text requesting his property back? He filed the suit eight months later, and defendant says his first request for his property was four months after the split, and the move. He actually says defendant should have paid all of the storage and moving bills, and keep his stuff for him.

Plaintiff has five days to pick up the storage items, with a marshal standby. Anything plaintiff doesn't pick up after five days, is considered abandoned. Defendant rent is dismissed too, no lease (or else the illegal eviction would come into play). Defendant isn't getting paid for anything either.

Deceased Father’s Debt Drama! –Plaintiff/brother David Meraz is suing defendant/niece Christina Roman for a loan plaintiff made to his late brother/defendant's father, to pay defendant's father's property taxes. Defendant is executor of her father's estate, and claims father paid plaintiff the debt back, $3923. Defendant has to show the proof of $3900 payments to JJ. Defendant claims uncle/plaintiff repaid himself the loan, and he says $219 each for 14 payments.

JJ adds it up, and says plaintiff is fully paid. Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2017)-

Suicide, Sadness, and Life Insurance? - Plaintiff Neva Miller suing her late grandson's former fiance Shelby Morrison for the cost of her grandson's headstone. Grandmother is suing because she wants some hideously expensive, elaborate headstone. The grandmother didn't even see grandson very often. Grandmother took out insurance policies on all of her grandsons, and grandmother paid the premium, with herself as beneficiary. Then grandson became engaged to the defendant, and the grandmother made the defendant the beneficiary.

Grandson died, policy paid $10,000 in the first payment, and two years later there will be $5,000 more. However, fiance received $10,000, and paid for the funeral for $6300. Defendant says the second payment won't be applied for, because there’s too much upset over it. Grandmother wanted defendant to pay for some extra headstone to make grandmother happy.

Grandmother claims she told the defendant that defendant would pay for the funeral, and headstone that grandmother wanted, out of the funeral payout defendant received. Grandmother says the headstone was paid for by a family friend, and misspelled the last name of the deceased. Defendant submits pictures of the original, and the corrected one (Siebenmorgen is the last name, I've never seen that last name before). There is a headstone on the grave now. Grandmother is whining because headstone was gifted by someone. Maybe no one told the Grandmother you don't put the headstone down until the ground settles. Plaintiff denies the tombstone was corrected, but she only went to the cemetery once after the funeral.

The headstone was corrected but and grandmother still wants another one. Grandmother denies the headstone is corrected. Grandmother still wants the headstone corrected, but the mistake was fixed, the full name is one there, but grandmother wants all kinds of additional stuff on there.

Defendant in hall-terview says she's had death threats, all kinds of nasty remarks from the grandmother, and some of her relatives.

Case dismissed. Case is pointless.

Move to Ohio Fail! -Plaintiff Sydney Woods suing former boyfriend Sean Smithover move expenses, truck fees, and lease breaking fees for a move to Ohio from North Carolina. The litigants have a baby, and both had good jobs in NC, but moved to Ohio for a better job for defendant, and he had move fees paid to him by the employer ($5,000). Then everything went boom, and they split up. Move costs were $550, but plaintiff claims defendant paid none of it. Plaintiff paid the $300 security deposit, and $250 for the U-Haul.

Plaintiff was only in Ohio for six weeks. With the $5,000 move bonus ($3,000 after taxes), defendant paid first month, security fee, and other costs. They moved in 1 November, officially, and when December came around no one paid the rent. Defendant paid the truck payment, bought a washer and dryer, paid the utility deposits, and paid off another bill he had.

Plaintiff also wanted her own car, and they argued about that. This was so they didn't have to share one car. However, defendant says plaintiff doesn't have a driver's license. Plaintiff says defendant told her to leave, and she arranged with a family friend to take her back to NC. After plaintiff left, defendant moved out because he couldn't afford the townhouse on his salary alone. That leads to the issue over the lease breaking fee.

As JJ says, the lease breaking fee will be garnished from both litigants' wages.

$550 moving fees to plaintiff, and that's it.

CrazyInAlabama · March 18, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

You Can Talk Online Courses Anywhere! -Plaintiff /former tenant Keith DaConsta is suing defendant/landlord John Cappello stole his missing motorcycle, and has missing property. Plaintiff was homeless for two years, before moving into landlord's home. Plaintiff says he was saving money, so he could move to Palm Springs. Plaintiff was getting $1400 a month disability, and after the move to Palm Springs, and gets about $1400 a month, and is studying solar technology, at a Palm Springs school, and his classes are paid for by some grant. Plaintiff goes to College of the Desert, which is an online only school, so he could do that from anywhere. Plaintiff's school was always online only.

Plaintiff approached defendant's church bishop, about a place to live, and lived at defendant's home, for $400 a month, and still lives in defendant's home. Plaintiff claims he's paid every month's rent, but hasn't been. Defendant says there are three months plaintiff didn't pay, including when plaintiff went on vacation. Plaintiff got his motorcycle out of storage in October 2020, while he was on disability and couldn't work, but he could ride a motorcycle in the desert. Plaintiff did store his motorcycle in defendant's garage, free. Then when plaintiff was on vacation, defendant smelled something, and found alcohol in plaintiff's room. Defendant is sober for 15 years (Good for him!), and house rules say no drugs, no alcohol, and two other renters were violating the sober rules, and they were evicted before defendant found the alcohol, and drugs in plaintiff's room.

After defendant found the drugs, and alcohol, he took the door off of plaintiff's room. Defendant told plaintiff to move out, plus defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay rent in November (he was on vacation), and January, February. JJ will deduct the unpaid rent from the claims by plaintiff, How does JJ think the defendant can get plaintiff evicted through housing court during a pandemic, in California?

Plaintiff claims defendant stole his motorcycle, but there were a lot of people who had access to the house, to take the keys. Plaintiff made a police report about the motorcycle attempted theft, and blamed the defendant, but no charges were ever filed.

Plaintiff had a burner in his room too, and it wasn't allowed either. (I guess we're not talking hot plate, but some drug related burner?).

Plaintiff owes $800, but defendant will pay $1500, so plaintiff scores $700

Second-

Pain Management Unhinged (2021) -Plaintiff Michael They is suing defendant Gina Wallace for rent since August, lost income since August, and wants $3777 Plaintiff paid $750 in June, to defendant to get him credentialed for pain management. He found defendant who advertised she specializes in getting people credentialed for pain management, but four months later defendant hadn't had plaintiff credentialed with any insurance companies. Plaintiff wanted defendant to get him credentialed with fifteen insurance companies. He fired defendant, and the next person only credentialed him with one company, Defendant says she was trying to get him credentialed with Medicare first, and she had to keep resubmitting the information because everything had to be accurate, and plaintiff kept changing addresses, and other information, so application to Medicare (Medicare has to be done first), had to be altered.

Medicare is the primary provider, and that application was done, and redone at least once. And defendant had applications to nine insurance companies. Then plaintiff gave her a check using her P.O. box, and a different LLC name, so the applications all had to be redone.

Everything that went wrong was plaintiff's fault, and not defendant's fault.

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage.

Bad Tenant Punished? (2021) -Plaintiff Cathy Christopher /landlord suing defendant/former tenant Jason Weeks for unpaid rent, after six months of unpaid rent. Defendant claims that after flooding that he was getting credit for two of the six months rent. Defendant claims he paid four months rent.

In spite of a leaky roof, tenant stayed in the apartment for six months, and claims the two months rent were forgiven.

(The JJ channel keeps freezing, so this case might be even more confusing than it already is. But don't worry, the stupid commercials play just fine).

Fortunately, plaintiff finally got the defendant out of the apartment. Plaintiff rerented the apartment.

Plaintiff receives $1200, two months rent. (However, defendant actually owed for seven months, minus two for the water).

Edited March 18, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · March 19, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Deployment, a Dead Dog, and a Crash? -Plaintiff Jesse Deleiko rented a car for defendant/ex-girlfriend, Jerrica Duncan because she couldn’t rent a car in her name (bad credit, and I bet, bad driving, plus she's 24, and you have to be 25 to rent a car), and he wants her to pay the lease breaking fee. Plaintiff claims defendant wanted to move in with him so she would pay the break lease fee, but plaintiff says defendant would pay the break lease fee. Defendant claims a miscarriage, that plaintiff's dog killed her dog, and then she moved out of the house right before court. Defendant brought a child into this disgusting excuse for a relationship.

Defendant is still married to her former/current husband, and tried to use the military deployment of her current husband to break the lease (it's legal, but not to lie about it, and the husband never lived in the apartment). So, plaintiff is a disgusting Jody (ask someone who is military about that. It's the guy (or girl) who's boinking your spouse while you're overseas fighting for your country). Rental car dismissed, because plaintiff didn't come to court with clean hands, by leasing the car for someone who couldn't qualify for the car rental. This all happened in St. Louis County, and a few weeks ago, defendant moved to Florida. Defendant owed $2,000 for the break lease fee on her previous apartment, and claims plaintiff would pay it. Plaintiff negotiated the $3700 break lease fee down to $3000, and he paid it. Defendant claims plaintiff broke into the son's toy room window, no police report.

$3,000 for plaintiff.

Good Samaritan or Social Security Thief?!-Plaintiff Cindy Wilde has known defendant Ronald Cupp from grade school and high school, and she's suing him for stealing her social security money. Plaintiff said man would hold her money for her, to avoid government limits on savings. She finally received two lump sums, $2668, $2668, and $1,300, totaling $6500+. Defendant has a letter stating he paid the attorney $500 to help with the process. Plaintiff gave the defendant $2400 to hold for her, so she could keep her bank accounts below the limit for SS (coming to court with dirty hands for the plaintiff).

Woman was in a recovery center after surgery, then a shelter, then a rented room. Defendant paid an attorney $500 to fight the woman's eviction (eviction happened). Defendant bought a bed for the plaintiff, a computer tablet, a couple of burner phones.

There is a $2,000 CD that will be transferred to plaintiff. Defendant claims the $2400 was for the CD, and for the attorney. Defendant tried to take care of plaintiff, but I think he's also a crook. Defendant is an attorney too. So JJ will give plaintiff money for hiding money from the government to qualify for social security payments. (I'm confused, plaintiff says she's on state social security? I never heard of that).

$2,000 to plaintiff from the CD.

Roommates No More! -Plaintiff Pamela Pacheco suing her former roommate / defendant Matthew Beaudoin for unpaid rent, and cable bills. They were friends, and rented an apartment together. Defendant didn't pay one month's rent, because he was waiting for a disability check, so plaintiff gets $510. Defendant claims he was given notice to be out by 4 February, because a new roommate was moving in. Plaintiff says there were no damages with defendant moved out, so he gets his security deposit back (new roommate will have to pay security deposit).

Plaintiff will get $510 for rent. Cable bills are dismissed.

Second (2017)-

Duplex Confusion-Plaintiff Nicole Edwards suing former roommate/defendant Wendy Halligan-Douglas, for security deposit from a rental they shared two years ago, and money paid towards a bill. Plaintiff, her mother, and one child lived in the duplex for 2 1/2 years, then defendant moved in. Plaintiff's mother was the signatory on the lease, and paid the security deposit. Defendant moved in during June, and but went on the lease two months later. Plaintiff's mother moved out, and defendant was living in one or two bedrooms of the duplex. A year later plaintiff moved out, and defendant stayed, with her husband, and child.

The damages are each blamed on the other litigant. When plaintiff moved out, she claims she had a walk through with the landlord, but has no paperwork. At that point plaintiff should have asked for her security back, and defendant would have had to pay the security deposit. The utility bills are submitted, and plaintiff claims she put bill in her own name, after defendant didn't pay. However, defendant has utility bills in her own name, or husband's, to keep the utilities on. Plaintiff doesn't have a bill for utilities in her own name, or any proof of payment.

Defendant called CPS about drunken, drugged plaintiff, and her child neglect.

Plaintiff is told to go back to her local court (Sacramento, CA) for the security deposit.

Uber Roommate Argument-Plaintiff Rami Shawjrawi suing former roommate/defendant Feras Babeyeh for a loan to pay off credit card debt, and utility bills. Credit card was paid off before defendant moved into the apartment. Defendant paid off $1165 for the credit card bills, but defendant claims he was letting plaintiff use his car for Uber (only for three weeks). Plaintiff bought beds for both when they moved into the house. Defendant claims he was going to let the plaintiff use his car for six months, but it turned out to be three weeks.

When defendant moved out, he left the bed behind that plaintiff paid for. Plaintiff admits he had the bed, that costs $558, and plaintiff left the bed behind Plaintiff paid off the defendant's credit card debt, so the defendant could refinance the car loan, and in return plaintiff would drive the car for Uber. Plaintiff was also put on the defendant's car insurance.

Plaintiff is a grad student working on his Ph. D. However, he's never been an Uber driver.

$1165 for the credit card pay off.

CrazyInAlabama · March 19, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

$15 Dollar a Day Catastrophe (2021) -Plaintiff/former tenant Katherine Hansen suing defendant/former landlord Randall Clark for an illegal lockout, return of rent, and punitive damages. Plaintiff's sister referred her to defendant as a tenant, for $15 a day. Plaintiff was charged by her sister for elder abuse, but case was dropped, but plaintiff moved. Plaintiff would pay $15 a day. If plaintiff stayed longer than a month, rent would go to $400 a month after that. Plaintiff claims amount would be $350 not $400, and with kitchen and common area privileges.

When the agreement is presented by plaintiff, defendant says he does recall that, and JJ says he printed it. Then defendant paid $450 for a 30 year old car, and he claims he bought the car with plaintiff's $500, but plaintiff claims she paid him $800 for two months up front. Defendant claims that payments from plaintiff were donations for utilities. Then, in early August plaintiff had outpatient surgery, and wasn't living at defendant's place for most of the month. Plaintiff's fiance Walter took her to stay at a hotel for several days for plaintiff to recover (he lives with his daughter), and they both stayed at hotels for a while after the surgery. Then plaintiff claims that during August defendant changed the locks at his house. JJ says plaintiff paid two months in advance, and defendant did illegally lock her out. But during August plaintiff admits she didn't live at the house, but in hotels, and her stuff was at defendant's house. Defendant claims plaintiff said she wasn't coming back during August.

(My question is why the "charity" not rent? My guess is there are two reasons, one is the defendant doesn't want to pay income taxes, and get the appropriate licenses to rent the room. My second reason is that either the house isn't in an area allowing unrelated residents, such as a boarding house, so the tenants, are just 'guests'.

Plaintiff wasn't evicted, and didn't remove her property until after August, and has no proof of damages to property

Doberman Dachshund Attack (2013) -Plaintiff Valerie Iovino-Cox, is suing defendant /animal rescue operator Joseph Panzarella over the Doberman, Dillinger, she adopted from him. Plaintiff wants vet bills, and her adoption donation back. Doberman attacked a plaintiff's Dachshund. Defendant is an animal rescue operator, and Doberman was in the process of being adopted by plaintiff. Plaintiff claims after the attack, she was afraid of Dillinger, the Doberman. After Hurricane Sandy, defendant had about 60 abandoned animals, and adopted them out.

Plaintiff adopted Dillinger, gave the required donation, and took Dillinger home. Then, Dillinger attacked the Dachshund on the same day. Plaintiff didn't supervise the dogs. Plaintiff claims dog was only at her home for a trial weekend, the attack happened, and plaintiff claims in the three days until defendant picked up the Doberman, she was afraid for her life. As JJ points out, if the plaintiff was really terrified for her life, why didn't she call animal control to pick the dog up?

Plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed. It wasn't plaintiff's first Doberman either.

Second (2020)-

Convicted, Bedbound and Litigious! -Plaintiff Thomas Brooks suing defendant Guy Harrell, plaintiff's former personal assistant for scamming him, or embezzling money. Defendant is counter claiming for unpaid wages. Plaintiff hired defendant as an assistant because he was bed bound (525 pounds). Plaintiff claims he gave defendant $2,000 to put in the bank for him, but it was never deposited. Plaintiff was on Social Security Disability, for 22 years. Then, plaintiff was incarcerated from Feb 2018, until Dec 2018, and several other times. Plaintiff was in a medical unit at the Riverside Sheriff's Jail, from arrest, trial, and sentence harassing phone calls, threats, and violation of a restraining order. On previous convictions, plaintiff gets released because they couldn't house him, and take care of his needs.

Plaintiff made the $2000, from small claims actions against his previous landlord. He sued for code violations by landlord. Then he violated protective orders against two people, a court reporter (she didn't produce his documents early enough to file against the landlord), and the court reporter filed and received a protective order against plaintiff. Plaintiff filed the judgment against the court reporter after he was evicted, because she didn't get his transcript in time to appeal, so he was evicted.

Defendant claims he received two checks, totaling $2,000 for plaintiff, took them for deposit in plaintiff's account. Then plaintiff sued the bank, and they went out of business, 1st National Bank of California, and plaintiff sued the tellers over this case. And the tellers have tried to get restraining orders against plaintiff, and case is still on going.

Defendant is still trying to get plaintiff to pay him the unpaid wages. Plaintiff admits to filing 5 lawsuits in three counties (in California), and in the last five years, 4 to 5 others. (Why doesn't the court system deem the plaintiff a vexatious litigant?).

Defendant claims he's owed $4500 by plaintiff. Defendant says he should have been paid $200 for each court appearance in plaintiff's behalf, and refused to appear for him in criminal cases, because he didn't want to be an accessory.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant case dismissed.

Edited March 21, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · March 19, 2021

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$15 Dollar a Day Catastrophe (2021)

Plaintiff came across as such a confused airhead it was difficult to be sure of what the actual facts were precisely since she kept contradicting herself or amending her statements. On the other hand the defendant was an evasive liar. You could say that on the whole they balanced each other well as litigants

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Convicted, Bedbound and Litigious!

I can only wonder if there is one single person the plaintiff ever met who he did not ultimately take to court.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Florinaldo

One Tough Cookie · March 20, 2021

On 3/18/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

You Can Talk Online Courses Anywhere! -Plaintiff /former tenant Keith DaConsta is suing defendant/landlord John Cappello stole his missing motorcycle, and has missing property. Plaintiff was homeless for two years, before moving into landlord's home. Plaintiff says he was saving money, so he could move to Palm Springs. Plaintiff was getting $1400 a month disability, and after the move to Palm Springs, and gets about $1400 a month, and is studying solar technology, at a Palm Springs school, and his classes are paid for by some grant. Plaintiff goes to College of the Desert, which is an online only school, so he could do that from anywhere. Plaintiff's school was always online only.

Plaintiff approached defendant's church bishop, about a place to live, and lived at defendant's home, for $400 a month, and still lives in defendant's home. Plaintiff claims he's paid every month's rent, but hasn't been. Defendant says there are three months plaintiff didn't pay, including when plaintiff went on vacation. Plaintiff got his motorcycle out of storage in October 2020, while he was on disability and couldn't work, but he could ride a motorcycle in the desert. Plaintiff did store his motorcycle in defendant's garage, free. Then when plaintiff was on vacation, defendant smelled something, and found alcohol in plaintiff's room. Defendant is sober for 15 years (Good for him!), and house rules say no drugs, no alcohol, and two other renters were violating the sober rules, and they were evicted before defendant found the alcohol, and drugs in plaintiff's room.

After defendant found the drugs, and alcohol, he took the door off of plaintiff's room. Defendant told plaintiff to move out, plus defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay rent in November (he was on vacation), and January, February.    JJ will deduct the unpaid rent from the claims by plaintiff, How does JJ think the defendant can get plaintiff evicted through housing court during a pandemic, in California?

Plaintiff claims defendant stole his motorcycle, but there were a lot of people who had access to the house, to take the keys. Plaintiff made a police report about the motorcycle attempted theft, and blamed the defendant, but no charges were ever filed.

Plaintiff had a burner in his room too, and it wasn't allowed either. (I guess we're not talking hot plate, but some drug related burner?).

Plaintiff owes $800, but defendant will pay $1500, so plaintiff scores $700

Second-

Pain Management Unhinged (2021) -Plaintiff Michael They is suing defendant Gina Wallace for rent since August, lost income since August,  and wants $3777 Plaintiff paid $750 in June, to defendant to get him credentialed for pain management. He found defendant who advertised she specializes in  getting people credentialed for pain management, but four months later defendant hadn't had plaintiff credentialed with any insurance companies. Plaintiff wanted defendant to get him credentialed with fifteen insurance companies. He fired defendant, and the next person only credentialed him with one company, Defendant says she was trying to get him credentialed with Medicare first, and she had to keep resubmitting the information because everything had to be accurate, and plaintiff kept changing addresses, and other information, so application to Medicare (Medicare has to be done first), had to be altered.

Medicare is the primary provider, and that application was done, and redone at least once. And defendant had applications to nine insurance companies. Then plaintiff gave her a check using her P.O. box, and a different LLC name, so the applications all had to be redone.

Everything that went wrong was plaintiff's fault, and not defendant's fault.

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage.

Bad Tenant Punished? (2021) -Plaintiff Cathy Christopher /landlord suing defendant/former tenant Jason Weeks for unpaid rent, after six months of unpaid rent. Defendant claims that after flooding that he was getting credit for two of the six months rent. Defendant claims he paid four months rent.

In spite of a leaky roof, tenant stayed in the apartment for six months, and claims the two months rent were forgiven.

(The JJ channel keeps freezing, so this case might be even more confusing than it already is. But don't worry, the stupid commercials play just fine).

Fortunately, plaintiff finally got the defendant out of the apartment. Plaintiff rerented the apartment.

Plaintiff receives $1200, two months rent. (Ho wever, defendant actually owed for seven months, minus two for the water).

Every time I see these cases I am so glad I live in a small but paid up house It must be terrible to live qt the mercy of somebody's mercy.

quarkuud · March 21, 2021

On 3/19/2021 at 7:38 PM, Florinaldo said:

I can only wonder if there is one single person the plaintiff ever met who he did not ultimately take to court.

I've never found a good way of looking up court cases in california (it seems like you need PACER which is not free). Too bad, I was pretty interested in seeing how many cases he actually had filed.

CrazyInAlabama · March 21, 2021

I found a few others, in small claims, but they were only in Riverside County, and one against the Sheriff's Dept. was included.

parrotfeathers · March 22, 2021

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I found a few others, in small claims, but they were only in Riverside County, and one against the Sheriff's Dept. was included.

Judge Judy is probably next on his list.

CrazyInAlabama · March 22, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

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

Defendant says her rent went up, and other issues, but didn't pay the consignment fees to plaintiff. Defendant did return some pants to plaintiff. Plaintiff says inventory that defendant owes for is $1685. However, plaintiff still shipped more inventory to defendant, with defendant owing payments. $916 was owed on 2 June, but plaintiff still shipped more pants to defendant. Defendant witness is kicked out for not shutting up. Litigants are sent outside to figure out what is owed to the plaintiff. Plaintiff shouldn't have given defendant more inventory, when she hadn't paid for previous inventory.

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

$1,685 to plaintiff.

Take My Loan Out of the Tip Jar! - Plaintiff Thomas Hagen suing former friend Melissa Smith for an unpaid loan. Plaintiff loaned bartender/manager $2,000 for legal fees, and interlock device ($300 to install interlock) to defendant after her two DUI's. Defendant claims plaintiff (a regular bar customer), would take the loan repayment back from tips he would usually give her. Plaintiff says he has a text that defendant would pay back the $2,000 by July, but she never paid him.

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

Plaintiff receives $2000.

Second (2017)-

Custody Battle Chaos-Plaintiff Kristine Kraft SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) suing the father/defendant of her child, Christopher Kittel, over the return of her belongings. Defendant claims they lived together for 3 1/2 years, but according to plaintiff she didn't live with him. There has been an ongoing custody battle for over two years, and both have huge stacks of papers, and folders in front of them. Plaintiff SSMOT hates that the defendant received 50/50 custody, and she sued for 18 months just over that part of the custody dispute.

Son was two when the litigants separated. Plaintiff claims she never lived with plaintiff, she always lived with her mother, and only left some property, TV, etc. at the defendant's house. Defendant drove her to the hospital for the birth, drove her home from the hospital, with nursery for the son. Plaintiff claims the crib, etc. was never at defendant's house. Some of the custody testimony was from police officers who were called to a dispute at defendant's house, and he testified on the defendant's side. Plaintiff's Order of Protection was dismissed by court, at the custody hearing. Each has a child for a week at a time. The SSMOT's older child lived at the defendant's house too.

JJ warns plaintiff that parental interference can lead to loss of the 50/50 custody by plaintiff. JJ also reads the court decision. Defendant supported plaintiff, and the two children the entire time they lived together. Property is left at defendant's home for when the child is at his house. (My guess is that this custody dispute will never end).

Plaintiff's case dismissed. Defendant says plaintiff did $2,000 worth of damages at his house in retaliation over not giving up custody.

Landscaping Grief-Plaintiff Sreelesh Kozhiparambil is suing landscaper / defendant Kevin Gervasio for failing to complete a job, damaged and stolen property, lock changing fees. Plaintiff and wife had to leave the U.S. because of a death in their family in India. Landscaper was supposed to plant some greenery, maintain the front and back yard, seed the lawn, for a total of $3200. Then defendant wanted more money, claiming the seeding wasn't working, and he needed to sod the outside edge of the yard, and hydro seed the interior part of the yard, and received $4,000 from plaintiff.

The front yard picture is awful, and looks like no seed was ever put down, or sod. Defendant also moved the plaintiff's car, and took it home to gain access to the garage. The keys were left so he could move it in the driveway, not steal it. Defendant admits he didn't hydro seed, never put in a full sprinkler system, that plaintiff had bought the parts for. In the hall-terview plaintiff says the police got the car, and the wife's phone back from defendant. Plaintiff paid $3200 to defendant, and $4,000 later, totaling $7200.

$4,000 to plaintiff. Plaintiff got the car back already, so that's dismissed. The defendant also smoked in the car, and that won't be coming out easily, or probably will ever be gone completely.

CrazyInAlabama · March 22, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Covid Parties and Stolen Meds?! (2021)- Plaintiff/former tenant Nicole Cook-Pitman suing defendant/former landlord Matthew Maxson, for security deposit $875, returned rent, and moving costs. Defendant says plaintiff partied constantly, during Covid, and then items started disappearing from him home, money, his medications, and other items.

Defendant claims plaintiff moved her property out, and used her own moving company to move her out. Plaintiff claims defendant trashed her property when she moved out, but defendant has a text from plaintiff stating that she took all of her property out.

Plaintiff will get $875 security deposit back.

Too Young to Live Alone (2014)- Plaintiff Alexis Stotz suing defendant /former roommate Kaitlyn Wilson for a broken lease. Plaintiff is too young to live on her own. Plaintiff and brother moved into the apartment in March, with her brother, and he left in June, there was another roommate for a month, then Kaitlyn, defendant, moved in during August on the lease. Defendant paid September's rent, $500 and has a receipt.

Defendant says she had no choice but to break the lease and move. Defendant claims plaintiff wanted to move in some 18 year old who was going to sleep on the floor, and wanted to move in with a 16 year old girlfriend.

Defendant moved out in October, to another apartment, with a real lease, and hopefully, better roommates. Plaintiff claims defendant didn't pay for October, but isn't sure of anything about rent or utilities.

Everything dismissed.

Second (2020)-

Teen Pitches Fit Over A/C?-(2020) -Plaintiff Justin Hodge, age 18, suing his mother, Christine Connel, for illegal eviction, moving costs, computer tablet, and broken phone Son lived with aunt from 3 months old, to age 13. Son had visitation with mother once a week, and aunt was his legal guardian. Since age 13, plaintiff has been living with the mother, and the fight was over a heat/ac conflict. During the fight plaintiff says mother broke his phone, but she bought it. Laptop was claimed to be purchased by the mother too. Defendant claims plaintiff broke his own phone.

During the argument police were called, and plaintiff grabbed a skillet "to defend himself" from defendant. Plaintiff admits he hit the floor with the frying pan a couple of times, or four times. Plaintiff says police did not do a report, and were called by neighbors.

The fight was started by son, because mother turned the air conditioning off, and son wanted it back on. Defendant claims son didn't have an issue about anything until his friend Devin told him what to do. I think the defendant's right about that. I bet Devin thinks that if son gets a restraining order, then mother will get removed from her own house, and he can move in and be another squatter.

Litigants are estranged. Defendant will give laptop back to plaintiff, because it was a gift to him from her.

Plaintiff receives laptop back, everything else dismissed.

Just Don’t Do It!- (2012, 17th season) -Plaintiff Tracy Cooper is suing defendant Jeff Black, claiming he stole her exercise machine. JJ asks defendant where the exercise machine is, and smart ass defendant says “I don't have it”. Defendant looks like he's been pole axed.

Defendant's fiancee says defendant sold the exercise machine to a friend of defendant named, Adam. JJ tells defendant fiancee that she's with a fool, and as usual, fiancee just smirks.

Defendant claims plaintiff abandoned the exercise machine. He claims plaintiff sold him the machine for $500, but plaintiff says he's lying. Plaintiff hired mover Jeff Black to move her household goods, including the exercise machine.

Defendant fiancee says defendant loser sold the machine to Adam for $500. Machine is gone.

In hall-terview defendant's fiancee says that defendant was just nervous, isn't a bad person (for a thief; my view, not hers), and how it's all a misunderstanding. (Guess who was totally slammed on his FB page for his moving company, in 2015? That must have been a rerun of the episode. Yes, good old Jeff. Actually, he specializes in pool table moves now. Not exercise machines.)

Plaintiff receives $500 for the older exercise machine.

CrazyInAlabama · March 23, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Help! I’ve Fallen Through a Hole! -Plaintiff /former visitor Shirley Christopher to defendant's rental property is suing landlord/defendant Imran Bohra over falling through a hole in the rental home floor. Landlord for rental property is very well known in Little Rock, he owns 156 rental homes at the time of the show. Plaintiff was going apartment shopping with her mother, fell in the hole, and fire/EMS were called. Landlord doesn't care either, or have insurance. Plaintiff had no lost wages, because she doesn't work.

Plaintiff had a soft cast for three weeks.

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Code Enforcement Fail? -Plaintiff John Schiavone is suing defendant Warren Hughes/former friend, and landlord for lost property, Plaintiff was renovating the home for defendant, for $20 an hour. Plaintiff rented the house, and was renovating for three months, and was working on the house in lieu of rent for three months. After the three months, rent was $1100 a month. Plaintiff claims all of the proof of rent payments in locked up in the house. Defendant says plaintiff didn't pay the rent. Plaintiff claims house was unsafe during his six month tenancy, because of how the electric service was hooked up. Defendant is counter suing for unpaid rent, and damages to the house.

In July plaintiff was evicted for non-payment of rent, but didn't have to leave until 8 August, when house was red tagged by code enforcement. However, the eviction notice said plaintiff had to be out by 9 August. Plaintiff claims all of his property is locked in the house. What a coincidence that Code Enforcement showed up on eviction day.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant case dism

Concrete Wall Collapse! -Plaintiffs Richard and Susan Corns suing defendant/neighbor Charles Hensley for damaging their property by constructing a wall. There is a concrete block wall that was in place when plaintiffs moved in. Defendant wanted a level yard, and that damaged the existing joint concrete block, and defendant replaced the wall at his expense.

Plaintiffs claim the rebuilding left a huge mess in their yard. Plaintiffs want 6" of dirt removed on the entire wall area, and debris cleaned up. Plaintiffs submit a month old picture of the dirt left by the wall reconstruction by defendant. Then defendant submits a picture from yesterday, showing no damages or excess dirt left.

In Hall-terview defendant says he's had run-ins with the wife before, and probably will again.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2017)-

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

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

Because plaintiff was foolish enough to put defendant's name on the deed, plaintiff will have to sue in local court, and sell the house, and make some kind of settlement on the house. Defendant was counter claiming for the furniture, and appliances in the house, that's dismissed. However, plaintiff says when he finally got back in his house, defendant had stolen all of the furniture, appliances, and anything she could remove. Plaintiff is broke, except for a $20K CD that matures next year. .

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

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

Dress is shown in court, and bears no resemblance to the skank picture plaintiff and daughter wanted, and the workmanship is hideous. (I find it hard to understand why anyone is paying for their teenage daughter to wear something as provocative as the dress plaintiff wanted). Seamstress/defendant's picture of the dress plaintiffs wanted is still cut down to the waist, and all lace, but still doesn't look like the picture. The defendant says plaintiff didn't want lace at all.

The night before the prom, the plaintiff's daughter went to seamstress house, and tried on the dress. Mother saw the dress later that night. For the second fitting, the plaintiff daughter is the only one that saw the dress. Daughter didn't tell defendant she didn't like the dress, and took it with her. Daughter bought another dress for the prom. Daughter says seamstress dress was cut too low, but the pictures are both very low cut, or open lace.

Plaintiff case dismissed, daughter didn't dislike the dress, only the mother. Another case of the mother trying to live vicariously through her daughter. The daughter says front of dress was too low cut, but the picture shows something cut very low, and with a lot of see through lace.

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

Edited March 23, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · March 23, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2020)-

You’re Not Entitled to $5,000 (2020)-Plaintiff John Progner suing mechanic Miguel Ramos over repair of a 35 year old RV, a 1985 Toyota Camper. Plaintiff paid $2500 for Camper/RV when it was 15 years, old (2000), and had defendant fix the rusted-out body, for $5,000. Plaintiff claims he paid $4500 to defendant. Plaintiff also paid $1,000 to $1500 for other repairs. Plaintiff wants the money to fix his brakes, but defendant was only paid to fix the body, not the brakes. Plaintiff Progner is a PITA, and simply won't shut up.

The RV was totally flooring was rusted out, and the roof had big issues. I suspect there was a lot more damage than even $5,000 could begin to fix. If plaintiff says "Judge Judy" one more time, I'm going to scream.

Camper looks great after defendant's work.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Daycare Disaster (older anywhere from 2012 to 2014)-Plaintiff Angella Scott suing defendant Stacey Hastis, for non-payment of daycare bills for two children for three days. As always, defendant claims care was inadequate, and so she left her children there anyway? If defendant really had concerns, why would she bring the children back? She had the children there for the 15th, and 16th, and brought them back on the 30th.

On the 16th, defendant claims her mother went to pick her children up, and plaintiff gave the wrong 5 year old to the grandmother. The defendant brought her children back on the 30th, and that was the last day at daycare. Oh no! The Ate the Steak story again. (this is old enough that JJ doesn't know a tablet is an iPad).

Plaintiff receives $77.25 for the daycare bills.

Second (2020)-

Scary Air-Bag Recall?!-Plaintiff Olivia Benavides suing rental car company owner Sean Pirali for a fraudulent rental car. There is a signed contract. Car was rented for $160 a week, and $150 deposit. Car was a 2009 model Toyota, and was rented by a previous renter (car was purchased two months before from a private individual). There was a recall on the air bags, and recall notice is undated. However, defendant claims his mechanic checked the car over, and the recall wasn't actually on that specific vehicle. (I had a car with the recalled airbags, and was one of the first in my area to get scheduled at the dealer to replace them. So, either the airbags had been replaced on the rental car, or they ran the VIN number and it wasn't on the list).

Plaintiff wanted to rent the car for a ride share, and terminated the contract, and wanted to return the car without two weeks notice. Plaintiff claims she tried to give notice the first week, but had the car from 28 May, and returned on 22 June, for three weeks total. Plaintiff only paid for two weeks, not the third week, but did pay the $150 deposit, and $50 processing fee. Plaintiff wants her payments back, but had the car for three weeks.

Oh no, the "Ate the Steak" story is coming again.

Case dismissed, because of the deposit.

Babysitter’s Bounced Checks! (2013)-Plaintiff Brittany Taylor suing former babysitting employer Amelia McPeek. for the two bad checks defendant wrote her ($100, and $100) for babysitting her child overnight. After both checks bounced plaintiff refused to baby sit for the child again. Plaintiff wants bank fees, the $200 for the bad checks, and other fees. Defendant claims she didn't know the account was closed that she wrote the checks on. The checks were written against an account in another state, that the defendant had at a credit union.

JJ wants to know where the defendant went on both overnight babysitting sessions. Defendant doesn't want to say. If she rolls her eyes again, I hope JJ gives the plaintiff everything she asked for.

In her sworn statement defendant didn't say anything about not knowing the account was closed, wrote the checks against the wrong account, and says the babysitter was incompetent. Defendant works at a hospital, scary isn't it?

(I know exactly where this happened, and it's on the border between two states. People pull scams like this all of the time, figuring that the victim won't go to the trouble of suing in the state where the check bounced. The defendant looked very familiar too, and I lived in that area for several years, so I'm wondering if I did see her there? ).

$600, ($200 for the checks, plus bank fees, and damages) to plaintiff.

Edited March 24, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · March 24, 2021

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I find it hard to understand why anyone is paying for their teenage daughter to wear something as provocative as the dress plaintiff wanted).

OMG--when my kid went this his prom the girl was wearing a dress so short, and obviously minimally white in the triangle I was mortified for her.--but the parents were taking all kinds of pictures. Thank God that relation ship didn't last

Edited March 24, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

Carolina Girl · March 24, 2021

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

On the 16th, defendant claims her mother went to pick her children up, and plaintiff gave the wrong 5 year old to the grandmother.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is a scam that the defendant, with the help of "Mom" runs on day care providers? She took the kids in on the 16, 17 and 30 and then claims she had to leave her job because there was no "acceptable" daycare. So, we're looking at a two-week period where she only worked three days? I can see her having the kids in one daycare two days, and then skipping to a different daycare for a couple of days when payment is requested and back and forth, staving them off with "oh, if you'll take them today I'll give you a check tonight."

Oh and that "wrong child" story is interesting, since these two film flam bitchez couldn't get the facts straight. Mommy scammer says "wrong 5-year-old"; Granny scammer says she was given an infant. Which is it?

bad things are bad · March 24, 2021

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Babysitter’s Bounced Checks! (2013)-Plaintiff Brittany Taylor suing former babysitting employer Amelia McPeek

Got to hate on Great Value Paris Hilton all over again. What a reprehensible human being Ms. McPeek is.

CrazyInAlabama · March 24, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

From Homeless to Helpless?!-Plaintiff /former day care worker Daisyrain Lyle suing Megan Kelly, and her 15 year old son Austin Kelly for return of property, and assault by son. (Daisyrain is the real name, no spaces in it either). Defendant mother was pals with plaintiff's incarcerated father, but only friends, and only when he was in jail. Plaintiff moved in with defendant mother, because plaintiff was short on cash. Plaintiff claims there was no rental or other agreements. Part of the time plaintiff was paid by the state, someone else was taking care of defendant's kids.

Defendant is a CNA, and has children that needed care, so she had plaintiff certified to collect state day care for the defendant's children, for $2,000 a month from the state. Defendant claims plaintiff was evicted from previous apartment.

Plaintiff claims she gave defendant money every month, plus $400 to plaintiff's aunt. Plaintiff claims defendant kept all of her belongings when she moved out. Plaintiff claims she moved out of house, and was still collecting state money for babysitting that was being done by someone else for defendant.

JJ dismisses the property plaintiff claims defendant kept, because defendant says she doesn't have it. Plaintiff is claiming for anonymous tire slashing, but no proof who did that. Plaintiff claims the defendant son assaulted her, when plaintiff was trespassing getting her stuff. Plaintiff claims son pushed and hit her, broke her glasses, but she was trespassing. Anthony Ehli, plaintiff witness, was also with her during the trespass and assault.

Defendant son says his siblings were yelling, and he saw plaintiff, and her witness trespassing and stealing items from the house, and then witness and two other men assaulted the son, and threatened him with Anthony Ehli's gun (he has a concealed carry permit). Defendant says plaintiff took her children's car seats, and a stroller with her when she left.

JJ says neither litigant came to court with clean hands, cases dismissed.

Hush Money?!-Plaintiff Dawn Kasner suing her daughter's ex, Maksim Belyy suing for an unpaid $2,000 loan. However, the loan was for bills when defendant, and the daughter were living together (plaintiff daughter is plaintiff's witness, Kristina Kasner ) Defendant claims he paid $1,200 back to plaintiff. Defendant claims he was still seeing the plaintiff's daughter, and claims plaintiff said if he stopped seeing her daughter that the loan would be forgiven.

$800 to plaintiff.

Second (2017)-

All Sales are Final! -Plaintiff / furniture buyer Rocco Morelli is suing consignment shop owner Susan Thomas for the money he paid for furniture he never received. Plaintiff was furnishing a house, and he bought furniture from defendant, for $8,215 total, and plaintiff has a receipt. Receipt says all sales are final (the receipt is the contract). The plaintiff changed his mind about a sectional sofa, and a king-sized bed, and wanted a refund, defendant said no, so he cancelled. Plaintiff disputed with the credit card company, they ruled in favor of the plaintiff, then defendant disputed it, and money was eventually returned to defendant by credit card company.

Plaintiff sent a mover to pick up the furniture after the final credit card ruling. Defendant says plaintiff never picked up furniture after numerous attempts to contact him. Plaintiff witness claims the mover (his witness), was told furniture was already sold. Witness was sent to pick up 14 pieces of furniture, but claims 5 were already sold, so mover picked up nothing. Then, American Express reopened the case, and ruled in defendant's favor again. (I hate the plaintiff). Defendant admits she did sell some of the furniture (including a silver giraffe) was sold, after waiting until March for plaintiff to pick up furniture.

$5,000 to plaintiff. Defendant has no receipts for the furniture she resold. Defendant also claims plaintiff made 'advancements' on her.

One-of-a-kind Hardwood Table Feud! -Plaintiff Ashley Tobosa is suing artist John Breslinfor the return of deposit for a custom-made dining table. This is the defendant's only source of income, making custom furniture pieces with live edge, and he's been in business for six years. However, defendant didn't bring photos of the final product, and there is no written contract specifying completion date either.

Deposit was $1500 down, which was paid, and $1500 more on delivery. They agreed that 22 October was the finish date, and table wasn't finished, and plaintiff wanted the deposit back. Defendant refused to refund deposit.

As JJ says, there wasn't a final date of completion for the table. The pictures don't show the completed work the defendant claims. There isn't enough progress shown to prove that the table was actually progressing, or being worked on.

Plaintiff receives $1500 back.

CrazyInAlabama · March 24, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2020)-

Season Pass Scam?!-Plaintiffs Victoria Viamin, Jonathan Friedland, and Nicholas Shore, bought season passes for $500 each, Ikon annual friends and family ski passes from defendant Vynessa DiBlasio. There was another person who bought the $400 pass with blackout dates on holidays. Passes are usually $1,000, but the $500 pass had no blackout dates. Plaintiffs paid on apps to defendant. ($400 pass isn't in court, so he's out).

Defendant says she received $1500 via the apps, for the $500 Ikon ski passes. Then all three plaintiffs received an email saying that the three passes (and the fourth) were fraudulent. Defendant says she was duped, and it's not her fraud. However, she resold the passes, so it's her fraud. JJ tells obnoxious defendant to find the person she bought the passes from. (I think the plaintiffs found out the passes were fake by trying to claim the passes online, and the ski area, or whoever handles the passes emailed the plaintiffs telling them the passes were fakes).

$500 to each of the three plaintiffs, totaling $1,500.

Father Son Fight! (2013)-Plaintiff Cody Lloyd suing his father, Randall Lloyd for a car that Cody paid $4200 for. Car was in father's name, because of Cody's age, and was supposed to be transferred to son when he turned 18. Father was mad that son who moved in with him, had a party in his house, when father was out of town.

When son became 18, father was supposed to turn car over to son, and instead the father sold the car, and kept the money.

Father Randall Lloyd is slurping the Water That Must be Drunk like he's been marooned in the desert for years. What a slime ball.

Plaintiff receives $4200 for his car, father receives nothing.

Covid Strikes Again! (2020)-Plaintiff Alexander Nielsen suing former landlady, Mary L'Homme. Tenant lived there for two years, and rent was $2,000 a month, and during Covid rent was reduced to $1500 for two months, tenant paid it, and plaintiff then moved out with relatives, and still wants his security deposit back. During Covid plaintiff's company stopped overtime, and his income was reduced.

Defendant says all conditions with the reduced rent dropped off of her phone. Fortunately, plaintiff has the texts. (Why did plaintiff take an apartment where he had to have overtime to afford it? That's not the landlord's problem, it's his). Defendant agreed to the reduced rent for two months, at $1500.

Plaintiff receives his $1,000 security deposit.

Second (2020)-

Groomer Lacerates Dog?!-Plaintiff Brenda Cornejo, dog owner is suing grooming shop owner, Diane Layton, for the damages to her dog's tail, eventually leading to tail amputation. Plaintiff took Marley (small terrier mix), and German Shepherd for groom, and when she picked the dogs up, noticed Marley's tail was sliced. Plaintiff claims this was the only injury Marley ever had at the groomer. Plaintiff's son was playing with the dogs at her home after the grooming, and dog shrieked, and was bleeding. I bet something happened at home, not at the groomer's shop.

Dog went to emergency vet, and first bill was $400+, there were other visits, and reports from the emergency vet. There are also a lot of routine vaccinations on the emergency vet bills to. Then plaintiff took her dog to her vet, and the tail was amputated at the emergency vet, $3012. Groomer records say dog had tail issues since June 2018. Groomer says she told plaintiff about the tail issues, and dog should see a vet. Plaintiff claims groomer forged the grooming card. What grooming shop has the owner doing all of the work?

Plaintiff is going to win, but she shouldn't.

Plaintiff witness, Tia Weinstein, testifies that she never saw an injury on Marley. Photos of the dog tail are submitted, and the wound is very minor, and on the end of his tail.

I think it's either fly bites, that became infected, or an older injury that was never treated over a long time. That's not a fresh wound in my opinion. I think it's an infection that was never treated, and it's not anything to do with the groomer. There isn't trimmed hair on the tail either, especially the tip. In my opinion (I've had dogs that went to the groomer a lot over the years), that's not a grooming accident. JJ also ignored that the vet had to do all of the routine shots, because groomer says dog had never been to the vet, ever!

Plaintiff receives $ 3358 for vet bills. Lost wages and other garbage are tossed out.

Edited March 25, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · March 24, 2021

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says she received $1500 via the apps, for the $500 Ikon ski passes

Doesn't anyone write checks anymore?????

DoctorK · March 25, 2021

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

That's not a fresh wound in my opinion.

I noted that the first time around. I don't know what happened at the groomers place but at most it was contributory negligence by plaintiff for not taking the poor dog to vet promptly.

parrotfeathers · March 25, 2021

2 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Doesn't anyone write checks anymore?????

Only old people like me.

parrotfeathers · March 25, 2021

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is going to win, but she shouldn't.

Plaintiff witness, Tia Weinstein, testifies that she never saw an injury on Marley. Photos of the dog tail are submitted, and the wound is very minor, and on the end of his tail.

I think it's either fly bites, that became infected, or an older injury that was never treated over a long time. That's not a fresh wound in my opinion. I think it's an infection that was never treated, and it's not anything to do with the groomer. There isn't trimmed hair on the tail either, especially the tip. In my opinion (I've had dogs that went to the groomer a lot over the years), that's not a grooming accident. JJ also ignored that the vet had to do all of the routine shots, because groomer says dog had never been to the vet, ever!

JJ hates groomers for some reason. i've never seen one prevail.

Carolina Girl · March 25, 2021

15 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

Doesn't anyone write checks anymore?????

I have them just in case. But rarely use them.

I think that the defendant has been pulling this half/price lift pass scheme for awhile, probably selling the same ones over and over again and then claiming that "her" pass was fraudulent as well. But in the time since this first aired, I'm curious about all the mechanisms in play. HOW did the plaintiffs become aware that these were fraudulent passes? I got the impression that they received some sort of email. From who? Maybe the defendant's little scheme involves first the selling of the passes to the marks (and always making sure they believe con-lady defendant is buying one for herself) and then an email saying the passes were fake. Did defendant send the email? I have a feeling this is the first time that her marks fought back and held HER accountable for the fraud. Others just saw her as a victim like themselves and I'm sure she PROMISED her other marks that she was working diligently to find the "real" culprit.

CrazyInAlabama · March 25, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Home for Eight Children-Plaintiff/landlady Deborah Evans is suing former tenant Pauletta Davis for damages to rental property, utility bills, and a stolen phone. Defendant moved in with her eight children, and husband, and blames the damages on the children. $1595 was rent, $1595 was security, but only paid a little over $1200 (It was under Section 8, but defendant has to pay the security deposit). There are giant holes in the walls, lots of trash in the house. Defendant says the plaintiff had a problem with the kids, ranging from 4 to 15. Defendant says plaintiff would come to the house at 6 a.m., and lock the children outside all day. Plaintiff bought the house in 1991, lived there until 2009, her son lived there for a while, and then she rented it out after remodeling the house. Plaintiff says she bought for $41k and sold in 2017 for $190k, (reduced from $200k for the damages), and rented it out for seven years.

As JJ says, plaintiff was getting the full rent from Section 8, but still told defendant to leave. Plaintiff wanted the defendant, husband, and eight children out because of damages to house, fence, yard, etc. There are tons of junk outside the garage, and in the yard, including tires. Interior damages are huge holes in the walls, and the pictures of the yard and house trash are appalling. The children regularly played basketball in the house. Defendant claims she had to fix all of the damage to qualify for another Section 8 home.

Defendant says she didn't have any supervision for her eight kids, so they destroyed the house. Tenants only lived in house for 14 months, and claims she was homeless when she moved out, and pays $1500 a month for her children to stay in a room. Plaintiff did not bring receipts to fix damages in the house. Plaintiff's husband fixed the damages in the house. Plaintiff sold the house after this, and had to reduce the sale price by $10,000 to the buyer for damage repairs.

Case is dismissed, there were few repairs done, and no receipts. Plaintiff has utility bills she paid that defendant didn't pay (but no receipts for payments). Plaintiff wants to be paid for a cell phone she claims defendant, or her children stole from her.

Both cases are dismissed. Plaintiff sold the property, and defendant trashed the place, so she's not getting her security deposit back. (I hope plaintiff's new landlord saw this show, and where ever her out of control kids are staying). Defendant's moving fees aren't getting paid by Officer Byrd either.

(Why do landlords ever come on this show? Or The People's Court either? They must think it will be the one time the judge sides with the landlord, but it very rarely is. )

Widow Payback?!-Plaintiff Karen Midthun suing her late cousin's widower, Dillon Staley for an unpaid car loan. Defendant's late wife was diagnosed with a terminal disease at 19 or 20, and died not too long later. Plaintiff co-signed on the loan (defendant, and his late wife are both young, and had a child) for a car, and after the wife died, the defendant couldn't pay for the loan.

Defendant couldn't afford the payments, so dropped the car at the bank, and it was sold at auction, with a deficit. Defendant was the primary, and the bank (it actually was a repossession) should have garnished the defendant's wages. Defendant had the car for 2 years, and he and his new girlfriend have an F-150 (apparently, he has one, and there are more). The bank notice came to the defendant's address, and he ignored it, and the bank went after the co-signer plaintiff.

In the hall-terview defendant says he's not in contact with his wife's aunt because she doesn't come around, and doesn't like his new girlfriend. Plaintiff says the defendant certainly found a new girlfriend quickly, and she disapproves of the way they're carrying on. $5,000 to plaintiff. (I hope this was the total shortfall).

Second (2017)-

Going, Going…Gone! -Plaintiffs Joseph Lackay, and friend Antoinette Baysah suing defendant Lawrence Cassell over car they bought from defendant for $1,000 down, and $1200 owing. Defendant can go to car auctions, and was going to buy a vehicle for Ms. Baysah for $2200, with $1,000 down to defendant. Plaintiff Lackay took possession of the car, on 26 or 27 December, and paid $1,000 first, and $2200 when he picked it up from the defendant. Then Mr. Lackay took the car to a mechanic, and mechanic said car needed new transmission. Plaintiff Lackay said defendant told him to leave the car keys with the mechanic, and defendant would pick it up, and find another car at the auction for plaintiff Baysah.

Defendant says he has title for car, but doesn't have the car, or know where it is. Defendant says car was towed off by mechanic, and went to impound. Defendant says plaintiff Lackay paid the first $1,000 on the car after he already had the car, and defendant drove the car to plaintiff's house. Then plaintiffs had the car, and paid the $1200 to defendant. Defendant says plaintiffs had the car for a month, plaintiff says only two weeks, but the car was in plaintiffs' possession for a while. Plaintiffs will not get $2200 refund. Defendant purchased car at auction for $1800 plus fees. Defendant offered a second car to plaintiffs, but they didn't return the first car. However, defendant paid $1257 for the car at auction, but he purchased rims and paid state fees for the car.

Plaintiff receives

Grandmother Payback?! -Plaintiff Melissa Daniels (SSMOT-Sainted Single Mother of Three) suing defendant Segonia Bradley (her son is father of plaintiff's three children). Defendant took care of the plaintiff's three children for two months, and claims that should cancel the $700 loan from plaintiff for defendant to pay on a car, and there's another $1100 owed to plaintiff too. Defendant had car for a year, but never paid on it, and she claims she took care of the three grandchildren for two months.

Defendant sold the car.

Plaintiff receives $1800.

CrazyInAlabama · March 25, 2021

5 p.m. episodes

First-

Judge Judy’s Home Improvement Tip! (2021)-Plaintiffs John Haskin IV, Dana Roselli, Krista Sterling, and Jessica Anderson are suing defendant/former landlord Jennifer Ackley for their security deposits back. Defendant claims the tenants didn't pay on time every month, and when they moved out she kept the security deposits, ($2200 security ) and she alleges $3500 more damages.

Defendant doesn't have receipts for repairs. There is some floor damage, and some baseboard trim damages, (JJ says she could fix the trim and drywall holes with wood filler, then a file or sandpaper, and paint the small place you repaired). Carpet is filthy, and was replaced. There is some trash, behind the stove, one damaged window blind, more trim. The fridge plastic bins were damaged. Tenant blames the defendant's boyfriend for cracking the fridge bins when he brought it in the house. But fridge was used. $500+ for microhood replacement.

Plaintiffs receive $1524 back, defendant case dismissed.

Follow the Bouncing Ball (2013) -Plaintiff Peter Sayegh is suing defendant Damian Hearndon, over his injury in a pick up basketball game. However, defendant claims plaintiff was overly aggressive, and defendant was defending himself. Litigants didn't know each other before the pickup game. Plaintiff's jaw was dislocated, but defendant wasn't injured. JJ's right, if defendant was felt so threatened by plaintiff, why didn't he leave? So defendant punched the plaintiff. After the punch, defendant was removed from the game by the gym staff.

Plaintiff receives medical bills $3,000.

Second (2019)-

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

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

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

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

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

Edited March 25, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

parrotfeathers · March 26, 2021

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

I always enjoying this episode. Plaintiff really thought she was going to win.

DoctorK · March 26, 2021

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case is dismissed, there were few repairs done, and no receipts.

I wish the plaintiff had done a better job of getting her evidence together. The defendant was a complete piece of trash.

DoctorK · March 26, 2021

2 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

I always enjoying this episode. Plaintiff really thought she was going to win.

She figured that if she tilted her head and smiled and giggled, she would wion. She was full of it in this case thought that her cutesy personality would win the case. I despised her and her facial theatrics.

CrazyInAlabama · March 26, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Introducing...the Attacking Chiweenie!-Plaintiffs Bridget Mack suing defendants Michelle and Frank (Francisco) Herrera over their Chiweenie (Chihuahua/Dachshund mix) chasing their child, and biting him. This is immortalized on video. However, why was plaintiff's kid in the defendant's yard, and why isn't the yard fenced? Unless the mobile home park doesn't allow fences? Defendant has one Chiweenie, a mutt, and two Chihuahuas. Plaintiff mom's left arm tattoo is blurred.

Plaintiff kid Malick comes to the witness chair of Justice, to tell JJ about the attack, but he doesn't remember the attack.

Defendant's son Skyler Herrera, is testifying, and says he was out with one Chiweenie, and the mutt (he keeps looking to Mom to be coached). Defendant says he was walking the two dogs in the back yard, and the Chiweenie escaped. Video shows three dogs chasing Malick, and chasing him home, and him running, and trying to climb the trash cans by his own porch, then out of camera range a dog bites him, and the kid escapes and runs home.

Defendant also says the plaintiff kid was teasing her dogs, in her yard, and that's why the dog bit him. Defendant mother is such a liar.

Medical bills are submitted by plaintiff. Plaintiff had no health insurance. $821 are the medical bills, and defendant said he would pay the bills, and then refused. Defendant says she never saw the video before, and she's disgusting. I hope the mobile park evicts the defendants.

Plaintiff says defendants never said anything about her son teasing the dogs every day, so maybe if they were so worried about the dogs being teased defendants would have complained to plaintiff. Plaintiff also says her son doesn't go into defendant's yard or around the dogs any more.

Plaintiff receives $821 for the medical bills.

Expensive Hobby, Supportive Wife-Plaintiff Gerrud Greaux suing mechanic John Gonzalez for the money he paid to repair an old VW bus, $6,000. This is his hobby, but it's his money (JJ was saying his wife must be very supportive of his hobby, I bet he makes a bundle on redoing, and flipping vintage vehicles). Plaintiff buys antique VWs, restores them, and sells them.

Plaintiff gave $6,000 to defendant to restore the VW Bus, after seeing the work the plaintiff did (The total bill to restore the outside, sand blast and repaint and other work was supposed to add up to $11,000). Defendant lost his shop, and the VW bus disappeared. VW was sent to sand blaster shop, and defendant claims he told the plaintiff where to pick it up, but he's lying. Defendant's phone was stolen, so he has no proof of anything.

Then the van disappeared, and plaintiff sent out an alert on Facebook, looking for the van, and it had been sold by the sand blaster, because they didn't know who owned it, for $3500. Someone told him who bought the van, and plaintiff had to buy it back for $3500.

Plaintiff receives $5,000 (still short 4500).

Second (2017)-

Ex-Lover Restraining Order?! -Plaintiff Eliza Salazar suing former boyfriend Agustin Villegas over a care card dental bill, rent, a phone, property damages, and an assault. Plaintiff had a care card, and defendant spent $2100 at the dentist on her account, and is also suing for rent, property damages, and an assault on her. They lived together for two years. They split the rent and utilities, except when he was out of work. Defendant claims he paid $4700 for the dentist, and legal bills, but has no proof.

Defendant would give plaintiff cash, and she would decide how much goes to the dental accounts. Plaintiff wants rent and utilities she paid when they were living together, and defendant was out of work, thrown out. Plaintiff loaned defendant $2500 for a divorce lawyer. There was also a huge credit to the dental bill by defendant's health/dental insurance.

Plaintiff submits a police report of an assault. However, plaintiff only applied and was granted a temporary restraining order, and never went to court to get a final order, or testified about the assault. Defendant says after the fight, as he was leaving plaintiff stabbed him in the back.

JJ will give plaintiff $2,099 for the last of the dental bill, and a phone.

Don't Show Me the Money! -Plaintiff Zeola Belchen suing former friend Christopher Glynn for a loan to pay his rent. A year before this, the defendant's mother was behind on rent (he lives with his mother when he's in town working), and plaintiff loaned defendant $ . Plaintiff only has her disability payment ($1400 to support herself now), but at the time of the loan she had a job, and was applying for disability, and received a lump sum of $9800 back payment. The defendant mentioned he needed $900 for mom's rent.

Plaintiff has a money order for the money, made out to Mayfair Apartments.

(My question is why so many litigants on this show mention to anyone that they're getting a settlement, or other lump sum payment?)

$900 to plaintiff

AlleC17 · March 26, 2021

On 3/25/2021 at 12:30 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes

First-

Judge Judy’s Home Improvement Tip! (2021)-Plaintiffs John Haskin IV, Dana Roselli, Krista Sterling, and Jessica Anderson  are suing defendant/former landlord Jennifer Ackley for their security deposits back. Defendant claims the tenants didn't pay on time every month, and when they moved out she kept the security deposits, ($2200 security ) and she alleges $3500 more damages.

Defendant doesn't have receipts for repairs. There is some floor damage, and some baseboard trim damages, (JJ says she could fix the trim and drywall holes with wood filler, then a file or sandpaper, and paint the small place you repaired). Carpet is filthy, and was replaced. There is some trash, behind the stove, one damaged window blind, more trim. The fridge plastic bins were damaged.  Tenant blames the defendant's boyfriend for cracking the fridge bins when he brought it in the house. But fridge was used. $500+ for microhood replacement.

Plaintiffs receive $1524 back, defendant case dismissed.

Follow the Bouncing Ball (2013) -Plaintiff Peter Sayegh is suing defendant Damian Hearndon, over his injury in a pick up basketball game. However, defendant claims plaintiff was overly aggressive, and defendant was defending himself. Litigants didn't know each other before the pickup game. Plaintiff's jaw was dislocated, but defendant wasn't injured. JJ's right, if defendant was felt so threatened by plaintiff, why didn't he leave? So defendant punched the plaintiff. After the punch, defendant was removed from the game by the gym staff.

Plaintiff receives medical bills $3,000.

Second (2019)-

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the dueling b-ball players: I was in agreement until the dumb ass plaintiff was mouthing off in the halterview. I wanted to punch him in the mouth so bad, so my sympathy reverted to the defendant. The timing of the old episode with the saddle fitting is perfect: my new saddle has just arrived, yay! My saddle fitter is coming to the barn tomorrow morning and will make any small adjustments right before I have my lesson with my trainer. My fitter had me try various saddles in December, and took numerous measurements of my horse so that the saddle is made specifically to my horse's shape. That's not to say that it won't fit another horse of similar shape and type, but that is why you order a new one versus a used one. Plaintiff was an ass and I am glad she lost. Sad to see that the lies she posted were never taken down.

CrazyInAlabama · March 26, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Gas Leak! Run for Your Life! (2021) -Plaintiffs /former tenants Abigail Bosco, Brianne Jones, and Simon Becker are suing defendant/landlord Annette Malveaux over a gas leak at their rental that could have killed them. Plaintiffs want their security deposits, and rent back, which total $5,000. Defendant owns and leases out five homes. JJ wants to see the Certificate of Occupancy for the property leased by the plaintiffs, they moved in on July 15, 2020. The C of O was never given to the court, and house never had one. Defendant says she bought a 2 bed/1 bath, and remodeled it to a 3 bed/2 bath. No proof of inspections is produced, and no C of O. The defendant submits the inspection report, not dated, from the property management company (no inspection report by city, or C of O).

$5,000

Sober Living Roommate Fail?! (2021)-Plaintiff Travis Garcia suing defendant Richard Murphy for rent, utilities, and security deposit. Litigants were roomies at a sober living home. Then plaintiff rented a room at a private residence, and let defendant stay over sometimes. Defendant only has Social Security disability, for $1700 a month. Then the litigants wanted to move into a shared apartment, and plaintiff alleges he made loans to the defendant. Plaintiff says he paid first month's rent, security, and bills, and says defendant never paid him back. Plaintiff claims defendant never paid him anything.

Plaintiff receives $1,674.

Heartbroken and Broke (2014) -Plaintiff Elizabeth Gazdziak suing defendant/ex Zachary Tubbs for his half of the bills, and rent when they lived together.

Plaintiff loaned defendant $1,000 for the down payment for his car, but he agreed to pay plaintiff back. Rent amount dismissed.

$1,000 to plaintiff.

Second (2021)-

Haunted by Bad Insurance?! (2021) -Plaintiff Jazmyne Barras suing defendant/former roommate Mariah Howard over car damages, impound fees. Plaintiff was financing her car, and was required to have liability, and collision insurance coverage, but only had liability. Litigants were roommates, and defendant used the car regularly, and defendant paid half of the liability insurance. Plaintiff was buying the car on a 6 year note, and still owes $11,000 on the car.

Defendant hit a brick wall, mailbox, and a fire hydrant, and was making (according to police) an unsafe turn. Defendant claims she was turning left, and a motorcyclist cut her off, and to avoid the motorcyclist she hit the mailbox, wall, and fire hydrant. There were no witnesses. Police did not cite the defendant. Defendant hasn't worked in a long time, and now lives with relatives.

After defendant's wreck, plaintiff had car towed and parked in front of plaintiff's house, plaintiff stopped making payments on car, and car was repo'd by bank from the impound lot (my guess is towed for lapsed registration). Plaintiff reported car to police as stolen, but it wasn't, since defendant was on the minimal insurance.

Plaintiff case dismissed, she should have had the proper insurance.

Who Scammed Who? (2014) -Plaintiff Patience Kofa suing defendant Edwin Lohr over a stereo woofer she sold to defendant over the internet. Plaintiff sold a woofer to defendant, and when defendant picked it up, he didn't like it, so Amazon (she's apparently a third party seller on Amazon). Defendant's money was refunded by Amazon, but he kept the woofer. Defendant is directed to give the woofer back to plaintiff, because he was given the money back by Amazon,

Plaintiff wants her money for the woofer, but JJ says she's getting the woofer back. Plaintiff keeps insisting she doesn't want the woofer back, just the money. Defendant will receive $112 for postage. Both litigants are being jerks. Then JJ tells defendant to return the woofer, or she'll cancel his ticket back to New York.

Edited March 27, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · March 27, 2021

On 3/26/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff Jazmyne Barras suing defendant/former roommate Mariah Howard over car damages,

Quite possibly the DUMB-ASS and INARTICULATE person I'e seen of the show in a very long time. And that's saying withe caliber of litigants we've seen lately.

CrazyInAlabama · March 29, 2021

OK, this is the situation. Today my JJ will be zapped by NASCAR coverage, so fortunately I have all reruns that I did before, including one that is either one case or another, so I'll put the description up. Just know that I have been dealt a huge blow by this [trademark Jenny from 90 day fiance], and will be whining about it all day (fortunately, I have good insulation so no one will call the cops about the whining).

4 p.m. reruns-

First-(2017)

Teenager Challenges Judge Judy! -Plaintiff Sierra Pearson, suing defendant Jenny Soto, and her daughter Makayla Allen for keying her car. Plaintiff was living in friend's house (Nick age 20), with several other people, after a rift with her family. Then plaintiff's friend Nick starts dating defendant daughter Michaela. Nick and Makayla had a falling out (Makayla Allen is 16). Jenny Soto (defendant mother) says she can't do anything about daughter Makayla's behavior Defendant mother says she's tried therapy, etc. but nothing helps daughter. Defendant mother knew her 16-year-old delinquent daughter was living with Nick, and the others, but mother never told Nick's mother that Makayla was 16.

Plaintiff found the car keying a few days later, and there is a witness (Bryton O Wells, age 19). Witness was helping Makayla move out, and she didn't see the keying, but she heard it, and said Makayla boasted about keying the car. Witness and Makayla had a falling out a month later, and witness said Makayla stole from her and her father, so Makayla was told to leave the house. Plaintiff has a text from Makayla Allen admitting the keying. Plaintiff was smart, she told Makayla she had video of the keying, and it was going to the cops. So, defendant confessed via text.

Because daughter is 16, mother is responsible. Then it turns, when JJ says she can lecture her or not, and then Mikayla Allen gets nasty, and asks JJ why she's bothering to lecture the little criminal. Mikayla has a nasty little attitude.

$428 to plaintiff.

Car Sale Fiasco-(Very strange, not listed in the cable guide or online)-Plaintiff Cameron Jacobsen sold a car to defendant Nichole Megeterian, for $2,000 down, on a car for $11,000+, but he paid her directly for her previous car. Plaintiff is a car dealer, but doesn't do his paperwork right. Plaintiff actually took the car, plus $300 for the $2,000 down. Case is over, plaintiff received the $1700 car, plus the $300 cash, so plaintiff is whole.

Defendant didn't sign title over to plaintiff. Plaintiff will have to handle this through the lost title process.

Case dismissed. (The next case was listed the last time, but the car case ran then also).

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

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

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

Why does plaintiff woman keep fidgeting, and bouncing around?

Everything dismissed.

Second (2017)-

Man's Fuzzy Memory of Assault?!-Plaintiff suing his ex-girlfriend for credit card fees, legal fees and the return of property. However, defendant claims plaintiff attacked her, she didn't attack him. Defendant claims plaintiff's pastor is actually his side piece. They have been in a relationship since 2013, shacked up 2015, and separated in December 2016. Plaintiff claims they never lived together. Plaintiff gave defendant a second card for his credit card. Plaintiff claims defendant made unauthorized charges on his credit card, after they separated (anything before that time is not unauthorized). As usual. plaintiff has no bills to prove anything, but claims defendant went online and changed the billing address to her address, so he never saw the bills.

Plaintiff wants legal fees over the credit card issue, and he's not getting that. Property plaintiff wants back includes an old air conditioner, Plaintiff also wants an old fridge/freezer he stored in defendant's garage. Freezer is gone, dismissed. Defendant wants items stored in plaintiff's shed. Plaintiff claims everything he was storing for defendant is gone into thin air. There is a storage unit that was mutual, but has been emptied. The shed defendant is talking about is on plaintiff's property.

No police report about defendant's assault, but medical record is submitted. Plaintiff claims there was no assault by him.

The argument was plaintiff talking to his pastor girlfriend/fiance, so the couple split up, and defendant moved out. That's when defendant does the dramatic explanation of the violent assault on her by the geezer boyfriend. If her description was true, she would have been in ICU, not moving out. Defendant claims she called the police, but didn't file the report. I don't believe the defendant at all.

Counter claim $2500 to defendant, and nothing for plaintiff.

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2020)-

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

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

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

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

Second-

Divorce Kills a Catered Party?! (2020) -Plaintiff Toby Petrucelli (woman) suing caterer, Nancy Vajretti, over an event that never happened, at a venue/club. Plaintiff claims she and her ex-husband signed the contract in July18, 2020 for the event that would happen in December 2020, with $1500 down, and more payments to follow. However, contract copy from defendant was only signed by ex-husband, and defendant. So, plaintiff has no standing in this case. Next payment was due on August 6, for $3500, next was November 6 for $3500.

Contract says cancel by 90 days before event to get a refund. Cancellation was October 6th, less than 90 days before the event. Payment of $8,000 was made in October, right before the cancellation. The plaintiffs paid in full for a discount,

Plaintiff has no standing in the case, so she receives nothing. Ex-husband will have to sue to get the money back.

Clueless Crash Into a Wall (2012)-Plaintiff Giselle Bennett is suing neighbor, Shannon Robinson (male) for driving into her garden, and crashing into a retaining wall on her property. This happened in Atlanta GA. Plaintiff was asleep, heard a crash, and found the accident happened. Defendant says he has no idea how the car ended up on plaintiff's property, and who stole, and crashed his car. Defendant car was not insured, and he claims he wasn't responsible.

Defendant's statement says he parked in front of plaintiff's home, on the street, because his friends needed his driveway for parking.

Pictures of the retaining wall are very bad, insurance would have covered this, but defendant didn't pay his bills. Plaintiff has letter from defendant's former insurance company, and it says his policy was cancelled a full month before his car mysteriously flew into plaintiff's wall.

$350 to plaintiff.

Edited March 29, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

LetsStartTalking · March 29, 2021

On 3/25/2021 at 6:30 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes

First-

Follow the Bouncing Ball (2013) -Plaintiff Peter Sayegh is suing defendant Damian Hearndon, over his injury in a pick up basketball game. However, defendant claims plaintiff was overly aggressive, and defendant was defending himself. Litigants didn't know each other before the pickup game. Plaintiff's jaw was dislocated, but defendant wasn't injured. JJ's right, if defendant was felt so threatened by plaintiff, why didn't he leave? So defendant punched the plaintiff. After the punch, defendant was removed from the game by the gym staff.

Plaintiff receives medical bills $3,000.

WOW! Two gorgeous litigants in one case. I'd love to follow their bouncing balls, or be the towel boy in their locker room...

Anyhow, this case was actually from 2012, as the police report was dated the end of January, 2012 - so this was 9 years ago. I did a Google search on these two, and sure enough they've grown into fine sexy men today. Plaintiff is a lawyer today (you could tell he was an aspiring lawyer as the plaintiff the way he presented his case) and the defendant looks to be a rap artist from what I can tell.

Two handsome guys - why in the world did they keep this one in the can for so long ??????? Nine years ????

Quote

First-

Gas Leak! Run for Your Life! (2021) -Plaintiffs /former tenants Abigail Bosco, Brianne Jones, and Simon Becker are suing defendant/landlord Annette Malveaux over a gas leak at their rental that could have killed them. Plaintiffs want their security deposits, and rent back, which total $5,000. Defendant owns and leases out five homes. JJ wants to see the Certificate of Occupancy for the property leased by the plaintiffs, they moved in on July 15, 2020. The C of O was never given to the court, and house never had one. Defendant says she bought a 2 bed/1 bath, and remodeled it to a 3 bed/2 bath. No proof of inspections is produced, and no C of O. The defendant submits the inspection report, not dated, from the property management company (no inspection report by city, or C of O).

$5,000

As much as I wanted to be interested in this case, I was totally distracted by the lipstick all over the front left tooth of Malveaux. No one checked her before she went on camera ? Byrd didn't say to her 'ya gotta little lipstick on your tooth' ?

Edited March 29, 2021 by LetsStartTalking

One Tough Cookie · March 29, 2021

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

)-Plaintiff Giselle Bennett is suing neighbor,

And did you notice what appears to be prison tats?

CrazyInAlabama · March 30, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

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

Caterer says she provided bartender but some man on plaintiff side says he was bartending, but bar was the responsibility of the plaintiffs. There were no leftovers. Plaintiffs are complaining about lack of leftovers. But when you contract for $5,000 for 120 people, and 180 attended for $7633, that's still a good deal. A few days after wedding bride threatened to write nasty yelp review about caterer, unless, caterer gave her $5,000. There was a bartender supplied by defendant. (Note to plaintiffs, if you invite 60 extra people, then you won't have leftovers). Defendant says the guests were all drunk.

Cases dismissed.

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

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

Case dismissed, because it's ridiculous.

Second (2017)—

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

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

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

Sparrow Breaks Lease? -Plaintiff Jodi McCrath suing Susan Rozanc / former landlord for security deposit of $1320, and illegal eviction. Plaintiff was a month-to-month tenant in a duplex that defendant purchased. Previous owner gave $1320 security to defendant. Defendant gave a 30-day notice to plaintiff, but plaintiff broke her foot, and wanted to stay longer, and said that she didn't pay July's rent, but it should be taken from the security deposit, but security isn't for unpaid rent, but damages.

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

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

$330 to plaintiff.

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

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

Plaintiff receives $1600.

CrazyInAlabama · March 30, 2021

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

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

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

Vet's report says foreign object was found in dog, and was probably consumed within 24 hours of surgery. Defendant texted plaintiff woman dog was lethargic, and throwing up. JJ is blaming the pet sitter, because defendant had the dog during the day before the onset of illness. It is possible dog ate a ball at defendant's place, but the 24 hours guess by the vet is only an estimation. However, dog was picked up in the evening, and was sick then, but the plaintiff didn't take the dog to an emergency vet, but waited until the next morning, and dog had surgery that evening. Defendant shows Facebook posts by the plaintiff wife, JJ says the defendant's counter claim is dismissed, the FB posts aren't defamation.

(I know I'm not a vet, but I've had a lot of dogs over the years, and I don't think the 24- hour limit on the dog eating part of the ball is realistic. I've had dogs eat something they shouldn't, and they're fine for days, and then they start feeling ill, not the same day. The vet was guessing, and I bet that's because the vet didn't want to have the plaintiff on their back about it. It was a generic ball, and if the plaintiff goes to dog parks, or her dog is ever in a park or anywhere else, then you'll see balls left behind a lot. So, I'm betting that the dog could have eaten the ball at any time in the same week, and I bet the owner wouldn't notice. I wonder who takes care of the dog every day at home too, because I bet it isn't the owner. I'm very glad JJ was on a TV screen, because that plaintiff was very angry at her).

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

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2020)-

Simulated War Game Gone Wrong! (2020)-Plaintiffs Kenneth and Anna-Marie Bass suing defendants Richard and Travis Monson over the trashing of property they rented to defendants for simulated war games/paint ball games involving hundreds of participants, over several days at a time. Property is 400 acres, and they used airsoft weapons. Company was Weapon Blender, from 2014 to 2016. Property rent was $3,000 a year, and there is a signed contract. Contract requires that property be cleaned up, and it's totally trashed. Plaintiffs were supposed to get a cut of entry fees, and were paid less than $2,000 for each of the three years. The company shut down in 2016, after contract ended.

Plaintiffs say they have an estimate to clean the property up that is over $5,000. Defendant smart ass #2 says he had people lined up to clean out the property, but didn't bring any proof to court.

Plaintiffs have several estimates, so they receive $5,000

Angry Grandfather Demands Payback (2020)-Plaintiff George Teixeira grandfather, suing grandson Michael Malone over a car loan (personal loan to pay off the car note). So, grandfather co-signed for grandson. Grandson lied to grandfather that he would repay the loan. Grandson stopped paying on the car loan, then collections kicked in, and the collections people told the grandfather (in 2018). Grandson now says he doesn't think he should have to pay the car loan, and his grandfather.

Defendant's mother made three payments for him. Then the grandfather paid off the loan, because he was notified that there was a judgment against him, and he paid attorney fees to settle the loan. Defendant is now in law enforcement, that does not give me a good feeling. Defendant says he was ready to go to court over the debt. Defendant and his two children live with his mother, the kid's mother is close by, and his wife is living with her mother too.

$4424 to plaintiff for deadbeat grandson's debts.

Child Daycare Provider Dispute (2013)-Plaintiff Tina Dayton suing defendant Bessy Miller, over day care she paid to defendant, and a $90 inconvenience fee. Defendant sent plaintiff a letter saying the daughter's potty-training issues meant that the child had to leave the day care program. Charges were $35 per day, and plaintiff says child there for four days. Defendant claims child was there two days a week, for a month. Defendant says daughter wasn't potty-trained, but it's not in the contract that kids have to be potty-trained. If the defendant wants to run a business, then the contract should list all of the rules.

(I don't have kids, but shouldn't a 4 year-old be potty-trained?)

Then defendant's much older boyfriend, chimes in and irritates JJ, and I'm sure Officer Byrd. (Behind plaintiff's right shoulder, there is a woman that is hideously sun burned. It makes me hurt just looking at her, it must be painful)

JJ says plaintiff will get the $210 deposit back.

Carolina Girl · March 31, 2021

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

I was wondering that myself. I'd be asking Disney WHO claimed the passes and also if the other two, although never presented by the plaintiff, were claimed as well. I'm sure, like our little fraudster with the ski passes, she was going to come to court and claim complete ignorance of the fraud and that she was an innocent victim as well. Wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that members of her family had claimed the passes.

I'm not so sure I believe that whole "radio station" story either. She definitely needs to be investigated for intentional fraud. Since DisneyWorld had been closed, I wonder if there was "residual" time left on the passes. If so, I'd be sending a copy of this tape to Disney and let them know about the fraud as well.

TVMovieBuff · March 31, 2021

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. reruns-

(I don't have kids, but shouldn't a 4 year-old be potty-trained?)

On average yes, 4 years old is on the old end not to be fully potty-trained. There are many factors that could be the problem, physical, psychological. Sometimes perfectly intelligent kids simply don't care about using the potty.

Her mom said she is potty trained, she just needs a little help. That is within an average age range for a 4 year old.

Edited March 31, 2021 by TVMovieBuff

CrazyInAlabama · March 31, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Gestapo Mom Moves in with UC Berkeley Son? -Plaintiffs, mother Girong Liu and son, Muyan "John Hu suing former landlord / defendant, Dominic Parella for illegal eviction, return of security deposit, hotel costs, return of rent. Mother either lived on couches, or in son's room until they got evicted after three months. Landlord/defendant says mommy gave son booze too, and he's 20. How weird, son has bright pink hair, and it clashes with his Golden Girls Dorothy collection patterned flowered tunic top.

Landlord rents five rooms to college students, near UC Berkeley. There's one bed in son's room, and mom slept on mattress they brought with them from home. When the son says the mom, and the landlord hit it off, and son says that's why mom stayed, I thought the landlord was going to wet his pants. Plaintiff mother claims defendant was going to sell her the house, (no, landlord isn't looking to sell the house). Rent was $1300 a month for one room!

Landlord says mom put desk by front door, to 'monitor' things, and son and mom argued constantly. Other tenants were creeped out by the weirdo mom's residence. Dad came with son and mom, and Dad left the next day to go to Shanghai, and Mom never left. The defendants claim Dad never left the country, and I don't see why they keep worrying about it, unless Daddy isn't a resident yet, and might not be able to leave and return, or something similar? Landlord took plaintiff father to airport for his flight. Son claims father just flew back to South Pasadena where they live.

Landlord says mom and son destroyed kitchen, and son's room. Landlord offered her an extra room for a few days at first, but she didn't do that, and wanted to stay on son's floor. The loony plaintiffs want hotel costs, security deposit, illegal eviction, and stolen property. The room pictures after they moved out are horrible, and there are a bunch of pictures of empty booze bottles. Even the plaintiff's pictures are awful, and full of garbage in the room, and they left under the supervision of the police.

Plaintiff gets nothing.

The Writing on 8-Year-Old’s Wall? – Plaintiff Tasiona Hill ,suing former tenant for damages to house, travel costs, etc. Summer Colvin for return of security deposit. Plaintiff rented house to defendant after plaintiff bought cheap and renovated the house, lived there for a while, rented to defendant, and claims the defendant trashed it. Defendant claims no damage, but don't they all? Defendant is blaming everything on the kids, I guess supervising kids, and teaching them how to behave is old fashioned. There were two adult tenants (defendant and cousin), and defendant's three hellions.

The property manager called the plaintiff, and told her to come and look at the house. There are pictures of crayon writing on the walls, and ceilings, but defendant says she supervised the kid. That must be a super tall 8-year-old, she wrote on the ceiling, the blinds were trashed by the kid, and the wall crayon pictures aren't even the same colors, and obviously done over time. What a liar! She's blaming a little kid for everything.

Property manager and contractor took pictures and did estimates of damages, including the kitchen cabinets that look like they used a flame thrower on the doors. The place also had bed bugs, roaches, and mice, and needs heavy duty pest treatment.

The funny thing is bad tenant, and her unsupervised hellions moved in with grandma, and grandma looks stunned at the damage, and claims this doesn't happen in her house, and I'm not believing that either.

The landlord/plaintiff gets $5,000, and I added this to my list of reasons I will never be a landlord.

Second (2017)-

Teen Joyriders Busted by Police-Plaintiffs, Rhiannon Torgerson, mother and son , suing defendant mother Kerri McCoy, and son Marcus McCoy for a share of restitution money to fix a truck. Defendant son says plaintiff son picked him up in the middle of the night in defendant's mother's truck. Plaintiff son says that defendant son came over to plaintiff's house in the middle of the night. Plaintiff says defendant picked him up on his motorcycle, and then they took defendant's mother's truck for joyriding. (I realize that the stories don't make sense, but they never do). Plaintiff criminal stole, and drove the truck, and went joyriding. Plaintiff criminal is blaming defendant criminal for the crash.

Both sons were arrested, they claim both for the first time, and they plead guilty to truck theft, and each pay restitution for the truck $4330 ($2165 each). Defendant mother refused to pay the restitution. Payment of restitution by both would result in case being sealed and expunged. Plaintiff paid all of the restitution so her criminal can play basketball or something at school,. Plaintiff demanded defendant sign a letter that she had repaid the restitution, and plaintiff criminal could play sports.

Another wrinkle, defendant criminal violated probation, charged with vandalism, and violation of house arrest, so he was again arrested. Even if defendant pays restitution, defendant criminal will not get his record expunged, because he reoffended the next month. Defendant mother still thinks her criminal son will get his record expunged, but as JJ explains, son reoffended, and won't get expunged or sealed records. Plaintiff mother doesn't care about what her son did, just that he can bounce a ball around. Defendant mother just lied to JJ, about son's second arrest.

The plaintiff paid with a credit card, and waited six months to pay the restitution, but the court holds the payment for 90 days, because the credit card holder can dispute the charges. However, plaintiff mother paid both sides, and gets $2165 from defendant.

$2165 to plaintiff.

Uninsured Boy Friend Destroys Car-Plaintiff Letrishia Tyson suing her daughter Adrienne Tyson for tow bill. Defendant is counter suing for moving expenses. Plaintiff bought new car, sold old car to daughter for $2750 (insurance continued in plaintiff's name). Then two months later defendant's boyfriend was driving the car, and totaled it. Because defendant's boyfriend wasn't licensed, and wasn't named on the insurance, insurance didn't pay for the damages.

Plaintiff told daughter, it was her fault, and to pay the car off, and she did. Plaintiff got a bill from the tow yard for storing the car for a year, for over $3,000+. Defendant's witness is the same idiot boyfriend.

As JJ says, daughter paid off the car, but since plaintiff was legal owner, she's the only one who could get the car out of the tow yard impound.

Mother and daughter moved after the accident, and daughter wants moving costs. She couldn't drive because of a C-section, how heartwarming.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant's stupid case dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · March 31, 2021

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2020)-

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

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

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

Plaintiff ridiculous case dismissed.

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

Landlady thinks because $1700 check (rent was $650 a month) was written by plaintiff's parents, then that is important. Plaintiff says defendant's rules were ridiculous. Plaintiff says defendant didn't like the smell of cooking eggs, and other items.

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

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

$400 security back to plaintiff.

Second (2020)-

Take Shorter Showers!- Plaintiff Steven Weiss paid for son, Dylan Weiss’ rented room at defendant Apawari Martin’s house. Plaintiff wants return of security deposit, and rent increase, by $100 a month, and wrongful eviction. Defendant says plaintiff father claimed son would get a job, and claims son was running a business out of the house, impacting utilities, and businesses aren't allowed in residential areas. Defendant son claims he had to sign the agreement, but JJ thinks the defendant signed the agreement, committing forgery. However, son claims he signed the contract, and addendum. (Sadly, another parent who wants others to put up with their adult child, instead of having them live with them. The father couldn't live with the son, or maybe the new wife or girlfriend didn't want to cope with him, so other people are supposed to? Also, father lied that son was going to be employed, and he wasn't then, and still isn't, unless his online services are really paying well. Personally, I don't like plaintiff father).

Son/plaintiff isn't sure if he ever signed the contract, and addendum or not. However, son kept paying the higher amount, so that sounds like a contract to me. (I studied law at the school of Law & Order, JJ, and The People's Court, so I know everything). If son isn't competent to sign contracts and pay bills, then how is he competent to live alone? Son also is supposed to have several web services companies too. Plaintiff son cut back on utilities use, so $100 increase was lowered to $50 for utilities, making rent plus utilities $750. Plaintiff father claims he didn't talk to defendant about the rent increase, just his son.

Then defendant gave plaintiff son eviction notice. According to defendant, plaintiff son took very long showers, and was in the home 24/7, using more utilities. Plaintiff father wants 11 days rent back (not happening).

Rent increase dismissed. Defendant is showing damages. This isn't going to go well for the defendant. Fair Housing court said plaintiff wasn't entitled to security deposit back, so why is JJ rehearing another adjudicator's decision? JJ wants to see the estimate, which is $800. However, I think the stucco corner had to be patched, and painted, not just painted.

$600 to plaintiff for the security deposit.

(My guess is daddy doesn't want his son living with him, and I bet there's a new wife or girlfriend that didn't want the son around. )

Edited April 2, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

babyhouseman · April 1, 2021

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Buffalo Head Mystery

That was one of the oddest cases on there.

CrazyInAlabama · April 1, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Fighting After Father Dies- Plaintiff Randall Plut sues defendant Robert Zoffel, attorney for the return of his defendant's fees. Plaintiff lived with father for five years, and father died, and left house to his four children, with a sister as executor. Sister had to sell the house, and split the proceeds between the four siblings, and plaintiff was supposed to move. Plaintiff had to be evicted by sister, after he refused to leave the house. Sister hired attorney for the eviction, and plaintiff hired defendant to fight the eviction, and since plaintiff lost and was evicted, he's suing the defendant for return of his fees. So defendant lowered his fees, and plaintiff paid the lower amount. Two years later plaintiff filed against the defendant for the fee back. Then a year after that (three years after the eviction), plaintiff is suing for the rest of the fees against defendant.

As JJ says, plaintiff paid defendant for the fees, and wants everything back he didn't authorize. Plaintiff doesn't have the cancelled check, but still wants money. Defendant says plaintiff filed a complaint with the bar association in 2017, and the complaint was thrown out by the bar association, but defendant only says complaint was filed, and dismissed in 2017.

Plaintiff claim dismissed. Defendant case dismissed too.

Lame Limo Business?! -Plaintiff Alicia Amaro suing defendant / ex-boyfriend Clarence Draper over charges on a credit card that belonged to plaintiff, and he was supposed to repay her, $4,100. There was a failed business, a limo service, but defendant had to fix his credit first. Defendant was on disability for 30 years, and then went on Social Security, and runs an unofficial taxi service.

Defendant claims the business (an LLC), existed with two cars, and charges were for the business. Defendant has two cars working for the car service, insurance, etc. but business didn't make it. Defendant claims the $4,000 was an investment, not a loan. Plaintiff received no money back from defendant.

$4,100 to plaintiff.

Second (2017) –

Eyewitness to Hit and Run!- Plaintiffs owner Troy Daniels had a hit-and-run on his vehicle, and is suing his neighbor/owner Jessica Luckett, as she is the owner of the attacking car. The witness, Nick Shallman, saw the hit and run happened in the early morning hours, after midnight, Witness says car came out of the darkness, hit a parked car, on the street in front of their buddy's house. Attacked car was shoved across the street, up on the curb, and there was a lot of damages. It was plaintiff's car, and witness looked until they found the owner of the car.

They were looking at the attacked car, and the hit and run driver drove by, but didn't stop, and hit the gas and kept going. Defendant Jessica Luckett says her brother-in-law was driving , told the police her car was hit when it was parked. Defendant's brother, Jonathan Luckett, (in court) claims he was the car passenger (no, he wasn't, brother was driving, he is a bad liar, and so is the defendant car owner).

Defendant's brother, Jonathan Luckett, stands and lies in court to JJ. Witness can't look at JJ, keeps shifting around, and looks like he's about to cry (I would like to slap him until he cries, and the defendant too, they're both liars). Brother says he was taking car to defendant's house, or his own house, he's really not sure. Lying witness claims he was the passenger, and brother-in-law was driving, and a car was in the middle of the street, and it was the plaintiff's parked car in the middle of the street, and claims plaintiff backed into defendant's car.

Defendant car owner called her insurance first, and the police after that, quite a while after the accident. BIL has a driver's license, but I'm guessing he wasn't on the car insurance policy. Plaintiff submits his copy of the police report, and lying defendant doesn't have one, even though she claims she made a report with the police. Plaintiff's police report says defendant told them her car was parked in a parking lot, and was hit there, while car was parked. Report also says car was in custody of family friend, omits the brother, and brother-in-law.

2001 Buick Le Sabre was only a year old with plaintiff.

$1200 to plaintiff for his totaled car.

Botched Bridesmaid Dresses?!-Plaintiff Keitheisha Brooks suing seamstress Jeanne James for return of money she paid seamstress to make the 10 bridesmaids dresses, for $500 down, and $500 left. Plaintiff also suing seamstress for ruining her wedding. Plaintiff paid $500 bridesmaid deposit, flower girls dress, and vests for the young men, for $180 more. Boy's vests, and flower girls dress were used in the wedding, and were paid for. All ten bridesmaids wore the dresses at the wedding, Defendant is counter claiming for money owed. Plaintiff wants $3200.

Plaintiff claims every bridesmaid dress needed help to make it down the aisle safely. However, all of the dresses were completed, except another reception dress that wasn't completed. There were two or three fittings for each of the bridesmaids' dresses. $500 was all that plaintiff paid for the bridesmaids' dresses, and at $50 each for a fitted dress, it was a bargain. Plaintiff paid $500 for bridesmaids dresses, and owed $500 more, but never paid the second $500.

Defendant says in the hall-terview that she will never do an entire wedding party's various garments again.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · April 1, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-(Both at least the first case is new)

First-

Surveillance System Fallout! (2021)- -Plaintiff/home owner Matthew Stetler is suing defendant/home alarm installer Travis Bailey for failure to install the alarm installation. Plaintiff paid $1700 for the alarm system with eight cameras, and wanted defendant to install the system/cameras. Defendant said it would be $900 up front, and remainder $915 more on completion. Defendant says plaintiff needed a router, and defendant bought that, for $150. However, defendant bought router, and didn't contact plaintiff about the installation. Defendant says plaintiff gave him two choices of dates to do the installation.

Then they had a specific date, and then plaintiff had a family medical emergency, so plaintiff cancelled the night before the installation. The plaintiff never had a firm date after the postponed installation, because he didn't schedule one. Plaintiff postponed one install date, and then wanted a refund. Plaintiff will not be getting a refund, and since defendant didn't bring the router, he's not getting the $150 for that back.

Frenemies (older, 2013 or so) – Plaintiff Kathryn Walton suing defendant Christina Asbury over unpaid rent, unpaid loan, and a smashed windshield. Defendant claims she never touched the windshield, but knows who smashed it. They met at rehab, and plaintiff said defendant could stay with her free for a while and then would have to pay $400 a month, plus was loaned $300 by plaintiff.

Defendant's boyfriend apparently doesn't work, while she does work.

Defendant claims a person she owed money to for a computer broke the windshield.

Plaintiff will not get money for the windshield, and will have to file a police report against the perp. However, plaintiff will received the loan back, $400

Second-

You’re Giving Me a Heart Attack! (2021) --Plaintiffs Beverly Stanley and Keri Wahwassuck suing defendant Martha Hooper, were renters of a 4 bedroom house. Keri's daughter lived there too. Martha and the daughter didn't get along, and defendant was living in her RV, or other relatives. In a couple of months lease expires, and Keri will move on, and Beverly will too, Martha already left, and is being sued for her portion of the rent after she left.

Martha and Beverly had an argument, and Martha said she was leaving. Martha and Beverly argued often. Their first argument was over Bev's shower curtain, and then over cabinet space in the kitchen. Martha says her heart is failing, and Beverly's harassment was killing her.

Martha claims as she was packing, Bev said her grandson would be moving in. Otherwise, defendant owes for $375 for 5 months.

$1575 to Bev and Keri for the rent.

Daddy’s Good Deed Punished? (older 2013 or so) -Plaintiff Rick Fugate suing defendant Joshua Smith, (fiance) and Tonya Fugate (plaintiff's daughter) for damages to his RV. Daughter graduated a year early, and worked full time, and moved out the day she turned 18. Plaintiff bought an RV to remodel, and sell, for $1500. Plaintiff let defendants live in the motor home, and he claims the trashed it. Defendants moved after they say plaintiff unplugged the electricity, and forced them to move.

They did damage the mattress, and a few other parts of the RV. Defendant claims the plaintiff slapped her.

$1100 to plaintiff, defendant claim dismissed.

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