All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[One Tough Cookie]

On 3/31/2021 at 6:17 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff Steven Weiss paid for son's, Dylan Weiss

Was he stoned or stupid?

Edited April 2, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

[Carolina Girl]

I loved the daughter's explanation for the atrocious damage.  Oh, there's loose dogs everywhere and they came into our trailer and destroyed everything.  Because the door didn't shut.  So.....you're saying you could neither shut nor lock your door?  So anyone could walk in and steal your stuff as well?

Neither daughter or that loser she's hitched herself to have an IQ that could power a 25-watt bulb. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018) –

Deal with the Devil?! -Plaintiff/buyer Richard Dulin  suing defendant/motorcycle seller Lorin Briscoe over the purchase of a motorcycle, stolen tires, and a 1950's Moon Rock (plastic not lunar) .   Plaintiff says he paid $1200, and has a bill of sale.   Defendant admits he wrote the bill of sale, and called the $1200 paid in full.  The litigants made an agreement  to do barter, and defendant says plaintiff never completed his part of the agreement.     Defendant has the bike. 

Bill of sale is a contract, without any exceptions on it, so plaintiff should receive the bike.  Plaintiff will receive the motorcycle, with a court order.

Suspicious Nicaragua Trip -Plaintiff Johnathan West suing defendant Patrick Ebel over a trip to Nicaragua, expenses spent on defendant and stolen property .   JJ is skeptical about the case, and wants to see proof.   Plaintiff was going to Nicaragua with a bunch of people, and defendant went along, ran out of money.  Plaintiff wants the money he paid for defendant's trip.   It was a surfing trip.    

JJ is suspicious plaintiff only wanted a free trip to L.A., and some show money. 

JJ dismisses case with prejudice for plaintiff to take back to Maryland or Virginia where the litigants live.  

Expert Breakdown Witness -Plaintiff Jeanette Campbell suing defendant Brad Peterson over a used transmission he installed in her car.   Then car died a few miles down the road, and plaintiff took the car to another mechanic who repaired the car.   Plaintiff's 'expert witness' is not connected to the transmission shop, or a mechanic from the shop.   Plaintiff paid almost $2,000 for the repair at the second shop.   Plaintiff claims defendant installed the wrong transmission, and ruined the car trying to get transmission to fit.  

Expert witness blames everything on defendant, but he didn't see the transmission at the second shop.   So how can JJ accept expert witness testimony from someone who never worked on the transmission, or saw it?   Witness claims defendant put the wrong model transmission in the car.  Defendant claims the metal cuts were present before he changed the transmission.   I wonder if there's any proof that the transmission that was replaced was original?    I bet there isn't.

Plaintiff receives her $900 back (wrong move in my opinion).

Second (2018)-

Turtle Custody, Police and Power -Plaintiff  Patricia Coffey (SSMOT-Sainted Single Mother of Two, not defendant's kids) suing defendant Zak Carron, over an electric bill, her son's turtle, and car vandalism damages.    Plaintiff, and children moved in with defendant, in his grandmother's home.   Plaintiff put electric bill in her name, but defendant payed the bill.   Plaintiff claims defendant vandalized her car, and kept her son's turtle.  All of this happened a few hours ago.   Plaintiff applied for a state program the would reduce the electric bill to $50 a month, and plaintiff received that.    When the two people separated, the autopay was still going in defendant's name, and he still only paid $50 a month for a bill that is now $200 a month usually.    Plaintiff gets $1465 for the electric bill that defendant didn't pay the full amount.    However, grandmother who owns the house defendant lives in sometimes, gets the reduced rate too.  Plaintiff claims she had to pay the $1800 owed on the electric bill by a previous tenant, to get electric service turned on. 

$1460 for electric bill to plaintiff.    Defendant keeps the turtle. 

High Heels on Disability?! -Plaintiff Amanda Entwistle (SSMOT-Sainted Single Mother of Three with defendant) suing defendant Justin Glasier for 

Plaintiff is on Worker's Comp, for a knee injury, however, she's wearing very high heels, and has been on Worker's Comp for three years now.   After an argument (apparently one of many arguments) they broke up, and there were three months left on the lease when defendant moved out.    Defendant has his six year old, then the 3 year old with plaintiff, and she has two other children.   They had money issues, and plaintiff supports herself and three kids, off of her disability, student loans, and child support.    They had arguments, defendant left and stayed at some other woman's house.   Defendant says he was tossed out with his daughter, and went back for the daughter's stuff, and is rooming with a family friend, and his daughter.    

Sorry JJ, plaintiff told defendant to leave, and take his daughter with him.

$1500 to plaintiff

[DoctorK]

29 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims the metal cuts were present before he changed the transmission. 

I didn't believe the defendant on that, the mount was overall well rusted but the cut marks were still shiny (and rough, looked cut with a hacksaw), which tells me they were very recent. I think the plaintiff sustained a preponderance of evidence that the defendant botched the job.

Edited April 2, 2021 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

21 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I didn't believe the defendant on that, the mount was overall well rusted but the cut marks were still shiny (and rough, looked cut with a hacksaw), which tells me they were very recent. I think the plaintiff sustained a preponderance of evidence that the defendant botched the job.

SInce the 'expert witness' didn't work on the car (no one from the second transmission place would agree to appear), I'm wondering if they're the ones who did the metal cuts?    That used transmission was a big mistake, it was about 15 years old, so I wouldn't have paid for it.  Another case of trying to save money.  

[parrotfeathers]

On 4/1/2021 at 6:51 PM, One Tough Cookie said:

Was he stoned or stupid?

It seemed as if he maybe was autistic and his dad was trying to help him.

[One Tough Cookie]

On 3/31/2021 at 5:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mother either lived on couches, or in son's room until they got evicted after three months. 

I find cases like this sooooood

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

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

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

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

Each side was given $5,000, so cancelled each other out.   I absolutely believe the assaults, pick axe attack, and suspect it’s nothing new for the defendants.

Second (2017)-

Drunk Man Rages Against Neighbor?!-Plaintiff Lynn Svoboda suing neighbor Mario Rivera for car damages, and for attempted battery.  Defendant lived in the building for three years, and was moved to another space at plaintiff's request for the last year (not parking next to her).

Plaintiff lived in the complex for two and a half years, and had the same parking space for the entire time.   Scratches on plaintiff's passenger door date to the time of the dispute, and police call by plaintiff.     Plaintiff says defendant scratched her car door, then plaintiff says while she was calling 911 the defendant put both hands on her window glass, trying to get to her in the car.    Plaintiff shows door dents by defendant's car door (he first says his car isn't black or dark, then says it is).     Plaintiff talked to defendant about passenger door dents, and then in March plaintiff came home at 11 p.m., and defendant was parked well over the line, and plaintiff couldn't get in her assigned parking space.  So, she went to talk to him.   Defendant refused to move his car, and said call the police.    Defendant tried to force the door glass down, and when he couldn't get to her, he was spitting on her car.   Defendant says it was his friend, and plaintiff was mean to him.   

If defendant calls JJ "Miss" one more time, I'm going to hope Officer Byrd punches him out.    While plaintiff is on the phone with 911, defendant claims plaintiff was yelling at him, and the friend, so she was confronting two drunks at 11 p.m.?   Nope.     

Defendant calls JJ "MIss" even more.   Plaintiff will sue the two witnesses for defendant for their part in the incident, and so JJ will give plaintiff their information, including Social Security number for the defense witness who hit plaintiff's car with his BMW.     

Plaintiff receives $570, and the information she needs to sue the BMW owner.    

Illegal Breeding?!-Plaintiff Mark Anderson suing Jennifer Coughlin over her breach of contract over a dog breeding contract.   Plaintiff is an animal control officer, former sheriff's deputy, and breeds Standard Poodles as a hobby.    The plaintiff has three females, and co-owns with his witness (Jill Hudson).    All dogs he owns were bought from other breeders.   In February 2015 defendant bought a puppy, and the signed contract is submitted.

Defendant signed a contract saying female puppy she bought was not for breeding, and needed to be spayed, but she's had two litters, (at least that's all that defendant admits to).     Defendant owns the stud dog that sired both litters, and claims that both breedings were 'accidents'.   Defendant says the contract doesn't have a penalty for breeding the dog.   Dog was sold as a pet, not a breeding animal (price would have been a lot more than $800 if the puppy was a breeding animal).   Defendant says first litter was with her daughter's male dog, and the second breeding was also an accident, and all puppies were given away.  If you believe that story, then I have some great ocean front lots in Arizona for sale.   I bet that either the breeders were contacted by a puppy buyer from defendant's dogs, or someone contacted AKC about papers for the puppies, and then breeders of dog found out defendant was breeding and selling puppies.  

Plaintiffs will get dog back, so they can spay her.  Within 5 days plaintiff will pick up dog with a court order (since he worked for the sheriff's office for years, that will not be a problem).  (My guess is defendant thought breeding the dog would be a way to riches, and dog would have been bred until she didn't get pregnant any longer)

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First –

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

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

(This happened in California, where riding against the direction of traffic is illegal for bike riders, but riding on the sidewalk is legal). 

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

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

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

Second-

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

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

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

[jww]

 What puzzled me about the bicycle case if Kalynda  knew she had not established eye contact why she did not stop.  When I am out walking and crossing the street if I see the driver not looking in my direction I will walk behind their  car.  I use to bike 7 miles to work and never trusted a driver.  What I use to hate was a driver would see me coming 500' feet away -enough time to make a safe turn but then wait until I was almost at the intersection to turn.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defendant case dismissed too.  

Second (2017)-

(This Pomeranian case is a classic for JJ)

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

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

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

Audience applauds wildly.  

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

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

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

 JJ now discusses the cellphone.   Dismissed.  (In the hall-terview plaintiff claims the defendant came out of the bedroom dressed in a red negligee, twerking.   I'm just leaving that statement alone). 

Ring returned to plaintiff. 

Boyfriend Embarrassment? -Plaintiff Emily Strouch is suing ex-boyfriend Benjamin Godusevich for unpaid loans, and debit card charges, and money taken without permission.     Defendant still owes $80.   Plaintiff sells plasma, and the company puts money on the debit card, and that adds up to $272, so now $300 total.   Now total is $360 for defendant's loans, and charges.   $152 for other money taken without permission. 

Plaintiff receives $512

Edited April 6, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

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

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

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

No money to plaintiff, just the property back. 

False Arrest Fallout (2013) -Plaintiff Sandra Nicole Labry is suing defendant / ex-roommate Jonathan Taub for motel costs, a false arrest, and return of property, after she had to move because of his police complaint that resulted in her false arrest.    Plaintiff says she's a singer/entertainer, and a caterer on the side.  Defendant says she was prostituting at their mutual apartment when he was at work.   

 Plaintiff says she supports herself from 'friends' who give her money.    Defendant says plaintiff didn't pay her rent, and claims after she was hospitalized, she says defendant locked her out, stored her stuff, and she called a locksmith to let her back in.   Plaintiff claims the police told her to break in (not buying that).

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

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

JJ says both sides are liars, and I agree.  Everything dismissed, and plaintiff gets her key to the storage unit. 

Second-

Business Partner Destroys Case Remotely! (2020)-Plaintiff James Ramos suing Kandi Cook defendant for unpaid rent and utilities.  Plaintiff purchased house in 2018, and he always intended to flip and sell the house.   Plaintiff says his business partner met the formerly homeless defendant, because partner rents vans to homeless people to live in.     Plaintiff and defendant say that the agreement was that the house was to be rent free, but the boyfriend had to renovate the house. 

According to Tom, plaintiff's business partner, there was never an agreement to work on the house, just do work for him.   Defendant says she met the plaintiff business partner after her husband died suddenly, and she says the business partner pays her for side jobs in cash, including bookkeeping.   On the Body Crystal Inc website, Kandi Cook is listed as General Manager, with the address in 29 Palms, and plaintiff claims defendant took the business over from the business partner, Tom. 

Then JJ calls the plaintiff's business partner, and plaintiff's case goes boom.  Tom, the business partner ran the company for 15 years, until recently.   Then defendant filed paperwork with the state of California, to reinstate the business legal status.    Tom also is asked about the order to stop working on the house, and says defendant sued Tom numerous times in small claims, and lost every one.    Tom, the business partner, also filed for a restraining order against the defendant.  

Tom, says defendant sued him for legal work on the corporation, Body Crystal Inc.    Shane Dacastello, defendant's boyfriend and witness, says he's a truck driver, but used to be a handyman.   JJ explains to plaintiff that Tom, the plaintiff's partner said he made an arrangement that he would cover the rent, if defendant would finish the legal work for the business.  

Plaintiff's stupid case dismissed.    (I don't like business cases.    It's way too much history, and detail to present on something cut down to fit around commercials). 

Up a Creek Without a Boat (2013)-Plaintiff Rosada Haines suing former friend Kenneth Steele-Breitweg, Jr. for boat costs, rental fees, and mental distress, after boat ownership ends in a fight.  They each paid $800 for the sailboat, and they thought they were getting a great deal.  Defendant claims plaintiff wanted more than to be co-owners, and he didn't want that.    

Defendant gets snotty with JJ, and tells her that she doesn't know what she's talking about (I bet Officer Byrd just snapped his pencil in half), and defendant gets booted.  Defendant case dismissed. 

Plaintiff wants $2,271, to get rid of her part of the boat, and doesn't want to own with the defendant.   

JJ's solution is to sell the boat, and split the proceeds, or defendant can buy plaintiff out.   Plaintiff receives $800.

[Carolina Girl]

22 hours ago, jww said:

What puzzled me about the bicycle case if Kalynda  knew she had not established eye contact why she did not stop.

Me too.  Heck when I'm DRIVING and I see a driver wanting to make a left turn from a side street, I slow down just a little until they SEE me so they don't pull out in front of me after checking traffic from the opposite direction.  

Oh, and riding on the sidewalk is NOT legal in California.  Small kids are given an excemption due to dangers of traveling in the street, but if you're an adult and riding your bike on the sidewalk in San Francisco, police will be happy to "pull you over" and remind you that sidewalks are where the pedestrians live.  Same is true for those damn motorized scooters, which have become a serious hazard to navigation.  The ONE positive thing about the early days of COVID in San Francisco and Oakland was that the scooters weren't available and walking down the street was no longer a life or death proposition.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Oops!   I guess I didn't remember correctly about the riding on the sidewalk, or got it mixed up with a state where it was legal.   The case where the woman mowed down a cyclist crossing at a crosswalk, and they claimed it was legal to ride on the sidewalk, but who knows if it was legal then, or even in California.    

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Domestic Abuse or Working the System?!-Plaintiff Sainted Single Mother of One (SSMO) Toni Meadows suing her ex, Martin Gustafson for vandalism, false restraining order, and lost wages, returned property.    The litigants and her 17-year-old son, lived together a home purchased, and paid for by defendant (home is in his name).    Plaintiff SSMOO claimed an assault, but no medical or police records, and she managed to get a protective order barring defendant for 10 months from the home he financed, and was paying for.  Plaintiff was a hairdresser, and did leatherwork, and earned $20k.  Defendant earned $72k as a union carpenter.    Down payment was $1,000, and defendant paid the mortgage of $1300 a month.   (I don't know why JJ had the plaintiff's son leave the court.   He knows all about squatting, and the other sordid factors of this case). 

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff case thrown out, because it's garbage.  

Defendant receives $3500.   

Second (2017)-

Knife Fight! Woman Stabs Herself in the Neck?! - (This is Part 1, and Part 2 is tomorrow at the same time)-Plaintiff Kayesha Hedgeman is suing Neshdae Denson (her ex-girlfriend's sister)  for stabbing plaintiff.   This happened in Little Rock, I'm guessing.   Plaintiff was hospitalized for the stabbing in 2015.   Sister Nishundera  Denson,  is the defendant's witness.   Plaintiff left town for two weeks, and then when she returned to town, they resumed their relationship.    Plaintiff was also pregnant by some unnamed man.    Then litigants, and defendant sister had an argument.   Defendant claims plaintiff didn't stay at the defendant's place, and the police were called when the argument started.   (Is this the biggest entourage of witnesses?   Three women, plus defendant, another sister Maleah Denson).   Plaintiff's scar on her neck goes all of the way horizontally across her lower neck.    

Defendant says plaintiff came in her home, pulled a knife out of her bosom, a big folding knife (Is she like Angela from "90 Day Fiance, the Other Way", and carries everything in her bra?).   Then the fight (altercation) started with yelling, and went to physical, and stabbing.    Defendant claims plaintiff hit her in the face, and the physical fight was on, and the knife was pulled.    Defendant swears plaintiff started cutting her own neck, and slashed defendant's pinkie finger.    Defendant claims the fight happened outside of her house, not inside.   Defendant says after her finger got cut, she went to the hospital, and doesn't know what happened with the plaintiff's neck wounds.   At the hospital plaintiff went to surgery, and defendant and her tiny pinkie cut went to jail.  Plaintiff went to the hospital in an ambulance, with severe wounds.    

Police came to the apartment, and to the hospital.  Plaintiff had two bad neck wounds, and was in the hospital for a month.    This happened almost two years ago, and defendants still live in Arkansas.  Plaintiff now lives in Los Angeles.   

Police report says plaintiff was stabbed by defendant, according to her sister/girlfriend.    Then ex-girlfriend changed her story to the police, and lied. 

Case will be continued tomorrow, and we find out where plaintiff carried the knife, because she claims it wasn't in her bra.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaving the litigant stand plaintiff yells at defendants, "You think this is funny, don't you".  (I don’t know about the defendants, but I think the case getting dismissed is really funny). 

Plaintiff is hysterical in the hall-terview.   I bet the plaintiff will try to keep after the defendants, and I hope they show the arbitration agreement JJ's court requires, and future cases get shut down. 

Plaintiff ridiculous case dismissed.  

Second (2021)-

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

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

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

Plaintiff receives $3131.

[parrotfeathers]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant ordered parts for car, but he didn't get them, and didn't fix the car.   Amazing coincidence that the car repair and payments were $5,000 total, just exactly matching the court limit.     JJ says defendant didn't do anything to fix car.  (I hate that plaintiff doesn't have police report, insurance company information, or anything else?   There is zero evidence that the plaintiff's car was actually rear ended, and then rammed the car in front, except plaintiff saying so.)   

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

What was up with that plaintiff's eyes?  She looked everywhere except in the direction of the judge.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Teen's Crash Cover-Up Story?!-Plaintiff Shane Chapman suing  defendant Jose Diaz, father of teenage driver, Cadon Cargile, over car damages due to a hit and run accident by defendant's son.  Plaintiff's car was parked when it was totaled by defendant son.  Plaintiff says defendant car had a lot of empty booze bottles in the back seat according to police.

Defendant son was driving the car registered to defendant.   Cadon Cargile (son of defendant) was the driver.   Car was hit at 6:20 a.m., by defendant's car, but plaintiff took until 4 p.m. at defendant's house, because police were looking for driver of abandoned car, abandoned a couple of blocks away from plaintiff's house, and the scene of the crime.   

Neighbor of plaintiff caught the license plate of hit and run accident, and saw the aftermath of the accident, and saw the defendant son examining their car damages, and then took off.   

Defendant son thinks this is all a joke.  Defendant's son claimed he fell asleep at a party, and someone stole the car, and the thief did the accident.   Defendant father believes the smirking, lying son.   So, defendant reported the car stolen to police.  As JJ says, son was drunk or high, and plaintiff confirms car was full of empty booze bottles.  

$4,000 to plaintiff for outstanding lien insurance didn't pay for.   

Plaintiff receives $4,000.  

Baby Daddy Called Home from Callie! - Plaintiff Tawanna McCarthy-Long suing father of her child, Levi Landrum.    Plaintiff is a SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One), and was unemployed for six months, and defendant was living and working in California and sending money to plaintiff.  Plaintiff says defendant sent $300 a month for child.    

Plaintiff claims she loaned defendant $650, after they broke up.   Plaintiff claims the loans were never paid back, and then defendant claims plaintiff assaulted him.     There is a text talking about the loan from plaintiff, and saying it's a loan.    

Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted him in June.  In the hall-terview plaintiff confirms she stabbed defendant.   Defendant claims he was living with his mother, but that his mother will deny it (No, I don't know why that's important, and really don't care).    During the argument, defendant was staying with plaintiff.

Cases dismissed.   

Second (2017)-

Knife Fight Part 2 (part 1 was yesterday, and was equally bizarre)  -(Plaintiff Kayesha Hedgeman is suing her ex-girlfriend’s sister, Neshdae Denson over her stabbing two years ago, in Little Rock (2015).    Ex-girlfriend Nishundera Denson is witness for her sister, and lied to the police after the stabbing.   Plaintiff was in the hospital for a month after the attack.  Defendant stabber also claims the plaintiff pulled the folding blade knife out of her own bra, and stabbed herself.)

In Part 2, Plaintiff Kayesha Hedgeman is telling about the assault by her former girlfriend's (Nishundera Denson) sister, Neshae Denson.    Kayesha says she carried a knife, because that part of Little Rock is dangerous, and says knife was closed in her pocket (not in her bra).   Neshae Denson ended up with a tiny cut on her pinkie.   Nishundera  (ex-girlfriend) changed her story to the police, after plaintiff was taken to hospital.    Defendant was arrested, and charged.  Plaintiff took knife out of her pocket, and opened it during the argument.    Plaintiff claims ex, and sister were arguing, says Neshae was blocking her in the corner, and threatening her.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Food Stamp Treachery-Next part, plaintiff is now ex-girlfriend Nishundera Denson, suing defendant Kayesha Hedgeman, for return of property.   Hedgeman had moved to L.A., was living off, and on with her baby's father, but claims plaintiff still wanted to rekindle their relationship, and at first agreed plaintiff should come to L.A.,     Then defendant said she didn't want plaintiff to move to L.A., and didn't want to continue the relationship, and defendant wanted to try to to make relationship with baby daddy work.

Then plaintiff is suing defendant, because defendant cancelled plaintiff's EBT card (Food Stamps, according to defendant).  Plaintiff claims defendant has her clothes, car key, shoes, etc.  Defendant claims plaintiff took everything when they both moved out of their mutual apartment.   Plaintiff was getting General Relief, and defendant cancelled the EBT card plaintiff had too.  When plaintiff applied for GR, and the EBT card, defendant says plaintiff used defendant's address.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, and everyone shown out of the courtroom.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

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

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

Cases dismissed.

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

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

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

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

Second-

Harassing the Elderly?!  (2020)-Plaintiff Cindy Olson suing her mother's former caregiver, the defendant Ethel Martinez over an unpaid loan, and mental anguish for defendant not returning to the caretaking job.   Plaintiff hired the defendant, and hired her for $13.40 per hour, for 13 hours a week, and paid by the county.     There is a lag time, after the hours are submitted to the county, and then paid to the caregivers.    Defendant worked for eight days, for 23 hours, and then plaintiff loaned her $300, Plaintiff never paid the defendant, or submitted the paperwork or certified the defendant's hours (defendant should have received over $300 from the county).    

Defendant never got paid by the county, or plaintiff for her hours.    Defendant didn't come back to the plaintiff's home to work with the mother, after she never got paid or had her hours certified.    JJ is upset because defendant wasn't professional in not calling plaintiff to say she wasn't returning.    (Actually, for a caregiver, my experience from listening to friends is that it's pretty common for caregivers to disappear on clients).  My guess is plaintiff was never intending to make sure the defendant got paid.   

Defendant is counter claiming for harassment, in plaintiff showing up at defendant's other job at Walgreen's, and yelling at her at work in front of customers and employees, and plaintiff returned again.  The second time manager told plaintiff to leave the store, and plaintiff left a note on her windshield.     

Plaintiff's note actually tried to get defendant to come back to work.  Defendant says paperwork was submitted for certification to plaintiff, and plaintiff never signed it. 

JJ will give plaintiff the IHSS number, and defendant's hours will be submitted, and plaintiff will keep $300 of the payment. 

Bad Tenant? (2016?)-Plaintiffs Ronald and Lisa Kern suing defendant Malory Elliott, for rent, and damages after she moved out (defendant claims it was a material eviction).    Defendant gave $5,000 down, and was supposed to pay ($1200 a month) rent/purchase until house was paid off, or until she could qualify for a mortgage.  Defendant lived there for four months (plaintiffs dispute that she lived there the entire four months), and then the plaintiffs changed the door locks.      Plaintiffs claim defendant moved out to live with her boyfriend, and allowed her brother and his friends to move into the house, and claim they have video proof.  

Plaintiffs say she didn't pay for July, August, September, (they changed the locks in August).      $1200 rent for July to plaintiffs.   

Video is shown (OK, it's a DVD), Video shows a few clothes for little kids, and brother's room had all male clothing and items.   Brother was not on lease, as required by lease/purchase contract.    $5,000 was for the completion of the lease to purchase contract, and plaintiffs claim they don't have the money to pay back.   $5,000 went for commission to the real estate broker, according to plaintiffs, but they have no receipts.

$5000 down, minus the $1200 rent for one month, so $3800 to defendant.   (Since defendant clearly violated the lease purchase contract, and abandoned the house, I wouldn't have given her a penny.)

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

It's All Very L.A.!-Plaintiff Kathryn Kolouch suing defendant/ mechanic Andreas Cardini over car repairs that she says were fraudulent, and not done well.  Car is a 2003 Honda Element, inherited from her parents, car had over 200,000 miles on car.  Plaintiff claims she took inherited car in for a wellness check, but mechanic said it needed shocks.    Plaintiff claims it was for an oil change, but defendant says it was for a strut change, and defendant/mechanic worked on the same car before.    

After defendant worked on car, and defendant said he quoted $800, and plaintiff paid that, and replaced struts, and shocks.    Then three months later, Honda replaced the shocks, and the receipt is submitted.  Honda dealer also replaced the rear stabilizer/sway bar, but that wasn't part of the defendant's work.   Adam Timm, plaintiff witness, motorcycle mechanic says the shock absorber broke.   Why am I listening to a motorcycle mechanic?    Shocks worked for three months, then failed.   

Mechanic, plaintiff witness says the rear stabilizer bar that wasn't replaced by defendant makes a bad sound, and can also impact other parts.   Also, apparently strut/shock worked fine for three months.    No problems for three months, until plaintiff took car to Honda. As defendant says, he didn't make the shock, and she never brought it back with any complaints.    

Case dismissed.

Mother Daughter Hair Care Fiasco-Plaintiff Lynne Cary suing  defendant, hair client Rene Richardson  over fraudulent charges, bank fees, and a fraudulent check.     Defendant says salon was actually in plaintiff's home, on some back road, and she was uncomfortable with plaintiff's boyfriend being in the home, but she had plaintiff cut her daughter's hair the same day after her service was completed.   

Defendant's check for $180 was for services rendered, plus $20 tip, and the check bounced.    Plaintiff completed the defendant's hairdo, and her daughter's services, and then defendant stopped payment on the check.    Service on defendant took four hours.  Wendye Macabe, defendant's sister is the witness, and has the same hairdo as defendant, but with more frosting,    

Ate the steak, comes to mind.    Plaintiff says she filed for the principal of the case, not the money only.   

Plaintiff receives $835 for the check, and bank fees. 

Second (2018)-

One Sick Puppy! -Plaintiff Nicole Isaac suing defendant Ricardo Williams  over a puppy he sold her, and later had to be euthanized.  Plaintiff refused a replacement puppy, but wants a refund, vet bills, and other things.    It was a German Shepherd puppy (GSD), purchased for $150 deposit, with paying $400 on pickup of the puppy.   Defendant owns both mother and father of the pup.   There is no health warranty or guarantee in the receipt, bill of sale.    Puppy was taken to the vet almost two weeks after purchase, puppy had issues (bloody stools, lethargic, can't keep down food or water), and plaintiff said puppy ate rabbit stool (rabbits carry a lot of diseases).    Vet report says owner said puppy was well when she took the puppy home from defendant's home.

Defendant says one dog he kept is five months old, and is fine.   Defendant offered her the last puppy from the litter, and plaintiff refused. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Abuse of the Court System? -Plaintiff Christopher Brown suing defendant Amy Van Nieuwenhze over iPhones purchased for defendant and her children, and a couch she purchased, and left behind when she moved out, when they were shacking up.   Plaintiff says when defendant left, she took the phones, and other property with her. Defendant was staying at her 20 year old daughter's place for a short time, then moved into plaintiff's new rental apartment with her 15 year old son.   

Plaintiff still owes $3200 for the phones, and defendant will return them.   (Why are they always iPhones?). 

Plaintiff has a cheap couch, and dining table, so he doesn't need furniture from defendant.

Phones back to plaintiff.   

Deceased Man’s Golf Cart Giveaway?! -Plaintiff Beverly Ange suing defendant / nephew Edward Crane over late uncle's golf cart.     Plaintiff took possession of the uncle's home, and her daughter lives there now.   Plaintiff wants the golf cart for her daughter that lives in the house.   Defendant took possession of the golf cart.  From 2014 to 2017 plaintiff's daughter and grandchildren were using the golf cart.   Plaintiff claims daughter moved into the house in 2014, from PA (this is all in VA).    Defendant stayed in the house for six months before daughter moved into the house, and he used the golf cart then.       Plaintiff also says daughter doesn't live in the house yet.   Defendant took care of the disabled relative, and he took care of him after the uncle died.     

Defendant has golf cart, and keeps it. 

Golf cart looks very old, and in poor repair.   Defendant paid to fix the golf cart. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant keeps the golf cart.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

Passed Out on the Lawn! (2020)-Plaintiff Marco Polo (I'm not kidding, this is the man's name) suing Gary Zapata, his former landlord for return of deposit, $250.          Defendant says one incident was plaintiff being passed out on the lawn, and plaintiff was arrested for public intoxication, and spent a day or two in jail.   Defendant also says plaintiff damaged the garage door, by hitting it with his car.      Plaintiff was given a 30-day notice to leave, and claims he was only given the notice because defendant told him he was going to rent the entire house to a big family.   Defendant, and the other two roommates who lived there when Marco Polo lived there are still in the house.     Plaintiff says his car only 'kissed' the garage door, and it didn't hurt the door.  When defendant opened the garage door, the car parked against it ruined the garage door mechanism.   The photo of the plaintiff's car against the garage door also shows a flattened tire, from plaintiff hitting a curb (driving drunk?).     

Since defendant never presented plaintiff with the bill for the garage door, then the damages are dismissed.   However, plaintiff keeps the security deposit. 

Woman Demands Quiet Time (2021)-Plaintiff Ernesto Rios suing Sarah "Sally" Fulmer, former landlord for return of his security deposit.  Plaintiff moved to California, and rented a room at defendant's apartment.  Plaintiff paid $1300, first and last month's rent, and $200 security deposit.   Plaintiff received a notice to leave after two months at her apartment.   Defendant likes quiet time, and said plaintiff was too noisy, and was home during the day.  Defendant claims she offered to give the last month's rent back, but not the $200 security deposit.    

Plaintiff left in September, but notice from defendant said he could stay through October.    $550 for last month's rent to plaintiff.   Defendant claims damages are holes in the wall, no estimate.

Plaintiff receives $750, a month's rent, and security deposit.  

Tenant Conflict (2013 ?)-Plaintiff Erna Stark suing former landlord-to-be Derek Larson for rent and deposit.    She was going to rent a room for $500 a month, and security of $600.   She asked when she could move in, and was told she couldn't move in on the first of the month, because the room wouldn't be ready yet, but could move in the middle of the month.   Erna has a text from the landlord, that he will repay her rent, and deposit.   The move-in issue was defendant's parents own the house, and didn't want roommates immediately.  

$500 to plaintiff, and jerk defendant's mike cut off.   

Second-

Car Salesman Put to Shame!-Plaintiff Tamika Brown SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four),  suing car dealer/car seller defendant Jeremiah Coleman for a car ($1900), it has a substitute pink slip.  Plaintiff was taken to meet dealer by her aunt, and she says defendant was supposed to bring four cars to his house in L.A, but only had two.    Plaintiff wanted the $1800 car, and she paid $1500 in cash (from her $2200 stimulus check).   Defendant claims plaintiff only paid him $500.      Defendant says plaintiff paid him a down payment, never paid in full, and claims plaintiff parked the car somewhere, and he has no idea where the car is now.

Plaintiff claims car was purchased in April, and towed by her HOA in June.   Car was never registered to plaintiff, so she couldn't get car out of impound.    Plaintiff claims defendant never gave her the pink slip, and plaintiff claims defendant wanted sexual favors in return for the pink slip.

Defendant works for Goonies Auto (no I'm not kidding about the name of the auto dealer), and says the company was called, and claim the car was stolen, and impounded.    Plaintiff says defendant never called her back.   Defendant has had the same cell number for 10 years, and says plaintiff never called him.   

Plaintiff says car was towed in June, and probably was sold at auction, she thinks. Plaintiff says she actually drove the car back to defendant's house, and says he promised her the refund on the car.   Plaintiff says she was dragging her four kids with her, car died down the street from defendant's house, left her kids in the car (in June in L.A.), someone pushed her car to the curb, and someone got the car started, and she drove home. 

(My view is that whatever Tamika paid the guy was a lot less than she said, and he also lied about everything.   My guess if she paid any cash it was the $500, and not $1500, or $1800.    If she had paid the full amount, then she would have received a bill of sale, or whatever she needed to register the car.    I'm definitely thinking that the word insurance never crossed her mind too.   I really suspect that whatever changed hands wasn't very much money either.      I think what tilted JJ to plaintiff's side was that defendant had virtually nothing credible saying what the price was, no receipts, and who takes a bunch of cars home to sell when they work at a dealership?).

$1800 to plaintiff for car. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Make a Teenager Watch This Case!  -Plaintiff Amy Allen suing Joseph Bridgman, age 18 for wrecking her car.    Defendant is a friend of plaintiff's son (car owned by plaintiff, driven by estranged son).    Alex is the son, and defense witness.   In the early night, Alex was doping, and boozing, but defendant Joseph Bridgman, claims he wasn't using drugs or alcohol, and never does.   

JJ tells the moldy blueberries story, how you end up in bad situations from associating with drunks, and dopers.     Defendant wanted a Polar Pop from Circle K, while Alex and friends were hanging out in the park on a very cold night.   Defendant Moldy Blueberry drove plaintiff's son's car at 10 p.m., hit a patch of black ice, and claims another car coming the other direction without lights on, turned on the bright lights, causing defendant to slam on his brakes, go off the road, and wreck the car. 

Plaintiff's son, Alex moved out after plaintiff found out that defendant witness son was using dope, but he still had her car to drive, and he often stayed out at night.      Then plaintiff was told by son Alex the car was wrecked, and defendant wasn't covered by car insurance because he was driving without permission.         JJ explains if defendant had killed someone, it would be on plaintiff's head.    Defendant son claims he bought the car with his own money.    Defendant received two tickets for driving too fast for the conditions, and no proof of insurance.  That has not had a hearing yet. 

Defendant claims driving too fast ticket was dismissed.  Defendant claims he tracked down the truck, and the company told him to leave their premises.

Plaintiff wants $1786, and receives it.  

 Shot in the Arm While Driving! -Plaintiff car owner Travis Boone suing other driver Marvin Barreau for damages to his car, when he crashed into plaintiff's parked car.    Defendant says he was driving along after a brief call at a friend's apartment (yes, I suspect a booty call), when someone shot the car up, wounding defendant in the arm, and he hit plaintiff's car.     Plaintiff's vehicle is a 1996 Nissan pickup truck (when they used to have real metal bodies), and was not totaled. 

Plaintiff's insurance company (Liberty Mutual) denied the two claims, and they claimed the shooter was the person at fault, so not their responsibility.    Letter denying claims from LiMu is submitted, and they blame the plaintiff for contributory negligence, even though his car was parked, and he wasn't in it.   I hope the NJ insurance commissioner saw this, and nailed LiMu's feathered butt to the wall.   

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

Second (2017)-

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

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

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

Sadly, the daughter's mistake is she's hoping that someday her mother will care about her, and that will never happen. She should also write off her sibling, or siblings too.   Defendant wants a relationship with her mother, and family, and that will never happen.    

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

$3160 to plaintiff

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

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

Case dismissed. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

Landlord’s Day-in-Court Nightmare!  -Plaintiffs / former tenants Johnathan and Sarah Santibanez are suing defendant/former landlord Dave Schaffer over security, and a bonus to move out during the Covid moratorium.  Landlord was going to pay tenants to move so he could sell the place, a bonus and security to leave by 1 October 2020, and cooperate with realtors doing showings, all outlined in a letter to tenants.    There is nothing saying cooperation with the realtor is required.   

House still isn't for sale, since move out 1 October, because of improvements defendant is making to house.   However, house wasn't listed, so there was no broker to cooperate with.   If tenants hadn't moved out, then defendant wouldn't have been able to evict them, because of court closures, and Covid eviction moratoriums. 

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

$4050 to plaintiffs

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

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

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

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

$1350 to plaintiff.  

Second (2021)-

Newbie Pleasure-Boat Collision! – Plaintiff Bradford Greer suing defendants Richa Adhikari and Suraj Poudel (husband and wife) over a boat accident at Lake Havasu.    Plaintiff was waiting to launch his pleasure  boat (the type used for water skiing) at the boat ramp, and defendants' rented pontoon boat was already launched.    Plaintiff saw the boat rental instructor telling defendants what to do to leave the launch area.   Defendants were in a pontoon boat.  

Plaintiff says once you have your boat launched, you should follow directions to reverse and clear the way for the next boat.   However, defendants didn't know how to clear the launch area.   Apparently, defendants don't have a freaking clue about how to operate a boat.  (Plaintiff was not driving his boat, his daughter was, however he was driving the pickup truck for the boat and trailer, and backing down the boat ramp to launch the boat.    He was right there, and saw enough to know what the fool defendants did.    Defendants are lucky no one was injured.)  JJ needs to stop interrupting the plaintiff.  

Defendant has only piloted a boat twice, and this was the second time (first was nine years ago).    Plaintiff has used the launch ramp 1,000 times, over his 31 years living there.  Plaintiff says the rangers supervise the huge boat ramp, tell people when to launch, and direct everyone.  Defendant hit plaintiff's boat and damaged it, but JJ doesn't think that's important.    The defendant's boat also had the defendants, and six other passengers (boat has seats for 15).  Defendant husband thinks someone telling him the theory of how to run the boat is good enough.  Plaintiff says the defendants were 100 feet back from the boat ramp, and then they hit the plaintiff's boat. 

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

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

(Plaintiff/boat owner wasn't steering the boat, but driving the truck to launch it from the trailer, his daughter was actually at the wheel.)

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

(I will attempt to make this ridiculous case clear.   At this boat ramp at Lake Havasu there are 10 ramps in a row.  You back the boat, trailer and tow vehicle down until the boat can be floated back off of the trailer [hopefully, the tow vehicle and trailer then go forward, or you end up on a funny video on Youtube, or TV, with your pickup truck sinking.], then you back the boat out into the channel, to clear the way for the next boat and trailer to launch.     The defendants didn’t know anything about this, so they floated back from being launched, and went forward instead of reverse, and rammed the plaintiff’s boat.   Plaintiff / boat owner was watching this all happen, because he was driving the pickup truck with the boat trailer attached, and his daughter was piloting the boat.    Plaintiff witnessed everything, and could do nothing to stop the defendants from hitting his boat, and daughter.)

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Groom Gets Cold Feet on Wedding Day! -Plaintiff Jennifer Schultz prospective bride suing prospective groom Carl vanEtten for a wedding dress, and expenses, plus a kayak.      Litigants knew each other for years, became romantic, and groom called wedding off day before wedding.  They were to go on a kayaking honeymoon, and plaintiff claims defendant still wanted to go on the kayak trip after calling the wedding off.    Groom / defendant only showed up the next day for his property.  Defendant admits he took her kayak, but put it on the porch.     He says plaintiff had his two kayaks, a paddle, and his work clothes.   Plaintiff/dumped bride, claims he had nothing at her home, no kayaks, no clothes, and nothing else.      Plaintiff has a tracker on defendant's phone (and apparently the entire free world also, actually everyone in her family on her phone plan), so she found where defendant was the day that was supposed to be their wedding day.   

Plaintiff says defendant gave a kayak to her daughter, but defendant says it was loaned to daughter, not a gift.  Defendant says he did live at plaintiff's house, but she denies it.     Plaintiff says defendant shacked up with his ex-girlfriend after calling wedding off.   Police report says they saw defendant putting the kayak back on plaintiff's lawn.   Plaintiff claims she bought a kayak for $4,000, but has zero proof, and no bill of sale. 

Claim, and counterclaim both dismissed. 

Landlord Game Changer-Plaintiff/ room renter, William Davenport  wants his security deposit back from defendants, Tracy and Christopher Perkins, security was $250.     Defendants say plaintiff broke the lease, (90-day lease, and then month-to-month). Defendant claims he was working on a business from home (who cares), and took the house apart (supposedly he took two doors down, and put them back in place with the pins in before he moved out).   (I've seen leases that said no businesses, but that usually means a business with visitors, lots of traffic, and in person business in the home.  

$250 to plaintiff. 

Second (2017)-

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

Defendant was evicted, and moved to mother's house with her two children, but plaintiff's two other children lived there.   Defendant didn't have a key to house, and plaintiff says daughter is a neglectful mother.   Plaintiff also didn't allow defendant's boyfriend to stay in her house either.       Mother says daughter never works, and both kids have different fathers, the little one is the current boyfriend's kid.   

Plaintiff says defendant was arguing with her sister, and claims defendant broke into the house through the window.   Defendant was coming home with her boyfriend with the two kids after a weekend away.     Plaintiff says daughter didn't call and say she was coming home, because she doesn't get along with her sister, and mother doesn't want the boyfriend in the house either.   

Daughter arrives at house, knocked on the door, but no answer, and defendant knocked on the window to mother's bedroom.    Daughter claims the window breaking was an accident.   Plaintiff had defendant arrested after the altercation with sister, and the window breaking. 

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Father has $2,000 lien on Mercedes. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

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

Plaintiff took down his side of the awning (solid metal, from the 60's apparently, but condo didn't make plaintiff put the awning back (they're still in negotiation with the HOA).    Fine over awning removal for HOA could be almost $10k, and is still on-going.  There are nine condos on the penthouse level.   Plaintiff is suing for nearly $5,000 attorney fees after defendant filed a protective order application against him.    The awning removal in November 2019 was the start of defendant's allegations against plaintiff.

Defendant doesn't look reasonable to me.   For some reason, defendant is gazing off to the left, not even at the camera, but looking down and left.   Defendant claims on 9 May 2020, plaintiff was mean to him, and that was when the video happened.    Defendant is counter claiming for attorney's fees, harassment, and other stuff.    The video shows that defendant is the aggressor, and totally out of control, and plaintiff doesn't do anything to defendant on the video.   (I have the feeling that as a kid the defendant whined a lot about "They looked at me funny")

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

Plaintiff seems perfectly calm, and rational, in court, and on the video. 

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

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

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

Second (2021)-

We Hate Your Boyfriend! -Plaintiffs Alyssa Galindo, and Arenia Robinson suing defendant Jazmin Linden, and they were all roommates.   Plaintiffs say defendant's boyfriend was a virtual resident of the apartment, and it is claimed the boyfriend posted bad pictures on the internet, to strike back at the plaintiffs.   After defendant moved out, she paid rent except for the $5660 owed for damages, and $400 for the last month's pro- rated rent.    Landlords charged for carpet, door, trim and other replacement.    

Counter claim by defendant is for damages to her couch by plaintiff's cats, and burn marks from cigarettes.   Defendant's counter claim dismissed.

The reason defendant moved out was she claims Arenia sent her a text that defendant's boyfriend was no longer welcome at the apartment.   

JJ asks what boyfriend did to them, that made them say he was unwelcome in the apartment.   JJ says that plaintiffs needed a reason to ban the boyfriend.   Plaintiffs say boyfriend was there for multiple days in a row.

Plaintiff and defendant cases dismissed. 

Sucker Punch – Plaintiff Regina Larrie suing defendant Darren Harrington for assaulting her, after she pushed him away.  The litigants were at a small gathering at a friend's place, and plaintiff claims defendant touched her butt, and she pushed him away and told him not to touch her like that again.   Plaintiff claims defendant punched her in the face.    Defendant says he never touched the plaintiff, but claims she was drunk and shoved him.   

Defendant claims everyone at the party was drinking heavily, and he was the one assaulted, not plaintiff.   

$1500 for plaintiff for medical bills.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

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

$1500 a month for home rent for aunt's home, and never raised the rent over eight years.  Then when aunt needed money, and wanted to raise the rent $50 a month, the defendants refused.   Defendants stopped paying the rent in June, and moved out in December.    Defendants moved to another house for 3 bed/1 bath for $1650, and then another house 3 bed/2.5 for $1650.   Damages are dismissed, and defendants have a ridiculous counter claim.  The aunt says nine people were living in the house, including niece's relatives, the husband's relatives.  

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

Plaintiff gets $2900 for the unpaid loan. 

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

Yorkie starts barking like crazy in court, and witness says "We didn't lose the case did we?"  Dog is looking off screen, so I'm guessing at a crew member.   JJ says one of the crew members.   

Then Vanegas claims his Husky was only playing with the Yorkie.  He also blames the dog's injuries from someone falling on the dog.  Vet bills and reports for Yorkie are submitted.     JJ points out to plaintiff that scrappy Yorkie doesn't belong at Dog Park, and I absolutely agree.  Plaintiff should have had her dog in the small dog area, not playing with the Husky in the large dog area.    Plaintiff says this wasn't her first time having the dog in the large dog area, not helping her case.  Yorkie was badly injured, and vet bills were expensive.    However, plaintiff's husband denies he fell on the Yorkie, but defendant says the husband did.  

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

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

Case dismissed. 

Second (2017)-

Home Profits Snafu!-Plaintiff Julia Barrera , is suing her cousin, Joe Rea,  for the profit from the sale of a home.  Plaintiff bought a home, put house in defendant/cousin's name because he had better credit, and would get a better interest rate.  Plaintiff claims she put down $10,000, and defendant never put a penny down.   Plaintiff lived in home for 17 months, made the mortgage payments, and has receipts for that period.    Defendant claims he made 3 payments.   Plaintiff first claimed she made 21 payments, but she only made 17 payments.   House was sold in 2015, by defendant cousin, and he paid nothing to the plaintiff.   Defendant's profit was $20k, after commissions, and taxes. Defendant's $20k profit was reduced by the $3k plus the three payments defendant made.      

Defendant never paid the $10k down payment, but made $17k in profits after his payment.     Defendant says he's an investor, and made the investment to profit, but was on his credit.    Defendant swears plaintiff was supposed to refinance the mortgage into her name after two years, but plaintiff claims defendant kicked her out, and sold the house.    Defendant claims he paid her $4k right into plaintiff's bank account, but has no proof.   Plaintiff's down payment came from her divorce settlement of $39k, so that's where the $10k down came from.    I wonder if plaintiff ever tried to get a mortgage in her own name?   Plaintiff moved out in May, and house didn't sell until August.   So, if plaintiff was going to get a mortgage on the house, she would have had plenty of time to do that.  

Plaintiff will receive the $5k court maximum payment, but there was no contract to split the profits.    

Can You Find the Scam?-Plaintiff Mary Mendoza suing her former friend, Lisa Fleming, for a bad check she cashed for defendant, and an antique table.    Defendant was a friend of plaintiff's son, and defendant needed a place to stay for a while.   Defendant needed a social security payee, and two checks were issued to plaintiff each month, because plaintiff was landlady (the payee program pays half to payee for living expenses for the recipient, and then the rent is paid to the landlord).   

Plaintiff received both checks, and signed her check over to defendant, and therefore, government was paying rent, but scam was that defendant actually received all of the money from the monthly checks (very confusing).   (Scam is that defendant isn't supposed to get both checks, one check is to pay the plaintiff for rent, but no money was actually paid to the landlady, just to the defendant.   Defendant received over $1100 a month with the rent check, she is now married so the husband is the payee, and the check is $837 so the money went down from $870).    

Defendant has a payee because she has a gambling problem, and this has been going on for 17 years (filmed about 2017).   

One check plaintiff cashed was returned by the bank, because social security said defendant's husband had already been made payee, and a check had been deposited by defendant husband.    Plaintiff had to borrow the money from the bank to cover the bounced check, plus fees so $485 owed.

Antique table was damaged when litigants were discussing the money issue at plaintiff's house, and defendant went off, and flipped the table over, damaging the table.    Table was fixed, but plaintiff didn't have to pay, so that's dismissed.

$485 to plaintiff.

[jww]

Puzzled by the washer backing- up case, where he claimed 230 gallons backed up the system.  My front loader puts out a  total of  about 21 gallons total - about 7 gallons for each of 3 cycles.  Even then I have to get the line cleaned out every couple years.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

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

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

Originally defendant wanted three days past closing to move out.  However, JJ establishes the family of defendant lived in the house for almost three years, and lived in the house until a few days before closing, and husband stayed behind to clean the house before closing.   This is relevant because the plaintiff claims defendant didn't live in the home, but flipped it, and screwed him over.   Defendant and family lived in the house for almost three years before they sold to plaintiff. 

This case went to mediation first, before court.  Plaintiff says mediation didn't work, and no settlement was reached.    Plaintiff claims defendant and family couldn't have been living in the house, so that's why JJ wanted to know about the dates that defendant lived in the house.   Plaintiff also claims no one could have lived in the house because of the conditions, but refuses to believe defendant and family lived in the house until they sold it.  

PITA plaintiff brought his plumber to court to testify.   Plaintiff says the washer caused the sewer to overflow.    Plaintiff claims washer overflowed three days after move in, and sewer line had to handle 230 gallons of water from the washer (Huh? That makes zero sense.).  With Energy star washers, they use 14 gallons at the most, so plaintiff and family did seventeen of laundry in three days?     And then plaintiff says this happened when they used the washer the first time.     

If there was an inspection problem (plaintiff didn't want to pay extra for a sewer/plumbing inspection), but plaintiff didn't pay for the drain inspection, then it's no one's fault but the plaintiff.  However, depending on the state (this happened in California) the home inspector may not have any liability after closing, and some have inspection insurance.   Since plaintiff didn't pay for a sewer (via a camera down the drains) inspection, the inspector won't be held liable.    (That's my opinion, as a graduate of hundreds of TV judge shows, and watching L.A. Law, Law & Order for years, and also Boston Legal).  

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed. (Producers will give a copy of the case to plaintiff, so he can watch it over and over, until he understands, but he never will understand)

Defendant says the washer drain was acceptable on the inspection report, and that the real issue according to the plumber was a clogged toilet.

The homebuyer case was hysterical.    The hall-terview with the defendant saying the washer had nothing to do with the drain/sewer issue was so funny, that it was a stopped-up toilet instead that caused the flood.   The defendant's household was himself, his wife, and two little kids.   

Plaintiff's household was himself, his wife, and apparently other family members, so I'm suspecting someone either flushed something they shouldn't or someone uses a ton of toilet paper too.   Some people also treat a toilet and garbage disposal as the same items, and that can cause a lot of problems with plumbing. 

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

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

Second-

Wrongful Pandemic Eviction?! (2020)- Plaintiff Holly Law suing defendant/landlady Kyra Dorman for wrongful eviction, return of rent, and evicting her during Covid.   Lease is strange, plaintiff claims her signature was forged.   Lease says room rent was $600 a month, but $300 if a current college student.   

Plaintiff claims rent would be $360 (300, = Verizon $40, and one time of $120). and claims the e-signature had the signature erased.   Plaintiff doesn't have a copy of the lease, but she lied about being a college student to get the lower rent.  Plaintiff claims she ran into personal issues (knocked up), and couldn't start school.     The written lease wins, and plaintiff is a total jerk.   Plaintiff lived in the rented room for two months, and moved out in September without telling the defendant she was leaving, until two weeks after she left.  

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

Defendant claims plaintiff took an iPhone, a bracelet, and other jewelry, but has no evidence of theft.   Plaintiff doesn't say she didn't steal the stuff, she just says defendant can't prove it.  

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

Christmas Day Hit-and-Run (2014) -Plaintiff Michael Copeland (witness/fiance Andrea Jackson), car owner is suing defendant Christopher Bailey (car owner is Pennie Langston, defendant's wife) over a hit-and-run accident on Christmas Day.  Plaintiff says she was looking at their car damage, when defendant climbed out of his SUV, looked at his damages, and climbed back in his car, and left.   Plaintiffs got the license plate number.   

When plaintiffs were looking at the car damage defendant cruised by staring at the car and driving slowly, and then went by again.  Plaintiffs were talking to 911, and gave them the license number, and a description of the driver.

Defendant didn't get a ticket for leaving the scene of an accident.    Plaintiffs said defendant seemed to be impaired too.   Then defendant yawns during the recitation of his stupidity.  

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

Plaintiff receives $3791. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[basiltherat]

Washer dude was a little obtuse,.  He is definitely not one that should be a home owner, because he couldn't understand what was his responsibility even though JJ explained it eleventy million times.  It didn't look like his family was able to give him any advice, either, so they have nothing but heartache and confusion ahead of them.  Its also going to be very easy for unscrupulous tradesmen to take advantage of him.  (Also, his family probably overstuffed the toilets themselves.)

[One Tough Cookie]

On 4/1/2021 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

   Their first argument was over Bev's shower curtain

??,😲 I  just can't?? a friggin shower curtain? Her Majesty did NOT go to 247899 years of law school for that.

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, jww said:

Puzzled by the washer backing- up case, where he claimed 230 gallons backed up the system.

I picked up on this the first time around, my ancient (1995) washer couldn't put out that much water in month.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Father Rescues Daughter From Predator Danger?-Plaintiff Brittney White (Sainted Single Mother of Two-SSMOT) suing her ex Calvin Jones because he didn't want their 2 year old around some boyfriend who was alleged to be abusing an older child at the plaintiff's home.    Plaintiff is suing for an assault, and other charges, she's blaming on the ex.    Situation was her 8-year-old was being abused in her home, and so defendant took custody of the 2-year-old.    Plaintiff wanted ex/defendant to take the 2-year-old during the CPS investigation.    Custody is 50/50 now, of the 2-year-old.   Defendant took physical custody for a few days during the investigation, and he didn't want his 2-year-old going back to the same situation. Plaintiff is suing for a false CPS report, and an assault.   Defendant is counter suing for damages from plaintiff's assault, and a false assault allegation.  (There was supposed to be a custody hearing the day before filming, but no decision yet). 

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

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

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

A witness for defendant says plaintiff assaulted the defendant, and threw bricks at defendant, and his truck.  Bad for plaintiff that the police were at defendant's house right after this happened.   Plaintiff went home, made an assault complaint against defendant, he was arrested, and in jail, and a letter says charges were dismissed without prejudice.   

Defendant also lost his job over this.   Pictures of defendant's damaged truck are submitted.    (So plaintiff dumped the 8-year-old to keep the boyfriend? Because that’s the only way I can see that her boyfriend isn’t around the 8-year-old.  Or she just lies about the boyfriend being around her kids.      I don't believe the man wasn't a boyfriend).

Plaintiff case dismissed.  $5,000 to defendant. 

Second (2017)-

You Can't Take the Fireplace With You!-Plaintiff Samantha Torregrossa suing ex-boyfriend, ( the father of her son), Salvatore Geraci for an unpaid credit card bill, and for the return or value of a fireplace.   

Plaintiff left defendant for someone else, when that didn't work out she came back, and is suing defendant.   They lived together for seven years, in a home purchased by defendant.   They dated for ten years total.    Plaintiff never worked, SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One), says she was a SAHM.   

Defendant bought the house, paid for the house, and plaintiff paid for the appliances.    Defendant didn't pay for the credit card bills, but plaintiff never paid for anything or worked.      How does someone who hasn't worked in years have a credit card?   

Fireplace was put in house in 2014, it was a gift for the house from plaintiff's mother.   Plaintiff gets nothing for the fireplace.      For 3 1/2 years, plaintiff never worked, but only the appliances were put in by the plaintiff.   Appliances added up to $3500 (stove, microwave, washer/dryer fridge, and TV).    Two years after the appliance purchase plaintiff took off for some other guy, and then after the new guy didn't work out, plaintiff suddenly wanted to sue.

Defendant is a fire alarm inspector for the city of New York, and he pays child support.     Plaintiff looks really pissed she's not getting her $3500 back for appliances, and nothing for the fireplace.    Plaintiff moved into her grandmother's apartment, so no rent, and plaintiff and her mother are fake crying about this.  Plaintiff doesn't want anything back, just the money for the appliances.   

Plasma TV and microwave will go back to plaintiff, and that's all.   Everything else dismissed.  

Best Friend Split After Party Swipe-Plaintiffs Jorge Santos and girlfriend/fiancee Taylor Alens, are suing former friend, Quran Alhameed, for backing into plaintiff's car during a party.   (Plaintiffs have been dating for nine years, and she's 21).    Plaintiff says defendant backed into plaintiff's car leaving a party, and defendant says he didn't do it.   Defendant's insurance company information was given to plaintiff by defendant.  Ms. Arens paid for the repair, so that's why she's suing the defendant also.    

Litigants were at a party, defendant left, and plaintiff heard a crash, and defendant backed past plaintiff's car, but hit it.    Defendant claims he saw the damage to plaintiff's car, but didn't hit the car, and went in and told plaintiff about the car.   Then defendant gave the insurance information to plaintiff, and as usual, insurance had lapsed from non-payment.  Defendant claims plaintiff Santos' brother hit the car. 

Plaintiff submits the car repair bills.   Defendant never got insurance, and his car got towed, and is gone. 

$2,430 to plaintiff

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second (2021)-

Homeless Rapper Robbed and Beaten?! -Plaintiff Rickey Jones Jr (aspiring rapper), suing defendant Travis Grisham, for an assault, and his stolen laptop.    Plaintiff wants to be a rap star, but has no recordings, or studio.    Plaintiff's recording equipment is $8k to $10k.    Plaintiff is homeless, and lives in his 2003 Mustang, and sometimes stays with his estranged wife.    Plaintiff has another child coming, and one or more other children.     Defendant invited plaintiff to his apartment to use plaintiff's equipment to record music.    When they argued, plaintiff went to leave, and claims defendant punched him.   Plaintiff took most of his equipment, and then plaintiff wanted his laptop back out of defendant's place.   Defendant tossed the backpack, and camera out of the back window, but not the laptop.

Plaintiff called the police about defendant's assault and theft.  Plaintiff submits the police report.   JJ asks the plaintiff how much the computer costs, and he says $2089, for the laptop.   Defendant claims he didn't throw the backpack, and camera, but set them on the porch outside.   Defendant claims he doesn't have the laptop belonging to the plaintiff.

$2089 to plaintiff for the laptop. 

Ex-Lover Battle- Plaintiff Devin Harris suing defendant/ex-girlfriend Jasmine Penn for a rental car and loan.  Defendant is counter suing for unpaid rent, and lease breaking fees (she couldn't afford the rent by herself).     Litigants were living together, in defendant's apartment, but plaintiff didn't pay rent or utilities.    Plaintiff claims he made a loan to defendant , and he rented a rental car for defendant that was damaged, for $1500.  They only lived together for two or three months.   

When defendant broke the lease, both litigants moved to his parent's house.  Defendant didn't mention the shacking up at plaintiff's mom's house after the lease was broken.   Defendant also had a young child in this messy relationship.   

$200 to defendant for utilities.  This is crossed out, because she was supposed to pay his mother for utilities, when defendant and child lived with his mother, but only paid for one month.     Rental car was for three months, used by defendant while they were at plaintiff's mother's house.  Defendant claims she was just an additional driver on the rental, and plaintiff drove it while his was in the shop.   

Plaintiff receives $1510 for the rental car, 

[One Tough Cookie]

Earlier in the week: Ravi vs. the obnoxious Mr Haft about the penthouse roof--can we get a shout out for Rafi being one of the most handsome litigants in a long,long time.  And living anywhere NEAR the defendant would cause me to seriously reconsider my non violent philosophy. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

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

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

There is a video of the entire incident.    In the end of the video, plaintiff stopped the scooter, and Great Dane pulled scooter over.   There is no sound dog barking, or the defendant calling his dog back.     Plaintiff is such a liar, no barking dog, no sight of the little dog on the video, or any proof that the defendant's dog was out.   

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

Plaintiff also told police defendant was harassing her, when she was actually at defendant's home.   

So is the mobility scooter for mobility issues, or for dog walking?  Plaintiff seems fine in court, so I suspect it's for the dog exercising   Defendant says both dogs are leashed to the scooter.  

Claim dismissed, and counter claim dismissed.  (I think the defendant should have received some money for harassment, and trespassing by plaintiff.  JJ missed the point, the defendant's dog wasn't out, and wasn't on the street, or barking.  Also, the defendant claims he was at work when this happened.    The video has no barking on it, no one is calling a dog back.)

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

Mechanic says truck is finished and ready to drive.   

Plaintiff receives $2195 back for the truck. 

Second (2017)-

Pekingese Chihuahua Mating Mess-Plaintiff Christine Dietrich-Morgan (owner of Pekingese male dog) suing neighbor/defendant Roy Johnson III(owner of Chihuahua female dog) over his dog boinking her dog, and the resulting puppies.   Plaintiff suing over unpaid stud fee, and breaching an agreement to breed their dogs.    Plaintiff didn't get her stud dog fixed because she wanted him to have his own sibling (that would be his own descendant, not sibling you dim wit).   Plaintiff claims the litigants agreed for the Pekingese, and Chihuahua to breed, and months later the Chi. had puppies.  Defendant claims Peke didn't knock up his Chi, and if they did, it would be vet bills for him, and that's ridiculous, so defendant claim dismissed.    

Defendant says his dog was already pregnant, but two puppies looked like the Peke, and he claims they all died.   As JJ says, daughter, Meshelle Johnson,  and defendant wanted to breed the dog, daughter is 12, so not legally responsible for this. (Daughter is as dim as defendant father).      Defendant says he came home, and the defendant daughter, and plaintiff were breeding their dogs (or not-stupid case).   Daughter testifies that plaintiff came on their property while she was there with her father, while the dogs mated.  

JJ doesn't believe defendant said he wasn't going to breed his dog, and only wanted vet bills after puppies died.   Sadly, the puppies seemed to have been horribly neglected also.    Both litigants are the worst kind of despicable backyard breeders.    My guess trying to get a crossbreed designer dog, they thought they could get big bucks for the puppies.   Defendant claims the three puppies died, and it would have cost $600 to save one, and he didn't have the money, so all three died.  

Defendant claims all three puppies died, and he now says he gave a puppy to someone, but that puppy died too.  Defendant claims he doesn't like spay surgery, so his female has puppies frequently, and then gives them all away (Guess who I wish Officer Byrd would beat to a bloody pulp in court? I dislike the plaintiff, this was a planned mating of two dogs, to get sellable mutts, she's rotten too).  

Plaintiff case dismissed, and both litigants are dog abusing A-holes.   

Camper vs. Computer-Plaintiff Theresa Mugrace suing ex-boyfriend William Ansel IV for an unpaid loan to buy a laptop.   They also bought a camper together in 2014, and made joint payments for the camper.   Plaintiff wants money for a loan she made defendant for a laptop, about the time they bought the camper.   After $1690 in payments on camper, over 13 months, defendant stopped paying.  Defendant wants money back he paid on the camper.

Computer was $3260, and only plaintiff paid for it.   It wasn't until they broke up that plaintiff wanted loan payments for the laptop.   Plaintiff and boyfriend used the camper together, until the break up.   Plaintiff still has the camper, and still uses it.    Defendant had a garnishment against him, and plaintiff said as soon as the garnishment was over, then he would pay every payment on the camper, while she paid for the laptop.    However, defendant only paid 13 of the 22 payments for the camper, and then they broke up. 

$3260 to plaintiff for the laptop, plaintiff keeps the camper, and defendant keeps the laptop.

Edited April 18, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

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

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

JJ is deducting security deposit, minus the damages of almost $900.    She's also not allowing drywall repair, which looks like it took the entire $500+ plaintiff paid to have it repaired.   Defendant quit her job, she wasn't laid off by company, so I doubt the moratorium extends to her.  Defendant claims she didn't quit, but she did.   The amount of mattresses, and junk piled in the apartment is appalling.   The wall damages were from defendant sitting down too hard, and the chair hit the wall and smashed it.     

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

 $1334 to plaintiff, and not for rent, because JJ said it was Covid related.

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

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

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

$1520 for plaintiff to replace the wigs. ($1490 for the replacement wigs, and $30 for his fee). (Plaintiff says she'll donate the wigs to charity).

Second (2020)-

Elite Tutor Steals from the Rich?!-Plaintiff Jill Zimmerman, mother of student, suing former Geometry tutor David Kaspar, for return of fees she paid him to tutor her daughter.    Defendant tutored daughter for freshman year, high school geometry, one or more session a week.   Defendant charged $90 per session, and extra sessions during a week were paid also.    Fees were paid at the end of each session, on check.    Plaintiff mother claims they didn't meet every week, about 25 times per year.   Defendant is no longer tutoring.   Plaintiff didn't 1099 the tutor either.  No taxes were reported by either party, or income tax either.  

Defendant will show JJ how much he reported to the IRS last year as income.   JJ is figuring out how much tutor earned, so his reported $42000+ was more like $100k+, thanks to Officer Byrd.   I'm hoping this tape will be forwarded to the IRS, for audit.

Defendant certainly loves the sound of his own voice.  I absolutely hate his voice.  JJ still says his income was more like $80k minimum. (I agree with JJ, in the areas he worked in, no amount of money is too much to get someone to do the work for their entitled kids.   I’m sure the tutoring included a lot of work by him, that students were supposed to do themselves). 

Defendant decided to go back to school, and sent a letter to the tutoring clients, to dump them.    Then defendant offers the clients a way to ‘invest in his academic bills’, (he already owes $9,000, and anticipates more), and he will do sessions with their child from April 2019 to graduation.   Who says these kids will graduate?   

Defendant is being very rude to JJ, and I really hope the IRS saw this case.   

Plaintiff was going to pay $3,000 and get tutoring until graduation (in plaintiff daughter's case, May of 2022).  Defendant says that's only until the end of the academic current academic year, and plaintiff says it's until her daughter's graduation.    

(I loathed the nasty comments by the defendant in the Hall-terview, about how rich the area the plaintiff lives in is.   That's not a reason that he should rip people off, especially when he's not paying taxes, or getting a 1099 from customers that spend thousands with him.     I hope some enterprising students at Univ. of Washington set up a tutoring website, so they can offer their services, and I bet they would make a nice living tutoring, and wouldn't be claiming that ripping off clients was some kind of Robin Hood move.    I hated that the defendant was trying to talk over everyone, and justify his attitude). 

Defendant tutored daughter five times after paying $3,000, so plaintiff gets $2500.    

I Hate You! Here's Your Marijuana!-Plaintiff Ciera Otte suing her ex-boyfriend Michael Davis for a loan to have his legal record expunged.    Defendant was arrested in after an argument at plaintiff's apartment.   Defendant was found with a pen filled with marijuana, and he claims this was the first arrest.  Money wasn't for bail, but plaintiff paid for pre-trial diversion, and an attorney to expunge defendant's record.    Defendant tries to make a ridiculous excuse about why he paid small amounts to plaintiff after they broke up.    Plaintiff paid $5400 for the expungement, and repaid $1,424, leaving $3976,

I wish Officer Byrd would wipe that stupid grin off of defendant's face. 

Plaintiff receives $3,976.

Edited April 18, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

Lying scooter plaintiff's video did her in.  She doesn't sound remotely distressed and I attribute her scooter falling over to her being busy making a video of the other dog trying to keep up (how'd she do that with one hand on the controls and one hand on the leash?) to pay attention to the car backing out and hitting the brakes.  If anything, I think her damn Great Dane probably saw a cat or a squirrel and ran after it.  I just don't see it bolting from small dog.  If anything, the defendant's dog probably emerged on the lawn (if it did at all) as a result of the scooter going by and all defendant or whomever was there just called the dog back and it came.  

[One Tough Cookie]

On 4/16/2021 at 6:46 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

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

JJ is deducting security deposit, minus the damages of almost $900.    She's also not allowing drywall repair, which looks like it took the entire $500+ plaintiff paid to have it repaired.   Defendant quit her job, she wasn't laid off by company, so I doubt the moratorium extends to her.  Defendant claims she didn't quit, but she did.   The amount of mattresses, and junk piled in the apartment is appalling.   The wall damages were from defendant sitting down too hard, and the chair hit the wall and smashed it.     

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

I'm sorry, and I don't Mean to offend anyone--but in addition to being a fat pig, she was dumber than a box of rocks endangering anyone else who lived in that building,  Hoarding such as that is, ya know, A FIRE HAZARD.  An God knows what kind of vermin lived there.  I just hope she wasn't a home health aid.😱

[CrazyInAlabama]

Unfortunately in the "Covid" tenant case (does job loss due to Covid include quitting?),  she worked for a company that operates group homes for disabled people, so I guess that is a health aide of some kind.  

[Carolina Girl]

23 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

I'm sorry, and I don't Mean to offend anyone--but in addition to being a fat pig, she was dumber than a box of rocks endangering anyone else who lived in that building,  Hoarding such as that is, ya know, A FIRE HAZARD.  An God knows what kind of vermin lived there.  I just hope she wasn't a home health aid.😱

She was a fat, lazy slob.  I think she quit her job because she didn't want to work, thought she could slide on the COVID-caused rent moratorium and collect unemployment and sit at home on her fat ass.  I know dozens of people that were in real financial straits and would have given their eye teeth to have been able to continue to work during the lockdown and this asshole tried to game the system.  If they didn't have any work for her, they would have laid her off - employers weren't keeping unnecessary people on at that time, and then she WOULD have qualified under COVID relief.  I think when they DIDN'T - she got annoyed, quit her job and then tried to blame COVID.  The landlord was right - her failure to pay rent and loss of her job had nothing to do with COVID - leaving her job was voluntary on her part.  Considering that petri dish of filth and bacteria that she was living in, I hardly think she was squeamish about the virus.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second (2017)-

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed.    Defendant case also dismissed.   

Wedding Venue Disaster!-Plaintiffs Charlotte Stute, and Derek Wilson are suing defendants, Dorothy Brasher and partner Julie Schult, over wedding venue fiasco.    Plaintiffs hired the defendants to find a venue for them, with a deposit of $2400, but the venue returned the deposit.     Defendants had only been doing wedding bookings and planning, for about a year.  Contract submitted is with venue site, Hidden Meadow, not the defendants.    Deposit was returned to plaintiffs.  The venue cancelled wedding because of neighbor complaints about noise, parking on the street, and decided weddings weren't work booking.  

Defendants knew the venue wasn't going to have more weddings at their facility, but didn't notify the plaintiffs for two months.   Defendants said they were negotiating with the venue site to find another venue, or persuade the original venue to host a couple of weddings.   Plaintiffs found another venue on their own, after they found the second venue operators were unable to be there for their wedding, and the defendants would have to do the 'day of' operations for the wedding.   (This was in 2017, not recently).   Plaintiffs could have gone to the second venue found by defendants, but didn't want Dorothy to run the wedding, and so plaintiff picked the more expensive venue.  

Venue was much more expensive, and all inclusive, so plaintiffs lost their deposits.  Plaintiffs weren't out any money, because they didn't pay defendants, and original venue returned the deposit to the plaintiffs.  

Case dismissed. 

Edited April 19, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

Judge Unimpressed by Aspiring Rapper! – Plaintiff Erica Fulcher suing defendant, Kishawn Holmes, an unemployed musician, for extortion, crashing her car, and overspending on her credit card.    (I'm so glad this isn't on The People's Court, or the defendant would be performing endlessly).   Plaintiff rented cars for him, and she let him use her credit card.   Defendant also admits to 'accidentally trashing the rental car'.   

Plaintiff is 35, and defendant is 25, and they aren't dating. (She finally says they were dating, defendant denies it).  As JJ says, they were in an intimate relationship, and she gave him the credit card after the car destruction happened.  Defendant says dating is only when you're exclusively, not when you're dating others too.   It was dating, this defendant calls "Talking".  

Defendant was using the rental car to film a music video, and doing tricks, and hit a wall.  Plaintiff wanted the keys back on the second rental car, but this was when another woman came to look for the defendant at plaintiff's home.   

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Big Wedding?  Meet the Coronavirus! -Plaintiffs Zuki Khorasanee, and wife  , suing defendant /wedding venue operator (Corinthian Event Center), Christa Mekki, for their $3,000 venue deposit, after the plaintiffs had their wedding over Zoom, instead of at the venue.   Defendant says on the date of the wedding, they could still do 50 people total at indoor weddings (this was to happen in November 2020).  After the middle of November, no more indoor weddings.   Plaintiffs wanted to have 150 guests, in person, at an indoor venue.     For their ceremony, on 8 November, they actually had 8 people at the wedding, and the rest were on Zoom. 

On November 8, the 50-person limit was still allowed for events, and zero guests indoor started on 13 November. (My view, the plaintiffs could have had 50 people at the wedding, and the rest on Zoom, or other live streaming, so their wedding wasn't cancelled, just limited). 

JJ gives the $3,000 to the plaintiff.  (I wouldn't have given a dime back to the plaintiffs).

Second (2021)-

Nice, Older Couple or Scamming Spinsters?! – Plaintiff Bryan Epner suing defendants Jeanine Bender, and husband Tom Uhrig, over a 22-year-old Jeep he purchased from the defendants, after a five-minute test drive, plus driving it for a few hours total.  Since the Jeep now needs a transmission, plaintiff says defendants cheated him.   Another plaintiff who doesn't understand "As is", or getting a mechanic to examine a car before purchase.    Plaintiff bought Jeep, didn't drive it too much, and a few days later went to gas the Jeep up, and then drove home (differs from sworn statement).     Then plaintiff claims that five minutes later the Jeep wouldn't move, and he had to push it to the curb.   

Plaintiff brought the mechanic to court, to testify that the transmission was bad, and since Jeep can't be driven, and therefore, can't pass the smog test, and be registered.    However, the Jeep passed the smog test to be registered in June, and it was registered by the previous owners, so the smog test was passed (required in their state for registration).    However, you can have a car registered that's not running, but if it won't meet the state standards to renew the registration, it will not be registered.   JJ was right about the Jeep already being registered, and smogged, but not totally correct about the insurance and registration. 

Defendants had the Jeep since it was 10 years old, and sold at 22 years old to plaintiff.    Defendants said they drove the Jeep almost every day, and had no issues with it.     Apparently, the Jeep is 4-wheel drive capable, and manual transmission.   Plaintiff's cars have all been automatic transmission.     

After the case, plaintiff claims the defendants are liars, committed fraud, and cheat him.    Defendant husband says he knows what plaintiff did to ruin the transmission.   He says plaintiff put it in 4-wheel drive to try it, but didn't stop, and back up to disengage the 4-wheel drive, and ruined the transmission.  (I hope that's an accurate description of the defendant's analysis of what ruined the transmission, I don't know how to drive a manual, and don't know anything about engaging, or stopping the 4-wheel drive).  

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (Plaintiff sounds like the first time home buyer in Tehachapi from last week.  He doesn't listen, claims he's right, and thinks everyone is trying to cheat him). 

Unfit to Stand Trial? – Plaintiff Jason Baker is suing defendant Justin Defranco, and claims defendant had him arrested, vandalized his property, and illegal lockout.   Plaintiff also wants his two service animals back, and claims the U-Haul stuff was dropped at his grandmother's place, and a lot is missing.   Plaintiff claims his Rolex, shoe collection, etc were all stolen, and amount to $5,000.

Plaintiff claims defendant called police, and said plaintiff was waving a gun around.   Plaintiff was arrested, he had an outstanding warrant,  and when he got out of jail, all of his property was gone.    Plaintiff was living rent free with defendant, and was moving out.    

Defendant claims he never called the police about plaintiff, but police did serve a warrant on plaintiff.    Plaintiff had no lease, so illegal eviction is dismissed.  

Plaintiff says defendant rented him a U-Haul, and was helping him move.   Defendant says he helped plaintiff get a car.   Plaintiff has some issues, and defendant admits he does also.    Then plaintiff claims everything on the U-Haul was from his storage unit, and he hadn't packed anything from the house, and all of the house items were stolen by defendant.   

Plaintiff case sent back to local court, but plaintiff says he wants JJ to decide.

What happened to the two service animals?   

Defendant has a restraining order against plaintiff. What a sad case.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Edited April 19, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

He says plaintiff put it in 4-wheel drive to try it, but didn't stop, and back up to disengage the 4-wheel drive, and ruined the transmission.

Yep, my first Geo Tracker (before they became Chevys) had the same issue, after you put in to 4 wheel drive, to take it out you had to disengage it and back up slowly until you heard it disengage with a distinct "clunk". This was highlighted in large bold print in the owners manual. It also warned that driving it in 4W mode on paved surfaces or at high speed would damage the drive train.

[bad things are bad]

There was a recent story on The Driveof someone who towed a brand new Jeep at highway speed, while 4WD was engaged. Baked the engine. Even a new vehicle can't deal with that, and it sounds like the process to engage 4WD on this old Jeep is different than what you would do now. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Officer Byrd Settles Case! (aka Stolen Service Dog Case) -Plaintiff Annie and James Brown suing defendants, her father Robert Scharet, and former roommate (male) Erin Fitzgerald for custody of their dog. and false claim to CPS.      Her father, and roommate had custody of the dog for almost four years.   Defendant roommate has taken care of dog while defendant father has been in another state on a family emergency.    Defendant has paid all vet bills, and had the dog since it was a puppy. and defendant roommate has been dog's person for four years.     (Defendant father of plaintiff, is long term boyfriend of plaintiff woman's mother).    Plaintiff woman says she doesn't know how many times she's seen the dog in it's entire life, except for the three months plaintiffs lived in the house with defendants.    Plaintiff woman says she doesn't remember how many times she's seen the dog because of her seizures.     Plaintiff woman claims she's a good mother, and drives her daughter (with some kind of medical issue) to appointments.   I wonder if DMV knows she's driving with seizures so bad she can't remember anything?  

Defendant says she moved out 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, formerly called "Stolen Service Dog" that didn't air, and is the same issues, and litigants as the Service Dog case that was renamed somehow).    Dog has been with roommate for four years (Erin Fitzgerald).   JJ tells woman to adopt another 'service' dog, since she hasn't ever been the dog's owner, or seen the dog for four years. 

Plaintiff woman says she left home because father/defendant's girlfriend and defendant threatened to call DCF/CPS over baby's raising.    Plaintiffs claim all house damages were caused by other people, including Erin the defendant.   CPS showed up at current house (plaintiff husband's place), and had a complaint.    Good luck proving who called CPS, it's not going to be released.   

In the house that plaintiffs, and defendant roommate lived in, all damages are claimed to predate the plaintiff's tenancy, including the bathroom damage to the shower stall, that was redone in 2011.   Erin/defendant is counter suing for house damages to home, that he, and plaintiffs lived in, and Erin still lives in.      Plaintiff says she moved because defendants called CPS, and now she says the CPS people showed up after they had already moved in to plaintiff's father-in-law's house.    Plaintiff husband claims shower was fine when he lived there.   It's a fiberglass shower, and entire unit will have to be replaced.    

Why does plaintiff woman keep fidgeting, and bouncing around?   

Everything dismissed. 

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

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

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

Second (2017)-

Mobile Home Towing Nightmare- (actually it should be Mobile Home Park Towing Nightmare)-Plaintiff Donna Brannen suing tow operator Steven O'Grady for towing her car, and damaging her fence.    Plaintiff has been living in the same mobile home park for 24 years, and tow operator (during the case the  towing company had a two-year contract with the mobile park) to tow vehicles violating park rules, or state laws.    Plaintiff's car had no registration, and missing license plate. 

Plaintiff took defendant to mediation twice without settlement, and that is still in process, and went to small claims.    She also received a default judgment against him in small claims for the first two tows, but defendant has filed to have the summary judgement dismissed, and the case reinstated.  Then plaintiff's car was towed the third time.     

Counter claim for $1200 is the defendant says when plaintiff came to his tow yard, with a companion, she blocked the entrance, and her companion chained himself to the tow yard fence preventing him from opening for the day. (I want a video of the chaining to the gate by the geezer in the mobility scooter).     

On all three tows plaintiff's car was in violation of park rules, by having no valid car license or registration.      Plaintiff is told to show a valid registration, and tag for the vehicle.    The submitted insurance is for another vehicle, and the insurance date is four days after the third tow.  There is no registration proof on the Nissan Rogue, just a previous vehicle, a Dodge Journey.    (This happened in Florida).   So, the three tows were legitimate for no registration, no car license, or insurance.  Plaintiff doesn't even have a driver's license, because of bad eyesight.   She claims there were no rules when she moved to the park, but she certainly knew after the first tow.   JJ wants a valid registration for the period in question, and proof there was a license plate.   Then plaintiff gives JJ a Dodge Journey registration, not a 2012 Nissan Rogue.   The insurance was bought four days after the third tow, and registration is never found by plaintiff.  There was no valid registration, insurance, and license plate. 

Plaintiff claims she was grandfathered in.  No, state laws about registration, licensing, insurance, and drivers license can't be grandfathered. 

Defendant counter claim is being heard.   After the third tow, plaintiff's friend in a mobility scooter chained himself to the tow yard gate, and plaintiff screamed all kinds of nasty stuff at employees.  While geezer was chained to gate for 90 minutes, and plaintiff was screaming at the personnel, tow yard couldn’t operate.    There is proof of loss of revenue by tow yard.   Police were called, and they had to threaten to taser him.  (I think the defendant should have won his case).   It was $427 for each tow to get car out of tow lot.    I think the defendant should have won his counterclaim for lost business. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  She claims she has a valid driver's license now, and also claims she can see now.   

Defendant case dismissed too (I hope he wins in his local court for the other two tows).

Bed Bug Head Board-Plaintiff Cheryl Chivers is suing grandson's step grandfather Casey Anson over a bed bug infected head board.  Plaintiff says she heard the defendant had furniture from his former job (he's a retired furniture salesman, or store owner).   Plaintiff bought the head board from defendant, and a mattress.   Plaintiff claims there were bed bugs in the wooden corners of the head board, but not the mattress (not really).

Plaintiff is a beauty operator, and consulted a client that is also her doctor (for bed bugs, you consult a very expensive, specialized pest control company, not some random doctor).     She notified the defendant of the bed bugs, but not until 10 days  after the furniture was delivered.    Plaintiff has an exterminator's report. 

Plaintiff claims the day after furniture was delivered that it was  infested, but didn't tell defendant for 10 days.   

Defendant had the furniture at his home for a year, and then sold it to the plaintiff.  Defendant says he's never had any report of bed bugs in his home. 

Plaintiff says the 'bed bugs' were very large, but bed bugs aren't large.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.    

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2021)-

Down and Out Divorcees! -Plaintiff Thomas Mercer suing defendant/former wife Jennifer Mercer over a car loan.    They have four children together, plaintiff claims all four children lived with him after the divorce, and defendant claims the 11 and 8 year-old children moved with her (they were 1 and 3 at the time).     

Plaintiff got the house, with the children.    Plaintiff had physical custody of all four children, and there was a 3 1/2-year trial determining the divorce, custody, and property issues.    In 2017 defendant moved back into the marital home until recently, with ex-husband, and four children.     

By 2018 defendant needed a car, so plaintiff took out a loan in 2019, for $3500 for car repairs, and then $9,000 for another car.   Defendant claims the loan also was to pay for home repairs, not just her car.  

Plaintiff says defendant has issues telling the truth.  (If plaintiff thinks defendant is so awful, why were they still living together for years?)  

JJ says they were shacking up, so it was marital debt, so plaintiff case dismissed.  

Eviction Relief is not for Squatters -Plaintiff Artin Sarkissian suing defendant/former tenant Adela Zamora over unpaid rent, and attorney fees.  Plaintiff bought an apartment building in 2017, and issued new leases to tenants, including the defendant and her family.   Plaintiff wants the last nine days, $558 rent for the nine days she went over to the next month.    Defendant claims the house was horrible, but yet she stayed there over three years. 

Plaintiff will not get $5,000 he's suing for, because defendant's brother moved in, wouldn't leave, is still living in the apartment, never paid rent.   However, plaintiff had brother on the original lease.   

Plaintiff will have to sue defendant's brother for squatting in the apartment.   Defendant's brother, wife, and two children live in the apartment also, and have since October.    JJ tells plaintiff that the moratorium won't end until at least March 2021 (extended to June 2021 the last I heard about), so brother can't be evicted until then.   However, defendant claims brother works at Wingstop, and plaintiff says Wingstop says brother doesn't work there, so plaintiff can try garnishing, but it won't work.       

However, JJ points out the moratorium was for people who lost jobs due to Covid, and defendant brother claims he's had his hours cut, but was never laid off.   (Supposedly, the rent is due in total at the end of the moratorium, so brother will be in big trouble.  However, the apartment owner will be lucky to ever get the brother, and his family out, and if the apartment isn't totally destroyed).   

(Unfortunately, depending on where plaintiff's rental is, he may never be able to get rid of defendant's deadbeat brother.    Some states are so tenant friendly, that I don't understand why people become landlords). 

$558 for unpaid rent to plaintiff.  

Second (2021) –

Twice Covid-Infected Landlord! -Plaintiff former Michelle Spalding suing former landlord/defendant Kirk Wilterding for return of security deposit.  Plaintiff and family rented house from defendant, moved out on time, and landlord did not return the $3900 to the plaintiffs.   

Plaintiff lived in the house for a couple of years, then rented to plaintiffs, defendant decided to move back to his home, and gave a 60-day notice to the plaintiff.  Plaintiffs moved out on time, and defendant didn't show up for the walk through (he claims he had Covid symptoms).   Defendant claims he had Covid, lost his sense of smell, and then when it came back he claims he could smell the previous tenants' dogs.  Defendant claims he had to change the carpet and pad after he could smell the dog leftover smells.   Plaintiff claims defendant didn't even show up for the walk through, or call to say he wasn't coming.    

Defendant says it will require major work to re-lease the home.  Defendant just keeps arguing with JJ, bad idea. 

Plaintiff receives $3950. 

(My guess in the landlord/Covid case is that defendant didn't show, but only blamed it on Covid that he had twice.   I wonder if there's any medical proof that he actually had it?     I didn't catch how long the house was rented to plaintiff and family, but if it was more than a few years, and also was the same carpet when defendant lived in the house, then it was due for replacement.     

What I find interesting about the walk-through no show of defendant is that he didn't tell plaintiff he was sick, and couldn't do the walk through, or try to reschedule either.      He could have called or sent a text saying he was sick, and then rescheduled the walk through with the tenant, unless they were moving a long distance.   She should have taken a video showing damages on move in, and anything on move out too. )    

Dirt Bike Taken Hostage? -Plaintiff Charles Roberts suing defendant bike mechanic Bryn Patton for the return or value of a dirt bike.  Plaintiff wanted the non-running bike fixed, and plaintiff called to have dirt bike picked up, and repaired.    Defendant picked up bike for diagnosis, and an estimate, and he claims Mr. Roberts said whatever it cost to fix the bike was fine.

Defendant is counter suing for storage fees, and repair costs for the bike.

New cost for fixing the bike is $580.  Which was double the lowest estimate of $300.   Then defendant sent a text saying the bike was $1500.

Defendant's son wanted to buy the bike, but later decided not to buy it. The dirt bike case was so strange, I really wondered if the defendant was sick or something, because he seemed very confused in court.  

Plaintiff will pay defendant $600 for the bike, and pick it up with a marshal's help.

Pay a Little; Pay a Lot! -Plaintiff Doug Swenson suing defendant /ex-girlfriend Kathy Miller for a loan she didn't repay.     Just before the break up, plaintiff loaned defendant $1,000.   A while later the plaintiff went to defendant's house, and wanted $500.    Plaintiff says defendant gave him $500 after the big fight happened, when she moved out.   

Plaintiff receives $500. 

 

 

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Smoking, Squatting and Blaring Music?!-Plaintiff Michael Pastori was living in his car, and defendant Diane Stemmler invited him to live in her house.     Defendant says plaintiff was a squatter, who smoked in her house, played loud music around the clock, and defendant said he refused to leave her house.   Plaintiff separated from wife six years ago, but never divorced,  and seems rather stoned.   Plaintiff was living with his parents, got tossed out, and was living in his car, and then moved in with defendant, into her basement.

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

Defendant claims to only have a couple of plaintiff's items, and the rest were already picked up by the plaintiff.  Defendant will give vacuum, baby wipes, and some other item to her nephew to give to plaintiff.  Plaintiff gets items back via defendant's nephew returning them.  Counter claim dismissed. 

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

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

Plaintiff receives $1059

Second (2017)-

Attack Victim Cradles Pit Bull Like a Baby?!-Plaintiff Ryan Hays suing Jennifer Frazier neighbor / pit bull owner, for being a total a-hole, for vet bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.   

Plaintiff says pit bull attacked him and his dog, and as usual, defendant says dog was tethered to a tree in her front yard, and couldn't have attacked the man unless he came in her front yard.     Plaintiff has a Malamute, and Husky (both are over 7 years old, so rather old for the breeds). 

Plaintiff was walking his dogs on the street, then he hears dog claws, sees the garage and house door open, the dog bit the plaintiff on the hand, then pit latched onto plaintiff's dog's leg (Malamute), and bit the plaintiff's hand again.    He carried the dog to the house, was bleeding profusely, but defendant denies her dog ever bit anyone or another dog.  Plaintiff says dog bit his hand twice.  

Defendant claims her dog was left in the house, and she let it out when she returned, and claims dog was tethered to a tree in the front yard, but then says she let dog out, but it was leashed at all times.    (Defendant is full of ca-ca isn't she?) 

 Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her, and her retired policeman hubby lied to police that he had been assaulted in his house by plaintiff.  After plaintiff returned home from the hospital for the hand injury, the police were waiting for him because of the false assault complaint.     (I'm hoping the police realized  

Oh no! The defendant has a 4-year-old child, so please tell me we don't get the sad grandpa letter.   Defendant doesn't give a flip about the letter.     

You know what happened, the husband and kids went in the house, they left the door open while she was unloading, and the pit bull got out.   

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

Two Lemon Cars = Lemonade-Plaintiff Cloe Forland suing co-worker Andrew Norby for breach of contract, cost of replacement title, and something else.   Plaintiff had two cars she was selling, and defendant was to purchase both for $3,000, and pay $100 twice a month until paid off.  Defendant claims one car wasn't running, and he made three payments, and returned cars to a garage for plaintiff to pick up.   

 Plaintiff said she bought one recently to use for parts for the other car (they had bad body damages).     Plaintiff received $400, and both cars are still sitting at the gas station.  

Plaintiff repossessed the car, and one title is in the car.   The cars have been at the garage parking lot for three months.

JJ refuses to pay plaintiff, tells her to go get the cars.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 pm. Reruns-

First (2021)-

How to Pry Off a Pit Bull -Plaintiff Donna Cullum is suing defendant/Pit Bull owner Nicole Anderson for an attack by defendant’s Pit Bull on her two small dogs,  when plaintiff and her dog were injured.   Plaintiff was walking her two dogs on the sidewalk, and across the street plaintiff saw defendant and boyfriend walking the Pit Bull, and Basset Hound.     

 Plaintiff couldn't get to her home without crossing the street, where the Pit Bull attacked her terriers (terriers are 20 to 25 lbs.).  Defendant witness Dylan Tripp was at the site of the fight.  Defendant claims both litigants were on the same side of the street, which is denied by the plaintiff.  

Plaintiff claims the Pit Bull got away from the defendant, and defendant lost control of her dog.    Plaintiff says the defendant's dog attacked her dog, plaintiff went to grab her dog, and the Pit Bull grabbed the dog, and plaintiff was on the ground.    Defendant witness got the Pit Bull off of plaintiff and her dog.    He lies to JJ and says he just yanked the leash.   

However, plaintiff witness/husband says defendant witness researched how to get a Pit Bull off of another dog.   Defendant witness lies and says he took the leash from the defendant.   Defendant witness said he had to punch the Pit in the back of the neck three times, to get the Pit to release the small dog but said that to plaintiff's husband, and lies in court about how he got the Pit off of the plaintiff's dog. 

 (Defendant owns the home, and lies that Farmer's insurance covers the Pit Bull on his homeowner's insurance.   This is a lie, since 2013, Farmer's doesn't cover Rotts, Pits, or Wolf Hybrids.  I bet until this case aired that Farmer's insurance didn't know about the Pit Bull living on the defendant witness' home, but they do now). 

Plaintiff receives $5000 for vet bills, and medical bills. 

Child Slides Down Dad’s Car! - Plaintiff Rocio Blauer is suing defendant/former husband Drew Blauer for car damages when defendant threw himself on her car hood.     Plaintiff and defendant were divorced, but defendant moved back into the home for five months, and litigants all slept in one bed with the child.    Litigants have a five-year-old son, and defendant says while plaintiff was supervising the son, he used the father's car as a slide, and damaged it, and defendant's counter suing for damages to his car.     

Both litigants, and son all slept in the same bed, for almost all of the five month period.  Son is autistic, and likes to climb on defendant's car and slide down the car, and damaged the defendant's car.   Plaintiff says her son likes to sit on the car, and slide down the windshield and hood, and says when defendant saw the plaintiff and son on his car, is when he threw himself on the hood of her car, and damaged it. 

JJ tells plaintiff to live with her car damages.  Defendant is counter suing for his car damages, after plaintiff wrote "I need child support" on his car, but he didn't see her do it.  

Everything dismissed.  

Second (2021)-

Vicious Neighbor Endangers Lives?! -Plaintiff LaShawn Oliver suing defendant Tyler DeCoud (woman) for screaming at her close up without a mask, during Covid, and endangering their lives.         There was a dispute about parking, and plaintiff lives across the street from plaintiff's father.       Video shows the plaintiff is telling the truth, and defendant started the fight, and assaulted plaintiff.

The confrontation shows defendant in plaintiff's face, and Body-Englishing (JJ made this word up, not me, but it accurately describes what happened)  plaintiff all of the way up to her home.   Defendant father parks across the street in front of plaintiff's house, and it blocks the plaintiff's father's car in.     

Defendant says plaintiff and her father park so close to defendant's car that the bumpers overlap.   Then, plaintiff submits the video of the cars, and the fight.   Defendant and her friends or relatives are taking videos of the fight too.    Defendant is on plaintiff's father's property, and confronting the plaintiff.    Defendant's mother trying to get defendant to leave the property.    Plaintiff is not parking properly, and doesn't care that she's blocking anyone in.   Second video shows defendant's mother hitting plaintiff's daughter.   The plaintiff's father, and defendant's car are parked very close together.    In the video, defendant has a bizarre red wig, and gigantic fake eyelashes.  

The problem is that the defendant seems to think that she has rights to particular parking spaces, but it's a public street, so it's first come, first served.    Both the father's car, and defendant's car are parked over the driveway.   However, as Carolina Girl points out, plaintiff is parking over her own driveway, and defendant's father was parking over plaintiff's driveway also.    

Defendant was upset about the parking, but defendant or plaintiff could just go forward or back to leave the spot, plaintiff's car wasn't interfering with defendant car's moving, or driving.   Defendant claims plaintiff's father's car damaged her father's bumper, and submits a photo.  JJ sees no damages to the bumper, the cars aren't actually touching.    This all happened in July 2020, and defendant's father sold the car later.    

JJ is watching the rest of the fight video, and then the defendant's video.    Defendant is right in plaintiff's face, and no mask in sight, during Covid.    Defendant's mother is just as out of control as defendant is.   Defendant claims to operate a charity, but won't say what it is for.   You can see the defendant mother, and daughter on video touching plaintiff.  No medical report is submitted by plaintiff, but she claims an eye injury from getting kicked (no it doesn't make sense to me either).   

When defendant disses JJ, she is thrown out of court.    Police report is submitted, saying witness said the defendant's father was choking plaintiff, and plaintiff claims defendant mother assaulted her daughter..   Defendant mother thrown out of court. 

   There was no criminal proceeding, but plaintiff received a three-year protective order against defendant, but did not receive one against defendant's parents.   Plaintiff was parking partially over the driveway, because her other relatives were parking in the driveway, and garage.     So, plaintiff was parking illegally, blocking a driveway, but it's her own driveway.

Next time, JJ says plaintiff should park without obstructing others, before her car gets vandalized by defendants. 

(one of these days, defendant and her mother, will challenge the wrong person, and that person will be armed). 

$500 to plaintiff for assault. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

Plaintiff seemed to be parking across HER driveway.  And frankly why isn’t Daddy Dearest parking in HIS driveway if those loudmouthed bitchez were so worried about it being damaged.  My neighbors are the same way. Druggies who have six cars and take everyone’s on street parking in front of their houses forcing us to park down the block.  EVERYONE hates them.  Their home is the neighborhood eyesore.  

[Florinaldo]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Vicious Neighbor Endangers Lives?!

Defendants are savage brutes, but plaintiff is a dumb pushover. Why does she have to park in the street just because her children use her parking spots on the property? Can't the precious little angels walk a block or so?