Hot Bench - General Discussion

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 May

“Personal A-sister”

New, Season 10, Episode  138

(Linda Mitchell-Duncan vs. Sharon Mitchell) (Plaintiff calls defendant Renee sometimes, very confusing). 

From the show site: A non-profit organizer working for her sister says she is owed two salaries for her two different roles at the organization; the sister contends that she was insubordinate and manipulative, and calls what she's asking for "double dipping."

Plaintiff/sister suing defendant/sister and business owner, suing for $5,000 for unpaid wages, and unpaid loans.   Plaintiff was hired as personal assistant (according to defendant), or as a consultant (according to plaintiff).   Dr. Renee and I A.M. M.O.R.E. is the company name, to help Black youth. 

 Defendant says sister was HR, and payroll, and says plaintiff overstepped boundaries, hired people that shouldn't have been hired, and is owed nothing.    Plaintiff claims sister owed her $16,000, paid her $13,000, and also owes her for loans.  Defendant had a regular program, and then a grant, so sister claims she was owed for working both jobs. 

Defendant claims sister wanted $12,000 a month salary.  Defendant also says plaintiff swiped defendant's signature, and used it for invoices, and was double dipping.   

Plaintiff says she was a 1099 employee, but she was doing the payroll.   My opinion, not enough safe guards on payroll and invoicing.  

Defendant claims plaintiff borrowed $25,000.   $10,000 was one check from the organization bank account.  Plaintiff claims that check was part of the owed travel for the company, total of over $34,000.     

Marshal Gross Jr, is plaintiff witness, and he's also suing I. A.M. M.O.R.E. for unpaid wages, and I guess he's another relative.   Plaintiff and witness claim they were required to work seven days a week.   

Corriero says defendant is a bad manager. Plaintiff produced nothing saying her wages are owed. 

Tewolde says defendant wasn't overseeing the payments, and there is no proof about the wages. 

Plaintiff and defendant case dismissed.  

“Bear Necessities/Thou Shall Not Corvette”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  

p. 45, 18 January 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

7 May

“The Need to Breed”

New, Season 10, Episode  139

(Breyona Kerl vs. Bailie Newman)

From the show site: An animal rescue volunteer is sued for neutering a runaway dog. She deemed it a medical emergency, and her only regret is not getting a vet record of the dog's infection. The owner claims she's missed out on income from breeding. But was she unprepared to be a breeder in the first place?

Plaintiff wants $5,000 (actually $10,000) for loss of breeding, no proof of any loss of income. 

Plaintiff suing defendant for loss of income because defendant neutered the dog, and plaintiff wanted to breed him.   Dog is a 4-year-old American Bully, dog went missing, and someone turned the dog into defendant’s volunteer rescue.   Dog has swollen testicles, a bite, no collar, and no microchip, so vet recommended neutering the dog.   

Plaintiff says there was no infection, and vet told her that the dog was brought in for neutering by defendant, and dog was in great shape. 

There is a photo of dog, from right before neutering looking skinny, and weighed half of what he should have weighed. 

(My opinon, dog is a Pit Bull mix, and huge, and dog was neglected and severely underweight.  My guess is dog  never saw a vet before the neutering). 

Plaintiff says she didn't notice dog was underweight.   

Plaintiff was in the process of moving to Georgia, and planning to breed lots of Pit Bulls, but doesn't know the licensing and breeding requirements.   Plaintiff doesn't have the dog anymore, since he became aggressive after the neutering. 

(No, animals usually are less aggressive after neutering.  Sometimes they are neutered to stop aggression.  My guess is the dog was no longer useful to plaintiff because he was neutered. I'll climb off of my soap box now). 

Plaintiff only sued for loss of income, nothing to do with the aggression. She claims people sent up to $900 for future stud fees, four people who were willing to wait for another year.   However, at about a year, boy doggies can realize they're not grown and tough.  Dog is shown going after another dog.  This is not from neutering.   

Plaintiff rehomed the dog with a family with a two-year-old child, and they shot the second video showing the dog attacking another dog, and being stopped. 

Dog also had been at the shelter as a stray twice before he got lost, and defendant found him.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.  No proof of loss of income.   

(This case enraged me.  Plaintiff obviously dumped dog when it was no longer useful, and was severely underweight too.   I'm just glad no one at the rehoming location was injured). 

“The Maltese Falcons Game”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  

p. 45, 22 January 2024

Edited May 8 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My opinon, dog is a Pit Bull mix, and huge, and dog was neglected and severely underweight.  My guess is dog  never saw a vet before the neutering

Good summary Crazy, and I completely agree with the above. I recorded this earlier and just watched it. I hated the plaintiff. She abused the dog (how can you not notice that the dog lost about half of his weight while you had him?) and clearly has no capability or willingness to take care of dogs, let alone breed them. One thing I noticed when the plaintiff showed the video of the dog being aggressive, she and the dogs were in a small yard with a little scooter and other indications that little kids play there, not a good idea. This woman couldn't keep a pet rock alive and healthy, let alone a living animal. She is a horrible person and I hope somebody forwards this case to her local animal welfare organizations. What a total piece of garbage!

[CrazyInAlabama]

8 May

“Knocking Roots”

New, Season 10, Episode  140

(Nicole Pickard  vs. Michael Bone)

From the show site: A woman claims her neighbor's tree roots cracked her driveway and wants him to pay for their removal. But he comes armed with an 1872 statute that says a tree on two properties belongs to both owners. Why then does he refuse to pay even for half?

Plaintiff suing defendant neighbor for refusing to remove the tree roots, that cracked her driveway, she's suing for $3,000.  Tree looks like it's on the property line, but defendant says tree is joint.    They took the tree down to the trunk, but it regrew, and the roots.  Plaintiff claims the stumps is 8" from a wall in a photo, there is no line in metal or surveyor's report.   

The 1872 California statute says a tree that grows over a property line is a joint tree.    Plaintiff has no evidence or survey.    Plaintiff simply doesn't answer the question.   

The tree is a eucalyptus, and they can get huge.  Plaintiff claims you can see the root of the tree through the open crack in her driveway on a video.   Judge J. says she saw dirt in the crack, but no roots.   Defendant paid $1500 to take the tree down to the stump.  Plaintiff is suing to remove the roots, and replace her driveway.    

Tree companies don't remove the roots that are spreading unless you pay them.   Defendant points out that the original tree was ground down to 18" down, and says the roots were ground off, and the old wall base goes deeper than that 18" deep.   He disputes that the tree in question is the culprit.   

Defendant says the stump was ground down 18" below the surface.   Plaintiff wants the roots removed, and her driveway replaced.     It looks like the driveway crack ends is against her house, not going to her lawn.   Defendant says plaintiff's driveway slab is too thin, and was never going to last.  

My view, defendant paid for tree removal, $1500.  Corriero wants to give plaintiff half of the cost of driveway and roots, so $700 to plaintiff.

Judges give plaintiff $700, and she's going to be ticked.  

(In the hall-terview, plaintiff says she's going to go to the governor's office about this.  )

 

 

“Cat Snatch Fever”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  

p. 43, 6 November 2023

Edited May 8 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

The tree root kerfuffle: We've seen nearly identical cases before. I just don't understand why people who live in houses jammed so close together insist on planting trees that will grow very large.  Maybe it was fine when it was a little sapling, but trees do have a bad habit of growing.

Plaintiff didn't bother getting a survey or offering any evidence that the tree is completely on Def's property. She does say there was a chalk line drawn, and the judges should just go to Google Earth, where she believes the chalk line will be visible. The judges should get her evidence for her.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judges give plaintiff $700, and she's going to be ticked.

I thought that was generous since she also had no evidence that the roots caused her driveway to heave. Probably did, but proof is usually needed. i.e. having the slab (which must be removed anyway to do the repairs) lifted to show the roots beneath it.  "You can see them in the photos," she says. No, you can't.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(In the hall-terview, plaintiff says she's going to go to the governor's office about this.  )

Yeah. Good luck with that.

[DoctorK]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(In the hall-terview, plaintiff says she's going to go to the governor's office about this. 

That was funny and not as mind numbingly stupid as one losing litigant who was adamant that he was going to take his case to the Supreme Court. Today's litigant will write to the Governor and get a response  that "they will look into this important issue and get back to her". Then they will file her letter in the voluminous folders of "go away and don't bother us with this nonsense" letters.

[CrazyInAlabama]

 

9 May

“The Laser’s Edge”

New, Season 10, Episode 141 

(Adam King vs. Amaury Agoncillo)

From the show site: A laser specialist defends his reputation against the owner of a tattoo removal company, who accuses him of improperly repairing his machines. Was the owner's own negligence at play, as the specialist claims? The judges will render their verdict in permanent ink, and even the strongest laser can't undo that.

Plaintiff says defendant/laser repair refused to fix his machines, at New Skin Tattoo Renewal.     He's suing for $5,000.   Defendant says he fixed the lasers, and owes plaintiff nothing.  

The non-profit company removes tattoos from former prisoners, trafficking victims, and youth gang members in juvenile facilities, at a low cost.   

This was a non-profit in San Jose, and defedant has to drive 6 hours one way, or fly one hour for each visit.  This was for routine maintenance, and machines required more parts, so defendant had to order parts. machines are from 2006 and 2008.   

Defendant says plaintiff drove six hours home from L.A. and the machines are fragile, so defendant's theory was that the machine was misaligned from the road trip.  If even one of the internal mirrors is misaligned, the machine won't work.  

Defendant videoed the test of the machine right before plaintiff picked them up.  Plaintiff claims his laser is another color, and the scanner looks different.  Plaintiff says there was no other company that could service the lasers, but has found another repair facility now.   After this another repair person flew to San Jose, repaired the machines, and they're fine now.  

Defendant sent a check for $3,000 to plaintiff, but it hasn't been received yet.  Defendant says he will cut another check for plaintiff.  

Plaintiff receives $3,000. 

 

 

“Love Freight Relationship”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  

p. 45, 17 January 2024

 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, DoctorK said:

not as mind numbingly stupid as one losing litigant who was adamant that he was going to take his case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court? Wow. Usually the "This isn't over" losers just say "another court." Doug on TPC always wished them luck with that.

[CrazyInAlabama]

10 May

“Lash Clash”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  142

(Sommer Melton vs. Zaria Tadeo-Hernandez)   

From the show site: When her client's lash extensions fell out, an eyelash technician was willing to re-do them for free. But the client claims it was impossible to get a new appointment, and she no longer trusts the technician's ability. Does she deserve a refund, or can the technician prove that the damage was self-inflicted?

Plaintiff suing defendant/eyelash extension tech for a refund for her eyelash extensions that looked awful, and fell out.  Plaintiff is suing for $285, refund and lost wages.   During the service, plaintiff's eyes kept watering, and exposure to water during the first 24 hours shortens the life of the lash extensions.   Then a couple of days later the lashes started falling off.  Defendant offered a return service, but was unable to replace the lashes until a month later.   Plaintiff is suing for refund, loss of work to come to court, attorney and filing fees for filing the case. 

Defendant says plaintiff wanted a specific curl type, and that required a different technique.  Defendant says you don't have to wait 24 hours, and she used a bonder too, so the eyelashes were firmly attached at the appointment.   Defendant removed the lashes, and owes nothing.    Removal or refund usually has to be requested within 48 hours of the service, but made an exception for plaintiff.  

Defendant originally offered a full set free, but plaintiff refuses to go back for the service.  She also says plaintiff wanted the work outside of business hours, and plaintiff didn't demand a refund for 8 months. 

Defendant says the waiver everyone signs before service has the refund and other policies on it.  

My view is plaintiff is in the wrong here.   She waited a long time to complain about the eyelashes.  Defendant says the extensions would have come off but not the lashes, if they weren't applied and bonded correctly.   Defendant says since the eyelashes came off still attached to the natural eyelash, so it mut be something plaintiff did.  However, defendant cancelled three return appointments. 

The other judges give Corriero a crash course about lash extensions vs. false glue-on eyelashes. 

Plaintiff gets the service price back, and that's all $95. 

 

“InCARcerated”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  

p. 45, 25 January 2024

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/10/2024 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Lash Clash”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  142

Thank you. I was going to watch this tonight, but after reading your summary, I shall skip it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 May

“Cinder Hella Hurt”

New, Season 10, Episode  143

(Edward Keith Knapp vs. William Scott)

From the show site: A man says his next-door neighbor told him to throw cinderblocks over their shared fence, and then sued him for personal injury

Plaintiff suing defendant/new neighbor about putting cinder blocks over the fence on defendant's property.   Plaintiff says he told defendant to throw the cinder blocks back over, but some supposedly hit plaintiff, and plaintiff is suing him for $5,000. 

Defendant  says when he moved in, plaintiff came inside his house and demanded to know what he was doing in the house (defendant and realtor are both Black), and says plaintiff was very aggressive.   It's actually not plaintiff's house, but his sister's house.   Defendant was in the kitchen, and plaintiff came right into the house and demanded to know what defendant and family were doing in the house.  Corriero questions what plaintiff's motives are.  Defendant says plaintiff has been harassing him since the day he moved into his house.  

Then, there was a piece of cardboard near the trash cans, and plaintiff tossed it into defendant's back yard.   Cinder blocks were because the fence defendant rebuilt was eroding on plaintiff sister's side.   Plaintiff claims the cinder blocks were thrown over to defendant's property by him, and that when he told defendant to toss them back over, the cinder blocks hit him.  The fence is 7 ft high cinder block, so defendant has super great aim to hit the plaintiff.   There is nothing proving that plaintiff was hit, has no damages from the cinder blocks.  Defendant has a video of post-surgery plaintiff on the roof of sister's house, flying kites, when he claims he could barely move. 

(I made my mind up, plaintiff is a jerk, and a bigot, and is harassing defendant.  He should get nothing. However, I would give the defendant $5,000 for harassment from plaintiff).  

Defendant also called parking authority on plaintiff's illegally parked car and it was towed, and called code enforcement about the sister's illegal greenhouse.  Plaintiff also complains that defendant told him via security camera, to get off his property.  How do you talk to someone over security camera if you're not trespassing on their property? Even Corriero can't defendant the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff tried to get a restraining order, and a mutual keep away order was issued. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's bull pucky.

Defendant awarded $2368 for harassment.  (Juarez dissents). 

“Room Raider”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  82

p. 46 5 February 2024 listing (actually aired 1 February 2024)

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: A man says his next-door neighbor told him to throw cinderblocks over their shared fence, and then sued him for personal injury

Two of my friends had total knee replacements and they didn't go out and do yard work or lift cinderblocks to heave over fences even after quite long periods of rehabilitation.

Plaintiff is an old crackpot, unable to mind his business, who has too much time on his hands and takes great pleasure in being a pain in the ass. I'm sure it makes no difference to him if the neighbours are Black, White, or purple. He would find something to bitch and gripe about, guaranteed.

The house isn't even his, but his sister's and this is how he passes his days and will continue this way.  Wonder what his sister thinks of his behavior.  If that was my brother living with me and engaging in petty warfare with the neighbours, he's be gone ASAP. I venture to say we've all known someone like him at some point in our lives. I know I have.

[CrazyInAlabama]

14 May

“Im-purr-fect Kitty ”

New, Season 10, Episode  144

(Mary Angela Hardcastle vs. Monica San Severino )

From the show site: A woman says she purchased a world grand champion bloodline Bengal cat who contracted a parasitic infection in the defendant's cattery, and demands a refund and veterinary bill reimbursement.

Plaintiff/cat buyer suing defendant/cat seller for a full refund, and repayment of veterinary bills.   Plaintiff says when she purchased cat from defendant, cat was reported to be in good health, and 9 months old, but cat turned out to be almost 15 months old, and had a parasitic disease, and was pregnant.  Plaintiff wanted the cat to breed one time.  Plaintiff wants $7,000, for the cat price, and vet bills for the cat, and her kittens.  Cats had upper respiratory issues, Tritrichomonas, and a few other diseases.  Plaintiff definitely wanted to sell kittens, and refused the offer by defendant to give a $2000 refund, but refused to return the cat. 

Defendant didn't even know kitty was pregnant.   Plaintiff says cat was supposed to be well socialized, and cat hid under the bed for days, and barely came out from under, and she says cat was feral. 

Cat came with a 48 hour health guarantee, but plaintiff didn't take cat to vet for weeks after purchase.      Defendant says plaintiff took cat in almost two months after purchase, and vet said cat was pregnant.  Defendant has texts from plaintiff saying how happy she was about the cat and kittens.   Plaintiff claims she was never told about the 48-hour health guarantee, and claims defendant didn't tell her about the 48-hour vet visit either. 

Tritichomonas is what cat had.  It's transmitted through contact with fecal matter from infected cats.  There are treatments, but the disease can come back.    It results in diarrhea.    Some cats have it chronically, and in some it dies out. 

Thre were four kittens, two lived, and two died.   One was given to the plaintiff's niece, and the other was given to another person.   Plaintiff had another cat also when she bought the little Bengal.  Fancy was originally purchased from a friend of defendant.  The plaintiff's claim that cat was 9 months, because it would bond better than a 15 month old cat.    Plaintiff still says she only wanted to breed the cat once.   

 (I have to disagree, just because a cat hides in a new home doesn't mean it's feral, it means it's a cat. At least that's what my dogs always told me.)

Plaintiff wants the $5,000 extra over purchase price of original cat $2,000.   Defendant says Bengals shouldn't take the kittens outside, because of disease transmission.    Plaintiff claims her other cat doesn't go outside, but then says she puts Reggie on a harness and walks him. 

Corriero doesn't see what defendant did wrong, and Tewolde agrees.   Juarez agrees. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, no evidence. 

“Rest in Lease”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  49

 p. 44, 21 November 2023

(I disagree with the decision.  There was no proof of the huge amount of property the landlady supposedly got rid of.  The photos didn’t show the huge amount of stuff the family claim the brother had in the boxes.)

[CrazyInAlabama]

15 May

“Just Honda Me the Summons”

New, Season 10, Episode  145

(Matt Brown vs. Wykena Woods)   

From the show site: A woman's 10-year-old nephew woke her up, saying "A strange man is throwing things at our window and yelling your name!"; it turned out that the man was a process server, and he now accuses her of denting his car.

Plaintiff/process server suing defendant for denting his car, when he was serving her with lawsuit papers.  However, defendant claims pliantiff was throwing rocks at her house.   

When defendant came out to confront him, he locked himself in his car, and says defendant caused almost $3,000 in damages to plaintiff's car, and rental car costs.  Defendant says she didn't do it. 

Plaintiff was serving documents, but defendant refused to answer the door, and then she charged out and that's when the attack on the car happened.  Plaintiff says he tossed two small pieces of bark, and defendant claims they were rocks.  

Plaintiff did served defendant with the papers.   Corriero, as usual, takes the side of the defendant. Tewolde claims that trying only twice to serve papers is not enough.   Plaintiff is going to lose. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

 

”Med-Spat”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  77

p. 45, 24 January 2024

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Matt Brown vs. Wykena Woods

Thanks for the verdict @CrazyInAlabama. I couldn't deal with either of these litigants.  I did believe defendant charged like a wild bison and vandalized the car. As we well know, physical violence and/or vandalism are the proper ways to deal with annoying situations that crop up.

But the main problem for me is that she started with something I hate and that litigants do when they either want time to formulate lies or they just LOVE the sound of their voices:

"My son came and told me, 'Momma, there's a  man throwing rocks at the window.'

I said, "What do you mean, there's a man throwing rocks at the window?" And he said, "Yes, there's a man... " and on and on for each bit of information. When she got to the part of her thundering outside nearly naked, presumably in front of the child, I quit.

[CrazyInAlabama]

16 May

“Dog Day Attack”

New, Season 10, Episode  146

(Rosa Thompson vs. Martha Allen)

From the show site: The neighbor's off-leash Pitbull allegedly killed this plaintiff's Yorkie in her own front yard. The plaintiff claims the neighbor put minimal effort into restraining her dog to avoid spilling her beer. The neighbor's excuse: all the dogs in our neighborhood are off leash.

 

Plaintiff /Yorkie owner is suing defendant/Pit Bull owner for defendant’s Pit Bull attacking and killing her Yorkie in the plaintiff’s front yard.  Defendant claims all of the dogs in the neighborhood run loose, and her dog did nothing wrong.   Plaintiff wants replacement costs for the Yorkie, vet bills, and emotional distress, suing for $5,000.   

PLaintiff says both dogs were in the back yard, then Yorkie was standing against the fence, and defendant's dog dragged her dog's paw through, and the nail was ripped out.  

Second and fatal incident, plaintiff's dog ran out while she was briging in groceries, and when plaintiff's beloved Coco, defendant's dog attacked Coco, the injuries are too horrific to describe.   Coco died at the vet's office in the middle of the night.   Defendant's witness lies and says that Coco was on defendant's property when the Pit attacked.  

There is a video of defendant and her off leash dog on plaintiff's front yard, and defendant's dog is going after another person's dog.  The other dog is another resident of defendant's house. 

Defendant claims Coco ran to defendant's yard, and was in her dog's territory.   Defendant says none of the dogs in the neighborhood have leashes.   Defendant denies her dog attacked, but it was shown on the video, and plaintiff claims that defendant's dog savagely attacked another neighbor's dog.  (This was in Daytona Beach, FL)

Tewolde gets irate when the attack shown on video is denied by the defendant.   

Plaintiff called police numerous times about defendant's dog, and other incidents.   Defendant claims her dog didn't rip off Yorkie's toenail.   

Defendant claims she didn't have a leash, and even though animal control said her dog had to be on leash in the front yard.   

Corriero shows a photo of defendant's dog, and asks how she could use a leash on a dog without a collar?  

(Just from the preview, I would give the plaintiff $5,000. Defendant is despicable). 

Despicable defendant says plaintiff didn't come out and help her separate the dogs, so it's her fault her Yorkie died.     

Juarez says leash laws locally mean defendant was more than 50% responsible.    She says dog with a long history of aggession is reckless negligence.  Corriero says $5,000, for negligence and indifference and callous disregard by defendant.  Tewolde agrees with Corriero.   Juarez would give less money but is overruled.   

Plaintiff receives $5,000.   

 

“Lost Dog, Run Free”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  80

p. 46, 5 February 2024 (actual air date 29 January 2024)

[DoctorK]

Well done recap from our friend Crazy on today's new case. I will only add my personal reaction to the defendant. She fits every stereotype of a contentious, irresponsible, nasty, dishonest hag. Hag not for appearance but her behavior, and I left out old because I suspect that she has been like that her whole life (also, I am probably fairly close to her age). She openly admitted that even after being ordered to have her dog on a leash if it is in the unfenced front yard, but she "didn't have a leash" so she ignored this. She claims later that she eventually got a leash (and a collar? maybe yes, maybe no). In the hallterview she adamantly insisted that this was the one and only time her dog ever was loose in the front yard without a leash even though she admitted to the contrary several times. She is an absolutely horrible neighbor to live close to. Thank goodness I have never had to deal with a neighbor that bad.

Edited May 16 by DoctorK
To and too are not interchangeable.

[AngelaHunter]

Thanks, @CrazyInAlabama and @DoctorK

Your summaries reinforce my belief that most litigants are too dumb to be entrusted with the care of an earthworm.  I'll skip this.

[CrazyInAlabama]

17 May

“No Dancing the Loan Away”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  79

p. 46, 5 February 2024

 

“Dead Bugs and Spark Plugs”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  81

p. 46, 5 February 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

20 May

“Mending Fences”

New, Season 10, Episode  147

(Catherine Green  vs. Netalia Burr-Harral)   

From the show site: A woman and her granddaughter feud over a loan, a car battery, and now a short fence that the granddaughter replaced with a taller one.

Plaintiff/grandmother suing defendant/granddaughter for car payments, utilities, car repairs including a battery,    Plaintiff said defendant and family could stay for a year on her property, in their trailer, for $300 a month, sold a car for $3,000, but didn't pay everything.  Damages for a removed fence, and a damaged swing set.    $4280 is what plaintiff is seeking.   

Defendant says she paid some on the car, but doesn't want to pay more.   The litigants struggled over the Durango battery.   Then, the trailer was allowed to park on plaintiff's property after the fight, but after they reconciled.    

Plaintiff says defendant took the chain link fence down, a 4 ft fence, and after defendants took the fence down, the plaintiff had to replace the fence with panels, and t-posts.  Plaintiff's witness is her daughter, the defendant's mother.     Defendant says they didn't pay the utilities, and other damages because she was putting that money down on a house.   

Corriero seems to think it's important that defendant is step daughter, and step granddaughter to plaintiff and her witness. 

Plaintiff repo'd the Durango five years ago.    Tewolde says the lawsuit is petty and punitive.  Juarez agrees with Tewolde.    I think not paying your bills is petty and punitive. 

Lawsuit was filed after plaintiff filed for a restraining order.   Plaintiff witness says a condition of living on the property was to keep their area around the trailer picked up.  No surprise, Corriero also sides with defendant. 

Plaintiff gets $400 for utilities, car payments dismissed, damages dismissed.    Judges say everything plaintiff sued for was petty.  

 

“Loan to Smithereens”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  44

p. 43, 13 November 2023

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A woman and her granddaughter feud over a loan

That was so hilarious yet distasteful that I had to give it up. Plaintiff is so fragile she can't stand for the duration of this case, but she had no problem duking it out and playing "tug of war" with a heavy car battery with her freaky niece. I pictured them battling like angry bison or Sumo wrestlers in the driveway. Def is lucky she's tough and husky. If the stepgrandma had fallen on anyone else they'd have been crushed. Good thing the plaintiff's witness didn't get in on the "scuffle". They all act like their outrageous behavior is completely normal.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

No surprise, Corriero also sides with defendant. 

As soon as I heard him saying, in his kindly Papa Mike voice, "You feel like a stepchild, don't you?" to this big bruiser, well past middle age, I tuned out.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tewolde says the lawsuit is petty and punitive.  Juarez agrees with Tewolde.    I think not paying your bills is petty and punitive. 

I thought that might be the outcome. Thanks. Sounds like Def's whole family freeloads.

[CrazyInAlabama]

21 May

“Cash Appalled”

New, Season 10, Episode  148

(Paulo Presotto vs. Manar Azreik)

From the show site: A man says electronically transferred money intended for him mysteriously goes to a minister he met months ago at a clothing-optional hot springs.

Plaintiff suing defendant for return of money transferred illegally to defendant through an electronic transfers, $1396 via Zelle.   They met at a clothing-optional resort, which I do not see how that applies to the case, except for ratings. 

Corriero snaps at defendant for keeping the money, and defendant considers the money a blessing from heaven.   Defendant claims this ia a scam by plaintiff, and she owes him nothing.   She also says that there are still options available to plaintiff, so she owes him nothing, Zelle does. 

Defendant says the payments came from a client of plaintiff, and she's innocent.   Plaintiff witness is Dinize "Nezzy"  Wales, who sent several tranfers to plaintiff, that somehow ended up with defendant.  Plaintiff says after he sent $5.00 to defendant, that somehow his account linked to defendant's account. 

Defendant already spent the money, and she proposed a payment plan with plaintiff, but never signed it or paid anything.  Defendant said plaintiff was a scammer, and she was going to report him to the F.B.I. 

Corriero is livid with defendant, and so is Tewolde.  Plaintiff sent a police report to defendant.   Defendant called some of the senders, and they all said money was sent to plaintiff, but she still refuses to give any of the money back.  Defendant claims her bank said not to give any money back to plaintiff. 

Defendant wanted dispute information, but they were done between plaintiff's clients and their banks.    

Juarez says the plaintiff filing the case should have been plaintiff witness, who is actually out the money.    Plaintiff says he's the filer of the lawsuit because the money was paid to him, and the friends have a language barrier. 

Juarez thinks defendant is wrong, but plaintiff should have given the information to defendant.   Corriero thinks plaintiff is right. Tewolde says defendant knows she didn't earn the money, but spent money she didn't earn. 

Plaintiff receives $1,396, with Juarez dissenting.  I agree with the majority, this money was owed to plaintiff, so he's the right person to sue. 

 

“Family Feud”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  83

p. 46, 5 February 2024,  (actual date 2 February)

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Paulo Presotto vs. Manar Azreik)

I nearly clicked off when I heard the litigants met somewhere when both of them were stark naked as that put alarming visuals in my head.

I'm glad I stuck with it because it was both interesting and outrageous. Interesting because I don't use Zelle ( I do e-transfers directly from my bank) and outrageous because the def magically got $700 put in her account and she seems proud to say she immediately spent it, figuring that "the universe" or some celestial entity is now sending money by Zelle and sent it as a gift to her because she's so special.

The two best parts: Papa Mike did not side with the female litigant (maybe her masculine appearance put him off?) and got quite furious at her for just blowing money she knew wasn't hers. Whether it was a scam or not, the money was not hers.

And then the judges nearly came to blows during their deliberations. After listening to the way so many litigants make their points, I half expected the judges to resolve their disagreement with vandalism, face-spitting,  and sucker punches.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  I agree with the majority, this money was owed to plaintiff, so he's the right person to sue.

 

Agree.

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff receives $1,396, with Juarez dissenting.  I agree with the majority, this money was owed to plaintiff, so he's the right person to sue. 

I usually go along with Juarez but in this case she was full of crap. The defendant took the money she knew was not hers and spent it and got all of the benefit of it. The plaintiff lost the money. Even if the defendant was not involved in the fraud (which I absolutely think she was in on the fraud), that still doesn't remove her responsibility to return stolen money. In cases where someone unknowingly buys a stolen item (e.g., a firearm) ,  the item goes back to the legitimate owner, no compensation to the buyer unless he can sue the person he bought it from. This defendant is much worse, took the money she knew wasn't hers (a blessing from God? Really? Give me a break) and spent it for her own benefit; if she had to return the stolen money she would not have been out a penny by returning the stolen money that she knew wasn't hers.

P.S. Correrio is acting like a judge again instead of a bleeding heart wimp. If he is getting testosterone therapy as I have speculated before, it seems to be working. Good for him, lets see if it lasts.

Edited May 22 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

If he is getting testosterone therapy as I have speculated before, it seems to be working. Good for him, lets see if it lasts.

Aw, damn.  😄Thanks for the giggle. Yes, Papa dug his heels in on this and would not be strong-armed, for once. I can't remember that happening before.

[CrazyInAlabama]

22 May

“The Great Crate Debate”

New, Season 10, Episode 149

(Carson Keene vs. Heather Szabo )    

From the show site: Two 8th-grade math teachers feud over dog-sitting and damage the dog caused.

Plaintiff was dog sitting for defendant, and is suing defendant for damages from the dogs, which are shown on video.  Dog ruined a mesh screen door, hundreds of dollars of boots,       The dogs were a Newfoundland, and a huge Great Danepuppy named Waylon,     

Plaintiff has been dog sitting for 10 years, and the price was $350 to $400 depending on the litigant you listen too.     Dogs were supposed to be housed at defendant's house, but plaintiff is allergic to defendant's cat.   Defendant says puppy is OK when people are around. 

However, plaintiff had to go to work, and other errands.  Defendant claims she was paying plaintiff to be home constantly while the dogs were there. 

Defendant took a crate to the plaintiff's house, but plaintiff says the puppy got out of the crate.    Plaintiff says at least 8 zipties didn't stop the dog getting out of the crate.   

There are videos, plaintiff ziptied the crate, and Waylon escaping, it took Waylon 4 minutes to get out of the ziptied crate, to go and get plaintiff's Blundstone boots to chew up.     Also, a puzzle, baseboards, plants destroyed, zip ties.   Defendant's video show the Great Dane in a crate that's way too small for him, defendant says the crate is the right size.  Waylon can't even stand up properly.   

Plaintiff wants the $400, plus $80 cleaning fee, and damages to floors, $800 total.  (This was in Oregon City, OR). 

Defendant didn't even pay the dog sitting fees.  Plaintiff also says the authorities in defendant's home city have cited her for not keeping the dogs contained.  

Judge Juarez says it would be $70 per day for the two dogs at a commercial kennel.   Defendant went to Hawaii on vacation, and her relatives would have watched the dogs anyway.   Defendant says plaintiff should have charged $150 for the damages, and inflated the bill.  However, plaintiff didn't charge for the $250 Blundstone boots that dog destroyed either.   

Within seven minutes of dropping the puppy off, plaintiff texted that she had to work for a few hours the next day.  The next day was the video plaintiff had of Waylon escaping.    When plaintiff texted about the destruction, and text from defendant says dog is a Houdini.  

(I'm happy that everyone is calling Carson by their preferred pronouns too). 

Carson received $500 already from plaintiff, but wants $1250 more.  Professional kennel would cost over $600.  Tewolde says Carson should have moved things out of range, that's absurd.   

Decision is $750 to Carson for damages.  

 

“Cancelnera”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  48

p. 43, 20 November 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

23 May

“Buh-LOAN-nee”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 85

p. 46, 6 February 2024
 

“Rental Home Gone Wrong”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  77

p. 35, 19 Jan 2023

 

24 May

“Mind Your Own Canna-Business”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  90

p. 46, 14 February 2024

“Dog Fight”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 50

p. 33, 28 November 2022

[Chalby]

I was watching hot bench May 23rd, and I was so frustrated I had to come on here to comment. The show was regarding a musician who uses zel to receive payments but for some reason any payments he was to receive for a month were going to an acquaintance he met at a resort. He explained that $1000 of payments had gone to her number, so he shared the names of clients/friends who mistakenly sent her the $.

I know something weird happened when they met for her number to suddenly replace his for payments. However I do believe neither one of them was trying to fraud... I think? But I was frustrated with a judge's response. The plaintiff was told he was suing the wrong person and that his clients should be suing her for their money back not him. 

However if I was the plaintiff's client, I wouldn't want to have to go to court to sue someone as that's a hassle and time consuming. In my mind I paid my money and I was fine with standing by him and saying, "Yes I sent $$ to the wrong person but couldn't reverse it because she already cashed it."

The fact that the plaintiff gave her phone numbers so she could phone these clients to confirm they sent her the money by accident didn't help matters. She just demanded more proof and she had no intention of ever paying it back.

But I am glad that the judges finally agreed to give him the full amount.

It bothers me when I watch the judges arguing a case, but they're not discussing an important aspect  that stands out to me. Lol... I'm a control freak

[CrazyInAlabama]

27 May

“Lil’ Mamma Drama”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  18

p. 46, 5 February 2024

 

“Life’s a Beach”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  16

p. 46, 5 February 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

28 May

“A Huge Missed Stake”

New, Season 10, Episode  150

(Catrese Fields-Alston vs. Tarious Sellers )

From the show site: A woman holds a celebration with the mayor in attendance, then the caterer is late and short on food; he says his employees were in a car accident en route, but she fears that her reputation is ruined.

Plaintiff Catrese Alston suing defendant / caterer Tarious Sellers for shortage of food, and staff being late for her event, suing for $2150 .  Plaintiff says she was being presented with a Key to the City, and says defendant showed up 3 hours late because of a car accident.   Defendant also says he brought the amount of food plaintiff paid for, and there would never be more food even if the staff had shown up.    Davan Alston, plaintiff husband, is her witness.

Plaintiff says setup was at 5:30, but defendant was late.  Plaintiff claims it was a sit down dinner, but defendant says buffet style was agreed on by plaintiff to fit her budget.   Plaintiff says instead of lamb chops, defendant served lamb lollipops that are smaller.  Some of the food was in the first car that was in the accident.  Defendant offered $650 is refund. 

Barnesville, GA is where this happened.   The event was actually a field day, with vendors, photographers, musicians, a parade, car show.  Sounds like a fun event, culminating with the dinner and presentation, and to raise funds for a worthy cause. 

Plaintiff claims the mayor and the city council didn't get to eat, but defendant says the Mayor was the first one served.    

Plaintiff claims there is no way that the food in the car in the accident wasn't servable, and defendant should have brought the food anyway.    I liked the plaintiff until that remark.   Defendant says he told plaintiff to get smaller plates, not the huge dinner platters, or there wouldn't be enough food to go around.    There were over 100 people at the dinner, so how did anyone think $2150 would cover dinner for 100 (plaintiff says she expected 130 people) people with full dinner service?  

Plaintiff receives $1650 refund. 

 

“Friendship Cat-astrophe”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  18

p. 46, 7 February 2024

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A woman holds a celebration with the mayor in attendance, then the caterer is late and short on food;

For me, the worst part of this case was Papa asking the Plaintiff to tell us ALLLLLL about herself and this event.  Really, Papa? Didn't we already hear enough about her and it? Maybe it was fascinating but I don't know since I FF'd through it and even then it took some time.

I have no idea what the agreement/contract was, with Catrese and Tarious telling such different tales. Sit-down dinner or buffet? Those are very different things.

Even without the accident, it seemed Tarious was never going to get there on time, and what are these "Dinner saucers" of which he speaks? Does he serve dinner on saucers? Munchkin dinners!

$16.50/person for full service of super-expensive items like lamb chops? I doubt you can get even a burger, fries, and a drink at McDonald's for that price these days.

[CrazyInAlabama]

29 May

“PT Purple Paint Problem”

New, Season 10, Episode  151

( Rose vs. Conrad Diaz III and Conrad Diaz Jr (father)     

From the show site: A woman says she paid more, waited longer, and got a poorer result than she'd expected on her PT Cruiser paint job and sues her longtime friends, who told her they could get it done inexpensively in Mexico.

Plaintiff suing defendants/former friends for the cost of repainting her PT Cruiser. $2659 for the paint plaintiff purchased, and the paint job. 

Plaintiff claims she actually believed that defendants could get her the same quality paint job for half the price by using a shop in Mexico. The 2005 PT Cruiser was to be painted purple, instead of the current red.  First painter couldn't do the work, so the defendants went to a second painter.    Plaintiff claims the PT Cruiser would take longer because of the change in color.    First painter wanted $4,000, in the U.S. and so defendants suggested Mexico painting would be cheaper.    Conrad III (son) drove the PT Cruiser to Mexico, a six-hour drive.  Plaintiff says it wasn't a favor to drive the car down because the defendants were going to Mexico anyway.    

Plaintiff claims she needed car back by the first week of January, and defendant's painter took longer.   Plaintiff claims the paint is chipping now.   Judge J says texts from plaintiff are rude, and demanding.    

Plaintiff wanted even cheaper than $1600, plus the cost of paint, and text message from plaintiff said painter should do the job for $1200 plus the paint she supplied. 

Juarez and Tewolde jump on plaintiff's story, and Corriero does also.   Then plaintiff makes a remark "I can see where this is heading".    Plaintiff demanded the car back immediately, and now whines about the paint job not holding up.  

The only foolish thing defendants did was to deal with plaintiff.   

Plaintiff claim dismissed. 

 

“Gold-Hearted Snake”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  17

p. 46, 8 February 2024

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The only foolish thing defendants did was to deal with plaintiff.   

The rude, entitled, unpleasant Ms. Rose must have too much money available for her whims. Her mom leaves her an old PT Cruiser. The car is red (I recall back in the day wanting a red PT Cruiser) and that's not okay with Ms. Rose. It has to be changed to purple since that's her favorite colour as it was her mom's.

Really, if this old car has such immense sentimental value, shouldn't she leave it the colour it was when Mom chose it? Or maybe money burns a hole in Ms. Rose's pocket.

Anyway. Defs were merely doing her a favour, taking time to ask around, and then driving the old thing to Mexico so she could get a discount. Well, not really, she snarks. They were going there anyway for the holidays! I'm sure they didn't factor in spending time at a garage over Christmas.

The imperious Ms. Rose starts issuing abusive orders and making demands of the Def - she wants her car back NOW!  He should have told the witch to piss off and to go to Mexico and get it back herself. He wasn't being paid anything for all this. Imagine giving orders to someone who is doing you a favour! This woman is so insufferable that even Papa couldn't cut her any slack.

She can't go to Mexico and sue the painter who got paid, you know! For some bizarre reason, she feels the Def is responsible for the peeling paint on the old car. He didn't paint it!  She was quite indignant about the judges pointing out her absurdity.

In the hall, the Def makes comments about learning a lesson. No more favours for you, Ms.Rose.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Gold-Hearted Snake”

I recognized this as a repeat when I heard "Jurry jurry jurry" and saw the plaintiff who dressed to expose half of her braless, huge, drooping pancake breasts. Once was enough.

[CrazyInAlabama]

30 May

“Ex-cessive Cheat Warning”

Rerun,  Season 10, Episode  89

p. 46, 7 February 2024

 

“Repo Woman”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  37

p. 43, 2 November 2023

 

31 May

“Dude, Where’s My BMW?”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  89

p. 46, 13 February 2024

 

“Rental Disorder”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  19

p. 46, 8 February 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 June

“A Housing Dilemma”

New, Season 10, Episode  152

(Shawn Boykin vs. Miriam Gray)

From the show site: A therapist wants his ex-girlfriend to pay her share of the rent, but she says he made the home unsafe for her three daughters and his emotional abuse left her with no choice but to move out, absolving her of their financial agreement.

Plaintiff suing defendant/ex-girlfriend for her unpaid portion of the rent, and an unpaid loan.   He's suing for $5,000.   Plaintiff says when defendant confronted him, she broke his hand.

Defendant's daughters are almost 18, 17, and 12 years-old. Defendant says plaintiff was abusive, and she moved to keep her three daughters safe from plaintiff.  Defendant says she was going to pay $1,000 of the $2100 monthly rent, and agreed to pay back half of the loan plaintiff took out for their expenses to get the apartment.    Defendant temporarily lost custody of the three daughters because she wasn't protecting them from plaintiff's emotional abuse. 

Plaintiff is a clinical therapist, and admits to having a drinking problem.   He also was in prison for a long time, and vowed to change his life.  

Loan was for $8500, taken out by plaintiff, paid first and last months rent plus security $3570, rest went for moving costs, and other expenses for the apartment. 

Defendant has a five-year restraining order against plaintiff, and if defendant had stayed behind in the apartment, plaintiff would have had to moved out from the apartment.   

Tewolde feels sorry for both litigants, but says plaintiff was justified to move out, so no rent, just for part of the loan.   Corriero says consider the rent and loan separately, so $2500 to plaintiff.  Juarez says nothing for plaintiff. 

Judges' decision is $0 for plaintiff, a unanimous verdict. 

 

“Breaking Up was the Breast Decision”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  39

p. 43, 30 October 2023

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is a clinical therapist, and admits to having a drinking problem.   He also was in prison for a long time, and vowed to change his life. 

I really need to watch this.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 June

“Flooring Fiasco & Carpet Conflicts”

New, Season 10, Episode  153

(Nahid and Stacey Harlan vs. Mike Kinohi and Stacy Knight )   

From the show site: An elderly husband and wife say they were ripped off to the tune of $7,000 on a flooring installation project, but the handymen's reported unprofessionalism may not rise to the criminal level the plaintiffs claim.

Plaintiffs hired defendant/handyman to get new carpet and other flooring, and are suing for $7,000.   Plaintiffs claim they deserve the entire $7,000 back.  (This happened in Reno, NV)

Plaintiffs say defendants didn't have a business, ripped them off and are fraudsters.  Plaintiff says wife was looking at flooring at a big box hardware store, when an employee said 'why pay this store for expensive install, I know someone who will do a better job, and much cheaper".  Then, the defendants showed up at the store, showed her photos of their work, and she paid them. $4,000 for materials and supplies, $1800 for labor totaling $5800.   

Defendants claims they purchases a flooring from another store, and defendants never showed plaintiffs an invoice.   Invoice is shown saying over $4,000 and it would be delivered to plaintiffs.   Plaintiffs never received the flooring, defendants received 59 boxes, and still have them.

Plaintiff husband called the Vegas flooring supply, and they said they haven't dealt with defendants in years.   Flooring was never delivered to plaintiffs or installed.   

Plaintiffs got another company to install the LVP, and they have a real invoice, with dates, costs, sources, etc. 

Defendants said they already did half of the job, removing the carpet, tack strips, and other work, and deserve $1200, the $4600 check.   The store they claim to have purchased from doesn't exist, no existing street, and so flooring  obviously 'fell off of a truck".    

Plaintiff says house is only 1250 sq ft, and it took very little time to rip out the carpet and tack strips, and he says 3 hours max.   The plaintiffs say they never saw the defendants again.    Plaintiff went to a legitimate company, and paid $9,000 to them to get the job completed. 

Corriero says the defendants approached criminal fraud. Tewolde says it's too bad they can't give the plaintiffs what they lost, and Juarez agrees. 

 

Plaintiffs receive $5,000, and are still very short of what they paid.   However, this shows why you don't deal with unlicensed contractors.

“Burning Rainbow Bridges”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  35

p. 43, 31 October 2023

[AngelaHunter]

I'm trying to catch up.

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Plaintiff is a clinical therapist, and admits to having a drinking problem.

We've seen our share of whacked-out doctors, clueless lawyers who don't know the law, brutal healthcare workers, etc. but still, I'm surprised by a smarmy, abusive, alcoholic "therapist" with no self-control and a restraining order against him.  Who wants a therapist who is that messed up?

I was wishing for Judge DiMango here, to tell P to knock off the manipulative histrionics, hanky-waving, and fake crying over his dear, departed daddy.  Of course, Papa Mike bought it. Stop encouraging him, Papa!

On her part, def, who waxes eloquent with big smiles about what a great mom she is to her daughters and the fun activities she takes them to, moves them all in with ... some guy, fails to protect them from his drunken rages and they are removed from her care. I'm glad she didn't bother trying to conjure up any crocodile tears over that.

On 6/3/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judges' decision is $0 for plaintiff, a unanimous verdict. 

Thank you. So he got what he deserved. I know I said I wanted to watch this but couldn't take it anymore. This seems to be happening a lot.  🤔

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiffs hired defendant/handyman to get new carpet and other flooring, and are suing for $7,000. 

This is the kind of case I'm here for. It was awesome. The defs, Dumb & Dumber, outrageous scammers were totally unrepentant in their scamming of the plaintiffs. They couldn't even think of one sensible lie: "Did you return the extra $600 to the plaintiffs?" "No." "Why not?" "I dunno." *shrug*.

We even got the ol' tired "sick Grandma" ruse from Dumber. We know the flooring was stolen. I wouldn't believe one word from the mouths of either of these lowlifes. Of course, the Idiot Twins couldn't return it (if it ever existed which I doubt). The photos of their work probably came from Google images. And their dumbness doesn't stop there. They give the judges an invoice for a place that doesn't even exist. 😆 I can picture those two morons sitting there trying to figure out what to do.

"Why pay for the expensive contractors who work for the home improvement store? We've got a bunch of unlicensed crooks who will do the (snow) job." I wonder if the store employee who facilitated this scam got fired.

This is why! I choose to go through Home Depot and use the expensive licensed, bonded, and insured contractors. It's not as expensive as being ripped off by bozos.

I was waiting for one of the judges to ask Mr. Hamer if he was a lawyer. He certainly sounded like one.

Edited June 5 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 June

“Spray Away From Me”

New, Season 10, Episode  153

(Meliba Bell vs. Stacey Evans Lagway)

From the show site: A landlady says her tenant's son lived in a camper on her property and consistently harassed her; after multiple eviction attempts, things boiled over into a physical altercation involving pepper spray.

 

Plaintiff / landlady suing defendant over harassment, pepper spraying her, and an assault, suing for $5,000.   

There is a video showing defendant driving directly at plaintiff .    Plaintiff says after defendant moved in tenant parked in the wrong places and blocked access, had a camper parked to block access.  Camper was lived in by defendant's son, and plaintiff claims son assaulted her with pepper spray. 

 Camper is actually a small RV, it was unregistered, was blocking the driveway.   Then, camper was moved to the street, blocking the curb cut for the old driveway.   Camper was towed repeatedly by the city for not being registered.   

Defendant was referred to the plaintiff's rental unit by a homeless assistance organization.   Defendant claims the organization paid for and signed the apartment lease, but plaintiff says defendant was at the rental office and signed the lease electronically.  

Video show the tow truck driver and son, plus litigants when defendant's son attacked plaintiff with pepper spray.   Edward Lagway III is the son and he claims the pepper spray was actually plaintiff's and she tried to spray his mother, and he wrestled the pepper spray away, and sprayed defendant.   

A second video shows plaintiff aiming her truck at defendant son, and says she was trying to get him to back off, and says this was at least the 20th time she called police about defendant and son.    You can hear the defendant telling son to block plaintiff's truck from leaving, so he actually moved out in front of the truck.    

Corriero takes defendant and son's side.   Plaintiff tried to evict twice, and defendant finally moved out before the cases were heard.   

Plaintiff got arrested and spent the night in jail.   Case was dismissed against plaintiff.   Defendant says prosecutor asked her if she wanted to prosecute, and defendant claims she said no, because she had no where to move to.  Apparently, defendant figured out where to move to, because she did move. 

Defendant's younger son Stacy Langway, claims plaintiff lunged at his mother with a knife.  Plaintiff denies this. 

Plaintiff issued numerous letters of complaints of violations by defendant and sons.  Plaintiff also claims the defendant bashed her truck windshield with a baseball bat. 

Corriero makes all kinds of excuses for defendant and sons.   Plaintiff required all vehicles had to be parked off her property unless they were insured, registered, and defendants gave proof to plaintiff, or they had to be parked off her property. 

Emails between the litigants about violations include apologies to plaintiff about the sons behavior.   Defendant claims her COPD makes her vulnerable to pepper spray, but she had pepper spray of her own and used it on plaintiff. 

All three judges say plaintiff case is dismissed, nothing for defendant either. 

 

“At Least Do the Right Thing”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  41

p. 43, 8 November 2023

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: A landlady says her tenant's son lived in a camper on her property and consistently harassed her; after multiple eviction attempts, things boiled over into a physical altercation involving pepper spray.

Oh boy, what a mess. I despised both litigants, but I think the defendant was more despicable than the plaintiff. Also, much trashier. This was a TV Court Show version of a godawful reality show called "Neighborhood Wars" which documents wretched trashy people doing the kind of crap like the litigants in this case. No, I don't (actually can't) watch that show, I have just seen it while channel surfing.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Meliba Bell vs. Stacey Evans Lagway

Here's the def. unable to stand and afflicted with COPD, which luckily didn't impede her from getting to the liquor store and charging around that property like a bull elk. She's living on charity and just has to abuse it by moving her ratty old RV and her worthless son, who has the illustrious handle of Edward Lagway III in. I wonder if I and II are as upstanding. Why was Def homeless? Edward III looked plenty big enough and way old enough to care for Momma. I guess he prefers to live on charity too.  Oh, the entitlement. I guess none of our litigants ever heard what my mother used to say: "Beggars can't be choosers.'

I don't know who was lying the most, but I think I believed more of what the P said. I certainly believe there were complaints about the behavior of this trashy little family. They're probably the type to get drunk and fight. 

I don't think someone with COPD should be using pepper spray since it could blow back on her but she didn't even need medical care when P sprayed her. Maybe her COPD isn't all that serious. We even got a few fake tears squeezed out. Utterly disgusting.

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 June

“Sub-spicious”

Repeat, Season 10, Episode  87

p. 46, 8 February 2024

“A Wheely Bad Accident”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  38

p. 43, 1 November 2023

 

7 June

“EXplain Yourself”

Repeat, Season 10, Episode  36

 p. 43, 3 November 2023

“All’s Wheel That Ends Wheel”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  50

p. 44, 22 November 2023

 

10 June

“Unlordly Landlord”

Repeat, Season 10, Episode  6

p. 42, 18 September 2023

 

“In the Weeds ”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  45

p. 44, 14 November 2023

 

Edited Monday at 11:24 AM by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

11 June

“Can’t Get Far with a Stolen Car”

New, Season 10, Episode  155

(Carolina  Flores and  Guillermina Lujano (aunt)  vs. Melissa Paez)   

From the show site: An armed guard claims she paid her cousin's friend two thousand dollars for a Camaro. But when she tried to get it registered, she learned it had been reported stolen

Plaintiffs claim to be buying car from defendant, after they paid $3700 to defendant, for return of funds paid for car.   When plaintiffs went to register car DMV said car was stolen, and had been reported stolen by Paez/defendant.      Plaintiff Flores was waiting for the pink slip, but went to register it anyway.   Plaintiff Flores claims she paid $1300 for the car repairs to pass smog. 

Paez claims they didn't give her $3700, and plaintiffs want her to pay them the $1300 they paid to repair the car.  Paez says palintiffs never paid her anything, but promised $1700, on the total agreed price $3700.  

Plaintiffs submitted a receipt saying defendant says she was paid everything, but $300, and defendant admits she signed the receipt.   Car in question is a 2010 Camaro. 

  Then, we get to the story of Casper, who either was a past owner, or a car thief.   Casper is incarcerated.  Casper wanted to know where the car is when he gets out of jail.  Casper is co-owner of the car, and will want the car back.  Casper went from state prison to county jail.   

Plaintiff Flores says defendant altered the pink slip/title and then forged the receipt.    Defendant Paez claims she reported car stolen because plaintiffs didn't pay her, and claims a police officer went to find the car, which is total bull pucky.   

Corriero sounds as confused as I am.   After Paez reported car stolen, it was impounded by police, so has to be bailed out of impound too. Flores claims she paid $2000 to Paez.    

Car is still in impound.    Defendant sold car in California 'as is', but cars there have to pass smog to be a legal sale.   Defense witness Jose Mora Jr. is related to both plaintiss, and added nothing.  

Car total price was $4000.   Tewolde believes $300 is all that's left to pay.  Defendant is deemed to be a liar by all three judges.   

I wonder what will happen with the car if Casper ever gets out of jail? 

Decision is to unwind the sale, defendant isn't the absolute owner, so plaintiffs get $3700 back, and defendant can figure out how to get car out of impound.

(Since the show pays the award, defendant will have $3700 she already collected from plaintiff, to work this out with the car owner, Carlos the Frequently Incarcerated.  Personally, I wouldn't want to run into Carlos when he's angry about his car).  

 

“Bad TAT-titude”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  46

p. 44,15 November 2023

Edited Tuesday at 10:51 PM by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Corriero sounds as confused as I am. 

Reading this summary of this insane tale of yet another ancient veehickle, is making my head spin 😵 but I'll give it a try. I read that solving puzzles helps stave off dementia.

ETA: So I gave it a try. OMG. The stolen/not stolen, paid for/not paid for broken-down but hot Camaro, the unsettling cast of characters in this convoluted drama, etc. I had to give up and declare it a failure on my part to make any sense of this.

Edited Wednesday at 02:15 PM by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

12 June

“Double, Double Oil and Trouble ; Luck is no Lady ”

New, Season 10, Episode  156

“Double, Double Oil and Trouble”

(Lisa Rose vs.  Jacob Cooper)   

From the show site: A car owner hired a mobile mechanic on the internet and claims he was a no-show for five days. When a technician finally showed up, they allegedly spilled massive amounts of oil and left engine parts all over her driveway. Why doesn't he believe he owes a refund?

Plaintiff /car owner suing defendant /mobile mechanic for a refund, car rental fees, part, more repair services because defendant didn't work on the car, driveway damages.    Plaintiff claims mechanic was five days late showing up for the car service, left engine parts and spilled oil all over the driveway.  Then plaintiff blames defendant and his associate for causing more damages to plaintiff's vehicle.  

Plaintiff says she paid $2110 out of the $4300 total for the head gasket.  Associate was supposed to change the head gasket, and change the oil and filter, but it was five or six days later that associate came back.   Plaintiff also says defendant's associate spilled a lot of oil on her driveway.    

Corriero says they agreed on a settlement, refund on the work, defendant keeps $1,000, plus $300 to plaintiff for the oil spil, this was the second agreement.  Plaintiff filed the court case first, so no settlement never happened.  First agreement was for a lesser amount, and that didn't happen. 

Defendant didn't have a business license, and plaintiff says he changed his business name four times since she filed the lawsuit. 

$2510 to plaintiff, in accordance with the higher amount agreed upon by litigants.

“Luck is no Lady”

(Stephanie Hill vs. Ivan Moreno)

From the show site: A frequent casino visitor loaned four thousand dollars to her regular shuttle bus driver to get his bus out of impound. She claims he only failed to pay her back, but also ran away when she caught him playing the slot machines. Now she's trying her luck on Hot Bench.

Plaintiff suing defendant /bus driver for a $4,000 loan to get his bus out of impound.   Plaintiff says when she saw defendant at the casino playing the slots, he ran away from her.  Plaintiff says defendant offered to pay her back $5,000, and there is a promissory note with the agreement.   

Defendant had a lien on the bus, when bus broke down in Harvey Park, the lien holder bailed the bus out, and demanded $25,000 to give the bus back to defendant.    Defendant now drives a 14-person van, instead of the 44 person bus.  Plaintiff recieved $410 in two payments, and that's all. 

Then, the incident with defendant playing at the casino was the second time she saw him.   Defendant paid other bills with the loan. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.   

 

“I Declare a Door War”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  1

p. 41, 11 September 2023

[AngelaHunter]

On 6/11/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Bad TAT-titude”

I had to rewatch that, not only for that little self-disfigured muppet's "Cocaine and hookers" but to re-enjoy Judge T's burning (and deserved) hatred of him.

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 June

“Mr. Telephone Man, What’s Wrong with my Lines?”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  91

p. 46, 19 February 2024

“Quad Squabble”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  97

p. 46, 26 February 2024

 

14 June

“Roommate Rumble”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  102

p. 46, 6 March 2024

“All Fenced Up”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  47

p. 44, 16 November 2023

 

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Quad Squabble”

I couldn't believe Papa was the voice of reason in the deliberations here. The plaintiffs, who have junky ATVs that don't work and a car so messed up they're afraid to drive it and think buying a 16-year-old ATV for $600 is the best thing to do rather than fix any of these other vehicles.

They buy it from a total stranger on faith, don't even bother test-driving it, and then start squawking when it conks out after 5 minutes. Def, who had no obligations with this as-is sale, gets them a new battery, takes it to them, and tells them what else might be the problem.

P's boyfriend, the "expert" mechanic says yeah, the problem might be solved with a $20 part but he doesn't want to fix it. He expected perfection.

I was shocked at Judges T and J, actually considering the def writing in his ad, "Runs great" and "runs perfectly" as a specific warranty. I know Papa has very arbitrary rules about what constitutes "as-is" but he was totally right in this case. The other two might have given the Ps their money back.

So now Ps have 4 crappy ATVs and a non-working truck. I bet their place looks like a junkyard.