Hot Bench - General Discussion

[CrazyInAlabama]

7 January

“Hardly Davidson”

New, Season 11, Episode  64

(Robert Young vs. Todd Breeding)   

From the show site: An octogenarian sues his friend for the "value of his lost time with a motorcycle," which he was supposed to repair and return. They evidently had some kind of "shared custody" agreement with the bike, but they disagree on the terms. Can the judges sort it out?

Plaintiff/old goat motorcycle owner Robert Young suing defendant/mechanic Todd Breeding for loss of time with his motorcycle.   Suing for $3750 for value of motorcycle.  Defendant said plaintiff told him to 'enjoy the motorcycle as long as you like" Young says the agreement was defendant stole his motorcyle, and he wants the use of the motorcycle or $3750, the value of his lost time with his motorcycle. 

Plaintiff's brother had the motorcycle for 30 years, and didn't have time for it, and then he took it over, and said defendant should repair the motorcycle, keep it for five years, and return to plaintiff.   Texts from plaintiff say he'll pay for parts, and defendant will keep motorcycle, fix it, sell it and split the profits 50/50. 

Bike was bought for $800 in 1977 by plaintiff.  Defendant's counter claim is for $2400 for parts. Defendant has had the bike for 2 1/2 years, clean up, and repairs. 

Plaintiff wants the motorcycle for five years, and then give bike and title to defendant, or the money $3750.   As usual, no proof of the original deal 

Defendant says it would be $2,000 to deliver the bike from Oregon to where the plaintiff lives, because he's not willing to make the trip.   Plaintiff backed out of one possible sale, because he didn't have an accurate appraisal of the bike's value. 

Text messages between the litigants make no sense to Judge Juarez. 

Judges decide to give plaintiff value of the bike, minus cost of parts, $2,750. Defendant gets title and can sell the motorcycle. 

“Up in Flames”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  98

p. 46, 27 February 2024

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: An octogenarian sues his friend for the "value of his lost time with a motorcycle," which he was supposed to repair and return.

I couldn't stand that curmudgeon who brags about being a great salesman and seems proud of his "cash/no tax" ways. Yeah, I know many do it but most don't choose to announce it on national TV. Well, except on court shows where they do so regularly.

I liked how even Papa got annoyed with the curmudgeon butting in and giving non-answers. No one thought he was cute. For all his professional wheeling and dealing, he never thought to put whatever fugazi agreement they had (seems they really had none) in some kind of writing.

He just knows without checking that the bike is worth $6 - 7K. In fact, it seems it's not even a Harley, and just has the sticker on it. I saw the same situation on another show. Maybe it was the same bike. There's nothing wrong with Italian bikes, Papa, but people will pay more for a genuine classic Harley.

What is an 81-year-old going to do with a motorcycle for the next 5 years? Do people ride at that age? I really don't know. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

8 January

“Making Up a Cosmetic Excuse”

New, Season 11, Episode  64

(Stephaney Roy  vs. Asia Roy)  

From the show site: A woman who values education gave her niece a loan for cosmetology school, and now has to sue for repayment; the niece says she should be allowed more time. The niece claims it was an "angel investment," and she should be allowed more time. How does she explain going on a trip to Hawaii instead of repaying her aunt?

Plaintiff / aunt Stephaney Roysuing defendant / niece Asia Roy for repayment of a loan for cosmetology school.  Defendant says it was an Angel Investment and she needs more time to get  her finances in order.  However, defendant took a vacation to Hawaii instead of repaying aunt. Aunt suing for $3689, and niece only made one payment

Defendant says she doesn't have the money to pay all of her bills, but yet went on a vacation to Hawaii. 

Aunt wrote an agreement with niece over text, and niece made a $100 payment.   Aunt is pursuing a doctorate in health care, so she offered to finance the cosmetology degree for her niece.   Aunt was told niece had a job, but she lost that, and hasn't found a cosmetology job because she didn't take the state cosmetology boards, and didn't pay the other part of tuition to her school.  Asia/niece is only doing nails for people out of her home.   

Judge Juarez points out a trip to Hasaii isn't an obligation, but repaying a loan is.  

Then defendant says she quit the job with a big company, for a job of family paid caregiving, but caregiving didn't pay enough.   Defendant paid off the school costs, and didn't schedule the state board test.  She's been voluntarily unemployed for at least five months.  Defendant's grandmother, plaintiff's mom, paid the second part of the tuition, and defendant claims it was a loan. 

Corriero really blasts the defendant's cavalier attitude about the loan, and work.  

Plaintiff receives $3,689.

 

“Delusions of Grandma”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  88

p. 46, 12 February 2024 (This case is the most outrageous case of Corriero making ridiculous excuses for the thieving grandmother.  Even the two other judges look upset at his bizarre reasoning).

Edited January 8 by CrazyInAlabama

[badhaggis]

12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

8 January

“Making Up a Cosmetic Excuse”

New, Season 11, Episode  64

(Stephaney Roy  vs. Asia Roy)  

From the show site: A woman who values education gave her niece a loan for cosmetology school, and now has to sue for repayment; the niece says she should be allowed more time. The niece claims it was an "angel investment," and she should be allowed more time. How does she explain going on a trip to Hawaii instead of repaying her aunt?

Plaintiff / aunt Stephaney Roysuing defendant / niece Asia Roy for repayment of a loan for cosmetology school.  Defendant says it was an Angel Investment and she needs more time to get  her finances in order.  However, defendant took a vacation to Hawaii instead of repaying aunt. Aunt suing for $3689, and niece only made one payment

Defendant says she doesn't have the money to pay all of her bills, but yet went on a vacation to Hawaii. 

Aunt wrote an agreement with niece over text, and niece made a $100 payment.   Aunt is pursuing a doctorate in health care, so she offered to finance the cosmetology degree for her niece.   Aunt was told niece had a job, but she lost that, and hasn't found a cosmetology job because she didn't take the state cosmetology boards, and didn't pay the other part of tuition to her school.  Asia/niece is only doing nails for people out of her home.   

Judge Juarez points out a trip to Hasaii isn't an obligation, but repaying a loan is.  

Then defendant says she quit the job with a big company, for a job of family paid caregiving, but caregiving didn't pay enough.   Defendant paid off the school costs, and didn't schedule the state board test.  She's been voluntarily unemployed for at least five months.  Defendant's grandmother, plaintiff's mom, paid the second part of the tuition, and defendant claims it was a loan. 

Corriero really blasts the defendant's cavalier attitude about the loan, and work.  

Plaintiff receives $3,689.

 

“Delusions of Grandma”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  88

p. 46, 12 February 2024 (This case is the most outrageous case of Corriero making ridiculous excuses for the thieving grandmother.  Even the two other judges look upset at his bizarre reasoning).

Good grief Corriero twisted himself into a pretzel to justify the grandmother. I scared my cat yelling at the television!

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge Juarez points out a trip to Hasaii isn't an obligation, but repaying a loan is. 

Wow, today’s defendant was a real piece of work. I don’t remember any litigant who is such a complete irresponsible, lazy, self-centered, clueless, delusional parasite. She can’t be bothered to complete and use the cosmetology training she scammed her aunt for, but does occasional manicures out of her apartment so everything is OK with her. She is a complete failure as an adult and is perfectly happy about being such a worthless person, scrounging off of her aunt, grandmother and anyone else she can suck money from and feels no guilt about this. Disgusting. For once Corriero understands this kind of person.

Edited January 9 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 January

“That’s What Friends Were For ; Roomie Resentment ”

New, Season 11, Episode  65

“That’s What Friends Were For”

(Damon Blanchard vs.  Jacqueline Sapp)     

From the show site: Two friends of 30 years had a falling-out over a handful of unpaid loans. The defendant was on hard times and claims she agreed to repay the plaintiff once she got on her feet. But she says if she knew how he was going to act, she would have "slept under a bridge."

Plaintiff Damon Blanchard loaned money to defendant Jacqueline Sapp and wants to be repaid $1,896.    Defendant does admit she should have paid plaintiff back, but regrets borrowing the money because plaintiff demanded repayment. 

Originally defendant borrowed money for a hotel room so she wouldn't be evicted, later she borrowed more to pay for the hotel room, and she didn't want to go to a shelter because of her cat.   Then, her car was impounded, and needed a tow.  It was towed to plaintiff's favorite mechanic.   

Corriero reads defendant's statement that 'if she knew what borrowing money from plaintiff would result in, she would have slept under a bridge'.  She also claims plaintiff served papers on her for the first loan of $500.  Plaintiff dismissed the first case. 

Defendant claims plaintiff should have waited until she had a secure job, and was over Covid, and was back on her feet.    

Defendant says she never asked for help with the car, and claims plaintiff was unreasonable demanding repayment.   

Judges decide plaintiff gets $1896.  

“Roomie Resentment”

(Zachary Rodell vs.  Zackary Roysmarynoski)

From the show site: An ex-roommate had to move out on short notice to spend time with his grandmother before she passed away. He admits he owes some rent money but claims he did repairs that should offset the amount. The record keeping is spotty; which of these roommates comes off more credible?

Plaintiff/roommate Zackary Rodell suing defendant/former roommate Zachary Royzmarynoski for unpaid rent.  Defendant claims he did repairs at the property that should replace the rent. Suing for $1854. Plaintiff says for the last two months defendant didn't pay rent or utilities, but plaintiff gave defendant back the security deposit.   So rent owed was $2600.  $1684 is what plaintiff is suing for.  

Plaintiff receives $1,684.

(This episode is why I dislike the two cases in one episode shows, they're usually slam dunks, no suspense). 

“You Wreck It, You Replace It”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  103

p. 46, 7 March 2024

 

10 January

“Lease Adden-dumb”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 4

p.  50, 12 September 2024

“Unsecured Deposit”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  5

p. 42, 15 September 2023

 

Edited January 9 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“You Wreck It, You Replace It”

I only watched a little of this, so far. I got distracted by the fact that Ms. Paxton thought her choice of wardrobe was fetching or flattering, and then even more distracted when hearing that the demure-looking Ms. Garcia had her butt thrown in the slammer and acts like that was just a minor hiccup in her quest to get paid for her wrecked car.

I'm always dazzled when hearing one of the judges say, "And then you went to jail for a while," as though it's par for the course, like going on a weekend trip.

ETA: I watched the rest. The ghastly Ms. Paxton wouldn't know the truth if it ran up behind her and kicked her in her monumental buttocks.

Everything she said was a lie. She couldn't even keep one sentence straight: 'I wasn't home... I was going to go to work... I was working... I was working at home (all at the same time). I wasn't in the car... Mr. X stole the car... I told him to take the car to get my rent money(?) He gave his car to Ms. Garcia after he wrecked hers... He's responsible/I'm responsible... I took $900 in cash in an envelope and pushed it through Ms. Garcia's mail slot (which she doesn't have)... I would have evidence of all this but didn't have time to get it together. I work I work I work."

JT: "So? Everyone works." Has she not watched enough court shows?😄

Whenever the lying lump couldn't think of a lie quickly enough, it was "I don't know/I don't remember/maybe."

She pays the P $400 to rent her car for one day, even though she has no license, of course. Seven days? Who knows? One is a pathological liar and the other a jailbird. I think I believed the jailbird more.

Edited January 10 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 January 

“Bills and Thrills”

New, Season 11, Episode  66

(Cort Huckabone vs. Ernesto Preciado)   

From the show site: A good Samaritan says his jobless, homeless friend picked fights with gate guards, neighbors and other houseguests.

Plaintiff Cort Huckabone suing defendant Ernesto Preciado for $2482 for unpaid rent, damages Plaintiff claims defendant followed and harrassed him, and claims defendant sprayed him in the face with glue.   Plaintiff had three people living as roommates, two in bedrooms, and a long family room partitioned off with curtains to make two bedrooms.   

Plaintiff says HOA had issues with defendant from his language, behavior towards one security guard, and racist and profane language.   Plaintiff claims he paid $850 to get defendant's car out of impoind, and parked in visitor spaces until the HOA told plaintiff defendant had to park in the driveway. 

Then, defendant parked in the worng space, and his car was towed. Plaintiff had a restraining order against defendant, and he tried to evict defendant after defendant kicked the door in. .   

Plaintiff finally locked defendant out.   Plaintiff needed to see an attorney to evict defendant, but he didn't. 

Defendant had an altercation with another guest, and still doesn't want to leave, because he wanted to stay just to irritate plaintiff.   

Defendant sounds like a nightmare tenant for plaintiff, and his neighbors. 

Plaintiff receives impound fees, HOA fines, homes damages $1,576, rent dismissed. 

 

“To Cash a Predator”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  92

p. 46, 19 February 2024

Edited January 13 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

14 January

“Tit for Tattoo Table”

New, Season 11, Episode 67

(Shane Love vs. Godfrey Richards )   

From the show site: A tattoo artist sues the owner of his workspace for theft and pain and suffering; after a graffiti tag portending violence was left on the door, the owner asked him to leave, and a scuffle ensued.

Plaintiff / Tattoo Shane Love artist suing defendant / shop manager Richards over graffiti tag was left on a door, and owner told plaintiff to leave the shop, and a fight between litigants happened.  Suing for $5,000.   Defendant suing for unpaid rent $3,200.

This was on Cuhuenga Blvd.  Plaintiff was renting a shop from defendant, across the street from defendant's barber shop, 

Defendant says the door graffiti is a threat saying violence is going to happen.  When he saw the graffiti, he told plaintiff he had to leave. 

Plaintiff says defendant accused him of doing the sign, and they got into an altercation.  Plaintiff wants a tattoo table, another marble top table, and a skate board back from defendant. 

Defendant says the tattoo table and some drawings are all that's left in the shop.  Then, plaintiff says he can't operate his business in a shop that doesn't look right, and he only did a few tattoos.   Defendant says plaintiff was doing tattoos, and the tattoo shop looks great in the video shown, except for the overturned chair. 

Plaintiff says the items he left behind are at the barber shop and not clean enough to use for tattoo work.  Plaintiff didn't pay rent for five months, claims he paid another person but has no receipt. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant receives nothing, judges say he didn't prove his case.   Plaintiff can go pick his stuff up.  

“No-Tell Motel”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  135

p. 47, 1 May 2024

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

No-Tell Motel”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  135

I went back and read your excellent recap of this case, which I just watched. I started by just half-listening while playing my traffic jam game on my phone, but then I put it down and by the end of this, I was all 😲.

The defs, the hateful, vicious hag, and the nasty, chiseling old codger nearly made Judge T stroke out ("Oh my God!")  with their outrageous behavior and their endless lying and denying everything. Vile, they were. Slumlords of the No-Tell Motel.

[CrazyInAlabama]

15 January

“Petty in Pink”

New, Season 11, Episode  68

(Julie Cielo  vs. Desiree Triay )     

From the show site:  A pink Tesla driver tries to recover her out-of-pocket repair costs after a woman scrapes her parked car.

Plaintiff/Tesla driver  Julie Cielo suing defendant Desiree Triay for out of pocket costs on car repairs, after defendant allegedly sideswiped the plaintiff’s parked Tesla. Suing for $2500, part for deductible, and the rest for emotional damages. 

There is proof that plaintiff received $1,000 twice, and Judge Juarez calls plaintiff out on it.   Wrapping the car cost $6,000, and the bumper alone is $1,000.   Since it would cost $3500 to fix the wrap, the car still isn't repaired.  Tesla is the insurance company, and car was a severance item.   Geico is defendant's sister'sinsurance.  

The defendant was driving her sister's car, needed to turn around in the parking lot, scraped two cars, left her information.  Defendant also had an insurance policy of her own, Geico.   Tesla didn't cover the wrap, and any additions that were after market.   Plus, plaintiff also is suing for ride share costs for a week while the bumper wrap cured.  

Tesla insurance should have gone after both insurances that the defendant was covered by.   

Plaintiff says it was difficult to do process service on defendant what she filed the small claims suit.   Plaintiff was paid $1,000 for wrap by one of defendant's insurance company, and plaintiff still claims the $1,000 was for her deductible. Plaintiff also rented a Tesla instead of a conventional car from Enterprise, and their contract only covers a conventional car.   There was also a second check cashed by plaintiff for $1,000. 

Judge Juarez asks plaintiff about her emotional distress claim.   Plaintiff also had an accident a year earlier too. 

Even Corriero can't defend the plaintiff's claims.  

Plaintiff receives $40, plus $127 Tesla rental overage, so $167. 

“All About that Bass-Ment”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  171

p. 49, 5 August 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

16 January

“My Neighbor Ruined My Car”

New, Season 11, Episode  69

(Jorge Martinez vs. Eugene Samuels)    

From the show site:   A nurse's neighbor offered to fix his car's body damage for far less money than an official body shop, but the job stretched on for months, and the nurse is dissatisfied with the quality

Plaintiff/car owner Jorge Marinez suing defendant / neighbor Eugene Samuels for poor workmanship on fixing car’s body damages, and how long it took to finish. Suing for $2500, for payment to defendant, emotional distress and other garbage.  Car is a 2017 Toyota Corolla.  Defendant offered to fix car for $1,000.  

Defendant saw the damages, and left a note on the windshiled offering to fix the car for $1,000.  Defendant is a mechanic, and claims there was $4,000 to $5,000 worth of damages.  Defendant claims he fixed everything.  

Plaintiff claims the defendant painted the car with a spray can.  Car repairs took two months.  Defendant claims that specific model of car was only made for two years, so parts are not available, except used or aftermarket. 

Plaintiff says car paint color isn't even, and there's overspray on the grill, tires,  and other parts Defendant says that's only one stage of a three part painting process.    

Plaintiff didn't get a quote to fix what he claims needs to be worked on.   

Judge Juarez is struggling with the damages for plaintiff, and there are no estimates.  Corriero seems over the top in his argument against defendant, and Corriero wants to give plaintiff emotional distress, parts and everything else.  

Plaintiff receives $1,426, nothing for emotional distress or anything else.  This includes what plaintiff paid for parts. 

 

“Truckin Or Duckin?  What’s Your 20? ”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  168

p. 49, 23 July 2024

 

17 January

“Re-Lease Me”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  9

p. 51, 19 September 2024

“Careless Cousins”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  172

p. 49, 6 August 2024

(Hot Bench preempted Monday 20 January). 

Edited January 18 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/16/2025 at 3:40 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims that specific model of car was only made for two years, so parts are not available, except used or aftermarket. 

No parts available for a 2017 Totoyta Corolla? I might understand if this was a 1965 Fiat, but the Corolla is probably one of the most popular and common makes of car.

This is example 3,467 of why you don't get some clown down the street, in the hardware store, or who you met standing in line at McDonald's to do extensive renos in your home or work on your car.

Oh, Papa - wanting payment for emotional distress over a car is pretty goofy and greedy.

Edited January 18 by AngelaHunter

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/15/2025 at 3:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff receives $40, plus $127 Tesla rental overage, so $167. 

Thank you! I was just watching this and very interested in the kooky Tesla lover's claims but it got butted into.

I'm surprised she got the $127 for the rental since the insurance covered her rental but no way would she be seen tooling around in a mere Chevy. She had to have another Tesla for the extra money. "So that was your choice," says Judge T and p says, "It was for safety reasons." I'm pretty sure lots of people drive Chevys that don't blow up or fall apart on the highway.

I did enjoy her telling the judges they didn't understand what they were looking at. It was pretty simple, but she kept denying the 1K she got or she paid it to herself or some nonsense.

She got more and more annoying as the case went on. Nothing she said made any sense, especially the 6K pink wrap on the car when it seems she's not flush with money.

The def might want to rethink her decision to drive when she can't turn around without messing up not one, but two other cars.

[Taeolas]

Coming up on 12 seasons already for Hot Bench.... and it's time to shake the bench up.

 

Judge Corriero will be retiring from the Hot Bench

 

The show is also moving production from LA to Connecticut. No word on who the new 3rd judge will be.

 

And the 2000th episode is coming up this Thursday, Jan 23. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

21 January

(Yesterday's episode S11.E70 was preempted)

"Cabinet Case" S11.E70 (preempted, but was scheduled for 1/20/2025)

( vs. )

A lawyer claims his girlfriend called him in hysterics because the young man they hired to paint their kitchen cabinets was botching the job. They paid him $250 to stop and go away - but now they're suing for their money back. Was this matter already solved with an accord and satisfaction?

(21 January, did not air, we're getting up to 5 inches of snow in lower Alabama, so the weather people are doing constant updates). 

“Ex-cuses, Ex-cuses” 

New, Season 11, Episode  71, 1/21/2024

( vs. )   

From the show site: Ex-wives battle over the cost of a virtual reality headset they bought for their son -- an expensive Christmas present.

Plaintiff/ex-wife suing defendant/ex-wife over the cost of a VR headset bought for their son.    

Did not air-snow coverage preempted everything. 

 

“Re-Repair My SUV”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  180

p. 50, 27 August 2024

 

(Taeolas-Great information!    I wonder if Judge Judy will hire another judge, or move her son Adam Levy over from Tribunal Justice?) 

[CrazyInAlabama]

22 January

“Up in Vapes”

New, Season 11, Episode  72

(Sam Schmidt vs. Logan Bramlett)   

From the show site: A door-to-door vacuum salesman reportedly promised his boss an investment return on his tobacco-free vape company, but the boss says that when the money didn't come fast enough, he asked him to hand over the remaining product, and he didn't.

Plaintiff / vacuum company franchise owner Sam Schmidt suing defendant / former employee Logan  Bramlett for return of money spent on products after a failed tobacco-free vape company investment.   Suing for $5,000. 

Defendant and another employee offered the investment deal to plaintiff. 

No written contract as usual.  Plainff Plaintiff's witness Wes Reynolds, is the former partner of the defendant.   Defendant admits he would repay the advance (his story, not a loan or investment) or investment (plaintiff's claim) to plaintiff, but claims plaintiff didn't give him enough time to make money.   Defendant admits the vapes didn't sell.  Defendant claims he left the remaining inventory and vapes plaintiff is suing for outside the building, at the front door of the office, but it was never recovered by the plaintiff.   

Wes Reynolds, the former partner and witness for plaintiff, was cut out by defendant after plaintiff invested.  

Defendant says eight months wasn't enough time to sell the vapes. 

Corriero maintains that all plaintiff was supposed to get was repayment of the original investment, but plaintiff claims he was supposed to get part of the profits. 

Corriero only wants to give the investment remaining to plaintiff, $2992. 

Juarez and Tewolde agree, plaintiff gets the wholesale vape price $2992.  

 

“It’s a Nice Day for a Red Wedding”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  93

p. 46, 20 February 2024

 

Edited January 22 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Sam Schmidt vs. Logan Bramlett) 

I tried to watch this but those three were so irritating, to me anyway, that I gave up. I bet Def never sold any vacuums either.

[badhaggis]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I tried to watch this but those three were so irritating, to me anyway, that I gave up. I bet Def never sold any vacuums either.

They really were! It was like fingernails on a chalk board! And the dancing around questions was incredibly annoying too.

[CrazyInAlabama]

23 January

“Doodle Days”

New, Season 11, Episode  73

(Yonne Michelline Amin vs. Yael Smith)     Amin Smith

From the show site: Ex-friends scrap over the botched sale of a goldendoodle puppy: When the buyer refused to pay for a TSA-approved pet carrier, the seller brought the puppy back home, then refused to hand it over when the buyer showed up on her doorstep a week later.

Plaintiff Yvonne Michelline Amin was buying a goldendoodle puppy from defendant  Yael Smith.  When plaintiff refused to pay for a TSA approved carrier, defendant kept the puppy.  Then, plaintiff showed up at defendant’s doorstop demanding the puppy, and defendant refused.   Suing for $1,500 for puppy and travel expenses to pick up puppy, claiming for $5,000.   Counter suing for boarding and expenses, $3,000.       Plaintiff lives in NJ, and defendant lives in Kansas CIty, MO.   The two knew each other in high school, reconnected, and made the oral agreement to sell puppy to plaintiff, and defendant claims there is a signed written contract.  Plaintiff claims the signature on the contract isn't her signature, but it's forged.  Signatures on evidence and contract look identical to Corriero.   Defendant says dog was supposed to be flown with plaintiff, but plaintiff ghosted her.  Carrier plaintiff sent a carrier to the KC airport, but it wasn't approved for flight. 

Plaintiff had to pay $150 to fly the dog, but in an approved carrier.   Dog is with the defendant's mother.   Tewolde tells defendant she should give the dog to plaintiff, or refund the $1500.     Defendant still demands dog boarding and travel fees. 

Defendant has to pay a monthly pet rent for dog living at her place every month, and had to pay that for two months.  Plaintiff said she would come to defendant's home with police to pick her dog up.   First plan was to ship a carrier to defendant, and she would fly to NJ with puppy, but carrier was not approved for travel. 

Tewolde doesn't realize you don't just show up at the airport with a dog, and hop on a flight.    Juarez takes over the questioning, about what defendant is going to do with the dog.   Defendant sold American Bullies previously.   

Plaintiff claims she was told it would be $200 plus carrier to transport dog.  Contract says puppy must be picked up or shipped within a weeks after they're ready to ship.   

Corriero goes over the contracts, oral and written.  No clear understanding of how puppy would be shipped.  Seven weeks is the age to send puppies out, and that's way too early. 

Boarding isn't being given to defendant.   No travel fees are allowed either. Juarez points out the carrier wasn't suitable. 

Plaintiff gets $1500 back, defendant counter claim dismissed. Everyone's travel dismissed.    Corriero wanted to give plaintiff travel expenses, but the other two judges disagreed. 

 

“Tumultuous Tenant ; Windshield Woes”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 101

p. 46, 5 March 2024

“Tumultuous Tenant”

(Kara Henry and (husband) Nathan Luber vs. Whitley Norton )

From the show site: An ex-tenant says her cat got into some succulents and died shortly after she moved in. But the landlords are baffled by the amount of damage it clearly caused. Were there more cats than the tenant is admitting?

Plaintiffs/landlords suing defendant/former tenant for damages from her cats. Plaintiffs were renting a condo to defendant, and let defendant split the security. 

Defendant claims there were shower issues, carpet stained (plaintiffs admits the shower and carpet issues), and moved in with a cat, not on the lease.    Defendant claims her cat died from eating succulents on the patio.  However, defendant says did get two more cats after the inital cat died.    Plaintiff Henry says there were three overflowing litter boxes left behind, and the carpet was soaked.   Defendant admits to having two other cats, none of which were on the lease. 

Defendant gave oral notice to Henry, but the lease called for 30 days written notice.  

Plaintiffs say when defendant left she owed a month and a half rent, plus late fees, the interest is way over California interest laws.   Landlords have 21 days to give defendant an itemized list of damages, but they say they didn't have any address for defendant, and were blocked on everything.  They  finally had to hire a private investigator to contact and serve defendant with the rent and other court cases.    Back rent is $4050, plus damages, so $5,000

Plaintiffs say walls were chewed on, ammonia from the cats had to be remediated, and neutralized, cracked granite countertops, they have no move-in pictures.    Screen door is bent.  Plaintiffs lived in the apartment right before defendant/tenant moved in. 

I hope the first-time landlords learned how to landlord from this fiasco.  Plaintiffs kept the security deposit.  

$4250 to plaintiffs, for rent and $200 in late fees,  and they already kept the security deposit of $1700. 

Windshield Woes

(Ruben Gonzalez vs. Marlena Davis)  

From the show site: a niece damaged a car her aunt rented for her, and the vehicle's owner was unaware that the niece was driving it.

Plaintiff /car owner Ruben Gonzalez suing defendant/car renter  Marlena Davis for damages to the car he rented to her.  Defendant claims her niece is who she rented the car for, and  all damages are the niece's responsibiltiy.    Plaintiff says he did not have a clue that the defendant/aunt rented the car for the niece to drive.       Suing for $ .  2020 Hyundai rented through Turo. 

Initial rental was for two days, it ended up rented for 10 days.  

Defendant was supposed to pick up car, but niece picked it up and drove it.  Niece didn't come to court.  Defendant wrote her statement as if she was the driver, but she was never the driver.  

Damages are cigarette ash in the car, windshield damages, pictures of damages show the car was full of garbage.  Also, plaintiff says there were tobacco ashes, weed remnants, fast food left on the back floor.  Plaintiff says fast food bags were dumped by the car on the car return. 

Niece of defendant has no license, so she could never be an approved rented.   Defendant did a claim through Turo, but it was denied because niece was the driver, and not the aunt. 

Plaintiff receives $380 for the windshield.  Plaintiff already received smoke damage money. 

24 January

“Truck It! That’s a Wrap”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  10

p. 51, 20 September 2024

“Check Yourself”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  164

p. 49, 9 July 2024

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 1/21/2025 at 11:55 AM, Taeolas said:

Judge Corriero will be retiring from the Hot Bench

I bet that was good news to @DoctorK 😄 I get it. I would have done a happy dance had someone kicked the Levin's ass to the curb years ago.

4 hours ago, badhaggis said:

They really were! It was like fingernails on a chalk board! And the dancing around questions was incredibly annoying too.

The def's voice in particular was making me nuts, and I'm nearly deaf. I know he can't help it, but still, that voice going on and on about how upset he was - ugh!

[CrazyInAlabama]

27 January

“Tenant Compliance or Tenant Defiance”

New, Season 11, Episode  74

(Takeyshia Flemings vs. and  Joan Anderson and  Andrew Mathurin)

From the show site: A substitute schoolteacher sues her former student and his mother, who she says were great landlords for years... until they allegedly started harassing her. Why does she suspect they reported her to the housing authority? And why does the son say he felt the need to pepper spray her in self-defense?

Plaintiff/former tenant Takeyshia Flemings suing defendants/ Joan Anderson (mother) and Andrew Mathurin (son) for harassment, false reports to the housing authority, and son pepper spraying her.  Suing for $.

Plaintiff is a substitute schoolteacher, and was a one-on-one aide to son for six years.   

Anderson evicted plaintiff because she wanted her own daughter to move in.   Flemings say after 15 years there were 'anonymous' complaints to the housing authority saying Flemings had extra tenants, received PPP loans, and running a catering business in the home.   Anderson does say she sent texts to the housing authority about the catering business, Flemings claims she only had the LLC but didn't run a business.   Flemings says after Section 8 cleared her of the charges, that Anderson gave her repeated unlawful detainers to get rid of her.    

Flemings says she voluntarily left because of an assault on her.   Anderson says plaintiff moved with four months back rent.   Flemings did lose her Section 8 certificate and no longer qualifies.  Anderson kepts the security deposit and applied it to the back rent.  A video of the inside shows appliances missing, the stove was takin by plaintiff.   Anderson denies that she told Flemings she could keep the stove if she repaired it.  

Mathurin does say he pepper sprayed plaintiff, but says it was in self defense.  Mathurin says plaintiff was pushing and shoving him, this was right before the video of the cleared out property was shown.     Plaintiff is shown on the video swearing and screaming, and attacking defendant Mathurin.    

I believe the defendants, and nothing the plaintiff says.   Defendant had left a 24-hour notice for property abandonment, and that's why Mathuin was in his home.   Plaintiff gave a 30-day move out notice for by 3 February.   Plaintiff stopped paying rent five months before she moved out.   Plaintiff says it took her longer to move her stuff out after 17 years.   

Plaintiff paid $1,000 a month, Section 8 paid $3,000 a month.   

Defendants hired a property manager, but plaintiff refused to let the property manager into the apartment to check about items plaintiff was complaining about.   Anderson says she hired the manager because she was sick of plaintiff harassing her.   Mathuin has a video of plaintiff trying to ram them with her car.   Tewolde didn't see any threat on the video. 

Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves less.    $2500 rent owed to defendants. 

 

“The Need to Breed”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  139

p. 48, 7 May 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

28 January

“Batteries Not Included”

New, Season 11, Episode  75

(Richard Shackleton vs. William Hargus )     Shackleton Hargis

From the show site: Golf cart batteries are at the center of this feud between two retirees. The plaintiff's father had purchased them from the defendant and passed away shortly after. Imagine his son's despair when he discovered the batteries were allegedly defective. Is the defendant liable, or were the batteries improperly charged?

Plaintiff Richard Shackleton suing defendant  William Hargus over golf cart batteries.  Plaintiff’s father purchased the batteries  Defendant replaced the batteries for the father once.  Father died shortly after this.  Plaintiff suing defendant because he claims batteries were defective.  Suing for $1,112.

Defendant claims plaintiff charged the batteries improperly and ruined them.  He claims the plaintiff used the charger improperly.  Batteries went bad eight years after the cart was purchased.  Original batteries were conventional acid batteries, defendant replace them with lithium batteries.  Lithium batteries charge faster, and are much better than the acid batteries.   

Plaintiff came to the father's house after three months, and took the golf cart for a spin, and it ran out of juice.    Defendant says it hadn't been charged, and then plaintiff over charged the batteries, which ruined them.   Plaintiff claims another golf cart tech looked at the batteries, and he said the batteries were not chargeable.  

Plaintiff was upset defendant didn't come to look at the cart, but defendant was getting two knee replacements, so he couldn't go to look at the golf cart. 

You can overcharge lithium batteries, and it will eventually ruin them. 

Judge Juarez says this was already resolved, by an oral agreement to replace the batteries, and return them to defendant, and he would give the $2,000 back on the batteries.   Defendant had the batteries tested and they were undercharged, and nothing was wrong with them.  

Corriero takes over the questioning, and wants proof from plaintiff that the batteries were defective.   There is no proof that batteries were defendant. Defendant says the batteries weren't charged properly.   

Then, defendant's wife got involved and asked defendant why he was covering batteries that weren't defective. 

Judges will give money to plaintiff, because defendant said he would pay the plaintiff. 

$802 to plaintiff, and that's all.   

 

“UnTrustworthy”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  177

p. 50, 20 August 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

29 January

“Train Gang Trouble”

New, Season 11, Episode 76

(Sharon Johnson vs. Tisha Hill-Smith )   

From the show site: A tightknit ladies' group met on a commuter train ten years ago and still have a regular card game to this day. But now a car sale and accusations of dishonesty have driven a wedge between two of them. Feelings are hurt, tears are shed, and the fate of the "Train Gang," as they call themselves, hangs in the balance.

Plaintiff Sharon Johnson suing defendant Tisha Hill-Smith over a car sale, and claims defendant is a card cheat.   The ladies’ group met on a commuter train ten years ago, and have a regular card game, so cheating is a serious issue John.   Suing for $5,000. Plaintiff was selling a 2002 Lexus to defendant, after plaintiff bought another, newer car.    Price was $7,500, but trade in would have been over $8,500.  Video shows minor body damages, and a small dent.  

I see no way to keep the card game going with the cheating allegations, and car sale gone wrong.

Defendant claims she noticed issues with the car almost immediately.  Battery died, one tire was replaced, dome light went out, washer fluid stopped working, in the first few months after buying it.   Car is over 20 years old, I'm surprised there weren't more issues.  Plaintiff actually replaced the battery for defendant.  Defendant claims the engine died, nine months after purchase.   This was connected to defendant not fixing the radiator issue.   

Plaintiff says there is no way a Lexus dealer fixed the radiator for $300, so defendant must have used a substandard mechanic shop.     Defendant says the plaintiff ripped her off on the car sale, and thinks plaintiff cheated at cards too.  

I think defendant's allegations are ridiculous.   Plaintiff sold her a 20 plus years old car, over a $1,000 below trade in, and now defendant says plaintiff ripped her off?   Defendant also says plaintiff is a cheat on the car sale, and that means plaintiff must be cheating at cards too?  Outrageous allegations. 

Defendant claims it will be $2,500 to $3,000 to repair car, and she says she'll pay for the repair when she can afford it.  

Blue Book at Fair condition is $10,000.    Lexus SC 430 is the car in question. Car is in high demand.   Tewolde asks if they could reconcile.     

Defendant got a great deal, so fix the car, and sell it.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000. It was an 'as is' sale, and car is worth many times the current sale price.

“Best Friends For-Never”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  20

p. 51, 4 October 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

30 January

“Hitch a Ride for a Loan”

New, Season 11, Episode  77

(Arturo Paz vs. Oscar Michel)

From the show site: A young man at a new security job felt he could trust and respect his older coworker, who he claims was good with words and down on his luck. He claims he helped this so-called role model with a series of thirty-one loans, but now feels he was played for a fool. What does the older guard have to say about the nature of their arrangement?

Plaintiff Arturo Paz suing defendant  Oscar Michel over thirty-one loans that defendant didn’t repay.  Plaintiff suing for $3,089 .  Loans range from $20 to $250, and there were 31 loans, that plaintiff wrote down the loan, the amount and the reason. 

Defendant disputes the loans.     Defendant said "he would repay plaintiff even if he had to rob a bank to do that". Defendant claims giving rides and being a friend to plaintiff off sets the loans, and he owes nothing. 

Judge Juarez asks plaintiff why he kept making loans when defendant never paid anything back. 

Then, defendant tries to talk over Judge Corriero, and gets slapped down for that.  

Plaintiff receives $3,089.  

“Dear Sis, I Hit a Deer”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 19  

p. 51, 3 October 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then, defendant tries to talk over Judge Corriero, and gets slapped down for that. 

I know Papa did that because he sees the plaintiff as a child - a "boy" - which at 24 he is not, but that bloated, slimy, grifter/con artist deserved what he got from all the judges here, and more. He's no better than those who send me scam emails every day. Speaking of that, I missed the first part of this case due to reporting on that tragic plane crash, but what did Def say what was this so-called "settlement" he was getting? Was it all a lie, or did the scammer himself get scammed by the Nigerian "advance fee" fraud? I really hope it was the latter. Amoral losers like him make me root for the scammers.

For all his dire financial struggles he never missed any meals.

[CrazyInAlabama]

28 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I know Papa did that because he sees the plaintiff as a child - a "boy" - which at 24 he is not, but that bloated, slimy, grifter/con artist deserved what he got from all the judges here, and more. He's no better than those who send me scam emails every day. Speaking of that, I missed the first part of this case due to reporting on that tragic plane crash, but what did Def say what was this so-called "settlement" he was getting? Was it all a lie, or did the scammer himself get scammed by the Nigerian "advance fee" fraud? I really hope it was the latter. Amoral losers like him make me root for the scammers.

For all his dire financial struggles he never missed any meals.

I think the 'settlement' was another of defendant's lies.    My local channel has only preemted Hot Bench a couple of times, last week when we had 8+ inches of snow, four times what the previous record was here.    They cut almost everything else but weather bulletins right at 2:00 pm.   

[AngelaHunter]

28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think the 'settlement' was another of defendant's lies.    My local channel has only preemted Hot Bench a couple of times, last week when we had 8+ inches of snow, four times what the previous record was here.    They cut almost everything else but weather bulletins right at 2:00 pm.   

Thanks. I have a feeling that creep lies as easily as other people breathe, and probably just as often. I didn't agree with Papa that this "destroyed" the plaintiff's "faith". I think it was a hard lesson to learn at a young age but a good one. We see people here more than 2 times his age falling for blustery scammers and con artists. I just hope he won't do this again.

8 inches of snow here is just a winter day.😁I hope you weathered it okay!

Edited Friday at 12:16 AM by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

I grew up where it snowed quite a bit, and lived in Colorado for seven years, 8 inches of snow is only significant because it was a record, and it caused big issues for the businesses, and roads.   It was bizarre to see it happen here. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

31 January

“Dept of Water and Powerlessness”

New, Season 11, Episode  78

(Sasha Luman vs. James Howard)     

From the show site: A woman rented an apartment from an Alaskan fisherman who allegedly failed to remedy a slew of egregious issues; a sewage leak in her unit, a lack of hot water, the whole building's power being billed to her account. He says the evidence of his due diligence was on a phone that he dropped in the ocean. Can the tenant reel in a judgement in her favor.

Plaintiff/former tenant Sasha Luman suing defendant/former landlord James Howard over a number of serious issues with her apartment she rented from him. Suing for $5,000.   She claims when she moved out apartment was clean, and she should get her entire security deposit back.   

Defendant says he did do corrections in a timely manner through his property managers, but the evidence was on his phone that went overboard from the fishing boat, and is lost at sea.  Damages include huge scratches on doors and cabinets from plaintiff's illegal dog.  

Defendant replaced the water heater after plaintiff complained.  After the electric issue, defendant changed plaintiff's rent to compensate for the utility billing issue.   Plaintiff claims she had no hot water because the other tenants and laundry used her hot water. 

$1800 was withheld by defendant after showing damages to drywall, wiring, stickers on the door, stuff stuck into the ceiling, the dog damages.    There are no before move-in photos available, they were on defendant's lost phone.  

Plaintiff is suing for $3816 utilities for the electric issue.   The rest of her claim is pain and suffering.   

Tewolde takes plaintiff's side for the utilities, and wants the deposit returned to plaintiff.  She also believes the statement from plaintiff not to worry about the damages because defendant was going to renovate. Corriero wants more money for plaintiff, and Tewolde says $1,000 more

$3,900 to plaintiff for utilities, and the security deposit.  (After the verdict plaintiff whines that Oregon calls for double security back). 

 

“Pain Pill Predicament”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 17  

(Deeann Dibble vs. Steve Eirich)

From the show site: Is the plaintiff in this case a thief who stole Percocet from an elderly man, or a victim of that man's wrongful assumption? She frequently ran pharmacy errands for him, but on one occasion he accused her of pocketing thirty pills and whacked her car with his cane as she tried to leave. She wants him to pay for the dents, but he claims he had every right to try and stop her.

Plaintiff suing defendant for car damages.  Defendant claims plaintiff stole his pain pills, and that whacking her car with his cane was to stop her from fleeing. $2,065 for car damages and emotional distress.   Defendant suing for $1,000 for misusing his debit card. 

Decision is that both cases cancel each other out, so nothing for either one.  

(My understanding from being in the pharmacy line way too long is that with Percocet you can only get a month's supply, so 120 is a lot of pills,4 per day.  Unless you're supplementing from other sources off the books, or having someone get extras in Mexico and sending them to you.  I lived near El Paso, and that works). 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

He says the evidence of his due diligence was on a phone that he dropped in the ocean.

At least that was different. Usually, it's the toilet (like today's TPC repeat where a woman says she has to buy a new phone every 4 months due to them going down the toilet. I still haven't figured out how that happens). I'm on my 3rd phone in 12 years. Anyway, I did appreciate Papa's mild snark when Def said he had a video on his laptop, but he doesn't have it. "Did that go in the water too?" Papa says. 😄

Fisherman is a slackjaw, who can't figure out how to fix it so one tenant isn't paying the utility bills for the other tenants without it costing him too much.

I was surprised when P kept referring to her dad doing so much for her, until she mentioned the gastric bypass. The drastic weight loss always makes patients look so much older due to the skin being so stretched out and then left slack. That voluminous wig was doing her no favours at all.

After hearing about the dopey doings of property managers on court shows, I think their incompetence might equal court show lawyers.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Deeann Dibble vs. Steve Eirich)

I skipped this. I had enough of Dibble the first time!