Hot Bench - General Discussion

[CrazyInAlabama]

18 February

“I Don’t Rolls-Royce That Way”

New, Season 11, Episode  89

(Mary Jackson vs.  Hubert Chin)     

From the show site: A woman says her luxury vehicle was towed when her mechanic left it parked on the street; he says he lost his garage years ago, and she knew it.

Plaintiff/car owner Mary Jackson suing defendant/mechanic Hubert Chin because her Rolls was towed.  Suing for $5,000, for car repairs, unpaid tickets, faded paint, impound fees. Rolls Royce Silver Shadow. She paid him $2600 in 2021 to fix an oil leak, air conditioner, and a mechanical issue, plus sun fading on the paint.    Car was parked on the street, and incurred parking tickets, and impound fees.  In 2022 she claims she saw the car on the street, and told defendant she needed the car fixed, and he brought it to her home in 2023.  

Defendant says plaintiff was aware that he no longer had a garage, and street parking was his only option.    Business closed in 2015, and plaintiff brought car to him after that.   Even after plaintiff got tickets, she claims she didn't know about the issues. 

Plaintiff says when defendant finally brought her car home it was a mess.  She says defendant also worked on her Jaguar.   Registration had also lapsed, and mechanic told her about that.   

Plaintiff has no proof of payment for the impound fees. 

There is no evidence how much the impound fees are, but Corriero wants to give plaintiff what she claims it cost.    Juarez says the offset is because defendant did a lot of work on the car.

Three judges disagree on the money, of course Corriero wants to pay plaintiff over $3k.   Juarez says $0, because of the work offset.  Tewolde wants to give $1700. 

Plaintiff receives $850, half of impound and tickets.   Corriero dissents as usual. 

“Loan of Contention”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 33  

p. 52, 24 October 2024

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Three judges disagree on the money, of course Corriero wants to pay plaintiff over $3k.

Even after seeing what kind of nonsense Papa gets up to all these years, I was just as stunned as Judge T when Papa wanted to give the P everything she was asking for when she had not one shred of proof of anything and didn't even know which year or years all this happened. 2015? 2022 or '23? Hmm. "Well, I don't have it," was her answer to requests for proof of any kind.

Papa: "She said she paid $1700 so I believe her." Like, what??? JT screamed at him and I thought she was going to punch him,😆 so stunned was she by this loony verdict he pulled out of thin air, based on nothing. Maybe he was dazzled by the Rolls Royce.

Is this the first old beater Rolls case we've had? Does a Rolls Royce really turn white in the sun? Gee. I'd expect better quality. Of course, I'd also expect someone who can afford a Rolls, Jags, and Mercedes(es) to take those cars to an actual qualified garage and not to some octogenarian who works on them on the street. 

RR does not recommend that anyone take their cars to mechanics who are definitely not qualified to work on them. That def was never going to fix it.

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

her Rolls was towed

I was just thinking - I bet that's not something you see every day!

[CrazyInAlabama]

19 February

“Not Letting Subletting”

New, Season 11, Episode  90

(Tippin Mae Harkins vs. Tula Fae Mooney)     

From the show site: A woman says she subleased a co-worker's apartment, but when she moved in, the co-worker was still living there and showed no signs of leaving, so she moved out; each party says the other broke the contract.

Plaintiff /subleasor Tippin Mae Harkins suing defendant/apartment landlord Tula Fae Mooney for failing to leave the apartment plaintiff was subleasing from her.  Suing for $1,330. Plaintiff was paying $900 a month rent, and $700 security, and is suing for not having exclusive possession of the apartment. (This happened in Portland). 

Plaintiff says defendant never left the apartment, and wasn't leaving, so plaintiff left. Plaintiff said when she was gone, defendant slept in the bed. 

Defendant is counter suing for $3,500 for loss of property.  Defendant says she stayed with friends part of the day.   Plaintiff claims the defendant not only didn't leave, but invited some friends over to stay.   

Defendant claims she was packing and moving, even after plaintiff left.   Plaintiff was in apartment for two weeks before she left.  Defendant says plaintiff harassed her for not leaving, and left blood in plaintiff's bed, and says plaintiff was mean to her.    When plaintiff saw blood outside her door, she tried to get a restraining order, and called the police.    

Plaintiff submitted a text saying she would still be staying there through the next two weeks, and so plaintiff left. 

The sublet wasn't legal, and plaintiff agreed she would lie to visitors or landlord that defendant was actually at work, and hadn't moved out.  There was a requirement in the apartment lease that visitors would only stay 10 days maximum.  

Corriero says plaintiff isn't coming to court with clean hands. 

Defendant's counter suit is ridiculous and dismissed. 

Plaintiff receives $1330. 

“Man’s Best Friend”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  31

p. 52, 22 October 2024

Edited February 19 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I bet that's not something you see every day!

Actually I would like to have seen this specific tow-away event. I have a feeling that this classic Rolls Royce Silver Shadow might not look very good in real life, maybe more like the abandoned cars the guys on "Road Kill" find in barns or under trees where they have sat for 20 or 30 years. As dumb as the plaintiff was (box of rocks level), even she would take a decent Rolls to a real specialist for repairs, not a guy who didn't even have a garage to work in. Maybe she is rich and dumb and loves having Rolls, Jags, Mercedes etc.  even if they don't run, or dumb enough to keep a non working Rolls for status rather than a shiny new Honda for probably the same cost as maintaining an ancient Rolls.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tippin Mae Harkins vs. Tula Fae Mooney

 

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says plaintiff harassed her for not leaving, and left blood in plaintiff's bed, and says plaintiff was mean to her.

Really? I think not.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Maybe she is rich and dumb and loves having Rolls, Jags, Mercedes etc.  even if they don't run, or dumb enough to keep a non working Rolls for status rather than a shiny new Honda for probably the same cost as maintaining an ancient Rolls.

I recall another litigant, either here or on TPC who had a bunch of broken-down luxury cars cluttering up his property. A maintained RR breaking down would be unusual. People who own them can afford to maintain them. I bet her Jags don't run either and the Mercedes are probably the kind usually seen here - at least a quarter of a century old. But no one will point and stare with awe at a new Honda or Toyota. My Totoyta Matrix is nearly 12 years old and has never conked out, although it sadly lacks the "Wow" factor.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I have a feeling that this classic Rolls Royce Silver Shadow might not look very good in real life

If it turns white when left outside, I would say you're right.😄 A fun case.

[CrazyInAlabama]

20 February

“You Can’t Buy Me Love”

New, Season 11, Episode  91

(Bobby Grigsby vs. Marcelino Lomeli)      

From the show site: A man says his younger ex-boyfriend accepted a car loan but refuses to repay him; the younger man denies that they were "dating" and says he eventually had to Google "how to get rid of a sugar daddy." Who was manipulating whom in this case?

Plaintiff Bobby Grigsby suing defendant/ex-boyfriend Marcelino Lomeli for repayment of a car loan.   Suing for $2,185. Plaintiff telling his story gets bleeped a lot

Defendant denies it was a loan, but a gift as a Sugar Baby from plaintiff. He also says it wasn't a loan, and he felt coerced to sign the agreement to repay.  

Plaintiff keeps saying it wasn't a romantic relationship, and he was just being nice.   However, he's now ticked off Juarez and Tewolde with his foul language, but made the person who bleeps foul language happy, if they get paid by the bleep. 

Plaintiff paid for a car, and defendant still has it, but it's in plaintiff's name.  Leading to defendant swearing and getting reprimanded too. 

Corriero takes over the questioning.   Poor Corriero doesn't understand any of the slang plaintiff is using.  (I don't either).  Corriero thinks the money wasn't a loan.   

$1800 to plaintiff, only the price of the car loan.  

“Family Fallout”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  30

p. 52, 21 October 2024

[AngelaHunter]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Bobby Grigsby vs. Marcelino Lomeli

I think I lasted about 1 1/2 minutes. P, who found a "homeless, stinky drug addict" irresistible gives his testimony, which is peppered with obscenities since he doesn't know any appropriate words, had more bleeps than a Hell's Kitchen episode, and was riddled with a zillion "Like like like. It had me yelling, "OH STFU you moron!" and finding my "Off" button before hearing anything from the creepy, smelly little troll Def.

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

made the person who bleeps foul language happy, if they get paid by the bleep. 

😄

On 2/19/2025 at 5:56 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Tippin Mae Harkins vs. Tula Fae Mooney

Since I couldn't bear the Grindr love story, I reluctantly watched this. It was bizarre, with "Tippin", perky, dramatic, and animated, acting like she was dishing with her friends or looking for a reality show. Or maybe she took too many "Wake Ups".

"Tula" was the direct opposite - bizarre, subdued, and appeared to be heavily medicated or in the grip of hypnosis and gave answers not really related to the questions. I was puzzled until Tippin mentioned that that apartment was crammed with junk. Then I thought, "Aha!" Tula must be a hoarder, with a typical, flat hoarder demeanor.

I left this one before hearing about the blood.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“21 February

“Boulevard of Broken Leases”

New, Season 11, Episode  92

(Waneta Woodruff vs. Sam Caparell)       

From the show site: A woman says she overpaid rent for a year because her landlord didn't tell her how much was paid by a rental assistance organization; the landlord denies receiving overpayments and says the organization makes tenants well aware of their portion.

Plaintiff/former tenant Waneta Woodruff suing defendant/former landlord Sam Caparell for repayment of her portion of rent, because she claims the rental assistance organization paid more than she was told.   Suing for $2300, suing for triple damages, including the security deposit on the place she rented after being evicted.   Defendant says she was evicted after allowing tenants into the unit without being on the lease.    

Defendant says the organization tells tenants exactly how much their part of the rent payment will be. Defendant says every month the charity tells tenant and landlord about the upcoming rent payment. 

Defendant/landlord says the charitable organization paid the $2,300 security deposit.   Unlawful tenants included plaintiff's daughter and boyfriend, her dog, and others.   Plaintiff was supposed to move out on 25 March, didn't move out for a few days later.  Defendant says plaintiff painted rooms and some walls other colors than the white required by the lease.   Defendant says there were damages from damaged floors from dog urine.   

Corriero says plaintiff causing electric outages by overloading circuits and defendant or representative having to go turn power back on. 

Tewolde asks about the security deposit, but why would plaintiff  get a security deposit back, when the charity paid that money?   Charity should get the money back.    Also only plaintiff's video shows the move out inspection with landlord, he trashed the photos he had after the eviction hearing. 

Plaintiff's video doesn't show open cabinet doors, and is very selective with what they show.   

Defendant says the cabinet doors were inoperable.  Exhaust fan in kitchen was broken, fridge was brand new and trashed.  Roach infestation in plaintiff's room, and kitchen cabinets.  Also, floor was supposed to be dry mopped, not soaked down the way the boyfriend is doing.   

Tewolde wants an itemized list to tenant, but it's not her security deposit.  Court says disputes were to be settled with the housing court, but plaintiff didn't go to the court.  Security deposit is jurisdiction of the housing court.  Plaintiff left no forwarding address, California law says in this case mail to last address (the apartment), and if it is left unclaimed in 21 days, then the issue is over.  

My view the $2300 should go to the charity, which is the organization that paid and is owed the money. 

Plaintiff receives $1850, minus the damages plaintiff admits.   Juarez dissents, because the case should have gone back to the housing court.  (Because the court pays the judgments, defendant isn't out anything.   In the interviews after the case, defendant says plaintiff was letting homeless people stay with her, including her daughter.  )

“Lickity-Split on the Permit”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  34

p. 52, 25 October 2024

Edited February 21 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 2/21/2025 at 3:22 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tewolde asks about the security deposit, but why would plaintiff  get a security deposit back, when the charity paid that money? 

I didn't get that either. She lives on charity, so why should she get the money that came out of the pockets of others? That video - zip zip. They took the stove burners out? I didn't get that either.

I don't think the P checked out that dress from the back view. If she had she'd never have worn it. Or maybe she would.

The landlord sounded ridiculous. No, he never took any pictures of the trashed place and never sent an itemized list. Why would he? Only use a Swiffer on tile floors? That only picks up dust. It doesn't clean spills or watermarks. He says the "exhausted" was broken, and he had to "ramify" something else, whatever that means. And if the judges would just open those cabinet doors, they'd see the mess and hordes of roaches. Oops, they can't do that. 

He was good to her because she was a single mother. Can one still get special SSM status even if the kids are big grown-up adults? When does that ship sail?

I don't think she deserved anything back, and maybe if the landlord had the sense to take some pictures, send the itemized list, and provide the judges with the cost to fix anything she might not have. 

On 2/21/2025 at 3:22 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Lickity-Split on the Permit”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  34

Unreal. I have an idea. If you're doing a big construction job that eventually amounts to 50K or so, go to a reputable, licensed contractor firm instead of hiring some guy that someone knows, write up NO contracts(!!) for a project this size, hand over cash to some 3rd party- the elusive "Gabriel" - in this case, and just cross your fingers that it will all work out. That was some wig Def was sporting.

Watching JT and Papa fighting (again) over this was more entertaining than the case!😄

[CrazyInAlabama]

24 February

“Careless Car Care”

New, Season 11, Episode  93

(Angie Rodriguez and Raymond Carrillo  vs. David Egea)     

From the show site: A couple claims their mechanic received money from their insurance company, outsourced their car repair to someone else for a lower price, and then pocketed the difference. But the mechanic claims he did everything above board. Is his defense "an affront to the judges' intelligence?"

Plaintiffs/car owners Angie  Rodriguez and Raymond Carrillo suing defendant/mechanic David Egea for taking money from the insurance company, having the repair work done by a substandard shop that charged less, and stealing the difference.    Car is a Kia Seltos. Suing for $5,000. 

Car was picked up by defendant, work started in January, and not finished until May. 

Damage was the front end of the car, and most wasn't repaired when the car was returned.   Plaintiffs have a list of what worked on the car before defendant started working on it, but the items on the list were broken when car was returned. Defendant says plaintiff Rodriguez wasn't on the registration or insurance.  The at fault driver's insurance paid for the repairs, $7600, with a $1,000 deductible. 

Judges find defendant's defense to be ridiculous, and unbelievable.   Defendant keeps claiming that plaintiff Rodriguez wasn't registered, so guessing that means on the registration?   She should have been listed on the insurance though.   

$5,000 for plaintiffs. 

“Sold Short”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  41

p. 52, 6 November 2024

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Careless Car Care”

Def is a scamming, lying, shifty, evasive crook who probably belongs in jail.

Other than that, looking at Ms. Rodriguez and her enormous fake lashes, her enormous, over-inflated lips,(so big she seemed to have trouble moving them), the enormous cleavage she chose to display here and seeing how no women want to have anything natural anymore made me think of the truth of this.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

25 February

“Love Don’t Live Here Anymore”

New, Season 11, Episode  94

(Laniya Bishop vs. Christopher Whiley Byes)     

From the show site: A woman claims it made sense to put her partner's car in her name, but after she broke up with him, his payments stopped coming. He claims she refuses to let him see their son over this, but he shouldn't owe for a car that she kept. How did this dispute drive such a wedge between these former sixth grade sweethearts?

Plaintiff /girlfriend Laniya Bishop suing defendant / ex-boyfriend Christopher Whylie Byes for car payments, unpaid tickets, remaining balance on the car    Suing for $5000.

Plaintiff had car in her name, .because defendant had no credit or license.   They weren't living together, so car had to be in her name.   Car was to take their son to school, etc.   So, plaintiff was to have loan in her name, but defendant would make payments.   She actually got him two cars, and the first year he made the payments.  When defendant got a car in his name, he stopped making payments.

When defendant stopped paying, plaintiff told him to give the car back.     Plaintiff was responsible for the remaining loan amount, plus unpaid tickets defendant racked up.  Plaintiff also had to pay the shortfall after car was sold by finance company.  

I'm sorry, plaintiff came to court with unclean hands, she knew defendant had no license, but was going to drive it anyway.    I wouldn't give the plaintiff a penny.   Then, plaintiff had defendant arrested for domestic violence, 

Plaintiff reported car stolen, police found and impounded the car.   They couldn't get car out of impound, registration was expired, and defendant didn't have a license.  Plaintiff finally had to pay to get car out of impound, it's in her mother's driveway.   Car is inoperable, and plaintiff wants to pay the car off and sell the car.  

Defendant went to jail for the assault, four or five days.  he learned nothing.  He still maintains he doesn't owe anything for the car after he was arrested, and didn't need the car anymore.    Defendant did an interet show with a bunch of money, for stupid reasons.   

Judges decide to pay $5,000 to plaintiff. 

“Plea for the Car Key”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  36

p. 52, 29 October 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

26 February

“Lights! Camera! No Action”

New, Season 11, Episode  95

(Anthony Mack vs. Francisco Siimplicio)     

From the show site: A videographer takes the stand to defend his right to his raw footage. To his understanding, he was hired to highlight a store's grand opening with a short social media reel. But then the business owner started demanding all five hours of his footage. Is he obligated to hand it over?

Plaintiff/store owner Anthony Mack  suing defendant / videographer Francisco Simplicio for all of the raw footage of plaintiff's store's grand opening that defendant filmed.    Suing for $2500.   Defendant believes that raw footage belongs to him to produce the social media reel, but plaintiff wants all of the film.   Defendant is counter suing for $5,000.   

Plaintiff thought defendant would produce the short video, plus all raw footage for the store opening, for five hours of filming.    Defendant was paid $200.   Defendant says for $200 he filmed, did the short video, and plaintiff could get someone else to edit and produce other things.  Kwench is the water filter business/franchise owned by plaintiff and daughter.   Short video is very good.  

Corriero says videographer holds the copyright to the raw footage, and edited video.  

There are texts between plaintiff's daughter Crystal,  and defendant, about the raw footage.    Defendant offered to sell copyright for all of the footage to plaintiff.  

Sonia, the court officer, has to tell the defendant to stop interrupting the defendant and the judges. 

Defendant submitted two voicemails from plaintiff.

Plaintiff certainly thinks he's getting a lot for $200 payment to defendant. 

Judge Juarez says oral contract, and no meeting of minds beyond the short video.

Counterclaim by defendant dismissed. 

Plaintiff claim dismissed, and Judge Juarez urges both sides to work this out.  

 

“Pit Bullying”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  35

p. 52, 28 October 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

27 February

“Fair the Truth Lies”

New, Season 11, Episode  97

(Garrett  Brunnquell vs. Alexandr Lipencov )     

From the show site: When a drone pilot returned from a trip to Peru, he found that he had a new roommate. Each tenant in the three-bedroom house had their own lease, and as the senior tenant, he became responsible for collecting their utilities payments. But this new guy allegedly didn't pay his share. Can the judges help him with this unfair situation?

Plaintiff/senior tenant Garrett   Brunnquell suing Defendant/new roommate Alexandr Lipencov for not paying him for a share of the utilities. Suing for $4,000.

There wasn't a signed contract, but defendant still lived there, and has no intention of paying utilities.  

Defendant says he shouldn't have to pay utilities when he was working elsewhere. 

Plaintiff receives $3,241.

 

“Real Housewives of the Trailer Park”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  37

p. 52, 30 October 2024

 

28 February

“The Niece Who Broke the Lease”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  173

p. 50, 12 August 2024

“Not in Kansas Anymore”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  48

p. 53, 15 November 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 2/27/2025 at 3:24 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“The Niece Who Broke the Lease”

I tried to watch this, but P's hairpiece thingy, which truly looked like she'd grabbed a well-used mop from a janitor's closet and pinned it to the back of her head, was too distracting for me.

On 2/27/2025 at 3:24 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Garrett  Brunnquell vs. Alexandr Lipencov

Are big square glasses, like the ones sported by Garrett, the latest hipster fad?

[CrazyInAlabama]

7 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I tried to watch this, but P's hairpiece thingy, which truly looked like she'd grabbed a well-used mop from a janitor's closet and pinned it to the back of her head, was too distracting for me.

Are big square glasses, like the ones sported by Garrett, the latest hipster fad?

Yes, the huge square plastic frames are a trend, the one after that is with sloping sides, and looks even stranger.    

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Yes, the huge square plastic frames are a trend, the one after that is with sloping sides, and looks even stranger.   

Thanks. I'm not keeping up with trends, and I never knew they moved on from head socks, neckbeards, and earlobe plugs.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 March

“The A/C Unit Has Me Boiling”

New, Season 11, Episode  97

(Claudia Soto vs. Eduardo Soto)

From the show site: Despite a handyman's attempts to repair and replace a defective A/C unit, the homeowner refuses the replacement and demands a refund, leaving both parties in a heated dispute.

(Litigants are both named Soto, not related). Plaintiff/home owner Claudia Soto suing defendant/handyman Eduardo Soto for full refund on an air conditioning unit. Suing for $4,272 for selling her defendative merchandise, and failing to repair it.   Eduardo installed three mini splits for Claudia, and she claims she had no air conditioning for a month. 

Defendant is a handyman, who was paid $950 for the first unit,  Plaintiff wasnted one unit first, then she wanted two more.  All three units were installed in a couple of days.  $2850 was the total defendant was paid for the three units.   Defendant says plaintiff wanted the first unit sitting on the floor, and that plaintiff's husband would put a shelf under the units.   

Damages plaintiff wants is for one unit, $950, and the rest is for lost wages and pain and suffering for a month without air conditioning. 

Defendant claims they came to an agreement, but plaintiff never signed the agreement.   Defendant says after the agreement that he received a texted death threat from an unknown number.  Plaintiff denies knowing anything about the death threat.  He made a police report about the threat and refused to deal with plaintiff again. 

Plaintiff denies her kids would sent a threat like that.  

Plaintiff claims $2700 for replacing one unit, and placing all three unit placed up on the wall.   Plaintiff is a salaried employee, so lost no salary. 

Judge Juarez says only refund of purchase and labor for one unit, $950, saying she had two working a/c units.  Corriero says $2,850 to plaintiff for all three units, labor, and work time lost.  Juarez is totally ticked at Corriero.  Tewolde says only one unit also.  Juarez keeps disagreeing with Corriero, and so does Tewolde. 

Plaintiff receives $2400 for mounting three units, and one unit refund. 

“Furry Bar Brawl”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  38

p. 52, 31 October 2024

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Juarez is totally ticked at Corriero.  Tewolde says only one unit also. 

Oh, Papa! He comes riding in on his white horse, sword drawn, to protect the tearful little damsel in distress from being taken advantage of.

$950 for one of these units, including installation, is very cheap. I got a new one back in '21 when my deck collapsed. It was $3200, everything included. I have only one, and it cools over 2,000 sq.ft. The plaintiff must live in one honkin' big house if she needed three of them. Or maybe she didn't bother finding out anything about these units, just trusts anything a Man tells her, then whines about it later. It's the "I'm just a poor little woman who knows nothing" excuse.

Only one didn't work, but she wants over 4K from the shifty, shady def. - all she paid for them (even the two that work) plus time missed from work(although she was paid for that...?). Papa vows to her that he won't let anyone take advantage of her! He wants to give her the whole 4K, and he gets really nasty and surly about it in deliberations. 

"I'm not saying that just because I feel sorry for her!" he grumps at those Mean Girls whose hearts don't bleed for weeping little ladies, even though he totally did.

I can only think the other two will be mighty relieved when he steps down.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm hoping the replacement for Corriero is someone like Adam Levy (Judge Judy's son from Tribunal Justice), who doesn't take the side of anyone who cries or whines.   

My guess is the woman needed 3 mini split units because her house wasn't set up for central air.   What did she do for a/c before the mini splits?     

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I can only think the other two will be mighty relieved when he steps down

I will sure be happy when Corriero is gone. His reasoning is squishy and he can't hold his own against either of the other judges. His departure can't come too soon.

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

What did she do for a/c before the mini splits? 

Sweated a lot? She said she got the first one for her son's room. I don't see any with fewer than 12,000 BTUs, which is what I have, and that's way too much for one room.

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I will sure be happy when Corriero is gone.

Even though he often makes me roll my eyes and say, "Oh, Come ON!" out loud, I can tolerate him since I know we'll usually get satisfaction when he loses against the Mean Girls, but I understand how you feel due to my undying loathing for The Levin, the mere sight of whom makes me feel violent.

Judge J is more neutral, but I think Papa Mike irritates Judge T as much as he does you, and she often can't hide it. 😄He certainly flabbergasted her again yesterday when he declared - with the air of a stubborn mule - that P should get everything she asked for, just because, you know - little lady with tears.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 March

“Fast Cars, Slow Refunds”

New, Season 11, Episode  98

(Chad Mosbey vs. Jay Press)        

From the show site: A man says he paid for a remote-control race track but never received it; the hobby shop owner argues that his website clearly states that orders can take up to 30 days and accuses the customer of launching an online smear campaign.

Plaintiff/buyer Chad Mosbey claims defendant/remote control shop owner Jay Press for a full refund for a remote control track that never arrived.  Suing for $2,053 for item and legal fees.  

Defendant shop owner says the website clearly states orders can take up to 30 days to arrive, and plaintiff sued too soon.    Counter claiming for defamation. 

It would be a drop ship, plaintiff orders from defendant, who in turn orders from supplier, and supplier ships directly to plaintiff.   

Supplier of the track told plaintiff that the order didn't exist.   

Supplier never had an order from defendant's hobby shop for the track, then defendant says that he had to pay for the track before the order was officially placed.    

Then, defendant says he didn't pay for the order at first, and then says he never paid for the track.  Defendant apparently spent the money at the strip club. 

Defendent took the money from plaintiff, never produced the race track, and claims the bad reviews from plaintiff tanked his hobby shop business.   Defendant claims the supplier cut him off.  

Plaintiff admits he's flawed like anyone else, Corriero says that he's not flawed.  

None of the judges can stand the defendant.  Defendant claims he was called a thief, and Judge Juarez agrees that defendant's a thief. 

$1,420 to plaintiff.   Defendant told to drop dead. 

 

“Evicted by a Snake”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  50

p. 53, 19 November 2024 (Posting date is 20 November 2024)

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 March

“Car Flopping”

New, Season 11, Episode  99

(James McCune  vs. Christopher Rawlins)     

From the show site: A car-flipping venture takes a dramatic turn when the financier accused the mechanic of abandoning repairs and not repaying a loan; the mechanic fires back, saying his partner refused to cover final repair costs, forcing him to tow the car.

Plaintiff /pharmacy tech James McCune suing defendant /mechanic Christopher Rawlins for not repaying a loan.  The litigants were going in together on a car flipping business.  Suing for $4,000 Loan was $1200, plus $400 fee for 33 1/3% interest.   This loan was for the lift. 

Defendant says plaintiff’s interest rate was 33%, and illegal interest.  $4250 is the counter suit. 

There was a contract on the first vehicle, $1600 loan from plaintiff to buy vehicle, and then split the profits.    First car was a 2001 BMW.  Defendant says once he started working on vehicle, the mechanical problems were much more than they expected, and cost a lot more money than they expected.

Corriero asks plaintiff a good question, for once.  He asked plaintiff if he expected to be repaid the $1600 even if they made no profits, and McCune says he did.   

Defendant wanted to sell the car for $6,000. Plaintiff claims the extra money was not needed, and thinks defendant was ripping him off.   Defendant called it quits when plaintiff stopped the money, and wanted repayment.   So, defendant sold the lift that the $1600 financed with the loan.   

Judge Tewolde asks defendant if he considered fixing and selling the car, and paying the bills, but he couldn't afford to do that. 

Both litigants claim the other party breached the contract. 

Juarez says no one breached, Tewolde agreed.   Corriero says both breached. 

$1260, $1200 for the loan, and 10% interest to plaintiff. 

 

“The Nipsey Hustle”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 48

p. 53, 18 November 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 March

“A Cabin in the Woods”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  61

p. 53, 17 December 2024

 

“A Ruff Attack”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 26

p.52, 15 October 2024

 

7 March

“Walkin’ the Dog”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  16

p. 51, 30 September 2024

 

“El Cami-No”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  13

p. 51, 25 September 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 3/5/2025 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Car Flopping”

Some people. like this pharmacy tech, must watch too many reality shows: "Flip houses and cars, for fun and profit! It's easy!"

He believed a 23-year-old beater BMW - what's with so many litigants and their obsession with ancient BMWs? - could be made perfect with $300, (my car is in great shape and just getting my winter tires put on and an oil change done costs more than that!)with the Def mechanic insisting that in his neck of the woods, people would pay for $6,000 for a car nearly a 1/4 of a century old, after he worked his magic on it. Of course, the plaintiff also thought he could charge 33% interest and had no idea that is illegal.

[CrazyInAlabama]

10 March

“Bullets & Beats”

New, Season 11, Episode  100

(Laurence Woods vs. Todd Irving )     

From the show site: A musician says a childhood friend did not complete payment on a car and returned the vehicle after it was shot up; the defendant says it was shot up because of the plaintiff's dangerous lifestyle.

Plaintiff/car seller Laurence Woods suing defendant/car buyer Todd Iving for unpaid car payments, and damages from bullet holes. Suing for $5,000. Car is a 97 Buick, and it's not the first time Woods sued Irving on this show. (Couldn't find the previous case, so quite a few seasons ago).  Plaintiff says it's a customized engine, and worth more than blue book.  

Defendant claims car was shot up by people trying to hurt plaintiff, and he owes plaintiff nothing.   Also, defendant says it was a generous gift, and he owes the plaintiff nothing.   Bullet holes are all over the car, there's a sideswipe on the side of the car.  

Defendant says he saw suspicious activity right at dusk, a car with lights turned off, and driving slowly past the parked car, and a couple of days later car was shot up.  Doesn't Judge T. watch any TV police shows?   That was classic driveby action.   Plaintiff never transferred the car into his own name either. 

Then, litigants start arguing with each other.   

I believe the defendant, and think the plaintiff is a scammer.    He couldn't even sell the car, it wasn't in his name.   

Plaintiff claims defendant owes for weed, and says he was warned not to associate with defendant or ride in the car.  Defendant admits he uses a lot of weed, but hasn't used coke since he was shot a lot of years ago in a coke deal.  Plaintiff keeps blaming defendant for the car attack, claiming he cheated the Crips on a deal. 

Defendant says the car history is owning to shady previous owners.  Defendant blames the bullet holes on plaintiff's depraved character. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000, according to the contract they signed.  Plaintiff has the car now, and he'll have to fix it up from the damages.  Car transferred to the defendant, if he wants it, in 15 days, and if defendant doesn't pick it up in that time, car is property of plaintiff. 

“No Horsing Around”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  25

p. 52, 14 October 2024

 

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

believe the defendant, and think the plaintiff is a scammer.

I agree that the plaintiff came across as pretty shifty. However, the defendant was a totally pompous ass, or at least played that role. I haven't seen anyone in an ascot since the Mr. Howell on Gilligan's Island, and he likes big (and sort of archaic) words like "nefarious", which I haven't heard since an ancient Batman episode. I will give him points for actually knowing how to use these words, unlike so many other litigants. I really wonder about this case, both litigants came across like characters in an old sit-com; they both seemed to be smarter than the normal litigants we see on the court shows. I wonder if they went home together and smoked some weed and laughed their butts off. Anyway, the case was actually interesting.

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I agree that the plaintiff came across as pretty shifty.

He came across as a fast-talking hustler playing to the crowd.

 

15 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I haven't seen anyone in an ascot since the Mr. Howell on Gilligan's Island, and he likes big (and sort of archaic) words like "nefarious", which I haven't heard since an ancient Batman episode.

😄 To me, it seemed like a scheme to scam the show and get money for a bullet-ridden 28-year-old car with the paint dropping off in sheets. If that's the case, they succeeded.

 

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff receives $5,000, according to the contract they signed. 

Thanks. I gave up on this.

[CrazyInAlabama]

11 March

“Dodging Your Deposit”

New, Season 11, Episode  101

(Mary Ann Bramlette vs. Troy Sorensen)      

From the show site: A landlord accuses an ex-tenant of being chronically late on rent, skipping out on the last two months and leaving behind a trail of destruction; the defendant says the plaintiff was rude, uncooperative and secretive about the security deposit.

Plaintiff/former landlord Mary Ann Bramlette suing defendant/former tenant Troy Sorensen for unpaid rent, late fees, damages.  Suing for $1,540.  Plaintiff says defendant's a bully because he blocked her, and he didn't say goodbye when he moved out.  Plaintiff's witness Joanne Hansen, is part of a nonprofit that gets people housed, by paying security deposits.   Jody says security goes back to her organization, and says deposit is only used for damages, not rent. 

Defendant/tenant claims landlord was rude, and he owes her nothing.    Defendant says he only stayed there until plaintiff was unreasonable, and he moved out, his deposit was paid by a non-profit.  

Plaintiff says she gave a 10 day notice to quit, and she had him served with an eviction notice.   Mr Sorensen says a no cause eviction means he doesn't have to pay for the last five days.   

No cause notice was because defendant didn't live there a full year, and she can only do a regular eviction if the tenant lived there for a year.    Also, defendant says plaintiff never gave him a list of deductions, which is required by law.

This was in Oregon.    The defendant says since the plaintiff only owns the one rental property, then he does owe the last month's rent. Defendant does admit some damages, and says he will pay Joanne for the charges.  Defendant says tub was clean before he moved out. 

(Hint: the tub can be cleaned in 24 hours, Irish Spring 5-in-1, pour it on, cover in plastic, and 24 hours it will be sparkling clean.  Or use Suave Citrus 3-in-1 if you can't take the Irish Spring smell).

Defendant says he fixed various things around the trailer for plaintiff too. 

Deposit from nonprofit pays the damages, plaintiff does own one month's rent. 

Plaintiff receives $895 for five days, plus one month's rent. 

 

“Full Moon Rising”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  50

p. 53, 19 November 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

12 March

“Mechanic Mayhem”

New, Season 11, Episode 102

(Dean Randle vs. Ovik Eliasi )     

From the show site: An SUV-owner says a mechanic botched a job, leaving the vehicle in worse shape; the mechanic blames the plaintiff's wild modifications and reckless driving for the mess.

Plaintiff/SUV owner Sean Randle suing defendant/mechanic Oviki Eliasi for botching the repair job, and ruining his SUV.  Suing for $5,000

Defendant mechanic claims modifications, and bad driving ruined the vehicle, and nothing was defendant’s fault.  Corriero says car never worked again after brought to defendant, and then asks if plaintiff raced the vehicle. 

Defendant gave a $1500 refund, and plaintiff accepted that amount.    Defendant says the 20 year old Jeep was full of after market parts, and had been highly modified.   Defendant says after purchasing a rebuilt engine, Jeep ran fine.   So, to be compatible with the new engine, many items had to be altered back to stock to work correctly.  

Plaintiff says he took the car to Irwindale.   Plaintiff paid $20K for the car, supposedly paid defendant $12K for work, but accepted $1500 back from defendant. 

Defendant gave plaintiff $2000 in checks, $500 each, but stopped payment on the last check.    He says plaintiff demanded every penny back, or wanted him to replace everything else to make the car work.  The HEMI engine that came with it, was high performance, and defendant doesn't do high performance work.   

Jeep broke down 5 times, and plaintiff cliams he paid $12,000 for Jeep repairs. However, defendant says plaintiff paid $4800 for the Jeep.  Defendant says the $12,000 was for the Jeep, plus all of plaintiff's other cars.  

Defendant says after the fourth $500 check, plaintiff tried to threaten him, so he stopped payment. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000.   Judges think mechanic didn't fix the car, and actually broke it.  

 

“The Auntie Hero”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  53

p. 53, 22 November 2024

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff/SUV owner Sean Randle suing defendant/mechanic Oviki Eliasi for botching the repair job, and ruining his SUV.  Suing for $5,000

I'm no car expert, but I was surprised an 18-year-old Jeep Cherokee is a good choice for racing and is worth spending 12-14K to repair.

Would any mechanic work on such an old car that's been so heavily modified and loaded with parts from here, there, and everywhere? I have no idea who should have won.

I got too bored to finish this, so thanks @CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 March

“Rent Rift ; Well, I’ll Be Damages”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  18 (This was preempted the first time around).

“Rent Rift”

(Alma Pedroza-Auser vs. Ricky Lee Jr.)     Pedroza-Au  Lee

From the show site: An apartment complex owner claims her tenant never caught up on rent before moving out. He claims times were tough; his mother and grandmother passed away, he became his siblings' caretaker, and the VA rescinded his housing allowance due to poor school attendance. Do those excuses excuse the payment of rent?

Plaintiff/apartment complex owner Alma Pedroza-Auser suing defendant/former tenant Ricky Lee Jr. for unpaid rent, and extensive damages.  Suing for $5,000 (court maximum) .  Defendant was late a few times, but caught up.   Defendant was gettina housing assistance.

Defendant says after his grandmother and mother died, he had to move home to take care of three much younger siblings.  He also said the VA was sporadic on payments.   

Plaintiff has a ledger of underpayments, and partial payments, $5387.  There was a payment plan with four payments to resolve the unpaid rent.   

Defendant also says there were plumbing/sewage issues, which were the HOA's problem and resolved.   Defendant claims his rent was raised, but that was his rent plus the four payments for the missing rent payments. 

Plaintiff says defendant wrecked the apartment, and there is a video of conditions on move out.   It took three weeks to fix the apartment to rerent.   The judges say the apartment isn't that bad, but the stove looks like it needs to be replaced.    Judges say plaintiff is the most organized landlord they've ever seen. 

Plaintiff gets $5,000. 

 

 

Well, I’ll Be Damages

(La "Tanya" Johnson vs. Reginald Ray )   

Woman sues her ex-boyfriend for the cost of damages she never got repaired on a car she doesn't own anymore.

Plaintiff/former owner of car La "Tanya" Johnson is suing defendant / ex-boyfriend Reginald Ray for car damages. Suing for $1,000.   Plaintiff no longer owns the car. 

Defendant was drving the plaintiff's car, wrecked it, and defendant admits he said he would pay for the car damages. 

Plaintiff had a BMW SUV.   Defendant says he didn't damage her car, but someone else hit her car, and she didn't notice it then, but when she say the damages, she blamed defendant. 

Plaintiff sold the SUV, but still wants damages paid by defendant. Car was junked by plaintiff.   She never fixed the car at all. Her estimate was from two days before the court case, but car was junked months ago.  Even Corriero can't believe plaintiff is suing for repairs to a car she never repaired, and junked months ago.  Car was worth $3400 max Blue Book, she was paid $1500 for the wreck.  She's also suing the mechanic in a separate case, because she said he ruined her car, and that's why she junked it.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

 

“Terrible Tenant Troubles”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 52

p. 53, 21 November 2024

 

14 March

“Foul Play”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  61

p.  53, 16 December 2024

 

“Too Hot to Handle”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  117

p. 47, 3 April 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

17 March

“RV There Yet?”

New, Season 11, Episode  103

(Roger Alvey vs. Andora Sydor)     

From the show site: After getting a secondhand RV without keys or paperwork, a homemaker stops making payments; the seller sends a mechanic to repossess it and the homemaker calls the police, accusing the mechanic of pulling a gun on her.

Plaintiff/RV seller Roger Alvey suing defendant /RV buyer  Andora Sydor for remaining balance on the loan, or return of the RV.   Plaintiff hired a mechanic to repo the RV.  Defendant stopped payment, claims the mechanic trying to repo the RV pulled a gun on her.   Defendant called police on mechanic claiming he was stealing her RV, and pulled a gun on her. 

Defendant says she needed somewhere to live, because she was getting evicted.  The ad says 'not perfect' and seller fixed the flooring, and a skylight leak.   She paid $900 down.  Plaintiff witness Bill Wagman says he was working on the RV.   

Plaintiff received $600 more on delivery, along with the $900 deposit.  However, defendant stopped making weekly payments. +  Defendant says she had no key, so couldn't open the storage compartments, or propane holder.   

Defendant witness is her wife Justina.  They claim it will cost $500 to fix the waterheater, and a skylight still leaking.  Plaintiff says they already gave defendant credit for the $500 to fix the two leaks.    She claims the flooring was full of holes, but plaintiff says they replaced flooring. 

(Note: call a locksmith if you don't have the keys, and changing the locks works for RV's as well as anything you buy used). 

You can't see any holes on the flooring.   

Defendant gets snotty talking to Judge Tewolde.   How dare defendant get nasty with the judges!     

Paperwork and keys were made available to defendant, but she never picked them up, stopped paying for the RV, but still has the RV. 

Plaintiff says he wants the RV back, and he'll pay the deposits back to plaintiff. 

RV is worth $3500, defendant only paid about $1,000 with the refunds plaintiff already gave her. 

Plaintiff gets the RV back, and defendant gets her money back.   Plaintiff offered to undo the deal and take the RV back. 

Judge Juarez says pay plaintiff, because there's no telling what shape the RV is is.  

Plaintiff receives the remaining payments $2500, and defendant keeps the RV. 

 

“The Flames of Discord”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 54

p. 53, 26 November 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

After getting a secondhand RV without keys or paperwork, a homemaker stops making payments;

'Homemaker"? The belligerent Ms.Sydor and her gnarly, tatted little wife, Justina, look young and able-bodied, and Ms.Sydor is very well-fed. Work! Get jobs instead of scamming! Hotels are always hiring housekeepers. That should be right up Ms. Sydor's alley, what with all her homemaker skills.

The plaintiff was unbelievably foolish to give that hateful behemoth the trailer with only a down payment. At his age, he really shouldn't be so naive and should know by now that once this total stranger has possession of the property they have zero motivation to pay for it. 

I have a feeling this is how those two grifting defs. live. She had a million excuses not to pay and is probably well-rehearsed at rattling them off. Maybe she broke the floor stomping around on it. 

So nasty is she that she tells JT, "You're entitled to your opinion", for which she should have been roundly spanked but wasn't. (Too bad this wasn't on TPC. We know what happened to the last ligitant who said that to JM.😄) This to a judge - from someone who can't pay her bills, is too lazy to work, and just squats her large ass here and there, dragging her little familiar behind her.

JT tries to educate the surly beast and gets a very snotty, "I don't need an explanation."

In the deliberations (and not even Papa could find an ounce of pity for this damsel in distress) Judge Juarez says they don't punish anyone for having shitty, snarky attitudes, but it does help them to see how these people ended up in court. I'm just sorry those two scammers got to keep the trailer while not paying for it.

I hope Mr. Alvey learned a lesson, even as late in the day as it is for him. Stop trusting the word of strangers!

[CrazyInAlabama]

The plaintiff felt sorry for her, so he gave her a break.  First rule of selling property is no deals or feeling sorry for anyone.    

The lock issue was ridiculous, those locks are cheesy, and easy to change.     I agree with Judge J, who knows what the defendant did to that RV in the six months since the sale.  

The snarky statements from the defendant were appalling.   

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I agree with Judge J, who knows what the defendant did to that RV in the six months since the sale. 

I agree too. It's probably in appalling shape, despite having a homemaker in residence, but still, I was hoping they would return it to P and leave those two out on their asses. As it stands, they were rewarded for being amoral scammers. Well, the big one is. I feel the little one just goes along with whatever the big one says, or else.

[CrazyInAlabama]

18 March

“Gucci, Rent & Flea Markets”

New, Season 11, Episode 104

(Teresa Horne vs.  Caitlyn Cucchiara)     

From the show site: When the defendant found herself with nowhere to live, the plaintiff offered her a place to stay, then another friend moved in, turning the household into a whirlwind of chaos and shrinking the defendant's living space, so she wants her rent reduced.

 

Plaintiff Teresa Horne suing defendant/ former roommate Caitlyn Cucchiara for $900 in unpaid rent for the last 6 weeks. Defendant moved out after another roommate moved in, and defendant says the new roommate was awful to live with, so she shouldn't have to pay rent for the last six week, because the new roommate was awful. 

Why did defendant have left side of her hair dark, and right side blonde?     

Plaintiff says the other roommate was there before defendant moved in, and the fourth roommate lived in the living room.   Defendant says fourth roommate was disgusting, a heavy drinker, pooped and peed all over the bathroom.   One reason plaintiff move the fourth roommate in is because of his medical issues, and she's his caretaker.  

The total rent was 1500, defendant was paying $600.  Plaintiff and boyfriend split the $900.    Defendant was on the lease too. 

When the fourth roommate moved in, he and defendant paid $600 each, plaintiff and boyfriend only paid $300 total.   

Fourth roommate wasn't a tenant on the lease, had no background check, was supposed to stay for a month, and stayed seven months, then defendant moved out. 

Judge Juarez says defendant proved that she paid June's rent, and the fourth roommate moving in cancelled the defendant's obligation to pay the other month's rent.

Plaintiff case dismissed, not only did she change the rental situation, she isn't the landlord, so has no standing to sue. 

“Hold Your Horses!”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  53

p. 53, 25 November 2024

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Gucci, Rent & Flea Markets”

What a coincidence! Just today I told my husband that some woman I met at a store is moving in with us because she living with violence in a closet. He kicked up a fuss but I said tough and moved her in. 

While I was at it, I also invited some guy who has no control of his bladder and bowels to move into our house and reside in our living room on our sofa. My husband bitched about that too - he's so picky -  but I told him if that guy craps or weewees all over, let me know and I'll clean it. Me? Oh, well, I stay home 24/7 and eat, because I'm disabled, except when I'm being a caretaker and running flea markets.

WTF did I just watch? 🤯It was like some TLC freakshow. I quit after seeing the pic of that guy installed in the living room. What I really wanted to see was the man who thinks the privilege of being Ms.Horne's boyfriend is worth living in chaos and filth.

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why did defendant have left side of her hair dark, and right side blonde?

Maybe she has a split personality? Actually, I kind of liked it!

[DoctorK]

My only comment to add on this case is that the plaintiff is an absolutely horrible person.

[CrazyInAlabama]

19 March

“Car Rental Remorse”

New, Season 11, Episode  105

(Darrell Miller vs. Dawn Cross)     

From the show site: The plaintiff rented his car to a stranger through an app, then the car was returned damaged, and the stranger vanished.

 Plaintiff/car owner Darrell Miller suing defendant/car renter Dawn Cross for damages to the car while defendant was driving it.   Rental was through an app, Turo. Suing for $3,200. Kia K5 2022.   It was for a 3-day rental, defendant wanted to extend two days.   

Defendant rented the car for her daughter, but car wasn't in daughter's name. 

Plaintiff drove car to a parking lot to pick the car up, and defendant's witness Marco Lavell gave plaintiff the keys.   Witness is the daughter's boyfriend, and he was driving the car.  Marco says he had a drivers license, but no insurance at the time of the rental.   Marco says he didn't have an accident, he just 'scraped a pole' with the car.   Marco took the car to some shady repair shop to fix the damages, it had overspray, bad body work.   

Turo claims are through the Turo insurance, not the personal insurance of plaintiff.   However, plaintiff discovered the damages too late to claim through Turo.   

Defendant keeps saying that she rented the car for her daughter, so defendant's not responsible.   Why couldn't daughter rent a car through Turo or another agency herself?    My guess is boyfriend and daughter have bad credit, no insurance, and I'm questioning if they have drivers licenses either.  

Cross didn't know until after the car was returned that the accident had happened.    Cross also says she rented the car for her daughter, but claims she didn't know Marco was the actual driver. 

As Judge Juarez tells Cross, signing for the car means she liable for damages.   Cross admits her daughter was the one who used the app to extend the rental, which is apparently when Marco was getting the car fixed.   Why isn't Cross's daughter in court?   Marco claims he doesn't even know what the body shop fixed on the car. 

 Cross claims she didn't have plaintiff's contact information, but her daughter was communicating with him on the app. 

Corriero questions the $3200 damage estimate.  

During deliberations Corriero still questions the plaintiff not using his personal insurance, but that doesn't cover Turo rentals, and you have to notify them in a day or two of damages.   

Plaintiff receives $3200.   

“Trust Me”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  57

p. 53, 2 December 2024

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, DoctorK said:

My only comment to add on this case is that the plaintiff is an absolutely horrible person.

A vile, grotesque beast. If I were the defendant I would have preferred to keep living in a closet with a maniac.

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: The plaintiff rented his car to a stranger through an app, then the car was returned damaged, and the stranger vanished.

And the dumbing down of the population continues. Rent your Airbnb to a 20-year-old on New Year's Eve, or let strangers drive off in your car and then be shocked - shocked, I tell you - when something goes wrong. Even worse, get your car back from said strangers without taking any "Before" pics, and then just not bothering to check it and take pictures the moment they bring it back. He knows he has 48 hours to report damage, but just shrugs and thinks, "A few scratches. So what?"

It never occurred to Darrell that anyone might not be totally honest, or be extra careful with property they don't own.

Dawn is clueless. The daughter, who weaseled her way out of showing up here is a sneaky, lying hustler who flung her own befuddled Momma under the bus, and the baby daddy, who was not allowed to drive the car but did, is a dull-eyed moron who said nothing that made sense or was truthful. Sure, baby daddy got the car fixed, he says. He paid $1200 at a body shop but has no idea what was done. Suuure he did.🤥 More like he got some touch-up paint and slapped it on. I don't have hopes for that baby with those parents.

I wonder if Darrell learned anything.

The kind of stupidity so prevalent these days with the Ubers, the Airbnbs, Vrbo, and Turo, finding roommates and/or "significant others" on CL, putting our property and even our lives in the hands of total strangers makes it seem as though people have lost the instinct for self-preservation.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

20 March

“Tick-IT Girl”

New, Season 11, Episode 106

(Jesus Avelar vs. Lesly and Ashley Arias)     

From the show site: A man who sold his car to a woman who then sold it to the defendant and her daughter says he received a flood of tickets he traced back to the defendant, who said the car was stolen but promised to handle the fines.

Plaintiff / car seller Jesus Avelar sold his car to another person, who failed to register the car in their name and then sold car to defendants/ Lesly Arias (mother) and Ashley Arias (daughter).  Plaintiff is suing defendant for unpaid tickets that are still in his name because no one registered the car in their name.   Suing for $500 for the tickets, and $1500 for lost wages.   Car was a 2012 Kia Optima, sold on Offer Up. 

Defendant mother claims she bought car from a man who claimed he bought the car at an auction.   

Defendant mother was getting the car smogged, and registered, but when a mechanic told her car would cost $1500 or more 

Defendant claims car was stolen, and said they will handle the fines, but paid nothing.  Then, defendant claims she paid the tickets, but has no proof. Judge Juarez asks her why she didn't tell plaintiff she had paid the tickets.  

Daughter Ashley says she only knew about one ticket, but didn't know about the other two tickets.   Defendant mother claims she paid $495 for the tickets, plus processing fee.   Then, defendant mother she paid the tickets in September, but plaintiff was told about the tickets in May.   And then defendant mother claims she paid the tickets, and was served the lawsuit papers a few minutes later.    

Defendant said he wasn't going to pay the tickets, because he knew defendants wouldn't repay him for the tickets.   So, defendant is lying when she says the car paperwork was in the buyer's name.  

Corriero says plaintiff should have gone to DMV to straighten this out.  My view, Corriero is taking the defendant's side, and is wrong again.     However, DMV wouldn't give plaintiff proof of transfer, because defendant has a pending transfer of title.  

The ticket issue started in May, plaintiff only filed suit for the tickets in the following September. 

Defendant paid the tickets after she was served with the lawsuit paperwork. 

Judges say plaintiff could have paid the tickets himself, and then sued the defendants for the ticket amount. 

$0 for plaintiff because tickets were finally paid off by defendants, nothing for missed work. 

 

“The Opioid Odyssey”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  56

p. 53, 27 November 2024

 

21 March

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

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  66

p. 54, 9 January 2025

“Path of Lease Resistance”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  182

p. 50, 3 September 2024

 

 

 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Corriero says plaintiff should have gone to DMV to straighten this out.  My view, Corriero is taking the defendant's side, and is wrong again.   

Absolutely, Corriero was totally off base with his reasoning (which he just pulled out of a part of his anatomy). Tewolde really raked the defendants for their sloppy handling of this situation and the way that when they paid the tickets (miraculously 30 minutes before she was served, yeah right) they never told the plaintiff (after the defendants had stalled and delayed for months) and caused the plaintiff a great deal of inconvenience. I am disappointed with the other two judges for blowing off the hassles the plaintiff had to go through because of the irresponsible actions of the defendants. Please, let Corriero's departure come soon.

[CrazyInAlabama]

38 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Absolutely, Corriero was totally off base with his reasoning (which he just pulled out of a part of his anatomy). Tewolde really raked the defendants for their sloppy handling of this situation and the way that when they paid the tickets (miraculously 30 minutes before she was served, yeah right) they never told the plaintiff (after the defendants had stalled and delayed for months) and caused the plaintiff a great deal of inconvenience. I am disappointed with the other two judges for blowing off the hassles the plaintiff had to go through because of the irresponsible actions of the defendants. Please, let Corriero's departure come soon.

I bet he'll be around to the end of the season, so we'll be seeing him until September when the new season starts with another judge. 

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Jesus Avelar vs. Lesly and Ashley Arias)   

Could you believe this circle of dumbness?

Judges to Jesus: "Why didn't you pay the tickets and sue them later?"

Jesus: "I didn't think of it."

Judges: "Why didn't you check and see if the tickets were paid?"

Jesus: "I didn't think of it."

Judges: "Wouldn't it have been better to pay $500 for the tickets instead of losing $1500 for missed work?"

Jesus: "I didn't think about that."

Defs were even worse. They bought this car for $500 and never wondered about the ridiculous price. Why didn't they use their money to buy a car that hadn't been rear-ended, the mirror ripped off, and the check engine light on (which Momma knew prevented it from passing the smog test), all of which was going to be of unknown expense to repair? *Crickets* Why didn't they pay for the tickets? Mom had eye surgery, they were on hard times or some such, blah, blah, and the daughter had to go to Vegas to live it up and that costs money, you know. Daughter, who looked plenty big and old enough to handle this business, thought if she ignored P it would all go away.

Judges: "Why didn't you tell him you paid the tickets?"
Momma: "We don't know anything about court. We didn't understand and we were afraid."

The apple didn't fall far from the tree with those two.

16 hours ago, DoctorK said:

they paid the tickets (miraculously 30 minutes before she was served, yeah right)

Momma had no idea how silly that sounded.

I really wonder how so many litigants manage to navigate life on a daily basis.

 

[AngelaHunter]

I saw this story and it made me think of so many of our litigants who do the dumbest things imaginable and then act shocked, dumbfounded, and horrified when things go wrong:

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

24 March

“Have a Mice Show”

New, Season 11, Episode 107

(Sandra Schnakenburg vs. Michelle Goodman)     

From the show site: A landlord says a tenant habitually paid rent late, eventually stopping altogether, leading to her eviction; the tenant argues that the landlord unfairly raised rent and utilities while neglecting to fix a mouse infestation and dangerous flooding.

Plaintiff/former landlord Sandra Schnakenburg suing former tenant /defendant Michelle Goodman for not paying rent for four months , and utilities.  Suing for $5,000

Defendant/former tenant says her $2500 a month alimony was reduced by half, and she couldn't afford to pay rent, especially after landlord raised rent and utility payments.   Defendant calls the rent increases, and being dunned for unpaid rent harassment.    Defendant also claims there was a mouse infestation, and flooding, so she says she shouldn't have to pay rent.  

Pest control report says trap door to the crawl space under the home had been pried open and was loose, and defendant left front door open for her dog to go in and out, and pest control says that the open door was the major entry point for mice.   Pest control letter says defendant refused to have kill traps, and that she wanted to trap and release the mice.   

Defendant witness Elizabeth Stein says the first year or two she visited defendant, and saw defendant capture and release a mouse, but defendant was a resident for six years.   

The 2024 pest control report was because during eviction proceedings defendant claimed the mice were infesting the property again.  That's the final visit and report of the pest control expert.   Original mice infestation was on move in in 2018-2019.    The have-a-heart traps are fine, but if you let mice go within a running distance of the house, they come back. 

Defendant didn't put her money in escrow during the eviction proceedings.   

If property was so awful to live there, why did defendant stay for six years? 

Even Corriero can't believe the garbage the defendant is saying. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

 

“Don’t Have a Fit, Bud!”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  60

p. 52, 13 November 2024

Edited Monday at 10:33 PM by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Sandra Schnakenburg vs. Michelle Goodman) 

Okay, I first must say I liked that the defendant wanted to use cruelty-free  Havahart traps for the mice. They shouldn't have to die because she likes to leave her door open all the time for the dog. If I left my door open all day, my kitchen would no doubt be full of not only mice, but squirrels, spiders, ants, and maybe even raccoons. But enough of that, since everything else she said was BS.

This place was so uninhabitable she stayed for only 6 (or 7?) years. It was awful, so terrible that she stopped paying rent for 4 or 5 months. There was a flood that ruined all her belongings but she shows pictures only of water running down the garage wall, and no pics of ruined property. When the truth is finally wrung out of her, it seems her ex-husband got fed up supporting her in this 3K/month place and cut the alimony in half. She couldn't afford to pay, so she didn't and just squatted.

P is another one who says she felt sorry for Def, being a "single mother" ( a single mother whose ex was paying whopping big alimony AND child support). Def looked to be at least 60+, but it seems the single mother sympathy ploy/special exemption never ends.