Hot Bench - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

I was honestly shocked by today's case. From the first few minutes I was convinced that the defendant was just trying to get away without paying rent, and her presentation confirmed this to me. I fully expected the judges (especially Corriero) to feel sorry for the defendant and figure out ways to not give the plaintiff any money. Then I was was shocked - The judges saw through the defendant's nonsense, even Corriero!

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Then I was was shocked - The judges saw through the defendant's nonsense, even Corriero!

I was thinking this must have been a serious dilemma for Papa. Here we had two women, approximately the same age, who seemed well-spoken and non-violent. For which one does he take sword in hand and mount his white horse? I could almost see his mental turmoil. On the one hand, P was being stiffed on rent, but on the other hand, Def is a SINGLE MOTHER who had mice in her place, which just might negate the stiffing. Who deserves his bleeding heart more? I guess he couldn't decide so he just went along with the other two.

[CrazyInAlabama]

25 March

“Nanny McPay Me”

New, Season 11, Episode  108

(Diego Lojero and Desmond Noble vs.Verna McNealy )     

From the show site: Two plaintiffs were hired separately to care for the defendant's daughter but never got paid; the mother says the sitters are inflating the amount owed and accuses one of them of hitting her daughter.

Plaintiffs/former caregivers Diego Lojero and Desmond Noble suing defendant Verna McNealy for not paying plaintiffs for caring for defendant’s daughter. Suing for $1345. The two plaintiffs are college students, looking for summer work.  $22 an hour was the rate Lojero charges.   Noble charges $21.   

Defendant says the job is caretaking her 11-year-old daughter. She says she didn't trust the two men, but she couldn't find anyone to watch the daughter during the time she needed.   Three are text massages from defendant confirming how much she was supposed  to pay the plaintiffs.   

Defendant says she didn't have a contract because she didn't think they would bring her to court. She also had the men pick up snacks, run other errands,  and drive her to her job.   She also claims the men threatened her via text, saying they would take her to  court.  She also says her daughter claimed Desmond Noble hit her, no proof or police report. 

I think defendant should be banned from aid for hiring people, she's a grifter cheating the government, and the workers. 

Corrieo can't even find an excuse for defendant's despicable actions. 

Plaintiff receive $1,345.   

 

“Scratch ‘N’ Dash”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  60

p. 53, 10 December 2024

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Diego Lojero and Desmond Noble vs.Verna McNealy )   

Ugh. That scamming, lying, amoral heffalump was despicable. "I don't want two guys I don't know spending days with my 11-year-old daughter. I was forced to hire them, so why should I have to pay them?"

Drive her to work? Run out to get chips for her? Ms. SSMO, I advise against that. One more bag of chips might cause those leather pants to burst wide open over your monumental buttocks.

No, she has no proof that they didn't work the hours they said they did. Take her word for it that they deserve nothing. She obviously forgot what she put in her texxes. The shamelessness and entitlement were off the scale.

I loved how Judge T rightly smoldered with hatred for the def., even before she started questioning her. I think her disgust grew with every lying, scamming word. Not even Papa could excuse her behavior. Usually, SSMhood gets a pass but not this time.

I don't know how she had the nerve to show that face here after the stunt she pulled, but I guess it was worth it to be raked over the coals to get what she wanted in that the services were free.

I hope both of these guys do well. They seem to be honest and have a good work ethic. I have a tiny bit of advice for the college student, Mr. Noble: Brush up on basic English grammar.

[CrazyInAlabama]

26 March

“Auto-Matic Disaster”

New, Season 11, Episode  109

(Shully Ann Watters vs. Brendal Claridge Hamlin)     

From the show site: A woman says she paid $1,700 for a car with issues and the defendant threatened to take it back unless she paid $300 more; the seller says the plaintiff broke their agreement, forcing the seller to spend money to recover and repair the car.

Plaintiff/car buyer Shully Ann Watters suing defendant/seller Brendal Claridge Hamlin for payments on a car that plaintiff claims is a lemon, plaintiff claims defendant forced her to pay $300 more for car, and repair and recover it too.   Suing for $2337 (for repairs on car, and payments she made on the car). 

Defendant got the car back, and still claims she owes plaintiff nothing.   She claims plaintiff winess Traci Lynn Bradley, tried to car jack the car.    She claims car was $2,000 for purchase price. 

Plaintiff bought car from defendant, claims she had to spend a lot on repairs, but claims it still wasn't working right.  She says car purchase price was $1700, with witness Traci claims she heard this too.   

After defendant had the car she claims plaintiff witness Traci and two other friends of plaintiff ripped the keys out of the car, beat her up, and tried to drag her out of the car.  

There is no written agreement about purchase price of the car. 

Plaintiff claims car wouldn't start at the test drive.   Defendant says 'it's a Mazda thing' and you have to let engine cool down between uses.  

Plaintiff paid $700 to repair car in the four months she had it, and after that defendant got the car back, and wants $300 more to give the car back.   

Even Corriero can't justify the despicable, trashy defendant's actions. 

Defendant sent AAA towing to get the car back.  

The day after car was towed, plaintiff tried to pay the $300 to get the car back, and defendant refused to take the money.   As Judge J says, defendant wanted the car and the money.

Plaintiff gets $1700  for car payments, and repairs $588, totals $2288. 

“I’m Too Sexy”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  58

p. 53, 9 December 2024

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Auto-Matic Disaster”

Oh, my! Trailer Park Riot! Baby daddy mention! Physical assaults and carjacking by old ladies! "Shully" and "Brendal"! All this chaos and contention over a 20-year-old Mazda. Not knocking Mazdas. A friend of mine kept hers until it was 23 and then sold it for $1K. Of course, hers was impeccable and not trashed, which sounds like this one may have been.

It wouldn't start when Shully wanted to test drive it, but this Mazda needs to be cooled off for an unspecified amount of time after driving it, preferably with the hood open. I admit I'm not sure about that. It sounds rather inconvenient but Shully wanted it anyway.

Why would Shully or Brendal make a written contract, bill of sale, or agreement of terms for this veehickle, even for the most basic thing like the purchase price? No need for all that boring stuff.  We all trust each other. Famous court show last words. Thank you, ladies, for proving yet again what I say about no litigants ever wading into battle over cars under 15 years old. At least our litigants are consistent if nothing else.

I didn't reach the end of this debacle, so once again, thanks @CrazyInAlabama.

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

I just realized what the names, "Brendal" and "Shully" made me think of. They're like characters in Game of Thrones, some of whom had names similar to modern-day ones, except for a few altered letters, e.g., "Eddard" = Edward.

Yeah, I know, but I thought it was important to get that out there.

[Taeolas]

Some updates on the new season

* New season starts filming this week.

* The show is moving from Connecticut to LA due to tax credits. 

* Sonia did not make the move to LA, and will be replaced as bailiff by Gina Findley, a former NYPD Detective in the Chaplains Unit who retired last year after decades on the force.

* Trial attorney Daniel Mentzer is replacing Corriero as the third judge. I think some people may have suspected he was the replacement. He is Judge Judy's son in law who has been involved in a number of her recent spinoffs.

[CrazyInAlabama]

27 March

“Leaky Promises”

New, Season 11, Episode  110

(Frankie Curry vs. Edwina Walker )       

From the show site: A homeowner says a friend approved roof repairs and promised that the HOA would cover the costs, so the plaintiff paid the contractor; the defendant denies promising the HOA's reimbursement and says the plaintiff just wanted a new roof.

Plaintiff/homeowner Frankie Curry suing defendant /HOA president Edwina Walker for costs for redoing plaintiff’s roof, saying defendant promised HOA would pay for the roof.   Suing for $5,000.  However, plaintiff claims her place flooded, but not one photo.

Defendant says she  never promised the reimbursement, and plaintiff is just trying to get a new roof for free. Defendant says she met with the contractor to make sure he was licensed and insured.  Says plaintiff already signed the contract and paid the contractor before she saw the issues with the roof.  She also says plaintiff has a history of suing people.     She also says the leak was minor, and not something that required redoing the entire roof for $8,000. 

Plaintiff claims there was a flood in her bedroom, and Walker saw it.  Walker says they paid $200 for the first repair several years ago, but did not authorize $8,000 for a new roof.   Defendant Walker say she never saw bags of water, a wet wall, and never agreed the condo association would pay for the roofing job.  Walker also says no one ever saw contractors going in and out of plaintiff's condo fixing anything.  

Plaintiff has sued the HOA before, now she's suing Walker personally as HOA president.  Defendant witness Diane Comres, was the mediator on the case, and says Walker never authorized the repairs or new roof, and talke to the contractor who admitted he started work before the HOA authorized the repair or the paymants because he needed the money.  Plaintiff wanted $8,000, including the $2500 deposit.   Walker says there was no roof leak, and the board decided there was no roof damage, and they would not pay for repairs. 

Judge J says plaintiff should have taken a video or photo during the two days the plaintiff claims the leak was occurring.   Ms Walker said she takes photos of claims, and there was no damages in Curry's apartment. 

Correiro says there is no personal responsiblity by defendant for what the board does. 

Plaintiff case dismissed because she's suing the wrong defendant.  (In the hall interview after the case, plaintiff whines the judges didn't listen to her evidence, but she had no evidence).

 

“Sans Francisco”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  8

p. 51, 18 September 2024

 

28 March

“I’ll Be Your Shelter”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  14

p. 51, 26 September 2024

 

“Don’t Goof on My Roof”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  58

p. 53, 3 December 2024

 

Edited March 27 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant Walker say she never saw bags of water, a wet wall, and never agreed the condo association would pay for the roofing job. 

Do people really use bags to catch leaks? I was trying to visualize how this would work, but I couldn't. Maybe she meant suitcases or an overnight bag, although surely that would be counter-productive and ruin those items?

Had a leak here after the washer hose broke and water came through the ceiling downstairs. We used a bucket to catch the water. Oh, well.

Sadly, P had no pics of this rainstorm in her place or the waterfall flowing down her walls. It went on for two days, but she simply could not take one single photo in all that time, what with waking up in the morning confused or something that caused her to have no time to take one. 🤔

Def had a picture that showed a wet spot on the edge of the carpet.

Granted, I wasn't paying too much attention to this "bicker-backer" so I may have missed something.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think plaintiff used trash bags, like the little white kitchen bags were catching the water, but not to take a photo or wait for the HOA to have a roofer look at it and give her the go ahead was bizarre.    I think the plaintiff had a water leak or something in a pipe, or overflowed a sink or something.   I find it bizarre that the HOA paid $200 for a leak a few years ago, and plaintiff thought that would obligate the HOA to pay for a new roof for $8,000 without any evidence of a leak.   

[AngelaHunter]

27 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think plaintiff used trash bags, like the little white kitchen bags were catching the water,

I guess that could be, but the bags must have been in a bucket or trash can to hold them open. Personally, I would omit the bags and just let the water go into the receptacle. That would be easier to dump than an unstable bag of water. Ah, well. Ours is not to question why (litigants do what they do).

[CrazyInAlabama]

31 March

“Unspoken Expectations”

New, Season 11, Episode  111 (Recap will be next time this airs, minor tornado about five miles away, so news is breaking into coverage. A few minor injuries, and lots of close ups of downed roof metal panels.)

( vs. )     

From the show site: The plaintiff says the defendant requested loans and to borrow a car, which led to unpaid toll charges; the defendant says the plaintiff fell in love and offered financial support, but became aggressive when asked to back off.

Plaintiff/car owner suing defendant for unpaid toll charges, and unpaid loans.  Suing for $

Defendant says plaintiff claimed to be in love with defendant, was aggressive, and refused to back off. 

 

 

 

“Moving Without a Hitch”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  131

p. 47, 25 April 2024

 

Edited March 31 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The plaintiff says the defendant requested loans and to borrow a car, which led to unpaid toll charges

I just couldn't, not with Papa's "All You Need is Love" since it seemed the big, flaming romance was kaput.

Hope the tornado didn't reach you, @CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I just couldn't, not with Papa's "All You Need is Love" since it seemed the big, flaming romance was kaput.

Hope the tornado didn't reach you, @CrazyInAlabama

No, tornado was over 5 miles away, and fortunately, the injuries were minor.   We're better off than the places that have flooding.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

1 April

“Ale-ing for a Loan”

New, Season 11, Episode  112

(Travis Sneed vs. Mike Tomaselli)     

From the show site: The plaintiff says he lent his bar buddy $6,000, expecting repayment once he received an accident settlement; the friend fires back that the money was a gift to help with financial struggles, and repayment was never discussed.

Plaintiff Travis Snead suing defendant Mike Tomaselli for an unpaid loan.  Plaintiff says defendant was to repay the loan from an accident settlement.    Suing for $5,000.  Collateral was either the motorcycle or RV, but plaintiff declined to hold either title

Defendant said money was a gift, and no repayment was ever discussed. Defendant says money was a gift, plaintiff knew he couldn't repay it, and says it was only $1700 not $6000.   He lies to Judge T. that he never said he would repay the money.   

Texts from defendant say that as soon as he gets his settlement from a personal injury suit, that he will repay the plaintiff.  

Defendant claims asking for repayment was harassment, judges disagree with this.  Defendant claims a bike gang was sent after him by plaintiff, then defendant says its's a motorcycle club not a gang, and a member wanted money back from defendant. 

Corriero asks if it was a loan or a gift.  Texts between plaintiff and defendant show that the money was a loan, and was over $5,000.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

“Eye Want Justice”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  113

p. 47, 27 March 2024

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Travis Sneed vs. Mike Tomaselli)

The "gigolo"?😆🤣 Not my idea of a gigolo, but the woman who posted that paper "just couldn't get over me." Yeah, I understand that. Who could? I mean here's a big-bellied, amoral loser probably near 60 who drinks too much and is still bumming money from his ancient Daddy. Swoon-worthy, for sure.

Def. is a worthless, loathsome, small-time grifter and con artist who never had any intention of paying anyone back.

Plaintiff, for all his protestations of being big-hearted and helpful, is a fool, a perfect mark for the grifter, and kept subsidizing him with more and more money! I have a hard time believing he's such a good businessman. He'll probably do this again, now that he's on the sucker list of all the penny-ante leeches in this small community.

Plaintiff, there are many ways to be helpful and kind that don't include picking up the bar tab for that repulsive slob.

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 April

“Rental Breakdown”

New, Season 11, Episode  113

(Erika Miranda vs.  Audrey Smith)     

From the show site: The plaintiff says the defendant requested a rental listing, agreed to the fees, and signed a contract, but later refused to pay; the defendant says no suitable tenant was found and no lease was signed and disputes the plaintiff's claim for a fee.

Plaintiff/real estate broker Erika Miranda suing defendant/rental unit owner Audrey Smith for not paying rental fees, and breaching a signed contract for plaintiff finding a tenant for defendant’s rental unit. .   Suing for $2,000.

Plaintiff whited-out and changed a contract after defendant signed it. 

Defendant says plaintiff never found a suitable tenant, and therefore defendant owes plaintiff nothing. 

Plaintiff is a realtor that handles rental properties, for a fee of $1,000 if she found a tenant, and $2000 if another raltor brought a tenant.   Rent was $4300, for a house in Tarzana, only 10 viewings, never had a qualified tenant who leased the property.  Defendant said she was paying $1,000 to list the property on the MLS.   Plaintiff says she did find a tenant, with a rental fee of $4200 without use of the garage.   

Defendant claims the tenant wasn't suitable, but refuses to tell Judge Tewolde why.  Then, admits the air conditioning wasn't working, so house wasn't able to be rented (apparently Tarzana is hot, so working air conditioning is necessary).

The agreement says 'a well qualified tenant who signs a lease', but no one signed a lease.   Also, this is when the judges question plaintiff about altering the contract with defendant after signing, with white out. 

Defendant claims she signed a contract with plaintiff only covering 5 days 6/7 to 6/12.  This date was altered by plaintiff for a much longer period. 

Plaintiff claims she had defendant sign a consent to dual agency (where defendant would have to pay $1,000 each to plaintiff and another agent in her office), but can't find the signed form. 

Contract says if defendant makes house uninhabitable, plaintiff gets $1,000.   But second $1,000 is only for a signed tenant.   Defendant got the air conditioning fixed, and then called plaintiff and asked if prospective tenant was still interest, but he wasn't.    Defendant says plaintiff had a second tenant that wanted to sign a six month lease, 

Judge Tewolde doesn't find the defendant creditable, but brings up the contract being whited out by the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff receives $1,000 for the listing, but other part dismissed.  Judge Juarez dissents, because of the contract forgery by plaintiff, she would give plaintiff zero, because she came to court with unclean hands.  Also, no proof defendant agreed to dual agency. 

Plaintiff $1,000 from Judge Corriero and Judge Tewolde. 

“Rentally Incapable”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  127

p. 47, 18 April 2024

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The plaintiff says the defendant requested a rental listing, agreed to the fees, and signed a contract, but later refused to pay;

Those two dimbos were funny. JT nearly lost it within a minute when she read to them from their own complaint and answer and they squinted and gape-jawed at her as though she were speaking in tongues or ancient Egyptian.

The real estate agent, the professional who whites out something in a contract AFTER the client signed and didn't bother getting her to initial the change ("Yeah. So?"), wants her other thousand dollars due to her for getting a qualified tenant to sign a lease. What? The judges want to see it? She waves away that notion. Yes, she has it somewhere, probably, but not here. Could be in a zip file. Who knows? She saw no reason to bring it. It's irrelevant, right?🙄 Even Papa was getting frustrated with the inability of both litigants to answer a simple question.

For the amount of time Plaintiff spent with her jaw hanging wide open to express shock, horror, and incredulity at everything Def said, she's lucky there were no flies around.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 April

“Blind Sided”

New, Season 11, Episode  114

(Carolyn Dunkley  vs  Rony Joseph)     

From the show site: Tenant says an apartment was in good condition when vacated and the landlord unfairly kept the security deposit and charged prorated rent; landlord says the apartment was filthy, the tenant stayed eight extra days, repair costs exceeded the deposit.

Plaintiff / former tenant Carolyn Dunkley suing defendant / former landlord Rony Joseph for return of security deposit and prorated rent. Suing for $

Defendant says apartment was filthy, and tenant overstayed the lease period, and repair costs exceeded the deposit.  Defendant charged $78.12 to change a light bulb, for materials and labor.     He says cost to repair aprartment over security deposit was $2478 more, and he's counter claiming for that amount. 

Plaintiff says the other tenants were a safety issue, with noise, partying, and claims there was drugs use.   Defendant gave warnings to partiers, and noisy tenants, and told plaintiff to call 911 about the drug use.  

Defendant says she was a Section 8 tenant, so when she gave notice of moving, he had to extend her lease 30 days at a time until she found a place that qualified for Section 8 and passed their inspection, so she was there over a year after she gave notice.   

Plaintiff shows a video showing an empty clean apartment.   Defendant says when he inspected the fridge and freezer had food and trash in it, that it was unacceptable condition to rerent.  Tewolde says the defendant's charges were petty.   

$78.12 for a light bulb replacement is what a handyman would charge for a service call.     (This all happened in Concord, CA)

Defendant shouldn't have come on this show, but at least when he gets screwed over by the judges, the show pays the award. 

Plaintiff receives her remaining security deposit $4,000 plus $2200 penalty to defendant.   Judge Tewolde want to give double to the plaintiff. 

 

“Damn She Abandoned the Van”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  121

p. 47, 10 April 2024

 

4 April

“A Rocky Tour”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  79

p. 54, 3 February 2025

“After a While Crocotile”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 95  

p.  46, 22 February 2024

 

 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Carolyn Dunkley  vs  Rony Joseph)

Snotty, snippy, snappy little landlord sassing the judges - "What would YOU charge to change a lightbulb?" he asks Judge T. To show damages he presents a picture of a closet with hangers left in it. He says he had to have two items removed from the fridge, etc, etc. Even Papa came out of his doze and got his hackles up when the little guy snarkily put a question to him. 😄 He also will proudly continue to ignore rental laws that allow for "normal wear and tear" and demand properties be returned in "immaculate condition" even though in the hall he states tenants must follow the law!  I saw no "completely" destroyed floors, either.

I guess he hasn't been a landlord very long and has never watched court shows or he would know what kind of real destruction and even demolition is perpetrated on rental units. Maybe he should spruce up his background checking of renters as well, and not let drug users who party all night move in.

Of the doubled deposit awarded to the P, maybe half should be returned to whichever government entity has been paying her rent? Just a thought.

[CrazyInAlabama]

7 April

“Ruff Day”

New, Season 11, Episode  115

(Natasha Hseih vs. Helen Fukumoto-Candelas and Richard Aguilar Jr)      Natasha

From the show site: A woman says her dogsitters' pet attacked her dog and they failed to take responsibility for the veterinary bill; the defendants say the vet added unnecessary treatments and the plaintiff colluded with the vet and animal control for financial gain.

Plaintiff / dog owner Natasha Hseih suing defendants / pet sitters Helen Fukumoto-Caleras and Richard Aguilar Jr for vet bills after defendant’s pet attacked plaintiff’s dog.  

Despicable defendant claims vet bill was inflated, and claims that plaintiff, vet and animal control conspired against her for the money.  Dog's wound wasn't treated for two days after the attack.   Defendants didn't tell plaintiff about the attack, the injuries, or the lack of veterinary care.   All Candelas did was use baking soda and water on the wound.

Poor Judge Tewolde can't even look at the pictures of the wounds.   

Defendant Aguilar claims another vet who never saw the dog claims it was an abcess that was preexisting, and not from an attack.    The photo of the dog is the same day plaintiff picked the dog up, because dog's wound area was shaved, and that happened the same day at the vet.   

I think Judge Juarez would gleefully punch out defendants, with Judge Tewolde helping.    

Then despicable defendants proudly announce they're holistic and think using water and baking soda was adequate treatment.  Aguilar says no antibiotics should be used, even when it's infected.    Aguilar treated a dog bite he received a few years ago with saline, and he didn't die, so he thinks saline works.  

Wonder if the IRS knows how much defendants make boarding dogs?  And the state vet board knows defendants are treating animals with their looney 'vet care'? 

The dental extraction because x-ray showed the tooth of the attacking dog penetrated Seven's cheek, penetrated the tooth root causing the abcess, and requiring the removal of the tooth.  

Animal control report is submitted by defendant, and Aguilar claims animal control colluded with plaintiff and the vet to make money. 

Plaintiff receives $3395. All plaintiff didn't receive were her lost wages.  

 

“Jewel Citizenship”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  124

p. 47, 15 April 2024

Edited April 7 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

8 April

“Too Full of a House”

New, Season 11, Episode  116

(Andrew Gonzalez vs. Savanna Harrison)     

From the show site: The plaintiff says his ex-roommate's dog caused damage, and she moved out early without paying rent or repairs; the defendant argues that the damage was caused by the plaintiff's dog, and she moved out with consent after cleaning.

Plaintiff Andrew Gonzalez suing defendant/ex-roommate Savanna Harrison for damages from defendant’s dog, early move out. Suing for $4,000. Defendant is counter claiming for $3,100, for lost wages, and $680 for destroyed personal property. 

Plaintiff wanted to transfer from the 2 bed / 2 bath to a smaller unit, but couldn't so he's suing for unpaid rent, utilities.  

Defendant claims the damages were from plaintiff’s dog, and she left rental in good shape and clean.  She also says one morning she heard the fire alarm go off, saw the house full of  smoke, and saw her two dogs caged in kennels. Defendant's blaming the stove incident on the plaintiff's dog.  

Plaintiff could have moved to the smaller apartment, and defendant needed to sign it,.  Then defendant says she would have been a co-signer/tenant on the lease for the new place, but never would have lived there. 

Original idea was to have litigants, plus plaintiff's partner, and split the rent three ways.  Then, defendant's boyfriend moved in, and split rent four ways, then defendant and boyfriend wanted to move to Vegas.   

D. refused to co-sign or claim she would be a tenant in the smaller apartment. Corriero asks why d. didn't pay the two months lease breaking fee. D. does brow tattooing and eyelash extensions, and at one time was working out of the apartment. 

$6,000 was the lease break fee, and apartment didn't charge that, and just terminated the apartment.  P. 

Judge Juarez says split the lease termination fees.  $3400 split evenly, $2400 in collections. So, she says each gets $3400, and split the $1200 in collections each. 

 $3411 to plaintiff, includes half of the amount in collections, $1200.   Defendant's claim dismissed.

“Portal Combat”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 128  

p. 47, 22 April 2024

Edited April 8 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 April

“Love & Loans Lost”

New, Season 11, Episode  117

(Leguiya Jordan vs. Jayden Bowie-West (ex) and (mother)  )     

From the show site: A woman says her ex and his mother owe her for various loans and expenses; the defendant fires back, saying all money was exchanged voluntarily without expectation of repayment.

Plaintiff Leguiya Jordan suing defendants/ ex-boyfriend Jayden Bowie-West and his mother for loans and expenses.  Suing for $2,800 for the ($2500) loans, and half of the purchase price for a dog ($300).   Plaintiff is retired Air Force, so has a regular income.  

Defendant says it was all a gift until they broke up. He also says plaintiff was threatening to  call the police on him, if he didn't pay her.  She says she called the police on defendant.   

Plaintiff is alsmot 20 years older than defendant, funny they look the same age, and defendant's mother and plaintiff are almost the same age.  The two litigants had a joint account, and plaintiff says defendant took a lot of money out of the account without telling plaintiff.   Jayden's mother said they would repay plaintiff the money from the account.   Defendant says his mother would repay the money, because it put defendant in danger by calling the police.   Corriero defends defendant over taking the money, and says it endangered his job as a teacher.   

Defendant's mother signed a power of attorney for him to represent her in court. 

Plaintiff was the primary breadwinner, defendant would put money into the joint account, and then take it right back out, according to plaintiff.  The mother sent a text to plaintiff stating that she would repay everything. 

Judge Juarez says plaintiff didn't prove her case.  Judge Tewolde and Corriero agree with Judge Juarez. 

Plaintiff receives $0.  

“Wheel of Misfortune”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 184

p. 50, 5 September 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

10 April

“Wrong-of-Way”

New, Season 11, Episode  118

(Artsiom Yefremenka vs. Ree Ann Stepp)       

From the show site: The plaintiff says a broken traffic light caused the uninsured defendant to hit his truck, ignoring the plaintiff's right of way; the defendant says she had the right of way, and the accident was the plaintiff's fault.

Plaintiff Artsiom Yefremenks suing defendant/uninsured motorist Ree Ann Stepp for hitting his Ford F-150truck, violating the right of way. Suing for $4,477. Plaintiff was approaching the stop light, realized it was not working, stopped, and then proceeded (the correct way to do this when the light goes out).  Damage is behind the front wheel well.   

Defendant says she had the right of way, and accident was plaintiff’s fault.    . She also says 'she didn't notice' the light wasn't working until she was in the intersection, and she hit plaintiff's right front corner of the vehicle.  As Corriero asked, she didn't even look to see if the light was red or green?  She didn't stop, and hit the plaintiff's right front corner, and plaintiff was pushed into a vehicle on his left, who finally claimed the accident on her own insurance, since defendant was not insured. 

Judge Tewolde asks defendant what the law is about reaching an intersection without a working traffic signal.   Defendant says she was in the intersection before she noticed the traffic signal was out.   

From the photos, it is obvious plaintiff was hit by defendant.  

Defendant found out she didn't have insurance coverage after the accident, and thinks she wasn't at fault.  

Plaintiff says his first estimate was the Geico adjustor, who totaled the truck for $10,000.   Second one was separate appraisal that said $4,000.   He's a mechanic so can do the repairs himself, and won't charge labor. 

Defendant still claims plaintiff hit her, and she's not at fault. 

Plaintiff receives $4,477.

“Knocking Roots”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 140

p. 48, 8 May 2024

 

11 April

“No Re-collection”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  81

p. 54, 4 February 2025

“The Laser’s Edge”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  141

p. 48, 9 May 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Artsiom Yefremenka vs. Ree Ann Stepp)   

That bull-headed battleaxe (I was shocked to hear her called "Ms") was infuriating, with her "It's not my fault" attitude after barrelling through the intersection. "How fast were you going?" she was asked. "The speed limit."  "What's the speed limit?" the judges asked and she didn't know.

Judge T roasted her splendidly, all but sneering at her BS and her attitude. "How could he have hit you, when his damage is on the side of his car?" Oh, she just knows he did. She watched him do it! That's her story and she's sticking to it. 

Fifty years on the road and doesn't even know that simple rule about non-working traffic lights. Even Papa gently chided her about that.

The plaintiff couldn't have been nicer or more patient, even doing the work himself. I'd be furious. Def refused to even acknowledge a text from P, informing the judges that she was told never to have any contact with someone with whom you've been in an accident.  I think she felt that if she ignored him he'd go away. She's very lucky that P is such a nice, easy-going guy.

The judges laughed at the ol' "my insurance lapsed 5 minutes before the accident" claim.  Horrible person.

[DoctorK]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

As Corriero asked, she didn't even look to see if the light was red or green? 

That was horrible. So she just drives through intersections without bothering to look at the traffic lights? She beyond any reasonable doubt should not be driving, but we all know that she will merrily drive around until she kills somebody. Another litigant that deserves to be hated.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Another litigant that deserves to be hated.

"There were nearly three more accidents there, after ours!" She got spanked for that nonsense too. I guess she was trying to prove that nobody knows what to do if a traffic light is out.

The worst part was her stubbornness and defiant attitude about how badly she screwed up. Every word made her look worse while trying to put all the blame on the plaintiff. Oh, and the cops were wrong too, saying it was her fault. Revolting.

[CrazyInAlabama]

And the insurance company she lost her policy with were a bunch of meanies too.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

14 April

“Fresh-N-Loan”

New, Season 11, Episode  119

(Cameron Tyson vs. Ryan Wilson)        

From the show site: Two siblings are locked in a heated dispute over a loan; tension is high as both sides present their case to the judges.

Plaintiff/sister Cameron Tyson suing defendant/brother Ryan Wilson for an unpaid loan.  Suing for $4,190.   

Defendant says even though he signed a loan agreement to repay his sister, he owes nothing.   Brother needed the money for attorney fees, claimed he was getting a settlement to replay sister.  Sister borrowed the money from grandmother for the brother, on brother's behalf.  Since brother didn't have a job, grandmother would only loan to relatives who had jobs.  So sister borrowed the money, and written agreement with brother says when he gets a settlement he will pay sister $6,000.    Defendant says he repaid grandmother $2,000, but plaintiff isn't suing for the $2,000, just the remaining loan. 

Brother received the $5,000 settlement, and he only grave the grandmother $2,000, and grandmother was upset about the shortfall.   Defendant says grandmother felt sorry for him, and told him not to pay her since he had no job. 

Brother paid the grandmother $2,000, sister felt obligated to pay the grandmother, so he's been making regular payments, but still owes grandmother almost $2,000.    

Corriero is not happy with defendant, and pretty much calls him a deadbeat, but then makes excuses for him.   

Defendant's settlement was $30,000 total, and only paid the grandmother $2,000, and nothing to the sister. 

$3940 is what plaintiff is owed. 

Plaintiff receives $3,940

 

“Not So Great Ex-Pectations”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  183

p. 50, 4 September 2024

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Not So Great Ex-Pectations”

This is one of the greatest HB cases, glad I took time to watch it again. This the case where the slimy plaintiff claimed to be a lawyer but ended up throwing his papers up in the air and stomping out, after constantly mouthing off to each of the judges. I have watched a lot of Court Cam (real judges in real courts) and I loved one case where the judge slammed his fist on the bench and yelled at a really obnoxious defendant "THIS IS NOT TV COURT, THIS IS REAL COURT!", and real judges would have had this jerk in cuffs with contempt of court time in jail.

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, DoctorK said:

glad I took time to watch it again.

I watched it again too, just for the zaniness. "I'm shocked!" Judge T says several times. She wasn't shocked that a litigant behaved like an utter loon, ranting, backtalking, lying, and finally having a full-blown tantrum and storming out. She was shocked because this person claimed to be a lawyer.

I see a lot of attorneys named Michael McCoy, but none of them appear to be this one.

[CrazyInAlabama]

15 April

“Patience is a Virtue”

New, Season 11, Episode  120

(Ja'Neysha Dampier vs.  Virtue Gonzalez)         

From the show site: The plaintiff accuses her former roommate of verbal abuse and property damage; the defendant counters with claims of unruly behavior and unpaid utilities.

Plaintiff Ja'Neysha Dampier suing defendant/former roommate Virtue Gonzalez for property damage, and verbal abuse.   Suing for $3,354 for property defendant disposed of. Dampier Gonzalez

Defendant counter claims for costs to get rid of junk plaintiff left behind, unpaid utilities and verbal abuse, $525. (This happened in Salem OR). 

Plaintiff claims there were phone conversations about the property defendant trashed after she threw her out.  Judge J. gets angry with defendant, because plaintiff was in a bad situation.   My view, plaintiff's situation isn't a reason for defendant to keep renting to her. 

Plaintiff claims defendant kept her and her child's jackets, but defendant says she gave that to defendant.  And plaintiff claims everything was kept by defendant.  Defendant says she set up a date for plaintiff to pick up her stuff, but plaintiff didn't show.  Judge T. also says to defendant that she was unreasonable cutting communication with plaintiff, and saying though plaintiff wasn't homeless, but was struggling.   

What was plaintiff's reason for not keeping the appointment to pick up her propety including a TV bigger than my sofa, a freezer, and her clothing?   

Plaintiff denies the photos of junk piled high in defendant's home isn't her stuff, and she left the place neat.    Defendant says the plaintiff's daughter took the iPad when the plaintiff moved out.   Plaintiff claims she was charged for three cable boxes and two modems, but defendant says plaintiff returned the cable gear.   

I find nothing plaintiff says believable. 

Plaintiff has nothing to prove anything she owned, and the cable box issue that plaintiff lied about nullifies everything she claimed. 

Defendant claim dismissed. 

Plaintiff lives 600 miles from defendant now, so picking up property isn't possible.   Plaintiff gets $750 in property claims. 

“A Dog Walks into a Bar”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  133

p. 47, 29 April 2024

[patty1h]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Ja'Neysha Dampier vs.  Virtue Gonzalez)         

From the show site: The plaintiff accuses her former roommate of verbal abuse and property damage; the defendant counters with claims of unruly behavior and unpaid utilities.

Blah blah she moved out blah left a mess blah diamond jewelry missing.  Whatever... I can't stop staring at Virtue's nose.

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge T. also says to defendant that she was unreasonable cutting communication with plaintiff, and saying though plaintiff wasn't homeless, but was struggling.   

Actually, I think that was Tewolde who said this and obviously hated the defendant. The plaintiff blatantly lied about the cable boxes, and had absolutely no evidence to support her claims for lost items. All three judges went Corriero - poor helpless plaintiff, her situation is so sad. I hated the way that the judges gave the plaintiff money.

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

I can't stop staring at Virtue's nose.

Well, I am pretty tolerant on this, having myself a classic Irish nose that has been broken at least twice and shows the effects of lots of beer over the years. The plaintiff's ridiculously large hoop earrings distracted me more.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

16 April

“In Need of Rental Recourse”

New, Season 11, Episode  121

(Deborah Winslow vs. Destiny Willis )     

From the show site: Plaintiff accuses her ex-tenant of fabricating repair issues, dodging rent and leaving the home in disarray; the defendant claims she paid all dues, paid for repairs and cleaned thoroughly.

Plaintiff/landlord Deborah Winslow suing defendant/former tenant Destiny Willis for unpaid rent, damages, leaving the home in a terrible state.   Suing for $2,774. for back rent, trash removal, repair costs. 

Defendant claims she paid for repairs, all rent, and place was immaculate, and in counterclaiming for overpayment of rent for $5,000. 

Rent was $1990, Section 8 paid, most, and her portion was $369, later $599. Defendant moved in with two children, and a boyfriend not on the lease, and he was not allowed by Section 8.   Boyfriend was not allowed by Section 8 rules, in L.A., after 14 days he had to be put on the lease, and rent would be recalculated by Section 8 for his income.  

Security was $3,000, and plaintiff gave defendant $1,029 back because she had issues.   Defendant claims she didn't agree to the $1,029 rebate.   Defendant claims lease and agreement submitted by plaintiff are forgeries. 

If Section 8 paid the security deposit, why would the plaintiff or judges give her the $3,000 back?   

Defendant says plaintiff illegally charged her late fees, and money for deadbeat boyfriend moving in.   She claims she overpaid from 2019 to 2024. 

Plaintiff claims defendant owes her $3,000 for late fees and unpaid rent. 

Defendant actually moved in with two kids, the boyfriend, and the older son too.   Judge Juarez points out that the agreement between the litigants was illegal for the boyfriend or older son or whoever moved in to be there outside the Section 8 lease.   That's because tenants all have to get their income included.   So litigants bypassed Section 8 on the extra illegal tenants.

Defendant wants the extra rent she paid for the extra tenant and late fees is what she wants back. 

Defendant lodged several complains with Section 8 about landlord. The Section 8 worker says the money defendant claims was either for late fees, that plaintiff says was the payment for the illegal tenants.  

Judge J points out that defendant had security deposit paid by Section 8, so paying her anything would be a windfall. 

Everything dismissed, both litigants are coming to court with unclean hands. 

 

“Lone-ly Neighbor”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  136

p.  47, 2 May 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

17 April

“Getting Kitty Wit It”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  46

p.  52, 14 November 2024

“Lash Clash”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  142

p. 48, 10 May 2024

 

18 April

“Dept. of Water & Powerless”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  78

p. 54, 31 January 2025

 

“I Don’t Give a Deposit”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  185

p. 50, 6 September 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/15/2025 at 3:22 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Ja'Neysha Dampier vs.  Virtue Gonzalez) 

WT actual F did I just see? Now I can't unsee it. 😱

On 4/15/2025 at 5:00 PM, patty1h said:

I can't stop staring at Virtue's nose.

I think the W.C. Fields look was heightened because she has no upper teeth.

 

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Lash Clash”

I watched this finally. Eyelash extensions. Glue dripping around your eyes. We are informed that the Fake Eyelash Community is fully aware that eyelash extensions should not get wet!

As much as I despise getting old, I'm so thankful I didn't grow up in an era where I felt it obligatory to have fake hair, fake brows, fake eyelashes, fake lips, fake boobs, fake nails, and a fake butt.  Our plaintiff here ticked a few of those boxes at her young age. 

Think of all the money I saved by sticking with mascara, lipstick, and blush, and I even made do with boobs&butt au natural! 🤑

 

I didn't want to know, but I had to do this, kind of like when you know the milk is sour, but you just have to smell it.  Yes, we do have eyelash ambassadors:

Quote

An eyelash ambassador is a person who represents and promotes a specific eyelash brand, product, or service. They are essentially a spokesperson for the brand, helping to increase awareness, drive sales, and build a positive brand image. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

21 April

“Sister Oh Sister”

New, Season 11, Episode  122

(Wendell Daugherty Jr and Robin Wade vs. Crystal D.Wade )       

From the show site: The defendant is accused of spreading damaging lies about the plaintiff.

Plaintiff/sister Wendell Daugherty and Robin Wade suing defendant /sister Chrystal D. Wade for defamation.  Suing for $5,000. Plaintiff says sister is jealous of her, and has been escalating her attacks  on social media.    

Defendant says she told the truth, and it's not defamation when it's the truth.  

Plaintiffs are dating, and have been for a few years.    Robin tells the relationship with her sister.  

Defendant says sister has been awful to her since defendant's daughter was incarcerated.  The postings claim defendant slept with plaintiff boyfriend just to hurt her sister.  

Wendell denies any sexual relationship with Crystal, and says she made a pass at him, and he rebuffed her.  Defendant keeps posting that she slept with Wendell.  

Defendant claims Robin betrayed her many times.  She also posted that Wendell was sleeping with Robin's daughter and with other women.  She also posted her sister's personal medical history too.  After defendant posted her nasty information, plaintiff cut Crystal off. 

Corriero says plaintiffs had to prove that Wendell didn't have sex with Defendant, but says everything she did was to turn the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

 

“Little Pink House”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  1

(This is part one, part two is on tomorrow)

p. 50, 9 September 2024

 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says she told the truth, and it's not defamation when it's the truth.  

Oh my goodness, today's defendant is genuinely deranged. Her behavior in court was rude, yelling and talking over judges. But she is telling the truth, believe her, and she has proof - she wrote things in her diary, what could be better as proof of her accusations? She was so blatantly nuts that I was laughing at her throughout the case. Yes, I am a bad person, I should not laugh at this nasty hateful person be-clowning herself on national TV.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Little Pink House”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  1

(This is part one, part two is on tomorrow)

Thank you. I never saw this and was tickled "pink" by this trashfest, from "Starla" with what looked like prison tats on her arms and with massive fake eyelashes, magnified by her immense black glasses, and her ratty extensions to poor Randy, who just wanted to grow mushrooms, to that sad, broken-down pink hunk of junk being dragged hither and yon after being covered with graffiti by loving uncle. I did not doubt Uncle's claim about the loud, boozy, drug-fuelled parties in the heap. Starla has the appearance of one who enjoys imbibing a little too much.

All this in one lovely family. I was eagerly looking forward to Uncle's video, which was so bad that Starla felt the need to apologize in advance for what I'm sure was horrific, savage behavior on her part. Alas, I did not see it. The shock from an 88-year-old man passing away could not wait for the news hour and intruded at that moment.

I read the review from @CrazyInAlabamaand it seems I might get to see it tomorrow if nothing else untoward happens, necessitating it being horned into again.

[CrazyInAlabama]

22 April

“You Want a Pizza Me”

New, Season 11, Episode  123

(Samantha "Saylor" Robeson vs.  Jeff Letey)

From the show site: Plaintiff accuses defendant of being a terrible boss, paying her late and refusing to pay her for hours worked; defendant claims he hired plaintiff out of sympathy.

Plaintiff/former employee Samantha "Saylor" Robeson claims defendant Jeff Letey was a terrible boss, paid her late, refused to pay for hours worked. Suing for $ . She claims the pizza cart was moldy. 

She shows some artsy video of her dancing around at the pizza cart.   She claims there wasn't a work schedule.  

Defendant says he hired plaintiff out of pity.  He says she had mental issues, was not consisent showing up for work.   The store was a pizza cart.  He says he didn't pay her for when she didn't perform her work duties. 

Defendant is counter claiming because he says plaintiff called the health department saying the cart was moldy, and he's never had a health inspection issues.

However, plaintiff was paid off the books. 

Tewolde says $260 owed to plaintiff for wages. 

Plaintiff receives $263.

 

“Crumblin’ Down”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  2

(This is part 2 of Little Pink House)

p. 10 September 2024

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Samantha "Saylor" Robeson vs.  Jeff Letey)

What was with Bozo and his Technicolour Billygoat Beard?

"I'm a crazy hippy," he says. 🙄 What does being a "hippy" have to do with unsanitary food carts, hiring someone with mental issues (so he says) who posts her cringeworthy "dancing" on stupid social media while on the job, and being such a slack-jaw he tokes up (I can hear him saying, "That's some good shit") instead of running even such a penny-ante business properly, and can't pay his employees? Hey, Mr. Hippy - you hired "Saylor" and kept her for at least three years!

I couldn't take any more of him and cut it off.

"You Want a Pizza Me"? If I didn't know better, I'd say they hired Levin to write these goofy titles.

I'll have to save Starla and her pink party junk pile for later.

[AngelaHunter]

Re: Starla and the Funky Bunch. It almost seems you'd have to really work at it to get this utterly trashy. That video was quite a treat.

Fistfights, foul language, concussions, getting knocked down, aneurysms, brain operations, trashing dwellings, and other assorted savagery which are just part of their trashy lives, but the best was how proud Starla seemed to have "knocked out" some other trashy woman at a "Hillbilly Party".

In the deliberations, I was getting a little worried that there might be some kind of reward for Starla's trashiness. Surprisingly, Papa was the first to say they got nothing, even if he did get on his soapbox about family love and all that nonsense. Yeah, right.

I loved when J. Juarez gave the verdict, and Starla started to get all puffed up, fairly shaking with excitement when she thought she was getting thousands of dollars, (I'm sure she was visualizing a huge, celebratory Hillbilly Party/drunken brawl)and then her face fell when they awarded the Def the same amount. Haha!

"Intentional infliction of emotional distress." I wonder how long it took Starla to Google that and memorize it.

[DoctorK]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

What was with Bozo and his Technicolour Billygoat Beard?

This case puzzled me. Which one of the litigants is the flakiest? They seemed to be competing for the title. I laughed out loud when Saylor explained that she couldn't use the permits that Mr. Hippy gave her to go to a show and make some money selling from her pizza cart: "I couldn't go because my dog had fleas". That is original (dumb but original). Neither one of these idiots is smart enough to come in out of the rain. And, Saylor's dancing was ghastly.

[CrazyInAlabama]

23 April

“Sibling Bond”

New, Season 11, Episode  124

(LaTonya Pollard  vs. Darren Stanton)       

From the show site: The plaintiff claims she paid her half-sibling's bail and wasn't reimbursed; the defendant denies asking for bail money.

Plaintiff/sister LaTonya Pollard suing half sibling brother/defendant Darren Stanton for bail. Suing for $1,000 for the bail money, and emotional plus financial distress $1500, so a total of $2500. Bail was $75,000, and $7500 had to be posted to get brother out of jail.  Plaintiff charged $1,000 to her credit card.  

Defendant says he never asked for the bail to be paid. Instead of repaying sister for bail, defendant bought a car.   

Judge Tewolde asks plaintiff if she gave brother enough time to repay her, and she says she did.   Brother also had $13,000 refund for taxes, he says not $13,000, but he paid her $250. 

Plaintiff already paid over $300 in interest on her credit card. 

Plaintiff receives $1,000 for the loan, and the interest only on the loan amount was offset by the $250 deadbeat brother paid her. 

 

“BBs, RVs & Caddys”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 11

p. 51, 23 September 2024 (This is the one in the TV ad, talking about the only witness is a cat).

 

Edited April 23 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, DoctorK said:

"I couldn't go because my dog had fleas".

I see I was right to check out before this case was dumbed down even further.

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The plaintiff claims she paid her half-sibling's bail and wasn't reimbursed;

I had to bail on this, too. I was trying to imagine saying that my brother "was only in jail for a few days" as though it was just an "Oh, well. No biggie."

Papa asks Def, "Do you know the difference between a moral obligation and a legal obligation?"

Really, Papa? Did you expect an answer other than "No"?  I quit there.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

24 April

“The Final Countdown”

New, Season 11, Episode  125

(Leticia and Eddie Ramires vs. Carina Michel) 

From the show site: The plaintiffs claim they paid a year's rent upfront, faced delays in repairs, and didn't receive their security deposit on time.

Plaintiffs/former tenants Leticia and Eddie Ramirez suing defendant/ former landlord Carina Michel for security deposit, and want $5,000 (double their original security deposit), including rent paid.  After move out, plaintiffs claim their security deposit was never returned.  Rent was $38000 for the year. 

Defendant say after tenants moved out the place was destroyed, and the yard was trashed, and there were a lot of animals that were not permitted.   Defendant says the wife said she had received a settlement, and could pay the rent and deposit up front.  

Plaintiff says the shower leaked, and toilet leaked.  Settlement came from wife's inheritance.    

Corriero asks the plaintiff about the notice from defendant about the security, and Ms. Ramirez is careful to say the notice was received 27 days after move out, not the required 21 days.   Defendant says the gardener was afraid of the plaintiff's two large dogs, and defendant claims the dogs were aggressive.   Plaintiff Eddie says dogs were not dangerous, and blames everything on the gardener trespassing.  Gardener coming to the home was in the lease.  Plaintiff claims her husband was incarcerated for the entire time she lived in the house.  So, who was the man who told the gardener not to come back?  

Judge Tewolde objects to the evidence pictures of the before and after of the back yard, ground is totally bare. Judge T says she can't see damages.  Also, one french door is destroyed, obviously by dogs.   

I expect ass kissing from Corriero to the plaintiffs, but Tewolde is being very critical of the defendant also.  Damages were the doors, floors, air conditioning piping ripped by the dogs, backyard repair.  Judge Juarez says the 21 days is absolute, and invoices were sent to plaintiff by certified mail.   Judge J can't get over the handyman fixing the door, and air conditioner.  

The judges agree the preliminary letter, and the itemized bills is sufficient by the landlord.  

They disallow the air conditioning bill and deep cleaning bill.  

THere is no reason why the handyman couldn't have contacted the a/c person.

$1740 for damages, so $1760 to plaintiff.   I totally disagree. 

 

“Godmother May I”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  7

p. 51, 17 September 2024

 

25 April

“Somebunny’s in Trouble”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  44

p. 52, 12 November 2024

“Wristbanned”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 12

p. 51, 24 September 2024