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]

  On 3/24/2025 at 9:34 PM, DoctorK said:

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

Expand  

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]

  On 3/25/2025 at 7:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Diego Lojero and Desmond Noble vs.Verna McNealy )   

Expand  

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]

  On 3/26/2025 at 7:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Auto-Matic Disaster”

Expand  

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 Thursday at 07:33 PM by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

  On 3/27/2025 at 7:27 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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]

  On 3/28/2025 at 9:07 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

Expand  

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).