Hot Bench - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

Not sure if these were new or not - I just finished watching while I ate and can barely remember them. My HB provider is the same one that provides my TPC - and they have yet to sync what I see to what they say will be on. 

1st case fussy homeowner hires landscaper working across street to come redo her landscaping - planning to pay big bucks and gives a $500 deposit. Not sure these two ever really had a deal, as their stories are so different. Homeowner claims guy showed up late on first day, worked 4 hours and never came back. Landscaper agrees he was late first day, couldn't work second day cuz granny died, and when he next showed up she had someone else ready to take over the job....... oh, and both agree 'time was of the essence' as she wanted work done by certain date....... neither side very honest - as DiM points out homeowner has crappy b&w pic showing hospital little dude did while he had much better color pic...... split decision, but can't remember what they decided 

2nd case pretty straight forward about a used car lemon deal - unique thing about this lemon is they aren't fighting over the car deal, but over who should pay the parking tickets clunker got after it broke down - Judges aren't even sure who sold D the heap - car registered to P, but he says he gave it to a brother in law when he learned it wasn't worth repairing and gave it or sold it someone else - somehow D got possession and gave someone  $500 for the POS -  D had it for 4 months and then takes it on a 12-13 hour road trip to LA - D leaves it on a side street and it gets a couple tickets - thing is, P as registered owner gets tickets in mail, pays them off, and now wants D to pay - D says she shouldn't have to pay since it was a POS - Judges say doesn't matter who owned car, she was driving when it crapped out and they were her tickets - D ordered to pay

This could have been kind of interesting. At one time, not sure if it's still the case, the seller of a used car in California was responsible for the car until it passed the smog test - even to the point where the buyer could spend more than the car was worth getting it to pass smog and seller would have to pay. Wouldn't have changed decision here as Judges decided D owed for the tickets....... but, California folks, is it still the case D could have paid to repair car to get it to pass smog and demand payment?

Edited October 29, 2020 by SRTouch

[Carolina Girl]

22 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Not sure if these were new are not - I just finished watching while I ate and can barely remember them. My HB provider is the same one ghat I get TPC from - and they have yet to sync what I see to what they say will be on. 

1st case fussy homeowner hires landscaper working across street to come redo her landscaping - planning to pay big bucks and gives a $500 deposit. Not sure these two ever really had a deal, as their stories are so different. Homeowner claims guy showed up late on first day, worked 4 hours and never came back. Landscaper agrees he was late first day, couldn't work second day cuz granny died, and when he next showed up she had someone else ready to take over the job....... oh, and both agree 'time was of the essence' as she wanted work done by certain date....... neither side very honest - as DiM points out homeowner has crappy b&w pic showing hospital little dude did while he had much better color pic...... split decision, but can't remember what they decided 

2nd case pretty straight forward about a used car lemon deal - unique thing about this lemon is they aren'the fighting over the car deal, but over who should pay the parking tickets clunker got after it broke down - Judges aren't even sure who sold D the heap - car registered to P, but he says he gave it to a brother in law when he learned it wasn't worth repairing and gave it or sold it someone else - somehow D got possession and gave someone  $500 for the POS -  D had it for 4 months and then takes it on a 12-13 hour road trip to LA - D leaves it on a side street and it gets a couple tickets - thing is, P as registered owner gets tickets in mail, pays them off, and now wants D to pay - D says she should have to pay since it was a POS - Judges say doesn't matter who owned car, she was driving when it cropped out and they were her tickets - D ordered to pay

This could have been kind of interesting. At one time, not sure if it's still the case, the seller of a used car in California was responsible for the car until it passed the smog test - even to the point where the buyer could spend more than the car was worth getting it to pass smog and seller would have to pay. Wouldn't have changed decision here as Judges decided D owed for the tickets....... but, California folks, is it still the case D could have paid to repair car to get it to 0ass smog and demand payment?

In California, when you sell a used car, Vehicle Code Section 240007(b)(2) provides as follows:

"The seller shall provide the purchaser a valid certificate of compliance or certificate of noncompliance, as appropriate, issued in accordance with Section 44015 of the Health and Safety Code."  (aka the smog certificate)

Most buyers are not aware that under the law, the seller that must either provide you the certificate to you or inform you if it will fail smog.  

 

 

[SRTouch]

interstate move and cheap becomes expensive: P hired D to move her household goods from California to Georgia, except he isn't a mover and doesn't know what size truck he'll need to do job - If i got this right, P sent D  estimates (more expensive) from a couple professionals who showed what was to be moved, but D shows up in a truck to small to fit everything - he tries to modify the deal, saying he'll make the move in two trips instead of one - but now P has realized he doesn't know what he's doing, backs out and wants the $6800 deposit back (most HB can award is 5 grand grand) - may actually work out to a better deal for D than making trip twice, since he was paying to fly himself and a helper to California plus paying the helper - P gets back 5 grand and D keeps $1800

2nd case is nonsensical loan/investment deal between old friends with neither side having any evidence only evidence in case is a copy of a personal check made out to defendant - these two are men who admit they know nothing about hair extensions, but the 'investment' is to buy hair for some acquaintance of D so she can start doing extensions in her salon - I was laughing so much at the combined stupidity I'm not sure if we ever heard the name of mystery woman - between the two they have nothing in writing, no texts between each other or mystery woman, who I gather P never met, just the personal check made out to D - I was highly skeptical of whole thing and would have just dismissed it - Judge Mike also for dismissal, saying P didn't prove his complaint - but the women, based on fact that D admits he received the money and acted as the go between, hear enough to decide he either stole the money or was conned out of it when he failed to properly safeguard it - they are also highly suspicious of D because mystery woman supposedly took a grand and ghosted, but D didn't report it to police.......... 

Edited October 30, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/29/2020 at 7:57 PM, SRTouch said:

interstate move and cheap becomes expensive:

The cheap really does always come out expensive, it seems. Someone I used to work with used to say, "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys." The plaintiffs in these cases really aren't  innocent victims, since if they have a normal intelligence they have to realize the cheap price comes with a cost. And we even get the old, tired, "My grandma died" excuse, which the judges accept as gospel.

[AZChristian]

17 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

And we even get the old, tired, "My grandma died" excuse, which the judges accept as gospel.

I used to work for a large health insurance company.  It got so ridiculous with a few employees and their frequent needs for time off for dead relatives that the company instituted a policy:  paid bereavement time off for funerals would only be approved with proof of death and proof of familial relationship.  If proof were not available, employees would have to use vacation hours.

The only people who were offended by the policy were the people who had been "needing" that time off.  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I used to work for a large health insurance company.  It got so ridiculous with a few employees and their frequent needs for time off for dead relatives that the company instituted a policy:  paid bereavement time off for funerals would only be approved with proof of death and proof of familial relationship.  If proof were not available, employees would have to use vacation hours.

The only people who were offended by the policy were the people who had been "needing" that time off.  

I was wishing these judges - or any judges - would ask, "What was your grandma's name? How long was she ill? What did she die from? What was her phone number?" and I'm sure we'd hear a bunch of "Ummms" or, as we often hear from our learned, lying litigants, "I don't feel that's relevant."

For those too old to have grandmas and instead have a "family emergency" they should have to explain the nature of the emergency that rendered them unable to perform jobs for which they have been paid and which relative was involved in this crisis. Maybe the judges just ignore it because they know it's a bunch of BS, on par with, "I don't have them texes. I dropped my phone in the toilet", or "My insurance overlapped the very day I crashed into his/her car".

[Taeolas]

Hot Bench has run out of canned episodes and now has Post-COVID cases. They had 1 case today (a celebration cancelled due to COVID), in an empty court room with a new bench that spreads the judges out. 

They also stay at the bench (without the litigants) to do their deliberation now.

And on a different note, I do wish My38 would fix their Hot Bench schedule; my cable system lists both the 9 and 9:30 episodes (Eastern) as the exact same episodes, even though the second is an older repeat. It's annoying when I try to get both eps recorded. 

[Florinaldo]

Predictably, the judges treated the cancelled sweet 16 party case as if that was the saddest tragedy in recent human memory. All that as a prelude to playing sollicitous grandpa and empathetic aunties to lift up the girl's spirits (although she did not seem that much affected by events, except when required to call up the appearance of incipient tears).

Defendant lost a few sympathy points when she used the SSM card to justify her not being open to alternative means of providing services for the deposit.

Their new bench looks as if it could house the whole SCOTUS (pre-COVID).

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Predictably, the judges treated the cancelled sweet 16 party case as if that was the saddest tragedy in recent human memory

I just watched this. Was this the first "social distance" case on HB? Yeah, SSM with one chick orders a custom made dress (even Papa Mike noted that it appeared to be a wedding dress) for her very large daughter to wear to her birthday party. I know and understand that in some cultures this a huge deal, but it makes me wonder what the girl's actual wedding will be like? How to top that gown? It was more elaborate and probably cost more than my actual wedding dress.

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Their new bench looks as if it could house the whole SCOTUS (pre-COVID)

That's some looooong bench!

Then we had baby momma and her criminal baby daddy. Their child is, of course, autistic - I'm seeing this more and more - and gets social security of some sort since criminal baby daddy pays zero support. He gets incarcerated for a weapons and "exotic drug" drug charge and bail is 10K. Must have been a lot of weapons and exotic drugs. I'm sure he was a model citizen when baby momma decided to get it on and have a child with him. Instead of letting him rot in the slammer, SSM pays 2K for his bail. Why? He doesn't support the fruit of his loins anyway. He (and baby momma too) seem to find something amusing about all this and he says the bail was a "gift". The judges are very sympathetic to the SSM's bad judgment and stupidity and give her the 2K.

I also watched the horrific gang of squatting behemoths, including a momma in a lumberjack shirt whose daughter brags about her "bad temper" which to her is natural since she was in the military. They are suing the def. who looks and sounds actually nutso and launches into some story about marrying someone and being held hostage in the Middle East or something and ending up homeless. All this might be entertaining were not for the fact they say they all work caring for the elderly. It wasn't nearly so funny then. This is what the elderly get? A bunch of loonies who can't and won't pay rent and have vicious tempers? I hope I die before I get old enough to have to depend on cretins like these.

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Predictably, the judges treated the cancelled sweet 16 party case as if that was the saddest tragedy in recent human memory. All that as a prelude to playing sollicitous grandpa and empathetic aunties to lift up the girl's spirits (although she did not seem that much affected by events, except when required to call up the appearance of incipient tears).

Defendant lost a few sympathy points when she used the SSM card to justify her not being open to alternative means of providing services for the deposit.

Their new bench looks as if it could house the whole SCOTUS (pre-COVID).

These covid cases are quickly becoming worse then useless - when the city/state shuts down the party vendors have to refund the money...... simple - so far I've been sympathetic to both sides - except the one Washington State wedding when defendant/venue dude trailed guests and invaded an alternate  (smaller Wedding party venue) and threatened to sic state on the wedding party

[AZChristian]

I can't figure out how vendors think they get to keep money when the contract is NOT breached by one of the parties to the contract.  The government VOIDED all contracts like this by closing down the state.  Neither party could legally fulfill the contract.

Defendant's attitude was the pits.  She's a SSM, so she should get to keep the money of another SSM for doing nothing?  That's like having a restaurant contact people who had dining reservations that had to be cancelled, then calling all the diners and saying, "You still have to pay me because my business is hurting.  No, I'm not going to fix you any food.  Just pay me."

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, SRTouch said:

These covid cases are quickly becoming worse then useless

Yes, useless just like all those "I bought an 18-year-old hoopty as-is. It conked out and now I want the 850$ I paid back, plus 4,150$ for my pain, suffering, and aggravation."

 

14 hours ago, AZChristian said:

That's like having a restaurant contact people who had dining reservations that had to be cancelled, then calling all the diners and saying, "You still have to pay me because my business is hurting.  No, I'm not going to fix you any food.  Just pay me."

It's exactly like that! "My restaurant burned down but everyone who had reservations has to pay me anyway. I need the money."

[Taeolas]

On 11/2/2020 at 12:46 PM, Taeolas said:

And on a different note, I do wish My38 would fix their Hot Bench schedule; my cable system lists both the 9 and 9:30 episodes (Eastern) as the exact same episodes, even though the second is an older repeat. It's annoying when I try to get both eps recorded. 

Gotta wonder if the networks are watching threads like this. Literally a day or two after I posted this, My38's scheduling suddenly fixed itself and my PVR guide is showing 2 different eps an hour instead of 2 repeated eps. 🙂

[patty1h]

I had little sympathy for the plaintiff Nicole, who got engaged to an unemployed bipolar man 2 months after meeting him (besides those issues, we also learn that he's drugging and drinking and threatening suicide).  Soon, she's taking out $6K loans to buy rings and signing a lease with him. 

When the judges ask her what did she learn from this fiasco, her answer is "make sure the man has a job".   The problem is that she's making HIM the cause of her problems... Sis, you need to look at why YOU made this decision.  She's a classic example of someone who made a bunch of bad choices.  Judge Judy would probably have made Nicole eat the whole debt as a lesson ("dumb is forever") and just given her the TV she left with the defendant and I would have been nodding.

Edited November 9, 2020 by patty1h
they were engaged, not married

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, patty1h said:

I had little sympathy for the plaintiff Nicole, who got engaged to an unemployed bipolar man 2 months after meeting him

Her terminal, rabid desperation (I think this was one of the worst cases ever)- to meet some stranger online, fly out to where he is and then declare you're engaged after a few weeks? He's drugging and drinking, is unemployed, and is bi-polar, none of which she bothered to find out before hot-footing to him. The engagement ring is so much more important that all those petty details. Another case of "Any man is better than no man" which never seems to work out well. Those texts, where he's holding on to her big red and black underpants, but not wearing them, made me a little queasy. Personally I'd have taken the loss rather than stand there and let the world know what a pathetic fool I am. The green hair and nose ring (which always bring to my mind images of truffle-sniffing pigs) are doing her no favours.

The nasty hag who actually stole all the old couple's furniture was pretty disgusting and she deserved a more serious spanking than she got. Yeah, she'll sell all their stuff and they will have the money in hand the day after the sale. She says they agreed that anything not sold in 90 days becomes her property to do with as she pleases. Her assistant says they give such things to a church for charity. Except they didn't, and the judges pretty quickly figure out that's a nifty way for her to keep everything in storage, never show it ("Oh, sorry. It never sold.") and then sell it after 90 days pass. Def says she's been doing these estate sales for 15 years, yet in this case and even though she went to plaintiffs' house to examine and inventory the items, never noticed it was all dilapidated junk. I hate people who take advantage of others just because they think they can. I'm pretty sure that beast thought these elderly people would do nothing about this scam. 5K for plaintiffs and a shaming for def. I wish this case had been on TPC. Judge Milian would have reamed her out but good.

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The green hair and nose ring (which always bring to my mind images of truffle-sniffing pigs) are doing her no favours.

So was that just one nose ring, or was it three?  Whatever it was, it was ugly.

[patty1h]

Today's case had the toxic relationship between the Meza brothers, particularly the brother (Fred?) who was deeply mired in bitterness, paranoia and delusion.  He was sure that Danilo Meza was misusing their dead mothers money, and even thought that Danilo had poisoned their parents.  I'm not totally on board with Danilo's wife being paid $15K cause it kinda sorta could be construed as taking an unfair cut, but I also see that if the wife was a dedicated caretaker, she earned it.

That letter that Fred wrote to their church pastor was bananas, full of crazy talk about murder and getting justice.   His rant about his brothers medical background being a way to cover for harming their parents was another red flag.  If I were Danilo's kids, I wouldn't want to be within 50 feet of wacky uncle Fred.  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Today's case had the toxic relationship between the Meza brothers

Oh, my! Accusations of theft, misappropriation of funds, and DEATH SOUP! Yes, def's wife deliberately whipped up a batch of 'death soup' for the parents, knowing it would cause them to aspirate it and die. He now wants to brew the "soup of justice". "He's a killer", Fred says of his brother, even while the judges are handing down their decision and informing Fred he may want to consider counseling. Fred already got 230,000K but he wants more because he thinks his brother padded the bill to his lawyer. I've never hired a lawyer, but 13K in 3 years doesn't sound particularly outrageous to me. Def's wife cared for the brothers' mother for 3 months while she lived in, up until the mother's passing, not something I'd be particularly anxious to do. Does Fred know how much it would have cost to keep her in a care facility? Would Fred have done that job? Fred doesn't understand why niece and nephew - who were quite articulate when questioned by the judges -  no longer want to be in his life. It might have something to do with Fred calling their parents thieves and killers. I believe he really doesn't understand any of this because Fred is a very sick, paranoid person.

[Florinaldo]

When one of the judges, Acker I think, called him "paranoid", I thought that was a euphemism! He also adds a strong dollop of delusion to the mix, seeing himself as his nephew's "best friend" and the one who should teach him how to drive and guide him through other rites of passage. It did not seem to register with him that the nephew and niece came across as having made on their own the quite mature and rational choice of not wanting to have anything to do with him, with no need of brainwashing by the father.

I also thought that the judges could have done better in their examination. For example asking for proof that the lawyer cashed a check or gave a receipt for payment, just to counter one his many wild accusations. They could also have counseled the father to give a better regular formal accounting of expenses made by the trust, something any trustee should do (legal requirements may vary from state to state and depend on the terms of the trust). I am quite willing to accept that the mother earned the money she received, but a detailed report of every financial operation would have helped refute the plaintiff's crazy theories (although he would never accept any concrete proof that goes against his fantasies).

Also, at the end he called his brother a killer and DiMango said "therein lies the problem", to which he responded "exactly", obviously thinking she agreed with him; she should have corrected him on the spot but I suppose that at that point the judges were all eager to move on from this family's grotesque drama.

I am certain defendants have not heard the last from their loony uncle and brother.

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

He also adds a strong dollop of delusion to the mix, seeing himself as his nephew's "best friend"

And his nephew's "brother"! He sounded like some completely-off-the-rails fantatical evangelist. No one could change his mind.

 

6 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

she should have corrected him on the spot

I'm sure she's seen enough loonies to know there was no point. Yes, I'm also sure defs haven't heard the last from Fred. I just fear some violence may be involved next time, when he feels retribution and a settling of accounts is his.

[patty1h]

Fred Meza will never be happy because he's too busy looking into his brothers pocket, instead of building a nice life for himself with the $230K he'd already gotten.   He's too busy worrying about half of $13K or whatever to see that he's pushing the nephew he wants to mentor away with his fanatical rantings.   Sounds like old Fred must have spent/used/wasted his share and is going to nickel and dime his long-suffering brother for every penny he thinks he can still get his hands on.   Then again, isn't the rule that you can't sue for the same thing twice, so Fred can't go to another court seeking these funds, right?

[Florinaldo]

12 hours ago, patty1h said:

Then again, isn't the rule that you can't sue for the same thing twice, so Fred can't go to another court seeking these funds, right?

His kind are imaginative enough that he will come up with different trumped-up reasons to sue or otherwise harrass his relatives. If it reaches a certain level of excess, they could ask that he be declared a vexatious litigant, which would limit his freedom to bring just any lawsuit at the drop of a hat. But he would certainly find other avenues.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

If Mr. Fred thought his brother and wife were up to no good and plotting the demise of the mother with the lethal soup, why didn't he say, "That's too much work for your wife. Let's hire a live-in nurse and I'll pay half."? After all, he just got a windfall of nearly a quarter of a million. He could have done that if he didn't trust his sister-in-law and didn't want her to have the money. He didn't, and just wants to squawk while someone else does all the dirty work.

I certainly wouldn't want him brainwashing "mentoring" my kids.

[Carolina Girl]

19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

13K in 3 years doesn't sound particularly outrageous to me.

$500 an hour isn't unusual for a trust lawyer, so you are only looking at 26 hours worth of work, or perhaps 8.5 hours a YEAR.   (I don't recall where they live, but if it's California - $500 is extremely cheap for a good trust attorney.)

Fred is in dire need of mental health services - I am more concerned with the two kids - he is OBSESSED with having a relationship with them.  And Fred needs to watch himself.  Danilo's wife has excellent grounds for a slander, libel and defamation suit against him, especially since he made these statements in a letter t a third party, if I recall correctly.  Technically. you cannot sue for what an individual says in court, but hell, this delusional clown has probably been telling people all over town that his sister-in-law killed his parents.  

18 hours ago, patty1h said:

Then again, isn't the rule that you can't sue for the same thing twice, so Fred can't go to another court seeking these funds, right?

Yes.  It's called "res judicata."  Also, these shows require that you sign a waiver agreeing to "binding arbitration" by the judges on these shows.  Fred is out of luck.   

[AngelaHunter]

Papa Mike? I'm sure you're a lovely person but you need to retire. I thought the other two might bop him over the head today. P is suing D for backing out of a parking space without looking and hitting his car in the rear passenger area. He was in the driving lane and had the right of way. Beastly Def bellows, gestures, and flips her weave as she explains she simply cannot park her humungeous truck in those little, tiny parking spaces the way other people manage to do, but must leave the ass-end of it sticking way out in the driving lanes. Of course she had no insurance. She had been sitting there, blocking traffic for at least 1 1/2 hrs. So what? She was smoking a cigarette with her arm hanging out the window and didn't even move her truck, so P must have been driving sideways in order to hit her. JDiM hates her so much she says she can't stand listening to her anymore. As the judges discuss how much P is owed, Papa Mike wants to penalize the P for "contributory negligence" because he was driving in a place where he was permitted to drive and had the right of way. Somehow he should have divined that Def was going to back out and hit him (even though she never moved her vehicle) and taken measures to avoid the collision. The other two get mighty hot under the collar trying to explain to him why he is dead wrong. Poor Papa. He simply cannot find someone to be a liar and hustler if that person in any way even vaguely resembles a female.

[AZChristian]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I thought the other two might bop him over the head today. P is suing D for backing out of a parking space without looking and hitting his car in the rear passenger area.

Of course she had no insurance.

She was smoking a cigarette.

If your truck is THAT big that you can't figure out how to park it without inconveniencing the rest of the world, and you can afford cigarettes but not insurance . . . you have just demonstrated three stupid decisions you've made.

I wonder how Papa Mike would have reacted if he were in the position of the plaintiff in this case.  Would he have just patted the defendant on the top of her weave and said, "That's okay.  It was my fault for coming to this parking lot"?  Yeah, he needs to be off of this show.  He adds nothing but points of view out of left field.

[Carolina Girl]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Papa Mike? I'm sure you're a lovely person but you need to retire. I thought the other two might bop him over the head today. P is suing D for backing out of a parking space without looking and hitting his car in the rear passenger area. He was in the driving lane and had the right of way. Beastly Def bellows, gestures, and flips her weave as she explains she simply cannot park her humungeous truck in those little, tiny parking spaces the way other people manage to do, but must leave the ass-end of it sticking way out in the driving lanes. Of course she had no insurance. She had been sitting there, blocking traffic for at least 1 1/2 hrs. So what? She was smoking a cigarette with her arm hanging out the window and didn't even move her truck, so P must have been driving sideways in order to hit her. JDiM hates her so much she says she can't stand listening to her anymore. As the judges discuss how much P is owed, Papa Mike wants to penalize the P for "contributory negligence" because he was driving in a place where he was permitted to drive and had the right of way. Somehow he should have divined that Def was going to back out and hit him (even though she never moved her vehicle) and taken measures to avoid the collision. The other two get mighty hot under the collar trying to explain to him why he is dead wrong. Poor Papa. He simply cannot find someone to be a liar and hustler if that person in any way even vaguely resembles a female.

I do love that almost every litigant with no insurance in these cases either had their insurance miraculously expire the same day as the accident or were on their way to renew their insurance when the accident occurred.  

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

I do love that almost every litigant with no insurance in these cases either had their insurance miraculously expire the same day as the accident or were on their way to renew their insurance when the accident occurred.  

I used to work for a non-standard (i.e., Geico doesn't want you) insurance company.  There's a reason that insurance policies are electronically (automatically) dated and TIME stamped upon purchase or renewal.  LOTS of our customers tried to buy insurance AFTER an accident and then say that the accident happened AFTER the insurance went into effect.

Trust me . . . if an accident happened within a day or two of purchase or renewal (of a "lapped" policy), the claims examiners did some serious investigation of witnesses and police reports.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I do love that almost every litigant with no insurance in these cases either had their insurance miraculously expire the same day as the accident or were on their way to renew their insurance when the accident occurred

Yes. Often it 'lapped', 'overlapped' or expired just hours before the accident because of course the insurance co. never alerts clients about this abrupt expiry. What rotten luck. I'm sure many of them were on their way to renew it - one must appear at the ins. company in person with a fistful of damp, crumpled bills to renew their insurance, right? That's the way I do it, since there is no other means of renewal.

[AngelaHunter]

Is this turning into an off-shoot of Dr. Phil? Are the judges taking psychology courses? Plaintiff, who is very skeevy with her cutesy answer as to why someone who is in the business of getting car registrations for people has no valid registration on the car she bought just days before it was smashed: "The shoemaker's kids have no shoes". But that aside, the def gets roaring drunk with her hideous boyfriend, they get into their usual fight, she gets in his car, and - in her words - closes her eyes and hits the gas. She crashes into several utility poles, smashing them, and into P's vehicles. JDiM tells def. she could have been killed. "I wish I had been", def replies. When asked to explain that she says that now she has no car (good) and must buy bus passes. Tragic. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for anyone who wants to get drunk and then drive.

Anyway, def says she was in an abusive, drunken relationship with the love of her life and was fleeing that when she decided to drive drunk. The judges award P nothing since she has zero proof she even owned this car, but JDiM asks def if she's not glad she's no longer with her boyfriend, the abusive drunken love child of the Penguin and Humpty Dumpty. "No", def replies. She still wants that man of hers! JDiM realizes all the counseling and sympathy were wasted,  gives up and just tells P her complaint is dismissed. "Of course it is" P mutters. The thing that bothered me was JDiM scolding Plaintiff, telling her( about def) "You knew her situtation"? What? what does that have to do with the law? That's the argument we hear from legions of grifters, scammers and squatters trying to weasel out of what they owe: "He/she KNEW my situation!" as though that excuses all the horrible things they did and they expect everyone to be their mommies. This is a middleged woman who made her choices - her choice to pick him, her choice to stay with him, her choice to get drunk with him and then drive. Take a taxi, an uber or even a *gasp* BUS. If she needs help, get it,(although naturally she denies she has any drinking problem) but don't endanger other people because of your decisions. Would the judges have been so sympathetic if the drunk-driving def had run down someone's kid instead of destroying property? It's just a miracle only things were wrecked and not human lives.

[Carolina Girl]

I went 180 from my initial reaction to reading the description of the case.  Not with regard to the defendant.  I have zero sympathy for anyone that gets behind the wheel of a car drunk, and from her testimony, "shut her eyes and hit the gas" - this is 9:30 at night.  People could have been taking their dogs for their final walk of the night.  Joggers, people out for a stroll or even perhaps getting in or out of their cars coming home from dinner.  She could have KILLED someone.  What I am surprised is that her insurance company even paid out on these claims since I interpreted her act to be intentional.

But the plaintiff totally lost me with the whole VIN number BS.  I could have used her testimony to fertilize my lawn.

[Carolina Girl]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Would the judges have been so sympathetic if the drunk-driving def had run down someone's kid instead of destroying property? It's just a miracle only things were wrecked and not human lives.

Loved your post.  Also that whole "oh, I can't afford to get my license back and I have no car anymore anyway."  I'm sorry, did you want me to feel sorry for you?  Because I sure as shit don't.  

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

But the plaintiff totally lost me with the whole VIN number BS.  I could have used her testimony to fertilize my lawn.

She was definitely trying to pull something.  If an insurance company told me they were going to pay me, but the VIN number on the registration was wrong, I'd be out there with my smart phone taking a picture of the VIN number on the vehicle itself.  Even if it had been junked, the junkyard would have had to confirm the correct VIN number to report it as junked.

And the fact that the plaintiff didn't even HAVE a title (just some type of "report form" for the truck) makes everything look fraudulent from her side.  I'm glad she lost her case, and they didn't even dismiss it without prejudice so she could try to find the correct VIN number and refile the case; she's done.  

[SRTouch]

3 female friends from college decide to sign a lease together on a 3 bedroom house - but even before they sign lease red flags are popping up......... seems the previous tenants were a bunch of footballers who were living like they were in an Animal House frat..... buttttt landlord promised he'd get things fixed up before they moved in - so they signed the lease....... nothing but problems during their tenancy, including the odd dude peeping through the girls' blinds which landlord never bothered to fix (I know, should say women - but they just look like kids to this old geezer)....... P finally give up on ever getting things really fixed and livable, when they leave landlord keeps $2,000 of their $3,000 deposit - and they're looking to slap D with punitive damages claiming he kept the deposit in bad faith - they want 5 grand......... hmmmmmm were they being hypersensitive or was landlord really ignoring their complaints about stuff that should have been repaired prior to moving in - we'll see, but D isn't going to get very far with judges if the preview is right and he is warned about snickering about the Ps' complaints....... course, landlord claims they left place a disaster - oh, and he had a property manager that the tenant's dealt with who is nowhere to be seen (or heard).......... sooooooo a couple weeks after P moved in they send long list of needed repairs - when I pause the list of items first thing I see is complaint of electrical outlet with exposed wires looking like it had started a fire in a closet - stove burner not working - inoperable and missing light fixtures - several electrical outlets/fixtures with no covers....... we talking actual safety hazards here not just filth left by footballers......... landlord claims there were no problems when they moved in - but they're ready with video taken on move in to disprove his claim - after video, his NO PROBLEMS changes to we (well, I guess probably missing property manager) immediately responded and made needed repairs - camera shows girls snickering and looking at each other when he says his guys were right there when they complained........ ah, these college girls just ain't playing fair, as they are ready with screenshots of various repeated complaints with no response - eventually, the 'rents get involved, and the parents calls in city code inspectors - which is when things start to get fixed......... uh, landlord has NO CREDIBILITY here, everything he says is immediately disproved by tenants, not just with words, but lots of text/screen shots/pictures/video evidence........ ah, as Acker is reading him the riot act is when he snickers - yeah, smart move dum dum, especially as he tries to teach judges all that legal jargon...... really, dude, arguing an Administrative citation is not really a citation?.......... once Acker is done tearing apart landlord, DiM begins and it's more of the same........ DiM asks how long it took to fix this or that - Landlord says property manager was on it and such and such was repaired in a couple days - and P on hand with evidence disproving pretty much everything Landlord says........ we really don't need all three judges to tear up D, he has yet to have any of his claims stand up to scrutiny - I'll be surprised if D keeps any of the over $2,000 he kept from security deposit - have to wait, but so far I'd be willing to consider their claim for punitive damages........ judge Mike gets to go over their lease - guess what, landlord failed to follow his own lease - course he shifts blame to the missing property manager, as if that would make a difference - and now it's Judge Mike snickering - after making hash of D over not following his lease, Papa Mike starts in on D's written answer - also laughable with D claiming termites are an annual event in all the houses in the area and they will be gone in a week - but he says he responded right away with an exterminator - but his own invoice from exterminator is weeks after the complaints....... and again, D insisting they responded IMMEDIATELY despite P presenting evidence that it took over again month....... only question judges have is how much to award for punitive damages........ P get back the remaining $1000 from the deposit, plus a bit -- not enough to bump it to a 5 grand case......... not sure of the math, as either I heard wrong or Acker switched numbers when announcing decision - but she says they get 3 grand.

Edited November 25, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

On 11/23/2020 at 8:13 PM, SRTouch said:

peeping through the girls blinds which landlord never bothered to fix (I know, should say women - but they just look like kids to this old geezer).

Yeah, they looked like girls to me too. The burned out electrical outlet was one thing, but are they so helpless they couldn't install some cheap horizontal blinds to keep the perv from peeking at them? And didn't they see all the faults in this place when they looked at it before moving in? They better take their mommies with them next time they want to rent. Maybe if the landlord hadn't been such a snickering, silly asshole who tries to claim termites will just go away and who found something funny in all this the ruling may have been a little different.

[patty1h]

Sugar Mama Gifts Dancer Cosmetic Surgery?    Ms. Firpo looked like a plastic sex doll and I have no sympathy for Elena Colon.  Elena gave Firpo the first $ after knowing her 10 days?!  She's just like those dumb men who fall in love with a stripper/dancer and whine how they were "scammed" out of money.  The first rule of dancing is be nice to the customers/make them think you love them.   Next, you drop hints about needing money for your car/rent/bills or how you like that Chanel bag/expensive phone/jewelry you saw at the store, etc.   It's a tale as old as time but there are new fools every day.  

If you are a grown-ass person and get "got", sucks to be you.  She was lucky that the judges decided the money for the surgery was a loan.  She should have lost that one as a lesson - don't get fooled by a pretty face, big boobs or an enhanced butt.

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by patty1h

[Florinaldo]

Up to now, I thought that only certain silly straight men got dazzled by hyper-mammal specimens with artificially inflated lips and huuuge butt implants. It appears that some women can also be attracted by the same grotesque type. I don't think she even has a "pretty face", but as a gay man, what do I know about over-Botoxed female beauty?

I am glad that the judges found a way to teach both litigants a lesson by having each be liable for part of the various competing claims, and that the greedy leech of a plaintiff came out the overall loser in the action she herself brought. Let us hope defendant has indeed learned her lesson and that the restraining order the exotic dancer was talking about was just her venting hot air or will be an unnecessary expense on her part.

I may be mistaken, but haven't we seen the plaintiff before on another TV court show? Or it may simply be that people who abuse various plastic surgeries and associated treatments eventually end up all looking the same.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Florinaldo

[patty1h]

7 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I may be mistaken, but haven't we seen the plaintiff before on another TV court show? Or it may simply be that people who abuse various plastic surgeries and associated treatments eventually end up all looking the same.

I don't recall seeing Firpo (first name?) on any other court show, but as soon as I clapped eyes on her, I said to myself "she went to the surgeon and asked for the Kardashian special, with extra lip plumping".  Sheesh.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

she went to the surgeon and asked for the Kardashian special

Another standard of so-called beauty I am quite impervious to, but which is indeed quite popular.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Another standard of so-called beauty I am quite impervious to, but which is indeed quite popular.

Mr. AZC opined that her next lawsuit should be against the plastic surgeon who did that to her butt.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Another standard of so-called beauty I am quite impervious to, but which is indeed quite popular.

Everybody has their preferences, sort of like the eternal debate about WKRP, Loni or Bailey? I was always on the Bailey side.

[AngelaHunter]

17 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Up to now, I thought that only certain silly straight men got dazzled by hyper-mammal specimens with artificially inflated lips and huuuge butt implants.

Don't forget the glued-on talons. No men I've ever known were dazzled by fake everything, enlarged and enhanced to a grotesque level.  Likewise, I find men blown up with steroids and shaved as smooth as newborn babies to be hideous in the extreme. I like natural, myself.

I haven't sen Firpo yet, but will make a point to catch her tonight. I guess the Kardashians really are the standard to which many women aspire.

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

Well, the Firpo caper surprised me. That's good. Our go-to cases like this always involve dirty old men showering strippers, Hooter's girls and even cashiers with money and gifts in hopes of getting their liver-spotted hands on some young stuff. But the def was a woman, willing to hand over thousands of dollars to some Kardashian knock-off bimbo for designer bags, cosmetic surgery and vet bills (can't see Firpo spending money on dogs when she can spend it on herself) but def was so anxious to have the understanding and sympathetic, but big as a house (butt implants?) Firpo as a confident and therapist (and maybe a lot more) that money was no object. I can picture Firpo extolling to her circle of friends that she had a live one on the hook.

As for the def - we've all been in terribly vulnerable places, even worse than having a relationship breaking up. I know I have but it never occured to me to wander down to the male strip joint, find a dancer and start throwing money at him. There are many ways to start healing from a broken heart and this is not the one I'd recommend.

[TVMovieBuff]

I am dumbfounded by the number of women, even SSM's who will give out large sums of money to men they don't know. And it is doubly annoying when the men say "it was a gift." 

When I was younger I had a boyfriend for 2 years. He didn't like any of the gifts I got him the first Christmas we had together. He returned all of them for the money. So for the second Christmas, I put $75 in a Christmas card and said "Merry Christmas". THAT'S a gift. 

I like Judge DiMango, she is funny and self-effacing. Corriero may be biased towards women but he is a silver fox.

[SRTouch]

One new - 1 old...... here's the new one

New case, but it's a dog attack......... German Shepherd attacks little dog........ no real defense, GS owner trying to use self defense, but story is all over the place - bottom line is no one was in control of the GS, and adult brother was either down the block, in back yard, or maybe coming out the front door when GS got out - say little dog, which was actually with a family member on a walk, say the GS and charged....... ok, dogs don't think size, and little dogs sometimes attack big ones......... biggy is GS unleashed and roaming and crosses street to attack - little dog leashed, with an adult, and across street when attack happens (P claims on her property, which D disputes)........ no defense - D lucky that P shopped around trying to find cheaper vet......... D lose even more points when Judge Mike acts if her dog is related to Rin Tin Tin and Ds have no clue....... by the end Judge Acker has D admitting their defense is nonsense, but still insisting "not my dog! She's friendly." Adult brother witness was no help, story all over and just wanted to argue even after judges clearly ruling against him............  P gets vet bills, little over a grand

Edited January 4, 2021 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

longtime (60years) friendship bites the dust over loan: P says she loaned her friend 5 grand to help her business, but when time to pay up good friend started ghosting - says she did some sleuthing and discovered friend involved in multiple lawsuits and was surprised her friend was so dishonest....... defendant argues the 5 grand was an investment, never a loan, and reason business failed was due to covid......... no contract.......... if I understand where case is going, D was planning to act as an agent to sell (along with several others) health insurance to union members ......... very different stories about 'loan/investment'.  According to P the D came for a visit and said nothing about the 'business,' instead she says D told her her deceased husband left her with nothing and she needed help......... ah, but investment story falls apart quickly once judges start going through their correspondence - in fact, throughout the correspondence both are talking about the "loan" and D doesn't call it an investment until she's trying to mount a defense....... P awarded the 5 grand

parking lot bumper cars: another simple case with one side having gads of evidence and other very implausible story........ good grief, P just introduced ''exhibit L" a pic of a tape measure held up to his car showing it's the height where D's bumper would have impacted his car......... meanwhile, D is claiming his car was stationary when P ran into him - except pics of damage would mean P's car would have had to be going sideways - and, as an ex-delivery driver I know how many drivers drive - in fact I worked with several who seemed to thrive on peeling out of the parking lot and/or sliding into a parking dpace by slamming on their brakes - had the dent in my car to show where a driver gunned into reverse and backed into me.......... D tries to explain that away, but I pretty much stopped listening as he wasn't making much sense...... no major damage as this was a slo-mo impact - both were insured, both THOUGHT other areas fault and report that to respective insurance companies - hurt D because his story didn't make much sense and the he said/he said reports had both insurance companies refusing to pay......... short confab and judges award P his damages ($1437)

Edited January 6, 2021 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

Room mate disaster: uhhhuhhhhhh what has court tv taught us all about renting a room in our home to strangers through CL......  DON'T DO IT!!! This time a woman finds dude and rents him a room.  According to the dude, who is P in case, things were fine for 4 months - then dude hit with a double whammy, not only does covid hit, but family problems  (dad had cancer surgery) - anyway, he decides he can't really afford the place and gives 30 day notice (room rent is $1000 a month and gave a grand for deposit)........ once he gives notice he says she becomes hostile - when he does leave she keeps over $700 of the deposit........ he agrees to her withholding a couple hundred, but says she owes him $500 plus double because she wrongfully withheld $500 and didn't meet the 21 day deadline to return the deposit........... Foolish woman who rents room in her home says he was a disaster - says ad specified smoke/drug free house and demanded neatness - says when he left, he left drugs in room and water bottles filled with urine, rotting food in room and on her bed, and that he didn't leave after giving notice - she evicted him for violating the rules.......... well, both sides claim to have pix of how he left room, but only D has pix from before (nice looking place) - she also presents the smoke/drug free ad and a signed rental agreement - but Tenant disputes signing anything which prohibits drugs/smoking. ........ yep, sure 'nuf, he finally agrees - and, oh my, it's hand written, but woman has not one but several signatures next to where she specified the rules - including a signature saying these rules had 'zero tolerance' and that he would have 3 days to move if he violated them - plus he would forfeit last month's rent.......... I'm thinking her contract looks pretty good - but whose version of his leaving is true, was it voluntary after giving notice, or did she kick him to curb......... ah, but he's arguing that the agreement he signed wasn't dated, says woman have him sign anything it when he moved in and then postdated an agreelection she had him sign later on, she decided she wanted him gone - but we also learn guy moved in straight from rehab......... hey, if you GOTTA rent a room in your house, pay for a background check (they're not exprnsive and you can demand prepayment when they apply) and get references....... dude claiming there were no problems until she illegally entered his room......... does that jibe with his opening that things were fine until he decided to move and gave notice........ not really following something with his story, she wanted him to stay, even told him he could draw unemployment to afford the rent, yet just told us the problem started when she illegally entered his room - many that was after he gave notice when he says she turned hostile........ uh, not according to P, who I gather entered the room about three months into tenancy, yet after that she was telling him about unemployment and trying to work with him on staying........ as for the illegal entry - her story is an alarm was going on in the room, she went in to turn it off, and that's when she saw a mess........ yeah, I probably would have just gone in, but as Jurge DiM points out the proper thing for a landlord would have been to give tenant a call instead of just going in (when I wrote up an agreement for a room rental in included a clause that I could enter room without notice since the circuit panel was in that room'service closet........ but them my rental agreement was several pages long not counting a HOUSE RULES sheet with place for signature - problem intently on the list was that my critters are Family and any tenant was temporary - if tenant mistreated my critters that were gone.......... ok, after finding ghe messy room when she entered perhaps illegally, within short time she finds himself 'passed out' on couch with container of marijuana on floor...... still, sounds like while D may have been getting fed up, real question is list of damages........ according to the signed agreement, if that was really MJ she could give him the heave ho, but sounds like she might have been overcharging with the damages....... wants $250 for cleaning one room and the bathroom and kitchen (even though both of them used common areas) and then she admits it only cost her $150........ oh ho, Judge DiM may have reason for messy bottles of urine in room - she asks if maybe he was saving clean urine for drug tests to avoid going back to rehab hmmmmm wouldn't have thought of that, but makes sense in a disgusting sort of way - how many bottles were there.......... dude admits he relapsed, but says rehab was not court ordered and he just didn't want to be seen while using - but if he was using she could give him the boot per the agreement........ ok, coming back to how much D charged for damages - already sounds like she overcharged for cleaning, now she wants brand new sheets/comforter/pillows etc, she says they were new when he moved in and ruined when he left........ ok, not only did D overcharge, but did she meet the legally mandated 21 days - some of these judges hold landlords to this and really slam landlords when they fail to meet a deadline, which other judges will let that slide (and sometimes we have a judge that will rule 1 way today and another tomorrow)...... this time this landlord met the time limit, and the dispute is the amount........ well, about time to look at the after pix - P says place was spotless when he left, and has pix - but D claims it was a mess with urine bottles, but that he cleaned up and then left things stained........... when deliberations begin Judge DiM points out her pix showing said gusting mess with urine and rotting food were taken 3 weeks before his pix taken after he cleaned up - still, everybody agrees his room needed deep cleaning and bedding and upholstered chair probably were stained as her pics show rotten food sitting on bed.......... after a discussion, seems only real overcharge may be where she claimed $250 for cleaning chair/mattress than admitted during testimony it cost $150........ seems they found another possible excessive charge, as they end up unanimously awarding $132........ also mentioned while they announce verdict is that now, with the pandemic, landlords may be justified in charging more for deep cleaning an apartment or room........ P seems awfully happy getting the $132 considering he asked for over $900

Edited January 8, 2021 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Room mate disaster: uhhhuhhhhhh what has court tv taught us all about renting a room in our home to strangers through CL.

Curiouser and curiouser. Def is a woman of mature years and needs to get someone to live in her place with her to help pay the rent or mortgage. She runs her abode like a convent - no smoking, drinking, drugs or being messy. OH, and no alarms either, which annoy her and compel her to barge into his fetid lair to turn it off. So she chooses this young male slob just out of rehab who pisses in bottles and leaves them around the room. Was she expecting to live in perfect harmony with him? She couldn't find anyone who would suit her better, like a nun? I'm trying to imagine myself living alone, inviting a strange male to live in one of my bedrooms, and going to bed at night without worrying. Sharing the bathroom with him?? In spite of all that - including that pic she took of him passed out on her sofa - she wants him to stay? I guess I just don't get this at all. As obnoxious and irritating as he was, I didn't agree he should have to pay to clean the whole place because of COVID. If she wants total strangers in her place and takes that kind of risk, let her pay to clean it herself or include that clause in her lease agreement.

[AngelaHunter]

I know I'm so far behind present trends I'll never catch up, and frankly, with the state of things these days I'm okay with that. Do grown men actually travel around to events where they can dress up like their superhero idols? Comic book characters used to be for kids but not anymore it seems. P, with carefully-coiffed yet stupid-looking Bozo orange hair is suing the stupid-looking def for not fulfilling his contract to do photos and videography at some ComicCon event. D, the professional photog/videographer, has a 200 GB computer which takes "hours" to upload even 1GB and he experienced constant run-down batteries and "equipment failure" after he finds out P wants much more video than he says was agreed to (P offers to buy the pro any equipment he needed to perform) and delivers only 10% of what he was supposed to since most of his files are corrupted for some reason. None of this is his fault.  D runs out to buy some system recovery device "out of my own pocket", but it doesn't do much good. P, whose wife sports matchy-matchy orange locks, says ComicCon might sue him for 65K and wants 3500K from D. He also wants reimbursement for the D's hotel and flight costs, which he finally admits he didn't pay.

Disclaimer: I am a computer dummy so I may be wrong in my assumptions about the professional D's woefully inadequate equipment. He whines he was forced to abandon his photography career over this debacle. 

P gets 1K, since there is no way of knowing if or when he'll be sued. I'm trying to imagine my father wanting to dress up like Superman or Negan or something and jetting off to one of these events. The thought of that is hilarious.

Squatting tenant: Every time some gov. benefit is put into place to help those truly in need, there will always be a whole bunch of grifters scrambling to take advantage of it. Such is the case of the two landlords suing def. for rent they paid on her behalf when they sold the property in which she was squatting. Def, who is very obnoxious and snotty, informs Papa Mike he is "partly correct" when he tells her the law concerning evictions in times of COVID and informs her that she was not evicted. She concedes that even pre-COVID her rent payments may have been "inconsistent" since 2014 because she wants to live in a place she can't afford, but that she shouldn't have to reimburse plaintiffs for the money they ponied up for her in order to make the sale - something they had to do since the new owners didn't want to have to chase deadbeat tenants. Def says she did quit her job because she was "stressed" (imagine if all of us who experience stress quit our jobs and refused to pay our rent/mortgages?) and was waiting for some disability payments. Whoo hoo! I don't have to pay rent anymore so why work? She turned on the waterworks way too late to influence even Judge M and started snivelling which turned her nose bright red only when the verdict was being rendered in which she was told she needed to pay the plaintiffs back since her entitlement did not include having her rent paid by strangers.

I also watched the case of the dweeby Plaintiff suing the hideous Baby Jane/female impersonator hag with the worst, most ratty wig ever after he loaned her a ton of money because she and her hubbyboo were on hard times. If he was enamoured with her as the judges seemed to think, he needs to get his head examined. She assured him she was getting an inheritance from her late Papa, plus a settlement of some sort, which the judges say would amount to nearly 1 million dollars and that she would take an advance and pay him back in about 4 months. Surprise! She gets an advance but decides to blow it on a fancy wedding for her daughter and the P can just whistle for his money. His texts requesting her to pay him back get him blocked on her phone. The whole thing is weird, since he also took her to Vegas and gave her 675$ to gamble. The judges decide that was a gift, since she hadn't paid him back one cent of the other thousands she owed him.

The judges award him the first few thousand he loaned her but not the 675$. JA tells the D that she admires her honesty(??)even though she totally stiffed a generous friend who gave her money when no one else would, and in the hall, def says she's learned her lesson and that she's not going to take money from anyone else when those awful lenders have the unmitigated gall to ask for the money back! That will surely hurt the feelings of all the other people just dying to rain funds on her.

 

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Def, who is very obnoxious and snotty

Yep.

 

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

hideous Baby Jane/female impersonator hag with the worst, most ratty wig ever

yep again.