Hot Bench - General Discussion

CrazyInAlabama · September 30, 2022

New, 30 Sept "Turf Concrete Con Job" ( Nieblas vs. Richey)

Plaintiff was a friend of defendant's wife, and she wanted him to do some handyman work, and hardscape exterior work. Plaintiff also wanted artificial turf, and fence repairs. Plaintiff suing for $5200, claims she had to pay $3000 to repair work done by defendant and his father-in-law.

There is no written contract between the litigants, but there is one between plaintiff and the father-in-law.

Plaintiff has over 118 pages of evidence she submitted to the court, and tons of pictures. Dimango isn't happy with plaintiff's supreme court size evidence. Since defendant's wife is her husband's witness, I guess plaintiff and the wife's long friendship is over. Plaintiff submits photos of the job done by the father-in-law for the case against defendant.

Defendant is a mill wright, and not an electrician or plumber. Plaintiff stopped the turf install, and pulled it out and hired someone to redo the underlayment and reinstall the turf. Plaintiff also claims the texture on 2 walls in the one room doesn't match anything in her house, or the other two walls in the room, but didn't bring photos of any other wall to see the difference.

Then plaintiff claims the credit card at Home Depot for defendant was misused. Plaintiff alleges that defendant charges thousands, and stole from her. The defendant's wife says plaintiff was trying to ruin her relationship with her husband.

Plaintiff pulled defendant off of the interior work, and later the exterior.

Decision is $3500 to plaintiff for the grass, and other work she had to redo, and for equipment he kept that she purchased.

Rerun "Escrow I Scream!" 2022 (Walter vs. Cabuang)

Plaintiff claims defendant breached a contract and says defendant owes $4500 for missed rent, because the mobile home in the community (plaintiff bought one other in the community already, to rent out) was in terrible shape. Plaintiff wants $5,000 punative damages, and $4500 for missed rent, because she had to repair the mobile home. Plaintiff purchased mobile home and lot for $88,000, def List price was $202k, down to $90k, then offered $88k, and wanted to buy for $80k, and that's when the contract failed.

Plaintiff wants the lost rent, transportation to the mobile home park, but she already owns another property there, so that's bogus.

Plaintiff claims defendant said the home needed a new subfloor, and a new roof, new furnace and air conditioning, was filthy, had flooded, and was in terrible shape. Water heater needed to be strapped, and plaintiff wanted furnace working before purchase.

Plaintiff claims it would cost $10k to replace furnace (I find that ridiculous). Defendant bought mobile home, and intended to sell it, and then move to the Philippines. The deal failed because plaintiff signed contract, saying 'as is', and then backed out, and is suing defendant for breach of contract. Plaintiff didn't own the mobile home, and so she had no damages. There were liens, HOA fees, back taxes, etc. on the house, and the defendant's brother refused to sign the escrow documents.

Plaintiff never closed on the house, it was 'as is', and so her claim for missed rent is ridiculous to me. Defendant claims she paid the HOA and back taxes liens off, but didn't bring proof.

Defendant did have the right to sell, once she settled the liens.

Plaintiff could have walked away, but didn't because of the low price of the mobile home.

Plaintiff wants the $500 back she paid defendant for the furniture in the mobile home, but defendant paid that back to plaintiff.

All three judges say plaintiff should have walked away from the deal.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Edited September 30, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · September 30, 2022

3 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

and Papa Mike can't carry the show because who the hell wants to watch a dickhead judge when thre are other choices?

I would never a court show if it was only Papa Mike. I watch these shows to see miscreants getting the spankings they deserve, i.e. JDiM calling them "scammers", etc. If the scammers are young guys, or females of any age, Papa sees them all as helpless victims no matter how vile, trashy, and lowdown they are.

19 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

It would not surprise me to learn that Plaintiff Walking Turd created those bills himself to get some money.

I rewatched most of that, just to see this inept, lying scammer trying to clean up with his ridiculous story. It was really funny. As I always say - if you want to scam successfully you need at least half a brain, which he doesn't have. I love it when sleazy lawyers send their "slip and fall/whiplash" clients to chiropracters, telling them, "Don't worry! You'll get back all the money you spent for nothing, plus a whole bunch more in court".

Surprise! Idiot gets to pay all those chiro bills himself! Maybe he should sue his girlfriend and her daddy since they encouraged him to do this for a big payday.

Carolina Girl · September 30, 2022

36 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I rewatched most of that, just to see this inept, lying scammer trying to clean up with his ridiculous story. It was really funny.

This clown was the perfect example of Judge Judy's maxim that if you tell the truth you don't need to have a good memory. Apparently the dipshit didn't even bother to do what we call in the biz a "recollection refresh" and go over his texts and forgot he sent one stating he was at work right after the accident.

And I loved his "you could call my boss and he'll tell you I couldn't work." Riiiiiight. A phone number HE provides with a willing lying friend on the other end to pretend to be his "boss".

I'm starting to wonder if the attorney asked him for the photos of the accident and this jerk put off turning them over until the point came when the attorney told him he needed to the photos or nothing more could be done. Attorney sees photos, says "aw HELL no" and fires him as a client.

AngelaHunter · October 2, 2022

On 9/30/2022 at 6:17 PM, Carolina Girl said:

Apparently the dipshit didn't even bother to do what we call in the biz a "recollection refresh" and go over his texts and forgot he sent one stating he was at work right after the accident.

I didn't finish this, but IIRC didn't the dipshit say he was only at work - but not working - because this restaurant has no phone or other means of communication and even though he was in way too much pain to carry coffee cups he had to drive there to inform his boss he was in too much pain to work?

"Walking turd" indeed, and a very dumb turd.😆

Carolina Girl · October 3, 2022

On 10/1/2022 at 6:46 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't finish this, but IIRC didn't the dipshit say he was only at work - but not working - because this restaurant has no phone or other means of communication and even though he was in way too much pain to carry coffee cups he had to drive there to inform his boss he was in too much pain to work?

"Walking turd" indeed, and a very dumb turd.😆

Your personal "recollection refresh" is correct. Has quite the active imagination. Also forgot what lie he was working on....

AngelaHunter · October 3, 2022

11 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Has quite the active imagination. Also forgot what lie he was working on....

I only remembered it because he was so utterly ridiculous. After he got caught in one lie he had to quickly make up a new lie to cover it, and did very poorly.

CrazyInAlabama · October 3, 2022

New 3 Oct 22, "Kitchen Chaos" (Sorkin vs. Zelonka)

West Hollywood contractor was supposed to remodel a kitchen, and move washer / dryer location. Contractor said he could do the kitchen, but didn't have permits or expertise to move the laundry. Defendant fired plaintiff, and then claimed over $9k from plaintiff's bonding company. Defendant received $9700 from the bonding company, and plaintiff has to repay the bonding company, or lose his bonding, and his contractor's license.

I dislike both litigants. I think plaintiff isn't a good contractor, but defendant kept changing his mind about what he wanted, moving locations of appliances. Defendant claims plaintiff ruined his plumbing, electrical, water damages to floors, and should be paid a total of $17,000 for the damages, (he claims he's owed $8,000 more).

Defendant claims plaintiff wanted to move the laundry location, but plaintiff says defendant wanted it. Defendant claimed for bad work against plaintiff's bond. Plaintiff is suing the defendant for fraud in claiming the bonding company.

I'm getting tired of both sides saying the other side is lying.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant case dismissed. This case has been going on in different forms for four years.

Rerun, "Party Girls" 2022 (Rudolph vs Botzet . )

Plaintiff and defendant were roommates, and co-workers. Plaintiff gave defendant rent money for her share, and defendant gave her boyfriend the money, never paid the landlord, so the two were evicted. Defendant and boyfriend were on the lease, plaintiff and her adult daughter moved in paying $500 each. Boyfriend only stayed over, and stayed with his family the rest of the time.

Plaintiff spent 3 days in jail, over a suspended license issue. Defendant also claims plaintiff stabbed defendant's air mattress too. Plaintiff was in hospital for 10 days, and took her on a suicidal hold. Both litigants were regular drinkers too.

Defendant moved out 1 June, and on 24 June the police showed with the marshals, and said if she didn't pay $5070 that plaintiff and whoever else was there would be evicted. Plaintiff and daughter were not on the lease.

Plaintiff was evicted, she wasn't on the lease. Plaintiff claims defendant took the windows out to get into and out of the house too.

Plaintiff paid the rent charges back, and is still living there, and paying rent, and month-to-month, but without a lease. Lease still is in defendant's name.

Judges say plaintiff should sue the defendant's ex-boyfriend for the purloined rent.

Verdict is for plaintiff for the rent she had to make up because defendant and boyfriend didn't pay the rent. Plaintiff receives $5000.

AngelaHunter · October 4, 2022

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I dislike both litigants. I think plaintiff isn't a good contractor, but defendant kept changing his mind about what he wanted, moving locations of appliances.

Same. I do believe Def got the cabinets delivered and then said, "I don't like those ones." P looked very elderly to be doing the demo and installing a kitchen, but Def hired him, probably because he got a good price. P was so incredibly angry, with good reason or not. Who knows? I think the judges made the right decision.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff and defendant were roommates, and co-workers.

Landlords don't seem to be very careful about the kind of people they allow to live in their premises. Def was asked why she gave money to the b/f to pay the landlord and didn't do it herself. She gave a non-answer and the judges let it drop.

Rachet blue-haired P with the rediculous Sharpie eyebrows says sure, she was in jail, like that's just a minor thing. I bet it's not the first time. I couldn't finish this stupid nonsense.

CrazyInAlabama · October 4, 2022

New

“Loan Him & Leave Him”-

Plaintiff suing her estranged husband over debts, for a 2017 Chevy Sonic. They can’t even agree on when they legally separated, and plaintiff didn’t file until later, so it delayed the separation, except they still lived together. Their property settlement is bizarre. Why did they ever get married?

Plaintiff was an alcoholic, and did some very bad things, and Judge Acker slams defendant for admitting the ex-wife’s drinking destroyed their marriage.

Separation was only to keep them legally safe from debts, but they still lived together.

The plaintiff gets the $4000 she paid for the car for ex-husband. I don’t like two purjurers get rewarded for lying to the divorce court several times.

“Where is My Money?”-

Plaintiff received a settlement, loaned $7500 to defendant. Defendant says it was an investment, and plaintiff wanted to do barter to reduce the debt. Plaintiff received custody of his son back, and defendant somehow helped him do that, and also on child support (plaintiff had custody, but was still getting charged for support). Plaintiff also helped defendant with his unemployment forms.

On a personal note, I really love defendant’s tie.

Plaintiff says they are still friends, but he still wants his money right now.

Investment was to take a house down, and put a three flat or triplex up instead as rental properties.

The judges agree to take $2500 of barter from defendant, so loan is now $5,000

$5,000 to plaintiff

Rerun, 2022, “Drama Queens”- (Botez vs. Tait)

Plaintiff and defendant lived together for years. Plaintiff and defendant met at a drag show, both perform in San Francisco (I’m not sure that’s all accurate, at least defendant is a performer).

They broke up, and plaintiff wants $5,000 for various loans. The total left unpaid is $5060, but he did repay her about $4,000 Plaintiff said she gave him money for posters, and flyers for shows. Plaintiff says she gave him $2000 in 2018 (on an Apple credit card), and bought hearing aids for defendant, $1600, on another credit card. Defendant hasn’t paid anything towards the hearing aids, but towards the $2,000 Apple credit.

Defendant says plaintiff was infatuated with him, she admits to some kind of relationship, maybe just romantic and emotional on her part. Defendant says plaintiff is very good at balance transfers, and juggles her debt.

Plaintiff did violate defendant’s privacy. Defendant says he’s sober now.

Plaintiff receives $5,000, for the agreement defendant signed right before he moved out.

AngelaHunter · October 4, 2022

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff suing her estranged husband over debts, for a 2017 Chevy Sonic.

I quite enjoy it when litigants speak about their "issues" as though they're something very minor - insurance issues, license issues, blah blah. HE had a tax issue, and a child support issue. SHE had a drinking issue. SO: he doesn't pay his taxes OR pay for his own kids and she's a drunk who drives, hits and runs, but it's not their faults. Psychobabble ensues from P.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Separation was only to keep them legally safe from debts, but they still lived together.

That was pretty slick of their lawyers to suggest. So with all their 'issues' it seems they're scammers as well. Still, P gets her 4K.

Who watched yesterday, with the Business Woman (Papa Mike very much admired her) who loaned 25K with 9K interest for two months to the def who insisted it was an investment in the business he inherited from Dad (selling phone cases, etc., online) but couldn't keep that in his head and says, "When she loaned me the money... oh, not loaned!"

Big Business Woman insists she had no idea that charging 36% interest was usury and illegal? How would she know that? Is ignorance of the law a defense now? The judges seem to think so and to find that amusing, with JDiM even saying that if P were Italian she'd be in handcuffs?! I may be recalling incorrectly, but hasn't it been stated on a court show that charging interest that would shock the Mob is punished by getting none of the money back? I don't know, but the judges decided to give her half of what she was asking - 2500$ - maybe because P teared up as she was allowed to speak at length to Def about family and all that stuff, even though she was shaking him down for exorbitant interest.

AZChristian · October 4, 2022

I looked up the defendant in the second new case. He was apparently doing paralegal work because he had returned his license to practice as an attorney to the California State Bar - because he had pending complaints against him.

CrazyInAlabama · October 5, 2022

New, "Rent No More" 5 Oct 2022

Martinez vs. Sedrey

Plaintiff Martinez rented a home to homeless Navy vet defendant Sedrey, and is now suing him for unpaid rent.. Defendant claims plaintiff was being sued for $3 million, but he's a landlord in L.A., so that's pretty common. Defendant subleased rooms to other tenants, but didn't want to work as a property manager any longer. Sedrey and other tenants received eviction notices.

Sedrey complains that renting to tenants was horrible, tenants didn't want to leave, there were ants and other bugs, but from photos plaintiff saw, there were dirty dishes everywhere. Mr. Martinez has six lawsuits against him by previous tenants of his multiple rental properties. If tenants don't pay rent on time, then in one case plaintiff told defendant not to cash check, because it would make the person a legal tenant again. All of this happened four years ago.

The photos of the kitchen floor are horrendously bad. As Judge Acker says, "It looks like aliens threw up in here". I still question why plaintiff waited four years to sue defendant.

Judges say they believe the plaintiff wanting to rent to a family member was only an excuse to evict the defendant and other tenants. It's four years later, I think they should toss the case. The judges say the statute of limitations for unpaid rent in California is two years.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

2022 Rerun, "Dog Sitting Disaster" (Wachter vs. Kathleen Parsons)

Plaintiff Wachter brings Kona to court, and he's suing the dog walker for letting plaintiff's chocloate Lab Kona contract an ear infection from ocean water. Plaintiff claims when he was on vacation, dog sitter took dog to beach, had an accident in his vehicle, and he's suing for deductible, and vet bills. However, plaintiff didn't tell dog walker that Kona had a pre-existing condition with his ears. Kathleen Parsons didn't have insurance at the time of the accident.

Plaintiff left dog walker four pages of specific pet care instructions, but didn't say Kona could have ear infections because of his floppy ears. Plaintiff also didn't say to dry the dog's ears out carefully, but instructions did say Kona liked to go to the beach.

Car damage estimate is $2700, defendant backed into a pole. Defendant also claims she didn't know she didn't have insurance. Defendant claims she was driving the dog back to plaintiff's home.

Plaintiff has a $2,000 deductible, no rental car coverage.

Decision is $500 rental, and $2,000 for car repairs, total of $2500 for the car damages only, not vet bills.

AngelaHunter · October 6, 2022

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims plaintiff was being sued for $3 million, but he's a landlord in L.A., so that's pretty common.

I had no doubt of that. In California you can sue for 10K if someone said something that hurt your feelings, "triggered" you, or made you uncomfortable. I just think he was lying about the amount although it could be true.

This case was ridiculous. Def, who seems intelligent, is middleaged and ex-military, whines about being "bullied" by the bums HE chose and invited to live there. There were ants? Gee, I wonder why. I thought people in the military learned to be neat and tidy. OTOH, they could have all been dishonorably discharged.

I don't know what P's deal was, or why he would allow these goings-on in his property. The whole mess didn't make any sense.

Judge to him: "Did you send that text?"

P: "I don't know! It was so long ago! I can't remember!"

Hey, YOU brought this lawsuit!

It was all a waste of time anyway because of the statute of limitations.

CrazyInAlabama · October 6, 2022

New, 6 Oct 22, "No Security From a Flooded Mess" (Thomas vs. Matthews)

Plaintiff rented place from defendent for 16 years, when plaintiff moved out his son Keilan Thomas, took up the lease and kept living there, and he wants his security deposit back.

Defendant is claiming for damage from a flood in the apartment (2nd story apartment), flooding the downstairs apartment, and damaging the tenant's property. Water had to be shut off to the building overnight to stop the flood. Defendant says son turned on water, left it running, it turns out the toilet this was blamed on was working fine. Corriero says there's no proof the water came from the 2nd store apartment, and he's so wrong.

Defendant claims son left $5,000 in damages when son moved out. Defendant says son left a large couch, refrigerator, bedframe and headboard. and lots of other property. Defendant says plaintiff punched every door in the apartment, holes in the wall (very big holes), Defendants presents a video of the damages. Plaintiff son admits he punched all of the doors, but thinks it's better that it happened over time, not all at once.

Defendant says they fixed a ceiling leak a long time ago, before the flood happened to the downstairs neighbor from the 2nd floor apartment.

Father and son Thomas say defendant illegally kept their security deposit. Father Thomas says son did this years ago. Corriero argues there is no proof the downstairs flood was caused by the plaintiff, but that's ludicrous. Defendant had to refurbish the downstairs apartment floors. Di mango, doesn't even mention the multiple holes and drywall damages in the apartment, which are thousands. Plaintiff admitted that his daughter overflowed the toilet, so he did take the blame for the flood.

Security was $950, and Corriero gives $250 to defendant, and plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed.

I really wondered if Sonia the baililff was going to have to taze the judges.

Rerun, 2022, "Valued Garage" (Khalil vs. Keller )

PLaintiff suing defendant for $1987 for unpaid rent for a storage space defendant was renting from him. Defendant claims he doesn't owe plaintiff anything because plaintiff raised the rent. In 2015, plaintiff bought two apartment buildings, and raised the rent on the garage space from $50 to $80, and $100 was the new amount, then in 2019 rent went from $175 to $190, and defendant didn't pay the raise framount for $15 a month, and then when rent went to $200, defendant didn't pay the rent for a year at all.

Defendant claims he couldn't access the garage storage space, because the car in the driveway blocked his garage door opening. Plaintiff says from the first time he bought the building, that he told the tenant not to block the garage door. And if tenant blocked the garage door should call the tenant to move her car. Apartment tenant doesn't pay extra for the driveway, but if they want a garage space it costs them $200.

Plaintiff says that the only complaint from defendant was five or so years ago about garage access. Plaintiff says that defendant could have moved out if he didn't like the rent prices, or had access issues. There is no proof of continuing access issues, except the defendant's self-serving statements. $200 a month is the same price a tenant would pay to rent the garage too.

Plaintiff gets 6 months of unpaid rent, so $1200, Acker is wrong, there is no proof that the defendant didn't have access.

Friday's two shows were pre-empted by baseball.

Edited October 10, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · October 7, 2022

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Rerun, 2022, "Valued Garage"

I thought JA might instigate a physical altercation during the deliberations.😄 It got quite heated.

CrazyInAlabama · October 10, 2022

New, "Basement Blues" 10 Oct 22

Greta and Terry Sanders vs. Rhonda Hiler-Season 9, episode 5

Defendant was working in plaintiffs' restaurant, they gave her, husband and baby a place to live. Plaintiffs want $4800 for damages. Plaintiffs hired defendant at the restaurant, and gave her family a place to live with another tenant, for $100 a week, it went up when other tenant moved out.

Defendant says she burned clothes in a bonfire, left by former tenant. Plaintiffs say that defendant threw their furniture in the bonfire too. Plaintiffs have photos of the remains of the bonfire, including a couch, a chair, and other items. Defendant says they accidentally locked the infant grandchild in the basement, and that's blamed on the child's mother, but they broke the glass out of the basement door (a double french door) to rescue the baby. Defendant didn't pay rent for November, December and January.

Eviction photos show the two sheriffs watching plaintiffs putting defendants' stuff outside, and because it was going to rain, plaintiff place the items right inside the door, and it's been there for a month. Defendant has been holding defendant's stuff since January. Plaintiff offered to let defendant's family use his truck to pick up the stuff. Defendant claims she can't work, and claims it's documented in medical records, but submitted records say nothing about not being able to work, or other issues.

Defendant was a cook at plaintiffs' restaurant, and was working there, but he sold the restaurant right before Covid. Defendant says she didn't pay rent because she had an accident, was bedridden for four months, Doctor notes says restrictions for two weeks, and that's it.

Bonfire was in 2020, but plaintiff didn't realize the bonfire was his furniture, clothing, and apparently a shower curtain.

Plaintiff says defendant was "Covid rich and stimulated" and only paid when she was paid by the rest of us. Plaintiff also says no more tenants.

$4974 to plaintiffs.

"Dogs Will Be Dogs!" rerun 2022. Season 8 episode 91.

( Catherine Hugoo (mother) and Jennifer Hugoo (daughter) vs. Sophia Harris. ) This was in Santa Clara County, CA.

Plaintiff Catherine was walking her dog, Romeo, a 1 year old Border Collie/Lab Mix, waiting to cross the street, when plaintiff heard barking, and looked behind to see defendant's gate opened, and both dogs attack plaintiff's dog. Defendant claims plaintiff did something to force defendant's dog to attack plaintiff's dog, by waiting on the sidewalk and tempting her dogs. Plaintiff says only Meek attacked the other dog didn't. A kind passerby stopped their car, tossed a tarp over the dogs, and separated them.

Defendnat was fined for the attack, $1000 and one dog was returned Meek. Animal Control said this wasn't the first attack by defendant's dog, he bit another dog. Both of defendant's dogs were quarantined at Animal Control. Defendant witness Tiffany claims plaintiff dog was barking and defendant dog escaped the gate, but Tiffany didn't see that. Plaintiff says she wasn't at the corner in front of defendant's gate.

I agree with Judge Acker, defendant is despicable. How dare defendant blame someone walking a leashed dog on a public sidewalk for the dog attack? Meeks and Nala are both pit bulls, not a surprise.

There are pictures of Romeo's injuries, and they're bad. Defendant doesn't care. Defendant claims her dog was injured, but no photos or vet evidence is submitted. Defendant lives right across from a Dog Park. I'm just surprised that Animal Control gave a dog with a history of dog attacks back to defendant. However, some jurisdictions will not penalize an animal for bites, or even killing other animals.

Defendant claims plaintiff was lingering, and tempting her dogs. Defendant witness says plaintiff was letting her dog bark at the pit bulls, and taunting the dogs. Ridiculous, you can't tell me that defendant and witness aren't buddies.

Judge Acker says plaintiff dog was chewed to bits by the attacking dog. Defendant thinks this is all a joke, and we know that the court pays the bills, so the only Animal Control fine is paid by defendant. Defendant's smirking, and smiling, is despicable.

Photos show every foot and leg on Romeo are bandaged. I guess Judge Corierro doesn't realize that animals are only put down if they attack people, and probably only with multiple attacks.

Plaintiff receives $1805 for vet bills.

Previews for tomorrow are interesting.

Edited October 10, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · October 10, 2022

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant was working in plaintiffs' restaurant, they gave her, husband and baby a place to live.

Was it her "baby daddy" as she called him, or her daughter's baby daddy? I got confused. I can just picture these begetters of unfortunate infants. I wonder why none of them showed up here.

I wonder if plaintiffs have learned not to be such Good Samaritans - suckers? - for anyone with a hard luck tale and who will take whatever is offered and expect more because they feel other people owe them something? Not everyone who is in need is deserving. Def, who looks like a meth addict and is just the type to be "drinking and partying" on P's premises and throw furniture into a bonfire. She didn't pay for this stuff, so what's the big deal?

Def is full of 'poor little me" excuses and lies and feels not an iota of gratitude. When asked why she didn't get her junk out of the place, she says indignantly, "I didn't have a truck!" as though that is someone else's fault or responsibility. Yeah, maybe they smashed out an expensive French door, but hey, they forgot their key! Not her fault. Plaintiffs gave her a job and a place to live (why aren't these various baby daddies helping out? I guess they only show up for drinking, partying, and a little whoopie)after knowing her for TWO WEEKS and she and her entourage, like so many before them decided to act like a wild animals and wreck the place while still expecting more.

You're never too old to learn so hopefully plaintiffs won't be taking in any more strays who will parasitize them.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$4974 to plaintiffs.

I couldn't take any more of this and quit, so thanks for the verdict.

CrazyInAlabama · October 10, 2022

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Was it her "baby daddy" as she called him, or her daughter's baby daddy? I got confused. I can just picture these begetters of unfortunate infants. I wonder why none of them showed up here.

I think the husband of defendant was actually her boyfriend, and baby daddy. However, the adult daughter lived there too, at least for a while, and daughter has a kid too.

I think the plaintiffs were lucky the freeloaders moved out. I suspect plaintiff in the statement after the case saying the defendant was only sick when she was getting the payments.

Edited October 11, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · October 11, 2022

New 11 Oct 22, Season 9 , Episode 6

"Duplex Neighbors...Complex Eviction" (Da'Shonna Johnson-Peeples vs. Bertha Roane )

Plaintiff claims her former landlady in the duplex was the neighbor and landlady from hell. Plaintiff claims defamation, harassment, vandalism, and pain and suffering. and says landlady was trying to get plaintiff to move after the Covid moratorium stopped defendant from evicting her. Defendant owned the duplex, and lived in the other half, and plaintiff was the tenant from hell.

Plaintiff says defendant posted endless notices on her door for repairs, restraining orders, etc. Defendant says note on door was after plaintiff moved out, and defendant needed to do repairs. There was also a non-renewal of lease notice.

Plaintiff claims defendant entered her apartment, and stole some of her huge collection of crystals, but has no proof. Defendant claims she only entered a day after plaintiff moved out. This happened in L.A., and plaintiff filed numerous complaints with the L.A. housing authority. Plaintiff also had a friend living with her, and her son, not on the lease. Plaintiff claims 83-year-old landlady was a drug dealer. Defendant complained to housing authority of dealing Weed, and having numerous sleazy visitors.

Plaintiff claims defendant keyed her car, walking around and around the car right in front of plaintiff. Plaintiff says defendant isn't the average 83-year-old.

Defendant also did a walk through, which is required for move out. Defendant also complains plaintiff's son's friends tried to get into defendant's home, and wouldn't leave even after she told them they had the wrong house.

Housing said if she paid defendant $7,000 to move out. Defendant wants money for damages to doors, blinds, countertops, but didn't bring proof.

Defendant had to pay plaintiff $7000 to get plaintiff to move. Money for keys, another reason I'll never be a landlord.

Plaintiff case dismissed, the $7,000 money for keys settlement more than paid for anything. Defendant case dismissed.

Rerun, 2022, Season 8, Episode 93

"Clean Up Your Lawn Act" (Tricia Jenkins vs Tony Gamarra) This happened in Salt Lake City.

Plaintiff/landscaper suing defendant/home owner for shoddy work, and wants a refund. Defendant was hired to remove a lawn, and put in Xeriscape (drought reisistant, low water consumption plantings), Plaintiff says defendant threaten

(Bad pun in the cable guide "She and her client make one prickly pair).

There's actually a written contract. Plaintiff had $3250 deposit, spent $1200 more for materials, and defendant never was allowed to finish. Defendant says the rock was road base, and dirty, not landscaping rock. Mulch looks like chopped up wood, not ground mulch. Mulch doesn't look good, with big sticks in it, but that happens when you purchase mulch, some is not good quality.

No proof of defendant's slander. Judge Dimango says defendant went with plaintiff because her bid was cheaper than the competitors. Defendant also says the plaintiff's company didn't dig down far enough. If he knows so much about the requirements, then defendant should have hired his own contractor, and supervised it himself.

I agree with DiMango, the rocks will be cleaned by rain. The defendant actually texted plaintiff at 2:30 a.m., and expected an immediate response.

Plaintiff receives $1200 for the extra she had to pay for supplies. Defendant receives nothing.

AngelaHunter · October 12, 2022

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff case dismissed, the $7,000 money for keys settlement more than paid for anything.

PLUS another $4500 in rent she didn't pay. I wonder if P planned to mention all that money she sucked up? What a great big greedy pig to have the gall to demand yet more!

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The defendant actually texted plaintiff at 2:30 a.m., and expected an immediate response.

I recall this case.

JDiM: "You texted her about mulch at 2:30 in the morning!!"

Def: "I was up!"

Oh, well then. Perfectly reasonable, since the planet revolves arround YOU. 😏

CrazyInAlabama · October 12, 2022

New, 12 Oct 22 , "Unfinished Busy-ness / Car-Pay Diem", season 9, episode 7

Case 1-"Unfinished Busy-ness"

(Hana Shweyk vs. Carmelo Gomez ) Plaintiff homeowner suing defendant/plumber for an unfinished plumbing job to turn a garage into an ADU. Plaintiff paid $14k for a 45-day job, instead it took a year. Plumber's child had Covid, he was quarantined, and he claims plaintiff didn't have the correct permits for the job, further delaying him, plus plaintiff's change orders complicated the job.

When plaintiff fired him he says he was mostly finished, but the finished plumbing wasn't finished, part of the kitchenette wasn't finished. Defendant isn't a general contractor, but a handyman. There is a statement from defendant offering a $2,000 refund.

Defendant claims plaintiff kept doing changes to the plans, requiring more permits, more supplies.

Plaintiff gets $2400, 20% of the initial payment.

Case 2-Car-Pay Diem"

( Randy Wilson vs. Marcos Alvarez Lugo. ) Plaintiff bought a Lexus 2007, for $7500, from defendant. An 'as is' sale, plaintiff didn't drive it, because plaintiff was having knee surgery. Four days later plaintiff claims car wouldn't start, and the check engine light/sensor indicator was on, so plaintiff wants a refund. Plaintiff didn't take car to mechanic for days after purchase. Defendant gave $2000 back to plaintiff. Judge Acker wants to know why defendant didn't give the rest of the $5500 back, and defendant would give the rest back if he could resell the car and not lose money.

KBB price is over $7,000 for a car that now costs plaintiff $5500, but needs the transmission rebuilt or replaced.

If defendant hadn't agreed to refund the price, and take the car back then it would be 'as is', but plaintiff gets his $5500 back, and defendant gets the car back.

Rerun, 2022, "CARate Shop" season 8, Episode 95

( Carlos Delgadillo vs. Martin Nunez Jr)

Plaintiff says defendant's repaint job on plaintiff's car took over two years. Car is a 1964 Ford Ranchero, $4700 was paid, supposed to be finished in five months, but instead it took 2 years and looks bad. Defendant was delayed because he, his wife, daughter, all had Covid, and wife had a premature baby. Defendant was also hit by a car. After two years, car was sand blasted, and primered, but after two years plaintiff hasn't decided on a color.

Decision is $2,700 back to plaintiff,

Edited October 12, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · October 13, 2022

New, Season 9 episode 8, "Broken Soul"

(Jason Johnson vs. Stanford Forbes )

Plaintiff wanted to sell a used Kia Soul, defendant was set up with buying from the defendant, suing for $5,000, Car was damaged, towed to a dealership, and parked illegally. It was impounded, and there were over $4000 in damages. There were issues getting insurance on the vehicle. Defendant bought two cars on the same day, and insurance wasn't placed on the Soul. Defendant wanted to finance car for $11k, but credit union said car was worth about half of that. Defendant sent money to plaintiff, and plaintiff made the payments, but defendant was responsible for maintenance, and insurance.

Plaintiff still owes $7000 on car loan, (it was $10k at the beginning).

Defendant was driving from work, car broke down, and was towed to dealership. Car was parked illegally outside the dealer lot, and was towed. Plaintiff didn't know where the car was until the tow yard notified him from his address on the registration. Defendant claims he couldn't find out the value, because plaintiff refinanced, but plaintiff didn't.

Email between litigants is the contract. The price isn't included in the email. So, Judge Acker doesn't think there was a meeting of minds on the contract. No monthly payment, no total price, no interest rate is in the contract.

Defendant says he owes for the engine, but not the impound fees.

Car is back with plaintiff, who paid for the repairs. Defendant had the cars for 8 or 9 months, about $2800.

Judges agree this wasn't a contract, or sale. There was not a meeting of the minds.

Defendant owes $4,000 for the engine repairs, Then, Judge Acker changes her mind, we don't know why the car engine was broken.

Decision is car payments, towing and insurance will be paid to plaintiff.

Plaintiff gest $2414.

Rerun, 2022, "Where's My Tiny House?" Season 8 episode 97.

( Jose Valle vs. Raul Alvarez )

Plaintiff hired defendant to build a tiny house, but the house was never built, plaintiff is suing for $5,000. Plaintiff owns 1 acre of land in Arizona, in Bull Head City, AZ, contract was for $75,000, and defendant would help hire an architect for $6,000, and permits. City rejected plans (no septic, no heat or air), and the permits for air conditioning/heat, and septic were never obtained, because drawings were never submitted. Defendant says plaintiff needed to get the soil samples, perk test, and other permits for some items.

Defendant was actually paid $3200, which all went to the architect. Defendant says certificates are owner reponsibility, not permits that are the contractor's responsibility.

Plaintiff no longer wants to finish the tiny house, because plaintiff bought a house in the town.

I think the plaintiff screwed this up. Judge Acker says plaintiff screwed this up.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Corriero sides with plaintiff, but Acker and DiMango decide for the plaintiff.

AngelaHunter · October 13, 2022

On 10/12/2022 at 3:52 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

( Randy Wilson vs. Marcos Alvarez Lugo. ) Plaintiff bought a Lexus 2007, for $7500, from defendant.

Mr. Wilson is an old guy with seemingly normal intelligence, but was so hot to get this 15-year-old(!) Lexus he didn't care if he couldn't test-drive it (but def drove it with Mr. Wilson it and the latter had no complaints)and couldn't take it to a mechanic before purchase. He couldn't pick up the car because of his knee, so Def brought it to him and it drove fine. Mr. Wilson couldn't drive it then either due to his knee surgery. Mr. Wilson seems to think that's someone else's fault.

Too bad def foolishly offered to refund the money when he didn't have to give back one cent. He needed to look up "As is"and tell Wilson to pound sand, but sadly he did not.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff hired defendant to build a tiny house, but the house was never built, plaintiff is suing for $5,000.

Papa Mike was dead wrong when he was outraged that the owner has to get an independant company to do the soil/perc test before anything else can be done. As JDiM pointed out, an interested party who stands to profit from this project could take samples from their own yard for it to pass, instead of on unknown ground where there could be a high water table, toxic materials, or unstable land that could cave in.

On 10/12/2022 at 3:52 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Hana Shweyk vs. Carmelo Gomez ) Plaintiff homeowner suing defendant/plumber for an unfinished plumbing job to turn a garage into an ADU.

She wanted to save money so hires an apartment maintenence man to do the job. It sounds like he's quite skillful and did do a huge amount of work, but he has his other job to do, and P knew that. If she wanted a contractor doing her job only, she should have hired one, but that would have cost a hell of a lot more.

I believe she didn't bother getting permits (this addition will make her property taxes go up quite a bit) and that she kept changing her mind. Maybe it's mean but I'm sorry Def offered her any refund.

CrazyInAlabama · October 14, 2022

Rerun, Season 8 Episode 150, 2022

"Dead Man's Dwelling"

(Sara Michon vs. Robert McMurray)

Plaintiff moved into subsidized housing with her Rottweiler, and six kids, only to find out previous resident died there. Now she's suing for the return of her security deposit from the building manager. Lease said no pets.

Plaintiff moved in when some furniture and clothes were still there from previous tenant, Previous tenant hanged himself. Defendant says plaintiff saw the furniture and wanted the couches, dining set, etc., because she didn't have any furniture.

Defendant says plaintiff moved out without notice, and left rotting food, garbage, etc. but she claims she didn't have a chance to clean up. Judge Acker claims defendant treated plaintiff badly because she's poor.

Defendant says the Rottweiler was aggressive, and there were several complaints about the dog's behavior, including workers, and the post office personnel. Plaintiff claims defendant's brother lived there and had a similar looking Pit Bull that was off-leash and aggressive, and claims her dog was harmless. As usual, the dog was an Emotional Support Animal.

Corriero, and Acker claim the problems with water leaks and everything else was because they hated the plaintiff because she was poor, and on Section 8. However, plaintiff wasn't Section 8, but L.A. Family Housing subsidizing the rent.

Plaintiff says she never had a letter about the security deposit, listing damages, and why she didn't get her security deposit back.

Judge Acker claims the video of the apartment showing holes instead of the appliances was staged by defendant.

Plaintiff gets $5,000. Judges disregard the letters from every neighbor about the Rottweiler. The judges also claim the video was staged, and plaintiff didn't steal the appliances.

Rerun, Season 8 Episode 99, 2022 "T-Bone Ache"

(Carmen Bullard vs. Michael Watson, (car owner) and (car owner) Anita Calsadillas)

Plaintiff suing over defendant hitting her car. She was hit coming out of an alley, backing out. There was a blind spot from a parked car. When she was out in traffic, she stopped, and defendant hit her car. Defendant claims plaintiff backed out of her driveway (actually an alleyway), and she hit him. Plaintiff has to be asked four times by Judge DiMango before plaintiff says where she was going after backing out of the alley.

Defendant says he stopped at a stop sign, continued, when plaintiff pulled out in front of him. Plaintiff couldn't see, but backed out straight into traffic anyway.

Defendant had right of way, and plaintiff claims she should have been avoided by on-coming traffic when she backed out of the alley, into traffic.

The photo showing the plaintiff's car, and vehicles blocking her view of traffic.

Plaintiff denies defendant had the right-of-way. Plaintiff is a total fool, but Corriero is buying everything she says. The best part to me is when plaintiff finally says where she was going, and it's only around the corner from the apartment she was visiting. She never should have pulled into the alley, but parked at her own place and walked. The defendant got screwed over by the judges.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant case dismissed, and that's wrong.

Since it will only be Corriero left on HB soon, I wonder how hard it was to get two more judges to work with him?

Edited October 17, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · October 14, 2022

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant case dismissed, and that's wrong.

I didn't finish this, but thought surely the judges would realize that P, masssive fake lashes and a zillion "proceeds/proceeding/proceeded" nothwithstanding, would be found in the wrong and def given the judgement. It was the old, 'There was no car coming" except there was.

I had something similar happen. Driving along a semi-country, 2-lane road at the limit of 50mph and someone ahead just backed out of a blind driveway and stopped half-way across my lane. I had no way to stop and saw my life flash before my eyes as I saw a car coming in the opposite direction. Somehow I managed to swerve around the car in the road at the last second and avoided any collisions. My car rocked so hard I feared it might overturn. Had I hit this asshole, I guess these judges would have thought I was partly to blame.

From what I saw of this case, JA really seemed to want to blame Def who had the right of way and was driving normally where cars are permitted to drive(!?). Outrageous verdict.

Carolina Girl · October 15, 2022

On 10/6/2022 at 12:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

New, 6 Oct 22, "No Security From a Flooded Mess" (Thomas vs. Matthews)

Plaintiff rented place from defendent for 16 years, when plaintiff moved out his son Keilan Thomas, took up the lease and kept living there, and he wants his security deposit back.

Defendant is claiming for damage from a flood in the apartment (2nd story apartment), flooding the downstairs apartment, and damaging the tenant's property. Water had to be shut off to the building overnight to stop the flood. Defendant says son turned on water, left it running, it turns out the toilet this was blamed on was working fine. Corriero says there's no proof the water came from the 2nd store apartment, and he's so wrong.

Defendant claims son left $5,000 in damages when son moved out. Defendant says son left a large couch, refrigerator, bedframe and headboard. and lots of other property. Defendant says plaintiff punched every door in the apartment, holes in the wall (very big holes), Defendants presents a video of the damages. Plaintiff son admits he punched all of the doors, but thinks it's better that it happened over time, not all at once.

Defendant says they fixed a ceiling leak a long time ago, before the flood happened to the downstairs neighbor from the 2nd floor apartment.

Father and son Thomas say defendant illegally kept their security deposit. Father Thomas says son did this years ago. Corriero argues there is no proof the downstairs flood was caused by the plaintiff, but that's ludicrous. Defendant had to refurbish the downstairs apartment floors. Di mango, doesn't even mention the multiple holes and drywall damages in the apartment, which are thousands. Plaintiff admitted that his daughter overflowed the toilet, so he did take the blame for the flood.

Security was $950, and Corriero gives $250 to defendant, and plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed.

I really wondered if Sonia the baililff was going to have to taze the judges.

Rerun, 2022, "Valued Garage" (Khalil vs. Keller )

PLaintiff suing defendant for $1987 for unpaid rent for a storage space defendant was renting from him. Defendant claims he doesn't owe plaintiff anything because plaintiff raised the rent. In 2015, plaintiff bought two apartment buildings, and raised the rent on the garage space from $50 to $80, and $100 was the new amount, then in 2019 rent went from $175 to $190, and defendant didn't pay the raise framount for $15 a month, and then when rent went to $200, defendant didn't pay the rent for a year at all.

Defendant claims he couldn't access the garage storage space, because the car in the driveway blocked his garage door opening. Plaintiff says from the first time he bought the building, that he told the tenant not to block the garage door. And if tenant blocked the garage door should call the tenant to move her car. Apartment tenant doesn't pay extra for the driveway, but if they want a garage space it costs them $200.

Plaintiff says that the only complaint from defendant was five or so years ago about garage access. Plaintiff says that defendant could have moved out if he didn't like the rent prices, or had access issues. There is no proof of continuing access issues, except the defendant's self-serving statements. $200 a month is the same price a tenant would pay to rent the garage too.

Plaintiff gets 6 months of unpaid rent, so $1200, Acker is wrong, there is no proof that the defendant didn't have access.

Friday's two shows were pre-empted by baseball.

She's a fucking liar. The damage was to the rear of her car. If he had hit HER, it would have been to the back passenger side quarter panel. She has swipes on the back of her car because she struck a moving object. There is also nothing to indicate that he was speeding or going to fast. The plaintiff didn't "inch out" - she didn't see his car because it was blocked and her backup cameras didn't catch him so she hit the gas in reverse.

And Acker and Papa Mike were idiots to buy that bullshit story of hers that had no basis in fact. In fact, they have no proof defendant was even speeding.

DoctorK · October 15, 2022

21 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

And Acker and Papa Mike were idiots to buy that bullshit story of hers that had no basis in fact. In fact, they have no proof defendant was even speeding.

Yeah, it seems to me that the Hot Bench crew are getting more and more arbitrary and capricious on a lot of recent cases,

Carolina Girl · October 16, 2022

15 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Yeah, it seems to me that the Hot Bench crew are getting more and more arbitrary and capricious on a lot of recent cases,

It'll be interesting to see what happens when they move their "Hot Bench" schtick over to FreeVee to Join "Judy Justice" (I believe the kick-off is sometime in December) and Papa Mike is left to carry the show with two new judges. He'll no doubt try to throw some weight around as the eminence grise, but I wonder if the show will die. Hell, most of these court shows could probably die a natural death -- at least the defendants would have to start paying their own judgments.

AZChristian · October 16, 2022

16 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

Hell, most of these court shows could probably die a natural death -- at least the defendants would have to start paying their own judgments.

Our local channel stopped carrying The People's Court about a month ago. What surprised me is how little I miss it.

Carolina Girl · October 16, 2022

8 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Our local channel stopped carrying The People's Court about a month ago. What surprised me is how little I miss it.

Yeah, I've pretty much given up on People's Court, if nothing else than the idiot litigants are still on a TV screen. That and I'm sick of hearing about her daughters.

CrazyInAlabama · October 17, 2022

New, 17 Oct 2022, "Go Car Go". Season 9 Episode 9

(Diane Wiggins and Robert "Bobby" Rios vs. Chris DeRagon and Nicole Lindsay )

Plaintiffs agreed to pay $12,000, with $8,000 down as a deposit. Defendant is a mechanic. Defendant DeRagen changed several features on the car, and registered the car. $999 for the registration.

Plaintiffs wanted a 2010 Dodge Charger from defendants. Plaintiff asked for work on the car, then plaintiffs changed their minds a month later. So, defendants gave some of the money back, but not all. Car sellers accused of forging signatures, and hiding registration status. Plaintiff claims the signature on the bill of sale isn't his. Plaintiff husband got a different job, and the couple had to have a car now, and could no longer wait for the Charger to be finished.

Defendants returned $5,000 on the car, keeping $3000. This paid for time and parts spent on the car. However, returning the parts would mean disassembling the car would be required, so that's not happening.

Plaintiff Rios denies the signature on documents submitted by defendants is his. Defendants bought the car to resell it, and could have sold it without making the changes plaintiff wanted. Parts, registration, labor, add up to $2200.

Labor was $1500 with parts, $999 for updated registration, and $400 for tires.

Plaintiff Rios says the handwritten agreement is a forgery, and he never signed it. Agreement says the $8,000 down payment, refunded $5000, and $3000 kept by defendant, signed by Rios, and DeRagen. Drivers license of Rios, and statement signature, are compared to the receipt for the $5,000.

Judges decide refund was actually more than plaintiffs were owed. Not enough information to conclude the documents were forged.

Plaintiff case dismissed, no more refund

Rerun, 2022, "Wrestle-Name-ia" Season 8, Episode 96

(Dennis Balsamo (father) vs. Billy Traughber, Rockwell, and Bolding) Vendetta Pro Wrestling was not trademarked until Balsamo fahter did it. Defendant claims plaintiff would give him the trademarked name, Dominick Balsamo (son) is the plaintiff witness. Dennis Balsamo is an attorney, and did the work to trademark the name, form the LLC.

Defendant's VPW had no business license, no insurance, no trademark.

Cen-Cal Professional Wrestling was the new name Balsamo's wrestling league started, and that's when plaintif Dennis trademarked the name. However, defendant claims he didn't need a business license or LLC, or trademark. Cen-Cal is a corporation, VPW is operated under Cen-Cal Pro, and trademarked. Plaintiff says defendant never promoted, or operated under the VPW name.

Plaintiff wants $5,000 for defamation. Defendant filed a fictitious name and business license for the VPW, and defendant called Dennis a thief.

Defendant Bolding is witness.

Person who eventually purchases the VPW name, did get a copyright.

Defendant woman claims because she's a Little Person, plaintiff Dennis called her names, a slug, and a Carny, among other things, and she is counter claiming for defamation. Karen Rockwood is also Mr. Traughber's fiance, and claim her horrible name calling online was only responding to plaintiff's defamation. At one time plaintiff was going to give trademarked name to defendant, but that agreement fell apart.

(I think once the name was trademarked, then defendant wasn't right to use the name.) Corriero says defendant had a common law trademark and should have been able to use the name in the area where they actually had wrestling events.

Decision is that everything is dismissed.

(Tomorrow's first case is a dog case, if anyone wants to skip it)

AngelaHunter · October 17, 2022

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiffs wanted a 2010 Dodge Charger from defendants.

Ms H'Wiggins was really itching for that 12 year-old Charger. Red is her lucky colour and just imagine how cool she and her hubby would look tooling around in that!

Her seemingly elderly, smirking (if this was just his natural facial expression I apologize) husband got a job, needed a car asap and they couldn't wait for the Charger to get all the work needed, so they bought a car elsewhere and told defs to give them their deposit back. O Rly?

Papa Mike asks, "Who breached the contract?" P husband cheerfully pipes up with a "We did!" yet still thinks they should get all their money back, even though defs did a lot of work on the car - 7 hrs according to them, plus threw in tires, some sound system, etc, as a favour.

I'm glad we're not yet at the stage of entitlement where there are laws saying that if you arbitrarily change your mind, a contract you signed will be voided and a deposit you gave will of course be refunded in full.

AngelaHunter · October 17, 2022

On 10/16/2022 at 10:36 AM, Carolina Girl said:

Hell, most of these court shows could probably die a natural death -- at least the defendants would have to start paying their own judgments.

They will NEVER pay the judgments, which is why people are willing to appear on court shows. Defs get their judgments paid for them and Plaintiffs know that in small claims court they'd never see a dime even if they win.

CrazyInAlabama · October 18, 2022

New, 18 Oct 2022, " Security Breach", Season 9 Episode 10

(Daniel Hallahan vs. Diana Williams )

Plaintiff wants his $3500 security deposit back, and treble damages for not sending him a list of damages. Plaintiff lived there 5 1/2 years.

However, plaintiff wouldn't do a walk-through with defendant landlady. He also says he left the place in good condition, didn't trash anything. Defendant claims she gave plaintiff an itemized list of damages. Defendant says the security deposit was used on damages, of over $2,000. Damages include hardwood floors had to be refinished, for $2500 after plaintiff moved out, which used up the $1500 security.

Plaintiff claimed was bringing a fully potty trained older dog, but he actually had two dogs on move in, and maybe others. Plaintiff was only permitted the one dog at move in. The floor marks on the hardwoods are obviously pet stains, from the Collie mix, and a Doberman Pinscher, and there are big stains on the hardwoods from dogs, according to the floor refinishers. Plaintiff keeps saying he didn't make certain damages, and then claims he really didn't say that. Hardwood floors were immaculate on move in. Plaintiff claims the floor wasn't poly urathaned properly, but urine will burn through that.

DiMango makes so many excuses for plaintiff I think she's channeling Corriero. Judge Acker not making excuses for plaintiff.

Deduction from security include $2500 of the $3500 security, plus the driveway giant oil stains, air conditioner. Landscaping $1250 plus $300.

Plaintiff gets, $1200. I think that's wrong with the floor refinishing, and plaintiff's endless lies.

Rerun, 2022, " "Renter's Remorse; Lien on Me" Season 8 Episode 74

"Renter's Remorse"

(Donna Szynal vs. AshleyBlackburn )

Suing for $3200 for unpaid rent, and damages over the security (security was $2400).

Defendant was an out of work dog trainer evicted during the pandemic for nonpayment of rent. Plaintiff claims she could have paid rent back. Plaintiff landlady decided to sell the property, and notified the defendant three months early that the lease wouldn't be renewed in January, (plaintiff was selling the house). Security deposit didn't cover the rest of December, and January's rent. Defendant says she couldn't leave until the month after lease ended, because she had Covid. Defendant also says she didn't pay rent to build up money she needed to move.

Plaintiff says defendant had two dogs living in the house, and many other dogs, operating her dog training business out of the house. Lease said one dog only, and most leases say no business operated out of the house. First dog on lease was a German Shepherd, and the Pit Bull was an Emotional Support Animal, so plaintiff couldn't refuse to accept the dog.

Plaintiff receives $ 2500

"Lien on Me"

(Gerson Ruiz-Gonzalez vs Tyler Saucedo )

2013 Hyundai Elantra, plaintiff bought care from a strapped-for-cash seller, but with $6,000 left on loan, car was repossessed. $3500 for car plus continue making payments to the finance company,, pay off balance the bank, and car was repossessed by the bank with $6000 left on the loan. Plaintiff says defendant was going to pay the finance company, but defendant says plaintiff was going to pay the loan off. Defendant claims the plaintiff had a hit-and-run and was going to flee to Canada, and that triggered the repossession. However, there is no proof of the defendant's wild stories are true.

Plaintiff can prove $3600 was paid by him to defendant.

Defendant lied about everything. Plaintiff receives $3500

Judge Rachel Juarez, Corriero, Judge Yodit Tewolde. New shows with the new judges start 31 Oct, Monday.

Edited October 19, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama
To show the new judges.

Carolina Girl · October 19, 2022

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge Rachel Juarez, Corriero, Judge Yodit Tewolde. New shows with the new judges start 31 Oct, Monday.

I see Papa Mike has given himself the plum DiMango chair.

AngelaHunter · October 19, 2022

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant also says she didn't pay rent to build up money she needed to move.

Didn't you love her attitude? "Yeah, I stopped paying rent. So what? I needed the money for my new place!" "Yeah, I was running a business in this home and had a bunch of untrained dogs there. So what?" "Yes, the landlord needs the money to pay her own rent, but so what?"

This "emotional support dog/cat/iguana/Shetland pony" bullshit needs to stop. It's an outrageous scammy way to take your pets everywhere with you. People should have to show the certification for these animals and the owner should have to supply a note from a doctor when taking large animals into someone else's property, even if it offends them to do so. JMO.

CrazyInAlabama · October 19, 2022

New 19 Oct 2022 , "Sassy Trucker; Bumper Thumper" Season 9, Episode 11

( Patricia "Sassy" Kellum vs Jerry Gaspard )

Plaintiff suing defendant over a truck sale, she sold him her truck for $16000, and required he worked for her as an owner/operator for a year. Neither litigant has any real proof over some text messages. Plaintiff was selling truck to defendant and he stopped paying plaintiff, and missed payments to the finance company, so plaintiff made up that money to keep her credit record intact.

Plaintiff claims defendant owed $6,000 on truck note, but can only prove $2680, so that's what she receives.

Bumper Thumper

(Bernardino Gardea vs. Jessica De Jesus Lagos)

Plaintiff was grocery shopping, came out to see his entire SUV bumper ripped off. Defendant claims she didn't hit him, but left a note with her name and phone number. Defendant claims she didn't hit the plaintiff's bumper and rip it off.

Defendant told plaintiff to go see her uncle at his body shop, but when plaintiff went to the body shop, no one knew who defendant was.. All four body shops wanted $100 to give an estimate. One body shop gave an off-the-cuff estimate of $2500.

Plaintiff gets $2500.

$2500 to plaintiff

Rerun, 2022, "Purple of Confusion" Season 8, Episode 92

(Seyed "Ali" Mirshafiee vs. Larisa Galstyan)

Plaintiff suing former landlady for the return of his security deposit, moving fees $4500, painting a room dark purple.

Plaintiff claims when he looked at the house, he paid $10,000 for security, some rent, but hadn't signed the lease yet. In mid-afternoon the walk through before renting to plaintiff happened, and plaintiff claims it was dark, but it was mid-afternoon, so he couldn't see the defects in the apartment. $4600 was the security deposit.

Plaintiff sent a list of defects in the apartment, that defendant says aren't legit. Plaintiff wanted to add his girlfriend, two cats, to the lease. Lease signing never happened. So, that means lease was month-to-month. Plaintiff was rented the main house, but moved in multiple others.

When landlady discovered tenant has a girlfriend, some cats and a bunch of international musicians living there that were not on the lease, she was appalled. So, plaintiff moved in, paid the $10k, and shortly after sent his list of defects, on month 2. Defendant says she had to repaint the entire place because some of the walls were dark purple. Defendant claims plaintiff subleased to others. There was a main house, rented by plaintiff, and the back house was rented out by plaintiff for a music studio to numerous others.

I would have give defendant everything she asked for, after plaintiff bragged about the number of people who used the garage/apartment/studio, and then wanted girlfriend to still rent the garage/studio back house.

Plaintiff claims he was moving in with one dog, but moved in his girlfriend, two cats, and the back house was rented to multiple people as a music studio, and was being used as an Airbnb. Plaintiff found out garage/back house was only permitted as a garage, but he was renting it out. Then, plaintiff wanted defendant to rent the back house/garage by the girlfriend. Plaintiff wants move in expenses, not move out expenses. Plaintiff claims the house was pristine when he moved out.

All three judges say damages are inflated by defendant. However, they agree the back house was used outside the lease.

Plaintiff gets $2300 of the security back, which in my opinion is wrong. Plaintiff shouldn't get a penny.

Edited October 19, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · October 20, 2022

New, 2022, Season 9, Episode 12

“Tardy Tenant”

(Barbara Ragan vs. Deshon Holmes)

Rent was $3600 a month, for a month-to-month tenant. After six months plaintiff says he stopped paying rent, and then she gave defendant an eviction notice for 60-days, family started moving out. Defendant got sick, was given to January 8th to move out. Attorney agreed with 60 day notice, but in December tenant didn’t pay, so the attorney said to do the 3 day notice-to-quit. Defendant says he paid over $7,000 on move in for security $3,000, first month’s rent,

Plaintiff witness is Nicole Pena, a property manager who did nothing required by law to notify the tenant of why they kept his security deposit in the required 21 days. Pena is the one who received the $7560 for security, first month prorated, and second month’s rent at defendant’s request.

So, defendant and wife didn’t pay the last month’s rent. Then, defendant claims he was hospitalized, and when he returned to the rental, his remaining property was gone, and plaintiff says it was sent to the dump. This was after either the property manager or landlady gave him permission to leave some things in the apartment or house until January 10.

There are some plaintiff photos of damages to the property, I don’t see the property manager as a good record keeper. There is no proof the defendant paid the last month’s rent. Security deposit was kept by the plaintiff, but no notice of damages was sent to defendant in the required 21 days. I think the security should have gone to December’s rent, but that may not be according to state law. (Some states don't allow using security deposit for unpaid rent, just damages).

Plaintiff witness testifies that after the December non-payment and in January, the remaining property left by tenant and family was put in the dumpster. Defendant claims he left a washer/dryer, drum set, and other valuable property. Property manager didn’t keep a list of damages.

Defendant says property manager and landlady were rude to him. Defendant and family did take a lot of stuff out of the house before going into the hospital.

How can someone be a property manager, or a landlady, and not send a list of damages, and take lots of move-in and move-out pictures? The property manager says she knew about the 21 days to send former tenant a list of damages they were deducting from the security deposit.

Defendant had an extension until 10 January because of his health, and everything was gone from the house by then. In January when defendant came back to the house, his stuff was gone, and it was before the 10th. However, why didn't wife and others pick up the last items?

Everyone in this case is incompetent.

Plaintiff case dismissed, and since defendant didn’t counter claim, he gets nothing.

Rerun, 2022, Season 8 Episode 100,

“Tangled Title”

(Carmel Lewis vs. Stanley Weaver)

Plaintiff /buyer bought a used car from defendant/seller, but car was repossessed because of an undisclosed lien. Plaintiff paid $3700 to pay off the lien, so she could keep the car. Defendant says he disclosed the $3700 lien, and plaintiff agreed to pay the lien off, RX350 Lexus 2010, book value was $13000, advertised for $7500. Plaintiff and ex saw the car, test drove it, thought it was a good deal.

I guess the heavy makeup on plaintiff’s chest covers a tattoo?

Plaintiff bought car, walked out one day, and the car was gone. She called police to see if it was stolen.

Defendant says he only dealt with plaintiff’s children’s father, and defendant claims he told the man about the title loan. The title was in the car, and it was a ‘salvage title’, and defendant says he told the plaintiff’s ex about the salvage title, and the lien. Why isn’t the plaintiff’s ex in court?

Car was listed for sale for $7500, book list was $13,000, so she’s still ahead. Plaintiff is suing for the $3700 lien she paid off. The testimony I want to hear is from the plaintiff’s boyfriend.

Judge Acker wants to see proof that plaintiff paid off the Title Max loan, for $3700. I don’t understand how plaintiff received a title from defendant with the car, since title is taken by the title loan company. Plaintiff has no proof of the money she claims to have paid for the loan. Judge DiMango is ticked at both litigants about their lack of any proof, or witnesses, and she believes nothing they said.

Plaintiff claims the title company went out of business since the payoff, but she did say Title Max. So, plaintiff and defendant are pleading stupidity?

Plaintiff didn’t register the car, in all of the months since she bought the car, and since the lien is off? Deplorable. I see this whole case as a free trip to L.A., and maybe to get some money.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Edited October 21, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · October 21, 2022

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

How can someone be a property manager, or a landlady, and not send a list of damages, and take lots of move-in and move-out pictures?

It's hard to understand why she was such an arrogant, snotty bitch who addressed the judges as "you guys" when managing the property is her job and she didn't do it. I wonder if the landlord realizes she's being ripped off.

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Everyone in this case is incompetent.

Incompetent and dishonest. All of them.

CrazyInAlabama · October 21, 2022

Rerun, 2022, Season 8, Episode 153

“No Good Deed”

(Peggi Gioletti vs. Jacquline Romero )

Plaintiff wants $5,000 back.

Plaintiff helped defendant with house payments, car payments, towing charges for the car, DUI fees, and deposits and rent on other houses, bought another house that defendant didn’t pay on, so plaintiff sold it. Plaintiff lent thousands of dollars to her onetime foster daughter, never asked for repayment, until the DUI and the totaled car happened. Defendant is pictured in the dictionary under “ungrateful” and “ingratitude”. (Plaintiff is from San Jose).

Plaintiff paid $2800 to defendant to leave the house that plaintiff was selling. However, defendant says she’s still in the house, so add her picture in the dictionary next to “squatter”.

Plaintiff helped defendant to refinance the car payments, so defendant went from a $500 lease payment to a $300 lease payment each month. Insurance wouldn’t pay out on the car that was totaled because of the DUI. Plaintiff junked car, $200 is all she got for it.

I’m hoping that plaintiff will stop giving money to defendant, but I bet she never will. Plaintiff is nodding and agreeing with the judges, but she’s never going to cut defendant off. She needs to evict defendant.

Decision is $5,000 to plaintiff. Defendant really doesn’t care, she knows plaintiff will never cut her off.

Rerun, 2022, Season 8, Episode 76

“House-tility”

(Ramon Quesada and Deloriann Duran vs. Edward Mogannam)

Plaintiffs are suing for their security deposit, $2,000. Defendant was the landlord of a triplex, and says formerly homeless plaintiffs damaged a lot of property in the apartment, harassed other tenants, put nails under other tenant’s tires, and cut the washer/dryer electric lines. Lease says no pets, and plaintiffs had a feral cat, they got rid of cat after defendant confronted them. When Covid hit, plaintiffs said defendant’s apartment was awful, but they stayed. Defendant gave three different notices to leave, 3-day, 30-day, and the third 30-day, and the third was from an attorney. Plaintiff did the walk-through on leaving, but not with defendant. Plaintiffs finally moved out, because of the attorney involvement in the coming eviction.

There are five pictures of apartment before move-in, painted, new carpets, new lights, and sparkling clean. The move out pictures show damaged blinds, oil on the living room carpet, broken closet doors, broken blinds, and damages from cat urine. The day plaintiff moved out, the defendant found the communal coin washer and dryer cords cut with a knife or other sharp object, epoxy in the coin slot. Laundry room is always locked, and only the three triplex tenants have keys to the laundry room.

Tenants were responsible for back yard upkeep, and no trash kept next to the house in the yard from the gate, and plaintiffs had junk all along the house wall. It’s a total fire hazard. Plaintiff also never told defendant they were moving out, but another tenant called him and told him the laundry machines were broken, they were sabotaged.

I believe everything the defendant said about the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs paid $5600 up front, $2,000 was the security deposit. Defendant says he had constant complaints about the plaintiffs from the other tenants, including police visits. Corriero doesn’t like the defendant’s attitude, but how would anyone react to a hostile tenant who breaks all of the rules? Acker thinks because the staff at the homeless shelter says plaintiffs were model clients. That has nothing to do with the plaintiffs’ behavior later, plaintiffs had every reason to be on their best behavior at the shelter.

Other tenants finally told landlord that if the plaintiffs didn’t leave, then the other tenants would leave, and the other tenants had lived there for years.

I want to know why the tenants had at least 50 garbage bags all along the house outside wall, and blocking the sidewalk from the back yard to the gate?

I’m on the defendant’s and the other tenants’ side. In the hall-terview, defendant says the plaintiffs' kids were always an issue, out of control, banging on walls, pretty much just like their parents.

No security deposit back for plaintiff.

Defendant gets damages over security deposit, $378.

patty1h · October 22, 2022

I had some sympathy for Peggi Gioletti, but the other half of me felt like when Judge Judy had cases where women showered dumb men with money, over and over, and didn't get back a dime and then decided it was time to sue. JJ would rake the woman over the coals and tell them they should be smarter. Peggi kept saying she was giving ingrate Jacqueline Romero money "for the children", but she still should have figured out Jacqueline was going to take as much as Peggi was willing to give. Jacqueline had such a smug, slappable face... ugh.

I actually appreciated Corriero giving Romero a lesson in gratitude even though it looked like Romero was pondering if she should get her nails or hair done after the case.

Edited October 22, 2022 by patty1h

AZChristian · October 22, 2022

25 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I actually appreciated Corriero giving Romero a lesson in gratitude even though it looked like Romero was pondering if she should get her nails or hair done after the case.

Or maybe both. That would depend on how much of the $5,000 award to the plaintiff she could charm/whine out of her. We all know that was not a habit that defendant would willingly break.

patty1h · October 22, 2022

16 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Or maybe both. That would depend on how much of the $5,000 award to the plaintiff she could charm/whine out of her. We all know that was not a habit that defendant would willingly break.

I didn't think of this until reading this comment. Peggi seemingly had/has some kind of guilt/savior complex, after hearing her recount all of the times she came in and saved the day for Romero and her kids, I could see Peggi having another weak moment and give in to Romero, especially if one of those children was used as a manipulation ploy. Peggi, run away!

CrazyInAlabama · October 22, 2022

I agree Peggi should stop giving that awful woman money. However I bet Peggi won't stop, and never will stop. I think she has a bad case of savior complex, and enabler-itis. Plus, the defendant, and her kids, and whoever she's with this week are still living in the plaintiff's house that Romero's not paying for.

Edited October 23, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

TVMovieBuff · October 23, 2022

On 10/21/2022 at 9:34 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I agree Peggi should stop giving that awful woman money. However I bet Peggi won't stop, and never will stop. I think she has a bad case of savior complex, and enabler-itis. Plus, the defendant, and her kids, and whoever she's with this week are still living in the plaintiff's house that she's not paying for.

This case was weird. Romero the defendant, I believe, is a sociopath. I'm not qualified to diagnose, it is just a feeling. She has no emotion about anything, no shame, no embarrassment. She has also had 'work' done, lip fillers and Botox at least. She struck me as someone who might have Sugar Daddies. I don't wish to vilify her, but she put herself on national TV, and invites speculation.

CrazyInAlabama · October 24, 2022

New, “Family Furniture Fight”, Season 9 Episode 28

( Anita Stafford [Aunt] vs. Brittany Evans (niece) ) Niece is accused of stealing from defendant’s daughter’s home after the aunt’s daughter died , $3175. Niece says she owes nothing, because cousin/daughter was married, and widowed wife is rightful owner of the property.

Plaintiff claims niece took items from late daughter’s home, and it was agreed niece would pay for it. Plaintiff claims daughter’s estranged wife, Jane wanted the items, and so niece swiped the furniture and other items without anyone’s permission. Plaintiff says there was no agreement for a specific price. Niece/defendant says she took items to take furniture which was only 6 months old, and sell it on eBay, or Marketplace. Defendant rented a U-Haul, and took what she wanted.

Aunt says she needed to store the furniture to keep it away from the estranged wife/widow. Niece says there was no agreement about the furniture, until after she picked the furniture up, and then aunt wanted the furniture or money. If the estranged wife wasn’t legally an ex, then it’s the ex wife’s furniture. Cousin and niece say aunt wanted to cheat the ex- or estranged wife out of everything. So much for plaintiff/aunt’s sweet little old lady act.

I think the estranged wife/widow should sue the lot of them. Why isn’t the estranged wife in court?

The aunt clearly wanted the estranged wife to get nothing. Estranged wife wanted to move into the house, and keep everything in it. So, aunt and cousins were looting the house and selling property they had no right to touch before the wife/widow could move in.

What a horrible family of thieves.

Decision is to dismiss plaintiff’s case.

Rerun, 2022, “Custom Extensions Cost”, Season 8 Episode 73

(Thea Chavez vs. Diana Flores )

Plaintiff hairstylist is suing defendant for nonpayment of hairstyling services, $695. The services were full color, root to end, and a consultation for extensions at a later date.

Defendant says plaintiff was rude, tried to force unwanted services, and told her she only accepted cash from first time customers. Defendant says because she only had the full color, and didn’t blow dry the hair, that she considered the service incomplete. Defendant says she owes nothing, and starts crying.

Hair color was $95, and not paid for. Extensions were ordered by stylist, and were due to be installed the next day. Hair was left undried because that would interfere with the extensions staying in. Hairstylist had to order the hair, installation, blow dry, and style were scheduled. Defendant claims she was never told that extensions had to be ordered, but stylist says she told defendant three times that she had to order and prep the hair.

Plaintiff says she only takes cash from first time clients, because electronic forms of payment can be reversed or disputed.

Defendant didn’t like some comments on text messages, so she didn’t pay plaintiff.

DiMango tells plaintiff she can reuse the hair she ordered, prepped, and dyed for defendant on someone else.

Plaintiff is paid $645.

I was very surprised to see a new episode listed. I think next Monday is when the two new judges start. They have very impressive backgrounds.

Edited October 25, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · October 25, 2022

New, 2022, “Ride Out of My Life; Grinding My Ear” , Season 9 episode

Ride Out of My Life

(Alisa Seedarnee vs. Paul Simpson)

Plaintiff says she loaned defendant money, $900 (originally $1500), and he refuses to pay her back. Defendant bought a three-wheeled motorcycle, he bought it, and now refuses to pay her back. Defendant say they met on “Black People Meet” online, dated for two years. Defendant says it was a gift, and he even gave her some money when they broke up. He actually sent a text saying he wanted her to sign the title over to him, and he can’t update the registration or sell the bike until he has legal title. Bike cost $8,000 originally.

Defendant tried the Adonis defense on Judge DiMango, that’s “I’m so great you should give me presents to stay with me”.

Plaintiff finally admits she knew defendant was using her, and not faithful to her.

Plaintiff borrowed the money from her boss, but was paying boss $200 in the same interval defendant was supposed to be paying her. Since defendant wasn’t paying her, she had to get a title loan to repay her boss.

Judge Acker really hates the defendant’s attitude, and I do too.

Plaintiff receives $900.

Grinding My Ears

(Matthew Stroben vs. Kayden DeMoss)

Plaintiff bought a clunker, wanted defendant to fix it up, but doesn’t even want to pay for parts. 2003 Dodge Ram, at $800, book value would have been four times that, if repaired. Defendant $1656 was paid to fix the truck. Defendant is an unlicensed mechanic. Plaintiff doesn’t want to pay the $3,000 to fix the truck, because he could get a working one for that. Plaintiff wants defendant payments back, so he can pay a licensed mechanic.

Defendant was only going to do one more thing for plaintiff, but only if plaintiff signs a liability indemnity waiver. This was to replace the entire rear end assembly, from a junk yard. Why would anyone think a junked vehicle this old would have good parts left?

There is an electronic signature from plaintiff in front of three other witnesses, Marselis DeMoss (wife) and two of defendant’s brothers witnessed the signature.

Plaintiff denies signing anything.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Rerun, 2022,”Oh Plummer! My Plumber”, Season 8, episode 98

( Frank Plummer vs. Laura DeHart)

Plaintiff suing defendant for $3,050 for a bathroom remodeling job he did for defendant. Deposit by defendant was $950, and defendant claims that’s all the job was worth. Plaintiff says defendant should have obtained other bids, if she disputes his price. Proposal was for $4,000. Defendant presented invoice to court for $3050, minus the deposit paid of $950.

Plaintiff says he’s not responsible for doing work not listed on the bid proposal, such as the vanity, and the shower door.

Defendant went to the Better Business Bureau, and claims plaintiff was abusive. Plaintiff claims she threw a phone at him, with his wife witnessing.

The other bid defendant had was $15,000, instead of plaintiff’s $4,000.

Defendant was told total for bathroom would be $6k to $10k, and $4k was only for plumbing, other bid was $16k.

Corriero finally agrees with the other judges, but he still says defendant wasn’t spiteful or unreasonable, and in my opinion she was horrible.

Plaintiff gets $2910.

Edited October 26, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · October 26, 2022

New, “Train Robbin’ Restitution”

Season 9, Episode 30.

(Kerrie Messke vs. Michael Miyamura )

Plaintiff suing defendant/ex-boyfriend for half of their restitution. Two litigants fighting over paying their restitution after the “great train robbery”. Their restitution was $16,000, plaintiff wants $5,000 for his portion of the restitution. She paid over $10k, and his portion is still $6k, but jurisdictional limit is $5,000. (This happened in Oregon)

Restitution was $16k for plaintiff, defendant and another person, and it was joint and several (that means any or all of the convicted felons have to pay to total $16k, it’s whoever the court can get money from). There were at least four felonies. Litigants robbed freight trains, and the third felon ratted them out. Defendant was an equal participant in the robberies. Plaintiff claims to be clean and sober, I hope she is. Plaintiff is the only one with a job, so her wages have been garnished.

Plaintiff apparently didn’t work for long, since she’s now unemployed again. (Criminals might remember that the government couldn’t get Al Capone, until they nailed him for tax evasion. Never mess with the postal inspectors, or IRS agents).

Plaintiff spent most of an inheritance from her mother. The third criminal turned state’s evidence. Plaintiff claims after rehab when she got a job, she went to the courthouse, and volunteered to up her garnishment amount.

In 2018, plaintiff missed a payment, and the court said that broke the agreement for restitution, and so the court sent the debt to the IRS, so plaintiff and current husband were liable for the debt. Plaintiff paid the last $6,000 off with her inheritance from her mother.

So whatever plaintiff gets from the court is just for her. Plaintiff admits she was the person who decided to do the robberies, but defendant took the blame with the police initially. If they wouldn’t have agreed to pay restitution, then defendant was looking at 15 years.

Plaintiff gets $5,000.

Rerun, 2022, “Rental Damage Debacle”

Season 8, Episode 94

(Suzanne Colomon and Kenneth Daniels vs. Theresa Guymon )

Plaintiff/former tenants defendant landlady had a termite ridden, vermin infested, a total wreck of a house, but plaintiffs says tenants were the worst she’s every dealt with in her 20 years of being a landlady. As usual, tenants say home was falling apart before they moved in, and want their $4300 security deposit back. Plaintiff Colomon moved in with her two sons, and Daniels. Photos show a wasp nest on the inside of the sliding door, and allowed a 14 day period to walk through with property manager for a move-in inspection with property manager, but no walk through was scheduled by tenants, and tenants moved in anyway. Plaintiff’s horribly long list of problems are appalling, if true, but none

Photos of tenant move in photos are claimed to have all been remedied by move in by landlady, and she says everything was fixed before tenants moved in. Apparently, tenants had keys, because they moved in without telling landlady or property manager, or claiming issues with house. Pre-renting walk through was April, and move-in was June. If the house was so awful, why did plaintiffs move in.

Defendant’s handyman says it looks like someone had a bad temper, and vandalized the house during the initial move in period with tenants. Plaintiff Daniels admits his German Shepherd chew the cabinet door up. There are also a bunch of nail holes in the shower/tub surround wall.

Defendant/landlady says cabinet damages from dog, dog poop everywhere, says tenants stole the automatic pool vacuum, and security deposit of $4300 was used up, and all damages total over $10k, and landlady is suing for $5,000 statutory maximum.

Plaintiff Daniels put Astroturf over the grass and landscaping for the dog to poop on, and it killed all of the back yard landscaping, and was left behind. There was no permission from landlady or property manager to put the Astroturf down. Landlady says there were numerous nail holes in cabinets, doors, baseboard, the tub/shower surround, trash everywhere, chewed cabinets, dog poop inside and outside the house, dead landscaping, filthy pool, and stolen pool cleaner device.

I suspect plaintiffs are a couple of professional tenants, who know all of the ins-and-outs of litigating in housing and small claims court.

Alvin Beck, defendant witness is the landscaper who had to remove the Astroturf, and replace landscaping and grass.

Three wall TV mounts were taken, glass patio table, and chairs, the creepy crawler pool cleaner, and plaintiffs claim property manager hauled all of the missing items away.

I wouldn’t believe the plaintiffs if their tongues were notarized. Plaintiffs actually wanted a rent reduction and renewed lease.

DiMango says defendant is entitled to keep the security deposit, and as usual Corriero excuses almost everything claimed for damages, except landscaping, and cabinet door.

Plaintiffs get $2000 of $4300, defendant’s claim dismissed. As defendant’s leaving she calls the plaintiffs “Horrible, Horrible People”. Plaintiffs are smirking through the case.

AngelaHunter · October 26, 2022

On 10/25/2022 at 3:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff says she loaned defendant money, $900 (originally $1500), and he refuses to pay her back.

I saw this one. Hilarious. So many "females" wanting to shower def. with money, because...? He's a hideous, mouthy, narrow-headed A-hole and for some reason the judges encouraged him by finding him amusing.

P was one of the most pathetically desperate women EVER, in that she insisted if any females were going to rain money on the repulsive, bloated, stoopid D, it would be her! She has to hold on to that Adonis and it was a privilege for sure, even she didn't have enough money to subsidize the slug's new toy but borrowed the money from her boss and subsequently had to take a title loan on her car to repay the boss. Yeah, I'd do that for some tub of shit loser.

AngelaHunter · October 27, 2022

When I saw today's blurb for train robbers, I immediately had to watch. I was expecting some members of a modern-day Hole in the Wall gang or maybe just Sundance and Butch.

Imagine my disappointment to find two drug-addled, portly, aging, marginal dimwits, and that the Great Train Robbery turned out to be sneaking on trains and stealing stuff from passengers during train stops. For some reason the judges were enamoured with them, heaping praise on the raddled P for being forced to stop drugging it up and being very kind to her near-toothless former partner-in-crime lovah-boy. Okay, he was going to take the fall for her but she heroically confessed at the last minute it was her idea. Not surprising since Def doesn't seem to be able to think on his feet. Maybe he agreed to the crimes just to make her STFU, something that seems to be almost impossible for her.

I guess that's kind of romantic and with all their wonderful accomplishments who gives a rat's ass about all those people who had their belongings stolen from them and endured all sorts of inconvenience and a long wait to get repaid anything.

They had to pay a shitload of restitution (16K I think) to the victims of their crimes. P, who adores saying, "All and several" (sic) says she paid it all, in dribs and drabs and finally made two large payments. JDiM wants to know where she got the money? Her mother died and she came into some inheritence. JDiM then mildly comments how the mother put away money all her life only to have it go for... this. P misunderstands, starts blubbering and announces, "I was proud to do it!"

She gets her 5K.

The most shocking thing to come out in this case is when P says D was cheating on her. I wish we could have seen this side tootsie who thought HE was a catch. Also, P got married but we don't see her better half either. For every pot, there truly is a lid.

Sign In

Hot Bench - General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

patty1h

AZChristian

ElleMo

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment