AZChristian November 16, 2022 Share November 16, 2022 When I read the synopsis of the hot dog cart episode, I deleted it unwatched from my DVR. Couldn't handle one more political thing. I'm OD'd on commercials and newspaper slams going both ways. 1 1 1 Link to comment
Paperclips November 16, 2022 Share November 16, 2022 The second I heard there was an issue with the declawed cat - done. I am so sick of these pet cases. These Court shows should start renaming themselves "Pet Court" and then I will know not to watch instead of hoping they will have a decent case. 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama November 16, 2022 Share November 16, 2022 (edited) For a while Judge Wapner did have Animal Court from 1998-2000 on Animal Planet, with the trusty bailiff Rusty Burrell. “Ex CATastrophe” New, Season 9, Episode 44, (Tewolde, Juarez, and Corriero) (Asa Charles-Ahlen vs. Alyssa Hursey) Defendant woman rescued by boyfriend when he moved her out of the projects to live with him Plaintiff moved defendant in with him, and a few months later he told her to leave. Plaintiff says when she moved out, she took the photo album of his later mother. Plaintiff filed for a temporary restraining order after she threatened to burn his property inside his house, but defendant claims the final hearing was denied. He paid rent, food, utilities, and a car for defendant. Three months later she claimed he’s a co-conspirator with a raccoon to kill her cat (No, I wasn’t drunk when I wrote that). Her cat is an older, declawed cat. Then, he ended the relationship, filed for a restraining order. Defendant claims she returned the photo album to plaintiff, but he said that she still has the album. Plaintiff claims she stole the album, artwork, books from his apartment. Plaintiff has a Simply Safe system and Ring camera. (This was in Portland, OR) Plaintiff says he has her stuff safely stored, and even offered to have a mover deliver it all to her. Defendant claims ‘mover’ is a friend of plaintiff, and items are stored at plaintiff’s house. The video of her room shows more stuff than I have in my entire house. I hope plaintiff changed the locks. Why is Corriero humoring defendant about the cat killing conspiracy with the raccoon? Plaintiff wants art work, books, and his photo album that’s the only thing he owns from his later mother back. Defendant claims he still wants her, and won’t let her go, and the court case, restraining order and everything else is just to keep in contact with her. Juarez claims plaintiff is love-bombing defendant. Plaintiff took the car back. Corriero wants to give $500 to defendant for the car down payment. Plaintiff wants $5,000 for his property back, and has receipts for the artwork. Defendant gets $500 for the car down payment, and her property back, Plaintiff gets $2600 for the artwork, minus the $500 to defendant, and has to return defendant’s pile of junk, and if she doesn't pick it up in 14 days, plaintiff can trash it. “Motel…Gunning for Eviction!” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 139 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Serafin Machado vs. Heena Shyamdasani) Plaintiff is suing owners of motel for evicting him. Owner of motel, her brother and mother wanted plaintiff out of family run motel, he says he was wrongly evicted. Defendant suing for $5000 property damages to motel. Plaintiff claims he wanted defendants to help him apply for housing assistance, but twice the defendants refused. Plaintiff has texts where he complained about lack of hot water to his studio apartment, because he’s not paying rent. Defendant also says plaintiff threatened that he had many guns, and later she actually saw one at the time of the assault on defendants in December, and plaintiff was evicted in December by police for the assaults and the threats to defendants. Defendant says plaintiff paid his rent until October, and that was months after plaintiff wanted housing assistance. Video defendants took of the motel room is appalling. Kitchen has missing cabinet doors, and the gas stove. Bathroom looks awful after plaintiff’s tenancy. There are before pictures of the motel room, but it’s another room. Plaintiff has no proof of what property he claims was kept and destroyed by defendant brother. Defendant claims plaintiff’s friend Mark picked up his property. Plaintiff says he has a friend named Mark, but Mark didn’t pick up his property. Acker says plaintiff was illegally evicted. She wants to give plaintiff $1,000, and cancel it out with same amount to defendant. Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant receives $4,000 (after $1,000 to plaintiff from the $5,000) Edited November 16, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
Paperclips November 17, 2022 Share November 17, 2022 Facing the Screen, I think the Judge to the left of MC had about 30 cups of coffee before they filmed. 2 Link to comment
Paperclips November 17, 2022 Share November 17, 2022 I'm starting to come up with names for these Judges in my head - motor-mouth, Middle and half-awake. 1 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama November 17, 2022 Share November 17, 2022 (edited) “Hairbnb” New, Season 9, Episode 45 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Emilee LaRue vs. Dani Davis) Hairstylist agrees to store hair extensions for client, but after 18 months without contact with client, the stylist deemed the hair unusable and threw them away. Plaintiff wants $1687, for the hair, and styling services. Plaintiff only visited defendant for hair services four times before the hair extensions. $925 is the counter claim from defendant for hair storage, and hair services. Extensions can be sewn in, or tape in, there are also glue in, or clip in types too. First visit, plaintiff needs the Wefts and tape-ins done by someone else to get maintenance on the Weft. On the visit in question, plaintiff had the extensions removed, and hairdresser thought it was for up to a month, then plaintiff waited 2 years before calling to get them put back in again. Online it says the hair extensions last 9 to 12 months, before they can’t be used again. After plaintiff asked about the hair, defendant said it’s been a couple of years, and extensions were tossed. Then plaintiff said she wanted clip ins, with more hair, instead of the previous type of extensions. Defendant offered to pay $410, and plaintiff would only pay $180, but plaintiff wants everything replaced and installed by defendant. Tewolde says 4 visits with defendant doesn’t make the defendant her stylist. (This was in Riverton, Utah). Plaintiff wants new extensions, to replace her used extensions from two years ago. Decision is $410 minus the $50 prep fee to plaintiff for the used hair extensions, so plaintiff gets $360, and $50 to defendant for preparation fees. Plaintiff rejected the refund offer by defendant. (Juarez would have done $50 to plaintiff, cancelled out by $50 for defendant, and I agree with that). Defendant says it wasn’t the right decision, and wishes plaintiff good luck finding a new person to do her extensions. “Dash Delivery Dog Attack” Rerun, Season 8, episode 137, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (David Helmi vs. Siree Franks) Plaintiff /delivery driver is suing defendant dog owner for being bitten by defendant’s dog during a delivery, for $5,000. Ironically, dog bit driver who was delivering dog food. Plaintiff says dog bit him in the groin. Plaintiff says medical bills were $3,000, and pain and suffering $6,000, so a maximum of $5,000 for the jurisdiction. This is a German Shepherd Dog, and there in no gate, instructions on Door Dash app says to leave the delivery on a picnic table in front of the garage door, so plaintiff picked up order from Pet Co, and plaintiff went to the front door. Dog came out from behind the defendant, and German Shepherd came out, and bit plaintiff’s penis. Defendant says if plaintiff left dog food on picnic table, that dog wouldn’t have attacked. Front door is only about 8 to 10 feet from picnic table in the garage. Defendant says delivery was a day late, but plaintiff picked up food shipment, and brought it right out, so Petco was late, not the plaintiff. The Door Dash App also told defendant that shipment was coming. Plaintiff says the kids were in the car (they’re older teens), and front door was open. Defendant also claims plaintiff was in the middle of kids, but the kids were one in the house, and two still in the car. Why does Judge Acker say plaintiff should have sent the medical bills to defendant, because plaintiff’s attorney was aggressive? Plaintiff called 911 for an ambulance. Defendant claims the dog didn’t attack the plaintiff. Defendant says after the attack, the plaintiff wasn’t clutching his groin, or seemed to be in pain. What a despicable human being defendant is for claiming that. Defendant is upset that the plaintiff’s attorney sent a demand letter for the medical bills. I don't care about the letter from plaintiff's attorney, the defendant's apology was phony, and she doesn't care at all. She's just happy the show pays the award money. $5,000 to plaintiff. (that’s the state maximum, I wish they would give him more though). Edited November 18, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 18, 2022 Share November 18, 2022 On 11/16/2022 at 2:31 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff is suing owners of motel for evicting him. Two horrible litigants. P is a nut and def is a big liar. It was pretty funny when P tried to claim the room was utterly destroyed - with even the ceiling torn down - because he was renovating it. 😄 Vile def showed "before" pics of P's room, but then was forced to admit the photos were of another room. Awful people. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama November 18, 2022 Share November 18, 2022 “It’s Mice House” New, Season 9, Episode 46 (Tewolde, Juarez, Corriero) (Kenisha Mays vs. Nathaniel Pickett ) Plaintiff/tenant suing defendant/landlord for ignoring mice infestation in her apartment, she also wants her security deposit back, and money for exterminating mice. Long term landlord/defendant asked about giving former tenants lists of damages deducted from security deposit. Defendant says he does this, but not for this tenant. Plaintiff claims she applied for rent relief from Covid, but defendant says he never received any money for her rent. He says she owes $7293 for unpaid rent for Sept 20 to March 21. Plaintiff’s photo shows mouse droppings, and dead mice under her cabinets and sink. Plaintiff says exterminators were incompetent. Defendant says plaintiff cut the holes in the walls, and that let the mice in, and he says plaintiff was a drug dealer. He also says a city inspector went to plaintiff’s apartment with a city inspector, and they saw the garage door seal at the bottom was cut in the 3-year-old garage door, and water heater lines were also cut. And other damages, with human manufactured holes. Since plaintiff is on rent assistance, her apartment flunked inspections. (I do like defendant’s tie). Plaintiff gave two letters from city housing authority saying defendant’s apartment failed. Defendant sent Terminix, and plaintiff thought Terminix should spray for mice. Tewolde keeps talking about plaintiff needs her security deposit back to pay on her next apartment. That’s ignoring that plaintiff didn’t pay $7293 in rent for seven months. Defendant says before tenant moved in, the reroofed the house, new drywall, no holes in the walls. House has been vacant since plaintiff moved out, according to defendant, and no signs of vermin infestation. Plaintiff moved out, and now claims she’s homeless, and sleeping in her car, and that caused a blood clot in her leg. Plaintiff claims defendant was making sexual advances to her too. (I'm tired of professional tenants who turn into squatters, getting away with not paying rent. I suspect that there are several reasons that plaintiff isn’t getting an emergency housing placement from the city either. I’m betting that the mice came in belongings with tenant. ) Corriero is mad that despite the fact that plaintiff didn’t pay seven months of rent, she should get an itemized list of damages, and get her security deposit back. Plaintiff gets the extermination expenses, except the cat, and Juarez and Tewolde will give tenant cat expenses. Plaintiff receives $1300 security, plus extermination and cat $2894 total. “Room Renting & Friends Venting” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 140, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Rodney Condell vs. Whitney Greer ) Plaintiff/landlord suing defendant/former tenant. Defendant says plaintiff wouldn’t let her speak. When defendant divorced, plaintiff rented a room for $600, her children visited frequently, and she wanted to move her children in, and plaintiff wasn’t OK with that. Plaintiff also didn’t want her frequent visitors, and her boyfriend virtually moving in. Then, previous boyfriend’s barbecue left a lot of soot on the siding on plaintiff’s house. Plaintiff’s house is 4 bedrooms, with at least one other tenant, and now his fiance. At first the 8 and 5-year-old children stayed on every other weekend. Plaintiff let defendant use the second bedroom, until his son needed to move back into plaintiff home. Defendant presented plaintiff with the lease she wanted. She also wanted to move the kids in full-time, and plaintiff refused. She moved in bunkbeds for the kids, in another bedroom. Then, defendant wanted the two kids there much more. John Covington, is defendant’s boyfriend, who barbecued a lot, and roasted the wall of the house. Plaintiff says one day defendant sent him a text about a realtor showing his house for sale, but the realtor had the wrong address, and shouldn’t have been let in the house. Plaintiff says defendant moved out taking sheets, pillows, and damaged his house. Defendant claims plaintiff threatened her, and wouldn’t let her talk. The day defendant had a place to live, she left without notice. She claims plaintiff threatened her, wouldn’t let her take her stuff. Plaintiff’s witness Bonnie Huddleston, and his fiance moved in during August. She says defendant moved two days before the end of the month, without notice. Defendant claims plaintiff slammed his fist into the kitchen counter, but this was two or three months before she moved out. She claims she was afraid of plaintiff, and wanted to move. Plaintiff says defendant’s boyfriend stayed 12 days in a row, and plaintiff went out of town for a couple of days, and came back to find defendant had a party, and house was full of smoke. Corriero does his usual routine of believing everything the defendant said. $348 for rent, utilities, and damages, totaling $546 to plaintiff. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 19, 2022 Share November 19, 2022 7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Corriero does his usual routine of believing everything the defendant said. Not surprised, I guess? I just knew Papa Mike's heart would bleed for that entitled, trashy Def, who is such a great mother she only had or has limited visitation with her poor little kids and expose them to her steady stream of bed partners. Ugh. She was afraid! "I cried!" Aww! I suppose that was the final piece of evidence Papa needed to hear to ooze sympathy for this poor, defenseless little girl, and because she was just so credible. I didn't turn it off because I knew the other two would ride roughshod over him and do what was right, what with them not melting at the innocent little damsel's tears. I haven't watched the new episodes yet. I'm very resistant to change and afraid Papa, who has put himself in the Big Boss seat in the middle of two newbies, is going to fall for every slick con artist's story and rule in their favour. Not what I'm here for! 1 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama November 21, 2022 Share November 21, 2022 (edited) “Flipped the Script” New, Season 9, Episode 47, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Dr. Dennis Paustian vs. Christine Huynh) Plaintiff, a chiropractor is suing former patient for a $900 loan she never repaid, and she also typed up a script he wrote. Plaintiff claims defendant stole his script, and wants $6,000 for that. Defendant first went to plaintiff as a patient for chronic back pain. Then, defendant created a website for plaintiff. Defendant says plaintiff behaved inappropriately towards her. Plaintiff thinks his behavior was fine. Plaintiff never kept records of what defendant owed him, and since she never paid him, he just wrote off accounts. Defendant claims she paid him $1,000, about the time he claims he loaned her $900. Plaintiff also had a concussion with after effects from a car accident, and closed his practice down entirely during the Covid shutdown. He also had a heart attack and was in the hospital for three weeks. Defendant also claims his dinner invitations, once to a banquet, he claims. Other times were for discounted or free dinners for veterans. The one recording that shows defendant is right, is the call where he says he was going to file a missing persons report about her, because she didn’t call him back. I don’t like his behavior or attitude, but I don’t like the defendant either. No proof of anything about the loan, so that’s dismissed, and it’s past the statute of limitations in California about the oral contract on the loan. Plaintiff claims manuscript is valuable to him, but he didn’t keep a copy? I hope she gives the script notes back to him. Harassment of defendant is proven. Plaintiff claims dismissed. “Student Drive-Her” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 42, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Millie Arizmendi vs. Wilber McDaniel ) Plaintiff /former driving instructor claims she was assaulted by defendant/business owner’s client, and claims student driver harassed her. Defendant says he doesn’t care about the harassment by the client driver. Plaintiff also claims he shorted her on her pay, by shorting her on her lunch period, and not paid for travel time, she wants $5,000. Defendant says plaintiff never told him she was physically assaulted. Defendant’s response to the inappropriate occasion was nothing. So, defendant thinks some guy walking around with an obvious hard on isn’t a problem? Wrong. Acker and DiMango rebuke defendant about his attitude about the student. Defendant says student signed up for more lessons after this incident, but plaintiff had quit. All defendant cares about is the money, not anything else. (The show keeps announcing after every commercial that matters of a sexual nature is shown). Plaintiff receives $5,000, $1200 lost wages, and the rest emotional distress. Edited November 22, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 1 1 Link to comment
patty1h November 21, 2022 Share November 21, 2022 51 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: “Flipped the Script” New, Season 9, Episode 47, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Dr. Dennis Paustian vs. Christine Huynh) Plaintiff, a chiropractor is suing former patient for a $900 loan she never repaid, and she also typed up a script he wrote. Plaintiff claims defendant stole his script, and wants $6,000 for that. At one point in the case, they asked Paustian if it was true that he had 50 previous lawsuits in the courts. He said he only recalls about 5-6. I waited for the judges to elaborate on that, if he really was a serial suer, but they dropped that interesting tidbit. He may have been a good doctor but he is terrible at keeping good patient records, overstepping the line between doctor and patient and not understanding that his CP script may freak out certain people. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 22, 2022 Share November 22, 2022 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: (The show keeps announcing after every commercial that matters of a sexual nature is shown). To quote a litigant, "Wasn't that a trip?" Yes, dire warnings that we are going to hear about a horny 19-year-old who *gasp* had a woody. Never any warnings we are going to hear about sickening violence or child abuse, but oh - the whisper of anything relating to s-e-x (even if there was NO sex) - prepare yourselves for the horror! Thank you, show. I had my finger filters and ear plugs at the ready. 1 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama November 22, 2022 Share November 22, 2022 (edited) “All’s Fair in Loan and War” New, Season 9, Episode 48, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) Man borrows money from a woman to start a shipping business. (Khadijah Mazon vs. Kyle Patterson) Plaintiff loaned $5,000 to her ex-boyfriend, he claims she forced him take the money, for his new shipping business. Defendant claims it was an investment, not a loan, and a gift. Defendant claims plaintiff is obsessed with his sorry, useless, deadbeat ass, and she’s not entitled to anything because he hasn’t made a profit. (This happened in Michigan). I’d like to flatten his tires for saying ‘basically’ in every sentence. Plaintiff admits to slashing defendant’s tires, and says she sent him money to get his attention. In my view, not a loan. Defendant claims he’ll repay the $5,000 to plaintiff, when the trucking business makes a profit. Plaintiff seems proud of slashing the defendant’s tires, and threatened to send people over to defendant’s house to beat him up. Plaintiff receives her money back $5,000. Stupid decision, what about the tires plaintiff boasts about slashing? “Loaning My Heart” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 107, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Jasmyn Vasquez vs. Isaac Rivera ) Plaintiff loans defendant money from her college savings, and defendant never repaid her. Plaintiff wants her $1,000 back she loaned defendant for a car purchase, right after she asked him to repay the money, he broke up with her. Plaintiff’s money came from her college savings. Defendant claims plaintiff said if he stayed in a relationship with her, she would forgive the loan. Defendant claims she called him constantly while she was drunk. I find it funny that DiMango thinks they were dating, just because they were boinking. Plaintiff receives her $1,000 back. Edited November 22, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
patty1h November 22, 2022 Share November 22, 2022 (edited) 41 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff admits to slashing defendant’s tires, and says she sent him money to get his attention. In my view, not a loan. Defendant claims he’ll repay the $5,000 to plaintiff, when the trucking business makes a profit. Plaintiff seems proud of slashing the defendant’s tires, and threatened to send people over to defendant’s house to beat him up. Plaintiff receives her money back $5,000. Stupid decision, what about the tires plaintiff boasts about slashing? I wondered about too, but I assume the defendant was too dumb/proud/ashamed to sue for the cost of his tires. I'm probably giving him too much credit but maybe he's not as petty as a lot of the creeps that end up on these shows and got a little morality after he got sued. Edited November 22, 2022 by patty1h 2 Link to comment
patty1h November 22, 2022 Share November 22, 2022 I just paid attention to see one of the stupid questions that a viewer sent to the judges to discuss between cases: "If I slip and fall while answering a call from one of those robocall companies, can I sue, especially if the injury leads to medical care or hospital visit?". I was lucky I was sitting down while reading this absolute asinine question, because I couldn't comprehend the level of foolishness that generated it. Then, I waited to see if it was possible that some lawyer had found a way to try such a suit. Thankfully, the judges said there is no way to sue for this - it would be looked at as personal negligence. Whew. 2 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 22, 2022 Share November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, patty1h said: I just paid attention to see one of the stupid questions that a viewer sent to the judges to discuss between cases: "If I slip and fall while answering a call from one of those robocall companies, can I sue, especially if the injury leads to medical care or hospital visit?". That was actually TPC, but it had me pondering: Is this some dumb shit Levin made up, or is it real? These days I would not be surprised if someone who hopped out of the tub to answer the phone and slipped on the floor would sue whoever was phoning them. People: No matter what dumbass thing you do, if it results in harm to you in any way - physical, financial, mental, or emotional - just remember it must be someone's fault, never EVER yours. Make sure you get Judge Papa to hear your case. Shed a few tears and get in that you are "just a little girl/helpless female" and even if you tripped over your own shoes and are suing the shoe manufacturer for not including a warning to not leave the shoes lying around, i.e., "Shoes may be a tripping hazard", Papa will award you whatever you're asking for, while yelling at the defs, "She's just a CHILD who was not properly informed!" 3 Link to comment
patty1h November 23, 2022 Share November 23, 2022 (edited) @AngelaHunter Thanks for the nudge. I'm so embarrassed that I put the comment about TPC here in the Hot Bench thread. I told you that viewer question made me cuckoo. **I will copy this into the TPC forum, but leave it here so it doesn't confuse future readers/make me double-check what I'm doing Edited November 23, 2022 by patty1h 2 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 23, 2022 Share November 23, 2022 2 hours ago, patty1h said: I'm so embarrassed that I put the comment about TPC here in the Hot Bench thread. I've done it myself, maybe more than once! And yeah - I was embarrassed.🥴 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama November 23, 2022 Share November 23, 2022 (edited) “Phone Charge-her” New, Season 9, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Katherine Gaffke vs. Tim Nelson) Plaintiff sister suing defendant brother/ convicted criminal. Brother says he cut his ankle monitor off, and fled, and lost the cell phone his sister bought for him. He had the ankle bracelet because . Planitiff wants $140 for phone, defendant says he only owes $40 for the phone, both claim the other one gave them emotional distress. Phone was purchased from Fingerhut on payments, at almost 30% interest. Brother signed a form with conditions of having phone, because brother ‘loses’ phones and other expensive items frequently. Part of the agreement was brother wouldn’t take phone out of mother’s home, until he paid it off. Brother claims he sold items, and repaid all but $40 to sister. One item he sold was a camera he claims he gave the sister, but sister said she bought the camera. (This happened in Duluth, MN). The day after signing agreement to not take phone out of house until it was paid off. Brother who was on parole, cut the ankle bracelet off, went on the lam, and he got arrested. Right before brother cut the ankle bracelet off, and left, he told his sister he was going to do that. Sister says she had to get therapy after this, because of the stress, and her depression. Sister didn’t include the restrictions about taking the phone out of the house in the written contract. Contract says this contract is the entire agreement, but sister says the restrictions were an oral contract. Sorry, a written document can’t be modified with an oral contract, unless that is put in the written contract and initialed or signed by both parties. (My view is sister knew he lied constantly, and she had no expectation of repayment. It was foolish to get him the phone, and think he would repay her. By the way, brother didn’t lose the phone, he sold it). (I have to laugh at Judge Juarez asking plaintiff if relationship can be rebuilt, there never was a relationship, except for lying and stealing by brother. I think plaintiff should have been told to stuff it. Her brother paid her something back, which is more than he ever did before. I had to laugh again when the brother said during his four years in the big house, he missed events like Christmas. This sister who has to be in her 40's, bought a phone from Fingerhut, at almost 30% interest! Stupidity runs in the family). Corriero says phone is symbolic of the strained relationship with the sister. Juarez doesn’t want to give the full $900 to plaintiff, and neither does Tewolde, but Corriero does want to give her the full $900. Plaintiff receives $120 for the phone only. “Bad Business at the Baddie Chateau” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 147, (Acker, Corriero, DiMango) (ChanelHenderson vs. Linea Staling) Plaintiff is suing for $3850. The two met working at a salon at a casino in San Jose, CA. Plaintiff hairstylist suing business partner, who filed to have her name removed from their license. The two filed with the Secretary of State of California for a business and corporate license, as an LLC. They bought hair (defendant did that), and plaintiff paid for the advertising and other costs. Plaintiff claims defendant committed fraud by filing a new document with the Secretary of State, taking her name off of the business license certificate. Defendant moved to Long Beach, and only the articles of the business were changed. Defendant and plaintiff started breaking up in April of 2020. Defendant said she had a much bigger number of followers. Defendant hired a relative as a ‘hair ambassador’ for the business, it was also her cousin. Judge Acker says it’s too bad they aren’t in business any longer because Acker and DiMango would have used her services (they build wigs and falls). Defendant took plaintiff’s name off of the paperwork and licenses the day before court. Plaintiff worked with the hair side of the business, and defendant was marketing the business for luxury products. Plaintiff put in $3850, and defendant put in for marketing, and claims she put in almost $8,000. Defendant claims the $8,000 she put in , should be paid by plaintiff. There is no written agreement between the women, on expenses, roles, and other business requirements. Defendant still has almost $5,000 worth of hair, but plaintiff doesn’t want hair supplied by defendant. Acker says there was no fraud, and would give her $1300, and the other two judges agree. $1330 to plaintiff, and the business is ended. Edited November 24, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
TVMovieBuff November 24, 2022 Share November 24, 2022 18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: “Phone Charge-her” New, Season 9, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Katherine Gaffke vs. Tim Nelson) Plaintiff sister suing defendant brother/ convicted criminal. Brother says he cut his ankle monitor off, and fled, and lost the cell phone his sister bought for him. He had the ankle bracelet because . Planitiff wants $140 for phone, defendant says he only owes $40 for the phone, both claim the other one gave them emotional distress. Phone was purchased from Fingerhut on payments, at almost 30% interest. Brother signed a form with conditions of having phone, because brother ‘loses’ phones and other expensive items frequently. Part of the agreement was brother wouldn’t take phone out of mother’s home, until he paid it off. Brother claims he sold items, and repaid all but $40 to sister. One item he sold was a camera he claims he gave the sister, but sister said she bought the camera. (This happened in Duluth, MN). The day after signing agreement to not take phone out of house until it was paid off. Brother who was on parole, cut the ankle bracelet off, went on the lam, and he got arrested. Right before brother cut the ankle bracelet off, and left, he told his sister he was going to do that. Sister says she had to get therapy after this, because of the stress, and her depression. Sister didn’t include the restrictions about taking the phone out of the house in the written contract. Contract says this contract is the entire agreement, but sister says the restrictions were an oral contract. Sorry, a written document can’t be modified with an oral contract, unless that is put in the written contract and initialed or signed by both parties. (My view is sister knew he lied constantly, and she had no expectation of repayment. It was foolish to get him the phone, and think he would repay her. By the way, brother didn’t lose the phone, he sold it). I have to laugh at Judge Juarez asking plaintiff if relationship can be rebuilt, there never was a relationship, except for lying and stealing by brother. Corriero says phone is symbolic of the strained relationship with the sister. Juarez doesn’t want to give the full $900 to plaintiff, and neither does Tewolde, but Corriero does want to give her the full $900. Plaintiff receives $120 for the phone only. “ I was practically cheering when Juarez & Tewolde shot down the idea of giving the plaintiff the money for pain & suffering. Especially when Juarez explained that it is for extreme & outrageous behavior, and this is over a phone. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama November 24, 2022 Share November 24, 2022 (edited) “Come Hell or High Water Bill” Rerun of first Season 9 episode with the new judges. 2022, Season 9 Episode 32 (first episode with Tewolde, Juarez, and Corriero). (Jennifer and Tomio Narita vs Sheryl Land) It’s a split level duplex/condo, and the agreement put in place years ago is the two units split the water bill, actually all utilities will be split according to the agreement. Solution is put in another water meter so each unit will have theirs. A pregnant woman claims neighbor locked her in a garage for an hour, and screamed at her for an hour about a water bill. Litigants are both attorneys. The HOA is only the two apartments. Tomio Narita says there were two previous sales of his condo disrupted by defendant, and that’s why the Naritas bought the condo, because of the price reduction made it affordable. There is a video of defendant screaming at the doorway area, plaintiffs claim defendant blasts her radio constantly, the video shows defendant covering the security video camera. Plaintiffs say defendant threw dog feces on their patio, defendant flips them off on the video camera every day, and it shows her stealing their grocery delivery when the plaintiffs were home sick and quarantined. Defendant says as a single woman, living on the lower floor, and plaintiffs and two infants on the top floor, with a shared two car garage, that defendant shouldn’t have to pay half the common utilities. However, is water the only split utility? Mrs. Narita says that defendant used the garage remote to lock her in the garage for over an hour, when she was pregnant. The joint garage is also a problem, with defendant putting stuff on the Narita’s side. The Narita’s have a TRO pending a hearing. Defendant called the police claiming a burglar around her house, and when the police came, she claims she didn’t see the police show up. Cushions on patio on Narita’s side had a white powder on it, and defendant claims that Mrs. Narita overreacted to this, and thought they might be drugs. I guess defendant never heard of Fentanyl? Then when Mr. Narita gives defendant the TRO notice paperwork, she screams like she’s being murdered. Mr. Narita has a TRO, without testimony from defendant, and then served the paperwork, when defendant started screaming. The defendant wants the plaintiffs to pay $4k to get her a water meter. If she wants a water meter, she should pay for it. Mrs. Narita was 8 months pregnant with twins, when defendant pushed the garage door button over 20 times, to lock plaintiff in the garage. Defendant’s explanation of why she trapped the plaintiff in the garage is ridiculous. So, going forward, defendant will pay 1/3 of the water bill. Good luck with that. There is zero chance that installing a new water meter will cost $1,000, I bet it will be at least the $4k the plaintiffs asked for. Putting in another water meter isn't just as easy as sitting one on the ground, and hooking up a couple of pipes. I bet there will be a lot of replumbing happening, concrete breaking too, and it's not going to be cheap, but it would be worth it. I've known people who lived alone, but used more water than a family of four, I believed nothing the defendant was babbling about. Defendant’s claim dismissed. This situation is why other cities make each legal duplex or condo have to have it’s own water, heat and cooling ducting and furnace/HVAC units, and electric meters, calling for a separate electric box. I don’t know how this condo was sold with the joint water service. I would also put a wooden wall up blocking defendant from coming onto the plaintiff’s side of the garage. Maybe chain link between the two sides of the garage, so it can’t be destroyed with a mysterious fire? (I feel so sorry for plaintiffs, defendant’s cheese slipped off her cracker years ago. They will never be able to sell either, not with this neighbor issues being public. In the plaintiff’s place, I would put in the separate meters, $4,000 would be cheap to get the neighbor out of my face about the water. However, I bet that won’t change anything about the neighbor’s behavior. I wouldn’t have children in the building with this woman, after the assault on the pregnant wife by locking her into the hot garage.) (If Corriero and Juarez don’t know, a TRO is usually granted with only one side testifying. The regular restraining order requires a hearing with both sides attending. Maybe Judge Judy should have a meeting with her employee judges and tell them about restraining order rules?) Plaintiffs get $600 for the other part of the water bill. Plaintiff wanted $4k to install the separate water meter to split the water between the two units. “Took the Money and Ran" Rerun, Season 8, Episode 110 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Christopher Wynn vs. Lupe Gonzalez) Plaintiff claims defendant/ex-girlfriend wanted him to lend her a down payment on a new car, $4,000, so she could give her older car to their daughter, who is the mother of their grandson. The car was $29000 a Chevy. Litigants have children together, and plaintiff claims he’s not a deadbeat dad. Litigants met when she was 14, but claim they didn’t ‘get serious’ until she was 18. Their children are 20 and 21. Plaintiff has never paid child support, except sometimes he would give her money. Plaintiff wanted the $4000 repaid every two weeks, for $200. Defendant was still paying a total of almost $900 a month for the old car, and the new car payments. Acker says deadbeat plaintiff isn’t a bad guy, I strongly disagree. Plaintiff says he was a wonderful father to his children, never paid child support, and was in prison for three years when the children were young. DiMango wants plaintiff to take over the $256 monthly payments on the older car, but he never will pay anything. Decision is $3,600 to plaintiff. How can Acker and DiMango call the plaintiff a 'decent guy'? Edited November 28, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 27, 2022 Share November 27, 2022 (edited) On 11/22/2022 at 3:57 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff loaned $5,000 to her ex-boyfriend, he claims she forced him take the money, for his new shipping business. I just watched this, getting my first view of the new judges. Poor, sweet little tire-slashing broken-hearted P who thinks her boyfriend/booty call/good buddy or whatever he was is a 'business man'! An 'entrepreneur'! so she had no problem loaning him the money since I imagine she was certain this would secure a wonderful, loving future together. She starts blubbering at his disrespect since she thought they were a love match and she's wearing a nose ring. Ew. HIS less-than-romantic version: "I tole her gimme fi' thousand or you ain't gon see me no mo'." The professionalism just radiated. Obviously the P felt he was worth it. I stopped there due to a combination of laughing fit and disgust. On 11/23/2022 at 3:54 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff sister suing defendant brother/ convicted criminal. I lasted slightly longer with this one, but not much. P? Gimme a break. You have PTSD, severe depression and you don't work. You really thought getting a phone for your worthless, criminal brother was a great idea? "I didn't want him to be without a PHONE!" Heaven forbid this giant loser-for-life be phoneless! If he was wearing an ankle bracelet and couldn't leave mommy's "hoase", what did he need a cell phone for? P needed 4 different drugs to get her through this ordeal of the scumbag (who she KNEW was a scumbag) and has to pay 29.99% interest on the Fingerhut phone - we had a discussion about the famous Fingerhut on TPC forum - and I couldn't take any more. I did watch all of the chiropractor vs his ex-patient to whom he said he loaned 900$. The old guy was incredibly belligerent and rude to the judges and they said nothing about that. His answer to every question had an implied but silent "you idiot" at the end of it. Q: "You don't keep records or send invoices for your services?" A: "No (you idiots)!" Q: "Why not?" A: "Well, I just DON'T(you idiot)!" D offered to type up a book or script the nasty old fart wrote, but she stopped when she came to explicit sexual content. At first I thought she was being prudish, but turns out the explicit sexual content involved MINORS. Dirty, vile old man who looked at least 80 fantasizing about minors and sex. Ugh. Kiddy porn would not come out the ends of my fingers either, ever. If I were being paid to do it, I'd rather forget the money. Then he phones D all the time, inviting her out, and shows her the Asian mail order brides he's perusing online, when D is Asian. This supposed loan happened 6 years ago, which is beyond the statute of limitations, so all this was for nothing. He had no evidence of anything, so even if it weren't beyond the statute he gets nothing. revolting old man. I kind of like the new judges. Edited November 27, 2022 by AngelaHunter 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama November 28, 2022 Share November 28, 2022 You might want to skip this case. “Dog Fight” New, Season 9, Episode 50, (Juarez, Corriero, Tewolde) (Chandra and Andre Scott vs. Bruce Hammock) Plaintiffs are parents of an 11-year-old boy are suing the dog’s owner, after his dog broke through the fence and attacked their dog. Plaintiffs are suing for vet bills, and son’s pain and suffering. The dog died from the attack, and the 11-year-old had to bury his dog. Biggie is a small fuzzy terrier (Maltipoo), and another dog owned by the Scotts, Hammock has two micro Bullies. Defendant’s dogs kept breaking through the fence and attacking their dogs. Plaintiff wife says they heard voices, 11-year-old son went out in his yard to find out where the voices were coming from, and it was coming from defendant’s back yard, with people saying Biggie had been attacked by defendant’s dogs. They were relatives of Mr. Hammock, and son found out his dog was severely injured, by defendant’s dogs in plaintiff back yard. Defendants’ relatives said the told young Mr. Scott that defendant’s dogs killed Biggie. Biggie was taken to the vet, and Biggie couldn’t be saved. Andre Scott says he tried to secure the fence, but Hammock didn’t. Hammock says the plaintiffs’ dogs broke through the fence. The only witness is the video, and that shows defendant’s dogs around the plaintiffs’ dogs. Defendant says plaintiffs’ other dog, Blue, attacked Biggie and fatally injured him. Video Shows Blue (plaintiffs’ dog) being put on the ground by Honey and Grizzly, defendant’s dogs. Defendant is wrong, if a shaky looking, old wooden fence is falling apart, then it can crack, and be pushed through from either side. Plaintiffs say defendant’s dogs were often breaking though to their yard. Biggie was $3,000 purchase price originally. Defendant’s fiance Tabitha Marshall, testifies to nothing, because she wasn’t there that day. Statement by 16-year-old son of Scotts’ says the relatives of defendant tossed the defendant’s dogs over the fence back into defendant’s yard, to stop him from attacking Biggie again. Defendant calls the plaintiffs and their sons liars. Picture of Biggie with the two boys and Mrs. Scott at the vet is so sad. Biggie died in Mrs. Scott’s arms, and they took Biggie’s body home, and father and son buried their beloved pet. Plaintiff want $4198 for Biggie, and vet services. Plaintiffs receive that. Defendant fiance says they moved, good riddance. “Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 109, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Michael Cox vs. Tammy Woosley) Plaintiff is a landlord of a triplex, and defendant was a tenant. After 15 months defendant said she would be gone by June 30, and plaintiff $795 rent wasn’t paid, because defendant couldn’t move out, after landlord forgave $400 to get her to move out. Defendant wasn’t getting Section 8 or assistance, but had a one-time payment from someone. Defendant claims there was a bubble on the ceiling, she told landlord, and the next day a water leak dripped on her night stand, and ruined $400 of her property. Defendant claims she couldn’t even go outside any more, after another tenant said everyone wanted her to move out. She was supposed to move out in June, only paid $395, (plaintiff gave notice but didn’t move out to July, and still had the garage packed full of her property, so she owes for June and July. The $400 was to pay for the stuff on the nightstand, and the nightstand, and was prorated for June. But when defendant left her stuff behind in the garage. Landlord says plaintiff never paid the June rent. Defendant was credited $150 for the drywall repair, but claims she did $3,000 for other work around the house. Plaintiff says defendant told him someone else was paying for the June rent, but no one knows who that was, and no money was received. Defendant says she left by July 15, but she didn’t because she left her property behind in the garage. Defendant claims another tenant harassed her, and when she told the other tenant because of the water leak, that other tenant pushed her off of the porch, and called police on defendant. The $3,000 work defendant did, she claims was planting flowers, and watering the lawn. Defendant keeps sending texts says ‘someone’ is sending her rent. The judges certainly bend over backwards to give money to deadbeat tenants. In my opinion, she owed two full months rent, and was given $150 off for the drywall repair. Decision is half of July’s rent, all of June, minus $400, so $774 to plaintiff. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 28, 2022 Share November 28, 2022 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The judges certainly bend over backwards to give money to deadbeat tenants. Did you see when they were deliberating how Papa didn't even give JDiM a second to state her opinon before butting in and vehemently declaring that poor little lady - who looked like a nursery school teacher but who is a truck driver - should prevail even though she had no evidence about this drywall job and who squatted without paying rent? JDiM is all, "Hey, let me finish my sentence!" Personally when I hear someone talking about how mean other people are to her, including this prissy P, that they harass and bully her and everyone is against her, I always think they might find the source of the problem by looking in the mirror. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama November 29, 2022 Share November 29, 2022 (edited) “Mustang Goes Bang; Lose-Lose Situationship” New, Season 9, Episode 51, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) “Mustang Goes Bang” (Arielle Simon vs. Linda Villalobos) Plaintiff is suing defendant for overage of damages to plaintiff’s car, from defendant crossing into plaintiff’s lane, and hitting plaintiff’s car. $1991 is what plaintiff wants, overage from what the insurance paid, $3500. Defendant is wearing shorts and tights, hideous! And giant caterpillar eyelashes. She’s only here for TV time, in my opinion. Defendant didn’t have a driver’s license, insurance, or the brains the good Lord gave a squirrel. Corriero asks defendant if she didn’t admit fault, and say she would pay for the damages, and she says no, and blames everything on plaintiff, and circumstances from her mother’s bone marrow transplant, and Covid. As of the case, defendant has to pay her parking tickets before she can get a driver’s license, but claims she has insurance. $1991 to plaintiff. “Lose-Lose Situationship” (Laurie Wilson vs. Craig “CJ” Barr ) Plaintiff wants the TAG Hauer that defendant gave her back, but he gave it to another girl. Defendant says the watch he brought to court was a Rollex. Plaintiff wants the price of a watch she sent for repair, and defendant didn’t bring the watch back, and for a bad paint job on her car, $4500. Defendant says they broke up, so he doesn’t owe her for the “TAG Hauer” she wanted him to get repaired. He also says the paint job was free, so why should he pay her anything? $1000 to plaintiff for the watch. Plaintiff “Rent-Up Anger” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 112, (Acker, Corriero, DiMango) (Brian Maginnis vs. Alizabeth McDonald) Plaintiff/landlord hears a rumor that tenant wasn’t laid off, but quit her job to vacation in Arizona. Defendant / former tenant claims plaintiff was harassing her. Defendant claims she was never behind on the rent, until she was laid off in September, and only owes $288 for October. Defendant claims she lost her job to Covid. $1,650 for October’s rent, is what plaintiff is suing for. Bleeding Heart Corriero says the moratorium pays if defendant applies for relief, but it ended on September 30 except if aid is applied for, but defendant didn’t. However, plaintiff says he helped other tenants apply for aid, but in spite of sending multiple applications, defendant refused to submit an application. Defendant claims she did apply in September, but was unable to complete the application. Plaintiff says he emailed her employer when he couldn’t contact her. This is where the gossip to landlord comes into play, where another tenant told plaintiff that defendant quit her job to go on vacation to Arizona, and another trip with her mother. This case happened in Long Beach, CA. Defendant claims she was behind $288. Plaintiff says defendant had $6,000 in past due payments for rent. He also says plaintiff had a pattern of late payments, and the payments made were for the back rent. Defendant admits she owes $900. The defendant gave a application she didn’t complete that says she owed thousands. Defendant didn’t receive unemployment, but claims that’s because she was only out of work for two weeks. Her current salary doesn’t allow her to get Covid relief. She was never eligible for Covid rent assistance. My view, I believe the plaintiff, and nothing the defendant says. As Judge Milian says, “I wouldn’t believe her if her tongue was notarized”. I hope she eventually does move out, so plaintiff can get a decent tenant, who pays the rent, and doesn't lie about everything. Plaintiff receives $1650 for rent and late fees, I guess he can forget any other non-payments. After the case defendant says plaintiff wasn't worried about her, but wanted a relationship with her. Edited November 30, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
Carolina Girl November 30, 2022 Share November 30, 2022 I’m willing to bet tthree things about Debbie the Dumdum Driver: 1. Mom wasn’t getting a bone marrow transplant (going for sympathy) 2. She doesn’t currently have insurance. 3. Her license is currently suspended and she can’t get one. 2 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 30, 2022 Share November 30, 2022 19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: My view, I believe the plaintiff, and nothing the defendant says. What an entitled attitude. Her snickering didn't go over well with the judges, well, with two of them at least. In the hall, she states, "I'm young, I'm female, and I'm black...so..." Brian is a bigot, is sexist and a racist, which is the only reason he's suing her. I'm sure were she old, male, and white the landlord would be happy to let a tenant consistently pay late/not pay, even if it meant he had to struggle to pay his own bills. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama November 30, 2022 Share November 30, 2022 “Will House” New, Season 9, Episode 52 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Alexander Trusov vs. David Leamon) Plaintiff/ former tenant is suing defendant/ new owner of sister’s house and landlord who now owns house plaintiff was renting, house actually passed to defendant’s sister Frances, and other trustees, and defendant manages the properties as a trustee on the estate. Defendant decided to give a 60-day notice to plaintiff, and prepare to sell. The agreement was if tenant moved out by a certain date, they would get two month’s rent free, plus $2500 to move out. Willie Leamon, sister of deceased owner, and wife of David Leamon, testifies about the massive amount of trash they had to remove from the home, and had to remove the door and wall plaintiff’s illegally installed to make the Airbnb. Lease prohibited room rental, short-term rentals, and sublets. Plaintiff is in property management, and claims the deceased landlady agreed to the Airbnb in an oral contract, and there was no modification allowed by the previous landlady, but plaintiff put up a door between his unit, and the tenant area. Defendant says trustees decided to sell, so defendant consulted an attorney, and file a formal eviction for cause. Isn’t a family member is moving in, an exception to eviction? Plaintiff wants security back, and double damages, for $5,000. Plaintiff claims house was in great shape, and defendant and the estate evicted him and his family illegally during Covid. I think defendant should get money to replace the blinds, they’re absolutely filthy. I know landlords only come on this show because the award will be paid by the show, because it’s obvious to me that the judges are all tenant friendly, and can’t stand landlords. The delay on billing to former tenant was to get house ready for sister-in-law Frances, who was also a trustee, and was moving out of a house that had to be sold by the estate. Some damage was sealing the upstairs off from his unit, and he rented the upstairs in two units on Airbnb for years. The short-term rentals were in violation of the lease. Judge Juarez calls everything minimal, and brags she left apartments worse than this after a year. I bet tenant will get everything, but at least the show pays this, not the estate of the deceased. Defendant has no receipts for the repairs or trash removal, because a relative is a contractor to fix the house. I hope the judges all get rental property, and get ripped off by tenants the way the plaintiffs’ did with their Airbnb. $2,000 to plaintiffs for security. “Eyes Wide Shut” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 108 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Kimani Bell vs. Garrett Worthington) This happened at 1:15 a.m. (or 2:15 am). Plaintiff was driving home, when defendant hit plaintiff’s car, and the back of a semi, totaling the plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff didn’t have insurance, and defendant’s insurance offered $1900 to the plaintiff. After a high speed car wreck, the plaintiff is lucky to have survived. The defendant admits to falling asleep at the wheel. Defendant claims plaintiff was going over 80 mph, and plaintiff popped his tire, hit defendant, and ended up in the ditch. Pictures of the plaintiff’s car shows red paint from defendant’s car. Defendant claims he was on the side of the road for 30 minutes before plaintiff drove by and hit defendant’s car. Defendant claims he didn’t hit plaintiff, what a bald-faced liar defendant is. In the judge’s discussion Bleeding Heart Corriero goes ballistic on defendant’s lies to the court. So plaintiff gets the defendant’s insurance payment of $1900, and $1000 from the court. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 30, 2022 Share November 30, 2022 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: In the judge’s discussion Bleeding Heart Corriero goes ballistic on defendant’s lies to the court. Wasn't that something, even for Papa? He wanted to reward the P, who drives with no insurance - "To be perfectly honest, I was so excited to have a car I just couldn't be bothered to get insurance and spend money on something that is no fun at all" - and give him the full value of the car. P was very lucky to be offered 1900$ by D's insurance for his car, when his hands were very unclean but that wasn't enough so he's here hoping to get more. P was an irresponsible twit, but def - with his douchebag, hipster hairdo, silly beard and rosy cheeks is a 27-year-old man who acts and lies like a kid and sends super-dumb texts filled with "Bro" and cursing to P and said he just decided to "close my eyes for a minute" while driving on the highway. Neither seem to understand how lucky they are, not only to be alive and whole, but that they didn't kill someone. Papa rants, makes Grumpy Cat faces, and sulks until the other two agree to give the uninsured P 1,000$ which I thought was very wrong, since P was breaking the law by choosing to drive with no insurance. What if he killed or disabled some innocent person? That person would be out of luck, but Papa doesn't care about that. In his eyes, no "young man" or "young woman" is ever to be held responsible for anything they do. I think he's spent his whole time here trying to make amends for the fact that he was "forced" to send a young person (a vicious killer) to prison for life after he savagely murdered the man who took him in when no one else would. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 1, 2022 Share December 1, 2022 “Improper-ty Manager” New, Season 9 Episode 53, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Catina Hill vs. Yolanda Tyler) Plaintiff rented space from defendant to open a hair salon, then plaintiff rented a second space from defendant for another salon. In the second salon space, plaintiff alleges defendant lied about the air conditioning working, but lease says air condition repairs are the problem of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is suing for rent, for renovations, and plaintiff’s security deposit. Defendant wants lost wages, unpaid rent, and defamation. Salon one looks lovely, but salon two was a wreck before plaintiff fixed it up. Plaintiff claims defendant lied about the air conditioning being new. (What the hell is plaintiff wearing? I guess there are ruffles everywhere, but it looks fuzzy.) Salon owner posts a video that she claims shows the defects in the rental property, and landlord says that’s defamation. To be defamation, landlord would have to prove video claims are false. Plaintiff says the water heater wasn’t working, and water line was shared with the restaurant next door. All of the issues were with the second salon space, not the first. Plaintiff claims she paid $600 for a slide in fee, but no one knows what that is. Apparently, it’s a payment from tenants to get the lease to go ahead, paid to defendant. When defendant went to pick up the rent from plaintiff, she says plaintiff’s father, and another man were there, and defendant felt threatened, and plaintiff claimed plumbing, water heater, and heater/air conditioning were broken. Some of the argument was caught on tape, and it’s ridiculous. My guess, plaintiff wanted out of the second space lease. Lease says tenant/plaintiff is responsible for repairs. Plaintiff had a chance to inspect everything in the second salon space, and still signed the lease. Why didn’t they just replace the hot water heater? Plaintiff will get second space rent back, $5,000 court maximum. Defendant’s claim is dismissed. “Topsy Turvy” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 111, (Acker, Corriero, DiMango) (James Amato vs. John Martello) Plaintiff’s 1997 truck goes up on lift, and crashes down, and now needs more repairs, he’s suing for $4,000. Plaintiff took his truck to his long-time mechanic to defendant’s shop, truck went up on lift, and nose-dived. Defendant said he would fix it, and claims he did. Plaintiff says truck was never fixed, and it all happened two years ago. Plaintiff is also a landscaper, who worked for defendant. Defendant says right after the truck incident, the plaintiff wanted more money for a landscaping job, and caused a scene at the garage. Plaintiff keeps stating that the 30-year-old truck was in great condition. Plaintiff claims truck was never repaired after being dropped. Defendant has done a bunch of work to the truck in the last two years, after the accident, and some was by defendant. Plaintiff will get $700 to fix the tailgate, and repaint the car. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 2, 2022 Share December 2, 2022 ”The Friendship Union” New, Season 9, Episode 54, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Tracy Greenberg vs. Richard Hughes) Film worker’s late employer’s wife loaned him money, $2463 to join a union, and she wants him to pay her. Defendant gets snarky with Corriero, and Corriero doesn’t believe it’s happening. She previously bought him a truck for $1500, but didn’t expect repayment. This time plaintiff says she expected repayment, but defendant didn’t pay her back a penny. Defendant gave union a check from plaintiff’s personal account, and union didn’t accept personal third-party checks. So, she had to get a Wells Fargo bank check to make the payment. Defendant visits tenants at plaintiff’s house all of the time, but still never communicated with her about the loan. Defendant says it’s a gift, not a loan. Corriero is angry at the plaintiff, because she doesn’t remember the conversation about the union dues payment, and he implies that she didn’t make it clear it was a loan. Plaintiff receives $2463 “The Paper Caper” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 115, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Hudson vs. Gauthier) Plaintiff works at the post office, offers to serve defendant’s paperwork with the court to serve on squatters, he’s suing for $450. Plaintiff fills out the paperwork for $500, and when he tries to file the paperwork, the court won’t accept them because she has a post office box, not a home address. Defendant then needs to take care of the filing with the court. Then when paperwork finally gets filed, the defendant only paid him $50. There is no signed contract. Why should defendant pay plaintiff, when she had to do the paperwork filing herself? Also, plaintiff had no standing to file any kind of suit. Defendant filed the paperwork, and received the eviction paperwork. When defendant went to the court herself, the court accepted her P.O. Box. Plaintiff stomps out of the courtroom, saying he doesn’t have time to waste. The judges are stunned by plaintiff’s abrupt exit. DiMango wants to give plaintiff $250. The other two judges say plaintiff quit on the filing process, like he stomped out of court. This was in Compton, CA by the way. Plaintiff gets $150 for going to the courthouse twice. What a joke that award is. Plaintiff received $50 already, and I wouldn’t give him anything. Plaintiff stomps out again. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 3, 2022 Share December 3, 2022 On 12/2/2022 at 3:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Film worker’s late employer’s wife loaned him money, $2463 to join a union, and she wants him to pay her. That case and litigants were so weird. Def is a man well past middle age, but P feels she needs to take care of him, buy him a truck, needs to tell him to join a union and has to take them there and pay for it. Why is he so helpless? I could be wrong but he looked here as though he may have a drinking problem. I can't think why else a man his age needs someone to hold his hand, give him money and do him favours all the time. He did so much for her! "If I tree fell on her property, I would take care of it!" Q: "Did a tree fall?" A: "No..." It's nice he knew how to go and buy himself a Corvette since he's earning more money now, thanks to P's odd benevolence, but couldn't figure out how to get in touch with her to pay back even a dollar. Strange, both of them. 1 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 5, 2022 Share December 5, 2022 “Hot Property” New, Season 9, Episode 55 (Juarez, Corriero, Tewolde) (Thomas Sabinske vs. Jeong Sook “Grace” Han ) Plaintiff met homeless woman next to a garbage bin, and brings her home to live in his one-bedroom apartment, things don’t work out, and he called the police the first week. So, he’s suing her for emotional distress. Defendant claims plaintiff choke and beat her, and is suing plaintiff for $5,000. Plaintiff claims defendant choked and assaulted him, and claims she also stole some of his property when she finally left. Defendant claims she was working, and not homeless when the litigants met. Plaintiff witness is a neighbor, Sandra Porras, and says plaintiff is a good person, and defendant lied about being homeless, and needing help, and claims defendant trashed the apartment. (I believe plaintiff and his witness, and think the scammer and thief is defendant). Defendant claims the apartment was 3 bed 3 bath, not a 1 bedroom. Plaintiff and witness say the addons that made it a 3 bedroom were illegal and city is trying to resolve the issue. There are before and after move-in apartment photos, and defendant blames everything on plaintiff. Defendant is claiming the items she’s accused of stealing were actually hers, not plaintiff’s. Defendant claims right after move-in plaintiff assaulted her, slammed her to the concrete, etc. Plaintiff denies he acted in self-defense. Defendant denies she’s been arrested or charged with a criminal offense in the previous two years, and she say no. However, plaintiff supplied the court with a criminal charge for defendant, and she pled guilty for her case, it was for robbery. Decision is $1000, $566, for damages, and stolen items, so plaintiff receives $1566. Defendant gets nothing. Defendant looks pissed at decision, and is rolling her eyes. Rerun, Season 8, Episode 56 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) “The Last Hurrah” (Evelyn Vazquez vs. Anel “Nellie” Alim) An eyebrow and lash technician says the salon owner overworked her, and she’s suing salon owner for unpaid compensation. Defendant/salon owner claims the plaintiff quit with out notice. Plaintiff is suing for $200, for the two days she worked at the salon. Defendant claims plaintiff wasn’t licensed, did bad work, and defendant had to refund a lot of clients. Beauty Studio L A, is the salon. Plaintiff claims she worked without a break. Defendant claims out of seven clients plaintiff worked on, one had a full refund, and three more complained, and sent pictures of their lashes falling off. After plaintiff threatened to sue, defendant paid her $221, and then $54, but plaintiff still wants $200 more, but the $221, and $54 was paid in a small claims court settlement for the same cause of action. . Plaintiff sent defendant a text after the second day on the job, saying she quit. Plaintiff only worked on seven customers in her two days on the job. Plaintiff didn’t work in a salon before, just out of her home. Plaintiff didn’t have a license either. Plaintiff case dismissed. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 5, 2022 Share December 5, 2022 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff met homeless woman next to a garbage bin, and brings her home to live in his one-bedroom apartment, things don’t work out, and he called the police the first week. Really? The last time I brought home someone I found next to a garbage bin, it worked out splendidly! Haven't yet watched this and not sure I want to. 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Beauty Studio L A, is the salon. Plaintiff claims she worked without a break. Hearing about her slaving away in these brutal conditions brought a tear to my eye. I'm so glad she still had the strength to apply triple fake eyelashes to her own orbs. 1 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 6, 2022 Share December 6, 2022 OKay, the homeless woman and the benefactor: Is this the wildest litigant ever? Is she a psychopath, a sociopath, completely and totally insane? I swear if you asked that woman "What day is it?" she would lie. Every single word out of her mouth was a lie, IMO. Tom is very lucky to be still alive not only in this case, but if he has a habit of taking in strays he must like living on the edge. Stick to stray animals, Tom. You'd no doubt fare better with them. And get some teeth instead of footing the bills for freeloading lunatics! There are places that have low/no cost dental care for low income seniors. 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 6, 2022 Share December 6, 2022 “Watch Your Step; Bail Me Out” New, Season 9, Episode 56, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) “Watch Your Step” (Gerald Sparks vs. Victor Lowe) Stepfather/plaintiff is suing stepson for a loan to move family into a new apartment, suing for the court maximum $5,000 (loan was actually $5700). Stepson claims it wasn’t a loan, the move was from Riverside to L.A. Stepson’s wife Hannah contacted stepfather for the apartment deposit, so they wouldn’t lose the apartment. Hannah claimed they actually had the money, and just couldn’t get to it in time. Stepson wanted plaintiff to build a house in his backyard, for defendant’s family. Stepfather says payback was in 15 days, after the loan. Plaintiff’s wife, defendant’s mother testifies about the loan. Stepson is angry with his mother, because she remarried after his father died. He still claims it was a gift, not a loan. So, defendant’s wife lied about having the money in an account for the deposits on the apartment. He’s also mad that letters from CPS about defendant’s son were sent back unopened. (That’s so the defendant couldn’t claim he was a tenant at mother and stepfather’s home). Stepfather married the mother when defendant was one or two, and says Victor is estranged from his other siblings, (I’m guessing step siblings) because he owes them money also. Stepfather says Victor always paints himself as the victim. Plaintiff gets $5,000, the court maximum, and is still out $700. “Bail Me Out” (Rebecca Mollkoy vs. Heather Rivadeneria) Defendant borrowed money from plaintiff to bail her boyfriend out of jail, but doesn’t bother to repay the money. Defendant says that she didn’t ask plaintiff for the money, so she shouldn’t have to pay it back. Defendant broke up with the boyfriend before the court case. Plaintiff says defendant wanted her to co-sign the bond, but her name was put on the bond document. Bond was $2000, and defendant signed in person, but the plaintiff’s signature was electronic at another time. Defendant says plaintiff signed the document. Plaintiff received the bond company agreement, and refused to sign, and forwarded it to defendant saying she wasn’t signing. Plaintiff is suing for $2,000. Defendant says the agreement was that plaintiff would front the money, and defendant would only pay plaintiff back if she got a loan for the bond. Defendant never received the loan. Defendant says plaintiff agreed to co-sign the bond, but plaintiff says no. Plaintiff did loan $2,000 to defendant. $2000 to plaintiff. “Mechanic Mishap” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 106, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero). (Miguel Riley and Dasha Oliveros vs. Raul Hernandez ) Plaintiff accuses his mechanic of getting his truck impounded, the mechanic says he’s never seen the truck in his life. Plaintiffs own a 1995 Ford Ranger, and claim they paid defendant $2,000 to fix the transmission, and torn seats. Then, plaintiffs saw truck on the street, and then it was impounded and sold. Suing defendant for $5,000, for payment of $2,000, and impound and replacement costs. Defendant says he did an oil change on another vehicle five years ago, and he hasn’t done any work since then, never saw the truck, and plaintiffs are crooks. He also says that he fills out an Plaintiff Riley bought the transmission, and claims it was delivered directly to defendant’s shop. Plaintiff says he paid $1500 to the company that supplied and shipped the transmission. Plaintiff Riley blames his diabetes for not having receipts. Plaintiffs have no receipts for the transmission, from defendant for payments, and no estimate from the defendant. Truck was supposedly dropped off in early January, but police report says truck wasn’t tagged and towed by police until March. Report also says that truck registration was expired, had a flat tire, and all kinds of damages. Plaintiffs have no evidence of anything. Plaintiff Riley claims the police report is a lie, defendant is lying, and he seems rather unhinged. Defendant says any vehicles that don’t fit in the garage, are parked at a parking structure across the street, and he rents spaces there, and he can see the cars on the lot at all times. Plaintiff case dismissed. 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 7, 2022 Share December 7, 2022 21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Hannah claimed they actually had the money, and just couldn’t get to it in time. Maybe it was buried in a lockbox somewhere in the forest and their shovel broke? "Build a house for me and my gang in your backyard because I can't take care of the kids I chose to have. YOU do it." As some litigants would say, "Isn't that a trip!" What a hateful sociopath. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 7, 2022 Share December 7, 2022 (edited) “Property Smothers” New, Season 9, Episode 57 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Jennifer Najera and Tomas Torres vs. Glainda Ramirez ) Landlady inherits rental property from her husband, claims property was in disrepair from the tenant’s (plaintiffs’)actions, and evicts the nine-months pregnant tenant. Of course , all three judges are dismiss everything the plaintiffs’ lied about, including pets in violation of the lease. After multiple violations of the lease, defendant/landlady gave them 60 days notice to move out. Defendant claims plaintiffs underpaid the rent. However, the ‘rent adjustment’ with the husband landlord was a verbal modification to the contract, not legal. Defendant says she owned the property since 1990, and plaintiffs are the only nightmare tenants she’s had. Defendant says her husband never did oral modifications, and did everything in writing on contracts only. The underpayment of rent was illegal, give 60 days notice to move out in writing, property damages are alleged. Video by Torres shows the move out condition of the house. Mrs. Ramirez claims she cleaned everything herself, including greasy film on the floors, and walls. She also claims that the tenants had at least one dog, not allowed by the lease, and they operated a business out of the house against the lease. Landlady says they also put a big pool in the back yard, without approval. My guess is the only reason landlords come on this show is because the judgment gets paid by the court, and they get to keep the security deposit. Corriero kisses the tenants’ butts, but treats the landlady like garbage. The judges keep harping on the plaintiff being 9-months pregnant, but ignore the fact that defendant’s husband died. Woman tenant says they didn’t have a dog, but landlady says the woman claimed dog was a ‘special’ pet. If I hear ‘9 months pregnant’ again out of the judges, I’ll puke. Juarez wants to give back the last month’s rent (they prepaid), and security deposit, and emotional distress. Defendant case dismissed. Plaintiffs get $3500 , including emotional distress. Security deposit, and last month’s rent. “Drowning in Debt” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 113, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Roberta Sorkin vs. Robert Lansing) Plaintiff paid defendant for pool work for $12,200 was the contract price, for defendant to take out money on her credit card for $4,000 in three draws. Plaintiff had an existing pool and spa that was disgusting. Defendant was to remove old plaster, and replaster, new tile, replace skimmer, both lights, safety for the light switch, and expansion sealer around the deck. Expansion sealer was never finished, because plaintiff told workers to leave, $700 for the seal. There were issues about starting, and ending of contract. Disputes over what was included, change orders, timing of work. Plaintiff says defendant made insulting Yelp comments (answering her Yelp comment about his business) about her, saying she had mental problems. Just because defendant didn’t say exactly what illness defendant refers to, Acker says that wasn’t disparaging. Plaintiff case dismissed. I resent that Acker claims defendant has dementia, who said that, and is it true? So, plaintiff didn't mention what illness defendant is claimed to have, but Acker can say that on national TV? Edited December 8, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 8, 2022 Share December 8, 2022 19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The judges keep harping on the plaintiff being 9-months pregnant, but ignore the fact that defendant’s husband died. Hmm. Plaintiff had a choice about being "9-months pregnant" but def had no choice about her husband dying. I guess "SSM" (I'm assuming she's a SSM as per usual) trumps widowhood. Maybe it was an immaculate conception? I think I'll skip this one. Thank you, CrazyInAlabama! Now I can only screen not only my calls, but also my court shows, thanks to your detailed recaps!👍 2 Link to comment
Paperclips December 8, 2022 Share December 8, 2022 Honestly, I have tried to watch this show - I just don't like the new Judges. Motor Mouth on the left can't shut up. Half-Asleep is getting better but still looks bored. Judge Judy went to Amazon - I've watched 2 episodes - not the same - if the old Judges go to their own show - I figure much the same. They all got greedy. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 8, 2022 Share December 8, 2022 “A Friendly Eviction” New, Season 9, Episode 58, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Spuddy and Renee Jakes vs. Linda McDonald and Ira Anderson ) Plaintiffs were renting home to defendants. Plaintiffs/landlords are suing for unpaid rent, and utilities, for $5,000. Ms. McDonald says they owe plaintiffs nothing. Tenants lived there for about 12 years, but after the 90 notice to leave they stayed in the house and paid nothing. Plaintiff Spuddy (I love that name), came to fix something at the house, with Ms. McDonald’s permission. Defendants were having a birthday party, and claim plaintiff came over unmasked, and endangered everyone. Spuddy says he was never near anyone but the handyman that came with him, and Ms. McDonald who approached him. Plaintiff was going to bury his mother, and despite defendant listing every disease in the family, didn’t care about Spuddy’s loss. When Ms. McDonald got upset, and screamed at plaintiff Spuddy, he said it was time for her and her family to move out, since she seemed to think it was her house, and not a rental. So, after 12 years, plaintiffs issues the 90-day notice to move out. Defendants claim they didn’t have to move, because of Covid moratoriums. However, defendants stopped paying rent and utilities, and didn’t move out for almost six months. The Covid moratoriums did not mean people didn’t have to pay rent, but eventually had to make up the shortage. Then defendant says she was unemployed. Then, dishwasher broke, so defendant replaced it, and took it with her when she moved out. Defendant claims she told the plaintiffs about the broken dishwasher, but both plaintiffs deny that. Then plaintiff Renee found out from the Housing Authority, that she was not in control of the property, the Housing Authority was. Plaintiffs found out they couldn’t evict the defendants, but they agreed to leave, with Ms. McDonald writing a letter to plaintiffs saying they would leave to avoid eviction on their record. Ms. McDonald says she was ‘forced’ to leave to avoid the eviction. Cleanup was over $10k, and unpaid rent and utilities were less than that. Is Corriero kidding? The defendants are still friends with plaintiffs? No they aren’t. It’s easy for Corriero to say to reconcile with the defendants, it’s not his house that was trashed, and he isn’t owed over $10k. Plaintiffs get $5,000. Corriero didn’t want to give plaintiffs the $5,000, but $4600. I hope someday all three judges have tenants that ruin their rental property, don’t pay, and leave owing money. “Watering the Bill / Drugs, Bed Bugs & Covid” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 145, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) “Watering the Bill” (Michael Benedetto vs. Jessica Lensman) Plaintiff/landlord asked tenant and her three other roommates, to help find the source of a water leak, that made the landlord’s water bills soar. After a month of tenancy, the water bills soared, the next month bill was higher, and the third month the bill was $1400. Plaintiff wants the difference between the usual bill, and the water bills. $3228 is what plaintiff wants. Defendant, and her roommates claim they didn’t hear the running toilets, but plumber says toilets were noisy when running. Last bill was 8 ½ times usual amounts. If a toilet is running like that, you don’t hear it until the room is quiet. Corriero is making ridiculous excuses for the tenants. Acker is too, and now DiMango is joining them. I’ve been in a house with a running toilet, I could hear it from the floor below. Plaintiff case dismissed. “Drugs, Bed Bugs & Covid” (Kerry Wayne vs. Alex Lesperance) Plaintiff rented the house after a background check, and defendant served as sublet landlord to a family member. Plaintiff says there were lots of candy wrappers on the property, signs of meth addicts. When defendant wrote a bad check, and then never paid for months, he evicted for non-payment of rent, illegal under Covid rules. Plaintiff should have refused to renew lease, and evicted for drug use. Plaintiff did a home test kit for meth, and house flunked. I guess the judges never heard that the house should be gutted, and remediated. Defendant says plaintiff locked him out, and he lost property. Plaintiff gave tenant six weeks notice of end of lease, and another notice two weeks before end of lease, but defendant still claims he didn’t have enough notice to get his property out. The family member that defendant moved in had infant twins living in the house. Plaintiff says defendant isn’t the same persona as the person he rented to at the beginning of the lease. $1195 was rent on house, and defendant owing $4400 on the house for rent, plus utilities, and cleanup costs. Defendant rented the house, and sublet to other tenants, and defendant claims the eviction was illegal. Plaintiff/landlord wanted tenant/defendant out after a home test for meth contamination. Judge shows evidence photos of meth pipes, and paraphernalia. Then Judge DiMango asks defendant if he’s on drugs in court. Plaintiff receives $5,000. 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 9, 2022 Share December 9, 2022 “This is the Suite Life” New, Season 9, Episode 59, (Juarez, Corriero, Tewolde) (Irene Nakano vs. Dutch Westermeijer ) Plaintiff suing former tenant for damages to her property. Tenant was only there for three months. Defendant wants security, and half a month’s rent back because he left early. Tenant with two dogs rents a luxury penthouse on the Las Vegas strip, and the landlady sues for damages. Judge Juarez and Corriero call plaintiff an absentee landlord, so what? Plaintiff paid all cash for the place, after moving from San Francisco. Defendant showed up with a full size moving truck, and hi-rise management was appalled. Defendant has pictures that show apartment wasn’t s*** and span clean. If apartment was so awful, why did defendant rent it? Defendant also had two mini Dachshunds, and paid a pet deposit. Plaintiff says apartment smelled from pets, after defendant moved out. Plaintiff says defendant sent her an email, demanding a full refund. I agree with Corriero (Hell should freeze over because I agreed with him), when plaintiff found out about the damages, dogs ruining everything, and stench, plus pill bottles everywhere, and other bad conditions, why didn’t plaintiff and property manager evict him then? Plaintiff shows photos of a urine stained brand new couch. Plaintiff claims she had flea bites. The one thing I have a huge issue with, is the removed smoke alarms. That’s unacceptable. Plaintiff has Plaintiff kept $3199, plus pet fees (non-refundable). Plaintiff is about to get screwed over by the judges. So, having an investment property is wrong to them? Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant gets security deposit (pet deposits aren’t refundable usually). Defendant gets $3200 for security only. “Un-Rest Room; Nine Dogs, a Baby and a Boyfriend” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 57, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) ”Un-Rest Room” Unlicensed contractor says he wasn’t allowed to finish his work for plaintiff. Bathroom photos are awful. Contractor says plaintiff kept changing work, and it was all her fault. $8400 was the total cost to plaintiff, she paid $2500 in the first payment, and $2500 for the second payment. Plaintiff is suing for $5,000. (Beverly Perez Cortez vs. Eric Burkett ) Plaintiff hired defendant to remodel two bathrooms, for a total of $5,000. Plaintiff claims plumbing was bad, tile was bad, but plaintiff fired him, and he claims he would have fixed everything if she had let him continue. (I agree about the plumbing, and tiling work, it’s awful). In the jurisdiction this happened in, an unlicensed contractor can be forced to return all money received for doing work requiring a license. Judges don’t want to give plaintiff the entire amount she paid back. Plaintiff receives, $3500. “Nine Dogs, a Baby and a Boyfriend” (Tracie Taube vs. Robin Diaz) Plaintiff/roommate is suing defendant/former roommate tenant, house was leased to three people, but 11 lived in the house, plus eight dogs owned by defendant. It was a four bedroom home, and then the next rental was six bedrooms. At the first house, only defendant was on the lease, then the second house only three were on the lease. Then a few months later plaintiff and defendant moved into the six bedroom home, there were two additional bedrooms to rent. The two additional roommates didn’t pay security deposit, or full rent. Plaintiff moved in with a boyfriend, baby and eight dogs. Why is defendant wearing scrubs? She’s a vet tech, and not at work. When defendant came back, she didn’t repay plaintiff for the December rent for the two tenants. Defendant’s mother lived in the house also. She was the last remaining tenant at the six bedroom home, and stayed to get the security deposits back. However, defendant never paid the plaintiff for the rent she covered, or the security deposit that landlord gave back. $2885, minus $100 defendant repaid, so $2785. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK December 10, 2022 Share December 10, 2022 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Defendant showed up with a full size moving truck, and hi-rise management was appalled. Yep, I can't believe he didn't know about that or he just didn't care, when I was in Miami for two years on business, the company rented a condo for me (much much cheaper than paying hotel charges) and the management absolutely required one week's advance written notice with a date and approximate time for the truck to bring in the furniture. Actually, the defendant really grated on my nerves for a lot of things. 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff shows photos of a urine stained brand new couch. Plaintiff claims she had flea bites. It went by pretty fast but apparently both dogs were over ten years old when incontinence is not unusual (same for us humans actually (10 dog years = 70 human years)) especially when they are taken into a completely new and strange environment. 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The one thing I have a huge issue with, is the removed smoke alarms. That’s unacceptable. Agreed, this is a major issue and I am surprised that the condo association was not all over the plaintiff. I wish one of the judges had asked her about it. Had they been removed for a long time? Did she have them removed? Might the defendant have taken them down (we have seen a fair number of tenants who have done that, usually because either their cooking or smoking kept setting the alarms off (or so they claimed))? I wish we had heard more about this, it really is a big issue. No doubt that the plaintiff did not carry her burden of proof - she was completely clueless about how to present her case and woefully unprepared, so the ruling was inevitable, but I still have a bad feeling about the defendant, I think he came across as a real jerk. 1 2 Link to comment
Carolina Girl December 11, 2022 Share December 11, 2022 On 12/9/2022 at 4:21 PM, DoctorK said: Yep, I can't believe he didn't know about that or he just didn't care, when I was in Miami for two years on business, the company rented a condo for me (much much cheaper than paying hotel charges) and the management absolutely required one week's advance written notice with a date and approximate time for the truck to bring in the furniture. Actually, the defendant really grated on my nerves for a lot of things. It went by pretty fast but apparently both dogs were over ten years old when incontinence is not unusual (same for us humans actually (10 dog years = 70 human years)) especially when they are taken into a completely new and strange environment. Agreed, this is a major issue and I am surprised that the condo association was not all over the plaintiff. I wish one of the judges had asked her about it. Had they been removed for a long time? Did she have them removed? Might the defendant have taken them down (we have seen a fair number of tenants who have done that, usually because either their cooking or smoking kept setting the alarms off (or so they claimed))? I wish we had heard more about this, it really is a big issue. No doubt that the plaintiff did not carry her burden of proof - she was completely clueless about how to present her case and woefully unprepared, so the ruling was inevitable, but I still have a bad feeling about the defendant, I think he came across as a real jerk. The defendant's constant mugging and "ain't I just funny and cute" expression made me root for the plaintiff, even when I knew she was wrong. Just ONCE I would like the judges to call out assholes who make faces and play to the camera and ask them just what they think they're auditioning. Judge Judy used to butt kick assholes who did this and I remember one defendant on the People's Court who got chewed a new one by Marilyn Millian when he acted the fool and "danced" In at litigant introductions. 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 12, 2022 Share December 12, 2022 On 12/9/2022 at 7:21 PM, DoctorK said: (we have seen a fair number of tenants who have done that, usually because either their cooking or smoking kept setting the alarms off (or so they claimed))? When we see litigants whose kitchens are coated in cooking grease right up to and on the ceiling(!), I'm sure the smoke alarms would be on non-stop. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 12, 2022 Share December 12, 2022 (edited) “Tripod Charlie” New, Season 9, Episode 60, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Katherine “Kadillac Kat”Holmes vs. Lacey Crews) Plaintiff took her dog to defendant’s dog grooming shop. Poor Charlie, an 11-year-old Yorkie, the dog was mangled by defendant, and his leg was amputated from the subsequent infection. Defendant says she cut the nails too short, but she claims it didn’t cause the infection. Plaintiff wants vet bills. (What the hell is the wig silver/red combination on the plaintiff’s head?) Defendant groomed the dog, and when dog went back in plaintiff’s home, dog was bleeding all over the place. The ace bandage on Charlie after the grooming looks hideous, and dirty. Defendant says she only trimmed a nail too close, but she's obviously lying, and cut the paw. Charlie lost the back leg after a month of vet treatment. The groomer has some certificate, but no insurance, no emergency kit, and claims it’s not routine to have Quik Stop (styptic powder to stop nail bleeding) with you at grooming. Defendant claims she didn’t cut the paw, just the nail. So, how did the paw get cut? Defendant says she’s bipolar, and was going through an episode, so she had issues and didn’t check on the dog. There is no way a quicked nail needs two days of bandaging. Plaintiff was at fault, because she went to some cheap groomer who didn't have experience. Then, plaintiff should have taken her dog to the emergency vet right then. That bandage looks like Ace bandage, not vet wrap. Any pet store would have had Quik Stop to stop the bleeding, if it was really a nail, (I also understand flour works to stop the bleeding too), but I don't think it was a nail, but the paw was cut. Poor Charlie was attacked by a hawk, and had to have surgery, and will be OK, right before plaintiff and Charlie were going to leave Atlanta. $5,000 to plaintiff for vet bills. (defendant says judges were wrong, my view defendant shouldn’t be around animals, and Charlie needs a better owner). “God Bite” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 116, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Savanna Olmstead and Joey Thornton vs. Kelly and Andrew Apiag ) Two dogs fence fighting, get in contact, so there is a dispute over who pays the veterinary bills. Defendant says she saw nothing, and plaintiffs claim defendants’ dog bit. Defendant’s dog is a Pit Bull/American Bulldog. Plaintiffs’ dog is a Pug. Before on plaintiff’s fence was deteriorating privacy fence, with plastic lattice on the defendants side, later the fence was changed to a solid privacy fence. Plaintiff’s side of the fence is solid plywood now. Plaintiff claims defendant’s dog mauled their Pug. Plaintiff claims the plywood on the fence was reinforced right after the attack by plaintiff. My view, it’s a crappy, shared deteriorating fence. If they live in California, a dog attack on another animal, even fatal, isn’t grounds for putting an attacking dog down. For months there were multiple vet visits. Plaintiff Olmstead claims defendants’ dog escaped their yard. Then, the judges mention plaintiff’s previous dog Plaintiffs are suing for $1200 for diminished worth, because of the attack. Bull pucky. The fence is apparently joint. Plaintiff Olmstead claims the defendants’ dog could stick his head through the fence. Plaintiff’s prior dog went through the fence, but defendants claim plaintiff Olmstead said a previous dog would jump over the fence, and they got rid of that dog. There is no proof that either dog came on the other property. All litigants knew the original fence was garbage, and did nothing. The plaintiffs are suing for the insurance deductible for their dog, on the homeowner’s insurance. After this defendants put up a new fence, but slightly inside the property line on defendant’s side. If the four litigants had each split the cost of the fence, after getting a survey, this all could have been avoided, I would have put the type with the vertical slats on both sides of the fence, with metal fence posts, so it would have lasted for many years. Then, the dogs would have been safe. $1450 is plaintiff’s award (don’t ask how the judges came to this decision, it is so confusing). Edited December 12, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 12, 2022 Share December 12, 2022 While perusing the case of Spuddy&Co. (I skipped today's cases) I thought, as I often do when watching litigants who are listening to judges speaking and learning absolutely nothing from them, how annoying it must be for judges, e.g. : P: "We was there then". Judge: "You were there in (whatever month)?" P: "Yes, we was." How is it possible to get not even a minor clue about how to speak the most simple and basic English? How do judges listen to this (and it must grate on them) without yelling, "Oh, FFS!! It's WE WERE!!!"? 3 Link to comment
ItsHelloPattiagain December 12, 2022 Share December 12, 2022 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff took her dog to defendant’s dog grooming shop. Poor Charlie, an 11-year-old Yorkie, the dog was mangled by defendant, and his leg was amputated from the subsequent infection. Defendant says she cut the nails too short, but she claims it didn’t cause the infection. Plaintiff wants vet bills. I didn't agree with this verdict. Kat of the RedAndSilverHairdo should have taken the bandage off sooner, even if the dog was ferocious (it was a Yorkie, not a pitbull). I've had dogs for years and even trimmed their nails (and had their nails trimmed). If the defendant had the bandage on too tight after the nail was trimmed, the plaintiff should have removed the bandage . At least half and half liability would have been more fair IMHO. 2 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 12, 2022 Share December 12, 2022 I doubt it was a cut nail that bled for days, but a cut paw or paw pad, and dog should have gone to the emergency vet on the first day. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama December 13, 2022 Share December 13, 2022 “Saving Dasher the Dog; Vanity Insanity” New, Season 9, Episode 61, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) “Saving Dasher the Dog” (Casey Kasprzyk vs. Robert Kasprzyk) Plaintiff suing brother for the money plaintiff paid for defendant’s dog’s (Dasher) surgery. Plaintiff says his brother is always having a crisis, electric bill overdue, dog needs surgery, etc., needing financing. $4831 is the plaintiff’s request. Dasher is an 11-year-old German Shepherd puppy. Defendant brother says dog had a pyometra (infected uterine parts, in unspayed dogs. It’s also a factor in mammary tumors too.) Casey says defendant brother said if he didn’t pay for surgery, that Robert’s children would never forgive him. Corriero pulls his usual schtick and says defendant probably helped plaintiff a lot over the years, and I seriously doubt it. Judge Juarez counseling is absurd. Plaintiff gets his loan paid back $4831. “Vanity Insanity” (Linda Pacheco vs. Michael Mendell) Plaintiff suing woodworker over an old-fashioned vanity. $3500 was the agreed amount, and plaintiff wants her money back. Defendant wants more money for altering the vanity at plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff says when she complained about the size of the knee space, defendant told her to lose weight. For the final vanity, plaintiff didn’t go see the vanity, when defendant said she had to come to his house alone. I find defendant objecting to plaintiff bringing a friend with her to his workshop to be strange. Defendant says the friend that plaintiff brought with her was a childhood friend of his sisters, that totally confuses me. Judges side totally with defendant, defendant keeps the $3500, and additional money for his labor, $1165 , so he receives $1165. Plaintiff gets the finished vanity in two weeks, or it can be trashed or resold. “Get Out” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 118, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero) (Derek Jackson vs. Rebekah Root (daughter) and (her mother) Sherrill Root) Plaintiff sues his roommate for wild, unacceptable behavior, including sanding the floors at 2 a.m. He wants $2500 for breach of contract, emotional distress, and harassment. Lease calls for peaceful enjoyment of the property. He still lives there. Plaintiff says defendant had an untrained Pit Bull, unspayed Pit Bull, says defendant daughter is a druggie, and started remodeling in the apartment in the middle of the night. $4733 is what defendants want for electric bills, harassment. I believe the plaintiff, and nothing the defendants say. DiMango says that defendant is drinking, mixing Xanax, is none of plaintiff’s business. Acker says the drinking and drugging by defendant is none of plaintiff’s business either. Explains why no one mentions daughter is virtually falling over in court. Video shows defendant in the garage, with the garage door closed, car running, and door into the house wide open. This is dangerous. Sherrill claims she gave plaintiff a 30-day notice to quit. I wish plaintiff could find somewhere to move to. Defendant is out of control, so why are the judges defending her? Plaintiff claim dismissed. Defendant case dismissed. 1 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.