Hot Bench - General Discussion

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Better Truck Next Time”

New, Season 9, Episode 107, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Reyna  Noriega  and Albert Rosas vs. Dominic Gonzalez )

Plaintiffs/purchasers of truck claims he was told it was in excellent condition, with no major issues, but after the engine starts knocking, he finds a mechanic’s invoice in the cab that says otherwise.   Deliberate fraud will trump ‘as is’ every time with enough evidence, and plaintiff has that. Plaintiff Rosas paid $4300 cash to defendant, drove to a mechanic when truck was making noises.   Defendant gave back $300 to Rosas, and they also found a recent mechanics estimate listing mechanical issues, and a list of needed repairs.

Plaintiff Rosas didn’t have a mechanic with him the day of the sale, but he had a scanner to hook to the engine, and it didn’t show anything wrong, passed smog, and truck was bought ‘as is’.   Second mechanic Rosas took truck to, said truck needed new brakes, suspension, and other major items. 

Rosas wanted a refund for the truck after the mechanic’s list of repairs, and the earlier invoice was discovered.   Truck did need an alignment, but that’s not expensive, but it needed suspension repairs before the alignment, and that would be expensive.

Video has mechanic at Mazda dealer, saying the issues with suspension that need to be fixed. There is also a transmission issue.

Ad for truck says ‘everything works very well, and motor is running fine’.   Truck is also 21 years old.  

Plaintiff wants more back than the truck is worth. 

Plaintiff claim dismissed.  

 

“Between a Rock and a Hard Place”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 135 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Rock Cook and son Will Cook  vs. Megan Fehrenbacher  )

Plaintiffs are is suing defendant for $2,902, for labor and materials for painting when working for defendant’s business.    However, defendant says she had complaints from other employees, about racist remarks from Rock Cook, and son Will Cook quit after his father quit.   Defendant’s business is building tiny homes.   (This happened in LaGrande, OR)

Plaintiff father was talking to defendant’s employees while they were operating cabinet making equipment, which is very dangerous to the employees.  

Defendant says she wasn’t going to pay final invoice that plaintiffs submitted, because their work was shoddy.   Son plaintiff blames the builder’s work, not plaintiff’s paint job for the shoddy appearance of their work.

Defendant says plaintiff father’s remarks to her employees about the China plague, and other topics were offensive to her, and to her employees.   

Defendant shows photos of shoddy work by the plaintiffs.

Defendant says the plaintiffs walked off the job before finishing one job, and other jobs plaintiffs did were shoddy.

Defendant says on top of the shoddy work, that Rock Cook made racist and disparaging remarks to employees.   Creating a hostile work environment can cost the defendant a lot of money.    Defendant doesn’t have to put up with plaintiff’s remarks like that.

DiMango wants to pay plaintiffs $2900, minus the $1700 that defendant had to pay out to fix the work that plaintiffs did. 

Acker wants to pay more to plaintiffs.   Corriero wants to pay more to plaintiffs too

Plaintiffs receive $2800.    I think defendant should have received the amount she had to pay to fix the shoddy work by the plaintiffs.

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

 

“Bump-Her Car”

New, Season 9, Episode 108, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Alisha Taylor  vs. Gene and Heather Thompson)

Food delivery driver had her car damaged by her father’s karate instructor, and can’t work until her car is fixed, but can’t fix the car unless she’s working, and insurance claim hasn’t worked.

Mr. Thompson rear ended plaintiff’s car, they were going to have his insurance company handle it.  However, when plaintiff tried to , but insurance company refused to pay because the policy is under investigation.   Policy was in Heather Thompson’s name, and she claims it covers anyone who drives her car. Gene Thompson had the accident, but she asked Alisha Taylor to say Mrs. Thompson was driving,  which would be a lie, and fraud. 

Mrs. Thompson is pleading ignorance of her own auto policy.     Plaintiff did get an estimate, but it was preliminary, $1500, plus the deductible.   $2500 is plaintiff’s deductible, since she was doing food delivery.  She is also claiming for lost wages, since she can’t drive for the delivery service until the car is repaired.

Mr. Thompson says by being unemployed, having a wife and five children, and was briefly homeless, he says he can’t afford to pay plaintiff’s car damages.   

Corriero is out to lunch again, he wants plaintiff to fix her car, which would show the full extent of the damages.  If she could afford to pay the car damages, she would be driving and earning.

Plaintiff receives $1595 for the damage estimate, plus $1600, so $3195.    (I would pay plaintiff the $2500, for having to deal with the shifty defendants).

 

 

“All That Glitters”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 134, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Varis Jean  Brown  vs. Frances Agramonte)

Woman was told a $17 chain was real gold, and she buys it from her 13-year-old grandnephew for $200.   Where did plaintiff think the 13-year-old got the chain from?  Frances  Agramonte is the mother of plaintiff’s nephew, and nephew and Agramonte agreed to sell the chain for $200 to plaintiff. 

Defendant says plaintiff gave her son the $200, so he could take mother out for her birthday. 

When plaintiff found out from a jeweler that chain was worth nothing, and told her niece, she says the niece laughed in her face.  Niece/defendant claims the chain is real and worth $500.  

Plaintiff witness Denise Sanchez, says she broke up the fight between the two litigants.  

Acker says the $200 to nephew was given out of love, because niece and nephew offered to give her the chain. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   Judges decide money to nephew was a gift to him, and not payment for the chain. 

[Welshman in Ca]

After watching a few of these I've decided that there is no way these judges are hearing the same thing I am.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Will House”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 52  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(I guess Corriero doesn’t realize an oral agreement with the late sister who rented him the property, and plaintiff claims she told him he could Airbnb the extra bedrooms, can’t modify a written lease/contract)

p.33, 30 Nov 2022

 

“A Smogless  Condition”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 155 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Cory Smith vs. Priscilla Jimenez )

Plaintiff is a first time car buyer, and man buys a Prius ‘as is’ from a private party, but it doesn’t come with the required smog certificate. $3745 was the price, and plaintiff wants the entire amount he paid back, plus repairs.  Plaintiff claims he doesn’t know what “as is” means.  Defendant claims she told plaintiff car didn’t have a smog certificate, and plaintiff bought it after that.

Plaintiff has an OBD scanner to see if car had codes, and it did.   By the time he took it to the smog testing site, that the codes were gone, and plaintiff needed to drive and come back to see if the codes reset.   Defendant witness David Oalachea bought car for $2300 at auction for defendant, and he met with buyer too.

Defendant bought two cars in her name, one in defendant’s name, and the Prius was towed because it had a phony inspection and smog certificate.  Defendant claims the Prius ad said it needed a smog certificate.  

Plaintiff wants the purchase price back, and costs to fix the car, which includes a catalytic converter, and a battery pack.

Car is 14 years old.   Defendant only owned car one month, didn’t have a clear title, and never received the smog certificate.

However, being ignorant of the rules doesn’t mean plaintiff is blameless.

Decision is $3500 to plaintiff, the purchase price of the car.  Car goes back to the defendant. 

[DoctorK]

(this is a quote, no idea why it isn't formatted as one: 

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I guess Corriero doesn’t realize an oral agreement with the late sister who rented him the property, and plaintiff claims she told him he could Airbnb the extra bedrooms, can’t modify a written lease/contract) /end quote

I didn't remember this case and enjoyed as a new one to me. Maybe I am wrong but I think it was Correrio who did raise the point of any oral agreement (reached before the lease was signed according to the plaintiff) was cancelled by the written lease. From the intro stuff, it looked to me that the plaintiff had a slam dunk case until some issues arose. The invalid oral agreement was an unforced error by the plaintiff who identified himself as "in real estate management" certainly should have known that the agreement was invalid. Then the defendant lost me when he claimed "extensive" damages (and got skewered by the judge on it) after we saw the plaintiff's video. Even worse, the defendant admitted that the repairs that he wanted to be paid for were done at no charge by a relative. When a judge pointed this out, the defendant said that it didn't matter that he had no costs, he still should get the money. The defendant and his wife were really overreaching, and were allowed to get away with failing to send the plaintiff an itemized list on time of damages claimed against the security deposit (and one of the judges held up his "itemized" list and pointed out that it had no detail and wouldn't pass as satisfying the requirement even if it had been on time). So I disliked the defendants because they were trying to get a whole bunch of money for repairs that cost them nothing, and also disliked the plaintiff for (in spite of being "in real estate management") trying to slide by on the alleged verbal agreement with the deceased owner. Yippee, no dog attacks, no tire slashing, no baby custody/support drama!

P.S. next case, I wish the judges would take all of five minutes to figure out the OBDC use and scans since it is showing up pretty regularly. They wander from complete lack of understanding to believing that it can tell you how to fix problems (it just tells you what error the computer is seeing which may be caused by any one or more of a dozen causes).

Edited March 17, 2023 by DoctorK
additional thoughts

[AngelaHunter]

On 3/15/2023 at 3:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Ad for truck says ‘everything works very well, and motor is running fine’.   Truck is also 21 years old.  

Plaintiff wants more back than the truck is worth. 

The goofy Rosas is another one who needs to join forces with a TPC litigant the other day who claimed that there should be more "things" in effect to "protect people like me", i.e. dumb 30-year-old men-children who buy 21-year-old vehicles AS IS, on faith in what strangers tell them about an ancient car with no mechanic checking it, and are shocked that parts might be worn out or broken. But it looked pretty on the outside!

It might have "worked very well" the last time the seller drove it and some parts may have held together on the day P bought it, but surprise - they could crap out the next day or next week.

Seller gave P a 300$ discount which he had no obligation to do. P accepted it and now is suing for 5K. Is he going to continue suing Def every time something else on this geriatric truck needs repair?

 

 

On 3/16/2023 at 4:07 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mr. Thompson says by being unemployed, having a wife and five children, and was briefly homeless, he says he can’t afford to pay plaintiff’s car damages.   

Yes. The fact that he decided to have FIVE kids, can't drive properly, or have his name on the ins. policy, smashes someone's car and he and his wife want her to lie to the insurance company aren't his problems! Someone else should pay for the damage.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Above Ground Problems”

New, Season 9, Episode 109 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Gerald and Angelique Brower vs. Kimberly Era)

Ad for used pool listed a lifetime warranty on the liner, but plaintiffs found warranty wasn’t transferrable. Plaintiffs bought defendant’s pool, and found liner damage.  Plaintiffs want money back for the pool, plus mileage, and everything else, $2760 ($2000, for pool cost, liner costs, gas to and from defendant's house, plus labor for breaking down the pool).  Plaintiffs found out that the liner warranty wasn’t transferrable, and they want everything back.

Seller bought pool used too, and said she never had a problem with the pool. She says buyer didn't even contact her until 10 weeks after the sale.    Defendant says she told the plaintiffs about the liner being glued to the side of the pool also. 

Plaintiffs bought a new liner, and are using the pool, but they're suing for a lot more money than the liner cost. 

Tewolde says plaintiffs didn't do their due diligence on the pool warranty, and their claims for money are excessive.     She wants to give half the liner cost back to plaintiffs, and so does Corriero. 

Juarez says the delay is plaintiff's fault, and should get something back on the liner, half of the liner costs. 

( I would have given the plaintiffs half the liner cost, $280, since that's what the  seller offered them. )

$560 for the liner costs to plaintiffs. 

“Party Girls”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 82 (Acker, DiMango,  Corriero)

p. 31, 3 Oct 2022

Edited March 21, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$560 for the liner costs to plaintiffs.

Thank you. I skipped out on the end of this, fearing the Ps would get money.

The plaintiffs are two seemingly intelligent,(except for the wagging billy goat beard of P hubby) well-spoken people past middle age. Did they really think an old pool that was "torn down", transported, and re-installed in a new location with all work done by amateurs would carry the warranty over to them? How could the company know what they did to it? I don't care what the ad said. Use your brains! And they don't even bother trying to claim the liner for two months.

Penny-pinching pool people want the pool, all expenses incurred with getting it, and all the accessories to be totally free.

I didn't think their brazen greed and willful stupidity should be rewarded but the judges know better than I do.

 

[Welshman in Ca]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't think their brazen greed and willful stupidity should be rewarded but the judges know better than I do.

 

It's a recurring theme on this show. Act greedy & stupid, win free money.

Like I said above I am convinced they're not hearing the same things I am.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Car-Pay-Diem”

New, Season 9, Episode 110, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( Rebecca Rayan and Son Armani Rayan vs. Andrew Reed)

Plaintiff loaned $13k to defendant, which he now says he never asked for, so it was a gift.   Plaintiff gave defendant a loan to buy a car, for $13k.   Defendant would pay $500 a month, paid for two months, and quit.  So, $12k left on the loan, defendant says he owes nothing.   Plaintiff son went to repo the car, and then defendant claims he no longer owes plaintiff anything (plaintiff son and defendant were friends).  Then defendant showed up at home, to see a locksmith entering his car, and repoing it, and defendant called in a stolen report on the car to police.

Plaintiffs repo’d the car, had the locks changed, and changed the code on the car.  So how does defendant know the key doesn’t work if he didn’t try to get in the car?  

Ms. Rayan says she should get $5,000 back for depreciation on the car, and the use defendant used, and car is devalued.   

Plaintiff claims defendant owes her $13000 minus the payments defendant made to her.

Plaintiff will keep the car, title will be signed over to her, and $2522 for tolls and tickets to plaintiff.  So p

 

 

“Drama Queens”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 80 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 4 Oct 2022

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff loaned $13k to defendant, which he now says he never asked for, so it was a gift.  

I couldn't finish this nonsense. It was too bizarre. I have dear friends I've known my whole life but never have I showered thousands of dollars on them to pay off their debts, buy them cars, hearing aids, etc. Did he claim P was hot for him? Yeah, the brokeass drag queen was a real prize with his big beer belly and inability to take care of himself.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Taken for Granite”

New, Season 9, Episode 111 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( Brian Lachberg and Laurie Avila vs. Jesus “Jessie” Toro )

While a cancer patient’s home contractor (bathroom remodel) was claiming to be home sick with Covid, a rival contractor snapped a photo of him at a different job site.   Two weeks after defendant claimed to have Covid, he never showed up to work at plaintiff’s house again.   Plaintiff witness is John Cooper, who is the man who sent the photo of defendant working when he was supposed to be home sick with Covid.  (This was in Lancaster, CA).  The job was supposed to happen in 2 ½ weeks. 

Laurie Avila wanted a walk-in shower, for $8500, to make it easier for her during her cancer treatments.

Mr. Lachberg testifies that if they redid the shoddy shower tile job, they would have to get the current shower ripped out, and buy all new tile.

Plaintiffs receive $5,000.

 

“Dog Sitting Disaster”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 87 (DiMango, Acker, Corriero)

p. 31, 5 Oct 2022

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Two weeks after defendant claimed to have Covid, he never showed up to work at plaintiff’s house again.

He was pretty outrageous: "If they had told me what a shitty job I did, I would have fixed it."

Yeah, okay - so the shower floor wasn't properly sloped so the water never drained, but honestly - he would have fixed it! Yes, I'm sure he would have happily ripped out all his work and redone it, since that was the only to fix his mess.

COVID is the all-purpose excuse for everything under the sun now, right down to taking money for goods or services you didn't supply.

I haven't finished this case, so thanks for the verdict, CrazyInAlabama, but I caught a preview of JT saying that people shouldn't be applauded for telling the truth since it's what they are supposed to do!

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Property Smothers”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 57  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 5 Oct 2022

“Valued Garage”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 85 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 6 Oct 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“A Friendly Eviction”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 58  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 8 Dec 2022

“Bathroom Blow-up”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 84 (DiMango, Acker, Corriero)

(Daryl Matthews  vs. Tacuma Stanfield)

Plaintiff Matthews claims his bathroom remodeling job for defendant was going over budget,  because of defendant’s change orders.     Defendant / homeowner Stanfield claims the $13,500 remodel wasn’t over budget, and wants $5,000 from plaintiff for breach of contract.    Plaintiff claims bathroom was $11,800, then $12,500,  then $13,200 budget, and none of it was due to his multiple change orders on the project.

Judges’ decision is defendant tried to get plaintiff to foot the bills for the upgrades defendant wanted.

Defendant claim dismissed.

Plaintiff receives $3800.

[Welshman in Ca]

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“A Friendly Eviction”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 58  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 8 Dec 2022

“Bathroom Blow-up”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 84 (DiMango, Acker, Corriero)

(Daryl Matthews  vs. Tacuma Stanfield)

Plaintiff Matthews claims his bathroom remodeling job for defendant was going over budget,  because of defendant’s change orders.     Defendant / homeowner Stanfield claims the $13,500 remodel wasn’t over budget, and wants $5,000 from plaintiff for breach of contract.    Plaintiff claims bathroom was $11,800, then $12,500,  then $13,200 budget, and none of it was due to his multiple change orders on the project.

Judges’ decision is defendant tried to get plaintiff to foot the bills for the upgrades defendant wanted.

Defendant claim dismissed.

Plaintiff receives $3800.

The bathroom remodel guy was outrageous. The D seemed to think the more he talked over the judges the firmer his case was, I would have given the P triple damages just for dealing with the guy in the first place. He seemed to be under the impression that his budget & the quote he got from the P included any & all upgrades he wanted to make to the remodel. 

Even after every judge explained to him how a quote works he still wasn't having it & still thought he was right, I actually felt bad for the P having to listen to the same verbal shit over & over.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Welshman in Ca said:

The bathroom remodel guy was outrageous. The D seemed to think the more he talked over the judges the firmer his case was, I would have given the P triple damages just for dealing with the guy in the first place.

That mouthy clown got on my last nerve. JA felt the same way and his non-stop, monotone muttering of nonsense accompanied by his infuriating stupid grin made her visibly frustrated and irritated. No one could make him understand, even when it was explained three different ways.

The price to do all that work was pretty cheap, IMO, but the idiot thought if he kept upgrading stuff P should absorb the extra cost so D could stick to his 'budget'. What a tool.

[AngelaHunter]

On 3/21/2023 at 3:55 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff loaned $13k to defendant, which he now says he never asked for, so it was a gift. 

13K. In cash. I just saw this case that had a perfect triangle of abject stupidity from all parties and such "no good deed" bitchiness from Def it left me speechless.

Again we have the "I'm suing for 5K even though I'm not out that amount but because that's the most I can get." That's not how it works. Duh.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Hair on the Side of Caution”

New, Season 9, Episode 112,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Roxanne Pass vs. Amanda Dixon )

Plaintiff says her extensive hair loss was her stylist’s fault.  Stylist says she told plaintiff not to leave the weave in for so long (t was a quick weave, and shouldn’t be in for more than two weeks) .  Defendant says she offered to take out the weave for free, and plaintiff had an appointment for removal, but it was six or seven weeks after the weave was done. 

Plaintiff claims the photo of massive hair loss was taken the same day she left the salon.  Defendant has photos of plaintiff’s hair on weave removal day, and says the hair loss had not happened.   Defendant blames the hair loss on plaintiff dying her hair, and plaintiff’s hair was full of gray hair, so defendant claims that plaintiff used henna or other hair dye on her hair.

Plaintiff claims she never dyed her hair, but plaintiff’s hair isn’t gray, so either she's wearing a wig, or lying about the dye .  Defendant witness, Kimberly Williams is the salon owner, and says she offered to help with the situation.   Witness Williams offered six weeks of hair and scalp treatments, and testifies that plaintiff had white roots when she left the salon after the first weave, but on the removal day, she says plaintiff’s roots were now black, and obviously dyed. 

Plaintiff is standing there with dark hair with red over it, and still claims she doesn’t dye her hair.  So, is that a wig?   I really can’t tell.

Plaintiff claims she didn’t have her tracks reglued, or have someone do it.  Defendant says plaintiff reapplied her own hair glue, and had hair dye also. 

Plaintiff’s dermatologist report says she had traction alopecia, but it would grow back. Dermatologist report also says plaintiff was a regular patient, and has had hair loss for years.   Plaintiff claims she was never told not to dye her hair after the weave, and I don’t believe that. (Every time I go to the salon for hair dye, I have to sign that it could cause a reaction, and stating that doing another chemical process could result in hair loss, or other reactions).    

Plaintiff case dismissed.

 

“New Roommate Nightmare”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 78 (Acker, Corriero, DiMango)

p. 30, 25 Sept 2022

Edited March 28, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“New Roommate Nightmare”

Quote

Plaintiff Pehrson vs. Rivera, former roommates.  Plaintiff needed a new roommate, and found defendant. 

I gave up on this the first time but was bored tonight so watched it. Originally the teary P and clueless D had me rolling my eyes. However we hear that P's mother died, Dad snagged a new woman ASAP and that woman didn't want P or her sister around. Apparently, Dad had no problem with that. Maybe he wanted the girls gone too, or he's just gutless. Either way, I felt very sorry for her to be without support at such a young age. I hope things improved for her after this and she'll be more careful about who she invites to live with her.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“A Loan of Bull; Red Light Disaster”

New, Season 9, Episode 113, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

“A Loan of Bull”

(Brandon Pippin vs.  A’ja Bergman)

A former couple each claim the other partner was cheating, but the case also includes a loan that the defendant claims was a gift, $2,000.   Plaintiff and defendant met when she came into his tattoo shop.  He has tattoos all over his head and face.   Text from defendant asking for money for her rent, and to pay bills, but it also says she’ll repay plaintiff.

Plaintiff says he saw explicit messages and photos on defendant’s phone, and suspects the $2,000 went to support her other relationship.    Defendant never repaid plaintiff, and claims the loan was a gift, and plaintiff only wanted repayment after they broke up.  

Corriero says he doesn’t have a clue about text acronyms, and I agree with that.  Corriero wonders if jealousy over defendant’s cheating enters into the loan vs. gift, and that’ totally irrelevant

Decision is $2,000 to plaintiff.

 

“Red Light Disaster”

(Zina Cartwright  vs. Yolanda Brown)

Plaintiff suing defendant for car damages after defendant rear ended her car.  Plaintiff says defendant promised to pay for damages, but never did.    Plaintiff says she was at a red light, fully stopped, when defendant hit her.

Plaintiff does in home care for the elderly.   Defendant is a nursing student.

Defendant says plaintiff stopped unexpectedly, and so defendant wasn’t at fault.   Defendant claims the plaintiff’s car didn’t have over $5,000 worth of damages and is trying to cheat her.  

After rear ending another car, a nursing student without a driver’s license claims she’s going to get a license.  However, even at the time of the accident, defendant still doesn’t have a driver’s license.

Plaintiff shows her car had a big crack on the trunk, and her exhaust system is bent and needs to be replaced. 

Estimate from body shop is over $6,000.

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

“Too Short"

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 86, (DiMango, Acker, Corriero)

p. 30, 27 Sept 2022 

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Defendant is a nursing student.

Another one who plans to provide health care. That person is immature, dishonest, irresponsible and some combination of stupid and/or ignorant. This is what the future of health care we can look forward to in the coming years?

[AngelaHunter]

10 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Another one who plans to provide health care. That person is immature, dishonest, irresponsible and some combination of stupid and/or ignorant. This is what the future of health care we can look forward to in the coming years?

Haven't watched it yet, but do "brutal", "violent" and "illiterate" not apply? If not it's a step up from the usual health care and home health aides we see on court shows.

[AngelaHunter]

When I first saw the Illustrated Man with the big cow patty plopped on his head I thought, "Oh, here we go". But it turned out he was very well-spoken and sounded responsible and reasonable. Too bad he permanently disfigured himself.

In a complete turnabout, the g/f def, who looked like a little private school girl, is a nasty, lying little viper who took 2K from P, and then the dumb sloot sent naked pics of herself to some guy and P found them. She refused to repay the money as she said he told her, "Don't worry about it" even though we see texts of her agreeing to pay it back before he even gave it to her.

Papa Mike got on my last nerve and didn't even make any sense when he asked P if maybe he only asked to be repaid because the "green-eyed monster" arose and he was being vindictive. I may have said, "WHAT?" out loud.

P had to patiently remind him that he asked to be repaid BEFORE he saw the dirty pics. Oh, Papa. As def said in her text, "Duh".

In deliberations, he repeats his "green-eyed monster" theory and rambles on about some text-speak. The other two of course don't agree with his theory and give the P his 2K back. I'm glad the new judges aren't bowing to his sappy nonsense.

I hope that vile little tart learns the hard way not to send "explicit" pics of herself, as we've seen in other cases. "He sent my porno pics to my Daddy! Boohoo hoo!" You know there's a way to prevent that, you empty-headed little idiots.

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“If a Tree Falls”

New, Season 9, Episode 114, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Timothy Decker vs. Sam Renaudo Jr)

Plaintiff/nursery owner sues for the value of three queen palms, crushed by his neighbor’s overhanging tree branch.   Neighbor says palms were neglected and worthless.  The litigants are neighbors by their back property line, and their addresses are on separate streets.  

Defendant’s witnesses is Sean Keller, his son-in-law.   Son says they tried to contact tree removal, and Sean claims he spent a full day cutting up the tree and branches, but plaintiff says Sean spent an hour cutting a few pieces of wood of the giant branch, and tossed it over the fence to defendant’s property.   Plaintiff says the roll off container rental to get rid of the tree, and his palm trees would be $1200.   

Litigants fight over the exact value of the queen palms that were destroyed.  The one branch was all that was removed by Sean Keller.   The price list from Decker’s nursery is 10 years old.   Plaintiff’s first bill to defendant was $5,300.   For the palm trees.  Landscaper Sean says he wouldn’t have bought the plaintiff’s palm trees.     Second defendant’s witness is Georgina Keller, defendant’s daughter. 

Georgina claims her husband was there all day cleaning up plaintiff’s property, and removing the branches.    She complains the plaintiff’s palm tree fronds hang over the defendant’s property line, and dropped fronds for years on her father’s property.  She also says her husband spend the entire day cleaning up plaintiff’s property. 

Landscaper Sean Keller found other ads for free queen palms, and prices are much cheaper from other sellers.   (This happened in El Cajon, CA)

Plaintiff gets $750 , for the palm trees, and $600 removal of trash, so $1350.   

(My opinion is that if the branch was overhanging plaintiff’s property, then he had the right to take the branch down, not the responsibility of the defendant, and damages are on plaintiff.  However, if plaintiff can prove the tree was diseased, his insurance company will sue defendant’s.  However, since nothing went through insurance, the plaintiff claim should have been dismissed).

“All-A-Loan; Bumper to Bumper"

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 81, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

“All-A-Loan”

(Cindy Tran vs. Linh Tu )

A woman sues a friend of her husband after loaning $2,400 in a casino parking lot.  Plaintiff says she loaned money to defendant because she thought defendant would win, and give her the loan back, plus part of the profits.   Plaintiff has a signed promissory note from defendant. 

Plaintiff says defendant paid $1200 back, and still owes $800, but claims defendant owes $900 total.

Defendant says plaintiff only gave her $2000 in cash, and the $2400 was including $400 interest.  Defendant claims she borrowed the money to pay back another loan from another individual.

Plaintiff loaned money to a gambler, in the casino parking lot, and she claims repayment would happen?  Defendant’s story sounds ridiculous too, where she claims plaintiff’s husband gave her the money in chips. Plaintiff’s needing to pay another person interest on her own loan is ridiculous.

Corriero says since gambling is legal in the state, that the debt is legal.  Acker and DiMango say the $100 interest is wrong. 

$800 to plaintiff for the loan.   (I wouldn’t have given the plaintiff a penny, she was collecting usurious interest, and to a gambler who was going into the casino).  

 

“Bumper to Bumper”

(Denyica Benoit vs. Michael Rudziewicz)

Plaintiff says she was backing out of her parking space, and stopped, when defendant backed into her.  Defendant was uninsured, and driving without a license (license was suspended).  

Plaintiff/driver claims a man backed out, and hit her car.  Defendant claims he was on private property (Walmart parking lot), and didn’t have to have a license.   In some states, the police won’t respond to an accident on private property, and write tickets or arrest anyone, this happened in a Walmart parking lot, and that is private property.

Defendant claims he never heard plaintiff honking her horn, because his windows were down on his truck.     Plaintiff claims she was honking a lot to stop defendant from backing into her vehicle.

Defendant says he was only backing the car out for his wife, who was with him, and isn’t in court.   Defendant says he only backed truck out, and plaintiff should have seen him backing up, and moved forward and the accident wouldn’t have happened.   Police report says both drivers backed out at the same time, so near clear proof of who was at fault.   Defendant claims his wife would have driven the truck home.  

Judges adjourn to deliberate, this should be bizarre.   In some states I lived in, your insurance company would sell policies including uninsured driver coverage, paying everything on your car if the other driver was at fault, but had no insurance.   I wonder what kind of coverage the plaintiff had?  Since there is no proof that defendant was at fault, he’s still an unlicensed, and uninsured jerk, but there is no proof of any more fault by either driver.

DiMango says defendant backed without looking, and plaintiff should get the amount she asked for.   Corriero agrees, and Acker does also.

$2,881 to plaintiff.

Edited March 29, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“All-A-Loan”

(Cindy Tran vs. Linh Tu )

I had to rewatch this just for the stunning WTF-ery of it.

My friend is a degenerate gambler (and a buddy of my husband who is also into gambling) who owes money all over the place. She called me from the parking lot of a casino, telling me she desperately needs 2K (or 2400?) and I agree to drive over there and give it to her.  Since I'm a financial whiz I whip up a contract with her agreeing to pay me back at $400/week. I'm positive she'll win back all the money she lost and pay me. Are these people for real? The judges ask, "What if she just loses it all?" Oh, I never thought of that. 🤯

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Gloom and Board"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  62, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 14 Dec 2022

 

“Juggling Apartments"

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 101, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 32, 1 November 2022

 

[Kath94]

On 3/28/2023 at 6:47 PM, AngelaHunter said:

When I first saw the Illustrated Man with the big cow patty plopped on his head I thought, "Oh, here we go". But it turned out he was very well-spoken and sounded responsible and reasonable. Too bad he permanently disfigured himself.

He looked like a toddler had scribbled all over his face!

Edited March 30, 2023 by Kath94

[Welshman in Ca]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

“Bumper to Bumper”

(Denyica Benoit vs. Michael Rudziewicz)

Plaintiff says she was backing out of her parking space, and stopped, when defendant backed into her.  Defendant was uninsured, and driving without a license (license was suspended).  

Plaintiff/driver claims a man backed out, and hit her car.  Defendant claims he was on private property (Walmart parking lot), and didn’t have to have a license.   In some states, the police won’t respond to an accident on private property, and write tickets or arrest anyone, this happened in a Walmart parking lot, and that is private property.

Defendant claims he never heard plaintiff honking her horn, because his windows were down on his truck.     Plaintiff claims she was honking a lot to stop defendant from backing into her vehicle.

Defendant says he was only backing the car out for his wife, who was with him, and isn’t in court.   Defendant says he only backed truck out, and plaintiff should have seen him backing up, and moved forward and the accident wouldn’t have happened.   Police report says both drivers backed out at the same time, so near clear proof of who was at fault.   Defendant claims his wife would have driven the truck home.  

Judges adjourn to deliberate, this should be bizarre.   In some states I lived in, your insurance company would sell policies including uninsured driver coverage, paying everything on your car if the other driver was at fault, but had no insurance.   I wonder what kind of coverage the plaintiff had?  Since there is no proof that defendant was at fault, he’s still an unlicensed, and uninsured jerk, but there is no proof of any more fault by either driver.

DiMango says defendant backed without looking, and plaintiff should get the amount she asked for.   Corriero agrees, and Acker does also.

$2,881 to plaintiff.

My view on people who drive without a license and/or insurance is that they should automatically be held responsible and have to pay, not that they ever would.

[AngelaHunter]

On 3/29/2023 at 3:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Bumper to Bumper”

(Denyica Benoit vs. Michael Rudziewicz)

Grrr. Dumbass Michael in his stupid jumpsuit got on my last nerve. "The wife" refused to come here because backing up her man's dumb story made her "uncomfortable." He's the man! He does the backing out and then lets "the wife" drive home. Sure. As if this doofus is going to let everyone see a mere woman drive him around in his big truck. No way.

He knows the law and knows it's okay to have no license on private property. I guess when he was reading this he just skipped over any big words. The judges openly laugh at this idiot. I really wanted to know why a grown man has no license. No insurance either, of COURSE. What if instead of hitting a car he had hit a person and crippled them, or killed someone's kid? "Oh, too bad, so sad. No insurance". *shrug*

Even after the mockery he got here, he was still whining in the hall like the spineless little shit he is, "She was very aggressive and called me NAMES!" I'm sure she was and did. So would I, you frickin' goof.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“This is the Suite Life”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 89,   (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 9 Dec 22 (I think the landlady should have received a lot of what she asked for.   Tenant was a jerk, and I just want to know who took the smoke detectors down? I think I can guess who did, and why). 

 

“Escrow I Scream!”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 90, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 30 Sept 2022.

Edited April 1, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 90, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

I didn't remember this case, and watched it, especially the judges deliberating the case. Oh boy! Corriero started with a long impassioned spiel that the poor suffering plaintiff deserved everything the plaintiff sued for, including stuff like time and gas to drive back and forth to the house in question, Acker didn't buy the whole package, but seemed sympathetic for some of the plaintiff's claims. Then Di Mango firmly (and I think correctly) dumped all of the plaintiff's claims. Nothing particularly notable about this so far, but when the judges came back in, Corriero delivered the verdict (without even blinking) giving the plaintiff nothing on her claims with no mention of his earlier opinion - fastest flip flop I have seen on a court case. Corriero rides again.

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I didn't remember this case, and watched it, especially the judges deliberating the case. Oh boy! Corriero started with a long impassioned spiel that the poor suffering plaintiff deserved everything the plaintiff sued for, including stuff like time and gas to drive back and forth to the house in question,

I just watched this, don't remember if I saw it before, and got a Pink Screen at the end today so thanks for the verdict.

It was obvious this plaintiff, decked out in her sparkliest best, worked for the government. A thick-headed, pure bureaucrat who can't see past the end of her nose and looking to nickel-and-dime the def. What does "AS IS" mean, again? The 14K discount from 102K to 88K wasn't enough for P even though it was her choice to keep going back, demanding more and more instead of just saying she didn't want the property. I guess she DID want it, but only if she got it for "practically nothing" (as so many online ads tell me I get houses, cars, SUVs, etc in "your area") and with all updates done for her. The place was dirty and rundown! So don't buy it. Hey, there is no free lunch!

She was beyond outrageous, even wanting gas money for the numerous visits SHE chose to make.  Did the gas pumps have labels on them to prove THAT gas was for her trips?

The fact that the other two could squash Papa Mike's stupid, sappy nonsense makes watching this worthwhile. I'm surprised he didn't tell the plaintiff, "I wanted to give you every cent you demanded, you poor little, innocent, misled lady, but these two b-words overruled me! Can I give you a hug?"

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Party Girls’ Party House”

New, Season 9, Episode  115, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Sharon Lloyd  vs. Crina Ianopol )

Ms. Lloyd the plantiff rented the apartment for her daughter, Rachel, and a roommate,  and claims duplex was immaculate. Plaintiff/former tenant is suing former rental property owner for return of 90% of their security deposit.   Place looks lovely before renters moved in, and equally lovely and clean when they moved out.   Defendant swears her rental property was trashed by the plaintiffs.   Defendant also claims the two plaintiffs had wild parties, and blames them for a fire.   Plaintiffs say they never had wild parties, and there was no fire.  Security was $4250, and rent was $3950, and plaintiff only received $400 of the security deposit back.  Plaintiff is suing for over $5,000, but the court maximum is $5,000.

Judge Tewolde says the property looks identical in the move in video and the move out video. 

 Plaintiff says she received invoices, and receipts for repairs from defendant, but no itemized list of damages.   Plaintiff says defendant withheld $3800 in damages.  Defendant claims there was a fire in the duplex, and charged plaintiff for severe fire damages.   There is no proof of a fire in the duplex. 

Defendant claims filth on the wall behind the stove, all kinds of damages, and filth left behind, but I don’t see anything wrong with the duplex.    Defendant says there were four broken floor tiles, and says she sent an itemized list after the 21 day deadline required in the law. (I bet the four broken tiles weren’t installed correctly, so they cracked).   Defendant says her maintenance man said that they couldn’t replace the front door glass, and had to replace the entire front door, it had specks of dirt on it.  Defendant claims she had to tell the plaintiffs to keep the noise down, and stop having loud parties.  (My view is that the judges have decided that all young people have parties, and out of control parties, and landlady was right.   I disagree.    Landlady decided she could rip off the mother/lease signer, and judges went along with it.   I would have given every penny back to plaintiff mother the second landlady claimed the plaintiff daughter and roommate set the apartment on fire, and there was zero proof of that.)

Plaintiff receives $2525 of their deposit back, another ridiculous decision.

 

“Wrestle-Name-ia”

Rerun, Season 8,  Episode 96, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31 , 17 Oct 2022

Edited April 7, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

“It All Evens Out in the End”

New, Season 9, Episode 116,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( Eboni Reid vs. Virginia Wyatt)

Litigants have been friends for 10 years, but now they’re fighting over an unpaid loan.    The texts in this situation are disgusting, and vile.   Defendant needed money, borrowed $5,000, with a repayment plan, and signed agreement, went on a trip together, with plaintiff financing the trip for defendant, and no payments have been made on either loan. (This all happened in Rochester, NY)

Defendant says she had a baby, then Covid hit, and other personal issues, but she still went on the trip after this.   Defendant took a trip to Jamaica, and that irritated plaintiff even more about the lack of payment.    Plaintiff’s texts start off kind of casual, six months after payments were supposed to start. But defendant’s texts back are vicious, and refuse repayment.   Defendant claims her income tax refund of over $6,000 was withheld by the government.   Judge Tewolde is the only one who was going to read the full text of the defendant’s texts, so many words are bleeped, and the other two judges are laughing when she mentions that.   Then plaintiff answers with equally bleeped texts, also read by Judge Tewolde. 

Another foolish plaintiff who really thought that defendant's tax refund would repay her.  Plaintiff says defendant repaid $1150, but no more.   THen the litigants went to Jamaica, and after that defendant crumpled up the promissory note.  Defedant went to Jamaica twice, Texas and other travels. 

Decision is plaintiff receives $4,265.   

 

“Dash Delivery Dog Attack”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 137, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 33, 17 Nov 2022

[DoctorK]

Cox Cable strikes again, Schedule said 4PM new show, 4:30 rerun of poor door dash driver. Instead Cox simply gave us the door dash driver twice in a row. Guess I will have to wait for a rerun, which will probably be pretty soon. By the way, the defendant didn't come across any better the second (and third) time around.

[patty1h]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff’s texts start off kind of casual, six months after payments were supposed to start. But defendant’s texts back are vicious, and refuse repayment.   Defendant claims her income tax refund of over $6,000 was withheld by the government.   Judge Tewolde is the only one who was going to read the full text of the defendant’s texts, so many words are bleeped, and the other two judges are laughing when she mentions that.   Then plaintiff answers with equally bleeped texts, also read by Judge Tewolde. 

I laughed at that... JT did a great job putting on her best homegirl voice and she did those texts justice.  Sounded like an average day in the hair salons I used to go to here in Brooklyn.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Cabinet CabiNOT”

New, Season 9, Episode  117, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Tom Hannon vs. Dean and  Cindy Gullekson)

A plaintiff/contractor disputes his clients' complaint that his finished product didn't match his sample. He reluctantly returned their deposit, but now he's suing them for the cost of materials. But they claim he took those back, and destroyed them.  I know TV colors aren’t the best, but I could clearly see a difference between what plaintiff produced, and what the defendants wanted.

Defendants took plaintiff to the contractors’ board in California where plaintiff was told to give the deposit back to defendants.   Then when the contractor’s license board said to refund the money, plaintiff took the materials back, and destroyed the cabinets.   However, since the cabinets, and evidence were gone there was no evidence to settle the case.

Defendant Dean says that contractor’s board said that taking a 40% deposit was contrary to accepted practice. 

Contract was set aside, and deposit went to defendants, and now plaintiff is suing defendants. Plaintiff claims the sample and the finished product are the same color, but they aren’t. 

Plaintiff claims defendant never told him that the color was wrong.  Plaintiff claims he made three samples, and defendants kept changing their minds. Plaintiff claims it’s suspicious that defendants don’t have the other two samples he made for them.    

Corriero says plaintiff is unable to claim any money from defendants, because the contract was nullified when plaintiff took the materials back and destroyed them.

Plaintiff claims dismissed.    Plaintiff still says defendants were unreasonable.

 

“A Ring of Truth”

Rerun, 2022, Season 8, Episode 142, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Derek Williams  vs. Catrina Roper)

Plaintiff /ex suing defendant/ex for $400 for property, and $2,000 for an engagement ring.   Defendant said she returned the ring to plaintiff, but plaintiff says it’s a fake ring.

They met online.   The two were on and off while defendant had to get her criminal issues, and addiction issues taken care of.   The final argument started when the litigants took kids and grandkids to an amusement park, and she was late, and she claims plaintiff was abusive.   Then claims plaintiff got very angry, and was screaming and swearing at her, and that was the last straw. 

Plaintiff wants money for the ring, and property, but defendant wants the money she spent on his kids during their relationship. 

They go to buy the ring after dating a few months.   However, he had the credit line for the ring a year before he met the defendant.   After the argument, plaintiff went to defendant's house and started banging on the door, screaming at defendant, and this is verified by defendant's witness, Marian.  Then, the next day was when the plaintiff showed up with a police officer.  

The litigants exchanged the ring in front of a police officer, and plaintiff took the ring back to Jared's, and claims the jewelry store experts told him the ring is fake.  I can see why the defendant wanted a restraining order. 

What ridiculous case.

Plaintiff didn’t prove the ring he has is the same one they bought at Jared, and that can’t be done.   Nothing to plaintiff.    Defendant claim for $140 is granted.  

Edited April 5, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Saving Dasher the Dog; Vanity Insanity”

New, Season 9, Episode 61,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 13 Dec 2022

 

“Renter’s Remorse; Lien on Me”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 74, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 18 Oct 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Improper-ty Manager”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 53,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 1 Dec 2022

 

“Accidental Rental”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 103 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 32, 3 Nov 2022

[Carolina Girl]

On 4/3/2023 at 3:16 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Party Girls’ Party House”

New, Season 9, Episode  115, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Sharon Lloyd  vs. Crina Ianopol )

Ms. Lloyd the plantiff rented the apartment for her daughter, Rachel, and a roommate,  and claims duplex was immaculate. Plaintiff/former tenant is suing former rental property owner for return of 90% of their security deposit.   Place looks lovely before renters moved in, and equally lovely and clean when they moved out.   Defendant swears her rental property was trashed by the plaintiffs.   Defendant also claims the two plaintiffs had wild parties, and blames them for a fire.   Plaintiffs say they never had wild parties, and there was no fire.  Security was $4250, and rent was $3950, and plaintiff only received $400 of the security deposit back.  Plaintiff is suing for over $5,000, but the court maximum is $5,000.

Judge Tewolde says the property looks identical in the move in video and the move out video. 

 Plaintiff says she received invoices, and receipts for repairs from defendant, but no itemized list of damages.   Plaintiff says defendant withheld $3800 in damages.  Defendant claims there was a fire in the duplex, and charged plaintiff for severe fire damages.   There is no proof of a fire in the duplex. 

Defendant claims filth on the wall behind the stove, all kinds of damages, and filth left behind, but I don’t see anything wrong with the duplex.    Defendant says there were four broken floor tiles, and says she sent an itemized list after the 21 day deadline required in the law. (I bet the four broken tiles weren’t installed correctly, so they cracked).   Defendant says her maintenance man said that they couldn’t replace the front door glass, and had to replace the entire front door, it had specks of dirt on it.  Defendant claims she had to tell the plaintiffs to keep the noise down, and stop having loud parties.

Plaintiff receives $2525 of their deposit back, another ridiculous decision.

 

“Wrestle-Name-ia”

Rerun, Season 8,  Episode 96, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31 , 17 Oct 2022

I would have given them the entire deposit back.  All that grifter defendant had were invoices.  NO proof of payment.  NO breakdown of cost of individual repair.   No evidence of fire.  Neighbors said they had parties and were noisy.  So where are the neighbors to verify?  Where is evidence of noise complaints?  I'm wondering if what happened here is what happened to me back in my single days in San Francisco.  Rented an apartment, and when I moved out engaged a cleaning service to do a top notch job.  Did the walk through with the landlord and all was well and waiting for my deposit return.  Turns out the landlord had spent my deposit and didn't have the money to give me so after the walkthrough kept every cent.  Fortunately, I had photos and took the bastard to the S.F. Housing Court.  TREBLE damages!!  He gave me a look that said "try and collect" and I reminded him that I worked for a law firm.  If I had to go to Municipal Court my legal fees would be free; his wouldn't.  Took awhile, but I got all $4500 that was coming to me.  

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/5/2023 at 3:35 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

A plaintiff/contractor disputes his clients' complaint that his finished product didn't match his sample. He reluctantly returned their deposit, but now he's suing them for the cost of materials. But they claim he took those back, and destroyed them.  I know TV colors aren’t the best, but I could clearly see a difference between what plaintiff produced, and what the defendants wanted.

Agree they were very different and, IMO, what P provided was pretty ugly.

When P said he couldn't match the colour of the sample on the def's cabinets because of the grain or whatever, he added, "I guess I should have told them that." Yeah, I guess you should have.  Also, the defs should have had more sense than to give him nearly half the cost upfront as a deposit.

On 4/5/2023 at 3:35 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff /ex suing defendant/ex for $400 for property, and $2,000 for an engagement ring.   Defendant said she returned the ring to plaintiff, but plaintiff says it’s a fake ring.

That was nuts. Old-lady-looking P was just dying to be engaged, going so far as to build up enough credit to buy a pricey ring for his yet-to-be-found ladylove. He dredges up Def on some online hookup site. Even though this grandma had substance abuse problems, 4 DUIS, and trouble with the law to the extent she wore an ankle bracelet (all of which he was eager to tell the world) he decided this was the woman he wanted. Or maybe she was the only one desperate enough to agree to meet him. A great prize he is not. Both of them have ignorant grammar.

Never mind all that! The engagement ring is the important thing. Gee, I wonder why it didn't work out and result in wedded bliss.

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/4/2023 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims her income tax refund of over $6,000 was withheld by the government. 

Excuse me, but her refund was TOOKEN by the government.  Maybe what the vile def does is spread for some sperm donor whenever she owes a sizeable sum. "I was pregnant/I'm a single mother" are always good excuses to weasel out of what you owe.

The "texes" were vile. I don't know why everyone was laughing. It's not funny. It's disgusting, but I'm sure they are fine examples for their offspring.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“We Had a Deal”

New, Season 9, Episode 118   (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Debbie Newman  vs. James Sheppard )

Plaintiff is suing defendant for an unpaid loan of $2000, plus his offered $300 in interest, but nothing was ever paid back.  Defendant claims he drove plaintiff around for a year, and that was repayment. Plaintiff says she never wanted or needed anyone to drive her around, but defendant says she wanted him as her driver.    Interest should have been $200 (10%) on the loan according to California law.  However, the interest of $300 was offered by defendant.

Defendant claims he repaid $600 to plaintiff, but no proof of payments.  

I don't understand why they're friends, they don't communicate anything. 

Judges decision is $2000 for the loan, and $200 for the interest, total $2200.

 

 

“Exes Baggage”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 143, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 32 , 8 Nov 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Double Damage”

New, Season 9, Episode 119,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Epaminondas Oliveira vs.  Carl (son) and Carlos Marin (father)) 

Plaintiff’s car is quite old too.  Plaintiff’s car was in a hit-and-run accident, and when he took the car to defendant’s body shop, plaintiff says the work was shoddy.   Work was estimated at $6500.    Plaintiff says after he picked the vehicle up, the side panels didn’t line up, the windows leaked.  When he took it to a Toyota dealer, the cost was $5,200 to fix the car, primarily the air conditioning.   However, defendants say they run a body shop only, don’t fix the air conditioning.   Plaintiff says the leaks, and window issues were on the right side of the car.   

Toyota dealer mechanic claims the air conditioning controls were where the plaintiff’s vehicle was hit, and that damaged the air conditioner.       However, the defendants didn’t see any leaks, but they’re not air conditioner repair either.  Toyota receipt also says the side panels don’t line up.   

Plaintiff says the lack of air conditioning endangered his wife and children.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.  The defendants run a body shop, not air conditioning. (What is that large tattoo covering the entire back of Carl's head?)

"Tangled Title”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 100 (Acker, Di Mango, Corriero)

p. 31 , 20 Oct 2022.

Edited April 11, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/10/2023 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is suing defendant for an unpaid loan of $2000, plus his offered $300 in interest, but nothing was ever paid back.

He could have offered a million dollars in interest since he knew in advance he had no intentions of paying it.  These grifters can always come up with a reason why they don't owe the money.

On 4/10/2023 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff says she never wanted or needed anyone to drive her around, but defendant says she wanted him as her driver.

That was a puzzler. He was her chauffeur, to the tune of 2K in rides (how did he keep track of the cost of each ride? Did he have a taxi meter installed?) but she never needed rides. Someone is a big fat liar. I'm glad the judges could figure out who.

[AngelaHunter]

"I buy all my cars with cash. I have three children".

That may not be the strangest non-sequitur ever heard on these shows, but it's pretty close to the top.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“No Shade, No Brows”

New, Season 9, Episode  120, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Teresa Evans vs. Blackshear)

Plaintiff  suing defendant for not doing a good job on permanent eyebrows (microshading), and claims she followed the instructions exactly. Plaintiff saw a video of defendant’s work, and booked an appointment.  The day after the procedure, plaintiff wanted the brows darker, and defendant said there was a six-week waiting period to darken the brows and this was a part of the procedure, and a follow up a year to three years  later.     Judge Juarez says the  plaintiff didn’t follow the instructions.  (This was in Atlanta, GA)

Defendant says plaintiff’s brows are light, because she never came back for the six-week retouch. Also, defendant only does medium brown for the first appointment.  

(It sounds to me that plaintiff wanted microblading, not microshading, and will never be happy with the results.)

Plaintiff case dismissed, she didn’t follow instructions for the ten day aftercare, or the second appointment six weeks later,  or read the consent forms she signed.   However, the judges slam the defendant for not giving the plaintiff her full attention during the procedure.

 

“No Room, No More; Down Payment Downer”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 127 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

“No Room, No More”

(Angela Taylor vs. Rae Castagno Taft )

Plaintiff saw an ad, made a pet and security deposit on defendant’s room rental.   Plaintiff claims both deposits were refundable, but defendant claims they weren’t.   Security was $ , and pet was $ .   Plaintiff’s Staffordshire Bull Terrier is claimed by defendant to have soiled the carpet at the initial walk through.    (This was in Salt Lake City, UT)

Contract says non-refundable.   $800 was rent, and security deposit is $800, and $500 was the pet deposit.   Defendant claims the subsequent ads were phonies, for a rental scam.  Plaintiff submits a screen shot of the original ad.   Original ad says refundable for security deposit.   Defendant didn’t bring photos or evidence of the dog’s misdeeds. 

Defendant says plaintiff’s criminal background check was bad for plaintiff, and plaintiff says there was no mention of background checks.  

Decision is $800 to plaintiff.

 

 

“Down Payment Downer”

(Tessa Wells  vs. Lovell Annis)

Plaintiff was loaned money by defendant for a car down payment, but she never repaid it.   Plaintiff’s money was from an accident settlement, and a Home Depot charge.   Defendant is counter suing for a TV, and the accident causing his insurance to go up,  $1164.    Plaintiff borrowed $2500, for the down payment, plus her $500, and when plaintiff tried to get the car loan, she was turned down.  Then, defendant put the car loan in his name, with the $2500 he had, and her $500, and then she was in an accident.  Since car was in defendant’s name he received the accident settlement, and he kept it.   (This was in Atlanta, GA).

Defendant’s insurance went up because of the accident, since the car was in his name.   Plaintiff wants her Home Depot charges made by defendant paid off also.  (I hope I wrote all of this correctly, it was very confusing.     I don’t see why the defendant and plaintiff’s collusion to get a loan for her car would be rewarded.  No one in this case came to court with Clean Hands. )

I agree with Judge Acker, plaintiff didn’t receive a gift of $2500, because if it had been a gift she would have registered and titled the car in her name.  

$617 to plaintiff, and TV back to defendant.   The insurance settlement of $2500, stays with defendant. 

[Paperclips]

Does anyone know what happened to the new Hot Bench on Amazon?  That thing was supposed to launch a year ago.

[Welshman in Ca]

3 minutes ago, Paperclips said:

Does anyone know what happened to the new Hot Bench on Amazon?  That thing was supposed to launch a year ago.

Judge Judy returned on freevee or whatever it's called last year & that is owned by Amazon. Hot bench has 2 new judges this year so maybe you got them mixed up?