Hot Bench - General Discussion

[Paperclips]

1 minute ago, Welshman in Ca said:

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?

Nah - the two old Judges were going to move to Amazon and do a new Hot Bench.  Corriero's contract wasn't up so he stayed.  It seems like it fell through.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“A Loan Again, Naturally”

New, Season 9, Episode 121  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Kierria Heard vs. Junior Cobb Johnson III)

Plaintiff loaned $600 to defendant for Weed, and he didn’t repay her.  Defendant says all of the things he did for her more than repaid her for the $600.   Plaintiff also loaned him $100, and he repaid that, a few weeks into their relationship. $600 loan was supposed to be paid back on payday on the same week. (This happened in Riverdale, GA)

So, apparently defendant borrowed the money, to buy and resell Weed.  

When plaintiff wanted repayment, defendant texted back nasty things, and then ghosted her.   Defendant says plaintiff agreed to babysit his child, but didn't, so he couldn't go to his side job at a nighclub.   So, when plaintiff didn't babysit, he claims the money he lost working at the nightclub was deducted from the loan repayment. Defendant also wants to deduct the value of a pair of shoes he bought for plaintiff.   Defendant also thinks that plaintiff not taking him to Birmingham for his job should be deducted from the loan.  

Corriero doesn't like the texts plaintiff sent to deadbeat ex. 

Defendant also called police on plaintiff too. Defendant claims plaintiff threatened him.   Defendant called the non-emergency number about the threats, but no report was filed. 

Plaintiff receives $600 for the loan.  

 

“Motel…Gunning for Eviction!”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 139 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p.33, 16 Nov 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“The Fast and the Furious”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 36  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34 16 Dec 2022

 

“Room Renting and Friends Venting”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode  140, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 33, 18 Nov 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Dreading the Lock Refund”

New, Season 9, Episode 122 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Joy Arnold vs.  Tasieca Scruggs)

Plaintiff wants $450 for Diamond Dreadlock extensions, after defendant did this for her, and she wasn’t happy with it.  The picture of plaintiff’s hair shows square bases on the braids, but not triangle based braids. The hair color job came out as what plaintiff wanted them.    They agree there would be 80 to 100 locks, but plaintiff didn’t have that many locks, about 60 locks. Plaintiff says 40 something locks.

Original price was $900, but changed down to $700. Defendant hurt her back avoiding a potato bug in her house, she thought it was a bat.  So, because of a painful back, defendant did a quicker number of locks, also because of the lower number of locks.

Defendant was sent a message by plaintiff, of wanting smaller braids, but more, so defendant wanted to charge $200 for the extra work.

Defendant says to redo the locks will take 8 hours, just as the first time.  Also, the extensions can be taken out and reinstalled.   

The best part of the case is watching Corriero trying to figure out the testimony. Corriero wants to give plaintiff $450, Juarez and Tewolde say $250 to the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff receives $250

 

 

“Nothing But the Tooth”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 141 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 32, 7 Nov 2022

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff wants $450 for Diamond Dreadlock extensions

I saw "Dreadlocks" in the blurb and decided to skip this one. I hate these cases only marginally less than I do dog cases.

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The picture of plaintiff’s hair shows square bases on the braids, but not triangle based braids.

Thank you. Now I'm pretty sure I did the right thing.

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

. Defendant hurt her back avoiding a potato bug in her house, she thought it was a bat.

Yes, I'm quite sure now. Do potato bugs resemble bats? 🤔😆🤡

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Corriero wants to give plaintiff $450

Of course, he would.

[Taeolas]

On 4/13/2023 at 11:10 AM, Paperclips said:

Nah - the two old Judges were going to move to Amazon and do a new Hot Bench.  Corriero's contract wasn't up so he stayed.  It seems like it fell through.

 

Nope, it's still happening and they just announced more information on it.

 

Quote

The new Amazon Freevee original series Tribunal Justice is set to premiere with three episodes on June 9 in the U.S., UK, Germany and Austria with new episodes released every weekday through December 1. The first official trailer for the Judge Judy Sheindlin-created show is available above, featuring judges Patricia DiMango, Tanya Acker and Adam Levy—with the return of bailiff Petri Hawkins Byrd.

On Tribunal Justice, viewers will see a panel of three judges adjudicating real cases to be debated and decided by DiMango, Acker and Levy. In addition to Byrd, Cassandra Britt will also serve as a court bailiff.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“The Father, the Son, and the Unpaid Ticket”

New, Season 9, Episode 123 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Michael Lee  [father] vs. [son] Vincent Perry)

Juarez says the worst driver in their show history, isn’t in court, but plaintiff (he held the title to son’s car) is being held responsible for the tickets on the car.  Car was sold to someone else by son, and that buyer racked up a bunch of tickets.   So, since car is still registered to plaintiff, he’s suing the son who supposedly sold the car.   Son couldn’t have car in his name, because of ‘difficulties’.    Father and son went to the ticket agency in D.C., but litigants live in Baltimore.   Son claims license plate was stolen, but there is a photo of the car with the plates still on it.

The ticket hearing record says father submitted statement that he didn’t own car, but that wasn’t accepted by the D.C. traffic court. 

Belinda Perry Thaniel , defendant’s mother, testifies, she wanted plaintiff put on a payment plan, but it was for tickets plaintiff didn’t have.   Son takes no responsibility for anything.  Son wants $2200 for pain and suffering, etc.  Son also says all of the things he did for his long estranged father, and justifies not paying the father for anything.

Corriero really lays into son.  

I find son’s story about the tickets, and the ticket hearing ridiculous.   Then, plaintiff testifies about his emotional support snake.  I absolutely hope this isn’t a show-and-tell case with the snakes. 

However, son knows where the buyer works, and the buyer’s information, but won’t find the person who has the car.

Decision is $1900 to give plaintiff what is owed for tickets, dismiss the son's ridiculous counter claim. 

“Smokey and Mirrors”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 146 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 1 Nov 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Loan Snark”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  37 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 32, 7 Nov 2022

 

“Pain in my Grass”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 128, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Michele Scales vs. George Avendano)

Plaintiff hired landscaper to maintain her yard, and check the sprinkler system, and she’s suing him for  $3575.    Landscaper claims homeowner didn’t follow lawn care/mowing, and watering instructions, and that’s why the sprinkler installation he performed didn’t work out.   The before lawn picture shows a lawn that’s half bare dirt, the after picture looks wonderful.     Defendant claims the irrigation lines were repaired, all sprinkler heads replaced.   Replacing the old water lines was not included in the contract.   Plaintiff is blaming the dying grass on defendant, this happened four months after the repairs and sod work.   

 Defendant says he had to repair one sprinkler head, because grass was being mowed too low, and the sprinkler heads were breaking because of mower hits. 

Defendant says lawn was cut too short, and the watering schedule is wrong, so that's why the lawn died. 

Acker takes the plaintiff's side, and blames the defendant for the dying lawn. 

Correiro says it wasn't defendant's job to fix the underground sprinkler lines, and no proof defendant killed the lawn.    

Decision is for defendant, plaintiff case dismissed.  (I'm surprised, I really thought they were going to give the plaintiff something back, but the judges were sensible this time).

Edited April 19, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Chalby]

On 4/18/2023 at 12:24 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“The Father, the Son, and the Unpaid Ticket”

New, Season 9, Episode 123 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Michael Lee  [father] vs. [son] Vincent Perry)

Juarez says the worst driver in their show history, isn’t in court, but plaintiff (he held the title to son’s car) is being held responsible for the tickets on the car.  Car was sold to someone else by son, and that buyer racked up a bunch of tickets.   So, since car is still registered to plaintiff, he’s suing the son who supposedly sold the car.   Son couldn’t have car in his name, because of ‘difficulties’.    Father and son went to the ticket agency in D.C., but litigants live in Baltimore.   Son claims license plate was stolen, but there is a photo of the car with the plates still on it.

The ticket hearing record says father submitted statement that he didn’t own car, but that wasn’t accepted by the D.C. traffic court. 

Belinda Perry Thaniel , defendant’s mother, testifies, she wanted plaintiff put on a payment plan, but it was for tickets plaintiff didn’t have.   Son takes no responsibility for anything.  Son wants $2200 for pain and suffering, etc.  Son also says all of the things he did for his long estranged father, and justifies not paying the father for anything.

Corriero really lays into son.  

I find son’s story about the tickets, and the ticket hearing ridiculous.   Then, plaintiff testifies about his emotional support snake.  I absolutely hope this isn’t a show-and-tell case with the snakes. 

However, son knows where the buyer works, and the buyer’s information, but won’t find the person who has the car.

Decision is $1900 to give plaintiff what is owed for tickets, dismiss the son's ridiculous counter claim. 

“Smokey and Mirrors”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 146 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 1 Nov 2022

I've always loved and appreciated your recaps and posts.

[Chalby]

On 4/18/2023 at 12:24 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“The Father, the Son, and the Unpaid Ticket”

I find son’s story about the tickets, and the ticket hearing ridiculous.   Then, plaintiff testifies about his emotional support snake.  I absolutely hope this isn’t a show-and-tell case with the snakes. 

 

I would love to learn the laws around support animals in the US. I've heard of people attempting to get their pets acknowledged, legally, but there's so many rules around what constitutes a pet, or support animal, that rarely is the legal status granted. I have read that specific training (of the animal) has to be presented before any animal is considered. Or are we allowed to highlight any loved animal as emotional support? (As most pets are emotional supports, we just don't demand they have privileges).

[Chalby]

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. 

Plaintiff receives $2525 of their deposit

 

This judgement baffled me. They must have edited a lot of proof out. Even re: outside stains on door glass? The pictures looked fine and the plaintiff was being OCD nitpicky about cleaning. Even the toilet pix... since when do women clean their bathroom and leave toilet seat up? Someone used it since their departure. She should have kept maybe something for the door, but more than half the deposit? Come on...

[Chalby]

On 3/21/2023 at 4:01 PM, AngelaHunter said:

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.

I'm always surprised by defendents who use the "Adonis defense" for not repaying loans. I've yet to see one participant on Hot Bench whose looks could garner them any money, let alone thousands.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“It’s My Cousin’s Bill, Not Mine”

New, Season 9, Episode 124  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Shajuanda Brady vs. De’Meka Hughes)

Plaintiff took defendant/cousin’s son in for the summer.  When son had an asthma attack, plaintiff took son to ER.   Both litigants thought medical insurance covered the bill, but six years later the plaintiff was taken to court, for $1,164.  Plaintiff lost in court, had her wages garnished by court.   The garnishment happened six years ago, but the asthma attack happened ten years ago.  Yes, 2012.  

Defendant claims she doesn’t owe plaintiff anything for the medical bill.  

Plaintiff was on a payment plan with the court, and plaintiff had her bank account garnished, then defendant agreed to pay $75 a month, and defendant agreed to help make the payments.  Defendant paid one time, $75 only, and stopped.   Defendant thinks plaintiff goofed on the medical filing, so plaintiff should split the bill with her.   Defendant says her son has had asthma since he was three, and always has an inhaler, so plaintiff should have figured out son had asthma.

Then, Corriero gets ticked that plaintiff took son in for summer, took him to all kind of fun events, like Disney trips, so he says defendant is ungrateful.     

Judge Acker blames the hospital for not sending bills. 

Plaintiff receives $1164.

(Officer Pitts is substitute bailiff, while Officer Montano is out.)

“Shun-in-Law”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 129, (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Patricia Rodriquez vs.Cesar Espina )

Woman suing homeless father of her grandchild for an apartment deposit, $2100. Defendant claims the money was a gift to get a home for plaintiff’s daughter, and the grandchild.   Defendant trained as an EMT, and did get a job.

Defendant, plaintiff’s daughter and child lived rent free with plaintiff.  Plaintiff says defendant and daughter were arguing, and in a volatile relationship, and plaintiff wanted defendant to move out.  Child’s mother is in the apartment, and  defendant claims to be fighting with DCFS for custody of the child now.     Then, defendant had an apartment, but needed first and last month’s rent (or security and first month’s rent), and he could make a home for the child.    

Defendant trained and has a job as an EMT.   Defendant and plaintiff’s daughter never paid anything back to plaintiff.    Defendant is back on the street, and homeless.    The daughter is living in the apartment, but defendant is trying to get the ex-partner, plaintiff’s daughter out of the apartment.

Child was taken away because of the domestic violence between the parents.  Daughter was arrested for domestic violence.      When defendant, and child’s mother went back together, the child was then taken into care, because of the environment.    

Defendant tried to get a restraining order against plaintiff’s daughter, but they went back together again.

DiMango says it’s obvious to her that the defendant and ex keep reconciling and living in the apartment. That’s why the child was taken into protective care, because of the violence in the home between defendant and child’s mother.   

Acker wants to pay plaintiff half what she’s requesting, because it was paid to both defendant, and daughter.   DiMango says it’s a loan, and thinks defendant still lives in the apartment.  Corriero thinks loan was to defendant.

Decision is plaintiff  receives $2100.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Wrecked & Robbed”

New, Season 9, Episode  125 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Thomas Blastek  vs. Socrates Ostoposides)

(Officer Pitts substituting for Officer Montejano again).

After being rear ended, the plaintiff’s car was drivable, but was in the shop for 47 days. Plaintiff wants defendant to pay for the rental car expenses.   Plaintiff wants $4900.   Car rentals were almost $2000, plus soft tissue damages.

Plaintiff also claims soft tissue damage, detected by an X-ray, but X-rays don’t detect soft tissue damage.  Defendant claims plaintiff suddenly cut in front of him, causing the accident, and defendant thinks plaintiff swooped suddenly into the parking lot driveway.  Plaintiff claims he was signaling the right turn, and was turning out of the right side lane.   Defendant claims plaintiff was in the second lane from the curb, suddenly turned right, and then turned right into the parking lot.

Judge Juarez says the car damages to plaintiff’s car are minor, and wonders how plaintiff hurt his shoulder.  Plaintiff claims the lack of rental payment by the defendant’s insurance delayed his car repair.   

Judge Juarez asks how the plaintiff’s tissue damages were visible on X-ray, but plaintiff claims his doctor and physical therapist found the shoulder tissue damages.   Plaintiff's issues were with his shoulder hurting when he swings a golf club, or tennis racket. 

 However, defendant says plaintiff was going into the doctor's office when the accident happened.   Defendant doesn't see how the plaintiff's injuries happened from the accident, and I don't either.   I also believe how the defendant says the accident happened, not the plaintiff's story.  Everything for the physical therapy was covered by his medical insurance. 

I agree with the judges, why did plaintiff leave the car at the body shop for 47 days, when car was driveable?   

Plaintiff claims he had pain since the accident, but he didn't go to the doctor and physical therapy for three months after an accident.   Who knows what activities, and possible injuries plaintiff could have suffered after the accident?

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

 

“House-tility”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 76 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 31, 21 Nov 2022

Edited April 22, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/19/2023 at 7:47 PM, Chalby said:

I'm always surprised by defendents who use the "Adonis defense" for not repaying loans. I've yet to see one participant on Hot Bench whose looks could garner them any money, let alone thousands.

I'm not surprised at all and I don't really blame them. They can be utterly repulsive inside and out, amoral, mooching, lying, drugged up, cheaters, abusers ("He only kicked me once in my buttocks so I married him"), and losers but they can ALWAYS and easily find multiple women who, often after a matter of weeks of "dating", will not only take out loans and CC advances to buy them motorcycles, pay their bail and child support and shower them with money but even want to breed with them and will fight other women for that privilege.

Why wouldn't these pieces of crap think they're irresistible hunks o' burning love?

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/20/2023 at 3:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff took defendant/cousin’s son in for the summer.  When son had an asthma attack, plaintiff took son to ER. 

"She could have did that previous." "Tooken". I do wonder what kind of jobs our litigants could get with their horrendous grammar, then remembered that the home health care racket industry seems to require no education of any kind from its employees.

"Take your vitamins, folks!" - Judge Judy.

[Chalby]

On 4/22/2023 at 9:28 AM, AngelaHunter said:

Why wouldn't these pieces of crap think they're irresistible hunks o' burning love?

You are so right. For some reason these losers find yet another gal who'll try to "rescue them and make them respectable". I guess it's no different than those scary looking gals who can get older men to hand over money within a day.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Clipper Slipper”

New, Season 9, Episode 125 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Linda Ontiveros (plaintiff sister) and (victim sister) Sallie Beyl vs. Annette  Eugenio [owner of salon]) (Officer Pitts is subbing for Officer Montejano)

Plaintiff/ sister took her disabled sister to get a haircut, and claims defendant beautician kept jamming clippers down into sister’s neck, causing pain and scrapes, and are suing for $5,000 for pain and suffering.   Defendant/beautician denies hitting the plaintiff sister with the clippers, or causing any injuries.  

Plaintiff Ontiveros demonstrates with unplugged clippers, claims defendant caused burn marks from the clippers on Beyl’s neck and jawline, and it caused pain for weeks to the sister.  Plaintiff claims her photos are of bruises and burns caused by defendant.  

Gloria Guadalupe Rodriguez  is the defendant hairdresser accused of assaulting the plaintiff Beyl, and claims she only used scissors, never the clippers, and denies moving sister Beyl out plaintiff Ontiveros’ view.   Defendant Gloria says she cut Beyl's hair before, but plaintiff Ontiveros denies that Beyl had her hair cut by Gloria before.     

(The bruises don’t look like anything you get from a haircut.  I'm on the defendant's side in this case.  I've seen skin irritation from clippers, and the marks on plaintiff sister's neck don't look like that.    I see no way that clippers would leave marks like that). 

Defendants claim they only use small trimming clippers to clean up the hairline, not the huge clippers plaintiff Ontiveros claims the hairdresser used.   Defendant Gloria also says plaintiff Beyl never said she was in pain.   

Beyl was taken to the urgent care, by Ontiveros, and she was given antibiotic cream.     Is that what is given for a burn like Ontiveros says Beyl received?   I don't think that's a burn treatment.  

Defendant salon owner Eugenio testifies that she never saw bubbling burn marks on Beyl's neck.  

Plaintiff Ontiveros wanted the name of salon's insurance company because she claims the beautician deliberately hurt Beyl.    

Claim is malicious intent by defedant Gloria.   Corriero says there was pain and suffering.   Defendant salon owner said in her sworn statement was Gloria was nervous, and may have hurt the plaintiff accidentally.   Judges say it was negligence, but I don't see it.   

Plaintiff receives $1,000, so no bonanza for plaintiff Ontiveros.   

“Momma Drama”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 136 (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

p. 32, 15 Nov 2022

Edited April 24, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

The case "Clipper Slipper" involved an aggressive haircut where the plaintiff was suing for $5000 for pain/injuries.  The case was that the plaintiff took her disabled sister for a cut and the stylist got chippy after some criticism, then she started jabbing and pressing too hard with an electric clipper.  (All of these women are in their mid-late 50's).  Plaintiff stopped the haircut midway after seeing her sister was cringing in pain (sister seemed slightly cognitively impaired, so that may be why she didn't stop the abuse).  The plaintiff had photos - sister had some large red marks and bruising on her neck.   The stylist spoke - says at first that she didn't use a clipper, only scissors, but later says used a "trimmer" for the nape area but was not rough or being malicious and she finished the cut w/o any issues.  The salon manager was there and spoke but said she doesn't believe her employee hurt the client - she probably just has sensitive skin.

The plaintiff ended up taking sister to see a doctor, who kept her for observation because sisters blood pressure had shot up to dangerous levels because of the pain.  She was also prescribed antibiotics.  They incurred no out of pocket expenses - Medicaid covered it.

This was a head scratcher... who was lying?  IMO those marks on the neck seemed too severe to have been made by a hair clipper, but who knows.  The judges gave the plaintiff $1K.

EDIT:  Seems like me and @CrazyInAlabama watched this together and were typing together, but her recaps leave mine in the dust. 😊

Edited April 24, 2023 by patty1h

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Momma Drama”

What a disgusting lineup. P and her husband/boyfriend/baby daddy started breeding in their teens and have two little girls, 6 and 8. They can't afford to take care of them or find a place of their own, so move into a trailer with P's beastly massive momma with whom P has had a terrible relationship and who "has been married 13 times, has 5 or 7 kids by different fathers, etc etc". But none of that bothered her when she and her baby daddy needed to live and sponge from Momma when they can't make it on their own.

Domestic violence and drunkenness in the presence of the girls occur, and both Ps get arrested. Nice for the kids, you lowlifes. Momma put the electric bill in P's name when she was 16(?) and all sorts of nasty hijinks go on. Daughter P cries tearfully, "She (Momma) let us be homeless!" No, you and your cheatin' man, both adults perfectly capable of working and supporting your children, let yourselves be homeless. I hope someone in authority saw this and took those poor kids out of this depraved situation with all these nasty losers. Nauseating.

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

This was a head scratcher... who was lying?

I couldn't make heads or tails of that either. Is the def stylist a sadistic psycho or is P exaggerating what happened? I still didn't know by the end of this, but P calling the police and wanting 5K in punitive damages seems a little suspicious.

And P? If you want to be really good to your sister, I suggest you get the poor lady some teeth so she can eat properly.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Friction among Frat”

New, Season 9, Episode  126 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Larry Robinson  vs. Shedrick Hudson)

(Again Officer Pitts subbing for Officer Montejano)

Grown up frat brothers have a dispute over plaintiff’s truck that defendant borrowed, and there was an accident.   Defendant claims there was an accident, but it wasn’t his fault.   Plaintiff wants $3100 for the entire truck repair, but the plaintiff’s insurance covered the accident damages, except for plaintiff’s $1000 deductible.   Defendant is counter suing for $2000 for plaintiff’s defamation of him to the fraternity brothers.   

Plaintiff was going to have defendant as a roommate, and then decided this wasn’t going to work.   So, plaintiff backed out of the offer, but didn't tell defendant, he told some of his fraternity brothers, and they told defendant that the plaintiff wasn't moving defendant into his house.    So, defendant borrowed plaintiff's truck to move his belongings.   Truck is a Ford 150, Harley-Davidson model.   

Then, defendant borrowed truck the second day, and claims someone did a hit-and-run on the truck.   However, other driver didn't just hit and back up, but kept pushing the truck.  The defendant was driving for Lyft, and there is a form to fill out about accidents with Lyft vehicles, but that wasn't done by defendant. 

Plaintiff claims there were no photos by defendant of the truck, no Lyft form filled out, no police report, and says truck looked like defendant backed into something. 

Plaintiff's insurance company did an accident analysis, and say that defendant was at fault.   My question is if insurance on plaintiff's truck covered the defendant at the time of the accident?  

Judge Acker explains the lifelong fellowship of historically Black sororities and fraternities, so she's surprised about the litigants suing each other. 

How did someone with defendant's driving record qualify to drive for Lyft?   Juarez and Tewolde want $1000 deductible only, paid to plaintiff, and won't pay for defendant's claim.  As usual, Corriero wants to offset the plaintiff's $1000, by giving defendant $1,000 for defamation, and he loses. 

Decision is $1,000 for plaintiff for the deductible, nothing for the damages he was already paid for by the insurance. 

 

“No Good Breed Goes Unpunished”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 144 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 32, 9 Nov 2022

Edited April 25, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

How did someone with defendant's driving record qualify to drive for Lyft? 

The same way a drug-addicted felon qualified to be listed on Home Advisors, I guess. All that "vetting" these places say they do may be exaggerated.

Def thinks he's owed compensation for defamation. P said he's a bad driver who doesn't pay his debts. It's my understanding that the truth is a defense against charges of slander/defamation. P forgot to add "liar" since def claims the accident wasn't his fault even as he stands there saying he backed out of a parking spot and someone driving with the right of way hit him. The car that hit him actually lifted up in the air! Wow. I see college did him a lot of good - a 50-year-old man who is homeless and even lost his Lyft job after he wrecked that car as well and refuses to take responsibility for that accident.

P says he wants Def to pay him the 3K the insurance paid to cover his damage "to teach him a lesson". I don't think so. He just wants a bonus.

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My question is if insurance on plaintiff's truck covered the defendant at the time of the accident?  

I'm sure it's different depending on where it happens but when I went away (no, not to the slammer!) I let my niece drive my car. I called my ins. co. to ask if I should put her on my policy. I was told no, and that whatever happened to my car while my niece drove it would be as I was driving. Luckily she's a better driver (at 23) than this Def and managed not to wreck my car.

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

As usual, Corriero wants to offset the plaintiff's $1000, by giving defendant $1,000 for defamation, and he loses.

Wasn't that something? I shouldn't be surprised anymore that Papa wants to reward a shifty liar who stiffed his friend after he wrecked his car with his carelessness. The other two judges are just as good at overriding his outrageous crap as Acker and DiMango were! Good job, ladies.

I liked how Juarez(Sp?) told the Def that if it were up to Papa Mike he would be awarded 1K, but since it wasn't up to him, Def gets zippo. 😆

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Not 50/50”

New, Season 9, Episode 127  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Izoraide De Sousa vs. Fidel Orozco Olmedo III)

(Officer Pitts is court officer again today)

A woman was rear-ended on a highway off-ramp and says the defendant was entirely at fault. His insurance determined that liability was 50/50 - and the other driver says her reckless driving, trying to block him was to blame.

Plaintiff was in 4th lane on freeway, claims defendant was in 5th lane, cut in front of her when he was merging, and claims defendant hit her.      

Defendant claims he was merging, and plaintiff blocked him and he couldn’t avoid hitting her.  Defendant says he was in the on-ramp, saw plaintiff pass him in the emergency lane, was also on the shoulder, driving 25-30 mph,  and then he says plaintiff cut off the defense witness, and defendant.   

Defendant's insurance company says plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.   I believe the defendant, not the plaintiff.   I think plaintiff was blocking the lane, and preventing defendant from merging.  Defendant has full insurance, and plaintiff doesn't.

Defendant's witness is another driver plaintiff cut off and blocked.  Defense witness, wrote a letter to the court, saying plaintiff cut him off before the accident with defendant. 

I guess Corriero ignores the witness statement, and his insurance company.  Juarez says plaintiff is lying about speed, and her driving.  

Plaintiff gets $935, 50% of the damages, and $150 for the rental, $1085 

(I agree with defendant, plaintiff is a bad, aggressive driver.)

 

“Retaining Balance”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 125 (Corriero, DiMango, Acker)

p. 32, 10 Nov 2022

Edited April 26, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Whomever Smelt It Dealt It”

New, Season 9, Episode 129 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( Hardev Nagra vs. Maverick Richardson)

(Officer Pitts is court officer again).

To avoid a painful eviction process, a landlord/plaintiff paid his tenant to vacate early. But landlord/plaintiff changed his mind about that deal after finding broken eggs behind the TV. Was there a food fight in the home? Or was the tenant just SCRAMBLING to get out in time? (I stole this paragraph from the Hot Bench site, it was too funny to pass up. )

 

Landlord gave back deposit to defendant to get him to move out.  This was in spite of defendant having pets in violation of the lease, and numerous tenant who were not on lease.    Plaintiff/landlord also had to get furniture and other items hauled away that defendant left behind.   Defendant claims plaintiff was going to buy the furniture.    Defendant claimed the pets were the wife (now ex-wife) Emotional Support Animals.  Do private landlords have to honor ESA paperwork, and for multiple pets?    Plaintiff also owes for a back solar power bill.

$1800 First Month, $1800 Last Month, and Deposit $1800, so total of $5400 paid before move-in.

When plaintiff/landlord inspected the house, there were eggshells behind the TV, creating a stench.  Defendant denies leaving broken, raw eggs behind the TV.    Plaintiff had to hire cleaners twice to clean house up, after defendant moved out.   Plaintiff says there was a horrible stench through out the house, and there were ceiling stains from food fights or other vandalism.   Plaintiff says there were a lot of stains on the walls too.  

(Sadly, there are a lot of TV judge shows saying how tenants have sabotaged homes, by leaving raw food behind to rot. My story is the woman across the streets rents her house, but doesn’t do background checks, and after three bad tenants, she hired a property manager who is supposed to do all of the right background and credit checks, we'll see if that works, because I think she hires the cheapest company for everything.   The last tenant was evicted, he paid up front, but nothing after, and when he moved out while the eviction process was on-going, there is a smell of dead animal in the house.  The pest control tech said it wasn't dead vermin, but something else.  The local hawks and vultures keep circling the house.    I suspect something raw was thrown in the attic, and left to rot.   It’s been 3 months, and no one wants to rent the house)  

The plaintiff/landlord had to replace the carpet, pay the solar bill, two cleaning bills, had to paint everywhere in the house including ceilings to cover the stains.   He also paid defendant $4,000 to leave the home.  Plaintiff says it cost him over $10k to rehab the house.    

Defendant was paid $2200 for the furniture, but is counter claiming $5,000 more for furniture.  Defendant claims landlord wanted him out in a week, to return the $1800 deposit, and claims landlord drove him out so he couldn't get the other furnishings out. 

Plaintiff did an inspection in May, but not another walk-through after defendant moved out in July.   

Plaintiff was cutting his losses to get defendant out, and says a lot of the damage, and stench wasn't present during the May walkthrough. 

Tewolde wants to give only for the solar bill.   Nothing for defendant. Both judges agree with the amount for the solar bill only. 

$487 to plaintiff, all cleaning and other fees dismissed. 

 

“Custom Extensions Cost”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 73 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 24 Oct 2022

Edited April 27, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

But landlord/plaintiff changed his mind about that deal after finding broken eggs behind the TV. Was there a food fight in the home? Or was the tenant just SCRAMBLING to get out in time?

I see I have some catching up to do.

[DoctorK]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$487 to plaintiff, all cleaning and other fees dismissed. 

I think the landlord got royally screwed, but he really didn't have his act together, wasn't well prepared, and apparently hasn't watched any of these court shows. However, he should breathe a sigh of relief that he has gotten rid of a tenant who I think is a pig and really shitted up the place he rented and did the rotten eggs and other sabotage out of spite. With his face jutting forward and eyes bulging in indignation (and neck tats added on), he looked like an actor (a possibility) reading for a role as a psycho nut. As usual, YMMV.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Ex Appeal”

New, Season 9, Episode 127  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Mario “Daniel” Romo  vs. Michael Reyes)

Ex-boyfriends and current roommates try to describe their complicated relationship history. But a series of domestic abuse charges pressed and then dropped leave the judges asking... "Why doesn't one of you just move out?"  Yes, ripped off from the HB web site.

Plaintiff is suing for $5,000 for bail for a false claim for assault by defendant.   After the third arrest, plaintiff says he approached defendant about the false arrests, and had defendant sign the promissory note.  Defendant admits he signed the promissory note, but the assaults happened, and he owes defendant nothing.

 Defendant didn’t move out, because he wanted to work on their 10-year relationship.  Plaintiff says he wants to stay as friends, even after they recently went on a cruise together, and that didn’t work out either.  Plaintiff claims he wanted to be friends but not romantic with defendant.   Litigants are told by the judges, that a permanent restraining order would have probably extended to a ‘move out’ order, but neither party went through with that process.

Plaintiff’s case dismissed. 

 

“Faux Paws”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 126  (Acker, DiMango, Corriero)

(Gerard Cotter vs. Christy Wood)

Plaintiff was selling Paisley the French Bulldog to defendant, purchased for $3700, $300 down, two more $100 payments, and not a single penny after that.   Then, the defendant made up a lot of stories about being in an accident, losing her spleen, and it was all a lie.    I'm guessing plaintiff will get the $3200, and defendant will keep the dog. 

The way defendant keeps demanding the AKC papers, I'm guess she's going to be another shitty  breeder.   You don't get AKC paperwork until the dog is paid for, and until the defendant pays the extra $1,000 extra for AKC paperwork, she’ll only get ‘not for breeding’ papers.  She could get 'not for breeding' AKC paperwork, but she doesn't want that. 

My guess is the second this woman gets AKC paperwork, she'll breed that poor dog every heat.   She's just in it for the money.   I suspect if dog doesn't produce multi-puppy litters or can't get pregnant that doggie will be gone. 

Now, defendant claims she is getting a job, and will have income.    I feel sorry for the dog, I bet the plaintiff will get the money, and then defendant will bother him for the AKC breeding papers, which are $1,000 more.   Defendant admits she lied about the accident and spleen removal. 

You know poor Paisley is having as many puppies as is possilbe, and probably will be dumped the second she can't have more pups.   It's all about the money. 

Plaintiff gets $3100, but will not give the AKC papers.    I worry about the future of the dog. Sorry, but defendant keeps whining about plaintiff cussing at her, she wasn't paying, and she kept lying to him, I would have cussed her out too.  

Edited April 28, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/28/2023 at 3:36 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff’s case dismissed. 

Thanks, I just tried to watch this but gave up after hearing that def. was "coerced" into signing a promissory note.

I never found out what this coercion was, but I assume it was the usual - numerous texes... harassment... FB shit-talking and/or other stupid nonsense -  for litigants who don't know what the word means.

[patty1h]

"Breast Side Story" - What a ridiculous waste of the courts time, but a perfect case for May TV sweeps.

Plaintiff Angelica Rolph comes in dressed up like she's cosplaying from the movie "Legally Blond"  in a hot pink dress and beret.  She is suing because one of her implants get damaged after her son got burned in an incident involving a McDonald's hot apple pie.  She explains that defendant Allison Gagliano was babysitting and let Angelica's 11 month old son get too close to this devil pie.   They started to argue, which turned to grappling and the boob got damaged - it now has rippling on one side.  Angelica is a model/dancer and says she has to look "perfect" or it costs her money. Messed up boobs won't pay her bills.  Sheesh. 

Angelica shows her medical records of the follow-up visit of the augmentation - the judges point out that the examining doctor didn't denote seeing any rippling.  Plaintiff says the rippling was not that noticeable then because of swelling and showed up after this doctor visit.  The judges say they can't take her word for linking the rippling with the fight.  JSuarez says it could be that a bad surgeon did the job, or having too low body weight is a known side effect for rippling.  The judges decide that Angelica has not proven that the defendant caused the rippling and dismiss her case.

[CrazyInAlabama]

 Today starts the May sweeps month, where every show ratings are measured.   It should be a sordid, but fascinating month.

“Breast Side Story”

New, Season 9, Episode 129, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Angelica Rolph [mother] vs. Allison Gagliano [babysitter])

After an infant is injured at the babysitter’s (plaintiff),  the two litigants started fighting over who was at fault. Plaintiff/babysitter, and ego maniac, she claims defendant attacked her boobs, and if not for defendant, plaintiff would have perfect boobs.   (My deepest sympathies to the poor staff member who had to write that synopsis on the show site.   I’m sure Corriero will almost faint when he hears this case). 

Defendant/grandmother admits she went for plaintiff’s favorite body parts. 

Plaintiff says she 'shines like a light in a mirror', and looking perfect is critical to her career.   $4235 is what plaintiff wants to replace her boob implant.   Plaintiff was babysitting, she put the McDonald's apple pie in the microwave, which is what you shouldn't do. 

Plaintiff says defendant was like another mother to her, but still slams defendant's relationship with her own daughter, and grandchild.  Plaintiff was babysitting the grandchild of defendant, and (in my opinion) was careless about putting the very hot apple pie on a low table.  When the baby was burned by the super hot apple pie filling, the defendant did first aid on her grandchild, and then went after plaintiff. 

Plaintiff says defendant went for her throat, punched her, ran her into the wall, and attacked her boob.   After photos don't show much on plaintiff, but defendant looks like she was in a serious fight and lost.

Plaintiff claims her month old implant was rippling, but didn't go to the doctor for many months after the fight, and didn't sue for a year.   Rippling is a common issue with saline implants, I’m sure the next time plaintiff gets her implants replaced, she’ll go for silicone and much bigger, which won’t ripple.    Apparently, I watched way too much of the original Dr. 90210 series.   

 Doctor's visit note says nothing about a change in shape, or other issues with her ginormous boobs.   Months later, doctor only says plaintiff talks about rippling, but doctor doesn't see it.   

I’m just glad plaintiff demand to show everyone the ripple on her boob, wasn't allowed by the judges.   Defendant says plaintiff has a violent history, and is  often in violent situations.  Why is my guess model/dancer involves a lot of cash tips?   

Plaintiff certainly had the strength to vandalize defendant's car, and ripped a windshield wiper off.    Plaintiff doesn't weigh 80 lbs the way she claims.   Plaintiff complains of recurring pain, that was always in her chesticle area, 

(I loved patty1h’s recap).

Plaintiff case dismissed

 

“Peanut Butter & Melee Sandwich”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 75, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

P. 32, 28 Oct 2022

Edited May 1, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[ShowsILoveToHate]

27 minutes ago, patty1h said:

"Breast Side Story" - What a ridiculous waste of the courts time, but a perfect case for May TV sweeps.

Plaintiff Angelica Rolph comes in dressed up like she's cosplaying from the movie "Legally Blond"  in a hot pink dress and beret.  She is suing because one of her implants get damaged after her son got burned in an incident involving a McDonald's hot apple pie.  She explains that defendant Allison Gagliano was babysitting and let Angelica's 11 month old son get too close to this devil pie.   They started to argue, which turned to grappling and the boob got damaged - it now has rippling on one side.  Angelica is a model/dancer and says she has to look "perfect" or it costs her money. Messed up boobs won't pay her bills.  Sheesh. 

Angelica shows her medical records of the follow-up visit of the augmentation - the judges point out that the examining doctor didn't denote seeing any rippling.  Plaintiff says the rippling was not that noticeable then because of swelling and showed up after this doctor visit.  The judges say they can't take her word for linking the rippling with the fight.  JSuarez says it could be that a bad surgeon did the job, or having too low body weight is a known side effect for rippling.  The judges decide that Angelica has not proven that the defendant caused the rippling and dismiss her case.

The Plaintiff was a real piece of work! Good grief. 
 

Yes, she did look like Elle Woods. 😆 An Elle Woods wannabe. 
 

She had a nasty face to match her nasty personality. She has full-on duck lips. 🦆

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

'shines like a light in a mirror',

Everybody has covered this bizarre case pretty well, but I am still stuck on the phrase I quoted. WTF does that mean? Did anyone count how many time Miss Boobs wanted to take her clothes off to show the judges her boobs? I think it was at least three times. I was happy that her case fell apart (mostly from the Doctor's medical records), I admit that before the defendant said a word, I wanted to strangle the plaintiff myself. I loved it when the defendant didn't beat around the bush, saying that she went straight for the throat.

Just heard the verdict, yippee! Miss Boobs the dummy lost. She wrapped up with her nutty hallterview, I think the defendant in her hallterview hit the nail on the head, the plaintiff needs some psychological help.

Just had a thought about light in a mirror, maybe she is acknowledging that she is shiny and two dimensional?

Edited May 1, 2023 by DoctorK
added thought

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff says she 'shines like a light in a mirror', and looking perfect is critical to her career.

Who thinks that her "career" is as a stripper, and probably not in a high-end establishment considering those nasty-looking choppers?  What other career demands big fake boobs? Oh, right. Porn movies.

This was wild. Lady Di postures and poses and yammers on and on about her wrinkled-up bolt-on, insisting it's def's fault for hitting her during their disgusting battle, in which Grandma goes right "for her (P's) throat" and in front of small children, I might add.

The Lady, who has the vocabulary of a truck driver and very poor grammar, offers twice to shed her blouse and show the judges her rippling implant. They decline to view it. Maybe she displaced the sack of silicone (or whatever they use now) while she was vandalizing the Def's car?

How twee that both P and Def's daughter got knocked up and have young children, a fact that somewhat lessened my enjoyment of this whacky nonsense. Judge Juarez informs the nut that if there is something dangerous within reach of a baby, you move the item, not the baby!! BSC bitch didn't understand that.

P refers to the def. as weighing "300lbs" and when called on it, changes it to "400lbs". That's just mean. Def is probably only 250 - 275, max.

Anyway, I've seen those ripples on fake boobs even on celebrities who can afford the best surgeons, so it's obvious the nutso P is just looking for a payday. I'm sure the lecherous drunks at the strip club don't care about the puckered seams on her boobies.

How I wish child protective services had someone to watch these shows.

"Wanna see my wrinkled boobie?"

 

2 hours ago, ShowsILoveToHate said:

She has full-on duck lips. 🦆

I'm pretty sure those are fake, too.

[Razzberry]

Def stripper.  And not at one of the better clubs.

[AngelaHunter]

4 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

Def stripper.  And not at one of the better clubs.

There used to be a sleazy strip joint in my city which was dubbed, "The Gag 'n' Spew". I picture this P at a place like that.

[patty1h]

This is all in my head, so pay no mind but I could see Angelica Rolph using that pink outfit as her gimmick at the club.  Some girls want to look like Kim K. or Megan Thee Stallion or Nicki Minaj.  She dresses like faux Reese Witherspoon in Legally Blonde, a 22 year old movie. 

[AngelaHunter]

30 minutes ago, patty1h said:

She dresses like faux Reese Witherspoon in Legally Blonde, a 22 year old movie.

😆 She really needed some white gloves to complete her retro, tea dance ensemble.

31 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I could see Angelica Rolph using that pink outfit as her gimmick at the club. 

I bet she does! There's a kink for everyone.

 

[AZChristian]

I wanted the judges to throw the case out of court due to the extensive fat-shaming directed towards the defendant by the plaintiff.

ETA:  I still don't know what "shine like a light in the mirror" means, but if you google it, this dimwit's picture (and video from the trial) shows up first.

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by AZChristian
Added thought.

[patty1h]

"Not On My Wristwatch":    This case was about a loan for a watch that was not repaid.  This one was a puzzler because the plaintiff Sukonik (ex ballet dancer) was very giving towards defendant Senekerenian (concert level pianist), who he called an acquaintance and a Facebook friend. We are told that Sukonik cosigned for a car, videotaped Senek's concerts for free, lent money, bought the watch for his "friend" then got stiffed on the watch loan.  When no repayment is forthcoming and Sukonik sees Senek buying high dollar items, the lawsuit is filed.  Blah blah more case details.   Sukonik also reveals that Senek has a gambling problem.  Okay.  Senek is obviously a user - when Sukonik sent the frustrated message "I don't want anything to do with you anymore", Senek skewed that into a pass to not have to pay his friend back.  The part where Sukonik strikes a last resort deal really blew my mind:  he says he will buy Senek a $7K piano if he will return the $3K watch.  WTF? 

The judges asked several times what the plaintiff was getting out of this lopsided relationship - he kept giving and the defendant kept taking.  He never gave a good answer.  I don't think it was romantic, but who knows.  The defendant says it was that plaintiff was lonely and wanted a friend.

Hope Sukonik gets better taste in his friends.  He gets his $ back.

Edited May 2, 2023 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Not on My Wristwatch”

New, Season 9, Episode 130, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(David Sukonick vs. Harout Senekeremian )

On the day plaintiff’s mother died, a ballet dancer agreed to help his piano teacher buy a wrist watch online, expecting to be reimbursed.   The piano teacher claims “stay out of my life” means “the loan is forgiven”   From the show website, we’re going for a new low in human behavior again. 

Plaintiff is a videographer, a professional ballet dancer, and installs floating dance floors, and an advanced piano player. 

Plaintiff needed an advanced piano teacher, and found defendant, several years ago. They shared an interest in watching MMA.  Defendant wanted a Rolex-sister company watch.   Defendant wanted plaintiff to loan him money to pay for the watch for almost $3k, on the day plaintiff’s mother died.   Plaintiff says defendant was going to immediately pay him back, but never did.

Defendant says when plaintiff said he didn’t want defendant in his life any longer, defendant says he thought that meant he didn’t have to pay defendant back.   Defendant says they were mostly Facebook friends. 

 Plaintiff says defendant was going to give him the watch back, worth $4k, and he would in turn gift defendant a piano worth $7k.  It makes no sense to me, but this entire case is bizarre. 

Watch in question was pawned by defendant, and for a very reduced amount. 

Plaintiff receives $2527 for the remaining payments owed for the watch. 

“Oh Plummer!   My Plumber”

Rerun, Season 8,  Episode 98 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 25 Oct 2022

Edited May 2, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is a videographer, a professional ballet dancer, and installs floating dance floors, and an advanced piano player. 

You forgot to mention that he is world class talker, very much in love with the sound of his own voice. He talked over (and actually stifled) the judge and got away with it. Other than that, a boring case.

Rerun case (Plummer the Plumber), I couldn't stand the weepy passive-aggresive defendant. Of course, Corriero jumped in to try to save the poor little woman who was just so confused about just about everything. The Better Business Bureau complaint that the defendant sent complaining about overcharging (when the plaintiff quoted and charged about 1/2 of her other proposals) was nasty and I am glad that the judges called her out on that. I wonder if the defendant was really that pathetic or if it is her standard technique win a arguments.

[Carolina Girl]

On 5/1/2023 at 12:11 PM, ShowsILoveToHate said:

The Plaintiff was a real piece of work! Good grief. 
 

Yes, she did look like Elle Woods. 😆 An Elle Woods wannabe. 
 

She had a nasty face to match her nasty personality. She has full-on duck lips. 🦆

Let's see......SHE puts an apple pie in the microwave.  Then apparently doesn't have sufficient frontal lobe function to, oh I don't know, put it OUT of the little kid's reach until babysitter can get off the phone.

If she was bringing this lawsuit to get her room-temperature IQ self on TV, she didn't do herself or her outfit from the House Of Pepto Bismol any favors.  

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is a videographer, a professional ballet dancer, and installs floating dance floors, and an advanced piano player. 

That's an "expert" videographer. Did he not say he's a writer too? I may have gotten confused listening to his soaring, histrionic bloviating and self-aggrandizement, however.

Scruffy little guy needs his FB buddy to talk about MMA and on the basis of this FB chitchatting, co-signs for a car for def?! And then gives him 3K for some watch def just had to have?

Def has all the very long texts from P, including the one where P tells him that if he (D) gets out of his life he needn't pay the money back. Oh, but he doesn't have those texts because his phone fell in a puddle or something.

Weirdos, both of them. The judges seem to think P is just overly kind and generous but - call me suspicious -  when I see someone handing over large sums of money and doing things like co-signing for expensive cars for someone they barely know I feel something else is going on. I have no idea what. Savior complex? Wants to be the Big Man?

The little guy should be relieved he wasn't stuck paying for the car.

Maybe get off FB?

I saw an emerald ring today when I was downtown and I have no money and no credit but I just have to have it. Can one of you lend me the 4K? I'll pay you back in a few weeks when I get my tax 'return', I promise. We're all buddies here, right?

17 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

her outfit from the House Of Pepto Bismol any favors.  

😆

[CrazyInAlabama]

“No Horsing Around”

New, Season 9, Episode 131,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(David Kuttnauer  vs. Diana Devers )

Aisha Certa is assisting plaintiff with his case, plaintiff is legally blind. 

Plaintiff man was dating defendant woman, and woman was introduced to him by a mutual friend and the mutual friend was defendant’s husband.  Plaintiff is suing for repayment of a loan, $5,000 for a horse purchase, and truck repairs.   Plaintiff wanted $500 a month until the loan was paid off.  Defendant was in a rocky marriage, met plaintiff, and then divorced her husband, and she moved in with plaintiff. 

Defendant received a job offer, and moved an hour away from plaintiff, so she moved out, and litigants still had a relationship.  Defendant took out a loan for a horse, and $1500 loan for truck repairs, and then plaintiff loaned defendant $3,150 to pay off the loan. 

The two break up, and after that is when the truck repair happens.  There is an email, that the plaintiff is cancelling the debt, so they could continue their relationship without the debt hanging over the defendant.

Then defendant said she felt obligated to repay plaintiff despite his loan forgiveness, but that sense of obligation went away by the time of this court case. 

However, plaintiff’s cancellation of the debt, was overturned by defendant saying that she felt obligated to repay plaintiff.

$5,000 to plaintiff for the debt.   

 

“T-Bone Ache”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 99 (Corriero, DiMango, Acker)

p. 31, 14 Oct 2022

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/2/2023 at 9:31 AM, AZChristian said:

I still don't know what "shine like a light in the mirror" means, but if you google it, this dimwit's picture (and video from the trial) shows up first.

The comments are pretty funny!

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Trailer Troubles for Slingz 'n Thingz”

New, Season 9, Episode 132, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Tonia Brower vs. Kenyatta Mitchell)

The litigants were going into business together, transporting 3-wheel motorcycle vehicles, and they bought a trailer to haul the 3 wheelers.   They were in a slingshot group, for fans of three-wheel vehicles.  The business never really started, and defendant involved the police, because plaintiff wouldn’t work with her dissolving the partnership.   Defendant wants to be paid for her business classes to support the business.

Defendant sold a 2015 Slingshot from plaintiff, (two wheels in the front and one wheel in the back), but also used defendant’s helmet and other equipment, and never paid for it, or returned it.   So, as Judge Juarez says, why go into business with plaintiff?  

The two were looking for a transport trailer, and trailer was purchased, and plaintiff has it.  Business was renting out the personal slingshots, and transport Slingshots for others.   (This all happened in Atlanta).

First, business license only had defendant’s name on it.  Plaintiff claims defendant started buying all kinds of business equipment without plaintiff’s permission.   Plaintiff gave defendant $4500 for the trailer, but defendant had to buy the trailer for cash to avoid credit fees.    Defendant lives in a HOA neighborhood, so she couldn’t have the trailer and other equipment on her property, so plaintiff stored the trailer.    When defendant fell off her first Slingshot, she took the insurance check and bought another one.  Plaintiff says everything from the business license and incorporation papers it was the wrong kind of corporate entity, and only defendant’s name was on the business license. 

Plaintiff is suing for $9,000 when the trailer was only $4500 for plaintiff’s share.  Plaintiff gave defendant a deadline to buy her out, within 30 days. However, defendant wanted to sell the trailer, but plaintiff refused permission to come on her property with prospective buyers.   Plaintiff said that if defendant bought her out, and removed the trailer, she could sell it because it would be hers. 

Defendant drove by every day and took pictures of the trailer, because she figured plaintiff would either sell or steal the trailer.   (on a tacky note, what the hell is that jacket with the giant puffy sleeves that plaintiff wearing?)

Decision is to give plaintiff $4500 for her half of the trailer, and everything else is dismissed.   Defendant now can get her trailer, and resell it.   Lost business revenue and fees for classes claims by defendants is dismissed. 

 

“Dogs Will Be Dogs!”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 91, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 10 Oct 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Rushed Remodel”

New, Season 9, Episode 133  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Nicholas “Nick” Batista  vs. Maribel Ortiz )

Plaintiff was hired by defendant to make her van interior more glamorous, then she gets sick of waiting and fires the contractor.  After van was delivered, defendant refused to pay plaintiff, and he’s suing for $3086.  Defendant says she paid plaintiff about $7500 and refuses to pay him another penny.   Photos of finished van look wonderful. 

Defendant claims van wasn’t finished on time for her fall leave foliage tour from Canada to Georgia.   She also claims the van work wasn’t up to her standards. She pulled the plug, took the van to someone else to finish the last 10% of work, and refuses to pay the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff says defendant kept changing her mind about the exact finishes she wanted, and he was 90% done with the van when defendant fired him.  Plaintiff says defendant changed her mind about adding a desk, and other modifications. 

$1500 to plaintiff, splitting the difference in the claims. 

 

“Race Boat Rip Off?”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 130, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 30, 23 Sept 2022

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/5/2023 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff was hired by defendant to make her van interior more glamorous, then she gets sick of waiting and fires the contractor.

I guess she has not yet learned that everything you want to get built or done will take longer and cost more than you think it will.

On 5/5/2023 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Race Boat Rip Off?”

I rewatched that for the enjoyment of JDIM telling the little boat scammer that he did what scammers do, which is pretend they and their victims have some sort of close relationship in order to get trust before they scam them, and then saying she wasn't calling HIM a scammer, just outlining what scammers do. 😄

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/3/2023 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“No Horsing Around”

I just watched this and the only surprise was that it was a man on the Plaintiff's side. Usually, it's women throwing good money after bad to keep some grifter around.

Def. takes $6,000 from P for her trucks and her horse and her bills then doesn't understand why P is ticked off and feels used when she goes off for a fun day with some guy and his family and doesn't invite P. Who invites their ATM on any outings, anyway?

Def agrees she owes the money but changes her mind when P is rightfully upset at her and says some not-nice things. P did email her and void the debt, but D is dumb enough to say she called him after the email and insist she wants to pay what she owes, like a great big responsible girl.

Papa insists on reading aloud the flowery romantic emails from P to D, extolling her beauty(?) and magnificence. Both litigants start wiping tears away.

I couldn't believe Papa actually sided with JT instead of the poor little tearful lady and agreed that P needed to pay the money back.

P says he's learned not to be so trusting and to stop lending money, but I'm not so sure about that.

Edited May 7, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Gone Truck Wild”

New, Season 9, Episode 136,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(James Vincent Miller vs. Kayla Ann Stark) 

Defendant is ex-girlfriend of plaintiff, and claims he gave her the truck and registered it in her name, in repayment for a loan to pay plaintiff’s probation costs for a previous conviction.  She’s counter suing for $1,000 travel expenses.  

Plaintiff moved defendant from Montana to Colorado while defendant’s husband was in prison, but plaintiff couldn’t leave Montana until his probation costs were paid off.  Plaintiff bought the truck, and says the title was in his name, and says the money defendant gave him was to pay for taking care of her four children and helping her move.     Defendant says the truck title was blank.   Then, defendant says plaintiff argued with her, and defendant says plaintiff bruised her, slammed her around in the RV, but didn’t call police.   Defendant claims to have a GoPro video of the assault, but she didn’t bring the video to court. 

Defendant leaving evidence at home, and her constant excuses, and lack of filing police reports makes me nervous.

Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her in her RV, and plaintiff denies that.  However, plaintiff pled guilty to harassment.   Plaintiff says he only pled guilty to the harassment, because he took the camera/GoPro from the defendant’s son. 

At the beginning of the relationship, plaintiff says he got permission to help defendant move out of state, from his probation officer.   Defendant says it turned romantic after he helped her move to Colorado with her house trailer.    Defendant claims plaintiff told her he would go to jail if he didn’t pay his probation fees. 

Plaintiff claims he watched defendant’s kids for an entire year instead of working, so he needed to pay his probation fees somehow.    Defendant claims it was verbal that plaintiff agreed to give her the truck, but plaintiff has texts from defendant confirming that she paid his probation fees in return for him helping her.

I was all in favor of the defendant at first, but not any more.  Corriero reads the texts from both litigants verbatim, including the swearing which is bleeped. 

Corriero thinks it’s fishy that plaintiff didn’t put truck title in his name at the time of purchase, and thinks plaintiff did purchase the truck for defendant.   Tewolde is suspicious of plaintiff, and Juarez is suspicious of defendant.  Juarez says there was no agreement for defendant to get the truck in return for the probation fees, and $6000 loan.   I think the plaintiff taking care of four kids for a year is certainly worth the $6,000.   

I agree the entire story about the loan is phony, and it was a loan only after they broke up.  

Plaintiff gets his truck title back, and everything else is dismissed.  Corriero rips the plaintiff a new one, and says he doesn't deserve what the other two judges gave him. 

 

“All-A-Loan; Bumper to Bumper”

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

p.37, 29 March 2023