Hot Bench - General Discussion

[Carolina Girl]

BTW, it looks like the "Tribunal" premier is June 9 on FreeVee.

And BIRD IS BACK! 

[Razzberry]

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(James Vincent Miller vs. Kayla Ann Stark) 

I watched part of this and just couldn't finish it. Well, Def. certainly has a "type" doesn't she? She likes jailbirds. Her jailbird baby daddy - with whom she thought it a great idea to squirt out FOUR helpless children - was doing another tour of duty in the slammer, so she decides the next best thing is to move in the other jailbird, the felonious, fugly ZZ Top. He couldn't get a job because for some reason he felt obligated to stay home and take care of the baby daddy's kids. Def obviously felt it was fine to leave little children with him.

Her oldest son, the unfortunately-named BENTLEY who is only 9 years old had to break it up when ZZ and his Momma started fighting and it seems ZZ put his hands on the kid too. Why do I have a feeling that "Kayla" tells the boy he needs to be "the man of the house"? Ugh.

This was all so sordid and sickening and I hated these litigants so much I had to quit there and go take a Gravol. That breeder, who for all her trials and tribulations with her criminal loverboys, had the time and the funds to get that weird pink dye job needs to have those kids taken away and put into decent homes, and get herself sterilized.

I was surprised Papa didn't congratulate her on her fecundity. Gross.

 

[AZChristian]

I wondered whether they didn't put the plaintiff's name on the title so he could avoid the costs of registering the vehicle in his name.  The case screamed "skipping title" to me.  

I thought the judgment was appropriate, and am still trying to get my eyeballs back to the front of my head after watching Uncle Mikey try to protect the poor helpless mother of four.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

after watching Uncle Mikey try to protect the poor helpless mother of four.

Corriero? The pink-haired hag canoodling with ZZ? I am so glad I didn't see that, if that's the same case I quit.  If anyone needs protecting it's the 4 defenseless kids.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Homeowner’s Disassociation”

New, Season 9, Episode 137,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Denise Harris  vs. Theodore Watson)

Plaintiff suing defendant after he accused plaintiff of stealing money from their HOA, she’s suing him for $5,000 for defamation.    Plaintiff says this happened after she wanted to remove the HOA president, and have a meeting, when Mr. Watson responded by email he alleged that plaintiff stole money from the HOA. This happened in Atlanta, and started after community owed $91k in unpaid bills.   Community has to pay bills if residents don’t. Water bills are up to $150k now, and disconnect from city utilities will start soon.

If anyone is telling anyone that someone isn’t paying their dues, then it’s against the law to  disclose that anyone is a deadbeat, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.   

Plaintiff says she only interacted with defendant when she went door-to-door with the petition, and at meetings of the HOA.   Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist to defendant after he sent the email about her being an embezzler.

Defendant in his email was a reply all to everyone on the original email, from defendant.   Email from defendant also said plaintiff was stealing money from the HOA, and defendant claims the management company staff told him that the money was mismanaged and missing.    Plaintiff says she doesn’t have access to any accounts, for payments or withdrawals. 

There is an anonymous email answering the reply all email.   This email said plaintiff was called a bitter, senile old woman.

Plaintiff claims defendant is one of the many in the community that aren't paying their water bills.

Plaintiff went to police about the emails, to get documentation.    Juarez says going to the police was wrong.  Tewolde agrees with Juarez.   

Defendant claims that during a meeting about the water bill, that plaintiff was slandering him.  However, plaintiff wasn't even at the meeting.   

Tewolde says there is no evidence presented of plaintiff stealing money, and defendant didn't prove his case.   Juarez says no malice by either litigant, so it wasn't defamation.   I disagre, defendant sent the email claiming plaintiff was stealing, and said on national TV that she's a thief.  Tewolde doesn't want to give plaintiff anything.   Juarez says defendant is probably the sender of the 'anonymous' email, but since meetings were in a public forum that calling plaintiff a thief is free speech. 

Plaintiff receives nothing, but Corriero wanted to give plaintiff $2,000. I disagree with Juarez and Tewolde, the defendant believing what he said doesn't mean it was true, or legal to say.  

 

“Where’s My Tiny House”

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

p. 31, 13 Oct 2022

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff receives nothing, but Corriero wanted to give plaintiff $2,000. I disagree with Juarez and Tewolde, the defendant believing what he said doesn't mean it was true, or legal to say.

I think this is the first time I have agreed with Corriero against the other judges. The plaintiff sounded reasonable and open to me while the defendant struck me as a glib fast talking hustler. He was great at stating “facts” firmly as if he obviously has plenty of proof, but many of them seemed dubious to me, and even factually wrong (e.g. the claim that the plaintiff called him a deadbeat in a meeting that the plaintiff was not even at). If the water bill situation is as bad as it sounds, I think the plaintiff (and other tenants) should look into moving because this development could go down the drain. I really would love to know if the defendant and many other tenants were seriously (thousands of dollars) behind on their water bill, that would give me a pretty good idea which litigant is a dishonest bad person.

[CrazyInAlabama]

From what the reporter in the news clip said, if the residents didn't pay their water bill, then the condo complex had to.  And the water company said to plaintiff and others that the bills were over $150k owed by the residents, so they would start cutting off non-paying condo owners. 

[AngelaHunter]

No one in this community pays their water bills OR they pay them and someone - maybe the management company or maybe not - steals the money. Apparently, nothing is done about any of this and the bill just keeps rising.

Plaintiff gets a 'mean', anonymous email (maybe sent by Def or maybe not) and takes it to the police! She doesn't know what someone might do to her, even though the email we heard contained not a hint of a threat. What can the police do about a not-nice email? But wait! She has a ton of other defamatory and/or insulting, rude, threatening, etc emails but NOT WITH HER. She couldn't be bothered to bring them even though they were her main issue and so bad she felt the need to involve the police. Okay. I have a feeling someone enjoys drama.

I certainly have no clue who is right or wrong and don't care, but Papa seems to have given himself the Big Boss chair for nothing and is again affronted and sulky at being shouted down.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Warning, first case will be a disgusting and graphic one. 

 

“Baaad Blood” (Title is actual spelling of the episode title.  I don’t think the episode title is funny, if that’s what it’s supposed to be. )

New, Season 9, Episode 138, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Angela Fraga (wife) and (husband) Efrain Fraga, and (son)Efrain Fraga Jr vs. Herman Cazares and wife Teresa Cazares )

Plaintiffs own 6.75 acres, fully fenced.   One morning, plaintiff Efrain looks out to see the sheep huddled together, with Efrain’s mother cornered, and attacking the sheep.   Plaintiff Sr saw the defendant’s two male German Shepherds, father and son followed the dogs back to defendant’s property.    Plaintiff Sr saw seven dead sheep on his property (not all died immediately, but seven died within two weeks, some died the day of the attack).  

The dog had blood on it also.    There is a horrific video of dead sheep, some of the others that were attacked have blood on them.   The vet came out, and seven sheep were either already dead, or died within two weeks.    The German Shepherds run loose, there is no fence on defendant’s property, and dogs run free.    Plaintiff and his son say they followed the dogs back to defendants’ property. They also say dogs were back near defendant’s house, and there was blood on them. Plaintiff father and son say they saw defendant touch his dog’s fur, and there was blood on his hand.   Defendant says the blood on the surviving sheep was red dirt.    Mrs. Cazares claims there are other animal killing dogs that don’t belong to her family.   

Tewolde asks why dogs are loose, and he says because dogs stay around the house.      Corriero asks a great question of defendant dog owner, “Why don’t you keep your dogs tied up?” and I’m sure the defendant will deny his dogs did it, and claim they never did anything like this before.  Defendant says his dog’s coloration looks like bloody fur, total ca-ca.   

Defendant agreed to pay for the dead and dying sheep, but later didn’t pay anything.

Defendant claims someone else’s dogs did this, or maybe coyotes.  

Judge Juarez points out that the other postings about other dogs could have been from people that didn’t know that much about dogs.  The descriptions sound like defendants' dogs also to me. 

The defendant wife claims a bear attacked the sheep, she claims the dogs were feeding on already dead sheep that were killed by other animals.

Judges award $1951 to plaintiffs for the replacement cost of the sheep, and the vet bills.  I disagree, and think the plaintiffs should have received $5,000, including the trauma of having their sheep killed, on their fully fenced property. 

 

 

“Clean Up Your Lawn”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 93, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 11 Oct 2022

Edited May 10, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

Am I the only one having a lot of deja vu from today's sheep killing case? It wasn't just the general outlines of the case, the details of the testimony, the evidence and especially the defendant's totally lame defense all seemed very familiar. I don't know, maybe all of the dog-killing -sheep cases with a totally irresponsible dog owners all turn out the same?

[CrazyInAlabama]

Sadly, there are many dog attack cases on TPC.  Between TPC, Hot Bench, and JJ there have been a lot of animals killed, or attacked by roving dogs.    The owners all sound alike too.   There are all kinds of wandering dogs causing damage to livestock on all of the shows. 

I think there was a Judge Judy episode with attacked and killed sheep, in 2018.   There was another JJ case that no one saw who killed the goats (I think goats), but no witnesses equals no case to JJ.  

Edited May 10, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Prime Example”

New, Season 9,  Episode 139,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Michael Barker  vs. Derek Ballew)

Single father plaintiff suing former fiance (or not former fiance) for repayment of a loan, $2000 for the unpaid balance of the loan, and $500 interest.  Original loan was $3,000.   Loan was for medical bills, and property taxes, and other bills defendant couldn't pay.   Plaintiff also cared for defendant during his recuperation.   Plaintiff says defendant repaid about $1,000, and when plaintiff went to defendant's home to ask about payments, defendant tried to file a restraining order against him.

Defendant says plaintiff sent harassing text messages. Defendant says they lived together on and off, were engaged, and says he owes nothing to defendant, and says plaintiff stayed overnight at his home frequently.  

Plaintiff claims he doesn't leave his son overnight, even when plaintiff's mother is available to child sit (kid is early teens, so I'm not calling it babysitting).  

Defendant claims he helped plaintiff financially many times.  Plaintiff says he usually paid for their dates, and special events, and paid some utilities for defendant too. 

Defendant says plaintiff was heart broken after defendant broke up with him.    Tewolde is ticked about plaintiff's nasty text messages.  

Plaintiff didn't file about the repayment in court for almost four years after the loan was made, but still within the statute of limitations.

Juarez says she's not voting for interest to plaintiff, and the other two judges agree.    

Plaintiff receives $2000.  When defendant started to repay plaintiff, it was clear that it was a loan, and not a gift. 

 

“Rental Damage Debacle”

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

p. 31 , 26 Oct 2022

Another case where landlords didn’t document condition on move in, and didn’t immediately document on move out, so loser (in my view professional bad tenants) tenants get $2,000 back.   I bet landlords only come on here because the show pays the judgments.

[Razzberry]

My first thought was you can't do CPR on a car seat.   😛

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Watch Where You’re Going!”

New, Season 9, Episode 140,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Symone Jacques  vs.  Joe Huerta)

Plaintiff wants $1502, for her car being hit while boyfriend, Stephen Wehrle was driving it.   Defendant’s car was driven by another person also, and that person accepted fault.  Plaintiffs are suing for car damages, for an accident in a parking lot, where their vehicle was stuck by defendant.   Defendant denies doing anything wrong, but defendant wasn’t insured.  Defendant is ridiculous, and his story is ludicrous.

Plaintiff boyfriend (driver) says he backed out, was going straight in the parking lot, when defendant’s friend Elida Ramirez, backed out and hit plaintiff’s car.   Plaintiff car was going straight in the parking lot traffic lane, and defendant driver backed into the back driver’s side of plaintiff’s car at the rear wheel well.   Defendant driver Elida refused to make a police report, says she didn’t know defendant’s car was uninsured.   Plaintiff driver Stephen, says defendant driver, Elida is the one who didn’t want to do a police report, because of lack of insurance.    Defendant claims Elida didn’t know car wasn’t insured, but insurance card says it expired in 2022, and plaintiff says at the time of the accident defendant driver said she didn’t have insurance and thought defendant owner didn’t either.

Elida (defendant driver) claims she never saw plaintiff driver approaching, implying that Stephen was speeding.    Defendant Joe says estimates on plaintiff car are exaggerated, and claims Stephen was only talking about how much money he could get out of defendant.   

The only mistake plaintiffs made was not getting a police report at the time of the accident, if the police would do a report on a private parking lot. 

Defendant used defendant driver's phone photos of the plaintiff's car for estimates.     

Plaintiff receives $1,502 , for unreimbursed car damages. 

 

“Rear Ending”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 89, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 30, 29 Sept 2022

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant denies doing anything wrong, but defendant wasn’t insured.  Defendant is ridiculous, and his story is ludicrous.

I really hated that guy. He was a lying blowhard who just keeps spouting words and non sequiturs and just running his mouth. He claims he never got any estimates (plaintiff showed proof that he did), then using a few pictures that his lady friend took at the scene he got his own estimates (BS, no way you can get a good estimate from just a couple of pictures) but it didn't matter because he threw them away so we just have to take his unsupported words for what they said. If you told him that the sky was blue, he would argue otherwise and support his argument with a bunch of hot air and BS and babble. I hated having to deal with people like that before I retired.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

If you told him that the sky was blue, he would argue otherwise and support his argument with a bunch of hot air and BS and babble.

That sounds exactly like an ex-friend of mine. I need to watch this and see if there are other similarities. 😄

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/12/2023 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant denies doing anything wrong, but defendant wasn’t insured.  Defendant is ridiculous, and his story is ludicrous.

How outrageous and shameless were those Defs? We get from the Def driver that old, tired, stupid excuse of, "I looked in all my mirrors! There were no cars there when I was backing up!"

P obviously dropped out of the sky as a prank, in order to have his own car smashed?

The old man was outrageous. "Red flags! Red flags!" He's awfully indignant for someone who, OF COURSE, drives around with no insurance and is trying to weasel his way out of paying a dime. They're not responsible. We get another old, tired excuse that he never got the email with the three estimates attached and the pictures of the damage. He knew from Day 1 he had no intention of paying even a dime and just counted on P getting fed up and going away.

The "I never got that email" didn't get him off the hook, so then we get "disrespect" because he deserves so much respect for damaging property and worming his way out of paying, and maybe there was even a whisper of racism. That should do it, right? Let's throw in some harassment (for the money clearly owed) for good measure, and P "didn't want to work with me!"  He doesn't have to work with you and get some half-assed job done on the car but even if he agreed what would that entail? Def still wouldn't pay. Both defs made utter fools of themselves and looked like deadbeats - uninsured deadbeats.

Through sheer persistence, JT finally gets the wormy def to admit the repairs are his responsibility. If he's going to keep letting his girlfriend/friend or whatever Elida is,  drive his truck maybe he can inform her that when backing up in a parking lot, she might trouble herself to look over her shoulder and not just in one mirror since she doesn't seem to know that.

Old guy is lucky Elida didn't run over a person instead of bashing a car.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Bad Ex-perience”

New, Season 9, Episode 141  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Sandra Lomelin vs. Antonio Aragues )

Plaintiff is suing defendant for stolen property.   Plaintiff moved into defendant’s home in Arizona, then decided that defendant should turn his Arizona home into an Airbnb.  Litigants then turned another home owned by defendant,  into an Airbnb, using plaintiff’s furniture from her California home.  When they broke up, plaintiff claims defendant sold his Airbnb second home,  which was later sold.  

Defendant says the second home was bought by him, with plaintiff’s money.  Supposedly defendant put both deeds on the Arizona home in plaintiff’s name.     Then, the home they lived in was a model home, and came partially furnished, and plaintiff claims she had the rights to the furnishings in the joint home.

Plaintiff claims she didn’t steal defendant’s car, but the police report confirms she did.   Plaintiff also claims defendant stole her car.  When Tewolde tells plaintiff the police report says she stole defendant’s car, and admitted she stole it, she still denies it.

Defendant says he trailered furniture to plaintiff, but she refused to take delivery.    Defendant says his idea of a fair settlement is he keeps his home, and gets the title, and plaintiff gets the title on the other home. 

Plaintiff says defendant didn’t pay a penny for the homes, but then admits defendant did pay.   She claims she only used defendant’s credit to buy the joint home.     Joint home was VA, in defendant’s name, and there was no down payment.   Defendant still claims the furniture was included in the down payment.   

How did plaintiff get a VA loan, if everything wasn't done by defendant?   

Plaintiff has filed seven applications for restraining orders against defendant, and all were denied by the court.   There is a video showing plaintiff blocking defendant from picking up any personal items from the joint house, like his father's ashes.  

(This relationship violates the basic relationship motto I live by, "Never sleep with anyone crazier than you are". )

Plaintiff is suing for $5,000, claiming defendant stole the furniture from the house, saying she paid $5,000 for the furniture during the house purchase.   Defendant says the furniture in question was a joint purchase, and $5,000 is twice as much as plaintiff ever paid, so $2500 is the most she should get. 

My opinion is that when plaintiff refused to take delivery of the furniture, that she gave up any claim to the furniture.  The furniture she wants is used in the joint Airbnb, and claims she lost money on the Airbnb.   Defendant was paying both mortgages (joint home and Airbnb) from the profits from the Airbnb. 

Tewolde says plaintiff proved nothing.   Defendant owned the Airbnb home before he met plaintiff, and she used defendant's VA loan for the joint home, which is fraud. 

I think VA should cancel the mortgage that plaintiff is living in, she's not entitled to a VA loan, and it was fraud to obtain that mortgage. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (After the decision, plaintiff says she hopes defendant dies and goes to Hell.)

 

“Bad Business in the Baddie Chateau”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 147 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 23 Nov 2022

Edited May 15, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Sandra Lomelin vs. Antonio Aragues )

Plaintiff is suing defendant for stolen property.

Another stellar endorsement for dating sites. P is a hard-rode woman who appeared to be at least 55 or more, yet can't get credit so needs her aged daddy to help her. I'm sure Daddy will welcome death to escape this massive, crazy, parasitic burden he's saddled with.

Def, who looks just like Anton Levey, and who at least had the HUGE cross dangling on his neck right-side up has no problem using VA money to fund this profit-making business. I don't know about this but feel this might be frowned upon.

He tries mighty hard to appear to choke up and tries to dredge up some tears when telling how the insane P got him arrested but fails.

Plaintiff, here with her large, drooping cleavage on display is a nut, something Def may have known had he waited longer to move her in and buy a property with her. Yeah, we'll all get rich from our Airbnb, well, until he gets tenants like the ones regularly seen on court shows who will trash the place beyond recognition.

Plaintiff admits she filed SEVEN restraining orders against her former soulmate, but all were denied. She informs the judges that in CA, she could get them like THAT (Snaps fingers). Yes, we know that's true. In CA you can get a restraining order against someone who doesn't put enough smiley faces in their emails.

The love match is kaput to the point where P hopes D dies. What a surprise.

Meant to add that I'm liking the new judges more now. JT especially seems to be getting really comfortable with this gig and is not hesitating to shut down litigants like this P.

Edited May 15, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Music Video Drama”

New, Season 9, Episode 142  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Gideon Aveola vs.  Israel Haruna )

Plaintiff hired defendant to film a video for him of his live saxophone performance, but plaintiff denies ever receiving any footage, and says defendant is a crook.   Plaintiff also claims that not having the video footage, cost him future gigs.

 Plaintiff claims defendant would return a laptop he had with editing software on it, but defendant failed to do so.  Plaintiff bought a very expensive laptop at Best Buy, two laptops, with software for recording, and editing video and music.   Plaintiff claims defendant never returned the video. 

Defendant claims he’s been a content creator for many years.  He also says he knows how to do the filming and editing.     Defendant says plaintiff gave him the wrong venue, and plaintiff says he did, but corrected the venue address a few days later.

Plaintiff says he sent correct address to defendant a week before the event, but defendant claims that a week wasn’t enough notice for him to show up, and video the performance.  Defendant claims the laptop only had trial editions of the recording and editing apps, but plaintiff says they were full editions.

Then, plaintiff confronted the defendant at church.

Plaintiff claims the clips would be used to audition for other festivals, but since he doesn’t have the clips then he lost out on events.   (Why does plaintiff have three different plaids on his jacket, shirt, and vest?)   However, plaintiff’s contract doesn’t say when the video has to be done.

Tewolde wants to give plaintiff his $1,000 back, and $1500 for the laptop, but not the future performance money, and says the defendant has issues with telling the truth.  Also, she says the defendant didn’t bring any proof of actually producing any videos.

Corriero wants to give plaintiff everything.

Juarez says plaintiff should get the $1,000 video cost back, and the laptop $1500.

$2500 to plaintiff. 

 

“The Roof is on the Cruze”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 77(Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 31 Oct 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Pay Dirt-Bike”

New, Season 9, Episode 143 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Micah Baker vs. Lawrence Bustamante)

Plaintiff/uncle purchased motor bike for defendant/nephew, as usual, defendant didn’t pay plaintiff back.  Motorbike was $2700, and plaintiff claims defendant still owes $850.     Nephew says when he was supposed to pay back uncle, but Bustamante says he was attacked, stabbed and shot.  During his recuperation, defendant's mother starting paying plaintiff back.   Plaintiff says nephew was behind in payments before the attack.   Defendant's mother isn't in court to testify either. 

 Defendant when asked about payments he made, says he “Has no clue”, and has no proof of making any payments.  Defendant claims his mother paid uncle in full, and says there is no money owing.  

Defendant has a copy of mother's bank account statement for the court, and nothing says who the money was given to.    Even with the bank statement, and assuming that the money was paid to plaintiff, it's still short of the $2700. 

Plaintiff says the payments from defendant and his mother, are still way short of the total owed. 

Corriero tells defendant not to let the loan break up the family, but Corriero always says that doesn't he?  Plaintiff says the text from his sister screwed up the relationship between them.   Plaintiff says while owing him the loan balance, defendant bought a high dollar F-250 with a lot of upgrades, and the defendant's mother stopped paying plaintiff, while buying her boyfriend a new vehicle too.    Defendant's girlfriend says defendant's grandfather co-signed for the truck.  

Plaintiff receives $850.   

 

“Strumming My Pain”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 104 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 32, 2 Nov 2022

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Nephew says when he was supposed to pay back uncle, but Bustamante says he was attacked, stabbed and shot.

By the time this was half over, I understood the shooting and stabbing of Mr. Bustamante, international playboy and man of mystery, garbed in his retro Matt Helm outfit. Well, I don't think Matt would put his Mommy on the hook to pay his debts.

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff receives $850. 

Thanks. I gave up as I couldn't bear looking at or listening to the oily Bustamante any longer.  But congrats to his girlfriend. She knows how to pick 'em.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Paid in Bull”

New, Season 9, Episode 144  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Anthony Kinniebrew  vs. Cherie Ivy )

Plaintiff is a professional stage manager, was hired by defendant, but she never paid him.  Defendant says because plaintiff never signed the contract, that she owes him nothing.   Plaintiff was paid $700, but claims he was owed a total $1400.   Defendant says she wrote the play because of the murder of her son, for a mothers group of murdered children, but plaintiff says he was told nothing about the reason for the play.   

Plaintiff says he signed the contract, but never gave it to defendant because of her attitude.  

Defendant claims she hired plaintiff before, and didn’t like working with him, but he was the only candidate for the job.    Defendant claims plaintiff was hired in a probation period, but no contract outlines the terms.   Deloris Crenshaw is defendant’s witness, who says plaintiff was lazy, never did the work he was supposed to do.  Defendant says she was only going to pay for the work plaintiff did, and that wasn't much according to her.   

First payment was $300, and defendant said she wasn't paying him the remaining $1100.     Second payment was $400. 

Tewolde says defendant treated him like a volunteer and never wanted to pay him.     Corriero takes the defendant's side, as usual, and says $600 was enough to pay plaintiff.   Juarez says defendant violated contract law.   

Plaintiff receives $700.    

 

“Stench in the Clowns”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 102 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 27, 27 Oct 2022.

[patty1h]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Corriero takes the defendant's side, as usual, and says $600 was enough to pay plaintiff.

My millionth Corriero eyeroll happened when he said that the plaintiff had received enough for the work he'd contracted for with the defendant.  Dude!   It's annoying already.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Deposit Debacle”

New, Season 9, Episode 145,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Allen Tackett vs. Bonnie Mays )

Plaintiff gave defendant a deposit of $2,000 for a 1997 Corvette (total price is $8,000), but she sold the car to someone else, and is keeping the $2000.    The judges seem to think it’s cute when defendant claims she saw the contract but read none of it.   We all know Corriero will make excuses for the defendant’s actions cheating the plaintiff.

Then, plaintiff changed his mind, wanted his $2,000 back, but defendant sold it to someone else, but refuses to return the $2.000.  Contract states that if defendant sells the car before he can pay for it, that he gets $1500 back, but she claims she's broke and can't pay him back. 

Defendant's witness is her husband, James Mays, testifies.  Plaintiff has the original contract, and says someone altered the contract copy, that defendants' submitted. 

Defendant and husband claim that plaintiff texted all kinds of demands constantly, but don't have any of the texts. 

Plaintiff was even willing to settle for $1500 refund, but defendant didn't do that.   Defendant husband offered to pay the $1500 but never actually paid plaintiff.   As usual Corriero favors the defendant. 

Unanimous decision, $1500 to plaintiff according to the amount he settled on.

 

“Student Drive-Her”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 42 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 21 Nov 2022

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gave defendant a deposit of $2,000 for a 1997 Corvette (total price is $8,000), but she sold the car to someone else, and is keeping the $2000.

I have some problems with this case. While the defendant seemed a little flaky, I am hung up on the issue of whether the contract was supposed to extend to January or July. I would be very surprised if the defendant (who wanted to sell the car) would take a deposit to hold the car from October into the following July, especially for a classic corvette. Did the verbal agreement specify January as the defendant claimed? Did the written agreement have the month as "1" or "7"? I don't know and we didn't see the contract close enough to see this number well. I do know that (especially when I have been in Europe) a lot of people draw the number one with a prominent up slant to the top then down, looking more like a seven to us and that it is common to draw the number seven the same way but with an added horizontal line through the middle of the vertical line. I am OK with the result since the defendants sold the car and are not out any money. Personally, I think the plaintiff may have had buyer's remorse and the defendant was careless about with written document so the verdict was reasonably fair to both sides.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Personally, I think the plaintiff may have had buyer's remorse and the defendant was careless about with written document so the verdict was reasonably fair to both sides.

Yes, it seemed fair. Litigants were annoying, with the drippy little P thinking how cool he'd look tooling around in this "pretty" 1987 Corvette, even though he knew he couldn't afford the modest 8K price tag. Def wife was annoying with her "Of course, I didn't read what I signed",  thinking it was cute (it's not and just makes you look like a moron) and her never saving texts. Her giant husband was annoying with his repetitions of these macho "man-to-man" dealings. Oh, please.

I'm really liking these new judges now. JT in particular, is really getting into the swing of things and smacking down irritating litigants like the P, with his Corvette dreams, his (very)used Kia budget, and his inability to STFU.

I also liked how JJuarez pinned down Mr. Man-to-Man and made him backtrack on that.

I really wanted to see the texts where P allegedly told Defs that his girlfriend threw him out over this purchase and he was homeless because I do believe he said it and would try anything to get his money back.

Papa started a little sulk in deliberations but then was so thrilled when he finally got the other two to agree with him for once that he threw up his arms in triumph. You go, Papa!😄

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Wouldn’t Put It Pastor”

New, Season 9, Episode 145 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Caleb Booker vs. Ann Badon-Jeanmarie)

Plaintiff/pastor’s son accusing defendant /church treasurer of stealing $30k from church funds.  Plaintiff claims defendant was involved with the people who wanted to take over the church leadership by force.  Defendant admits to moving the money to her personal accounts for safekeeping, during a church leadership power struggle, but says she stole nothing, and plaintiff defamed her.  Plaintiff claims his father gave POA to defendant to take care of the church treasury. Defendant's witness Pastor Joseph Quinn will be heard from soon.  Plaintiff is only suing for court maximum of $5,000, on behalf of his ailing parents, he has a financial and medical POA.  Treasurer is a volunteer, unpaid position.   Macedonia Baptist Church is the house of worship in question. 

Signatories on bank account are treasurer, and another board member, but two signatures are not required. Plaintiff says defendant's cousin is trying to take over the church, during senior paster, plaintiff's father, and mother's long illness.   Defendant Quinn is defendant's cousin also, and is the man who is leading the takeover by the co-pastor.   Quinn is co-pastor, and leading the takeover.   John Milhouse is co-signatory, is no longer at the church, and can't be taken off the accounts.   So, defendant took the $30k to prepare for a buy out by Quinn and his supporters, to buy the church building,  and keep it under their leadership. 

Plaintiff says his local courts refuse to get involved with the church issues. So, he's suing for the $5,000 court maximum. 

After two years, I'm guessing plaintiff's parents aren't in a regular hospital, but some kind of care facility.  So, why are they still in charge of a church they can't go to or operate.   Kevin Jeanmarie is another defense witness, defendant's husband.     Defendant witness claims the pastor was fine with defendant, cousin, and others taking charge of the church. 

Plaintiff also put a lock on the door, so defendant, and her faction can't take it over.  Plaintiff claims the board of directors approved the lock out.   Plaintiff has his father's POA, and is pastor in his father's place.   

The board of directors never approved moving the money to defendant's personal account. 

Corriero claims defendant is innocent.  However, Juarez finds it unacceptable to move the money with the approval of two board members, one member is defendant's mother.    

Juarez says an order should require defendant to transfer the $30k to an account operated by the church 501 (c) 3.    Corriero will give the defendant $5,000, Juarez says $1,000, but is overridden by the other judges. 

  I find it unacceptable for defendant to transfer $30k in church funds to her personal account, so her cousin and other buddies can buy the church with money that belongs to the church.  

I agree with Juarez, money should be transferred to an account operated by the 501(c)3 that operates the church, not in defendant's personal account. 

Judge Corriero, and Tewolde say plaintiff defamed the defendant. 

$5000 to defendant, and plaintiff's claim is dismissed so he can go to the local authories and refile. 

 

“It All Rent to Pot; Shaw Redemption””

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 79 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

"It All Rent to Pot"

(Cayla Schneider vs.  Vladimir Pallais )

 

Plaintiff and defendant were roommates, plaintiff claims only one person could pay the rent, so she would pay her rent to him.   Plaintiff says defendant didn't pay the rent, and they were $6133 behind, and going to collections. 

 Defendant says paying the rent arrearage off ruined his plan to get Covid assistance to pay rent, and plaintiff paying this off ruined his scam.  Defendant also stole plaintiff's rent money.  Plaintiff says defendant was never out of work during Covid.   Defendant also had a gofundme that earned $3,000, applied for Covid payments, stole from landlord and roommate. 

Gofundme went for personal bills, and a trip to Palm Springs, expensive clothes, and fancy shoes (Louboutins, I didn't know they make men's shoes too).    Landlord needed $3592, and security deposit all paid by plaintiff were kept by the landlord.  

$5,000 to plaintiff.

"Shaw Redemption"

(Roslyn Shaw  vs. Tyrone Henry )

Plaintiff suing defendant for car damages from defendant leaving  a party engagin his car's hydraulic suspension (it's a show car), and running into her parked vehicle (2019 Lexus).  Plaintiff was sitting in her parked vehicle when defendant hit her car.   Plaintiff says defendant smelled like booze, refused to give his insurance and other information, and police did nothing.  Plaintiff was sideswiped by defendant.  

Plaintiff was insured, but as usual, defendant wasn't insured.  Defendant says plaintiff is scamming him, by wanting $6,000 for damages.   Defendant claims some buddy he knows will fix the car for $700 or $800.   

Plaintiff claims she wasn't parked at a red curb, but defendant came across the street and slammed into her car.  

Acker says defendant's friend's estimate is ridiculous.   

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“The Real Swim Shady”

New, Season 9, Episode 146  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Melanie Contreras-also suing for her sister Samantha  vs. Raine Iyall -Fawcett)

Plaintiff hired defendant to give her children swimming lessons, and claims defendant cancelled lessons while plaintiff was taking kids to the pool.  Defendant says there is a no refund policy, and she will only reschedule.  However, defendant has cancelled several times on plaintiffs.  Lessons were $125 per child, so $375 for plaintiff, and $125 for the other plaintiff. 

Plaintiffs say they rescheduled once after defendant was exposed to Covid.   Then defendant cancelled again, as plaintiff was taking the kids to the lesson.  

Why did defendant take a rapid Covid test the day she found out she was exposed?    This was the same day defendant wanted payment for the lessons, after she found out she was exposed. 

The lessons were supposed to be five days in a row for all four kids. 

My view is defendant kept cancelling lessons at the last minute, so she breached the contract.    The no refund policy was cancelled out by defendant's cancellations.   If plaintiffs had cancelled at the last minute, they would have had to pay, so defendant should have the same requirement. 

The lessons were an intensive schedule, five days in a row, but defendant claims rescheduling is the same lesson routine.   Defendant doesn't have the cancellation policy on her website, just prices.   Plaintiff went on the FB page, and told everyone that defendant was a scammer (something that makes Corriero upset).     Defendant requires a week's notice to reschedule, but doesn't have the same requirement for her cancelling.   

Tewolde sides with plaintiffs, and doesn't care about the defendant's multiple excuses.   Juarez sides with plaintiff, and Corriero backs down and sides with the plaintiffs. 

Plaintiff and sister receive $500 for a full lesson refund. 

 

“Boozing and Cruising; Sod Be Gone”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 151 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

“Boozing and Cruising”

(Rocio Gutierrez vs. Jessica Martinez)

Plaintiff was home, her car was parked and defendant ran into the car.   Plaintiff says defendant said she was sorry, she would pay for the car, and defendant said she had some wine coolers. 

Defendant didn't have a license or insurance either.   Defendant claims she had been working long hours, fell asleep at the wheel.  She says plaintiff didn't have insurance either, so she shouldn't have to pay for the car.  Defendant claims she left to go to the ER, but has no record of treatment. 

Defendant wanted plaintiff to go to some body shop that she would pay for damages, but the body shop personnel say they never heard of defendant. She also claims it was a 5-10 mph crash, that is total ca-ca,  and balks at the cost a regular body shop wanted for plaintiff's repairs. 

DiMango says defendant left because she had been drinking, and she's a liar. Defendant also left the scene.   

Blue Book is $2480, more than plaintiff wants to fix the car.  Corriero says a funny remark, he asks defendant what part of California defendant she drives in, so he can avoid driving there.   (This happened in Fresno, CA). 

Plaintiff receives $2400 for car damages, and punitive $1,000 so $3400 to plaintiff. 

“Sod Be Gone”

(Allen and Crystal Goree vs. Marco Ruiz )

Plaintiffs suing defendant for landscaping installation, and they had to hire another landscaper to correct the work for $1,000.   Defendant says he did a good job, and owes plaintiffs nothing.   He was hired to remove two large trees, and remove the roots, and put sod in over the bare ground.   A two day job ended up being a four day job, with no preparation of the ground for the sod, right over the roots.    

Plaintiffs hired another tree company, for $650 for the other company, and $350 for the sod that had to be replaced.   Marco claims he ground the surface roots, and applied the sod properly.    

Defense witness Juanitzat Montes, works with Marco. Pictures of roots show them coming through the sod.  

Competed job looks lovely, but defendant's work doesn't look up to that quality. 

Plaintiffs receive $1,000. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Money for Nothing; Border in the Court”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 69 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 10 Jan 2023.

 

“Loaning My Heart”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 107, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 22 Nov 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Table for One; Van Wrecker”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 105  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 20 Dec 2022

 

“Took the Money and Ran”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 119 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 24 Nov 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“May Old Acquaintance Be Forgot”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 63 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 15 Dec 2022

 

“Con-Struction Man”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 105 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 32, 24 Nov 2022

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

The litigants from "A Loan of Bull", which aired on 28 March 2023, were just on The People's Court, with the same case, and the same $2000 award for plaintiff.   It was on TPC on 24 May.    

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/23/2023 at 3:56 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Melanie Contreras-also suing for her sister Samantha  vs. Raine Iyall -Fawcett)

I just watched this. I don't think def. is a scammer, just a bit of an airhead and scattered. She sounded ridiculous saying she took her car to an alley mechanic and expected to get it back in time for P's swimming lessons that afternoon.

 

On 5/23/2023 at 3:56 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

My view is defendant kept cancelling lessons at the last minute, so she breached the contract.

That's what I thought. The "No refunds" thing should be for customers breaching, not the business person. I don't blame the P for not wanting to deal with her anymore. She's an inconsiderate, unprofessional dingbat who thinks she had just a little bit of COVID.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Come Hell or High Water Bill”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 32 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (This is the first episode with Tewolde and Juarez)

p. 32, 31 Oct 2022

“Fool Me Twice Shame on Me”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 109 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 28 Nov 2022

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Flipped the Script”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 47  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33 , 21 Nov 2022

“Rent Up Anger”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 112 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 29 Nov 2022

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 38  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 22 Dec 2022

“CARate Shop”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 95 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 12 Oct 2022

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Two Tickets to Paradise”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 34 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 32, 2 Nov 2022

 

I absolutely disagree with the verdict.   The defendant called the boyfriend or partner or whatever he is to come to take care of the woman.   No one deserves to be treated the way the plaintiff treated the defendant.

“U Can’t Clutch This”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 114,(Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Rutherford  vs. Burley )

Plaintiff owns a 1994 Ford Ranger, and hired defendant to work on his truck, pulled the truck to take to another mechanic, $3596.   Plaintiff took truck to mobile mechanic, owned by defendant.   Defedant was paid every day for the number of hours, replaced the muffler.   Then, defendant replaced the brake master cylinder, but claims he didn't touch the right front wheel.   Then plaintiff wanted the clutch replaced, plaintiff ordered the wrong clutch kit, and then defendant replaced the brake cylinder, and clutch when the right kit was purchased. 

Defendant didn't finish the ball joints, because plaintiff called another mechanic to do the ball joint replacements.   Plaintiff claims the new mechanic replaced the ball joints, and claims the clutch wasn't working.   Plaintiff claims the second mechanic wouldn't work on the clutch, and so the truck was serviced by a third mechanic.    When third mechanic took a test drive, the driver's side front wheel fell off, damaging the fender and wheel assembly.  

Defendant says his father did die, then he was exposed to Covid, and he was busy with other customers.   Defendant also told plaintiff that he was going to report him to authorites for distributing to a minor.   Defendant says his assistant mechanic (his son) was given drugs by plaintiff, and son was a minor. 

Judge Acker is out of control, if you gave my son drugs I certainly wouldn't go near you again, and would turn you in to the authorities.  Correiro says plaintiff's giving drugs to defendant's minor son doesn't excuse defendant from dumping plaintiff as a client.   

Defendant says the wheel he worked on was on the other side of the truck, not the one that fell off.   Plaintiff also agrees that defendant only worked on and removed the passenger side wheel.    The ball joint replacement mechanic would have taken both wheels off.  

My view, plaintiff hasn't proved anything, and deserves nothing.   However, if defendant's son was actually given drugs by plaintiff, I hope the local drug task force are watching.  

Judges decision is $750 to plaintiff. 

 

 

[TVMovieBuff]

There is a case on today, that I could swear I saw about a year ago, with a new plaintiff, same case. About a handicapped woman suing a caregiver for plane tickets and caregiver services. It isn't even that great a case. Her witness is the same guy, Dennis. But a different plaintiff and maybe a different defendant. 

Last time it was with DiMango & Acker, this time Juarez & Tewolde. Same Corriero. I don't think I'm losing it. What the heck?

 

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by TVMovieBuff
Repetition

[CrazyInAlabama]

The caretaker case was on Hot Bench with the current judges (Corriero, Tewolde, Juarez), with the same defendant, and plaintiff's partner or whatever he is.  It was one of the first cases with the two new judges. 

However Judge Judy had a similar case with a woman going on her honeymoon on a cruise, and claims the paid caretaker didn't do her job.  The caretaker was plaintiff, suing for unpaid wages.   (The Judge Judy case was called "Wheelchair Bound Honeymoon Cruise" on page 499, 27 August 2021, on the Judge Judy forum, All Episodes Talk: All Rise topic.   However, I don't remember Dennis.  The plaintiff caretaker was suing defendant for not paying her caretaking fees for the cruise.  Both litigants' cases were dismissed.  I wonder if Dennis has more than one 'friend/partner'?   I'm not sure the cruise ship wedding was legal either. 

Of course, I could have cases mixed up too.  That happens a lot. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Defendant also told plaintiff that he was going to report him to authorites for distributing to a minor.

Was he a minor? I missed that part. I thought it was strange how Def referred to "my assistant" and when asked said it was his son. If the P was plying a minor with drugs the Def should have called the police. Maybe it didn't bother him that much or maybe not the first time Sonny has toked up. Whatever, but P was an irritating little twerp, whining that a wheel fell off his 29-year-old truck, so it must be someone's fault. The def all but admitted he kept stringing the twerp along, but couldn't say why. We know why - make promises and give excuses long enough and the irritant might just go away.

4 hours ago, TVMovieBuff said:

About a handicapped woman suing a caregiver for plane tickets and caregiver services.

I never saw this, but when first seeing the plaintiff I was getting the idea that she has that dreadful Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva (FOP) where people "turn to stone". That turned out to be the case. I saw this on YT, and I find it so horrific, upsetting, and disturbing I couldn't continue watching this. Whatever rude things P said or did to the Def, she's paying for it 1 million times over.

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, defendant said plaintiff gave his minor son drugs.    I hope the threat to tell the police happened.   

[Chalby]

On 4/24/2023 at 12:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 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

Sometimes I question how Corriero can be sucked in by the obvious of liars?

Edited June 2, 2023 by Chalby

[CrazyInAlabama]

“All’s Fair in Loan and War”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 48 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 22 Nov 2022

 

“Mechanic Mishap”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 106, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 6 Dec 2022

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[TVMovieBuff]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The caretaker case was on Hot Bench with the current judges (Corriero, Tewolde, Juarez), with the same defendant, and plaintiff's partner or whatever he is.  It was one of the first cases with the two new judges. 

However Judge Judy had a similar case with a woman going on her honeymoon on a cruise, and claims the paid caretaker didn't do her job.   I think JJ gave the plaintifff some money.    I don't think it was the same plaintiff however.  

Of course, I could have cases mixed up too.  That happens a lot. 

No, you are not mixed up! I saw the same, Dennis was the same person, the plaintiff was not. What the heck. Don't they have enough people wanting 15 minutes of fame? I thought it was on Hot Bench though. Who needs it. 

[AngelaHunter]

I finished the caretaker case and was a little perturbed at JT saying that P "has arthritis and needs help". No, sorry. I'm sure she would give everything she owns to have arthritis. JT needed to educate herself about this devastating illness before the case so as not to trivialize (and I know arthritis can be debilitating but this is a whole other level) P's condition.

That a licensed, paid caretaker, who should be able to deal with frustrated, distressed, or angry patients, would just storm off and leave this woman alone to fend for herself over some perceived insult or hurt feelings is unconscionable and disgusting.

On 6/2/2023 at 3:40 AM, Chalby said:

Sometimes I question how Corriero can be sucked in by the obvious of liars?

I think he sees himself as a sort of Sir Galahad, a defender of tearful little ladies who depend on the kindness of strangers (or who trade sex for cigarettes and gas with some dirty old man),  and young men who "didn't really mean" to lie, cheat, steal, scam, and rip off even their own family members.

[CrazyInAlabama]

“Fishy Repairs”

New, Season 9, Episode 148, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Keri Cook vs. Julian Morris )

Plaintiff rented a room to defendant, and says one of his tanks leaked and flooded the room.   The photo of the many tanks out on the covered patio is amazing, there are at least 10 tanks, and they're all big. Defendant says there were 7 tanks, and he wanted three in the house.    Defendant wanted to have his one prize tank, with the most valuable tank in his room.       She’s suing defendant for damages when he flooded her house, by falling asleep while draining the fish tank.  She says water was going everywhere. Plaintiff is suing for $5,000 in damages from the flood from the tank.   

Plaintiff says she never authorized the many fish tanks, or the one in the room.   Plaintiff says defendant's rent included all utilities, and he was dumping and refilling the tanks, wasting water.   WHen plaintiff finally got attention of defendant, she says defendant was sloshing his way to the room door.   Plaintiff says she authorized one aquarium, but found out defendant was running a breeding and selling business for the exotic fish, with at least 7 huge tanks on her property.    

I hope there's a written, signed lease outlining the amount of fish tanks.  Corriero says defendant is lying about the tanks.  Room was 255 sq ft, and the seven large tanks are big.   Plaintiff only agreed to one tank.   Corriero says defendant thought he was Aquaman. 

The flood happened in August, two months later defendant claims he fixed the room.  It barely has drywall, painted, and room clearly isn't finished.  At the end of October, plaintiff served defendant with an eviction notice on surveillance camera, she was also talking to defendant on the video camera.     Then, during discussions Juarez, and Corriero are arguing.    Then, he claims plaintiff lied about the notice.  HOwever, plaintiff gave notice 1 October, and defendant ignored it, and threw it in her yard.   Defendant was supposed to leave by 30 October, but didn't, and the video shows plaintiff inspecting the room to see if it's really finished.

Defendant submitted texts with plaintiff talking about setting up fish tanks, but plaintiff still claims she didn't know about the number and size of the tanks, until the day of the flood. 

Juarez says plaintiff was lying about not knowing about the setup of the number of fish tanks.    Defendant says plaintiff wouldn't let him finish the repair work.   A text says plaintiff wants him out by the 31st, and that text was on the 24th.  

Juarez says plaintiff is a liar about one thing, so she's lying about everything. She says the setup of tanks, and the eviction notice on camera make the plaintiff a liar. 

Corriero says plaintiff isn't lying about everything.   Tewolde says plaintiff should get some damages, but also says plaintiff is lying.   

Plaintiff receives $5,000 for floor and carpet damage, junk removal, electrical work, and other damages.

 

“The Lash Hurrah”

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 56,(Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 5 Dec 2022

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then, during discussions Juarez, and Corriero are arguing.

I almost felt sorry for Papa. His expression said, "I thought I was going to be the Head Honcho here with you two little newbies."  Now he finds he's still being beaten down.

I kept fish for over 15 years. Not once did I ever put the fill hose in a tank I was cleaning and then go lie down and fall asleep. He couldn't stay awake for another 15 minutes? Unreal. That room looked like a construction zone. I know of no landlord who would allow that number of huge tanks to be moved in. I have no idea if the P was lying or what she was lying about but Def seemed totally blase about the damage he did with his carelessness and negligence.

 

[patty1h]

How the hell does a tenant move in multiple large tanks into a room without the landlord seeing all that?  Those things didn't look like one person could carry them so the defendant must have had help to get them in and the plaintiff missed that?  Makes me wonder if she was truthful.

Edited June 5, 2023 by patty1h