CrazyInAlabama August 1, 2023 Share August 1, 2023 (edited) 1 August “Insurance Pole-icy” New, Season 9, Episode 156 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Paul Kramer vs. John & Christine Eiden) When plaintiff’s pole barn collapses, he accuses the couple who sold him the barn of being deceptive about insurance coverage. The defendants say it was plaintiff’s role to get homeowner’s insurance, and his own neglect caused the collapse. Plaintiff claims he’s the homeowner, but has no legal proof. Defendants still hold title to property. Plaintiff is suing for the personal property he had in the pole barn when it collapsed. Plaintiff wants $5,000. Plaintiff says after he paid property off, he didn't get the deed. Property is in Minnesota. He moved out of the home three years before the barn collapsed. Plaintiff bought the pole barn for a personal residence. Purchase price was $95,000, with installments and taxes and insurance paid into escrow. Plaintiff claims he had to move out of the barndominium because of wife's health insurance issues (no, I don't understand the connection). Defendant held the mortgage paper, until payoff. Plaintiff had to pay for the insurance, and have coverage for the entire length of the contract. Plaintiff was paying on the property note for 10 years. House was purchased 'as is', and plaintiff didn't have insurance on the home, or pole barn. Judge Juarez gets ticked at plaintiff demanding answers from her. Contract says plaintiff will escrow insurance and taxes monthly. The addendum changes the escrow for insurance later. This was to add additional insurance. Insurance company came to inspect, saw the unfinished siding, and said they wouldn't cover the home without the siding. Defendant sent a contractor to put the siding on, so insurance was available. When plaintiff moved out, he abandoned property for three years before the cave in, and moved over 90 minutes away. He put his wife in a nursing home in Brainerd, MN and he lives with his daughters nearby, and hasn't been to the house and farm in over 3 years. Plaintiff only knew about the cave in because neighbors saw the house caved in, and called him. At least, plaintiff claims he didn't hear about the snow crushing the property until the neighbors called, but he only told defendants and the insurance company in May. If his property was so valuable, why did he abandon it? Judge Juarez points out the contract says hazard insurance, not personal property coverage. Plaintiff claims hazard insurance includes personal property coverage, but it doesn't. Judge J also says delivery of the deed means ownership, but it doesn't mean plaintiff owns the home until the mortgage is fully paid off. Judge Bleeding Heart asks what proof of property stored in the buildings, and he has no proof of value of anything. The only proof that snow caused the cave-in is plaintiff, and he doesn't know when the building caved in. Defendant John Eiden says the insurance adjustor said he needed a weed whacker to get close to the caved-in building, and the property was neglected and overgrown, so insurance will not cover the losses. Policy was only covered for plaintiff's property by renter's insurance, and there wasn't a policy covering plaintiff's purported valuables. Plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed. Burden of maintaining insurance on personal property was plaintiff's not defendants'. Plaintiff says he's not done, and will proceed with more cases about this. I guess he didn't read his contract with the show, agreeing that this is the only litigation that happens on law suit. No further court cases can be filed. I hope the local courts deemed plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and he needs judicial approval to file any more lawsuits about anything. (I was very confused by the pole barn references, and house references. I suspect there was a house, but the pole barn was also on the property. I think when the property was abandoned by the plaintiff, that they left stuff behind in the barn. Or plaintiff saw a chance to get a bonanza, and claimed a lot of property was stored in the barn. I think the barn and house were separate, and plaintiff thought he could get paid for anything he claimed was in the barn, and he was wrong. However, I think unless the barn was attached to the house (not allowed a lot of places), they were separate buildings. Unless plaintiff had the out buildings covered, the insurance wouldn't have applied anyway. The property plaintiff kept claiming included the stalls in the barn, so why would you have the other property he claimed left behind in the barn? It was awfully confusing. I think the barn and house were separate. So, personal property stored in the barn wouldn't be covered, just items normally found in a barn, and included in the insurance. No one said the barn was actual living space, except plaintiff kept saying the barn caved in. Both litigants said the barn caved in, not the house. So, I think it was a money grab, and barn caved in because of neglect, and not during the snow fall. The defendants talked about barn, and house separately, so I suspect when the barn caved in after being abandoned for years, that plaintiff thought he would get rich from the insurance, so claimed tons of stuff inside.) “Taking a Heavy Toll” Rerun, Season 8, 121 Episode (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) (Jordan Kobelenz vs. Justin Groves) Litigants bought a 2007 Mercedes together, when they broke up, defendant took the Mercedes. Then plaintiff took over the Mercedes, she found that over $4,000 in tolls were on the car, and she settled for $1800. Plaintiff is suing for $1800, plus interest and fees. Defendant married someone else. Defendant was a three payments behind, so plaintiff took the car possession and payments over. It cost plaintiff over $5,000 to pay off the back payments, and can't register it because of the fees owed. Sleazy defendant says it’s plaintiff’s duty to pay for his toll tickets. Defendant has Fast Track for tolls, and he claims it was only $600 owing. However, plaintiff says when she took the car and payments over, she discovered the tolls plus fees and expenses were $4,000, plus three past due payments owed. Current amount of tolls, penalties, and fees are now $4200. Judge Acker tells defendant he had to know about the tolls, which were thousands of dollars more than the defendant admits. Judge Acker asks defendant if car was driving itself through the toll roads? Judge DiMango wants to know how long he practiced the deer-in-the-headlights look? Plaintiff was co-signer on car, not co-owner. Plaintiff says defendant told her he would pay the back payments, and the initial $600 on tolls and fees. Defendant had 12 toll charges in one day, for $400. Defendant claims he paid the three month's of back payments, and late charges. Plaintiff receives $1865, to pay off the tolls, and fees. Edited August 2, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 1 Link to comment
DoctorK August 1, 2023 Share August 1, 2023 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff says he's not done, and will proceed with more cases about this. Yep, he was a barrel of laughs in his hallterview. My favorite quote from him (I replayed it to be sure I got the exact phrasing) he "perpetrate me as a some lack of diligence guy". That is a gem of a statement. Even from the preview yesterday, the guy was creepy. He is of the old school of if he leans forward and juts out his chin while talking firmly, that constitutes evidence. And now he is ready to try another court to continue to "perpetrate" (actual correct usage including inference of shadiness) his futile crusade against the world. I would hate to have to deal with him. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter August 2, 2023 Share August 2, 2023 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff bought the pole barn for a personal residence. They were all living in a barn? I missed that part. The angry Mr. Minnesota Law (which we know from other court shows is kind of different) was freaky. He abandoned the property and let it deteriorate. Insurance won't pay for property a renter or homeowner neglects and allows to become derelict. My own ins. threatened me they wouldn't pay if I didn't get a new roof and the old one caused damage or collapsed. (Yes, I had bought a new one but neglected to tell them. I had a receipt actually WITH me and sent it)Oh, but he had about 6K worth of new generators that got ruined. Does he have proof of that? Receipts? He sure does! Oh, well - not WITH him! 5 hours ago, DoctorK said: he "perpetrate me as a some lack of diligence guy". It's always amusing when litigants use big words without really knowing what they mean but at least he got the "lack of diligence" right. How much diligence can there be if he's 150 miles away and never visited the property for over three years? Defs alluded in the hall to him being sue-happy. I bet he's not done harassing them. What a loon. 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Litigants bought a 2007 Mercedes together, when they broke up, defendant took the Mercedes I never saw this, and the judges really pissed me off. Why on earth did they think the actions of this 41-year-old douchebag were cute somehow? He's an irresponsible, overly-pumped middle-aged jerkoff who sneakily foists his debts on someone else, and yet his capped-toothed smile seemed to charm the judges. I guess paying tolls is only for the little people, not an Adonis like him. He makes the kind of lame-ass excuses you'd expect from a teenager, with his "Oh, golly gee! Not my fault" and the only reprimand he got was from JA who told him "Close your mouth" as he stood there with it hanging open moronically. Some woman wanted to marry this silly, repulsive Peter Pan. Good luck to her. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 2, 2023 Share August 2, 2023 (edited) I think the pole barn and house were separate, but plaintiff thought he could get more money from insurance if he claimed he stored personal items, and for the old horse stalls. However, he had no idea of when the barn caved in, except a neighbor called and told him when they noticed the damaged building. The fact that plaintiff never had insurance on the property in his own name, and didn't maintain the property, means insurance would never pay him for damages. I don't understand why plaintiff didn't sell the farm when he moved away, but just let it deteriorate for three years. 2 August “Crypto Electro” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 99 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 36, 23 Feb 2023 “Charge It to the Game” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 8 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) (Melissa Howe vs. Brandon Edwards) Plaintiff landlady wants her rowdy cruise-line bartender former friend to pay the $5,000 he owes her for rent. The litigants were co-workers, roommates, and friends. Defendant moved out six months early, refusing to pay rent or utility bills. Text message show that plaintiff renegotiated the lease, and landlord let her cut her rent in half. Defendant claims he never saw text messages from plaintiff, saying he owes her the rent and utilities. Defendant says his salary went from $3,000 a week, to $1500, so he couldn’t afford the rent. Defendant is a server on private yachts, and the salary cut was pre-Covid by over a year. Utility bill was in defendant’s name, but he stopped paying, and plaintiff had to pay the back electric bills, and to get the bill in her name. Plaintiff's credit never took a hit from the rent and utilities, because she paid them, and was able to renegotiate the lease with the landlord. Plaintiff says defendant never cut back on his spending, had big parties, and going to expensive restaurants. Defendant hasn't gone back to work after losing his job in 2019. I was stunned when Acker congratulated the defendant on manning up by apologizing to the plaintiff, after he stiffed her on everything. That was unbelievable. Plaintiff receives $5,000. Edited August 3, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter August 3, 2023 Share August 3, 2023 11 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff says defendant never cut back on his spending, had big parties, and going to expensive restaurants. He's been doing cruise work for 15 years, knows there are off-season times, and obviously never saved anything. He stiffed the P and seemed to think she should support him and pay all the bills even while he still making $1500/week. He acts like a frat boy, cavorts with his little friends, has parties at the apartment, keeps P awake, and throws money around at restaurants. He never even said he was sorry or offered a measly $50 here and there. With all that, Judge Acker congratulates him for being so "manly" when finally forced to admit he should have paid her. This is her idea of a real man?! JA? WTF? I guess our ideas about that differ. My jaw was hanging open like Douchebag Boy's yesterday. I hope the P learned a valuable lesson here. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 3, 2023 Share August 3, 2023 (edited) 3 August “The Ties That Bind” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 100 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 38, 24 Feb 2023 “Ticket, Ticket…Boom!” Rerun, Season 8, Episode (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 34, 5 Jan 2023 4 August “Are You Faux Real?” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 84 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 35, 1 Feb 2023 “All That Glitters” Rerun, Season 8, Episode (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) P 37, 16 March 2023 Edited August 4, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter August 4, 2023 Share August 4, 2023 (edited) Quote “The Ties That Bind” New, Season 9, Episode 101, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Terri Bailey vs. Estebon Roberts ) Plaintiff sues her former live-in boyfriend for her therapy bills; he countersues for storage fees on the items she left behind. I watched this story of these lovebirds, P with her shaved bean and big sparkly glasses vs her former b/f, who wanted a "man cave" since his lady wouldn't allow his friends in the house. The judges want to know why they broke up. This and that, and then, "He called me out my name, and I called him out his name." I can just picture the scene with the foul language turning the air blue. I gave up. Edited August 4, 2023 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 7, 2023 Share August 7, 2023 (edited) 7 August “Jacked-on-all-Trades” New, Season 9, Episode 158, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Marilyn Gipson vs. Delbert Longberry) Plaintiff hired defendant to do landscaping on her front lawn, and she claims defendant did a bad job, and was threatening to her. She originally wanted work on cabinets, trim a tree, fix sidewalk cracks, vacuuming trash from the rocks, and other remodeling work. She is suing for $3028. However, she paid him, and later asked him to come back and do more work for her. Defendant says he was hired to fix the bathroom cabinets, trim one tree, and fix the sidewalk cracks for $350. Defendant says plaintiff kept adding other jobs on to the job. There was no contract, only a written estimate given to plaintiff for the $350 initial work. Photos of the repaired walkway are awful. Plaintiff paid defendant $350, plus another $100, so $450. Plaintiff claims she only paid defendant because she was afraid of him. Then, plaintiff hired defendant for more work after this. Plaintiff claims the veneer repair on the cabinets shows a bubble, but I don’t see it on the video. Defendant offered to give the money back to plaintiff, but then decided he did more work than even the $450 covered. Defendant isn’t a licensed contractor, and is a handyman. $450 is very cheap for the amount of work done. Plaintiff wants $2500 to get other contractors to finish the work. Plaintiff claims to fix the work done badly will cost her $2500. She claims no other worker can fix the veneer on the cabinets, so she wants the cabinets replaced. Defendant says he did all of the cabinet repairs, filled the concrete cracks, trimmed the tree, and the hedges. I see no merit to what plaintiff is claiming. She just wants a bunch of work for free. The cabinets were cheap, and never would have looked right without being replaced. (I'm guessing the cabinets might not have been veneer at all, but particle board, with that papery plastic finish on them, like contact paper. I hope every contractor and handyman in her town saw this, and refuses to work for her. I wonder how many other court cases she's filed to get refunds, and a bonanza? ) Plaintiff case dismissed. “Bad Business at the Baddie Chateau” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 147 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 33, 23 Nov 2022 Edited August 8, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
DoctorK August 7, 2023 Share August 7, 2023 In the first case, I will accept that the defendant was sort of sketchy as a contractor, but the plaintiff knew this from the beginning. After watching the whole case, I believe the plaintiff is an out and out liar and a hustler. There is no way that all of the things she claimed to be in the estimate could or would be done for $450. I was also dubious about the “veneer” that needed to be reattached to some cupboards which had “fallen off”. I don’t believe they were veneer, they looked like inexpensive plastic laminate in a “woodgrain” finish. Real veneer may lift up at the edges or even bubble a little (due to poor installation) but falling off? No way. When she mentioned that she got a lawyer to give her a plan for getting thousands of dollars from the defendant, I figured it all out. The plaintiff is a hustler who planned to get all new cabinetry and a ton of high grade professional work on the defendant’s dime. I despised her and hope that any contractor or handyman who works for her will see this case and then run for the hills. I was afraid that Corriero was going to go bleeding heart and the other judges were going to feel sorry for the cute little smiling (and lying) plaintiff; fortunately they gave a reasonable result. The second case is about two young ladies who tried to start a web based high end hair product company. Unfortunately, neither of them has any clue about how to start and operate a company. A boring case, which we have seen many times before just with different litigant names. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter August 8, 2023 Share August 8, 2023 3 hours ago, DoctorK said: In the first case, I will accept that the defendant was sort of sketchy as a contractor, but the plaintiff knew this from the beginning. After watching the whole case, I believe the plaintiff is an out and out liar and a hustler. Yep. Although both of them drove the judges mad with their inability to give a straight answer to any question, I have a feeling that the P is a hustler as you say. I am convinced the handyman was telling the truth when he said he gave a price - a dirt-cheap 350$ - and once he started she kept adding things. It's a common scam: "Oh, while you're trimming that tree could you do all these bushes too?" just trying to get something for nothing and hoping there won't be any further charges. Couldn't stand her phony, cutesy act. 3 hours ago, DoctorK said: I was also dubious about the “veneer” that needed to be reattached to some cupboards which had “fallen off”. If it had bubbles in it, I'm thinking it was more like contact paper. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 8, 2023 Share August 8, 2023 8 August “You Cabinet Be Serious” New, Season 9, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Cedric Keyser vs. Jose Mendoza) Clothing designer plaintiff hired defendant, cabinet maker, to build wardrobe cabinets (custom closet when installed), and laundry room cabinets. Plaintiff claims he couldn’t get ahold of defendant about the work for months. Defendant says he ended the contract because plaintiff was rude to him. Plaintiff wants $4,500 back, which was half the cost of the project. When defendant sent pictures of the partially completed cabinets, plaintiff claims they weren’t his cabinets, but someone else’s job. Plaintiff claims he offered to pick the unfinished cabinets, but defendant refused. Defendant says plaintiff never contacted him, but by that time the defendant had blocked the plaintiff. Defendant says the cabinets need to be installed, and some shelves and other parts are still on order. Plaintiff claims the cabinets don’t look like his drawing he gave the defendant. Corriero misses the entire point of plaintiff saying the wardrobe door tracks need better measurements. Defendant says after plaintiff threatened him, he stopped dealing with him. Plaintiff also said defendant should finish the job. Tewolde doesn’t see threats or rudeness in the texts defendant claims were hostile. Defendant says the threat to ruin his business, and sue him for everything he owns were on voicemail. Defendant says the text by plaintiff about picking up the cabinets were sent after he blocked plaintiff. Plaintiff had someone else build and install cabinets, so he just wants the money he paid defendant. Tewolde is on plaintiff’s side, Juarez and Corriero are too. Plaintiff gets $4500 back. (I wouldn’t give plaintiff a penny back. My view is the defendant did $4500 worth of work. After the decision, plaintiff gets his money, and defendant keeps the cabinets. ) “Community Car ” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 83, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) (Spencer Andersen vs. Candis Higgins) When a car comes with $700 worth of parking tickets, the buyer insult’s the seller’s body. Don’t quite get the connection between tickets and body shaming, but that’s what the blurb says about the episode. Acker hates what plaintiff sent defendant in text messages, they included body shaming, misogynistic statements, and threatening. Plaintiff is suing for $1000 for a car he bought from defendant. Plaintiff claims car had mechanical issues, a salvage title, and couldn’t be registered. Plaintiff says he saw the car sitting in defendant’s driveway for years, after defendant’s Sugar Daddy gave it to her. Plaintiff’s text is rude, nasty, sexist according to DiMango. Defendant claims plaintiff bought car ‘as is’, and she owes him nothing. She also claims defendant put nails under her car tires to flatten them. It cost $300 to pass smog test, and Blue Book is $1500, so he came out ahead even with the extra cost. Defendant says car was on the street, or in her driveway and was moveable, and drivable when she sold it to plaintiff. When defendant sold car to plaintiff, it was sold ‘as is’, and claims she didn’t know about any tickets on the vehicle. Plaintiff claims there were $700 on the car when he bought it. Defendant says she registered and smogged the car, and it had current registration. Defendant claims she never had the title on it, and car was in someone else’s name. Plaintiff claims son has registration, and the title, and he didn’t bring it to court. How could plaintiff register the car without a title? DiMango thinks both litigants are liars. Defendant said in her statement to the court that she saw plaintiff putting nails under her tires on a surveillance tape, but she didn’t see that. Defendant says she had no right to sell the car, but plaintiff harassed her into selling. Corriero says plaintiff received the car in June, but didn’t register the car until the next year. Defendant also doesn’t have the copies of the $700 in tickets he had to pay to get the car registered. Corriero is clearly on defendant's side, no surprise about that. Acker and DiMango both say both litigants are lying about everything. Plaintiff and defendant cases dismissed, for lying about everything. 2 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 9, 2023 Share August 9, 2023 (edited) 9 August “Why’d You Stop Bumper Thumper” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 84, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 35, 30 Jan 2023 “A Wrinkle in Time ; Deposit Due Deposit Don’t” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 54, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) “A Wrinkle in Time” (Dorothy and Forrest Williams vs. Jules Rickless) Seminar cost $2995, and defendant said how to sell time shares. Plaintiffs had three days to cancel contract, and they claim they tried to cancel. Plaintiffs decided to sell time share themselves, but defendant said he didn’t receive the cancellation, so defendant refused to return the $2995. Defendant says after the contract and seminar, that a person from his company contacts sellers about the procedure, and to clarify the time share costs and sales procedure. Plaintiffs claim they notified defendant’s company with in two days, sent emails, and later sent a certified letter about the cancellation. Defendant claims he has numerous notes about the contact with the plaintiffs, but didn’t bring them to court. RIckless is a managing partner of the condo sales/seminar company, but didn’t deal with the plaintiffs directly. Plaintiffs receive $2995. “Deposit Due Deposit Don’t” (Phillip Maldonado vs. Chieko "Natalie" Naramoto) Plaintiff is suing former landlord for return of security deposit, and punitive damages. Defendant is landlord, but has zero clue how to be one. Plaintiff signed a one-year lease, put down $2168 security. $1168 is all plaintiff received back, never received a listing of damages charged, and that is in violation of California law. Plaintiff wants $1000 back, and $1000 punitive fees for failure to send the inventory of damages. As usual, defendant is blaming Covid on the delay. Defendant says plaintiff didn't notify her about plumbing leaks, late fees $345 (plaintiff says he paid on time, but defendant demanded he take his payment to the bank, and it was during Covid), $50 wall touch up, $500 for cabinets, $300 for cracked tile, and $150 cleaning fee. Defendant deducted late fees illegally, and other items not noted on the inventory list. HOA fixed the cabinet, and plumbing issue, so defendant still charged plaintiff for that. Defendant claims plaintiff also bounced a check one month. Plaintiff didn't pay for 11 days during his last month, he blames that on the defendant too. Defendant claims she charged plaintiff for the cabinet, and plumbing, because she says he damaged something else, that's totally wrong too. Defendant wanted to sell the condo, and wanted plaintiff out before the end of the month. Corriero doesn't want to give punitive damages to plaintiff. He thinks the landlord/defendant was clueless. Plaintiff receives $470 from his security deposit. Plaintiff still paid the $530 for the prorated rent the last month. Edited August 10, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter August 9, 2023 Share August 9, 2023 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Why’d You Stop Bumper Thumper” I can only think these two histrionic wretches were here, fresh from some salon, in high hopes that a producer of trashy reality shows might recruit them. Both of them seemed to have spent considerable time rehearsing their grammatically incorrect spiels in their mirrors. The sneaky camera people kept giving us a rear view of the litigants' nearly-identical protruding buttocks. 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: A Wrinkle in Time” (Dorothy and Forrest Williams vs. Jules Rickless) How I loathed the def, a picture-perfect example of a fast-talking, hustling used car (or timeshare) salesman, who looks as though he's addicted to tanning salons and hair spray. The plaintiffs had all the evidence that they did everything right by informing the sleazebag, within the time limit stated, that they didn't want the services of his company. He stands there double-talking and lying, saying he has the evidence that the Ps were phoned and notes were taken that they did agree to keep these dubious services. The judges want to see the notes. Believe it or not, he doesn't happen to have that evidence WITH HIM. The judges should take his word for it. The Ps get back all their money and I wish they could have been awarded more, just to turn the screws a little more on that POS asshole. 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff is suing former landlord for return of security deposit, and punitive damages. Defendant is landlord, but has zero clue how to be one. I guess I always feel a kind of stunned awe at someone who hasn't been in a country very long, is not totally proficient in the language, somehow acquires property, has no idea what the obligations of a landlord are, yet feels confident enough at withholding money owed to a tenant that they will appear in court to argue their position. 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Corriero doesn't want to give punitive damages to plaintiff. He thinks the landlord/defendant was clueless. Obviously, he doesn't believe "ignorance of the law is no excuse", (the same way he disregards "as is" if the complainant is a poor little SSM) well - depending on who the litigants are. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK August 10, 2023 Share August 10, 2023 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: two histrionic wretches Actually, I don't think the plaintiff was too bad, a little histrionic but not too bad in some social environments. The defendant on the other hand was a flat out bald faced unabashed liar about almost everything. I did enjoy watching the plaintiff looking really sour and pissed and had the hand o hips posture as the judges started explaining that she had actually won, admittedly the first part of this sounded bad for her. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: the litigants' nearly-identical protruding buttocks. Hey, every stylish smart woman wants a Kardashian buttr don't they? 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: he doesn't believe "ignorance of the law is no excuse", (the same way he disregards "as is" i Corriero is fast and loose with the law whenever he has feelz about something. I still remember a case when he made his verdict based on a litigant not proving his claim "beyond a reasonable doubt". He doesn't recognize civil versus criminal proceedings when it gets in the way of his bleeding heart. I might be able to feel a little sorry for him as a pathetic beta person completely walked over (and I think not respected by) the alpha other judges, but he is such a jerk that no sympathy from me. 1 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 10, 2023 Share August 10, 2023 (edited) 10 August “Valve Schmalve…Who Needs It?” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 90, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 9 Feb 2023 “Once Upon a Dime in Hollywood” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 24, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) (Mark Atkinson vs. Mark Joshua) Plaintiff says he loaned defendant $5k for his film project. Defendant says the $5k was an investment, not a loan, and he owes plaintiff nothing. Denfendant did give plaintiff a $5,000 check which bounced. Defenant says he told plaintiff the check wasn't good, of course plaintiff denies that. Defendant says he only gave the bad check to plaintiff as a 'gesture of good faith'. Defendant says there was an opt out date, and plaintiff didn't opt out, and at that point the loan became an investment. Plaintiff says there's a facebook page of other victims of defendant's scams. Judge DiMango's notes were that defendant's excuses for everything are ridiculous. Corriero slams the plaintiff over the letter of agreement over the conversion of loan to investment. Plaintiff's witness testifies that film project he was loaning money for was never finished, bank accounts were emptied, no one ever was repaid. I find the judges dismissal of the plaintiff witness testimony ridiculous. I think the witness testimony establishes a pattern of fraud and scams by defendant. $5000 to plaintiff, and he's still over $5,000 short. 11 August “Real Estate Deal Gone Wrong” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 92, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 36, 14 Feb 2023 “T-Bone Ache” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 99, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 31, 14 Oct 2022 Edited August 11, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 1 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter August 11, 2023 Share August 11, 2023 On 8/10/2023 at 3:52 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Mark Atkinson vs. Mark Joshua) Plaintiff says he loaned defendant $5k for his film project. Defendant says the $5k was an investment, not a loan, and he owes plaintiff nothing. I enjoyed this and wish we had more cases like it. I enjoyed seeing JDiM calling Def a "scammer" even though he didn't care and was utterly shameless. His excuses make me believe he does stuff like this all the time, getting his personal debts paid by the naive. I also liked the way the P only bothered himself to check out the Def after he gave him the money and got nothing but empty promises and a rubber check in return. It's like all the litigants who only get the 16-year-old beater they bought checked out after they pay for it. Yes, P may have been scammed but he has to take some responsibility for it. If anyone promises to double your money, fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 14, 2023 Share August 14, 2023 14 August “Can’t Pay, Can’t Stay” New, Season 9, Episode 160 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Robert Fox vs. Donald McFee) Plaintiff/landlord suing defendant/former tenant for damages and back rent, suing for $5,000. Plaintiff claims there was an odd smell from tenant’s apartment. McFee says he had no idea the rent wasn't being paid, his financial advisor wasn't paying. Then Fox inspected the unit, and gave an eviction notice to defendant, over the smells, unpaid rent, trashing the apartment. Then, McFee says he had to move to a hotel because plaintiff didn't give him enough time to move. Apartment was furnished. Fox says McFee had a great job with the port of Long Beach. When Fox realized no rent for two months, he sent a regular mail notice to defendant, and defendant says he didn't receive the letter. By October, defendant was three months behind, so he called defendant about the rent. Then, Fox (a real estate broker), issued defendant a 3 day notice to quit, served by his associate Ishmael. Fox says defendant said his financial advisor didn't pay, then blamed an ex-wife, and then another relative. McFee claims he didn't pay his own bills, and his ex was his financial advisor. Defendant claims someone was stealing his money, and though he was making $2500 a week, but only had $300 in his bank account. McFee claims he would pay $700 a week until the arrearage was paid off, and plaintiff would inspect after a 24-hour notice. If it flunked inspection defendant would move out within days. When plaintiff inspected, after written notice, with Ishmael accompanying him, he found the unit smelled awful. Fox says apartment reaked, and apartment wasn't habitable, and smelled. McFee gets angry, and says plaintiff was calling him a drug addict. Ismael, the plaintiff's witness and employee, says apartment smelled from something that's not tobacco, or Weed, and it was rancid. So, Fox finally visits the property, and says it smelled odd, like a bar that closed late, and wasn't cleaned or aired out, and you visit it first thing in the morning. Judge Mike says judges don't know what he's talking about. Plaintiff says he found empty beer cans on the third floor deck, a lot of them. McFee denies knowing about the smell. Plaintiff is a long-term landlord and real estate broker, and says he can't rerent the unti until it's refurbished, and the smell is gone. I agree with what plaintiff did. Defendant owed him thousands, trashed the apartment, and wasn't paying up. Juarez is nit picking over the eviction, and the agreement. Juarez says plaintiff breached the agreement, but still owes the back rent. Corriero, as usual, agrees with the breach of the agreement, but says it doesn't matter because of the back rent. However, defendant owed over $5,000 for the unpaid rent. Plaintiff receives $5,000. “Rental Damage Debacle” Rerun, Season 8, Episode (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 31, 26 Oct 2022 (On the original posting, I meant to say that tenant claimed a lot of damages existed on move-in, but had no proof. 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.) 2 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 15, 2023 Share August 15, 2023 15 August “Snoring on the Flooring” New, Season 9, Episode 159 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Kathy Mincer vs. Jonathan Morrow) Plaintiff / homeowner suing defendant /handyman for not finishing a flooring job, $4124. Job should have taken at most two weeks, but stretched out for three months, and still wasn’t finished. Job started in late December, $1800 down for labor, plaintiff bought all of the materials. Defendant tried to put trim on, before finishing the flooring. Defendant claims Covid, motorcycle accident and an assortment of other excuses. In April plaintiff got another contractor, new contractor said everything done by Morrow was wrong, and it would all have to be ripped out, and redone. (This happened in Wilsonville, OR) The tattoo on defendant’s neck is bizarre! What is it supposed to be, bullet holes? Paint ball hits? Plaintiff says defendant didn’t finish the first room, then moved to the second room and didn’t finish it, and screwed up the hallway floor. Defendant says the floating floor can't shift, or come apart, but defendant had to redo it. Then, in June plaintiff hired someone else to rip out the flooring, and redo the entire job. Defendant denies there was any proof of the damaged flooring. Plaintiff bought the same flooring, and the entire job was redone. Judge Tewolde shows the separation between boards, defendant claims it wasn't his fault. Defendant claims he guarantees his work 100%. Plaintiff receives $3814. Covering the materials, the $1700 she paid defendant. “Faux Paws” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 126, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 38, 28 April 2023 2 2 Link to comment
DoctorK August 15, 2023 Share August 15, 2023 The flooring defendant was simply a completely full bag of crap. I just don't believe that in the entire four years (wow, four whole years?) he has done this type of work everybody has been happy. Five or six months? Give me break. The way that he laid the flooring without spacing the butt joints shows he has no idea what he is doing and absolutely has never read the manufacturer's instruction; even as the plaintiff is reading directly from the manufacturer's instructions that it cannot be laid over an existing floating or foam backed floor he just refused to accept that. I loved the way that he explained he could not call the plaintiff because his phone was cracked - one of the judges told him that cracked phones still work and held up her own phone. What a jerk, I hope anyone in his area considering flooring sees this show. 2 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 16, 2023 Share August 16, 2023 (edited) 16 August “Whoopsie Daisy” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 91, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 36, 13 Feb 2023 “Stumming My Pain” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 104, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 32, 2 Nov 2022 17 August “A Tale of Two Tenants” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 87 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 35, 6 Feb 2023 “Retaining Balance” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 138, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 32, 10 Nov 2022 18 August “Ex-CATastrophe” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 44 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 33 16 Nov 2022 (How does Juarez side with a defendant who claims plaintiff was in a conspiracy with a raccoon to kill her cat? She also claims plaintiff was love bombing defendant, and that's a known tactic of abusers) “OK, Beamer” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 9, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) (Leanna Clardy vs. Viktoriya Hoagland ) Plaintiff /car buyer claims the used 2009 BMW, purchased from defendant/ car sellerwas a Lemon. However, did plaintiff have a mechanic look at the ‘as is’ purchase first? No, plaintiff had her husband look under the hood. Car ad says salvage title too. Defendant bought car three years ago, with a salvage title. Salvage title was cleared, and legal to resell with disclosure about the salvage title. Plaintiff claims car overheated within a block when she bought car and was driving it home. Car was advertised for $4200, plaintiff paid $3250 cash. Plaintiff wants not only a full refund, but lost wages and other things. Car passed smog before sale too. I don't blame defendant for not trusting the new $100 bills plaintiff had, and wanting to go to the bank. Everywhere I shop uses a detection marker on big bills. KBB is $4758, sold for $3250 with a valid smog certificate. (This happened in San Diego). Plaintiff case dismissed. (I would have awarded the defendant money for trouble having to go to court, and putting up with the plaintiff's allegations.) Edited August 18, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter August 20, 2023 Share August 20, 2023 On 8/16/2023 at 9:05 AM, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff /car buyer claims the used 2009 BMW, purchased from defendant/ car sellerwas a Lemon. That was actually an interesting "as is". Yes, of course, P knew the car was salvaged, knew it was 11 years old, and that it had over 160,000 miles on it. Why does any of that matter? P just has to tool around in a BMW. Hang the petty details! Something went wrong with this previously totaled old car. That means it falls under the Lemon Law and she can get all her money back, right? Nothing should go wrong with old cars. With the price of the car and what was paid in repairs, P ended up merely paying book value. On 8/16/2023 at 9:05 AM, CrazyInAlabama said: I would have awarded the defendant money for trouble having to go to court, and putting up with the plaintiff's allegations She really deserved some sort of compensation for this kind of stupid, pig-headed harassment. I just hope the P doesn't know where D lives. I will never, ever, EVER sell a car privately. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 21, 2023 Share August 21, 2023 (edited) 21 August “Handyman Damage” New, Season 9, Episode 161, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Nasir Choudhery vs. Adrienne Villines and Moses Raiz) Plaintiff/ landlord is suing defendants/former tenants for damaging the rental property he owns, for $2400 for damages. There were bullet holes in windows, entire back yard is dug up, and holes in interior doors. Defendant says his dogs dug in the yard, but no dogs were allowed in the lease. Defendants lived there for 10 years, in 2021 he had issues with the tenants, police came to rental house, and defendants moved out with one week's notice. Defendants want security deposit back, and payment for doing work at the property. There are move-in pictures, showing a wonderful lawn. In 2021 police called plaintiff about defendants doing donuts in front of the house. Police said defendants did the donuts, and tickets were issues to plaintiff Raiz. Clovis (CA) police sent a notice to plaintiff about the issues with tenants. Defendants claim 30 days notice to plaintiff, plaintiff says one week. Notice was only verbal, no proof of written notice to plaintiff or the property manager. There are several windows and sliders with bullet holes. Plaintiff says defendant took the front door peephole out, and made a big hole for a camera. There are two interior doors with huge holes in them, doors are totally destroyed. Pictures of the back yard on move-out are horrific, nothing like the lovely lawn the house had on move-in. $1150 is security that plaintiff didn't return, and plaintiff sent an itemized list to defendant, but it's a receipt from Home Depot, not an itemized list. Defendant claims he never received the list, and the address is his new address. There is an itemized list in evidence. So, plaintiff did sent an itemized list of damages to defendant's new address, within the 21 day notice period. Defendant claims plaintiff promised to return the total security deposit, plus $200 more for work performed. Plaintiff had to pay for garbage removal, broken doors, broken windows, leveling and fixing the back yard. Defendant Villines claims the glass damage from bullet holes, were from marauding kids, and BB guns. One of the smashed sliders was on a back patio, not the front. Defendants claim the same vandals threw paint on their cars. Plaintiff brings up the horrible state of the back yard. Defendants claim they had the dogs to defend the property. However, the lease did not permit the dogs, and especially the breeds defendants had. The back yard looks like bomb craters. No pets were allowed in the lease. Defendants claim the crude, scribbled lease only prohibited Chows, and Pit Bulls. They claim plaintiff knew they had dogs. Written lease says no pets are allowed. As usual, Bleeding Heart Corriero takes the defendants' side. The other two judges weren't much better than Corriero this time. Defendant case dismissed. Plaintiff receives $ 1185, for yard damages, trash, holes in walls, and broken windows, minus repainting. Judges dismiss the security deposit refund, but because the technically gave it to defendants, it nullifies the damages. So, nothing to the plaintiff. “Custom Extensions Cost” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 73 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 31, 24 Oct 2022 Edited August 22, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
DoctorK August 21, 2023 Share August 21, 2023 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: So, nothing to the plaintiff. This was a horrible verdict in this case. I despise Corriero even more than before (if that is possible) for the way he argued this case, but the other judges weren't much better. The massive damage to the house (including but not limited to replacing and rehanging three doors, redoing the totally destroyed back yard, replacing windows) will take way over the measly $1150 (just the damage deposit) that the judges so generously allowed the plaintiff to keep, but nothing more. The defendants were lying trash people who have no respect for other people's property. I believe that they did receive the itemized damage list that the plaintiff sent to them, they just flat out lied about not getting it. I also believe that defendants either were doing donuts in front of the house or friends or relatives were doing them. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 22, 2023 Share August 22, 2023 (edited) 22 August “When Pigs Fly” New, Season 9, Episode 162 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Thomas Parker vs. Rusty Beer ) (I'm not kidding, defendant's name is Rusty Beer). Plaintiff hired former friend and handyman to improve his shed as a home for his three pet pigs, and build a fence. Defendant left nails sticking out of walls, gaps in walls, etc. Defendant says budget was too low to do the job properly, so why did he take the job? Cost was $13,500, paid up front. Plaintiff wants $5,000 for emotional distress, and the poor job that will have to be redone. He has Jolene, Whoopie, and Pajellen, they're all 80 to 90 lbs. he also has an adorable Pug, Delta. This was supposed to be an upscale pig palace. Plaintiff says he was going to get a pre-built fence, but defendant said he could build one cheaper and faster. Fence was unsafe, gaps, not concreted posts. Defendant says plaintiff should know pigs root out, and loosened the fence. Defendant says plaintiff should have put a ring in the pig's noses to prevent them from rooting around. I love the plaintiff, and loathe the defendant, even Bleeding Heart Corriero calls defendant's statement cruel. Defendant claims a premium pig palace shed would cost $16,000 minimum, so he would do a cheaper shed that wasn't as well built. Defendant claims he put in the contract that plaintiff would not get the upscale pig shed he wanted. Defendant keeps stifling his laughter at plaintiff's statements about his pigs being his pets, and friends. Contract says completed by January, it wasn't finished until March. Defendant also said in the contract that paying up front would make the job cheaper for plaintiff, so plaintiff paid in advance, and in full. The fence and shed would have been a home for the pigs, before they lived in the house, but they're getting bigger. It also was heated, and to keep the pigs safe from predators. The photos of the finished shed are awful workmanship. Windows have large gaps around the frame, everything looks thrown together, and sloppy. Nails sticking through are a big hazard for the pigs. Bleeding Heart Corriero is finding excuses for defendant, as usual. Even Corriero agrees that plaintiff met his burden of proof. Estimates from other contractors all go over $5,000 to repair the defendant's shoddy work. $5,000 to plaintiff. “Dogs Will Be Dogs” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 91 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 31, 10 Oct 2022 23 August “Enough is Enough” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 94, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 36, 15 Feb 2023 “Rear Ending” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 89, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 30, 29 Sept 2022 Edited August 23, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 24, 2023 Share August 24, 2023 24 August “Watch Your Step; Bail Me Out” Rerun, Season 9, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 33, 6 Dec 2022 “Momma Drama” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 136, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 32, 15 Nov 2022 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 25, 2023 Share August 25, 2023 (edited) 25 August “Fortunate Son” Rerun, Season 9, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 35, 8 February 2023 (This is the not so heartwarming story of the mother who was a dominatrix when her son was growing up, and blames the failure to bond with him on that. The mother wants $5,000 for posting the son’s bail. Corriero's speech in this case is bizarre. ) “Hope Floats Not My Boat” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 64 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) (Ron Pick vs. Dennis Allen ) Plaintiff/boat buyer is suing defendants/boat sellers over a boat purchase. The show summary is: Anchor yourself to that couch! A man tries to BOW out of a deal to purchase two pleasure boat engines... but the judges give him a STERN talking to. Should he have known what he was getting? Allen owns Marine Service. Defendant has a boat shop, and plaintiff bought two engines, and decided not to used them, and plaintiff wants a refund. Defendant has a no refund policy. The plaintiff only bought the bottom part of the engine, not a complete engine. Complete engine is about $18,000 complete, but plaintiff bought the long block (bottom of the engine), reusing the top part of the engine from plaintiff's existing engines. Plaintiff claims the six page estimate doesn't cover the job he wanted, and that defendant pulled a swap on the engines, and long blocks, and cheated him. Defendan't contract says exactly what the plaintiff purchased, and it clearly says long blocks, plus changing the new long blocks with plaintiff's existing engine parts. Plaintiff claims defendant advertises complete running engines, and claims they're bait-and-switch. Plaintiff is pleading stupidity apparently. Judge Acker says contract/estimate shows a long block, not a complete engine, so plaintiff breached. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, and defendant witness claims plaintiff threatened to cyber bully them unless he has a full refund. Plaintiff also threatened to sue, wanted a full refund, and now denies he threatened the defendants. Defense witness Laura-Marie Allen (wife and co-owner of the business) testifies about the cyber bullying threat from plaintiff. Plaintiff loses. Corriero gives defendant 60 days to pick up the engines, and after that defendant can treat them as abandoned property. I would have given the plaintiff two weeks to pick up or else. I would have given the defendant $5,000 for harassment, defamation, and having to deal with the plaintiff. Pick still claims defendant cheated him, and judges were wrong. Edited August 25, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 28, 2023 Share August 28, 2023 28 August “Left Turn Only” New, Season 9, Episode 163 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) ( Xiaozong Liu vs. Roman Gonzalez ) (Both vehicles were on the left side of the one way street, in lanes to merge left onto the freeway). Plaintif claims defendant sped through the intersection. Defendant says plaintiff sped through the intersection, turned left, and hit defendant's vehicle. Plaintiff is suing for damages, medical bills, and rental car fees. Defendant says he was planning to turn left, but was still straight. There is a photo of the intersection, and plaintiff was on the second left turn lane from the left side of the street, defendant was on the left turn lane on the left side of the one way street. Video shows defendant and plaintiff colliding. Left turn lane defendant was in is supposed to go to the freeway on the left. Plaintiff claims the defendant was drunk and staggering, but defendant had an injured leg, and needed his crutches to maneuver. Defendant was taking a load of 2 x 4's, and they went all over the road, and bystanders helped him clear the lumber off the road. Defendant's insurance wasn't paid by his father, so he was uninsured, but reinstated that day. Defendant stopped for the red light, and proceeded after the light changed to green. Plaintiff was stopped at a red light. He then claims there was no light, and then says it was green. Plaintiff hit the entire side of defendant's passenger side. My question is if the plaintiff's lane was a left turn lane? After the police finally showed up at the accident, plaintiff demanded the police do an alcohol test on defendant. Plaintiff only has liability, so none of his damages, medical bills, or rental car expenses were covered. After the accident defendant claims plaintiff was aggressive. Defendant claims he was calm. Juarez says defendant was in the left turn lane, but wasn't going to turn left, went straight so accident was his fault. All three judges agree that was what happened, and agree on the award to plaintiff. $5,000 to plaintiff. “Peanut Butter and Melee Sandwich” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 75, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 32, 28 Oct 2022 Dying mother left her beloved dog Peanut to her daughter. Then, poor Peanut is attacked by a Rottweiler mix at the park. As always, defendant tries to deny their dog did it, won't pay for it, and claims the small dog was the aggressor. Plaintiff wins the dog's vet bills (so you can skip another infuriating dog case). 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 29, 2023 Share August 29, 2023 29 August “Turf Wars” New, Season 9, Episode 164 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Joyce Keeler vs. Kyle Smith ) Plaintiff suing defendant / artificial turf installer for a bad job, and lack of response when she tried to use her year-long warranty. Show summary says “What's the use of a year-long warranty on artificial turf if you can't get ahold of the landscaper who installed it? A homeowner was under the gun to bring her dead lawn up to code and claims the company she hired did subpar work. Is the landscaper's lack of response justified?” (Plaintiff was being cited by the HOA if she didn't fix the yard, so that's another reason she wanted the turf done correctly, and on time). Defendant said plaintiff kept adding jobs, planting an avocado tree, planting a neighbor's lemon tree, a lemon tree planting for her. As always, Corriero is slanted in the plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff claims everything was in the contract, and the added jobs were after the contract was signed. Defendant says the sod only requires being pulled up and reinstalled. Corriero chimes in to say there are other statements and estimates from competitors saying the turf has to be totally replaced. I agree with defendant, the competitors are just trying to get more money for the job. Defendant says the drain was a little high, and his guys fixed it. Plaintiff claims nothing was fixed by the defendant, just by her gardener. There are huge indentations on the turf, and defendant says he didn't leave it like that. Plaintiff claims she contacted defendant by text, for repairs, and she says defendant wasn't dealing with her problems. Plaintiff says the indentations weren't there before she called the defendant the first time. The other indentations are a mystery to her, and she says they kept multiplying. Defendant says he would raise the turf, repack under it with more materials, and reinstall the turf, a one day job. Plaintiff says she has three other estimates to fix the turf, all over $5,000. Plaintiff receives turf money to replace the artificial turf $4800, but nothing for a flower bed, and other jobs. “Un-Ensured ; Wreck and Robbers” Rerun, Season 8, Episode (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 34, 10 January 2023 2 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 30, 2023 Share August 30, 2023 30 August “Chevy Metal” New, Season 9, Episode 165 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Michael Adams vs. Troy Selland (seller) and Manuel Hernandez (friend of defendant)) From the show description: “The purchaser of a utility van accuses the sellers of tampering with the odometer, which cost him thousands to remedy. But the accused say they never sold him any vehicle. They have their own theory about a fraud being committed; but how much mileage will that give them in court?” (You have to admit, defendan’’s claim they never sold a vehicle to plaintiff is a new defense) Plaintiff bought car from defendants, claims there was odometer and mechanical fraud, so he wants his $5,000. Plaintiff actually bought car from third party, that person isn’t in the courtroom. Plaintiff says he saw an ad for the 2012 car, over 100k miles, and he bought the white van for $10,000, and bought another van for $3500. Plaintiff claims he had the title, signed by Troy Selland, and says that was the defendant. Plaintiff helped defraud the Nevada state revenue department by putting a much lower price on the vehicle bill of sale. The Nevada DMV sent a letter saying the title was doctored. Defendant Selland say van had 235k mileage, sold to co-defendant Hernandez, or the third person, and plaintiff received a title from another person saying 115k mileage for the van. Selland claims the title alterations were either the third person he sold the van to, who in turn sold the van to plaintiff, or plaintiff altered the title. Selland claims he didn’t sell anything to plaintiff, just the third person. Plaintiff submitted the certificate, saying 15,000 plus is the mileage, signed by Selland. Hernandez (translated by Bailiff Montejano) sold van to another person, then plaintiff contacted first Selland, then Hernandez, and neither one said they sold him anything. Then Troy Selland gave plaintiff a certificate of sale, with the 235k mileage, and when Selland saw the certificate plaintiff had, he refused to commit fraud. Transfer document from Selland to Hernandez said 235k on it. Date Hernandez sold van to the third person, who in turn sold to plaintiff, happened on the same date. I think plaintiff will have to sue the third person, but they aren't in court. Plaintiff claims he bought the van in question, and the other van a week before anything is signed by the defendants. The phony certificate dated 10 March is the plaintiff's. Juarez confirms with defendant what he actually signed on the transfer, and defendant says plaintiff did it. (I would dismiss plaintiff's case, I think he's full of it, and has zero proof.) Juarez thinks plaintiff is just clueless, not fraudulent. Corriero is on plaintiff's side. Tewolde is not sure there's a third party involved. Plaintiff gets $5,000, because Selland didn't sign over certificate of sale for days after the sale, so he's responsible. “Con Keys-to-Door” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 18, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) (Alphonso Ponce de Leon vs. Casey Stanphill) From the show description: “Compassionate veteran takes in his homeless best friend who breaks his ribs, damages his property, and throws away the dentures plaintiff bought for him.” Defendant broke two TVs, smashed down doors, broke the friend's ribs. I'm confused, plaintiff was living on a military base, and moved defendant in with him there. Then, they moved off base. Plaintiff witness Danielle (another off base roommate) testifies to defendant breaking the second TV. Defendant admits to having a bad temper, but doesn't remember breaking the TVs, throwing away the plaintiff's key fobs, and did throw away the dentures plaintiff gifted him with. Defendant also smashed the back door door, and that was witnessed by the plaintiff witness. Defendant also admits smashing the door, and throwing some of plaintiff's clothes in the trash. Plaintiff did receive a restraining order against the defendant, but did not serve the defendant with it. Defendant fortunately is getting treatment for his issues. Corriero does his usual bleeding heart defense of the defendant. Plaintiff receives $3,640. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama August 31, 2023 Share August 31, 2023 (edited) 31 August “Mad House” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 97, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 36, 21 Feb 2023 “Student Drive-Her” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 42, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 33, 21 Nov 2022 1 September “Are you Flooding Kidding” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 94, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 36, 16 Feb 2023 “One Promise Two Late” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 120, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 34, 4 Jan 2023 Edited September 1, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 2, 2023 Share September 2, 2023 On 8/31/2023 at 5:30 AM, CrazyInAlabama said: “Are you Flooding Kidding” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 94, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) Just saw this now. A veritable festival of disgust. The defs are both giant piles of shit, confirming my belief that water does find its own level. He quits his job because he just figured out after moving and living there that the 2-bedroom place that houses him and his grotesque, monstrous lady and her FIVE kids is too far from his job. With his CV, and his experience of working in a warehouse all his life, this forklift job was just too much or maybe beneath him. Why should he work? They deserve handouts to help pay the rent. I bet the rhino dumps from those two clogged the toilet. This all pissed me off so much I couldn't finish it. You need to do better than Walmart and unemployment if you choose to have five kids. The French-Canadian landlady was mouthy in the extreme but I understand her resentment towards these revolting tubs over the foul mess they left - being too damn lazy to clean anything - especially when one of the judges asked her what she does, or did, for a living and the gargantuan blob shouts out, "Looks out the window." Probably no more than HE does. UGH! 2 Link to comment
DoctorK September 2, 2023 Share September 2, 2023 29 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I bet the rhino dumps from those two clogged the toilet Possibly, but I grew up in a small house with one bathroom and plumbing from 1930 and this problem is easily solved with a plunger, but I suspect that these two, even if they knew what a plunger is, would never bother to use it. They were complete pigs and slobs. You left out the rotting food left out in a pan on the kitchen counter, I felt sorry for the landlord (annoying as she was) for having to go in and clean up the overwhelming nasty mess the pigs left for someone else to clean up. And of course, their kids (apple doesn't fall far from the tree) scrawled all over all of the walls and Mr. Pig said something like "kids and walls, of course they did". I did appreciate it when the plaintiff said she had evidence snaked from the drain by the plumber (who fortunately put what he found in writing) as she held it up, it was in zip lock bags. But I was disappointed that the judges didn't take a close up look at it. "Evidence, evidence, you want evidence! Get a load (so to speak) of this and a sniff!". 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 3, 2023 Share September 3, 2023 1 hour ago, DoctorK said: I did appreciate it when the plaintiff said she had evidence snaked from the drain by the plumber (who fortunately put what he found in writing) as she held it up Yeah, I had to avert my eyes (I was eating) at that. Stuff pulled out of drains makes my gorge rise. Same for the pics of the rotting food the dirty slobs left in their trough. They saw no problem with this. It's the way they live. We've heard more than once that many litigants feel letting their kids write all over the walls is just natural and normal, especially when it's someone else's property. I feel sorry only for the kids, all of whom seem to be still in diapers except the ones in school. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 4, 2023 Share September 4, 2023 On 8/29/2023 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: “Un-Ensured ; Wreck and Robbers” Must have been one shitload, a king's ransom, of jurry the defendant and his pregnant girlfriend were wearing, that it could all be seen and evaluated by some thugs in the car behind him. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 4, 2023 Share September 4, 2023 8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Must have been one shitload, a king's ransom, of jurry the defendant and his pregnant girlfriend were wearing, that it could all be seen and evaluated by some thugs in the car behind him. I don't believe the 'robbers' were strangers who just happened along, or decided to follow and rob the couple. I think the couple were trying to escape the 'robbers', and wrecked on the way. (Monday 11 September starts season 10. So far, the second episode is only season 9 reruns with Judges Juarez, Corriero, and Tewolde. ) (This week the first half hour shows are all new, finishing up the season with the new judges). 4 Sept “Women in Uniform” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 104, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 36, 1 March 2023 “Race Boat Rip Off?” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 130, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 30, 23 Sept 2022 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 4, 2023 Share September 4, 2023 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: don't believe the 'robbers' were strangers who just happened along, or decided to follow and rob the couple. Of course, it didn't happen the way he said. Maybe he took more than his share of jurry after he and his friends heisted it, and they wanted more. How many pieces of valuable gold and jewels adornment could two early twenty-somethings have? And to whine that the P "just stood there" during this so-called robbery and ass-beating. I guess he thought the plaintiff (whose car D had just smashed) should have waded in, risked his life, and rushed to the aid of D and his jurry-laden g/f. Fool. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 5, 2023 Share September 5, 2023 (edited) 5 Sept “License to Bill” New, Season 9, Episode 167, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Heather Landry vs. Anthony Bogan Jr.) Plaintiff supported defendant for about a year, and he claims he left because of her drinking. They met at trade school, eventually moved in together after defendant lost his job. Plaintiff is suing for $5,000. Defendant claims he supported her for a year before he moved in, so they're even. Defendant says he was coerced, because plaintiff threatened to lock him out on the streets. So, he signed the promissory note. Plaintiff paid for a marriage license for defendant to marry and get a job (not understanding that), and she paid for his divorce decree costs too. The litigants dated 20 years ago, lived together for a while, and then broke up, until they reconnected. Defendant says he supported plaintiff for over six months, and she supported him for a year. Plaintiff listed every single item she paid for and wants it all back from defendant. The litigants agreed to split the costs on the second apartment. Defendant says he left because of plaintiff's drinking. Corriero sides with plaintiff, no surprise at all. Plaintiff receives $4942. “All-A-Loan; Bumper to Bumper” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 81, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 37, 29 March 2023 Edited September 5, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 6, 2023 Share September 6, 2023 6 September “Cleaning Disaster” New, Season 9, Episode 167, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Mercy Emefiene vs. Ida Gomez) Plaintiff and defendant rented bedrooms in a 4-bedroom house. Plaintiff is suing her roommate for moving her property to the porch, where rain damaged it. She is accused of starting a fire, and not moving her property so the residence could be cleaned up after the fire. Plaintiff says items like cooking equipment, laptop, and other items. Defendant put the fire out, and says it was plaintiff’s fault. Defendant is a care giver, and two clients lived in the home also. Judge Tewolde tells plaintiff to stop laughing and moving around. Defendant says plaintiff was disruptive, and plaintiff says she was the good roommate, and not the defendant. Plaintiff says defendant pushed her. Defendant says plaintiff pushed her. Officer Montajano has to tell plaintiff to stop interrupting and interfering with the court hearing. Defendant says plaintiff would put her crockpot in the hallway, burn items on the stove. The defendant's video of the plaintiff's room is horrifying. Full of food on plates and bowls, food sitting out. The fire was caused by plaintiff leaving food unattended on the stove. Plaintiff claims the fire wasn't big. Plaintiff didn't move her stuff out after the fire, so the room could be cleaned up. Plaintiff is back to her gestures, and shifting around. Defendant didn't move the stuff out for six weeks after the fire. Defendant is the only person living at the apartment now, the two clients, and plaintiff moved out. Plaintiff case dismissed. Plaintiff had every chance to move her stuff, and didn't. “Oh Plummer, My Plumber” Rerun, Season 8, Episode (DiMango, Corriero, Acker) p. 31, 25 October 2022 2 2 Link to comment
DoctorK September 7, 2023 Share September 7, 2023 Today’s case with the damaged rental car had sort of interesting litigants. The plaintiff was pretty animated but did a decent job of presenting his case with no mudslinging. However, he really needs to pay more attention to details in the rental process. I liked the way that he didn’t treat the car damage as a major catastrophe and didn’t seem to be angry at the defendant, just a bit annoyed. He even provided another car to the defendant after the accident. The defendant intrigued me. He is either really stupid or he was playing that role to weasel out of his responsibilities. I didn’t believe him when he claimed he never got or saw the critical rental documents and conditions. I was watching to see if anyone was going to ask Mr. “I live in New York so I never drive” if he had a valid license at the time; there was a quick reference to him showing his license at one point but I wonder how closely his license was examined. I would like to have heard the defendant explain how the accident happened and why (since it is clear he ran into the back of the other car at a pretty good speed) it wasn’t his fault - that might have been entertaining. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 7, 2023 Share September 7, 2023 7 Sept “CARmageddon” New, Season 9, Episode 168, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Please consult the brilliant recap by Doctor K. I goofed and missed it. ) “No Breed Goes Unpunished” Rerun, Season 8, Episode 144, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango) p. 32 9 Nov 2022 2 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 8, 2023 Share September 8, 2023 4 hours ago, DoctorK said: Today’s case with the damaged rental car had sort of interesting litigants. I was just watching this and couldn't take it. The way-too-common, these days, man-child (they're proliferating like dandelions in a field) def, with his foolish facial hair and little, teeny skinny jeans and "I don't know anything about this insurance stuff and nothing is my fault anyway" drove me to shut this off. Maybe he improved as the case went on. Maybe I'm just getting too cranky. On 9/6/2023 at 4:47 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Judge Tewolde tells plaintiff to stop laughing and moving around. She had to tell the grinning, jumping-jack fool to knock it off several times. I also couldn't continue with that case. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 8, 2023 Share September 8, 2023 8 Sept “Mother May I Have My Kids” New, Season 9, Episode 170, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Janita Thomas vs. Kumeka Joseph ) Plaintiff is suing her daughter for bail money after daughter was arrested with husband for mutual family violence. Plaintiff bailed daughter out to avoid infant granddaughter being put in foster care. Daughter said if plaintiff didn’t let son-in-law see the children, she would cut mother off. Defendant says she was raised by her grandmother because mother was a drug addict. Daughter has an infant, a 17 year old, 9 year old, and grandmother took all three of them in. Daughter keeps reacting to mother’s testimony, and shaking her head, and acting like mother is lying. Plaintiff says because of son-in-law’s criminal history, that she didn’t want the SIL around her kids. Husband is a registered sex offender. Ungrateful daughter says because of plaintiff, the three children are in foster care. However, she had a child with a registered sex offender, and someone that assaulted her, and who she assaulted. Daughter and mother trade allegations after the court case. $1800 to plaintiff. "Writings on the Shower Wall" Rerun, Season 8, Episode 124, (Acker, DiMango, Correiro) p. 35, 19 January 2023 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 8, 2023 Share September 8, 2023 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Husband is a registered sex offender. Oh, darn. I forgot to check and see if MY husband is a registered sex offender. Better do that now. 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Writings on the Shower Wall" I did rewatch that, just for the lulz. Little def? It's just as well you got out of the contracting business. I know from personal experience that moving around toilets and bathtubs may require the strength of a man, which I doubt she has, no matter how she dresses or barbers her hair. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 9, 2023 Share September 9, 2023 5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: “Mother May I Have My Kids” OMFG. I just made the mistake of trying to watch this and even listened to Papa Mike during the intro, in which he sermonized about a mother's responsibility to her daughter and a daughter's responsibility to her Mama. Papa, didn't you read the particulars of this before rambling on in this whacked-out way? I had to quit after about 6 minutes and go shower. I think I saw enough to gather that: P was a big-time druggie and pawned off her kids to Grandma. Def daughter is such a beast, such a savage that two weeks after carelessly squirting out yet another unfortunate baby she got into a battle royale with the sex offender daddy, so bad she got her big butt thrown in jail. I'm glad it's Friday. I actually feel soiled after watching this for even such a brief period. Not even a steady diet of court TeeVee prepared me for something so sordid. And this is the way they live. 4 Link to comment
TVMovieBuff September 9, 2023 Share September 9, 2023 11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: OMFG. I just made the mistake of trying to watch this and even listened to Papa Mike during the intro, in which he sermonized about a mother's responsibility to her daughter and a daughter's responsibility to her Mama. Papa, didn't you read the particulars of this before rambling on in this whacked-out way? I had to quit after about 6 minutes and go shower. I think I saw enough to gather that: P was a big-time druggie and pawned off her kids to Grandma. Def daughter is such a beast, such a savage that two weeks after carelessly squirting out yet another unfortunate baby she got into a battle royale with the sex offender daddy, so bad she got her big butt thrown in jail. I'm glad it's Friday. I actually feel soiled after watching this for even such a brief period. Not even a steady diet of court TeeVee prepared me for something so sordid. And this is the way they live. The way the litigants were giving each other the Evil Eye while testifying, and throwing snarky insults, got on my nerves. Judge Judy would never put up with that. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 11, 2023 Share September 11, 2023 (edited) 11 September Starts Season 10. So far, all of the second episodes are Season 9, and after the new judges took over) “I Declare a Door War” New, Season 10, Episode 1, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Kemani Foster vs. Heaven Oliver) Plaintiff is suing the defendant for medical bills from a car accident. Plaintiff was getting in his car, with the door open, and one leg outside the door, this crushed plaintiff's knee leading to many months of therapy. Defendant says she is owed $5,000 for plaintiff harassing her, and hitting her phone out of her hand when she tried to film the aftermath of the accident. Defendant says she had a green light, and plaintiff opened his car door right in front of her. If plaintiff was that hurt, how did he manage to advance on defendant, with his girlfriend, and confront and harass the defendant? Corriero points out that when plaintiff came into the court room, he wasn't limping. Plaintiff also seemed very mobile after the accident for a man who had a crushed knee. The video plaintiff has shows the immediate aftermath of the accident. Plaintiff's insurance company sided with him, and defendant's insurance Jasani Oliver, defendant's mother, is her witness who came to the accident scene testifies about the plaintiff's condition after the accident. He was confrontational, not incapable of moving. I'm in shock. Defendant has been driving since she was 11, without a license. Her mother/witness sees nothing wrong with her daughter driving since she was 11, and never having a license. She claims to have insurance though. I think everyone in this case deserves nothing. Plaintiff didn't bring his MRI or Xrays to court. Defendant says plaintiff grabbed and tossed her phone into the street, and kicked it further into traffic, and passing cars ran over the phone. Plaintiff's insurance company calls accident 100% plaintiff's fault. Insurance paid for defendant's damages, and plaintiff's car was paid for by his wife's insurance, because it's her car. So, only plaintiff's medical bills are in question. Judges say plaintiff opened a door in on-coming traffic, and that caused the accident. Corriero, and both other judges say 'crushed' knee is a gross exaggeration, and no medical evidence was submitted by plaintiff. Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant gets $800 for her destroyed phone. (What a wild case to start the 10th season). “Babysitting for Beers” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 97 (Juarez, Corriero, Tewolde) p. 36, 20 Feb 2023 Edited September 11, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama 2 2 Link to comment
DoctorK September 11, 2023 Share September 11, 2023 I actually enjoyed today's new case, the Door Opened into Traffic fiasco. The plaintiff was a loudmouth jerk who from his own words, was sitting in a car with the door opened into a traffic lane. Meanwhile here comes the unlicensed driver (who has been driving since she was 11 years old, and tells us she is "experienced"). What a pair. I was slightly outraged by the plaintiff with his bogus claims of major injury (he repeated several times that his knee was "crushed"), which didn't keep him from jumping out of his car and running up to and confronting the defendant. Another tidbit: 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Corriero points out that when plaintiff came into the court room, he wasn't limping. He also looked completely mobile in the video right after the accident. I liked the verdict, bogus plaintiff gets nothing, but the defendant gets money for her phone which the plaintiff destroyed so the phone is the only issue that the judges acted on. I hope the defendant gets a license but I doubt it, why bother when she hasn't needed one for years. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 12, 2023 Share September 12, 2023 3 hours ago, DoctorK said: He also looked completely mobile in the video right after the accident. Yes, but he's reached his milestones! The adrenaline supported him after the accident, crushed knee be damned. The best way to resolve disputes is for everyone to stand there and screech at top volume. Mama has let her daughter drive since she was 11. She was really baffled by the judges thinking that was insane. No, the daughter has no license. Why would she? She's been too busy getting knocked up and joining the ever-expanding ranks of SSMs. She doesn't seem to be overly bright. P was an annoying hustler who thought it couldn't be his fault he got hit while standing there with his door opened into traffic. He swears there were no cars coming. Yeah, they all say that. Re: "Crushed knee." I love how litigants wildly exaggerate. This reminded me of a litigant who said the def "severed" his arm. I was shocked but then noticed he still had two arms. He meant he had a cut. Or maybe he started with 3 arms and one got severed. I couldn't take any more of this garbage, so thanks for the verdict! 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 12, 2023 Share September 12, 2023 12 September “Forging Ahead” New, Season 10, Episode 2, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) ( vs. ) (Sorry I missed this, so I hope someone else will tell us what happened). “Pawn but Not Forgotten” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 89 (Juarez, Corriero, Tewolde) p. 35, 7 Feb 2023 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama September 13, 2023 Share September 13, 2023 13 September “Load of Raging Bull” New, Season 10, Episode 3 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Okemia Barnes vs. Paul Columbis) Plaintiff is suing defendant for slander, libel, and trying to file a restraining order against her. Defendant claimed plaintiff was trying to kill him, and claims she had harassed him for several years. Plaintiff was a customer at defendant's gym, and then quit when defendant started gossiping about the relationship between plaintiff and Jorge DIaz. Defendant claimed plaintiff was sleeping with Mr. Diaz. Plaintiff's witness is the so-called partner, who says he never was a partner of defendant. Mr. DIaz was an employee and a witness to the problems at , Flash Boxing. Defendant put Jorge on his lease to 'help his self esteem', according to defendant. However, Jorge was an employee and never an owner. There is a video showing the so-called partner confronting Columbis in the boxing gym. Plaintiff has her own videos of the fight. Paul Coumbis is videoing a fighter working out in the ring, George, and a big fight going on. Coumbis put the yelling fighter in the video on his lease "to bolster his confidence". Plaintiff witness was never paying expenses, but was only a 'partner' on paper. Plaintiff's witness is the person who Columbis was filming and confronting. Plaintiff witness Jorge Diaz is the man defendant claimed was sleeping with plaintiff, and he's another trainer at the gym. In the restraining order application, defendant claimed plaintiff was stalking and harassing him, and threatened to kill him. Both cases dismissed. Judge Juarez points out that you can't sue for allegations against you in legal documents. “The Real Roommates of Long Beach” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 99 (Juarez, Corriero, Tewolde) p. 36, 22 Feb 2023 1 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.