Hot Bench - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Both cases dismissed

The correct verdict. Crazy did a better job of following all the ins and outs than I could do; I just really disliked every one of the litigants and the witnesses, and even the guy who has to sweep up when the show is over. The plaintiff didn't seem to be very honest. Good for her to try to lose weight but boxing doesn't sound like a good way to start exercising. I also looked at her before and after pictures where she claimed she lost 100 pounds, not sure if I believe that, given that the before picture was set up to be the least flattering (head on facing the camera) while the after pic was posed more nicely with her turned slightly to one side reducing her apparent profile. (Just for the record I helped to pay my way through undergraduate school taking flattering pictures of not particularly attractive girlfriends, and only got paid if the girl and the boyfriend liked the pics.) Hundred pounds off or not, it looks like she is back to the before picture. I hope she finds a better gym and keeps up the effort. Then there was the obnoxious and dishonest and clueless defendant. It really sounded like he was running a crappy gym with people gossiping and slinging mud in all directions. His description of the plaintiff's witness as some combination of part owner but really just an employee makes no sense.  I absolutely believe him that his gym has lost business but the root cause looks like it is a lousy gym. Fie upon all of them!

[CrazyInAlabama]

14 September

“Now Airing Dirty Laundry”

New, Season 10, Episode  4,(Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Jesus Garcia Lopez vs. Deanna Howard )

Plaintiff saw a craigslist ad for $800 a month room, with shared bathroom in Beverly Hills.  Ad says no laundry on site. Plaintiff said he let her use the laundry at the home, after defendant taught him to use the washer.  There were two other roommates, who used the laundry facilities also. 

Plaintiff is suing defendant for damage to his belongings, and an illegal lockout.

Plaintiff claims in a text to defendant that he couldn't use the washer, and defendant had shut the power off to the house.  He also claims she changed the locks, threw his belongings out into the rain. 

Plaintiff is suing defendant/former landlord (Actually defendant isn’t the landlord, she’s just another tenant) for an illegal eviction and lockout, and destroying his property.   Plaintiff says he came home from a barbecue and found the locks changed, and his property left out in the rain, with a lot of his property missing. 

Defendant claims plaintiff left, she didn’t throw him out, and didn’t act like a landlord.    Defendant says plaintiff trashed his own belongings, and staged everything.  

None of the judges believe anything the defendant said.  However, there is little proof of the worth of the property that was ruined by rain, and no proof of the value of the other property that was missing according to plaintiff.

$2,000 to plaintiff. $800 for ruined property, and $1200 for the ruined laptop.

“Cabinet Cabinot”

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

p. 37, 5 April 2023

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/13/2023 at 5:45 PM, DoctorK said:

I also looked at her before and after pictures where she claimed she lost 100 pounds, not sure if I believe that, given that the before picture was set up to be the least flattering (head on facing the camera) while the after pic was posed more nicely with her turned slightly to one side reducing her apparent profile.

Maybe she lost the 100lbs once, but from what I saw here she gained it all back. I admit I gave up on this. Picturing her and the diminutive Jorge sharing a bed was too much for me.

ETA: Just watched a bit more. She says, more than once that "Botox and hair plugs make (Def) angry." She really feels she's in a position to make fun of anyone else's appearance? Now that's confidence.

Edited September 15, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

15 September

“Unsecured Deposit”

New, Season 10, Episode 5, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Florene Beal  vs. Gene Foley)

Plaintiff/former tenant suing defendant/former landlord  for the return of a $2,000 security deposit.   Plaintiff says she left the place immaculate, and should get her deposit back.   Defendant says plaintiff left early, leading to a break lease fee, and he already sent her a check for the small amount of security deposit she's entitled to.    Defendant says he has initialed adendums to the lease from plaintiff, she maintains she never saw them or initialed them. 

Plaintiff claims she did break the lease, but original lease didn't have a lease break fee, and she never signed any adendum with the break lease fee in it.   Defendant has signed documents from plaintiff acknowledging her debts. Landlord says the original lease had the lease break fee attached, but plaintiff says that's a lie. 

Defendant says plaintiff signed a rental addendum, not an entirely new lease. 

Plaintiff says she left the rental in great shape, very clean, and defendant agrees.  Plaintiff presents an original lease copy, and no lease break penalties.  Defendant presents his copy of the original lease. 

Corriero says plaintiff is owed the remainder of the rent, and so it's a wash, but defendant refuses to consider it a wash.  Defendant says he's a property manager and his job requires him to enforce the rules equally.   Since plaintiff didn't give 30 days notice he owes her nothing.  

Juarez points out that the Docusign on the original lease and addendum documents are on the same day. 

Judges decide defendant is correct in his interpretation.  Plaintiff case dismissed. 

 

“Car-Pay-Diem”

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

p. 37, 21 March 23

[CrazyInAlabama]

18 September

“Unlordly Landlord”

New, Season 10, Episode  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Kamie Perez vs. Dr. LInda Jost)

House had four bedrooms, and defendant lived elsewhere. $960 a month rent. Security was $150.  Plaintiff is suing for return of pro-rated rent, and security, and money for ruined property. Punitive damages are also sought by plaintiff.

  Plaintiff / former tenant is suing former landlady for harassing her, calling her mother and claiming plaintiff daughter is sexually active, and other nasty remarks. It is alleged that defendant called plaintiff's mother, and said daughter was wearing short tops, had a stripper pole, and smoking Weed constantly. 

Defendant says she’s a good Christian and would never act like that. Defendant says she a Christian and a doctor (homeopathic).  

Another tenant, Rose,  is defendant's witness.  There were no written contracts, just screen shots and texts.   (This all happened in Bakersfield). 

Defendant claims the room was empty, and that's when she changed the locks.  Defendant claims plaintiff smoked Weed constantly, ripped the TV off the wall, and caused extensive damages.   Defendant didn't give a written list of damages to plaintiff. 

Defendant asked Rose to take photos of plaintiff's room.   Defendant claims plaintiff was smoking Weed, and tried to evict her, but didn't follow through. This happened at the same time defendant was sending texts begging plaintiff to stay. 

Defendant kicked plaintiff out with one-day's notice.  Defendant sent plaintiff a text claiming she consulted an attorney, and that the attorney said it was OK to change the locks to lock tenant out.  No it's not, and defendant refuses to say who told her to lockout the plaintiff.

PLaintiff gets pro-rated rent, $800, $1000 for damaged property, and security deposit back $150, plus punative damages, all adding up to $5,000.  

“Above the Ground Problems”

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

p. 37, 2 April 2023

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Shrek]

21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

18 September

“Unlordly Landlord”

New, Season 10, Episode  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Kamie Perez vs. Dr. LInda Jost)

 

Defendant says she’s a good Christian and would never act like that. Defendant says she a Christian and a doctor (homeopathic).  

Another tenant, Rose,  is defendant's witness.  There were no written contracts, just screen shots and texts.   (This all happened in Bakersfield). 

 

This being a christian defence is getting old, people seem to assume it relieves them of any responsibility and it's used a lot. 

Bakersfield huh? Say no more.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says she’s a good Christian and would never act like that. Defendant says she a Christian and a doctor (homeopathic

I think she said she's "born-again Christian" but acts the way most of the devout we see on this show do.

The so-called doctor is a  nasty, vindictive liar with a severe, but selective memory problem. No, she has no evidence of a single thing, including how P destroyed her home and installed a stripper pole, but just trust her memory for that. She saw all that destruction! She's here with her familiar, another nasty hag, this one with tats. Def doesn't know anything about tenant-landlord laws, so she just does whatever she feels like doing. She seems to be insane and I hope anyone planning to use her services saw this.

She got lambasted by all the judges, with J.Juarez giving her the most satisfying reaming. I enjoyed this case and I too wish they could have awarded the P more. But at least the Def leaves with nothing.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I’m moving to temporary quarters tomorrow, so may miss a show or two).

Good luck with the move, and don't forget to ask for receipts and take pics of the residence before and after. 😀

[DoctorK]

Today’s case had one of the worst defendants I have seen on any court show. I didn’t find the plaintiff particularly likeable but the defendant was a complete nut case. She blatantly broke just about every element of landlord/tenant law. She has no evidence except her memory which is clearly patently defective. Sorry crazy lady, being a “Christian” (dubious claim) lady and even better, a homeopathic doctor doesn’t relieve you of legal obligations or permission to blatantly lie in testimony. I am really glad that they hit her with punitive damages; I think the plaintiff deserved them for the plaintiff’s outrageous actions. It won’t change the defendant one damn bit because she is so far off her rocker that nothing will penetrate the bullet proof bubble of idiocy she lives in. I am surprised that the plaintiff didn’t pick up a really nutty vibe from the defendant before she rented. The icing on the fruitcake defendant was the hallterview where she still believes she is a good landlord.

(delayed because I forgot to hit submit)

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I am surprised that the plaintiff didn’t pick up a really nutty vibe from the defendant before she rented.

True, but I've found out over the years that people can appear to be perfectly normal for short periods of time, especially to get what they want, but the crazy will come out later.

The funniest part was the reading of Def's texts in which she talked about her crazy screaming witness right there by her side. 😄

[CrazyInAlabama]

19 September

“Friendship Fallout”

New, Season 10, Episode  7, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Thomasina Clarke vs.  Julines Harrell)

Plaintiff is suing defendant for the cost of a trip to Africa, $882.    Sadly, litigants were once friends and business partners.  A third individual joined the party, and defendant didn’t want this, she didn’t want to share a room, or have a third person on the trip.   Also, defendant says plaintiff’s friend in Africa wanted each one to take another suitcase of hospital supplies.    Defendant said that rang alarm bells, and she refused to take the ‘hospital supplies’.   

There were no contracts for the business, the trip or anything else.

$882 to plaintiff, everything else dismissed.

“Taken for Granite”

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

p. 37, 22 March 2023

 

20 September

“The Drain Game”

New, Season 10, Episode 8, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( vs. )

Here's the show synopsis: "A plumber says he did free work on a bathroom remodel because the homeowner promised him another job. But the owner pulled the plug on that second job when he was unhappy with the result. Now the plumber is defending his work from an unhappy customer who wants his money back."

Sorry, I missed another episode, and can’t record anything here.  

“If a Tree Falls”

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

p. 37, 29 March 2023

Edited September 21, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/19/2023 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

If a Tree Falls”

I just watched that. Plaintiff was such a slimy, grinning hustler that it was very hard to listen to him.

JJuaraz: "Why don't you have a price list from your nursery instead of giving us a 10-year-old one from someone else's nursery?"

"That's a good question," the huckster says. He really thought he was cute and charming, trying to clean up for his neglected, half-dead palms. Jerk.

[CrazyInAlabama]

21 September

“Scoot Scootin’ Boogie”

New, Season 10, Episode 9, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Sara C. Sheperdson vs. Ryan D. Thompson)

Show synopsis: “A woman bought a used scooter for the parking convenience - but nothing about the sale has been convenient. The DMV won't let her register the bike because of discrepancies on the title, and the seller refused to help her resolve the matter. Was she overzealous in accusing him of a felony?”

Plaintiff found out that the scooter she bought from Charlie, for $1400, was actually owned by defendant, hadn’t been registered in many years, and couldn’t be registered.   Defendant says he works six days a week, doesn’t have time for the scooter issue.  Plus, plaintiff says defendant signed the title in the wrong place, so DMV would accept it.

This wasn't title jumping, which is a felony.   Juarez explains titles don't expire, and though plaintiff would have to spend more fees, she could have registered the title.  Plaintiff waited three years to bring this law suit too. 

Charlie the middle man seller is plaintiff's witness.  As, Corriero says, plaintiff just wants the scooter gone, no one can determine who got what money, and waiting three years ruins the case. 

Plaintiff gives scooter back to defendant.   Plaintiff gets all of her money back, including Charlie's cut.  $1400 to plaintiff, scooter back to defendant. 

“Can’t Spell Trust Without Rust”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 96, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 36, 17 Feb 2023

[DoctorK]

Today’s scooter case was a complete mess. The plaintiff was wrong on a lot of what she claimed about being unable to register the scooter. Her witness (Charlie) was the person who was selling the scooter for the defendant; there is something wrong here because good old Charlie got about 2/3 of the money the plaintiff paid but the plaintiff wants to get all her money back from the defendant. The defendant’s defense was a complete mess, maybe because he has serious limitations? Although his lack of coherence reminded me of friends of mine in the old days who were daily heavy marijuana smokers, after ten years or so the effects really added up. Undoing the deal makes sense, neither side acted appropriately. Since the show pays the award, Charlie keeps his lion’s share of the money and the defendant gets to keep the small amount that Charlie (his friend?) passed on to him. In the hallterview, the defendant says he will let Charlie sell the scooter again, which tends to confirm my concerns about his limitations, what our grandparents would call “that boy aint right”.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Today’s scooter case was a complete mess. The plaintiff was wrong on a lot of what she claimed about being unable to register the scooter.

I wanted to know what Def does for a living that he works 6 days a week. Doing what? Maybe at a weed dispensary and he's sampling too much product. He doesn't really know much because his Mommy takes care of his business. Or maybe he was drunk or high here. He didn't even know it's 2023 and not 2020.

P, who thinks her giant fake eyelashes are fetching is a drunk driver and I believe that the shifty-looking Charlie is a liar, and he did tell Def that P was buying the scooter to get around driving restrictions.  She has a car but prefers not to drive it because the scooter is easier to park? Yeah, sure. 

I think silly P may be hooked up with ol' Charlie now which is why she's not suing him for any money. What a messed-up crew.

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

what our grandparents would call “that boy aint right”.

That's for sure.

FB Marketplace strikes again.  I keep forgetting to go there when I need to purchase something.

[CrazyInAlabama]

22 September (Whoever does the show summaries certainly has a good sense of humor). 

“The Gig is Up”

New, Season 10, Episode 10, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Jeffrey Suttles vs. Robert Harris)

Show synopsis: “A drummer was selling his Cadillac and wanted to help his fellow musician so he didn't have to show up to gigs in a taxi. But the car was totaled during the friend's trial period with it, and he refuses to take responsibility. Now there's a dissonance in their relationship; can they find their harmony again?”

Plaintiff was selling his Cadillac ETS, and was going to sell car to defendant, after an extensive test drive.  All of this was outlined in a written agreement.   However, after a month defendant totaled the car in an accident.  Settlement was only for defendant's wife's injuries, and not for the car.  Plaintiff testifies that he's been friends with the defendant for years. Trial period was for two months, defendant insured the car also.   

Other driver was at fault, not defendant.   Other driver's insurance paid for the wife's injuries, but not for the car.  Attorney defendant consulted said the case was a $20,000 case.   Defendant didn't claim on his own insurance. Plaintiff had full coverage on the Caddy, but defendant didn't get insurance on the car, that is contrary to the agreement between the two men. 

Agreement said if anything happened to the vehicle during the test period, that defendant would be responsible.   Defendant never put insurance on the car.  Defendant doesn't think he should have to pay anything for the car damages. 

(car trial happened in 2018, so this has been going on for 5 years). 

According to Judge Juarez, the settlement with the other driver's insurance company also waived other claims, and settled everything from the accident.  So, only wife received the $20k, and plaintiff received nothing. 

I feel so sorry for the plaintiff, he was totally screwed by his long term friend, the defendant. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

“A Friendly Eviction”

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

p. 33, 8 Dec 2022

[DoctorK]

(This is mostly redundant with Crazy's more detailed post above but since I typed all this, I might as well toss it in.)

Today’s case was unpleasant to me. The plaintiff and defendant have been friends and fellow musicians for fifteen years. The plaintiff loaned his Cadillac to his friend, the defendant, to test drive and then purchase. Defendant signed an agreement that he would be responsible for any and all damages or problems while he had the car. (This may not have been wise. If he and the plaintiff had talked it through, maybe they would have set up insurance coverage better.) The defendant was in an accident (not his fault) that totaled the Cadillac and injured his wife. Defendant’s insurance apparently did not cover him while driving someone else’s car but the insurance of the driver who caused the accident settled with the defendant for $20,000+ for his wife’s injuries, nothing for the car. Defendant signed off on this which settled the case from the other driver’s insurance so that the plaintiff could not go after that insurance company for car damages. Plaintiff’s insurance wouldn’t cover the car damages because the defendant wasn’t a covered driver on this policy. This is bad all around. However, I hated the way the defendant did a lot of talking but it was all about weaseling out of his clearly defined responsibility, and shafted his friend without even trying to do anything about the plaintiff’s loss (market value of the car was $16,000). Plaintiff gets max, $5000, leaving him short $11,000 thanks to his friend.

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/22/2023 at 5:41 PM, DoctorK said:

Today’s case was unpleasant to me.

I didn't watch all this because it annoyed me, but couldn't help but think if your "friend" can't afford to buy or finance any car at all by himself, at his age, that there must be a very good reason. So maybe letting him have yours to drive for free might not be the brightest idea.  No one will care about the loss or damage of your property the way you do.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

25 Sept

“Fiction Eviction”

New, Season 10, Episode 11,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Jaye  Uribe  vs. Karina Dominguez )

From the show: When Judge Juarez knows someone's lying before your case even starts, that's not a good sign. A landlord claims his tenant never paid a dime in the sixth months she lived there. The tenant disputes that and claims she even did repair work to the unit. How can the landlord prove his case when he never even gave her a written lease?

Plaintiff / landlord is suing for $5,000 in unpaid rent, and he had to get the sheriff to evict her, that she never paid.   Defendant / former tenant says plaintiff was holding her car hostage, she paid every month, that sheriff gave her 10 minutes for defendant and roommate to leave, and that she couldn't get her property out.   

Plaintiff says defendant was an illegal tenant at another property, and she moved into the property in question.   He says when the sheriff evicted tenants she didn't take everything, but he put a mechanic's lien on her car at that time.  After she was booted from the first property, she moved into his other property two months later.  

Defendant claims she paid rent to friends who were taking the money to landlord, but he never received any of it.  He only accepted money orders, and defendant refused to pay that way.   Defendant claims plaintff wanted sexual favors from her.   

Corriero wants to know why plaintiff didn't have a written contract with defendant.    How is plaintiff supposed to prove the defendant didn't pay rent? 

Defendant claims she fixed the apartment up in place of rent, but the text messages were on a phone that's gone.   There is a text from plaintiff to defendant saying that if her father doesn't start fixing the apartment, that plaintiff will never rerent to her.    

Tewolde points out that defendant brought zero evidence today.  Defendant's ridiculous stories are so unbelievable.  

$1,000 to plaintiff, relying on defendant's word.  As usual Corriero sides with the defendant.   However, judges side with defendant on the retained vehicle and property still in plaintiff's possession.   So, nothing to plaintiff. 

“All Fired Up”

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

p. 36, 14 March 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

26 Sept

“I’m Not a Money Machine”

New, Season 10, Episode 12 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Jill Carr vs. Rudy Deverao)

From the show site: An ex-football player is sued by a woman he dated forty years ago in college. Back then she allegedly thwarted his dreams of going pro - but more recently, she helped him out of a spot by paying money to get him back from Mexico. Now she wants repayment for a laundry list of small loans. There's obviously a lot of back story to this case, and the judges will have to identify what's relevant. Defendant claims the cartels were threatening him.  

Plaintiff and defendant met 40 years ago, reunited a while ago, and he borrowed $3,000 from her, and won't repay her.  As always, defendant claims they were gifts, and not loans.  Plaintiff says she has texts from defendant saying the money was a loan.   Defendant denies he was recently living with plaintiff, because her 55+ complex doesn't allow live-ins or long term guests. 

Defendant claims she didn't send him money to Mexico, but she can prove she did.   Defendant also claims plaintiff knew he couldn't pay her back. 

Plaintiff claims defendant said he was going to be arrested if she didn't give money to pay his bills.    

Plaintiff receives $2,161 for the loans.  

 

“You’ve Got Nail”

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

p. 36, 13 March 2023

Edited September 27, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

An ex-football player is sued by a woman he dated forty years ago in college.

What the... ? I started watching this but I don't think I was following it well enough. He starts his tale 40 years ago when she drove his car and it broke down, so he shouldn't owe her anything now. And then he gets a job in Mexico and is involved with the drug cartel?? He begs P for help. She sends money. Brings him to her place. They sleep in the same bed but he's not about to compromise his integrity and be a prostitute? I think he may be overestimating how desirable he is but P could be just that thirsty, considering how much money she showered on him. Both of them seem a little kooky, especially the Def but his 11 concussions may have something to do with that.

Thanks for the verdict, @CrazyInAlabama. I had to quit since this case made my head spin, as did Def's non-stop swaying back and forth.

[CrazyInAlabama]

27 Sept

“Sin City Shakedown”

New, Season 10, Episode 13,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Vanessa Piccadaci  vs. Jeannette Jurado)

From the show site: When a woman found out her subletter wasn't paying rent because of a government subsidy, she decided it was unfair for herself to have to pay. She claims the subletter is an "evil genius" who also owes her five dollars for a happy meal. Is there a nugget of truth in her testimony?

Judges Juarez and Tewolde confront plaintiff about her lies, and continued statements against the defendant on Facebook.    Defendant was desperate for a place to live, when $1,124 is what the plaintiff wants back.  Plaintiff moved in with the defendant, found out defendant was in subsidized housing, so she decided not to pay rent, and wants the rent she paid back, plus $5.00 for a Happy Meal. 

Total rent was $700, plus $5.00 for the meal, and $180 for the utilities.   Plaintiff has a disability, and objects to defendant getting everything paid for by others.  However, plaintiff gets everything paid for by other too apparently.  Defendant wants $500 for putting up with plaintiff. 

Plaintiff is still sending out vile allegations about defendant on Facebook.  Plaintiff denies the other conversations aren't hers.  The voicemail with plaintiff is horrible.   

I support the defendant, and can't stand the plaintiff. I would have given the defendant $500 for putting up with plaintiff.  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

“Better Truck Next Time”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 106,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 37, 15 March 2023

 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: When a woman found out her subletter wasn't paying rent because of a government subsidy, she decided it was unfair for herself to have to pay.

This was making me so angry I quit. Two very young women who have figured out how to get other people to support them in their chosen lifestyles. P is "disabled", but not too disabled to hop from place to place, dragging her unfortunate little girl, taking time to get cartoon eyebrows painted on.

Def, for whom English is a second language had no problem working out how to get most of her rent and utilities covered by the taxpayers, and how to move a renter in, (she admits she is not permitted to have renters, but so what?) so Def ends up living virtually for free.  They're both SSMs, of course, deserving of all these handouts.

SSM Plaintiff moves in with her girlfriend. They want to cuddle up in their bed together, so P's daughter has to sleep on the floor, probably witnessing and hearing more than "cuddling". Ugh. It's no biggie, according to P slag. She gave the kid pillows to sleep on! I would be willing to bet that the bed I got for my last dog was better than the one this child was given.

Revolting.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

28 Sept

“Copped at the Beauty Shop”

New, Season 10, Episode  14, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( vs. )

From the show site: A woman is convinced that the stylists at a salon stole her purse. She went there to get dolled up for her anniversary celebration, but a series of mishaps ruined the night. On top of everything, she hated her hairstyle. What proof does she have that it was all the salon's fault? 

(I had to miss the episode for an appointment. Sorry.)

“Bump-Her Car”

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

p. 37, 16 March 2023

Edited September 28, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

29 Sept

“Don’t Vent Just Pay Your Rent”

New, Season 10, Episode 15, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Gregory and Gisella Brett vs. Dennis West and Amber Mittleman (co-tenant of 9 months)

From the show site: After a nine-year tenancy, a man says his landlords became condescending and retaliatory when he fell behind on rent because he was hospitalized. Were the landlords unfair, or were they simply implementing a normal rent increase?

Plaintiffs/landlords are suing former tenant for damages   Defendant a nine-year tenant claims landlords are vindictive, raised his rent without justification, and were demanding he pay rent when he was sick. Defendant has had three roommates over the nine years, and landlords say they only knew about another roommate Sandy, but didn’t have Amber on the lease.

Plaintiff claims bar stools disappeared, and also a smoke detector.   Plaintiff also had to remove marijuana plants that were in the back yard after Dennis moved out. Judge Juarez jumps to the conclusion that tenant removed the plants, because they were removed before the video of damages was filmed.  

Juarez also whines about the eviction moratorium but that expired before the defendant stopped paying rent.  

Plaintiffs get only the $75 for half the value of the bar stools.

“You Cabinet Be Serious”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 158 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 41, 8 August 2023

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/29/2023 at 3:36 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Gregory and Gisella Brett vs. Dennis West and Amber Mittleman (co-tenant of 9 months)

The money-grubbing of the landlords was pretty cringe-worthy. They've raked in over $300,000 from the defendant over the course of his tenancy, but that's not enough and they want money for some ancient, cruddy bar stools and a few marks on the laminate floor.

The griping of the Ps about moving the weed plants - they were in pots and Def removed them so it was hard to believe the other complaints they had.

Yes, Def owed rent, but the place looked pretty good to me, certainly nothing like the utter destruction we've seen that other litigants have done to their rented premises.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 October (Tuesday through Thursday, Baseball playoff games cancel my Hot Bench airings)

“Life’s a Beach”

New, Season 10, Episode 11 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( vs. )

From the show site: A woman says she flew through the air and slid across concrete after a young man on electric scooter collided with her on her electric bike. The guy on the scooter admits he was riding with one hand and smoking a cigarette with the other. So why, in his mind, is he not entirely at fault?

(Sorry, an appointment ran late and I missed it).

“The Father, the Son & the Unpaid Ticket”

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

p. 38, 18 April 2023

[DoctorK]

Crazy, you missed a moderately interesting case. The case was about a collision between an electric bike (plaintiff) and an electric scooter. Defendant lost control for several reasons and he swerved in front of the approaching plaintiff. Defendant admits to being at fault but believes that the defendant ran into his down on the ground scooter and over his own body, and if the plaintiff was paying attention, she had enough time to avoid the collision. Plaintiff has several (conflicting) versions of what happened, some of which made no sense or sounded hard to believe, as pointed out by two of the three judges (guess who was the odd man out). Plaintiff's husband gave a dramatic performance with big histrionic gestures even though he didn't see the accident. He also insisted on calling the defendant's scooter a "motorcycle" and adding that the defendant was wearing a leather jacket (Heaven forbid!). Plaintiff claimed that the defendant ran into her from the side which threw her over her handle bars. The judges start trying to do some accident reconstruction, Tewolde making sense and Corriero showing he never took a high school physics class (shades of JJ?). Two of the judges believed that the defendant's story was consistent and made sense while the plaintiff's story seemed unlikely while Corriero thinks the plaintiff's story makes perfect sense. For me, looking at the plaintiff, I don't believe she would be thrown over the handle bars by anything less than hitting a brick wall at high speed. The plaintiff clearly had significant injuries but I think a lot of the post accident treatment and pain & suffering was either puffing or hypochondria.

Plaintiff gets $5K which seems reasonable and defendant was OK with that,

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Plaintiff gets $5K which seems reasonable and defendant was OK with that,

Thanks. I didn't finish this. Disliked all the litigants, particularly the overly dramatic and grammatically challenged hubby. Disliked the pony-tail boy even more, especially when he admitted he was trying to light a ciggie while driving the scooter so lost control. He says P had a whole 10 seconds to react before he collided with her. Another grown man who can't figure out anything on his own told Daddy his side of the story. Of course, Daddy believes anything his boy tells him and advises him not to pay anything.

As for P "sailing (or flying)  through the air" - yeah, they all say that. I recall on TPC a woman saying she flew through the air and when JM asked her how far, she admitted she didn't fly at all but merely tipped over on her bicycle. I do sympathize if P had bruised ribs. I managed to do that to myself not that long ago.  The pain was astonishing and I thought I was dying.

[AngelaHunter]

"Junior Cobb Johnston III"? It's such a lofty handle for someone who has to scrouge $600 from his desperate little new squeeze. He needed to buy weed with it, you see. At least I think so. My CC kept telling me [mumbling] when he spoke.

Dim girlfriend violated one of the rules of @PsychoKlown: your fake eyelashes shouldn't weigh more than your eyeballs.

I watched this until Papa started. OMG. Papa wants to counsel the idiot and the grifter lovebirds and dredges up a quote for them. And while I'm sure they're familiar with classic works, Papa chooses, "Hell hath no fury..." I got that far before clicking this shit OFF. WTF? Papa needs to GO. Now.

[badhaggis]

6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

"Junior Cobb Johnston III"? It's such a lofty handle for someone who has to scrouge $600 from his desperate little new squeeze. He needed to buy weed with it, you see. At least I think so. My CC kept telling me [mumbling] when he spoke.

Dim girlfriend violated one of the rules of @PsychoKlown: your fake eyelashes shouldn't weigh more than your eyeballs.

I watched this until Papa started. OMG. Papa wants to counsel the idiot and the grifter lovebirds and dredges up a quote for them. And while I'm sure they're familiar with classic works, Papa chooses, "Hell hath no fury..." I got that far before clicking this shit OFF. WTF? Papa needs to GO. Now.

Did you notice Papa Mike has something wrong with his left eye? It is hard to tell what exactly is going on. It could be a sty or pink eye.

[AngelaHunter]

55 minutes ago, badhaggis said:

Did you notice Papa Mike has something wrong with his left eye?

I didn't notice. I was too busy rolling my own eyes at his nonsense.

[badhaggis]

1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't notice. I was too busy rolling my own eyes at his nonsense.

That is my usual response too! It was like a needle scratch moment and all I could do was stare at the eye he was trying so desperately to hide! 

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Dim girlfriend violated one of the rules of @PsychoKlown: your fake eyelashes shouldn't weigh more than your eyeballs.

Actually, I thought I coined the eyeball part of this a couple of years ago. Psycho, I apologize for plagiarizing your rule without a proper citation.

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/4/2023 at 10:04 PM, DoctorK said:

Actually, I thought I coined the eyeball part of this a couple of years ago. Psycho, I apologize for plagiarizing your rule without a proper citation.

Oh, did you? Sorry if I gave it the wrong attribution. I get confused easily and my memory is utter crap.😄

[badhaggis]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, did you? Sorry if I gave it the wrong attribution. I get confused easily and my memory is utter crap.😄

Join the club! I keep telling my hubby that menopause brain is a real thing!

Boy Papa Mike was twisting himself into knots to not hold the defendant liable for driving her car. Technically when an accident happens you can go after the car owner/renter and the driver (licensed insurance agent since 2001). I'm not sure why the judges were having such a problem understanding that. The car was left where her brother had access to it.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 October

“The Long-Term Tenant”

New, Season 10, Episode  15, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Rene Manzanares vs. Jose Melendez)

From the show site: A twenty-year tenant left an unbelievable amount of refuse on the property when he moved out. He says trash was included in his rent; but rotten food in the fridge, furniture in the garage, an inoperable vehicle?

Is that really covered by the monthly trash bill? The landlord says no. (My view, no it wasn't included). 

Plaintiff/former landlord suing defendant / former tenant for trashing his rental property, damages, trash removal, and not normal wear and tear. Trash included mountains of garbage, an abandoned vehicle, and the refigerator was left behind, and still full of rotting food, a garage full of junk.  The old car is claimed to belong to another former roommate, not the defendant.   There were also 'guests' of defendant who weren't on the lease, and never paid rent to plaintiff. 

Defendant moved out after a 60-day notice from plaintiff. 

Plaintiff says the "guest tenants" were paying rent to defendant, and never to plaintiff.  They did start paying plaintiff rent after defendant left, and that's when plaintiff found out the other tenants were paying Melendez, thinking he was paying plaintiff. 

Juarez says moving after 20-years within 60 days is a tremendous burden.  No it isn't. 

$3243 to plaintiff for trash removal. 

 

“A Messy Move”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 154 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 40, 25 July 2023

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/6/2023 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: A twenty-year tenant left an unbelievable amount of refuse on the property when he moved out.

That Def was such a slimy creep with a major attitude problem. He grandstands with sweeping gestures, emphatically insisting that he always paid his rent, as though that was a big favour to the landlord. Yeah, that's what you're supposed to do and it doesn't call for applause.

Dirty and lazy, he left a ton of disgusting crap in his wake, but none of it is his fault. The parade of transient "roommates" (some of them "problematic" - I bet)he dredged up from somewhere is to blame for the ton of filth, rotting food, and the inoperable heap left behind. Yeah, he's a regular paragon.

I love how the creep in the hall whines about how money-hungry the P is - all he cares about is money! Well, yes. Renting premises is his business so of course he wants to get paid, you smarmy jerk. Oh, the landlord was so terrible, so greedy Def only stayed there for 20 years.

Judge J thinks that a broken window is "normal wear and tear"? Really? Not once have I smashed any windows in any apartments or in the houses in which I've lived. How on earth is that "normal"?

On 10/6/2023 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Juarez says moving after 20-years within 60 days is a tremendous burden.  No it isn't. 

That was a head-scratcher. That's two months to get out of the foul little nest, and it looks as though he left behind a ton of junk and trash he didn't want anyway. How long does JJ think he should have been given - six months?

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 October

“Chip off the Mold Block”

New, Season 10, Episode 15  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( vs. )

From the show site: A young woman brought tenants into her mother's house without her knowledge, and a nightmare ensued. The tenants withheld rent due to unresolved mold and plumbing problems, and now they're suing for damaged property and medical bills. Has the young landlady learned her lesson?

(Sorry, I had an urgent appointment, and had to miss this. )

 

“Ex Appeal”

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

p. 38, 28 April 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

10 October

“What the Truck”

New, Season 10, Episode  16 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Jayden Heitz vs. Tyler Shuman )

From the show site: A truck has been passed around within this circle - from brother, to girlfriend, to childhood friend... But when the final owner tried to get it registered, he discovered there was no VIN. Hurtful words were exchanged, and everyone's pointing fingers. Is the deal too complicated to be undone?

Unfortunately, defendant brokered a deal between plaintiff and defendant's girlfriend, Morgan to transfer plaintiff's Jeep for a truck the girlfriend owned.  Truck had no VIN number, so it couldn't be registered.   Plaintiff is suing for $4800.  Defendant girlfrind says she bought truck for transportation didn't like it, and traded it to plaintiff.    Defendant Shuman says he only brokered the deal, he knew nothing about the registration. Shuman claims his brother had the truck registered, and plaintiff claims there is no VIN number.   

Michaela Price, plaintiff's witness, took the truck in to get it inspected, but since the VIN number can't be found, it can't be registered. 

Defendant says it wasn't his truck, and plaintiff should settle this with girlfriend who has the Jeep.  

Plaintiff wants the deal refunded, and nullified, and he will get the Jeep back. 

Judges would like to undo the deal, but can't.   So. decision is plaintiff gets $1750 refund and keeps the truck. 

“Dreading the Lock Refund”

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

p. 38, 17 April 2023

 

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Jayden Heitz vs. Tyler Shuman )

What a bunch of dodos.  I just love this ridiculous swapping and dealing and bartering of old heaps. Jayden, with the broccoli hairdo, buys an old truck from Mr. Shuman's g/f who never really owned it. His idiotic girlfriend "Morgan" appears here in her best low-cut little black dress showing way too much droopy boobage. She needed a vehicle, doesn't like trucks, and doesn't like driving them because they're too big so of course, she buys one but just never drives it. Yeah, I don't drive standard and it's too much trouble to learn, but I bought a standard car and just leave it in my driveway as an ornament.  Morgan's  "man", the moon-faced Shuman, drives her absolutely everywhere. He IS the man, after all.

Shuman gets more high-pitched as he describes how P used bad language and threatened him (with court) when he found out the heap had no VIN, so refused to tell him it was broken off and in the glove compartment. "I'm A MAN" declares Shuman. Um, if you say so, even if you look and act like a giant baby. I guess real men are all about getting the "So there! Nyah nyah!" moment.

And then we hear P bought some other vehicle from his grammy, and I don't know. I gave up this stupid nonsense where all these morons declare, "Not MY fault!"

Michaela, Hunter, Morgan, Tyler, Jayden - perfect.

[CrazyInAlabama]

11 October

“Eviction Friction”

New, Season 10, Episode 17 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Roger and Kelly Quinlan  vs.   Dennis Barrom Stinson and Jackelyn Emanuel)

From the show site: Trouble with the IRS interfered with these tenants' ability to pay rent, and they moved out early leaving damages according to the homeowners. Can the plaintiffs' response be labeled harassment, or just an appropriate level of pressure to pay? 

Rent was $3200 on a two-year lease.    Defendant says he had issues with the IRS, frozen accounts, etc.   After two months of no rent received, Roger Quinlan gave a notice to leave to defendant Dennis.   When Quinlan took the notice to serve on tenant, he saw defendant Stinson was packing everything.   Right after this the defendants sent a notice they're moving.  Landlord says when defendants moved out he discovered the defendants were buying a house instead of paying rent.

Defendants owed three months rent when they moved out with only a few days notice.   The defendants also have many differing timelines of when they'll move out, and when they'll repay rent. 

As Judge Tewolde says, how did the defendants buy a new house when they claim their accounts were frozen by the IRS?   Defendant Stinson claims he bought the new house with his VA benefits, no money down.  But you still have to qualify. 

Corriero must be sick, he sounds horrible.    Not stopping him from siding with the deadbeat tenants.  The tenants owe for three months rent, minus security, an unpaid water bill for almost $500.   A damaged garage door.  

Plaintiffs only want $300 for damages, and back rent.  

$4,000 to plaintiffs. 

 

“We Had a Deal”

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

p. 37, 10 April 2023

Edited October 11, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[badhaggis]

43 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

11 October

“Eviction Friction”

New, Season 10, Episode 17 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Roger and Kelly Quinlan  vs.   Dennis Barrom Stinson and Jackelyn Emanuel)

From the show site: Trouble with the IRS interfered with these tenants' ability to pay rent, and they moved out early leaving damages according to the homeowners. Can the plaintiffs' response be labeled harassment, or just an appropriate level of pressure to pay? 

Rent was $3200 on a two-year lease.    Defendant says he had issues with the IRS, frozen accounts, etc.   After two months of no rent received, Roger Quinlan gave a notice to leave to defendant Dennis.   When Quinlan took the notice to serve on tenant, he saw defendant Stinson was packing everything.   Right after this the defendants sent a notice they're moving.  Landlord says when defendants moved out he discovered the defendants were buying a house instead of paying rent.

Defendants owed three months rent when they moved out with only a few days notice.   The defendants also have many differing timelines of when they'll move out, and when they'll repay rent. 

As Judge Tewolde says, how did the defendants buy a new house when they claim their accounts were frozen by the IRS?   Defendant Stinson claims he bought the new house with his VA benefits, no money down.  But you still have to qualify. 

Corriero must be sick, he sounds horrible.    Not stopping him from siding with the deadbeat tenants.  The tenants owe for three months rent, minus security, an unpaid water bill for almost $500.   A damaged garage door.  

Plaintiffs only want $300 for damages, and back rent.  

$4,000 to plaintiffs. 

 

“We Had a Deal”

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

p. 37, 10 April 2023

Corriero most definitely has something going on. His left eye looked infected then it looked like that side of his face was swollen and red. He did look a bit better yesterday.  

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Trouble with the IRS interfered with these tenants' ability to pay rent, and they moved out early leaving damages according to the homeowners.

I'm now liking Judge T the best here. She gave those two Defs a good spanking for their "Oh, poor little us! Big mean landlords pressured us so badly by asking if we might pay our rent anytime soon." More tenants bragging about actually paying rent and JT informs them they get no kudos for doing what they agreed to do. She also forced them to admit the Plaintiffs were more than patient and understanding. Well, when they weren't "pressuring" the Defs.

Just once, when we get that same old phony "My account was frozen" excuse I wish a judge would ask for proof of that. It sounds like convenient BS to me.

I'm glad the P's got everything they asked for. I hope they learned the ol' "No good deed" rule and won't be so kind to ingrates who stiff them in the future.

Papa Mike sounds like he has a sore throat/laryngitis, maybe? I recall getting sick many years ago with a horrible sore throat accompanied by an eye infection.

[DoctorK]

7 hours ago, badhaggis said:

His left eye looked infected then it looked like that side of his face was swollen and red.

I noticed that, but it looked to me like he had a lot of makeup applied over the left side of his dace and around the eye. I think it looks like he has a major black eye that has been sort of covered up. He could have fallen or walked into a door. However, I would like to think that one of the other judges got so sick of his bleeding heart babbling that she let him have it with a good right hook.

[CrazyInAlabama]

12 October

“What a Cartastrophe”

New, Season 10, Episode 18 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( vs. )

From the show site: A nurse sustained a broken neck and jaw in a horrible car accident. Now the friend who sold her the car is suing her for the remainder of the unpaid balance. Both parties suffer from memory loss due to medical conditions. How will the judges determine what happened and who's in the wrong?

Plaintiff suing defendant for the last payments, defendant/buyer claims it was fraud, but no proof of that. Plaintiff gets $2980 for the unpaid balance of the vehicle.  I missed most of this case, but plaintiff gets $2980, and in the hall-terview claims she should have been awarded more.

(I missed almost all of this case, see DoctorK's excellent recap)

“Double Damage”

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

p. 37, 11 April 2023

Edited October 17, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

To me this was another uncomfortable case to watch. I understand that the defendant had major injuries from the accident that totaled the car, but some of her testimony sounded sort of off. She claimed that the car she bought was a salvage title but she wasn't told, but I don't see that that has anything to do with the case. The plaintiff found out the defendant's insurance paid off the car to the defendant for $5500 but the defendant "doesn't remember" getting it. I understand that she had a lot on her mind after the accident but $5500 is pretty memorable. Her story about losing her nursing license by not getting a $50 renewal fee in on time so she has to go back to college and start training all over doesn't sound right. I don't disbelieve her but she mentioned several other things gone wrong in her life (such as no medical payment from the insurance company because the accident was caused by weather conditions (?), and nurse with no medical insurance (not even subsidized ACA coverage (since she sound like she is living hand to mouth)) is surprising for a medical professional. I would have liked to know more about her professional status because "nurse" can mean many different things, and the income can range from fairly well paid for RNs (which comes along with high stress and horrible hours) to nursing assistants who tend to get meager pay and few or no benefits. Actually, the judges came up with exactly the verdict I would have given, plaintiff is due the unpaid balance on the car sale (based on sale price, not the $5500 the insurance and taking into account the $1200 already paid): Sorry for all the bad things that the defendant suffered (through no fault of the plaintiff) but that doesn't wipe out the debt she owed on the car. The plaintiff gets what she was owed and the defendant keeps the $5500 from the insurance company.

Edited October 12, 2023 by DoctorK
botched cut and paste

[CrazyInAlabama]

Thanks for posting that DoctorK, again I have been put behind on viewing because I have no recording capabilities (until I move home and hook up the TV/internet), and trying to get appliances or anything else is difficult, mostly because stores are having issues finding staff. 

In the case today, I found it ridiculous that plaintiff had the car value paid off, but she still wanted more money.     

13 October

“Breast Side Story”

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

p. 38, 1 May 2023

From the show site: A baby got burned by an apple pie, and the two women who were supposed to be watching him launched into a fist fight. Now one is suing the other for damage to her breast implant. She says her job requires her to "shine like a perfect light in the mirror." But her demeanor in court is far from perfect.

This is the one where the plaintiff claims defendant deliberately attacked her breasts, which were two of the wonders of the world.

 

“Friction Among Frat”

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

p. 38, 25 April 2023

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Do not use highly gendered insults such as skank, slut, ho, and whore. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

16 October

“Cheaper by the Cousin”

New, Season 10, Episode  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Marcos Shagun vs.Armando Sahagun )

From the show site: These cousins were as close as brothers, but moving in together pushed them further apart. One cousin says he's owed money for back rent and damages; the other can't believe their relationship turned so formal and transactional. Will they ever speak to each other again after this?

Plaintiff is suing cousin / defendant for unpaid rent, and payments for a car.  Plaintiff wants $5,000.   Defendant claims he was only behind on one month's rent, and made most of the car payments.  

Juarez says telling defendant to leave was an unlawful eviction, and an illegal lockout.  All three judges do everything they can to give the most favoritism to the defendant. 

Plaintiff receives $4000, only for the rent and the car, not the damages or other utilities. 

 

“Clipper Slipper”

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

p. 38, 24 April 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

17 October

“No Free Rent!”

New, Season 10, Episode  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( vs. ) (See Angela Hunter's thorough recap of this case)

From the show site: A tarot reader was evicted and served legal papers by their building manager, who was in his underwear and crying. They never could have foretold that happening - but they had to know the landlord would come after the unpaid rent. What verdict do the cards hold for this unfortunate ex-tenant?

(I missed this one, it looks like an interesting one too). 

“Not 50/50”

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

p. 38, 26 April 2023

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama