Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

49 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A tarot reader was evicted and served legal papers by their building manager, who was in his underwear and crying

I never saw this. It was all about COVID and repayment of rent owed. I enjoyed the fact that all the parties were civil and polite.  Jerome, the landlord, and his property manager, Henry, were kind of odd. Jerome says, that yes - he did a walk-through of def, Madeline's apartment but only after she left.

He wants money to paint, as he says a wall of the place that was painted a "different colour".  It took a lot of questioning by JT to get Henry to say it was pink. Jerome says he never saw it himself, but someone told him that. Madeline says it was like that when she moved in. I believe Henry was in his underdrawers and crying when he handed her the legal papers in the laundry room. Henry is a little... different.

I think Henry and maybe Jerome too were infatuated with the young, pretty def, and her slightly Margaux Hemmingway (circa 1987) looks.  That didn't stop Jerome from trying to nail her for a complete paint job and trash removal when she'd lived there less than one year.

Def usually works as a hostess in restaurants but says she has an LLC for her tarot reading business. According to her, Henry told her she could just pay whatever and whenever she could. I believe he told her that, maybe through his tears.

Papa Mike compliments Jerome for not breaking the law. How come no one praises me for not breaking the law?

Anyway, Jerome gets some $4,500 for the rent owed but not the painting or trash.

I really like how sharp JT is.

[CrazyInAlabama]

17 October

“Unprovided Services”

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

(Pamela Agramont vs. Miguel Centeno Sr )

From the show site: Plaintiff hired a man from Craigslist to prepare documentation for her family law case. At the outset he told her, "I will take you to the end of the rainbow as a victor." But after taking her money, he decided her case was too complicated and "too depressing." Was his initial optimism appropriate, or misleading?

Plaintiff is suing defendant for $1500 for return of his fees, for legal work that plaintiff claims defendant never performed.   Plaintiff claims defendant promised a refund, but never paid plaintiff back.  Defendant also claims the entire amount was $3,000, and $1,500 was only a deposit. Defendant claims the case was too complex and depressing to complete the work.  

Judge Juarez reams defendant out for his promise of legal services he wasn't able to perform.   She also says an attorney in California can't charge more than $1,000 without a written contract, but litigants never had a written contract.   Defendant is a licensed attorney in Mexico, not California.  Judge J also says defendant was only a legal document preparer, not a licensed California attorney. 

Defendant says case is too complex, and depressing to process the case, with all of the paperwork needed.  

Corriero is steamed at defendant, and so is Tewolde.  Defendant says his criteria for taking on clients is 'optimism'.  Tewolde rips defendant a new one at the statement "I will take you to the end of the rainbow as a victor."

Plaintiff receives $1,500. 

“Wrecked & Robbed”

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

p. 38, 21 April 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

17 October

“Unprovided Services”

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

( vs. )

From the show site: A woman hired a man from Craigslist to prepare documentation for her family law case. At the outset he told her, "I will take you to the end of the rainbow as a victor." But after taking her money, he decided her case was too complicated and "too depressing." Was his initial optimism appropriate, or misleading?

 

“Wrecked & Robbed”

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

p. 38, 21 April 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

19 October

“Improper Property Removal”

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

(Kenyai Mayes vs. Mark Dryburgh)

From the show site: A woman claims her landlord disposed of her furniture after she accidentally locked herself out of the house. He says he made every effort to let her back in, but she disappeared for over thirty days. Does Georgia law allow him to take possession of a tenant's property if he determines the rental is abandoned?

Plaintiff/former tenant suing defendant/former landlord for her property, $5,000

Plaintiff daughter, Mikayla Mayes, was offered money by defendant to remove property, but she didn't answer. 

Plaintiff claims she locked herself out, and defendant refused to meet with her, and let her back in, she also locked herself out of her car too. 

Defendant filed two evictions against plaintiff, but first was dismissed because plaintiff paid her back rent, and the second case was dismissed because defendant already had possession of the property.  

Plaintiff says her phone was disabled except for emergency calls for six months, except for the few days she sent texts to the defendant.  Defendant has multiple texts to plaintiff and her daughter offering to meet her to get her back in the house to pick her property and car up, but neither person answered him. 

Plaintiff also was involuntarily committed for mental health reasons, and claim she has no issues, but that prevented her from getting her property back. 

Defendant says plaintiff owed back rent, and after 30 days, he cleaned out the property, and disposed of it in accordance with Georgia landlord/tenant laws.  Electricity was also cut off for non-payment. 

Under Georgia laws, apartments are abandoned after 30 days, and landlord can cancel the lease.   

Corriero wants to give plaintiff back $2500, Tewolde wants to give back $5,000, Juarez says landlord followed Georgia law, and landlord wasn't required to endlessly store according to Corriero.

Juarez dissents, and says plaintiff deserves nothing.   Tewolde and Corriero give plaintiff $5,000. 

So, $3130 to plaintiff, minus the counter claim amount from defendant. 

 

I wouldn't have given plaintiff a dime, she abandoned the property, never made any attempt to get her furniture back, and the daughter didn't either.  I think it's outrageous that Corriero says landlords should store abandoned property for months beyond what the law requires. 

“It’s My Cousin’s Bill Not Mine”

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

p. 38, 20 April 2023

[patty1h]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I wouldn't have given plaintiff a dime, she abandoned the property, never made any attempt to get her furniture back, and the daughter didn't either.  I think it's outrageous that Corriero says landlords should store abandoned property for months beyond what the law requires. 

I bailed just before the verdict and seeing your recap surprised me... I didn't think that the plaintiff deserved anything.   The landlord seemed willing to work with both women but their phones were unreachable, which I find suspect.  I'm on the side of the landlord - he followed the law.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A woman claims her landlord disposed of her furniture after she accidentally locked herself out of the house.

Ms. Mayes certainly indulges her expensive tastes. Not a single shred of proof of any kind of what anything cost, of course, so the judges will take her word for it.

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Juarez dissents, and says plaintiff deserves nothing.   Tewolde and Corriero give plaintiff $5,000. 

I'm glad I bailed on this before the deliberations. I had a feeling it was going this way.

What was the daughter wearing? Lingerie from Victoria's Secret?

[CrazyInAlabama]

20 October

“Baaad Blood”

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

p. 39, 10 May 2023

From the show site: "Baa baa black sheep, have you any wool?" Not since the neighbor's German shepherds allegedly jumped the fence and decimated the flock. The neighbor says his dogs didn't do it; but there's been a black bear sighted in the area, and he wouldn't put it PASTURE. Is the bear the culprit? (A definite case to skip)

“Whomever Dealt it Smelt It”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  128Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 38, 27 April 2023

 

 

 

[Paperclips]

Anytime ANY of these show starts showing and animal cases, I cannot turn the channel fast enough.  

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Paperclips said:

Anytime ANY of these show starts showing and animal cases, I cannot turn the channel fast enough.  

Me too. I don't even need to know what it's about. The second I hear cat, dog, hamster, even FISH, I hit FF with my eyes averted.

Edited October 20, 2023 by AngelaHunter
Because "eyes" and "ears" are separate body parts.

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/18/2023 at 3:31 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: A woman hired a man from Craigslist to prepare documentation for her family law case. At the outset he told her, "I will take you to the end of the rainbow as a victor."

I just watched this. Wow, this was the best lawyer (or document preparer) ever. By that, I mean the best court show legal beagle, and by that, I mean the best of the worst Craigslist finds.

He works on optimism, hassles, and cash - no contracts. He takes on only uplifting and/or fun clients and not depressing ones. He knew within two hours that he could never handle this case, but still spent 10 hours reading it over and over - knowing he couldn't do it - just so he could keep the $1500. Hey, he spent it! What's the problem? 😄

[CrazyInAlabama]

23 October

“Don’t Play-Date Me”

From the show site: A playdate organized by two young mothers turned ugly fast. Their anger escalated into a confrontation involving pepper spray and a candy bar jammed into a gas tank. The defendant claims the vandalism wasn't her; it must have been another one of the plaintiff's many alleged enemies.”

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

(Arianna Garrett vs. Ebony Williams)

Plaintiff says fight started after her kid's father wanted to take the child for the afternoon, and only two of her kids were going and the ages didn't match up with defendant's kid.  So defendant cancelled the playdate.  However, defendant says plaintiff didn't cancel the playdate, she just didn't show up or tell defendant she wasn't coming.     So, after the failed playdate a Facebook war started, and plaintiff went to defendant's house.  Then plaintiff claims defendant pulled out pepper spray and accidentally sprayed her own kids. 

That evening defendant and friends went to plaintiff's house and that's when the Snickers bar was shoved in the gas tank, tire popping happened.    Plaintiff claims she witnessed defendant vandalizing her car.  Plaintiff claims defendant popped her tires. 

Defendant swears she was home asleep, not at plaintiff's making car scratches, Snickers bar, tire popping, and other actions.   

Why couldn't we have a video of the fights?   

Judge Tewolde asks defendant what else is involved more than breaking a playdate.   Defendant says this all started with the playdate, and then mentions the defendant's kid's dad boinked the plaintiff.   

Plaintiff was 'speaking' with defendant's child's father, but she didn't sleep with him.    Defendant says she doesn't know who vandalized the plaintiff's vehicle, but says plaintiff has a lot of enemies.   Plaintiff's car was totaled from the Snickers in the gas tank causing major damages. 

Plaintiff's cousin, Ariona, says defendant is very aggressive, and says defendant was banging on plaintiff's door demanding plaintiff come out and talk to her. 

Plaintiff says defendant has a history of damaging other people's cars. 

Vehicle inspection report is $1800 for paint scratches, $2500 for the Snickers bar in the gas tank damages, plus other damages adding up to plaintiff's claim for $5,000.   

Judge Juarez says the case comes down to the burden of proof.  Since it's a civil case, the burden of proof isn't as great as in a criminal case. 

Plaintiff receives $4,370. 

“It All Evens Out in the End”

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

p. 37, 4 April 2023

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A playdate organized by two young mothers turned ugly fast. Their anger escalated into a confrontation involving pepper spray and a candy bar jammed into a gas tank.

I haven't watched it, but I would find that hilarious if not for the kids who look to "they who bore them" as role models.

[CrazyInAlabama]

24 October (personal note, because I’m moving, I may be off line until Friday, but hopefully not. ).   

“Counter Intelligence”

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

(Mary Abrahamson vs. Jamie Vallieres)

From the show site:   A homeowner hired a handyman to build a butcherblock countertop for her kitchen - even though, according to her, he'd BUTCHERED several projects in her home before. She hired him again because she "felt sorry for him," but now she accuses him of stealing her deposit and being involved in a check washing scheme against her.

Plaintiff hired defendant handyman to do concrete counter tops, but defendant never finished the job.   Defendant says plaintiff wouldn't decide on a style and color, and she prevented him from completing the job.   However, plaintiff said earlier jobs he did for her were botched, but she hired him later anyway.  (This happened in Reno).   Casey Saint-Martin is plaintiff's witness, and defendant's former employee.  

Plaintiff paid $2500 deposit.   Total job was $6,000.    Defendant claims plaintiff didn't pick colors or other details, but she claims she told him exactly what she wanted from the beginning.   

Plaintiff claims the second check for $4500 is presented as evidence, but she says the bank said the check is check washed.   She claims defendant' s buddy from prison check washed the check and made it out for a higher amount. 

The alleged check washer is an associate of defendant.

Plaintiff is suing for $2500 for the down payment, because the $4,500 check is being investigated by the bank and police. 

Corriero is irate because of plaintiff's threats to retaliate against defendant.  Then plaintiff witness contradicts defendant's testimony about the cost of materials defendant purchased, Saint-Martin says only $100 to $200 was spent on materials for plaintiff's counter tops. 

Plaintiff receives $1500  , because judges want to give defendant $1,000 for work completed. 

“Jacked-On-All-Trades”

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

p. 41, 7 August 2023

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Mary Abrahamson vs. Jamie Vallieres)

That was fun. Ms. Abrahamson is a masochist. She hires Jamie from a neighbourhood site to do some chores for her. He put up shelves in her closet but hammered nails in the drywall(!) so of course, the shelves fell down. He installed three electrical outlets in a row and they are all crooked. I could do better!

After this stellar example of his skills, what does she do? She then hires him - again! - to make a concrete countertop on her kitchen island, put the island on wheels, and repair the flooring under it. This was to cost $6,000, which seems astronomical to me, as did his outrageous exaggeration of the hours he worked - 120. His former partner says more like 20 hours.

P expected someone who literally couldn't successfully put up a shelf to do a perfect job on the island. He was broke, owed child support, and some other complaints so Ms. A felt sorry for him.  I'm not sure why she felt she was responsible for supporting him.

The best part was in the hall when Ms.A said he'd been charged with some sort of crime before.

He said, "Nothing stuck".  He may as well have added, "I'm a crook but I've been lucky."

 

ETA: @CrazyInAlabama Just saw the moving comment. I hope it goes smoothly and you didn't hire "some guys" you saw landscaping your neighbour's yard to do it!😄

Edited October 25, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[Gramto6]

Newbie to this show... I have a question that may be dumb, but I have never been in any situation like portrayed in these episodes. How do the winners actually get their money?  Are the loser's wages attached or checking/savings accounts?  Just sort of curious do the winners actually get their $$?

[patty1h]

Today's case with the plaintiff who underwent IVF treatment made me angry.  The plaintiff wanted to have a child so badly that she let a dude who already had three kids impregnate her and then expected him to step up and be responsible. After she lost the child, she wanted him to pay for half of the medical bills.  From the defendant's explanation, he was in the role of sperm donor, not daddy.

I think she should not expect anything - we're no longer in the age when a woman should expect a man she's not married/in a committed relationship with to be responsible for her decision/desire to be a mother. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

17 hours ago, Gramto6 said:

Newbie to this show... I have a question that may be dumb, but I have never been in any situation like portrayed in these episodes. How do the winners actually get their money?  Are the loser's wages attached or checking/savings accounts?  Just sort of curious do the winners actually get their $$?

My understanding is the show pays the awards.    They are technically mediators, so they can't garnish wages, or do liens.   

Many shows used to have a $5,000 fund, and the awards came out of that, and the two litigants split the remainder, but that encouraged cases just for the appearance and trip to the filming location, so I don't know of any show where they still split the remainder after the award.  

[AngelaHunter]

14 hours ago, patty1h said:

Today's case with the plaintiff who underwent IVF treatment made me angry. 

I see I was right to skip this. I knew I wouldn't like it. If single women make the decision to have a baby with just anyone because "I want". Does she really think some loser who already has 3 kids and probably doesn't pay for them, and then is irresponsible enough to knock up yet another woman will pay for hers? So many of the SSM here seem to think that they're so special - more special than the sperm donor's first batch of kids.

Just in general and not referring to this particular case:

"Yes, I know he's a jailbird who beat her up, left her with 3 children, can't keep a job, and won't pay for his own kids but it will be different with me."

[patty1h]

Just to add to the story of the IVF case, it got more complicated.  I left out the fact that after the plaintiff lost the fetus she'd been carrying she had the child cremated.  The plaintiff said that the "father" got some of the ashes and she also wanted him to pay for some ash-holder pendants she purchased.  She also brought to court a teddy bear that held some ashes.  In the plaintiffs reasoning, the fact that the father wouldn't give her back the ashes proved that he knew he should help foot the hospital bills - HIS child = HIS responsibility to help pay.

The bitter plaintiff also threw in that the guy had asked her out to a movie at one point, which was supposed to illustrate that he had feelings for her and saw her more than just someone who wanted to have a child - he also saw her as a possible partner.  She said he accused her of sleeping with someone else, and questioned why would he do if he just wanted to be a "donor".  She just made herself look stupid for making this "arrangement" into a fantasy that a baby would suddenly make this a viable relationship.

I turned it off before the end, but I am curious what the judges did... what was their verdict (and I can guess how Corriero voted).

Edited October 26, 2023 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

(this may be a little rough, I have my Roku TV, with my Spectrum TV app, and it's all confusing to me.  So far I have no idea how to record, or do almost anything else so far. ) 

“All Bite No Bark”

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

(Lance Lope vs. DeShun Wells )

From the show site:  A man's midnight jog on the beach with his Chihuahua turned scary when a 110-pound Akita attacked! The Akita owner refuses to pay the vet bill, claiming it was only a scratch. Can he convince the judges that the Chihuahua owner opened his own dog's wounds?

Plaintiff and dog Aria were out running, and defendant's Akita attacked his dog,   Defendant refuses to pay anything, because he saw no wounds or blood, so he thinks the plaintiff is lying to make money.   

Defendant claims plaintiff and dog out running caused his 'service' dog to attack.   Despicable defense by the defendant, claiming the plaintiff was making his dog's wound worse.   Defendant says his sworn statement doesn't matter.   Judge Tewolde gets irate with the defendant. 

Plaintiff says dog wasn't on leash, but leash got loose from defendant too.   

Vet bills $1733, to plaintiff.

“Deposit Debacle”

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

p. 39, 19 May 2023

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

She just made herself look stupid for making this "arrangement" into a fantasy that a baby would suddenly make this a viable relationship.

Why not? Isn't that the way all the other SSMs on these shows feel? The age-old cry of, "I thought he would change!"

Saying "I found out I was pregnant" (what a shock when you're rutting bareback with some guy who asked you to a movie)will instantly result in a fairytale Happily Ever After.

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

what was their verdict (and I can guess how Corriero voted).

I wonder if he started talking to her as though she's a 6-year-old who skinned her knee and ranted that the poor little thing was taken advantage of, used, and abused?

[Shrek]

On 10/26/2023 at 6:51 AM, AngelaHunter said:

I see I was right to skip this. I knew I wouldn't like it. If single women make the decision to have a baby with just anyone because "I want". Does she really think some loser who already has 3 kids and probably doesn't pay for them, and then is irresponsible enough to knock up yet another woman will pay for hers? So many of the SSM here seem to think that they're so special - more special than the sperm donor's first batch of kids.

Just in general and not referring to this particular case:

"Yes, I know he's a jailbird who beat her up, left her with 3 children, can't keep a job, and won't pay for his own kids but it will be different with me."

Sounds like an episode of the Kardashians & one in particular who has 2 kids by a non child support paying basketball player who already has at least one kid with another female that he seems to think doesn't exist. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

27 October

“Door Jam”

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

(Victoria Stevenson vs. Todd Jacobs)

From the show site: A woman cleaning her car left her doors open into the street, and a man driving by hit one. She claims he should have seen the open doors - but was she negligent in leaving them open under California law? The judges debate the issue over who's more at fault.

Plaintiff suing defendant for $727 for hitting the driver's side doors on her car.   She was cleaning her car out, was parked on  in the complex parking lot   Plaintiff claims after defendant hit her car, he kept on going. 

Defendant found out his insurance expired the day of the accident, and he claims he was willing to pay for the accident until he researched the law in his jurisdiction.   He claims her car doors open in the driving lane impeded traffic.  Speed limit on the road is 25 m.p.h.   

Judge Juarez explains the California vehicle code, and plaintiff violated the law. Defendant paid the $2200 for his vehicle out of his own pocket.   

As always, Corriero takes the plaintiff's side, and wants to blame the defendant. 

Plaintiff gets nothing.  Juarez and Tewolde took defendant's side.  

 

“Paid in Bull”

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

p. 39, 18 May 2023

[DoctorK]

Today’s case was a little messy. Defendant should have been able to see the car doors open. However, the plaintiff was breaking the law by having her car doors open out into the traffic lane which is explicitly illegal in California. The plaintiff annoyed me on several things. She apparently doesn’t know the word “yes” but “uh huh” is her standard answer. She thinks it is perfectly OK for her to have her car doors open into traffic while she cleans her car, but at one point she claims the doors weren’t open all the way, which I don’t believe is true while she was cleaning out her car, while cleaning out your car you usually have to have the doors wide open. She claimed that the street is wide and showed a picture that (as one judge pointed out) showed that it wasn’t very wide and with her doors open a full sized car would have to cross over the yellow line to avoid her doors. She also came across as sort of snotty and entitled to me. In this situation I think both parties have some level of fault and I would have split the fault 70/30 against the plaintiff. Corriero continues to be an ass. The final verdict is to dismiss the plaintiff’s case because of her having her doors open into a traffic lane. They noted that the defendant didn’t counter sue to conclude that if they hit the defendant with 30% liability on the plaintiff’s claims while he gets nothing would be unfair. The plaintiff in her hallterview confirmed her snootiness (head back and talking down her nose) and sense of entitlement to my mind. As always, YMMV. Any bets on whether or not the plaintiff will continue to open her car doors wide into the traffic lane whenever convenient for her?

I will say that even though I disliked the plaintiff, both litigants were polite and no one got nasty.

 

[AngelaHunter]

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

Paid in Bull”

That was entertaining. P is a stage manager and he's really good since he's been doing this for 30 years and goes to jobs where God sends him. So many litigants seem to believe God runs an employment agency.

Anyway, def, who says "To be honest" way too many times hired the P previously and he did a horrible job. So naturally, she hires him again and says he did nothing at all for the week, just hung around asking one of the actresses if he could help her get dressed and stuff like that.

Yes, P got a contract by email but never did anything with it. He thinks he worked "maybe, about 30 hours". Def has no idea - no records, no contracts, etc -  and doesn't care since he did absolutely nothing. The judges want to know why she didn't just fire him, which is what a reasonable person would have done.

She was too busy to say the words, "You're fired" as that would take too long, so just ignored the whole thing and let him goof off all day. Very professional bunch.

Anyway, the judges award him what he wants, some $1100. Papa dissents and in this case he may have been right.

Def had a particularly nasty, scraggly, long purple wig.

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/27/2023 at 5:38 PM, DoctorK said:

Defendant should have been able to see the car doors open. However, the plaintiff was breaking the law by having her car doors open out into the traffic lane which is explicitly illegal in California

Finally watched this. Judge Judy needs to inform these judges that "Yep" and "Uh huh" are not answers. I think I might have yelled it myself.

The ditzy snowflake plaintiff was so annoying, acting as though it was her right to keep her car doors open on the traffic side.  But, oh - cars have plenty of room so they can just go around her. Well, unless another car is coming in the opposite direction, but still, that's not her problem. She always does this.  Not an ounce of common sense, and I'm glad JJ gave her a little talking-to about that.

Def was just as annoying, with the old, "My insurance expired the day before the accident" schtick. I've had auto insurance way longer than he's been alive and never has my carrier sneakily stopped covering me with no notice. There are plenty of notices, by snail mail or email - usually a month or two ahead -  that you need to pay. He didn't pay and it got cancelled. He thought he was cute with his giggling. Not so.

How could he not see opened car doors right in front of him on that quiet street? Texting? Updating his FB status? Talking on his phone? And he just couldn't recall if had anything to drink at his friend's house. He was doing something he shouldn't have been or else he needs another eye test. If his vision is that bad maybe he shouldn't be driving, and with no insurance.

On 10/27/2023 at 5:38 PM, DoctorK said:

Any bets on whether or not the plaintiff will continue to open her car doors wide into the traffic lane whenever convenient for her?

Of course, she will. She said outside that the accident was all the Def's fault and won't take a single bit of blame on her stupid and illegal actions.  Just remember, no matter what stupid thing you do it's not your fault! Ever!

[CrazyInAlabama]

30 November

“Breaking Up was the Breast Decision”

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

(Christian Stansen vs. Jocelin Padilla)

From the show site:     After being together for 9 years, a couple finally decided to tie the knot. She wanted to look great on their big day, so he agreed to pay for her breast augmentation. Who is on the hook for that expense if they broke up immediately after the wedding?

Plaintiff /former groom suing defendant/ former bride for the cost of the augmentation , $3497.  Plaintiff took out a loan so Ms. Padilla could get the surgery at her request.   Defendant claims surgery was all plaintiff's idea, and though she repaid a little of surgery costs, she insists she owes nothing to plaintiff.   Defendant lost over 100 lbs to get ready for her wedding, had the surgery, and the litigants broke up right after the wedding.    

There was no written agreement.   There are only texts from defendant to plaintiff.   One text says defendant wants the surgery, and will have to get a loan if plaintiff doesn't get the money for her.  

Plaintiff says the couple did talk about a contract, but didn't think it was needed.   Defendant claims there were no discussions about repayment of the loan. 

Corriero can't believe the couple were in a relationship for 9 1/2 years, and broke up after the ceremony.  The couple had a civil ceremony, but didn't send in the completed paperwork, so the marriage wasn't legal, and avoided the cost of an annulment or divorce.  (This marriage ceremony happened in NM, so the couple might want to check the legality of their marriage with an attorney). 

Corriero did a ceremony (in NY), and his responsiblity was to file the papers, but one of the couple changed their mind, but he had to file anyway.   Defendant claims in NM, it wasn't required to file the paperwork, so their marriage wasn't official. 

Corriero wants defendant to split the cost of the surgery with plaintiff, but defendant doesn't want to do that.   

Defendant says plaintiff didn't want children, but that was with her.   Defendant says plaintiff is now with another woman who has kids.   Defendant says plaintiff actually had a vasectomy.   

I don't see why the judges are discussing that new girlfriend of plaintiff has kids, that's no one business by the girlfriend and the kids.   

Corriero says split the costs of the surgery.   Tewolde and Juarez agree with Corriero.

Plaintiff gets half of the surgery costs.    I disagree, he took out a loan for her procedure, and she did start paying him back, so it was a loan, not a gift. 

Plaintiff is only suing for the unpaid half of the surgery, so $1800. 

 

“Warrior Renter”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 151 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 40, 19 June 2023

Good point by patty1h, sweeps month is November (plus February and May), and I'm guessing sweeps month started today, through the end of November.   I thought it was ridiculous to include the spat about children, the vasectomy, and the slam by defendant about new girlfriend has kids.   

Edited October 31, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

The case with the breast augmentation gave me a hinky feeling.  I hate to think that HB is lowering themselves to dreaming up crazy scenarios and/or using actors for their cases and this episode gave me that tingle. 

What made me side-eye was that the couple seemed to be complete opposites, they were both well-dressed, their testimony seemed rehearsed and written for them.  Besides the boob surgery, those additional details about the defendant not wanting kids and the plaintiff having a vasectomy sound like a case that might air during sweeps month full of lurid, racy details for ratings.

Even though I'm on the fence about this case, I thought that the defendant was gung-ho for the boob job after losing 100lbs and wanted to get "the girls" tidied up to look great in her wedding gown.  At least the plaintiff wasn't stuck for the whole bill.

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

After being together for 9 years, a couple finally decided to tie the knot. She wanted to look great on their big day, so he agreed to pay for her breast augmentation.

😄🤣😂

Damn! I  knew I forgot something when I made a "to-do" list for MY wedding - big fake bolt-on boobs!

What a tragic oversight.

17 hours ago, patty1h said:

I hate to think that HB is lowering themselves to dreaming up crazy scenarios and/or using actors for their cases

I need to watch this. I hope they're not doing that. It's true that cases with civilized litigants who can speak their language properly are nearly as rare as unicorns, but it has happened.

[CrazyInAlabama]

31 October

“Burning Rainbow Bridges”

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

(Howard Napolske vs. Mauricio  Argueta)

From the show site: The owner of a pet crematorium sues a sobbing client for stopping payment on his bill. The client wanted a pawprint to remember his best friend by, but the dog was cremated before the print was made. He's hitting back with an emotional distress claim - but were the crematorium employees as heartless as he claims they were? Rainbow to Heaven Pet Cremation Service is the company.  

Plaintiff/pet crematorium owner suing defendant/pet owner for stopping payment on cremation bill for defendant's dog, $817.   Defendant claims crematorium staff didn't get a paw print from his dog before cremation.   So, defendant stopped payment.   Defendant is counter claiming for $ for emotional distress. Plaintiff's witnesses, Stephanie and Ellen, are two employees who dealt with the defendant.   

Hunter, defendant's companion was hit by a car, while crossing the road with defendant and girlfriend, Carrie.  

Defendant claims his dog's remains were mistreated, he never had a chance to get the paw print, and he owes nothing to plaintiff's company.   There was a system malfunction at the cremation service, so some information about the paw print was erased.  

Judge Juarez thinks the service should have been free, I would have reduced the price.  However, defendant stopped payment, so stole from the company. 

Corriero is as always, on the defendant's side.   Corriero wants to give $2500 to defendant, three times the costs that defendant owes.   Juarez says it's breach of contract case, so she would dismiss the charges owed to plaintiff's company.   Tewolde say emotional distress is relevant.   Juarez would dismiss everything. Corriero wants $2500 to defendant, and Tewolde agrees with him.

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant gets $2500.  

“Irritation System; the Costly Cousin”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 152,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 40, 20 June 2023

Edited October 31, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[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.

"So... what happened was" I was looking for something and came across this:

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

1 November

“EXplain Yourself”

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

(Zaria Silvia  vs. Benjamin Dinkins IV)

From the show site:  An ex-boyfriend is apologetic for the way he treated the woman he claims to love. But does that excuse him for demanding money from her father and allegedly threatening to get her in trouble at her job? The judges must assess his character to decide if her emotional distress claims are warranted.

Plaintiff is suing her defendant/ex for $5,000, court maximum, for defendant destroying her property, and assaulting her.  She also wants money for a plane ticket she paid for, but defendant didn't use.    Defendant says plaintiff was controlling, not him, and blames her for everything.   Plaintiff says defendant was controlling about her dress, friends, and everything else.  Defendant says the relationship moved too fast, and that they didn't know each other very well. 

Plaintiff says when an old friend came to town, defendant claimed she was intending to sleep with old friend.   Plaintiff says defendant controlled her phone use, dress, behavior, who she could talk to, and everything about her life. 

Defendant witness Mr. Ford was talking over factime with defendant and claims plaintiff was assaulting defendant on the call.   Plaintiff claims when he moved out, that defendant smashed her phone, ipad, trashed her apartment, and there are photos of the trashed apartment.  Plaintiff claims defendant called her father, and demanded the father pay him $1,000 for defendant to move out of the plaintiff's apartment. 

Plaintiff's father paid the defendant to move out, but defendant still contracted father, and plaintiff. 

Judge Juarez says defendant needs help with his jealousy issues, and his obsessive, and stalking behavior.  Corriero piles on defendant's behaviors too.  Defendant also texted that he would contact her job about issues with her.  Defendant did contact her job about her owing him money.  He also threatened to poison her food, and threatened to tell her employers about her.  He claims plaintiff contacting the police endangered him. 

I'm very afraid for plaintiff, defendant isn't going to let this go.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000 for property loss, and emotional distress.   She doesn't get the unused airplane ticket or medical bills paid. 

 

 

“Hissing Cousins”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 150,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 40, 13 June 2023

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 An ex-boyfriend is apologetic for the way he treated the woman he claims to love.

Whoa! The giant, scary-looking Dinkins IV has a serious sociopath vibe going on. The lack of emotion, a multitude of rationalizations, phony excuses (being "childish?"), and zero remorse for anything.

IMO, he is a dangerous person and I just bet the stalking isn't over. I really hope Ms. Silvia learned not to rush to move in with some character she picked up online. She got away very lucky this time. She's still alive and in one piece. I had to wonder what the attraction was for her.

Watching these shows often reminds me of the movie - "The Psycho I Met Online".

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 November

“Repo Woman”

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

 (Jason Bright  vs. Sara Anne Guinn)

From the show site:  Plaintiff, a kindergarten sports teacher sues his friend for repossessing the car she sold him. He still owed her a final payment but was out of work in the summer and short on cash. She was her mother's caretaker and desperate for cash. But did she have the right to keep his money and resell the car?

Plaintiff/car buyer suing defendant /former friend and car seller for repoing the car she sold him after he didn’t make the final payment, so he wants his money back for the payments.    So, after repo she resold the car and kept the payments. He's suing for $2150.  2000 Chrysler LX is the car in question. 

Plaintiff was to make two payments of $800 each on a schedule, and a final payment of $400 without a date included.  Defendant claims plaintiff made the first two payments according to written and verbal agreements, but the verbal addendum said three payments of $800 each.    Plaintiff made the two $800 payments, and never made the last payment of $400 by written contract, or the $800 defendant said was owed by later agreement.  Written contract was for $2,000, but because of the payment schedule the total was $2,400.   Car was the defendant's boyfriend's, Oscar,  late brother's car. 

Defendant needed the money to get her mother's car out of impound, and the fees were almost $2,000. 

Written contract was written up by plaintiff's girlfriend, Maria.  But     I guess defendant didn't realize that signing the written contract made that the legally enforceable price of the car, and that a verbal addendum can't alter a written contract, unless it is written into and added on to the written contract.   

Plaintiff says he agreed to and made the first two $800 payments, but because of his work schedule wouldn't be able to pay the last payment of $400 under the written contract, or $800 under the unenforceable verbal addendum. 

So, after defendant repo'd the car, she resold it for $1800, but that totals $3400.   So, defendant made a lot on this car.   

Plaintiff claims he borrowed the money from his parents, but defendant repo'd the car before he could pay her.  Plaintiff is seeking money for personal items that were in the car at the time defendant took it back. 

Judges say the written contract was flawed, and plaintiff should get the full amount he's seeking back. 

$2150 to plaintiff, a unanimous decision by the judges.   

 

“Fishy Repairs”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 147 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 39, 5 June 2023

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff, a kindergarten sports teacher sues his friend for repossessing the car she sold him.

These people... Well, they're fighting over a 15-year-old car, which is par for the course on these shows. Def tries mightily to first squeeze out tears over the dearly departed brother of some former boyfriend, then again over her mother's car being impounded. I guess she was too distraught to wash that greasy mop and to wear something that didn't fall halfway down her arm to reveal her bra strap.

P is a big grown-up man whose parents had to pay to fly him to where they live so they could give him $400 to finish paying for this old car. I feel sorry for aged parents who have to keep subsidizing middle-aged offspring. According to Def, P's girlfriend is a virago who would rip him a new one for paying 2400$ for the beater.

More no-tears weeping from Def over the passing of her mom. Her new boyfriend, Oscar, had nothing to add to this tale of woe. Why did she sell the car after she repossessed it? She has no answer for that and no answer for why she signed the contract. Maybe she entered a fugue state. Or maybe she's just a hustler.

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$2150 to plaintiff, a unanimous decision by the judges.   

Thanks. I couldn't take any more of this melodrama.

Edited November 3, 2023 by AngelaHunter
"Subsiding"?

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 November

“A Wheely Bad Accident”

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

(Gary Hoffman vs.  Stephen Schroeder)

From the show site: Plaintiff says his day was ruined when a person on an e-bike tumbled across his hood, ending his joyride with his dog. The first words out of his mouth were, "You better have insurance." Does his insensitivity towards the cyclist's injuries bear any weight on who is at fault? 

I already dislike the plaintiff/driver, he could have killed someone and he's whining about the inconveniece to him?  What a despicable human being plaintiff is. 

Without watching this, I'm hoping plaintiff's case is dismissed, and I would give defendant/victim $5,000, just from the preview for the episode.

Defendant says the plaintiff sideswiped his e-bike, and the first thing plaintiff said was "I hope you have good insurance".  Defendant says he had right of way, and plaintiff was turning left in the intersection, and plaintiff did not yield. 

$2846 is what plaintiff is suing for, for car damages and a rental.  Defendant is counter suing for $5,000.

Defendant says he came to a complete stop, entered the intersection with another vehicle next to him, the other vehicle stopped, and plaintiff turned right in front of him.    Defendant's injury photos look horrible, and he's still not recovered. 

All plaintiff worried about was his ruined joy ride, and his car damage. 

A passing witness confirms that plaintiff immediately said the heartless statement about insurance to defendant, who was still on his car hood.  

Judge Juarez challenges defendant on his behavior.  Tewolde says pain and suffering from the remark and the injuries.    Plaintiff clearly doesn't care about anything resulting from the accident.   Maybe the other vehicle stopped because they saw plaintiff crossing their path, in spite of defendant and vehicle having right of way?   

Plaintiff was not at fault according to the judges.

Plaintiff gets his $2,846, and defendant gets nothing. 

“Funeral Fallout”

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

p. 40, 6 June 2023

Edited November 3, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 11/3/2023 at 3:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

already dislike the plaintiff/driver, he could have killed someone and he's whining about the inconveniece to him?  What a despicable human being plaintiff is. 

I couldn't stand him either. He's a completely detestable asshole who should have at least wiped the stupid smile off his face and apologized for being a complete asshole.

However, Def continuing to harp on how he "came to a complete stop" at the stop sign makes me think he doesn't understand road rules. As JJ explained, coming to a stop is fine, but you can't go until it's safe to do so, especially if you're riding a comparatively fragile vehicle. Having an SUV blocking your sight means it's not safe. Def, while showing his bruised inner thigh, his ER video, and detailing his shock, should be glad his mistake didn't result in a much worse injury

I can't believe I agreed with Papa Mike for once when he said "insensitivity" is not a reason for anyone to be awarded a judgment.  And here I thought it would be in CA, where insensitivity, triggering, and lack of wokeness seem to now be felonies. 

[DoctorK]

On 11/3/2023 at 2:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Without watching this, I'm hoping plaintiff's case is dismissed, and I would give defendant/victim $5,000, just from the preview for the episode.

With all due respect, The facts of the case are very clear.

The defendant and the oncoming SUV were stopped at the stop sign. The plaintiff was already in the intersection starting his left turn in front of the SUV and the e-biker. The SUV driver caught his error immediately and stopped, the e-biker did not and hit the plaintiff's car on the right front fender meaning that the plaintiff was in front of the defendant and the defendant ran into him while failing to yield,

On 11/3/2023 at 2:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says the plaintiff sideswiped his e-bike,

The defendant is factually incorrect, the defendant hit the side of the plaintiff's car. The police report was correct that the defendant was at fault.

No matter how much the plaintiff was a total self centered jerk, he had the right of way was well into his turn when the defendant hit him in the side.

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Def, while showing his bruised inner thigh, his ER video, and detailing his shock, should be glad his mistake didn't result in a much worse injury

Getting thrown over the handlebars of a bicycle, e-bike or motorcycle can cause really major injuries to a particularly important of the rider's anatomy. He was lucky.

 

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

can't believe I agreed with Papa Mike for once when he said "insensitivity" is not a reason for anyone to be awarded a judgment.

Same here, I think it is only the second time I remember agreeing with Corriero. All three judges tried their best to twist and warp the law to the benefit of the defendant but not even Corriero could do it.

I am sorry the defendant was seriously injured , but the plaintiff was not at fault. However, if the plaintiff was a better person I think he could have taken an insurance payment and let anything else fall by the wayside.

Edited November 5, 2023 by DoctorK
clarification

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think the plaintiff was suing because he didn't have full coverage.   

The defendant was obviously at fault, but the plaintiff is still a horrible person for his remarks to someone who landed on his car hood, and could have been severely injured.   However, the judges made the correct legal decision.    

Edited November 5, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

All three judges tried their best to twist and warp the law to the benefit of the defendant but not even Corriero could do it.

JT tried to warp it due to her own feelings. She said she was hit by a car as a child, which is hardly comparable to that big galoot causing this accident. Both judges tried very hard to work out a way to punish the dickhead P for the crime of not-niceness, but Papa Mike wasn't having their PC-BS and stood strong! Papa, I salute you!

No monetary awards for someone who recklessly crashes into a car.

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 November

“Cat Snatch Fever”

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

(Dr.  Moayed Harb  vs.  Douglas Perry )

From the show site: Plaintiff, a dentist going through a bout of depression dropped his two cats off at his friend's house while he went on a road trip to clear his head. The friend claims he abandoned the cats, and they've since become part of his family. If cats are property under the law, at what point does the man who paid for them relinquish ownership? 

Plaintiff is suing defendant for return of his two cats.    Plaintiff left two cats with defendant when plaintiff left town for a long road trip.  Plaintiff wants the cats back, and defendant says he's keeping them, because they're part of the family now.   Defendant says plaintiff abandoned the animals, and wasn't a good owner.  Cats originally cost $3,000, and were bought in October 2019. Plaintiff wants $5,000 for emotional distress, and the cats back also.  

Plaintiff loaned a friend the cats for three months as an emotional support animal.   When plaintiff was in the hospital for months, friends and plaintiff took care of the cats. Plaintiff was dumped as a patient by his psychiatrist, and then went on a four month trip to Europe.  Defendant says the trip wasn't a road trip to Europe, but a short failed trip to rehab, that plaintiff is a drug abuser, and then disappeared for months. 

Defendant says one cat was outside on a window ledge of plaintiff's apartment, 11-stories up, and was trapped outside for hours in bad weather.   Corriero is supporting the plaintiff.   Tewolde reads a letter from plaintiff's former shrink, saying cats were rarely in his care, since he was not stable enough to take care of the two cats.   

Tewolde says plaintiff's texts are horrible, and show he's a bad owner to the cats. (I refuse to type 'pet parents', or fur babies).  Texts from plaintiff talking about the cat on the ledge is horrible.  Plaintiff blames everything on various health issues, Covid, Fibromyalgia, and depression. 

I agree with defendant, plaintiff is a bad pet owner.   Plaintiff left the cats in November 2021, and didn't ask about them or return until November 2022.  Between December of 2021, and July of 2022, the cats were in various people's custody.   Defendant says plaintiff abandoned the cats to him. Corriero obviously wants to give the cats back to plaintiff, no matter how bad an owner he is. I believe everything the defendant said about plaintiff.

Corriero says it's discrimination against plaintiff's mental disease to take the cats and leave them with defendant.   Tewolde wants to give the value of cats to plaintiff $3,000, and says the neglect of the cats went on and on.   Juarez says $5,000 to plaintiff and cats stay with defendant. 

Corriero dissents, and sulks like a little kid.  So, Juarez and Tewolde give $ , to plaintiff, and defendant keeps the cats. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000, and defendant keeps the two cats.  

I think plaintiff abandoned the cats, and should only have stuffed animals from now on.   

“Pay Dirt-Bike”

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

p. 39, 17 May 20223

[CrazyInAlabama]

7 November

“Love Does Cost a Thing”

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

(William Taylor vs. Katelyn Francisco)

From the show site: A massage therapist's ex-girlfriend says she shouldn't be held liable for damages to his car because she caught him cheating. His text messages to a "client" are questionable, but he swears they were purely professional. In any case, do his actions clear her of responsibility?

Plaintiff/ex boyfriend and massage therapist suing defendant/ex-girlfriend for wrecking his car, $3,948 .   Plaintiff says defendant stole his car, had no permission to drive his car, got into a hit-and-run accident, was rear ended. Right after this she found text messages, and decided he was cheating, and so she claims she owes him nothing.     Plaintiff says defendant lied about everything to do with the accident.   Defendant says she has her own key to the car, and drove it all of the time.   

Defendant claims someone hit the rear end of his car, and the car had substanial rear end damages.   Plaintiff says police report says defendant ran the red light.   Defendant wasn't issued a ticket.   The damage doesn't quite look like a rear end collision, but partly from the back drivers side instead of a direct hit from behind. 

Plaintiff is a massage therapist, and he claims texts are to a client about massage therapy.    Why is whether plaintiff cheated or not enter into the case? 

Corriero sides with defendant as usual.      

Defendant says the girl plaintiff was cheating with should pay for the car damages. 

Plaintiff offers to show Judge Tewolde his massage technique, she declines, but Corriero says maybe he should have therapy, because he feels awful.   Corriero has sounded terrible for days now.

Plaintiff says he doesn't think his insurance will cover defendant, because she's not a named driver on his insurance.   

Juarez and Tewolde do think plaintiff was cheating.   I fail to see why the judges are discussing the possibility of plaintiff cheating, it has nothing to do with the accident damages. 

Juarez says defendant is responsible for damages, Corriero says plaintiff should have claimed with his insurance company, and Tewolde says plaintiff shouldn't have to go through his insurance. 

Plaintiff receives $3,948 for car damages. 

“Bad Ex-perience”

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

p. 39, 15 May 2023

Edited November 8, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

8 November

“At Least Do the Right Thing”

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

(Jesseka Collins vs. Kaitlyn Cunningham)

From the show site: Two young ladies went from besties, to roomies... to enemies in a case over their lease-break fee. The plaintiff bought a house and offered to let her roommate move with her. When plaintiff raised the price last minute, the defendant/roommate changed her mind. Who is financially responsible for the termination fee on their old place?

Plaintiff suing former roommate over lease breaking fees.   

Plaintiff and defendant were roommates in an apartment, and when plaintiff bought a house, she announced she was going to break the lease and move into the house she was purchasing.   Lease breaking fee was $2500, plaintiff paid the $2500, and then plaintiff told defendant the rent for part of the house would be more expensive.   So, defendant decided to stay in the apartment, and since plaintiff paid the lease breaking fee, landlord applied that to defendant's rent.    So, plaintiff is suing for the lease breaking fee.   

Plaintiff said defendant could move into the new house as a roommate, stay in the apartment and plaintiff would find a replacement roommate.   So, plaintiff paid the $2500, but defendant decided not to move out of the apartment.  Defendant paid $1650 back, and stopped. 

Then, the two litigants decided on a payment plan to repay what plaintiff demanded for the lease breaking fee.  Then, defendant refused to pay, after defendant says plaintiff showed up with a $10,000 boob job and lip fillers.  Then, defendant figured that plaintiff didn't need her money.   

My view is, plaintiff paid the lease breaking fee, because she broke her part of the lease.   What the landlord did with the movey plaintiff paid is not defendant to pay for.   

Juarez says the options plaintiff gave to defendant weren't her place.   Defendant says she chose the option to move into the plaintiff's new home was a better deal, then the rent plaintiff wanted went up, so it no longer made sense for defendant to move. 

Corriero side with the defendant at least this time.   Corriero sounds hoarse and miserable again.

Plaintif case dismissed.   She demanded that defendant pay the entire lease breaking fee, defendant paid more than half, so plaintiff is only out what she needed to pay.    

Defendant counter claim dismissed too.  Juarez delivers the decision, because Corriero feels so ill.  

 

“Money for Nothing; Border in the Court”

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

p. 34, 10 Jan 2023

Edited November 8, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Two young ladies went from besties, to roomies... to enemies in a case over their lease-break fee.

I really didn't like either of the litigants. Neither one seemed to be particularly bright and neither one had a clear idea of exactly what they had agreed on or who should have payed what to whom. Good verdict, nothing for either one.

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 November

“Think We’re A-Loan Now”

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

(Irene Bracamontes vs. Daniel Rios)

From the show site: A single mother made a loan to her ex so that he could keep his job. But did she put that job in jeopardy when she dropped off their child at his work and allegedly told him, "Good luck being a single dad?" In any case, he says she violated their agreement by logging into his bank account and wiping out the balance. Plaintiff is claiming for $4,458 with interest. 

Plaintiff says defendant was fired for extortion, and then defendant boasts it was for embezzlement. Defendant says plaintiff accessed his account with his permission to pay rent and bills, then accused him of stealing from the house., so he says plaintiff took money to repay for the rent, not the stolen playstation.   However, plaintiff sent a text saying she knew he wouldn't repay her. 

Then, defendant changed his bank password, then claims plaintiff brought his son to work and left him with defendant, saying 'good luck being a single father". So, defendant quit his job.  However, plaintiff says she never said the single father statement remark. She did leave the little boy with defendant, so she could go to work as an Uber driver.   The loan was to make up the money defendant was stealing from his work place. 

Defendant claims the embezzlement charge was dropped.   I don't see it as plaintiff getting defendant fired, he was embezzling and got caught.  

Defendant says he went to Vegas for a few days, and returned, with the son.   

I don't see how the judges can blame plaintiff for getting the embezzling defendant fired.  Loan was for $3400, plus 29% interest, illegal in California.   However, there is a signed and notarized contract calling for the repayment of the loan, and the exorbitant interest.

Juarez would give the loan amount to plaintiff, but minus the additional amounts over rent.  Corriero would give the loan amount, plus 10% interest.   

Plaintiff gets $3400, plus $300 interest.   Juarez would have taken the unauthorized interest, but she wasn't in the majority. 

 

 

“The Real Swim Shady”

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

p. 39, 5 May 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

10 November

“Truckjacked”

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

(Zimbabwe Abdul-Malik vs. Monica Bryant)

From the show site: A recently incarcerated man was determined to turn his life around,  and he needed a vehicle to get to his electrician classes. But trouble sparked when he tried to get his newly purchased truck registered and discovered there was a lien on it. The seller says she had no idea - and that the impound was his fault for parking on the street.

Plaintiff did 22 years in prison, and has been out for 8 months. 

Plaintiff / truck buyer suing defendant / truck seller because she sold him a vehicle with a lien on it.   He also wants impound fees paid by defendant, after he parked it on the street and it was towed to impound.   

Defendant claims she didn't know about the lien, and getting towed was all on plaintiff.  After plaintiff found out about the lien, and that he couldn't get it registered, he parked it on the street, and it was impounded.  

Plaintiff knew the defendant's brother having a car sales business, brother told plaintiff that his sister had a truck for sale, so he paid defendant $800.  Plaintiff didn't give him the truck immediately, because she had to find the title, or get it replaced.   Plaintiff took the truck, and when he went to the DMV the truck had a lien, and couldn't be registered.   Defendant claims she had a title lien, but paid it off, and the company didn't remove the lien.  Car Cash is the company.  Defendant says plaintiff could have registered the car, but not in his name.  It's not legal to register the car if you don't have a Bill of Sale, or title, or other paperwork.  

Plaintiff says he is comfortable paying the back registration fees, but not a lien.  Plaintiff claims parking it on the street is the same thing defendant did with the truck. 

Defendant is counter suing for vehicle payment of $2,000, the amount she owes plaintiff.   $4,691 is the total amount she wants from the court.   

Truck was non operational, and needs $2,000 is back registration fees, because defendant didn't tell DMV it wasn't running or being operated for a long time.    

Plaintiff also has an unpaid ticket for $665.  He was pulled over by an officer, ticket was in his name, but he thought officer was putting it in defendant's name. 

Tewolde takes defendant's side, but would give him Uber rides to school, and $800 for the truck, but nothing else.   Corriero, for once, takes plaintiff's side, $800 and Uber to plaintiff.   Juarez agrees with the refund for the truck price, Uber fees, and attorney fees, but she's outvoted.   Defendant claim is dismissed, except for the parking ticket.  

Decision is $$800, $470 Uber, less $665 for the ticket, and so, $605 to plaintiff.

(When I heard the length of plaintiff's sentence, I figured that the charge was murder one). 

 

 

 

 

“Improper-ty Manager”

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

p. 33, 1 Dec 2022

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 11/10/2023 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Improper-ty Manager”

So, more "business" people whose business relationship very quickly devolves into screaming matches, filthy language, and mentions of a gun. WTF?

When I was renting, I had a disagreement with my landlord over my cats. He never called me a "B" word and when he left the room, I didn't automatically assume he was going for a gun. 😆

[AngelaHunter]

On 11/10/2023 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: A recently incarcerated man was determined to turn his life around,  and he needed a vehicle to get to his electrician classes.

I just watched this. Once again, a judge nearly fawns over a criminal ( recall JDiM doing the same for the druggy train thieves), and a violent criminal with zero regard for the life of someone else. We're not talking about unpaid tickets or missed child support.

To serve a 22-year sentence (that was originally 50 years and of course, dropped down)is an indication the crime must have been heinous.

Zimbabwe (?) talks about being "triggered" by the def cheating him. Poor him. I bet the dead victim of his crimes would love the chance to be triggered now, after being blown away by Zimbabwe while sitting in his parked car.

Sorry. I guess I just have a hard time dredging up sympathy for someone like this, for being cheated on some old beater car.

Quote

In 2001, defendant and appellant Zimbabwe Abdul-Malik was charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)). Robbery and gang special circumstance allegations were alleged as to the murder count (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17) & (22)). Firearm use and gang allegations were alleged as to both counts (§ 12022.53, § 186.22).

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-abdul-malik-11

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 November

“Loan to Smithereens”

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

(Bruce Horton  vs. Myla Morse)

From the show site: A young waitress says her customer's monetary gift only became a "loan" after she stopped talking to him. She profusely calls him a "creepy old man" - but if that's the way she feels, why did she approach him with her personal problems? Was he taking advantage of her, or was she taking advantage of him?

Plaintiff suing defendant for unpaid loans, $1,750.  Defendant claims he had ulterior motives, had given her gifts before, and she thinks she owes him nothing. Why do I suspect this case should be Gullible, Lonely Man vs. Young Grifter?  

Defendant claims plaintiff was the aggressor, but she still wanted his money.  Copy of the check for $1000, says loan right on it, it was endorsed by defendant. 

Defendant claims after the loans plaintiff called her often, but never mentioned repayment.   Plaintiff says he overtipped sometimes because she needed the money.   Money was to get defendant's father out of jail, but when charges were dismissed, the money wasn't returned to defendant but taken for defendant's father's back child support.  

Defendant claims plaintiff is trying to take advantage of her, and wanted favors for his money. 

Corriero sits there, letting defendant call plaintiff all kinds of names. 

I think it's outrageous that the judges allow defendant to say all of these outrageous statements about the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff receives $1,750. 

“Music Video Drama”

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

p. 39, 16 May 2023

[patty1h]

I hated that Myla and her grifting self.   I find it amusing how many times these people get all high and mighty offended after they get some money out of an older person.  She calls HIM to ask for a loan but now he's this evil creeper. It's always after the fact they suddenly come the realization that the loaner is a dirty old man who only had eyes for her cleavage and every word they've send had some double meaning.   Convenient.  And so what if he became a sleaze and maybe asked you to go to Hawaii?  He's not putting a gun to your head, and I don't think being skeevy is a valid reason to excuse loans.  

Hopefully, Bruce lays off lending money to young bimbos but I give him props for putting loan on his check.

Edited November 14, 2023 by patty1h