Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Today’s new case is a scenario we have seen a lot of times.

That's for sure. Dirty old men and their very young, skeevy female "buddies" are not rare.

That hard-rode, wretched waste of valuable oxygen, flipping around her bleached, fried hair, flaunting her sagging breasts, ugly tats, and flabby belly, really thought she was super hot.

For all her ego, saying the word "regularly" was beyond her capabilities. I believe it was JT who supplied her with "constantly" and she did manage to master that.

She needed to spring her daddy from the joint! Did everyone get a good look at Daddy? 😆

I wonder if the old guy figured out that "young ladies" of this ilk are not his pals (and are NOT going to give him any sugar) and see him as an old fool and an ATM, which he was. Like so many before him, he got shafted. Shame on him, at his age.

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I was expecting Corriero to go to his usual poor little girl victim shtick but he surprised me by clearly seeing through the defendant’s BS.

Thanks. I couldn't take one more second of that vulgar, amoral grifter so quit early. Yes, surprising that Papa Mike didn't give the outraged cry, "She's a CHILD!" Good for you, Papa.

[DoctorK]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Did everyone get a good look at Daddy? 😆

Yeah, he looked as rode hard and put away wet as she did.

 

5 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

"young ladies" of this ilk are not his pals (and are NOT going to give him any sugar)

In this case only, I am not sure that he is really like that. He clearly separated his regular small change over tipping as friendly from his major loan which he treated as business. Also, he said something about being willing to go into chambers and privately explain to the judges why he couldn't be looking for intimate interactions which sounds like some kind of medical or psychological issue. Being in his age bracket as are many of my friends, I am aware of some situations would fit that scenario.

I may be wrong, he may be a total creeper, but he didn't come across that way to me, unlike 99% of the similar cases we have seen. As always, YMMV.

14 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

surprising that Papa Mike didn't give the outraged cry, "She's a CHILD!" Good for you, Papa.

Yeah, and recently he has stood up for the legally correct verdict instead of his bleeding heart approach, and actually holds his own with the other judges which he hasn't been able to do before. Maybe testosterone replacement therapy? For whatever reason he seems to have developed a spine.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Also, he said something about being willing to go into chambers and privately explain to the judges why he couldn't be looking for intimate interactions

Even if he can't do the "deed", he has hands that work.😉 I find it a little difficult to believe he was just being charitable and magnanimous to that little rachet. If that's the case and he just wants to help someone or something, there are many more worthwhile ways he can put his money to good use.

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Yeah, he looked as rode hard and put away wet as she did

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. And I just bet Daddy's "seizures' or whatever Daughter Dearest called them were actually withdrawal from his substance of choice.

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Maybe testosterone replacement therapy?

Oh, damn! 😆

[CrazyInAlabama]

14 November

“In the Weeds”

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

(Dr. Marla Jo Thompson-Kendall vs. Loveless Johnson III) 

From the show site: A woman was confident about her sizable investment in a CBD company because she'd tried the product before, and it helped ease her pain. But now, years later, she claims she never received an investor agreement and hasn't seen a dime. So, she's trying to ease her financial pain by suing the CEO.

Plaintiff suing defendant /CEO for return of her investment in his CBD company, suing for $5,000.   Plaintiff actually invested $10,000, but that's twice the court maximum.    Plaintiff was recruited by the former partner of defendant.  Defendant is in Atlanta, plaintiff is Georgia.  

During Covid plaintiff went to the brick-and-mortar site, and found an empty storefront.  That's when plaintiff started pursuing defendant for information about her investment, and profits.  

 AmericGreen Organics LLC is the official company name. Defendant didn't bring the signed agreement with plaintiff to court.  As Judge Judy says, "where did he thing he was going today, the beach?").   Plaintiff had a verbal agreement with company partners, and would get repaid for her original investment, and residuals.   Plaintiff invests often in other companies, and this company has no documentation of financials of the company, or the agreement. 

Investment was in 2018, and 2022 was when plaintiff started pursuing the residuals from company.   Plaintiff complained to the Attorney General of New Mexico, and defendant wrote the AG that he would work out the return of the money with plaintiff. 

Defendant says there are 20 investors, and company is struggling.   Defendant will not return any investments because of the investment agreement, which isn't signed.  Defendant wrote to plaintiff saying returning her investment is at his option, and he's not going to return her money.   

Plaintiff is only suing defendant because he's the only person she has had dealing with.   Juarez says plaintiff has to sue the company.  As always, Corriero sides with the wrong person.   Tewolde says plaintiff can still sue the company separately, and not the defendant. 

Decision is by Juarez and Tewolde to dismiss plaintiff's case and she should sue the company.  Corriero dissented. 

Corriero forgot that a contract and an addendum, like the refund, is only enforceable if it's put in writing and signed by both parties.  The original signed agreement wasn't even available.  

“Gone Truck Wild”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 134 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 38, 8 May 2023

Edited November 15, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Defendant didn't bring the signed agreement with plaintiff to court. 

OH, well, Mr. Loveless Johnson III misplaced that. "Here. Is this unsigned contract okay?" He also messed up his words when he said he would give her the money back. I guess he said "I will" when he meant "I will not".  Or else the AG's letter made him sweat.

 Dr, I think you're not as savvy as you want to be perceived.

I worked at the stock exchange my whole life. I never invested but once (and did not do it on a telephone conversation), because I knew very well that buying stock (investing in a company, especially a start-up one) is gambling where you might get rich, or you might lose every cent. No one, for any investment, can guarantee a great return, or any return at all. If they do, put your money back in your pocket.

I also never heard of "residuals" when referring to stock. They're called "dividends".

P. had no problem sending Def 10K without even a signed agreement. Yeah, I really don't think she's all that savvy.  Maybe she's just been super-duper lucky until now. Also, he's not returning her 10K because he spent it all.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Decision is by Juarez and Tewolde to dismiss plaintiff's case and she should sue the company.  Corriero dissented. 

Maybe I missed something, but IMO, they were right. Papa just blew his winning streak.

[CrazyInAlabama]

15 November

“Bad TAT-titute”

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

(Tamar Green vs. Jeffery Collins)

From the show site: A woman had second thoughts after making a deposit on a full sleeve tattoo. The artist had given her a small tat for free that said "Im enough" - no apostrophe. Now that she's cancelled the larger piece, he's not happy with her deposit amount. He says, "It's not enough" - with an apostrophe this time.  

Plaintiff suing defendant /tattoo artist for return of her $1600 deposit for the full sleeve tattoo.   After tattoo artist did a small free tat, and misspelled it, plaintiff decided not to go forward with the full sleeve tattoo.   Defendant admits he pocketed and spent the deposit.  Total amount of the tattoo would be $4,000.   Plaintiff wanted a $1,000 refund, and paid defendant $2000. 

Half sleeve would be $2,000, and if paid up front, the defendant would get a free tattoo, "I'm Enough".   Unfortunately, free tattoo said "Im Enough", without an apostrophe.   Defendant says $4,000 is less than the price of the sleeve tattoo. 

Defendant says 'cocaine and hookers' is how he spent the plaintiff's deposit. 

 $600 was the shop's cut, and $1600 was defendant's portion.   Defendant claims he verbally told plaintiff that deposits were non-refundable.  Plaintiff says when she asked to see the artwork for the tattoo, defendant refused, and said he only did the artwork the day of the tattoo. 

Plaintiff claims defendant would only give her $1300, for the $100 a day charge for the shop for three days of work.   Then, defendant's text said he would give her $1,000.  Judge Tewolde asks to see defendant's artwork, and he refuses to bring them to court. 

Defendant says he told plaintiff that cancellations were only allowed a week in advance.    

Judge Juarez points out that defendant was wrong about the dates of appointments, and cancellations.   She also points out the wrong tattoo, and that's why plaintiff wanted to see the artwork in advance. Judge Juarez also says the no refund policy is unclear.  

Defendant posted his cancellation policy on instagram, not on something permanent.

The consent form is signed by plaintiff, but has no financial information filled in, nothing about the cancellatin or the no refund policy. 

Decision is plaintiff gets $1,000. 

“Homeowners Disassociation”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 135  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 39, 9 May 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

16 November

“All Fenced Up”

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

(Glenn Beurman vs.  Tod Hughes)

From the show site: A fence repairmen made a bid to build several hundred feet of fencing and three gates on a large private property. According to him, the bid did NOT include installation of the gates; but the owner thought it did and refused to pay him a penny more. Two judges know whose side they land on, but the third is on the fence. "Can the others persuade him?" (Personal note, since there's only Papa C. that's a male judge, I guess even I can figure out who is 'on the fence'). 

Plaintiff suing defendant/fence repairman over the cost of installing gates.   Defendant says estimated didn't include installing the gates, and plaintiff swears estimate included what was included, and not the gates.   Total job labor charge was over $10,000 labor, $21000+ for the job including supplies. Judge Tewolde tells the defendant the estimate isn't clear as what was included in the job.   

I guess they're electronic gates, that need tracks that are custom to the ground surface.   Defendant put the pads down,  Plaintif bought the solar powered operators for the three gates.  Another person put in the gate tracks.  Tracks for the gates, and installation was for the plaintiff to pay another company for.   Defendant only build the frame for one gate. 

Defendant was paid $10, 320 for the labor for the fence installation.  Defendant says to finish the three gates would cost $1800 labor.  Defendant says the tracks are a custom installation, and gates have to be built to suit the individual terrain, and water runoff situation. 

The way it works is the track is custom, the gates are custom too.   The gate frame, the steel structure has to be made to suit the track with exact dimensions.  Defendant says gate installation isn't included in the bid.  Tracks across the driveway wasn't included in the bid.

Judges deliberate as usual.  Corriero as always, takes the wrong side, and wants to give $1800 to the plaintiff.   Juarez says another company's bid was the same as defendant's, without anything for the gates.  Tewolde supports Juarez's decison. 

Decision is to give plaintiff $1,200 for the electrical for the gates, and nothing else. 

“Cat Man Don’t”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 149 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 40, 12 June 2023

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A fence repairmen made a bid to build several hundred feet of fencing and three gates on a large private property.

This case lost me completely, but I did feel bad when I saw that Santa is on hard times like the rest of us and has to take an off-season gig building fences. 😕

[CrazyInAlabama]

17 November

“Wouldn’t Put it Pastor”

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

P.  39, 22 may 2023

From the show site: A pastor's son accuses the church treasurer of stealing thirty-thousand dollars. She admits she moved the funds into her personal account, but only for safekeeping during a power struggle amongst church leadership. Can the son's accusation be considered defamation?

“Women in Uniform”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 103 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p.  36, 1 March 2023  (In this case where plaintiff had exclusive rights to sell certain uniform lines, making a profit is the purpose of having exclusives, so defendant's argument about price gouging is absurd.)

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 11/17/2023 at 7:30 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

A pastor's son accuses the church treasurer of stealing thirty-thousand dollars.

I just saw most of this. Another heartwarming tale featuring the goodness and charity (and lawsuits and accusations of theft and "forcible" taking over of a church?) of the devout. The church people on these shows do help restore my faith in humanity.

[AngelaHunter]

On 11/15/2023 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says 'cocaine and hookers' is how he spent the plaintiff's deposit. 

Wasn't that little smart-mouthed, muppet-voiced creep something? He thought he was a comedian. Yeah, I bet it's hookers since what woman would want to get down and dirty with him with his face looking like it's covered in creeping fungus? Oh, silly me. He no doubt has his choice of the type of women we see on court shows daily - the FB meat market ladies in the last stages of desperation.

Anyway, JT is certainly over her camera-shyness or whatever kept her so subdued initially. She (understandably) hated and loathed the repulsive Def and didn't hesitate to show it. It was awesome to watch her verbally eviscerate the twerp.

I also enjoyed JJ pointing out that he was unable to tattoo two letters without screwing it up. Maybe the plaintiff also didn't know that "Im" was wrong since it seemed to bother her not at all.

[CrazyInAlabama]

20 November

“Cancelnera”

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

(Maria Torres vs. Isaac Algaze)

From the show site: A single mother scrimped and saved for years to give her daughter the perfect quinceanera, but then the pandemic hit. The man she ordered a dress from refuses to give her a refund, even though he never actually delivered it. Is he more concerned about his relationship with his vendors than his customers?

Plaintiff suing defendant/dress supplier for a refund, of $1320, for the dress and accessories.   Dress was ordered long in advance, supposed to be delivered in January of 2020, then February, dress never arrived.   

 Plaintiff ordered a dress, seven piece set with cap, tiara, three pillows, autograph book, album book , money box,  Bible, doll, and none of it ever arrived.   Defendant says dress was ordered from China, and never arrived, and he needs a specific date to engrave on the accessories.   Plaintiff had wine, champagne, venue, DJ, and everything else.  Dress is only item that wasn't refunded.     

Plaintiff paid $900, plus $440, so $1340 all paid five months in advance, for the June 2020 Quinceanera.    Defendant's claim that plaintiff can have any dress in his store enrages Judge Tewolde, (and me).  Dress is only Quinceanera dresses, prom and other fancy event dresses, so useless to plaintiff now.  Defendant says no refunds is the store policy, it's on receipts, posted in the store. 

I am outraged by defendant's stance, and would award plaintiff the $1340, and up it to $5,000 for the nasty attitude of defendant.  No money can replace the experience that plaintiff's daughter missed, but maybe it would help.  

Erika Isabel Gonzalez is the plaintiff's daughter, and she's now 18.  What a lovely, poised young woman the daughter is.    

Plaintiff receives $1,340, a full refund, unanimous decision. (Since I'm guessing the show pays the award, the defendant lost nothing). 

 

“Trailer Troubles for Slingz ‘n Thingz”

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

p. 38, 4 May 2023

Edited November 20, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I am outraged by defendant's stance, and would award plaintiff the $1340, and up it to $5,000 for the nasty attitude of defendant.  No money can replace the experience that plaintiff's daughter missed, but maybe it would help. 

He was very enraging with his absolutely selfish stance that HE had bills, HE had a store to run, HE was experiencing a loss of revenue yadda yadda.   Nasty old buzzard could play Scrooge this Xmas with no problem.

[CrazyInAlabama]

21 November

“Rest in Lease”

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

(Cristy Harris and Bryan Reese  vs. Esperanza Cruz)

From the show site: When a forensic investigator passes away, his siblings do their own investigation to find out what happened to his sentimental belongings. They accuse his landlady of throwing them all out. The landlady's defense: trash day was the next day. Did she cause them emotional distress by preemptively disposing of his things?

Plaintiffs/siblings suing defendant / former landlady for value of late brother, Danny's,  sentimental items.   Plaintiffs claim valuable family keepsakes were trashed, defendant says the items left in the room were junk, and since trash days was the next day, she tossed them.   

Judge Juarez points out that trash day is once a week, so why was defendant in a hurry?  Defendant assumed when siblings left the room, and she assumed they were finished, so she had her son trash it.     Harris says during clean up there was a mouse under the bed, so they quit before cleaning under the bed, or going through the closet. (You get Hantavirus from a mouse, plague comes from infected fleas biting you).      Rent was paid up through 1 October, but defendant cleaned out before that.  

Plaintiff Harris is suing for $10,000 (I think court maximum is $5,000).   She says the guitar was in the closet and disappeared.  Defendant's son Anthony Cruz is the one who cleaned out, and says he didn't see a guitar, or anything that plaintiffs listed on their inventory of damages.  Plaintiff Harris claims she left the guitar behind for Plaintiff Reese to pick up the guitar.    Plaintiff Reese had been staying with his brother for a while before brother died, and claims his personal property went missing too. 

There is a witness who claims there was another basket that wasn't given back to plaintiffs.  Defendants say everything of value was taken by plaintiffs, and they never saw a guitar or the other things on plaintiffs' list. 

Plaintiff Harris claims brother's food, cleaning supplies, and toiletries were missing.   Another sister is plaintiff's witness, and claims another basket that had the most valuable sentimental items, her brother's black leather jacket, black leather trench coat, Masonic uniform and items.    Can the jacket, trench coat, and Masonic items fit in a laundry basket?  I really doubt that amount of stuff fit in a laundry basket, so I don't believe the relatives about anything they claim was in the room.    I think they're just trying to get a bonanza from their brother's death. 

Judge J says someone is lying, and it's hard to believe that $16,000 of property was stolen, and trashed.    I do think landlady and son cleaned up too early, but I think they're right, it was just trash, and if there was a mouse under the bed, then the junk in the room was contaminated and needed to go.     I agree plaintiffs have zero proof that anything they claim was in the room actually existed.

Judges give plaintiffs $3,000 ($1500 property, and $1500 emotional distress).

 

 

“No Horsing Around”

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

p. 38, 3 May 2023

Edited November 22, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff Harris is suing for $10,000 (I think court maximum is $5,000). 

Yes, she really wanted to clean up with 10 or 16K. She has pictures and files on her brother's computer that show safes and Amazon stuff but has no idea when or where these pics were taken. She just wants lots of money. Her attitude stunk. Did she really think she would get "bubonic plague" from a house mouse? Her late brother managed to avoid the plague from the Death Mouse somehow.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I agree plaintiffs have zero proof that anything they claim was in the room actually existed.

Definitely, but I guess the point is that the landlady had no business even entering the property, let alone throwing stuff out when the rent was paid for the whole month. Does trash day come only once a decade in her area that it was imperative to get everything out that very second, and illegally?

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judges give plaintiffs $3,000 ($1500 property, and $1500 emotional distress).

They didn't get the bonanza they were looking for, but too bad.

[CrazyInAlabama]

No Hot Bench on 24 November for college football, and I listed the reruns for 23 November. 

22 November

“All’s Wheel That Ends Wheel”

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

(Stephen Sneed vs.  Ky'la Solomon)

From the show site: A man sues his own stepdaughter for repayment on a car. He claims it was transferred into her name by his wife to keep it out of divorce proceedings; the wife says a police officer told her to do that. The whole thing's a mess, and the poor stepdaughter is caught in the middle.

Plaintiff suing defendant/stepdaughter for repayment for a car.  He claims his soon-to-be-ex wife gave the car to stepdaughter to keep it out of their divorce settlement.   I find it bizarre that ex-wife claims a police officer told her to transfer the car.

Daughter/defendant's witness is her mother,  Trisha Francois,  Plaintiff says stepdaughter and her mother wanted to buy a car, he financed it, then ex-wife wanted car registered in her daughter's name to shelter it from a divorce settlement.  Stepdaughter claims car was in her name and her mother's name because mother's car was in the shop, and may not be fixable.  Then, mother's car was fixed, and car was put into her daughter's name. 

Then, after car purchase, marriage between Mr. Sneed and Ms. Francois blew up, then Ms. Francois transferred car into daughter's name, pending divorce action.   Ms. Francois says a police officer told her to get her name off of the car title, so plaintiff couldn't take it as his property, and she did the transfer to her daughter.   

Defendant mother claims plaintiff was violent, threatened her and her children, she filed for restraining orders. 

Plaintiff says he did ask for repayment for the car only, because they were having marital issues, so he asked Ms. Francois to pay him back for the car.  Ms. Francois says she hadn't worked for 18 months, was having medical issues, and couldn't pay plaintiff back.   She was anticipating an injury settlement, and claims she was going to pay plaintiff $10,000 for him to divorce, and drop his claims.   

Ms. Francois claims to have a criminal case ongoing against Mr. Sneed, and can't discuss it on advice of legal authorities. 

Defendant claims plaintiff called her work trying to find her schedule, and showed up at her work.    Apparently, defendant works at a sub shop.  Judge Tewolde says plaintiff going to talk to the defendant at work was inappropriate.   Stepdaughter says plaintiff got his ex-wife fired, but that doesn't match the time lines ex-wife claims. 

Francois says plaintiff added items to the divorce, but didn't add the car to the list of debts/assets.  Divorce isn't finalized yet, and has been in process before Covid, in early 2020.   

Plaintiff agrees car isn't part of the divorce, but states there was an agreement with stepdaughter, and wife to pay him back. 

Judge Juarez says the transaction to purchase, repay, etc. are all part of community finances.   So she says car is either half wife's, or communtiy property and half hers.    Corriero sides with wife, and wants it dismissed pending the divorce court hearing.  Tewolde agrees. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, car issue should be in divorce action, and should be added to that case.  

“Not on my Wristwatch”

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

p.38, 2 May 2023

 

Turkey day's episodes:

23 November

“When Pigs Fly”

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

p. 41, 22 August 2022

From the show site: Contrary to the popular saying, this man's best friends are his pigs. He needed a shed to keep them warm and safe, but his contractor's work had gaps and protruding nails. The contractor defends his work, claiming the budget was too cheap. But if he knew it couldn't be done right, should he have taken the job in the first place? 

“Table for One/Van Wrecker”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 65 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 20 Dec 2022

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

27 November

“Caster of the House Party Disaster”

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

(Brandan Johnson  vs. Joselyn Askew)

From the show site: A self-proclaimed party girl is on the hook for damages to her landlord's rental property. She says he knew the kind of late-night soirees she likes to throw; it's not her fault he took forever to fix the holes in the walls... Will her charismatic self-image convince the judges to buy that excuse?

(My guess is only Corriero will take party girl's side). 

Plaintiff/landlord suing former tenant/defendant over the damages to his rental property from her parties, suing for $5,000.   Things went well for the first 18 months of the single-family rental, but then defendant started throwing these huge parties.   Defendant claims the downstairs bath was broken, but plaintiff claims 'broken' to defendant was that she wanted a different showerhead. 

Plaintiff owns a bunch of rentals in that area, and is trying to fix up places, to have quality rentals.    Defendant is the type of tenant who drives people out of being landlords.   

Defendant claims there was a window broken during a burglary, and she says plaintiff didn't fix the window, so burglars and vandals were breaking in the house.   So, defendant claims the property wasn't safe, so she moved out.   

Plaintiff says defendant called the first parties, and were small dinner parties.   Defendant says plaintiff should have fixed the holes in the walls, and other damages from her parties.   Defendant also admits to Judge Juarez that she charged for some parties.   She also says that she drinks a lot during the parties, so she doesn't know how the holes in the walls happened, and she expects the plaintiff to fix the damages free. 

Parties were after parties after the bars closed down, and according to plaintiff included strippers, and huge crowds.  

Defendant claims  many broken and missing floor tiles were from the burglars, not her guests.   She blames the giant holes in the walls on party guests, and says plaintiff should have fixed them for free. 

Corriero sides with defendant, and claims many damages could be from the burglary, and were plaintiff's responsibility.   Corriero is a jerk. 

Defendant doesn't have the police report.  Damages show many broken and missing floor tiles, giant holes in the wall, a lot of missing drywall from a pipe leak.   

Security was $850, and plaintiff kept it, and Corriero asks about the required list of damages and there is proof plaintiff did the list, with receipts for repairs and delivered it to defendant. 

Judge Tewolde doesn't believe the burglars did the tile damages, holes in the wall, stole the shower head defendant wanted replaced, and other damages.   There were 2 or 3 parties a month, with at least 100 people at each party, and she charged $10 to $20 per person.    Corriero wants to know when her next party is scheduled for.  

Defendant claims the burglars did everything but one hole in the wall, that she attributes to a party.  Defendant tried to patch a huge wall hole by herself, and it is hideously bad work.  

Defendant left owing rent, for the last four months of her tenancy.  

(My guess is the plaintiff is an experienced landlord of multiple properties, and had heard every bizarre excuse in the book.   I think he figured he would get the court maximum, and that's why they came on the show.  Defendant certainly would never pay a penny to the plaintiff, no matter what a court said to her.   Going on the show, plaintiff not only gets $5,000, but gets great publicity for his lovely looking rentals. )

$5,000 to plaintiff.  

“Watch Where You’re Going”

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

p. 39, 11 May 2023

Edited November 28, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

Crazy as usual did a good job of covering this case but I need to vent a bit. The judges apparently thought that the defendant "Party Girl" was cute and funny. No she was not. She was ignorant, irresponsible, entitled and trashy as hell. Who invites 100+ drunks into the house they are renting after the bars have closed to drink more and party? Not surprisingly the Party Girl drinks and passes out at her parties, leaving the drunken "guests" to trash the house. When she manages to wake up the next day (probably by the crack of noon), she looks around and all the mess and damage and of course wants the landlord clean up and fix everything because that is the landlord's job (in her dim little mind). She confirmed this stupidity in the hallterview and is indignant because of course the landlord needs to fix up all the damage from her (paying?) guests. Corriero naturally was really charmed by the defendant and was his usual mush-headed jurist. From the pictures, the plaintiff did a great of restoring the house (white walls, beautiful dark woodwork, etc.) which leaves me wondering why he didn't seem to be even a little annoyed at the defendant whose actions caused him a lot of costly damages. I suspect that there is some relationship between in terms of splitting the money the defendant was raking in by charging "guests" and getting on this show was just a way to pick up some additional cash.

[Gramto6]

Yeah, she was a piece of work and when one of the judges said she needed to fix the damage she says, "What? I'm supposed to fix that? He owns the house!". Really???? OMG how dumb can she be?

[kacesq]

I had to come here and vent, too, about the party girl defendant.  I'm gobsmacked that she pretended to be so stupid that she thought the landlord was responsible for anything even damage she did.

I felt all 3 judges were way too lenient with her.  What I wouldn't give for her to have been on Judge Judy when Judy was in her prime.

Also, this show would be so much better without Corriero and his constant bleeding heart routine.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

28 November

“Look at Our Window!”

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

(Stan and Yolanda Felton vs. Michael Gonzalez)

From the show site: A couple selling their home say their handyman's partner damaged a window. The handyman claims it wasn't LITERALLY his partner; where he comes from, they use "partner" loosely, like a cowboy would. Can he convince the judges they've got the wrong man, or will he have to giddy up and take the fall?

Plaintiffs were getting their house ready for sale, found defendant on Next Door, and hired him for a variety of small jobs, and his wife is his business manager.    When defendant arrived, he brought cousin with him as a helper.   Defendant was hired to paint dining room, and ceiling, but the cousin did the painting, and damaged the window.   

Plaintiffs are suing defendant/handyman for window damages.   However, window was installed by an associate of defendant, and he says installer isn't a friend or partner of his.  Plaintiffs say defendant and cousin/helper broke one of their windows while painting.     

However, plaintiffs says defendant said installer is his cousin, and blames the window damages on the cousin.  Window tint was damaged, and cousin claimed he could replace the window tinting, not defendant. So, cousin was hired to do the other jobs, not defendant. I think plaintiffs are suing the wrong person.  

Defendant didn't have time to do the extra work and painting, because of other work he had scheduled.  So, plaintiffs hired the cousin to do the other work they needed performed.

Then, defendant's wife/business manager claims that plaintiff wife was dressed in tiny shorts with her fanny hanging out, and she wanted more than some painting.   Judge Juarez is outraged by the defendant's wife's statement.  I think defendant should lose for that remark, unless she can prove plaintiff wife was doing something besides hiring the defendant or cousin. 

Defendant claims he didn't paint around the high windows, but there is a photo of him on a ladder, scraping and painting around the window. 

Defendant wife/business manager says cousin isn't associated with the handyman business, and there are no other employees except husband, and herself.   

Then defendants offer to play a voicemail of threats from plaintiff wife's boyfriend, not the man in court with her.  Voicemail is awful, threatening to take defendant to the state contractor review board.   Plaintiffs deny knowing who made the voicemail defendants played in court.   However, the plaintiffs did file a complaint with the contracting license board against defendant. 

Corriero says cousin was working for defendant, and he was an employee.  Tewolde is appalled at the defendant's allegations against the plaintiffs. 

$1,350 for the plaintiffs. 

After the case ends, defendant still claims plaintiff wife was looking for a lot more than painting, and claims he rejected her. 

 

“Prime Example”

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

p. 39, 11 May 2023

Edited November 28, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then, defendant's wife/business manager claims that plaintiff wife was dressed in tiny shorts with her fanny hanging out, and she wanted more than some painting. 

That a was fun case!  I liked how the info that Def's manager and partner are actually his wife and cousin had to be ferreted out.

Def's wife was a nasty, evil creature and probably jealous of that primo man of hers. Don't worry, lady. He's all yours. I'm sure P wasn't hitting on the handyman's cousin, no matter how short her shorts were.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  Voicemail is awful, threatening to take defendant to the state contractor review board.   Plaintiffs deny knowing who made the voicemail defendants played in court. 

I have a feeling it was a total stranger on the voicemail since I heard nothing that connected it to the Ps, probably someone else who was not happy with Def's work, saw the complaint and decided to make that call.

Little aside: I used my local NextDoor site to find someone, for the first time ever, to clean up the leaves at the end of October. The guy showed up - with his mommy. But I can't complain. They did the job.

[CrazyInAlabama]

29 November

“To Bead or Not to Bead”

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

(Marjorie Male vs. Veronica Hunt)

From the show site: Drama unfolds at the senior center. A jewelry maker used to vouch for Marjorie at her ladies' lunch group. But she's no longer a fan, since Marjorie is suing her for the return of a bracelet she claims she never had. Can Marjorie prove that the jewelry maker cheated her?

Plaintiff /jewelry maker Marjorie is suing defendant for the price of or return of an amethyst bracelet, worth $400.   However, when defendant holds up the necklace and bracelet that Hunt she says Marjorie claims is worth $400, then plaintiff claims defendant is holding up a phony bracelet that’s junk, and not her quality product    Plaintiff gave the bracelet to defendant, and wanted her to make a bunch of fake duplicates, but defendant didn't make the fake ones. 

 Defendant is suing plaintiff for jewelry she sold for plaintiff, and claims plaintiff never paid her.   

Plaintiff claims she spent over $2,000 on jewelry from defendant.   Defendant says plaintiff ordered 12 to 15 sets at a time, and spent about $300 a month buying defendant's jewelry.    

Defendant says plaintiff would go to lunch with her and her friends, and wouln't pay the lunch fees, but would pay defendant back later.   Defendant holds up the necklace, and bracelet.  Plaintiff claims the necklace and bracelet aren't hers, and are cheap imitation junk.   Defendant says she was supposed to make 8 sets of coordinating jewelry for plaintiff.  

Plaintiff has no proof of what she gave the defendant.   Plaintiff's witness is her husband.   Plaintiff has a receipt from Arroyo's Fine Jewelry in Ventura, CA claiming the bracelet cost $125, and is replacement value is $400.  What jewelry store writes a receipt for the purchase price, and a much higher replacement price?

Defendant says they argued about a TV, and that started the fall out.  Defendant says plaintiff is only suing for money she's not owed.   Defendant is counter claiming for $250 for bulk purchases by plaintiff. 

Corriero believes everything the plaintiff says, no surprise in that. 

The bracelet and necklace defendant looked like cheap costume junk.  My guess is plaintiff hits the garage sale circuit every weekend, and haunts the local thrift stores for bargains, like the cheap junk she gets copied by the defendant.    I wonder who's doing her knockoffs for resale now?  

I don't believe the receipt supposedly from the jewelry store.   I've never seen a receipt saying the actual sales price, and the replacement price.    

Tewolde says no photo from plaintiff of the original bracelet.   Juarez doesn't believe the receipt from the jewelry store is real. 

Corriero wants to give the plaintiff money, $125.   The other two judges want to dismiss everything, because no one proved their claims.

Plaintiff gets nothing, and defendant gets nothing.   

(I hope after this case, that defendant had written agreements with customers.   I still am confused why plaintiff needed so many duplicate sets of jewelry, unless she's reselling defendant's work?  Also, duplicating the designs is wrong, they are someone else's original creation, and the rights belong to the creator and manufacturer of the jewelry).  

 

“Snoring on the Flooring”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  160 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 41, 15 August 2023

Edited November 30, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

On today's junk jewelry case Corriero continues to be an ass. The plaintiff didn't seem credible to me; not that she is dishonest but she seemed to be somewhat befuddled and unclear in her testimony. The defendant was a lousy business person with little or no records but did seem to be reasonable but sloppy. I think they did come up with the correct verdict, no thanks to Corriero.

[AngelaHunter]

31 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

The defendant was a lousy business person with little or no records but did seem to be reasonable but sloppy.

Cash under the table I assume, but I have no idea how much she makes selling cheap costume jewelry.

Amethyst is a pretty stone, but not an expensive one unless you have deep purple, matched stones in a quality setting. I believed the $125 on the receipt but think someone else wrote the replacement value as $400. What kind of jeweler would write that?

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I still am confused why plaintiff needed so many duplicate sets of jewelry, unless she's reselling defendant's work?

 That's the only sane explanation to come up with when she orders 10 at a time, all the same.  Maybe she does sell them for a lot more than she paid the Def.

I have an amethyst bracelet I never wear. It's probably worth about $15. But I do have two, 3-lb chunks of amethyst I used to put in my aquariums and now use as paperweights. I'll be rich if I sell them!😀

44 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I think they did come up with the correct verdict, no thanks to Corriero.

Yep. His hard-nosed stance didn't last long, and he was back to "no proof needed" when a little old lady was concerned. Who knows where her bracelet is? I felt sorry for the husband who is probably knee-deep in tacky jewelry.

[Shrek]

12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

 

Amethyst is a pretty stone, but not an expensive one unless you have deep purple, matched stones in a quality setting. I believed the $125 on the receipt but think someone else wrote the replacement value as $400. What kind of jeweler would write that?

 

Any jeweler worth the name would tell you the replacement value of something for insurance purposes, I believe there's a whole series based on similar called Antiques something or other. Most people wouldn't bother for a $125 stone but each to their own. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Shrek said:

Any jeweler worth the name would tell you the replacement value of something for insurance purposes, I believe there's a whole series based on similar called Antiques something or other. Most people wouldn't bother for a $125 stone but each to their own. 

Insuring jewelry and getting paid an appraisal value and not what you actually paid is tricky. I found that out when I was going to insure my engagement ring. But as you say, each to his own.

[CrazyInAlabama]

30 November

“No Shade, No Brows”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 119 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 37, 12 April 2023

“CARmegeddon”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 168 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 41, 7 Sept 2023 (See DoctorK’s description of this case)

 

1 December

“Handyman Damage”

Rerun, Season 9,  Episode  161 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 41, 21 August 2023

A ridiculous decision by all three judges, as usual Corriero was the worst.  See DoctorK’s description of the case for the dirty details of another landlord screwed over by the judges.

 

“Chevy Metal”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  165 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 41, 30 August 2023

 

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“No Shade, No Brows”

Who knew that eyebrows could send you "on a rollercoaster ride"?

I stuck with this to the bitter end and was glad the P, who doesn't bother reading what she signs, lost. She needs to sue whoever sold her that ratty red wig.

[AngelaHunter]

On 11/27/2023 at 7:14 PM, DoctorK said:

The judges apparently thought that the defendant "Party Girl" was cute and funny. No she was not. She was ignorant, irresponsible, entitled and trashy as hell.

The worst part was that two judges seemed to find the "Aren't I adorable?" super-entitled, mega-heffalump cute and encouraged her. She is not cute, not charming, and sounded like a brainless idiot.

 

On 11/27/2023 at 3:24 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Corriero is a jerk. 

No kidding. I was dumbfounded that Papa seemed to be insinuating that a landlord is responsible for fixing the damage constantly being done by the slob and her herd of drunk/drugged, paying party-goers. I can picture the scene at those "parties" in that destroyed nest. Not her fault! She gets blotto and goes into a drunken stupor so who knows what happened?

On 11/27/2023 at 3:24 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

$5,000 to plaintiff.  

Thank you. I couldn't bear another minute of looking at her stupid, bloated, pouting face,  fake eyelash batting, or listening to her dumbass attitude.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 December

“Bad to the Bone”

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

(Haleigh Callahan vs. Doug Kruczek)

From the show site:   Two dog owners had been using the same trustworthy daycare facility for years. But one holiday weekend the yard was overbooked, and the defendant's bull terrier mix was overstimulated. The plaintiff is suing him to pay for the bite injury to her dog. Is the defendant responsible, or does liability lie with the self-proclaimed professionals at the facility?

Plaintiff dog owner suing defendant/owner of Bull Terrier Mix for vet bills by defendant's dog at a doggy daycare.   Defendant admits his dog Maverick has a snapping and bite history with other dogs, and has been going to doggy daycares at other locations, not the location in question.   He claims the attack on plaintiff's Husky, Pepper, was the fault of the doggy daycare. 

Plaintiff left her two dogs at the doggy daycare, had a call about the injury to her dog, and dog required vet care, medication, stitches, amounting to  $1183. 

So, did the daycare allow defendants back at the daycare?   Defendant claiming his dog was oversimulated stressed out, and daycare didn't stop his dog from attacking.  

I wouldn't use a doggy daycare that allowed aggressive animals like defendant's dogs to be there.   Having a dog that has to be isolated is a danger to other dogs, and unprofessional to have the dog there.  

The video of the altercation is shown, defendant's dog really rips into the plaintiff's dog in the playyard.  

Both owners had to sign an agreement that they won't sue the daycare when they left their dog there, so plaintiff can't sue the daycare. 

I agree with the plaintiff, defendant's dog has a known bite and aggression history, and dog shouldn't be in doggy group settings.   

The daycare voicemail about both of defendant's dog talks about several incidents over a few days.   

I wish the judges would stop saying defendant's dog is overstimulated, dog has a long history of aggression, and never should have been at doggy daycare. 

Tewolde says aggressive dog shouldn't have been in a group situation, but what's the alternative?   Cage the dog? 

Plaintiff case dismissed against defendant. 

I disagree.  Defendant knew his dog was aggressive, and did he tell the new daycare that?    I wonder how many other dogs the defendant's dog has bitten?  

“No Dime or Time for a Cosign Mom”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 101 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 36, 27 Feb 2023 (Any parent considering co-signing for an adult child should watch the ungrateful defendant, and the plaintiff's clueless daughter.  I loathed all three litigants). 

Edited December 4, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Chalby]

Oh my, I just watched Hot Bench where the plaintiff was suing the defendant for rear ending him, and not having a license or insurance. Fair enough. The "damage" was minimal but he supplied an estimate that was almost reasonable.

But then came Plaintiff's caterwailing and gnashing of teeth over hospital bills, repossessed car, and becoming homeless. WTF? And he's blaming the repentant youth for ALL his current woes.

His efforts to shakedown the defendant became clearer when he disclosed two prior back injuries caused during car accidents. I'd guarantee the first accident resulted in a decent payoff as he was really hurt. And I'm sure he'd trade that $ for a healthy back.

However, this spectacle of a scam was an embarrassment

[Chalby]

On 11/28/2023 at 1:14 AM, DoctorK said:

Crazy as usual did a good job of covering this case but I need to vent a bit. The judges apparently thought that the defendant "Party Girl" was cute and funny. No she was not. She was ignorant, irresponsible, entitled and trashy as hell. Who invites 100+ drunks into the house they are renting after the bars have closed to drink more and party? Not surprisingly the Party Girl drinks and passes out at her parties, leaving the drunken "guests" to trash the house. When she manages to wake up the next day (probably by the crack of noon), she looks around and all the mess and damage and of course wants the landlord clean up and fix everything because that is the landlord's job (in her dim little mind).

The defendant represents everything people complain about when discussing the under 30 generation: entitled, smug,  unapologetic, dismissive and unable to empathize. I know people who were working full-time while living on their own at 18, and some even at 16.

"Party girl" may live on her own, but she's ill-equipped to be responsible and/or accountable. I feel sorry for any person who enters a friendship or relationship with her. Huge Ick factor.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 December

“Liecensed Driver”

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

(Nave  vs. Christopher and Elijan (driver) Mulligan)

From the show site:   A man says he underwent back surgery after he was rear-ended in his car by a teenager. But he's had a history of back injuries and didn't bring any paperwork linking THIS surgery to THIS accident. Will the teenager be let off the hook for the medical bills, or will the judges determine he made the plaintiff's existing back issues worse?

Plaintiff and his long history of back injuries and surgeries, blames a teen who rear ended him for another surgery?    The lack of paperwork from a surgeon claiming the injury resulting in the surgery was recent, and caused by the accident, I'm calling the plaintiff a scammer.   However, defendant didn't have a license or insurance.  

I would throw everything out.  (Sorry, I have to leave for an appointment).  I'm hoping the judges dismissed the theatrical whining of the plaintiff.  

Chalby says that plaintiff got the estimated repair for the bumper, and the cost for his xray.   I wouldn't have given him a dime. 

I had something come up, so couldn't watch to the end.   

 

“Real Estate Deal Gone Wrong”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 92. (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 36, 14 February 2023

Edited December 9, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Liecensed Driver”

I just started watching this, but P's rehearsed opening monologue, complete with >theatrical pause> swallow to appear choked up> and cast eyes to the heavens as he invokes his dear departed Dad's birthday made me shut that shit down. So thanks for the verdict.

[badhaggis]

16 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I just started watching this, but P's rehearsed opening monologue, complete with >theatrical pause> swallow to appear choked up> and cast eyes to the heavens as he invokes his dear departed Dad's birthday made me shut that shit down. So thanks for the verdict

I called my husband into the room to see his attempts to produce a tear. Absolutely a scammer!

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I would throw everything out.

I should read more carefully. I'm almost tempted to go back and find out if the charlatan got the big payday he was gunning for.

2 hours ago, badhaggis said:

I called my husband into the room to see his attempts to produce a tear.

And you just know he rehearsed his gestures and expressions in front of a mirror until he was sure his speech would be heart-rending. That doesn't excuse irresponsible idiots driving around with no insurance or license, but it's not the basis for a lottery win.

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 December

“Lost in Collaboration”

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

(Nancy Xander vs. Chris Cox)

From the show site: A Scottish Terrier enthusiast ordered a custom iron gate to keep in her beloved dogs. The old adage goes, "Measure twice, cut once." But she says the contractor did zero measuring - and zero installing because it didn't fit. Did she give him a reasonable opportunity to make adjustments, or does she deserve her deposit back?

Plaintiff wants $2,000 back on the failed order for custom iron gates. Gate was placed through the defendant's partner Charles Pearson, and he took the measurements. $3950 was the total costs, but plaintiff put down $1,000, and $1,000 later.   

Defendant says when he was trying to work on the gates, that plaintiff dragged her half asleep neighbor over to chime in on the work.  Plaintiff claims the first drawing was good, but the finished product was wrong, and she said wants her $2,000 back.   Defendant claims the gate needed adjustments, and plaintiff wouldn't let him do that. Plaintiff says gate is too tall to fit between the stone pillars.   

Defendant says the biggest issues were that the stone side pillars were off kilter, that he would have to notch the top pieces, and that plaintiff refused to communicate with him about changes to get the gate to fix.   

Plaintiff denies that she was given the option to keep the gate after the big blowup with defendant and partner.    Defendant says he wanted to give her the gate, and she could get someone else to finish it.   

My opinion is I would give her the gate, and no more money to either side, and she can get someone to finish the gate.  But the gate is gone.  (When defendant says they evertually 'repurposed' the gate, I'm guessing it was chopped up and used as a part of other itmes they build).    

Defendant offered to give her the gate, give her $300 back, and end the contract.   However, after months without resolution with plaintiff, he dumped the gate.   Plaintiff claims no one measured the space between the pillars, and where the top of the gate would go.  

When they tried to deliver the gate and fit it, and wanted a $1,000 progress payment per the contract, and plaintiff claimed gate would never fit.   Defendant says one more hour of work for adjustments would have the gate finished.  

Corriero is fixated on the missing gate, but this case is being heard three years after the original contract, so gate is long gone. 

Defendant says they tried to give her the gate after an additional $500 payment, but plaintiff refused.  Plaintiff eventually found someone else to do the custom gate for her.   

$2000, to plaintiff. 

“Are You Faux Real?”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 84,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35, 1 February 2023

Edited December 7, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: A Scottish Terrier enthusiast ordered a custom iron gate to keep in her beloved dogs.

That was an interesting and refreshing case with civilized human beings, a rarity on these shows.

I don't know if the Defs were incompetent, or if Ms Xander jumped the gun, but I do know that trying to fit something new into an established building or doorway, etc, can take a lot of fiddling. I got all new interior doors for my house and my brother installed them. Every one of them had to be planed, measured again,  fitted again, and planed some more. Nothing is ever square or plumb.

But maybe Ms. Xander was right and these guys did make a mess of it. First Mr. Cox said they "disposed" of the gate, and later said he "repurposed" it which I take to mean he may have sold it again. Hard to say since he seemed to use a few words incorrectly. When telling the judges he'll leave it up to them to decide how much their work was worth he said, "I'd have to digress to you."

[Paperclips]

Old Yeller was in rare form on the repeat they aired.  Half-Asleep looked half-asleep.  Motor Mouth was rambling on about something.

[CrazyInAlabama]

7 December

“Take the Money and Van Gogh”

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

(Bryan Harris vs. Bill Tompkins )

From the show site: A homeowner says the veteran he hired to paint his house drank on the job, used vulgar language, and breached their contract when he abandoned the project. The veteran directs the judges' attention to their written agreement, which states the homeowner was to split the work with him 50/50. So, who left whom high and dry?

Plaintiff hired defendant to paint his house, and is suing for $5,000.   Defendant claims plaintiff would supply materials, and do 50% of the labor.   Other estimates were $20,000, but defendant agreed to $10,000 in return for plaintiff doing a lot of the work, pressure washing, taping off the needed areas.   Defendant says plaintiff wanted the huge discount in return for doing a lot of the work.    Defendant says plaintiff would do half of the work, supply paint, scaffolding, and all other supplies.   

Plaintiff says defendant drank beer on the job, defendant says they both did. 

Defendant claims he found out plaintiff cancelled the scaffolding order, so he couldn't finish painting above the first floor. 

Juarez and Tewolde don't like the language defendant used to plaintiff in his texts. 

Defendant claims he was at risk trying to complete the job without scaffolding, and hanging precariously off of ladders. 

Juarez wants to give plaintiff $2000, and Corriero wants to give $2500, and so does Tewolde. 

Plaintiff gets $2500. 

 

“A Tale of Two Tenants”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 87, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35, 6 February 2023

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: A homeowner says the veteran he hired to paint his house drank on the job, used vulgar language, and breached their contract when he abandoned the project.

I enjoyed this. Milquetoast Doogie Howser seemed fine with everything until his wife laid down the law on him.

That the overly-dramatic Def was willing to accept half the money other contractors were asking seems to indicate that Doogie did indeed say he would do half the work, which seemed to be a heck of a lot more than "masking and power washing" which he repeated about 5 times. Rot and extensive termite damage require more than masking.

They bonded over their shared enthusiasm for "IPA" which we find out is "India Pale Ale" which P says D started imbibing in the morning. He admits he drank on the job and so what?

I got a kick from these two, especially the Def as he waxed eloquent about his exhaustion and ripped-up skin from hanging over the edge of the roof when P never got the scaffolding he agreed to get.

[CrazyInAlabama]

8 December

“Party Girls’ Party House”

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

p. 37, 3 April 2023 (I still find it amazing that the judges sided with the landlord, when there was no proof of substantial damages, and no proof of a fire, except landlord claiming it was a party house, and also claiming there was a fire).

“Dude Hit My Car”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 86 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35, 3 February 2023

[Chalby]

On 12/5/2023 at 5:12 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I should read more carefully. I'm almost tempted to go back and find out if the charlatan got the big payday he was gunning for.

 

He is probably still pleased with himself because he did get enough money to cover the cost of the bumper's estimate and the $43 to cover the x-ray he had to pay for. It was disgusting how badly he was trying to milk $5,000.

[CrazyInAlabama]

11 December

“From Best Friends to Frenemies”

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

(James Bruno Sr,  and Diana Bruno  vs. (Husband-didn't get the name) Bouton  and Tammy Bouton )

From the show site: A woman let her best friend of 13 years sublease a bedroom behind her landlord's back. She thought the friend would move out when she married the neighbor across the street; but instead, she stayed and stopped paying rent. Can the illegal sublet be enforced?

Suing for $646 for unpaid rent and cleaning fees when defendant moved out, and didn't pay her $455 rent, or cleaning fees.  Defendant lived in the house for seven months. 

Defendant woman says plaintiff woman screamed defamatory remarks against her while running throught the neighborhood, but plaintiff Diana says she was just yelling from her front yard and not running.     Defendant woman was going to lose her job for refusing the Covid vaccine and was going to become homeless, so plaintiff took her in as a renter.    Plaintiff Diana and Tammy were formerly related, because Tammy was married to Diana's cousin.   She also introduced defendant Tammy to her current husband.   

Plaintiffs are long term renters, and say their landlord knew about defendant moving in, but then landlord wanted to raise plaintiffs' rent.  Tammy claims she had to hide in her room, or leave the house when landlord came around, to prevent him from raising the rent.    

Tammy claims plaintiffs harassed her, with loud noises.  Tewolde says texts from plaintiffs to defendant Tammy were harassment.   

When Tammy married husband, who lived across the street, plaintiff thought she would move out, but didn't, then left without paying the last month's rent.   

Tammy wouldn't move in with husband until after they married, because her husband has "Christian values".   But what stopped her from moving in after they married?   And giving notice and cleaning the room before she left? 

(My guess before the case even starts is the plaintiff can't enforce an illegal contract with defendant.) Hell has frozen over, I agree with Corriero about the illegal sublet.    

Plaintiff is claimsing for cleaming the carpet from defendant's cat.  Diana claims defendant never cleaned anything in her room or the house during her entire tenancy.   

Judges give plaintiff $420 for one month of unpaid rent. Cleaning fees are dismissed because no written contract, and place looked fine to the judges.  

 

 

“Whoopsie Daisy”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 91,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p.36, 16 August 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

12 December

“Lawn of the Land”

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

(Alisha and Roderick James  vs. Jose "Angel" Gonzalez)

From the show site: A landscaper says he and his sons were intimidated by a hostile homeowner and only agreed to give him a refund out of fear. He has since changed his mind, and the homeowner is suing. Did the landscaper try sufficiently to work with him, or did he walk out on the job too hastily?

Plaintiff claims he agreed to pay defendant $10,000, and later $10,000 more.   And plaintiff claims defendant agreed to pay back $5,000, and then later changed his mind.    The defendant was supposed to landscape the plaintiff's pool and huge terraced back yard, with a total price of $20,000. Plaintiff says he wanted fabric weed control fabric, and defendant wanted to use plastic.  

Defendant says the plastic was more practical because of the size of the fabric vs. plastic rolls.   Defendant said plaintiff didn't object to the plastic until defendant had already moved tons of rock out of the way to put the plastic and drip lines down.   There is a video of plaintiff threatening defendant and his sons.  Defendant had to call police to get an escort to get his tools back.  

Corriero says plaintiff cursing at defendant was inappropriate.  

There are emails where defendant proposes to give plaintiff a refund of $5,000, but defendant doesn't have the credit to get money to repay the plaintiff.    Plaintiff wanted all of the rocks removed too.   Then, defendant couldn't do the payment, and plaintiff wanted $2500 minimum, with another $2500 later, plus removing all of the dirt and stumps, etc from the back yard.

Defendant would agree to remove debris, not the rocks off of the slope too. 

Cisco and Ricardo, defendant's sons testify.   

Then, Judge Juarez brings up that plaintiff's contracting license was revoked in 2016, not just expired.   

However, defendant says he's been contacting the board to try to get this license renewed.   After seven years, I wouldn't think defendant is getting his license back. 

$5,000 to the plaintiff.    I don't think he should have had more than half of this. 

  

“The Ties That Bind”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 100, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 36, 24 February 2023

Edited December 13, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

I always find it funny how homeowners find that the person they hired has expired credentials AFTER there's conflict and then they want to have this issue enforced in court.  I guess $10K is a good price and the plaintiff was willing to pay it, but he's salty when the job doesn't go 100% positive and throws that license thing in the mix.   My pessimistic nature makes me think the plaintiff was looking to save on his big landscaping project after the fact because it's not the first time someone tried to get a bonanza when a license was an issue.

I think it's the customers onus to check if the people you contract with have legitimate papers, so the plaintiff being bitter after the fact is self-serving.  Should defendant be majorly penalized for that... not sure. 

[AngelaHunter]

On 12/11/2023 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“From Best Friends to Frenemies”

That was icky. What a bunch of unpleasant people, inside and out. Well, Def's new hubby seemed reasonable, up to a point I guess, in comparison.

 

On 12/11/2023 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

plaintiff Diana says she was just yelling from her front yard and not running.

I believed that. Can't see her running anywhere.

 

On 12/11/2023 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tammy wouldn't move in with husband until after they married, because her husband has "Christian values". 

I guess Mr.  Bouton, who seems to have spent a lifetime growing his hair, has values that dictate he let his beloved future bride be mistreated (so she says) and tossed out on the street rather than take her in. Not very Christian, IMO.

 

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 There is a video of plaintiff threatening defendant and his sons.  Defendant had to call police to get an escort to get his tools back.  

These videos are so enlightening. We see this plaintiff - like so many others - all meek, on their best "Yes, ma'm" and "No, sir" behavior and then we see the videos showing them behaving very, very differently.

On 12/11/2023 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Hell has frozen over, I agree with Corriero about the illegal sublet.    

Yes, I was surprised that nasty P was rewarded for doing the wrong thing.

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 December

“Parking Problems”     

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

(Rhonda Ford vs. Rodolfo Viray)

From the show site: A woman believes her neighbor hit her car again and again while pulling into his parking spot. She claims others in their complex witnessed it but didn't want to get involved because they like the guy. Will her own amateur detective work be enough to convince the judges?

Plaintiff claims she can't get other witnesses to testify, but she can prove defendant is guilty.   She's suing for $4500.

Plaintiff says that defendant hit her car repeatedly, and the damages are extensive.   The litigants have assigned parking, side by side.  Defendant keeps claiming he doesn't remember hitting plaintiff's car.  

Apparently, both litigants have appeared in another court about this case.    Also, a neighbor assigned to the parking space on the other side of where defendant's car is parked, and that neighbor says defendant hit his car also. 

Plaintiff claims two other neighbors saw the hit on the car, but refuse to testify in court, or talk to the police.   Plaintiff has no witnesses, and case is circumstantial.   Plaintiff claims there is white paint on defendant's bumper, from her car (his car is bright red).   Plaintiff claims the scrape marks on defendant's bumper match the scrape marks on her car. 

 Defendant says he never hit the plaintiff's car, but Judge Corriero points out that defendant contacted his insurance company, and his insurance company said he did the damage.

Plaintiff received an insurance letter from defendant's insurance company, saying defendant isn't liable.  Plaintiff backs into her parking spot, so she claims the damages are on her front bumper, but plaintiff isn't just claiming for front bumper damage, but also rear bumper damages, new rear lights, and a new cover for her car.   I didn't see any white paint in the picture plaintiff put in evidence that she claimed showed white paint from her car on defendant's bumper. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   She has no witnesses in court, she has no proof that defendant hit her car.   

 

“Ruff Rough Refund”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  102, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 36, 28 February 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

14 December

“You Auto Know Better”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 155, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 40, 31 July 2023

“Crypto Electro”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 99 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 36, 23 February 2023

 

15 December

“Insurance Pole-ity”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  156, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 41, 1 August 2023

“Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow”

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

p. 34, 22 December 2022