AngelaHunter January 25 Share January 25 (edited) 7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Jaime Johnson vs. Crystal Blackwell) We got a ringside seat to how the dregs of society live. HE goes to the slammer for some type of crime he committed. SHE takes his car to care for and answers all the judges' questions in a snotty, insolent way. "I just never thought about insurance! I just didn't!" *shrug* Her tone indicates she thinks the questions are stupid. She gets piss drunk with her marginal boyfriend and, like all of their ilk, they start fighting, naturally. She takes his keys, she says. SHE says her drunken yahoo loverboy steals the jailbird's keys and proceeds to immediately total the heap. Gee, people who like to get drunk and fight just warm my heart. P., a low-rent ZZ-Top with revolting head tats, could have avoided all this trouble had he only refrained from criminal behaviour. I guess he couldn't help himself or maybe it wasn't his fault. I saw some hugging when I was FFing. I shut that shit down right then. Ugh. Edited January 26 by AngelaHunter ZZ, not JJ! 😂 1 2 Link to comment
DoctorK January 25 Share January 25 Today’s case: while plaintiff was in jail the defendant agreed to take care of storage charges (apparently he had several vehicles) and insurance on his car. In return, she was allowed to use the car but no one else was allowed to drive it. She did let the insurance lapse even though the plaintiff had told her it would need to be renewed within a month or two. She sort of allowed her boyfriend to drive the plaintiff’s car (unclear, sounds like she didn’t actually give the keys to her boyfriend but he did have easy access to the keys), and boyfriend for some unspecified reason drove it deep into the woods somewhere and totaled the (uninsured) car. At first, I thought the defendant was being surly but by the end I think sadly that she is just plain stupid. If that is the case, stupidity is not her fault but the plaintiff knew her well and should not have given her responsibilities that he should have known she wouldn’t be able to handle. From that point of view, I was OK with the verdict - the plaintiff gets compensated (by the show) and the defendant didn’t get beat up during the case. As always, YMMV. 2 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 5 Share February 5 29 January “No Dancing the Loan Away” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Jabria Howington vs. Deja Simmons) From the show site: An exotic dancer left Florida to try and improve her life in California. She moved in with her boyfriend and his sister while trying to get into makeup school, but the sister claims she never pulled her weight. Was the sister justified in urging her brother to break up with her? And does the dancer owe her for rent? Plaintiff suing defendant/ her brother’s ex-girlfriend for rent, apartment damages, and an unpaid loan. $4350 is what plaintiff is claiming. Defendant says she didn't have a signed lease with plaintiff, or verbal agreement to pay, so plaintiff should go after the brother. Plaintiff does say defendant contributed $100, or $200 randomly. Defendant says she owes plaintiff for her exotic dancing license (I suspect it's a certification that you're old enough to 'dance'). Defendant interrupts plaintiff's testimony with a bleeped expletive. And continues to irritate Judge Tewolde with her outrageous profanity. A text from defendant says she owes $4k, so she should lose. Corriero as usual tries to downplay the defendant's behavior. Defendant denies plaintiff bought her any clothes, or that she damaged anything. Unfortunately, no pictures of damages. Judge Juarez says for months when brother paid $2,000 for rent, it covered his and defendant's rent. In deliberations, both Judges Tewolde and Juarez say defendant didn't even care about being in court. Plaintiff receives $2441 for some rent, no proof of damages, and the dancing license. “In Despair with In Vitro Fertilization” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (This is a rerun, I missed the first time around) (Shonta'De Childress vs. Cornelius "CJ" Nettles ) From the show site: Following a lost pregnancy, a distraught woman tried to help a man start an IVF journey with her, but now she claims he owes her money. Plaintiff wanted a baby, and was unable to conceive, so tried IVF (her job had some coverage for infertility treatment). After receiving a previous judgment for hospital costs, she received another bill for other parts of the bills, so is suing again. They broke up after the third transfer, and he went back to his wife. Plaintiff also wants money for the pendants for ashes, and a teddy bear that also contains ashes. Plaintiff suing defendant/ sperm donor (not a clinic anonymous donor) for half of her medical bills from her miscarriage, and for some pendants for the poor lost baby’s ashes, $5,000. That’s why you go to a legal sperm bank, and don’t get someone who has three other kids already, to knock you up. I hope this taught defendant that unprotected sex can ruin your life in a lot of ways. Corriero points out that plaintiff is suing defendant for partnering her to have a baby. Defendant says they broke up after the first embryo transplant, the other two transfers were not with his consent. During the first court case, defendant claimed he wasn’t the father of the embryos. However, he now admits he knew the baby was his. She still has three more embryos that are still frozen. Plaintiff receives $5,000. 30 January “Lost Dog, Run Free” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Antoinette Galloway vs. Crystele Henderson ) From the show site: A woman sues her neighbor for losing their co-owned French Bulldog while she was away on vacation. The neighbor says she purchased the dog as a companion during her divorce, and she's the sole owner. What was their arrangement? Is the plaintiff doing all of this because she missed out on future puppy sales? Plaintiff claims she is co-owner of dog with defendant, and owned a male Jet, and female Henderson. Plaintiff claims she was traveling, and defendant was taking care of Rose. However, defendant was taking care of both Rose and Jett while plaintiff was on a trip. Then, defendant’s kids walked the dogs, both dogs got loose, and only Jett was recovered. Defendant says the bargain was plaintiff paid for both dogs, would eventually breed the dogs, and plaintiff would get the money from the sale of the puppies. Plaintiff is Plaintiff claims the arrangement was both litigants would care for the dogs, and the defendant would get to keep Rose, breed her, and Rose was only a companion animal for defendant. Defendant says losing the dogs was an accident, and she owes nothing to plaintiff. Co-ownership for purebreds is common, usually for showing and breeding purposes. Defendant says the dogs weren’t breedable, Jett had temperament issues, and Rose had behavior issues, so she says it would be irresponsible to breed them. There is a text from plaintiff to defendant agreeing to co-ownership, and the arrangement. Dogs were not chipped, and defendant claims plaintiff did nothing for the dogs. French Bulldogs were bought just for breeding purposes by plaintiff. Defendant also texted to plaintiff once that she couldn’t take care of the dog in her small apartment, but says it was in desperation. Who doesn’t get dogs microchipped? The litigants agreed to co-ownership, and then defendant had physical custody. The dog’s expenses were all the defendant’s, but dog never went to a vet in the five months defendant had the dog. Defendant says she’s broke had two eviction notices, and paid plaintiff what she could. Plaintiff gets her $5,000. “Copped at the Beauty Shop” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 14 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 28 September 2023 31 January “Dead Bugs and Spark Plugs” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Hassan Adbulkarim vs. Rosa Gonzalez ) From the show site: A man trusted a mechanic he didn't know who told him a private seller's car was in perfect condition. But when he discovered mechanical issues and a roach infestation, he decided to sue the seller. How can he place the blame on her, and why did he bring her kids into this by talking about calling social services? Plaintiff/car buyer suing defendant/car seller for selling a 2011 Prius that was claimed to be in perfect condition by a mechanic, he paid $5700 for the car, and he’s suing defendant for $4,000 for detailing, and repairs. Defendant says it was an “As Is” sale and she has no responsibility. Plaintiff says car was acting up right after purchase. Then, when the seats and carpets were removed from the interior for detailing, he discovered the car was infested with roaches. Ms. Gonzalez only owned car for 18 months, and was the second owner, she claims she knew nothing about any issues. Plaintiff says car needed a new battery fan, and head gasket. I can’t tell you what the detailer found, it’s too revolting. Defendant claims car was dirty when plaintiff looked at it, and he knew what he was getting. Defendant also says she dropped the price from $6,600, and sold for $5700, so plaintiff still got a good deal. Plaintiff also didn’t have his own mechanic look at the car, just took the statement that defendant’s usual mechanic said about the car. Plaintiff also sent a text message to plaintiff, stating that he would never let the matter drop, and threatening to call CPS about her kids. That text from plaintiff makes me want him to lose. Despicable plaintiff says he was only alerting her about the roaches endangering her kids, but the rest of the message demands $2,000. Defendant says plaintiff tried to use her account at the mechanics shop to charge his repairs to her. Plaintiff says it was a misunderstanding. After that text I wouldn’t give plaintiff a penny. Tewolde wants to give plaintiff $1,200. Corriero says it’s a classic ‘as is’ sale, so nothing to the plaintiff. Juarez Plaintiff case dismissed. “As is’ rules the day. “All Bite No Bark” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 26 October 2023 1 February “Room Raider” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Mitchell Krieger vs. Diane Kane) From the show site: A man says he was denied access to the bathroom in his apartment and had to go at a gas station three miles down the road. Because of this, he deemed the place uninhabitable and wants his rent and deposit back. The landlady denies locking him out and says she was perfectly accommodating - even excusing his alleged inappropriate advances. Plaintiff/former tenant suing defendant/former landlady for partial return of rent and security deposit. Defendant claims conditions were good, and that she ignored his inappropriate advances to her. Plaintiff claims it was advertised as a 1 bed, 1 bath, access to the pool. However, plaintiff claims that at on the first night access the bathroom, and that’s when he had to use the gas station bathroom. He also couldn’t use the pool. Defendant calls plaintiff a pervert, claims he ran around naked. $200 was security, $75 cleaning fee, $700 rent. After the first night he says he didn’t use the house bathroom too late at night. Defendant claims he did have keys that worked to get into the main part of the house and bathroom. She also says she let him move in with a large dog. She says one day he was using the shower, heard his dog barking and went outside undressed, except for soap suds. So, to use the main house bathroom, plaintiff had to go outside of his rented room, and open the door to the main house. Plaintiff says it was a 3 mile drive to the gas station. Plaintiff says he was staying with a friend for most of the month, because of the bathroom situation. Plaintiff says he only stayed from the 14th to the 29th, with most of that time he was staying at the friend’s home. (This happened in Florida). Defendant claims he damaged her property, and wants $275 in damages. Defendant claims his Irish Setter shed a lot, nailed the carpet, and runed the refrigerator seal. Plaintiff says he never left his dog alone at the room, and says defendant left the door to his room open. He says he was never inappropriate, and also says he could hear her yelling profanities at all hours of the night, and says she was hostile. Juarez says he was there for the month, so no return of rent, but would give him his security deposit back. She also says no proof of damages meeting Florida law, means she can’t keep the security deposit. Tewolde and Corriero agree. Plaintiff receives security back $200. Defendant damage claim dismissed. “Sin City Shakedown” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 13, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 27 September 2023 2 February “Family Feud” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Quintina Carter vs. Deshara Crosby) From the show site: A woman loaned her niece money for car repairs and a plane ticket to New York, where she was scheduled for an in vitro procedure. The niece says she tried to make payments, but her aunt refused them. Is this a matter of not understanding Cash App, or is the niece truly as ungrateful as her aunt says? Plaintiff / aunt loaned money to defendant/ niece for a car and tickets $3355. Niece/defendant says aunt refused her payments, so she owes her aunt nothing. Aunt previously had trouble getting niece to repay her for another loan. First loan was $1500, and the rest was later. Niece agreed to pay $500 a month, but claims the aunt wanted $500 a week which wasn’t possible. (They’re both from Warren, MI). Niece says she was doing IVF, but couldn’t afford to pay for the plane ticket for tickets to go to New York. I’m omitting some nasty arguments between the two litigants, they’re both too disgusting to tell. Judge T. doesn’t like defendant’s nasty answers to aunt’s texts. Judge T. is right, defendant has a nasty attitude. Aunt says she’s owed $2750 by niece, after one payment only from niece. Judges decide plaintiff is owed $2,955 (Juarez says $500 lower). “Don't Vent Just Pay Your Rent” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 15 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 29 September 2023 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 5 Share February 5 5 February “Lil’ Mama Drama” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Ralph Allmon Jr vs. Natasha Shelton) From the show site: A man needed to rehome his Pitbull and sold her for $500. Now he's suing the buyer for $1,600 because she was allegedly supposed to give him a puppy but got the dog spayed instead. The buyer says it was necessary for the dog's health and doesn't trust the man as a dog owner anyway. Which party here has the dog's best interest in mind? Plaintiff / dog seller suing defendant/dog buyer for spaying the dog, and eliminating the chance of plaintiff getting a puppy. He’s suing for fraud and saying Lil’ Mama is the last of her line. So, he had to rehome the dog, and sold her, so why is he wanting another puppy? Defendant says plaintiff wanted $1200, she bargained him down to $500. Defendant says the dog deteriorated, and is in bad shape. She also claims she has another female that had pups, Plaintiff had to rehome Lil’ Mama, he still has three other Pits. He rehomes another dog, and one to his daughter, and has all three dogs at his current home. Defendant is a breeder of Pits, and has bred regular litters. Corriero wants to see where the defendant promised the plaintiff a puppy. Plaintiff claims the defendant did breed Lil’ Mama and cheated him out of the puppy. Defendant not only had the dog spayed, but sold her to someone else. The video of the dog is heartbreaking. Plaintiff doesn't believe the video of Lil' Mama, and still wants the dog back. Plaintiff case dismissed, no proof of fraud, he sold the dog. “Life's a Beach” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) ( Collins vs. James Callaway ) From the show site: A woman says a young man on an electric scooter collided with her electric bike, causing her to fly through the air and slide across concrete; he admits he was riding with one hand and smoking a cigarette with the other. Plaintiff is suing defendant for her injuries after he ran into her electric bike with his electric scooter. SHe's suing for medical expenses, lost wages, and bike damages. Plaintiff's husband testifies to what he saw at the accident. She had bruised ribs, a fractured shoulder blade. Because of the extent of the injuries, Judge J doesn't think the injuries match 5 to 10 mph collision. Judge J thinks plaintiff wasn't paying attention, and ran over defendant lying on the ground. All three think accident was partially plaintiff's fault. Plaintiff receives money, but it was still partially her fault. 2 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 6 Share February 6 7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: From the show site: A man says he was denied access to the bathroom in his apartment and had to go at a gas station three miles down the road. Because of this, he deemed the place uninhabitable and wants his rent and deposit back. The landlady denies locking him out and says she was perfectly accommodating - even excusing his alleged inappropriate advances. I SO wanted to come here after I watched these two kooks but my memory faded during the long time-out. I just know that the def. in her "cold shoulder" gown was like a stereotypical, pushy, irritating next-door neighbour in a sitcom. As always when watching these cases, I try and imagine myself inviting a strange man - virtually off the street - to come and live with me, share my bathroom, etc. (and hope he won't steal everything I own, destroy my property, or murder me in my bed) but I just can't visualize such a thing. Usually, I have a very good imagination, too. 2 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 6 Share February 6 22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Niece says she was doing IVF, but couldn’t afford to pay for the plane ticket for tickets to go to New York. I could be wrong but from what I've heard, IVF is rather costly. 22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I’m omitting some nasty arguments between the two litigants, they’re both too disgusting to tell. Thank you. I see I was right to quit this trash. 22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Despicable plaintiff says he was only alerting her about the roaches endangering her kids, but the rest of the message demands $2,000. Despicable is right, and another grown man in the "There should be more things in place to protect people (morons/idiots/big babies) like me" camp. 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 6 Share February 6 (edited) In the IVF case, I think there was insurance paying for the IVF, but the plane tickets and other expenses were the responsibility of the defendant. I wonder why she had to go to New York for the procedure, instead of where she lived? 6 February “Buh-Loan-Nee” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Rahiza Alvarez vs. Kathleen Rasmussen) From the show site: An extreme couponer sues a woman who she claims is, and always will be, Walmart's best cashier. They struck up a strong friendship that extended past the checkout line - but that came to a messy end when the cashier failed to repay a loan for her dream car. Can the judges ring up a fair verdict? Plaintiff suing defendant for repayment of the remaining amount for a car loan, $600. The two women went to Disneyworld together, and started an online resale business of Disney souvenirs. Plaintiff paid for the items, and defendant posted and mailed them, and they split the profits 70/30. Later, plaintiff was accused of stealing a kid's book from defendant's house. When plaintiff went to defendant's house plaintiff showed defendant where the book was left, and defendant claimed plaintiff faked returning it. I wish Corriero would stop trying to play Dr. Phil. Plaintiff claims somene slashed her tires twice, and there are voice mail messages threatening her. Plaintiff claims when she talked to defendant that there were specific comments in the voice mail that matched what defendant told her in person. $600 for the car loan to plaintiff. “Gold Hearted Snake” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Amy Norton-Bolden vs. Jessica Robinson) From the show site: A high school friend offered to repair the plaintiff's jewelry, but months went by without results, so the friend tossed the goods instead. Plaintiff suing defendant/former friend for the value of gold jewelry that defendant was supposed to repair for plaintiff, and didn't. Jewelry was claimed to be trashed by the defendant. Plaintiff is suing for $5,000, value of the jewelry, and emotional distress. Defendant claims she doesn't remember the bracelet, but then says she recalls the bracelet was the thinner one. Plaintiff gave defendant the jewelry to fix, six months later defendant refused to communicate with plaintiff. There is video footage of defendant tossing a jewelry box into some bushes. Defendant says she tossed the jewelry outside the door to plaintiff's apartment. Plaintiff claims she was out of town when the jewelry was dumped, and when she went to look for it, the jewelry box was gone. When plaintiff returned home, and went to look for the jewelry, it was gone. Only the top of the box was outside the apartment. Gramto6 actually watched the end, thanks for telling me the ending. Plaintiff received the value of the jewelry, but nothing for emotional distress. Edited February 7 by CrazyInAlabama 1 1 Link to comment
Gramto6 February 7 Share February 7 (edited) 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I missed the verdict, I'm hoping it was for the value of the jewelry, and nothing else. Sorry. Yes, it was just for the jewelry, the judges agreed they couldn't totally believe the value but accepted it, saying the award also included any emotional distress. Edited February 7 by Gramto6 typo 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 7 Share February 7 7 February “Ex-Cessive Cheat Warning” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Andre Brown vs. Selwanna Bowdry) From the show site: A broken relationship is on display in the courtroom. A construction worker claims his ex-girlfriend owes him for withholding her tax return, defaming him online, and keeping his belongings after he was kicked out of the house. These litigants seem set on airing their dirty laundry, but all the judges want to hear are the facts. Plaintiff suing defendant / ex-girlfriend for her tax refund of $1500, online defamation, return of his dog, and keeping his belonging after an illegal eviction. Plaintiff says the tax refund is his because he let defendant claim his two daughters on her taxes. She filed as head of household, using his daughters as her dependents. Defendant claims she paid the tickets to theme parks for plaintiff, his kids, his grandkids. She also says the sheriff supervised his visit to pick up his clothing and property, that he's claiming she kept. There is a video of the aftermath of a fight, where defendant admits the broken furniture, and ruined property was done by the her. Corriero is so mad at plaintiff for showing the video. Plaintiff denies he ever threatened her with weapons as she claimed in the restraining order application, or in the police report. Plaintiff wants his dog back. Defendant claims she did trash plaintiff's canabis stuff, she poured it out. Defendant says the canabis stuff, furniture, and personal effects are in the garage. He wants the washer and dryer, but defendant says he can have one or the other. How did these litigants ever live together? Plaintiff wants the copper wire he collected, the worth of his canabis stuff, $2500 to $3000. Lawanna Lockhart testifies about how nice the defendant's character is. Plaintiff gets his dog back, his remaining canabis stuff, and his other items in the garage. Not the washer and dryer. Plaintiff gets $500 for his cannabis stuff, nothing for the tax refund. “Friendship Cat-astrophe” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Amber Dewar vs. David Perez ) From the show site: A former hairdresser moved into a friend's spare room to comply with parole, only to make him uncomfortable with a shrine to her dead cat. Plaintiff suing defendant who was her weekend tenant, $1350 per month for 3 months, $2700. Defendant says the lease was verbal and only covered one month. Defendant says he paid for one month up front, and then one weekend plaintiff sent him a text that she was going to Airbnb his room, so he had to sleep on the couch. The agreement was formalized to comply with defendant's parole conditions. Plaintiff claims after her cat died that defendant refused to pay. Defendant says paintiff put up a photo and shrine for a few days to her deceased cat. He says it made him uncomfortable to have the dead animal in the house until the burial. Plaintiff claims defendant was paying below market value, $1350 to rent the room for the entire month. She wants rent for December but it was rented to someone else for that month. In the lease, tenancy started on 1 November, and defendant claims the three months lease was never signed. Plaintiff says the agreement was for her to rent the room on Airbnb, and she would split the profits with defendant. However, defendant says they never had an agreement about the Airbnb. Judge Juarez says there was not offer and acceptance, so no contract. Corriero says they should have given each other 30 days notice, Tewolde says there was an agreement, and contract. Juarez says no contract. The judges agree on $1,350 minus Airbnb profits, $1167 to plaintiff. (This second case is another reason I will never be a landlord). 1 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 8 Share February 8 (edited) (If I screwed up the verdict in the Sub-Spicious case, please tell me). 8 February “Sub-Spicious” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Alyssa Lederhos vs.Katherine Wilkerson ) From the show site: A nurse is chasing down her security deposit for an apartment she sublet, but her subletter is adamant that she's not responsible. She says the landlord should refund the deposit - but the nurse never had any involvement with the landlord. Are they both being taken for a ride by a man who's not even in the courtroom? Plaintiff wants her security deposit back from defendant, $2,000. Defendant was supposed to keep the escrow money separate, signed an agreement that she would, but put it in her personal bank account instead. Defendant claims there was a verbal agrement that the landlord would give the security deposit back, but the lease was with defendant not the landlord. Defendant was the leasor, subleased to plaintiff, and claims since her lease expired before plaintiff moved out, that landlord should give the security back to plaintiff. That makes no sense, because the defendant had the security deposit, not the landlord. There was no agreement with the landlord to pay the plaintiff, the only lease was between defendant and plaintiff. $2,000 to plaintiff for the security deposit. (Thanks to Angela Hunter for the update. I hate when they break into Hot Bench for a tiny news break that's not really news). "Rental Disorder" Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Timothy Carter vs. Keveta Redd ) From the show site: A hit and run victim was almost stabbed following his own detective work, and is now suing the sister of the man he accuses of renting the vehicle. Plaintiff suing defendant/sister of hit-and-run driver for his injuries, because she was the renter of record of the car the brother/driver, suing for $5,000. Range Rover that hit plaintiff, was rented by defendant. Defendant claims while she was in the hospital that some stranger stole the car. However, plaintiff says he saw a picture on defendant's facebook page, showing her with the driver of the vehicle. Driver was defendant's brother. After the accident, plaintiff followed the scrape marks from the defendant's car, followed the scrape marks, and it led to a mechanics shop, where he saw the brother and another man talking about the car. Then, plaintiff went to where the brother said the driver was, and that man pulled a knife on him. Then, he called police, told them where the car was, but police wouldn't tow the car, or do anything. Enterprise (the leasing agency) found and towed the car, and sent defendant a bill for the damages. Defendant claims she didn't know where the car was, doesn't know who stole it, and claims she knows nothing about the accident. Defendant claims she can't get in touch with her insurance company. Corriero jumps on the plaintiff, outraged because the plaintiff didn't ask the defendant who the man in the photo from her facebook page was, until the day of the filming. Blaming the victim as usual. Right after the judges say plaintiff shouldn't have done his own detective work. Enterprise sent defendant a bill for $40,000 for the vehicle. She certainly has a ton of excuses. Defendant only figured out it was her brother, after seeing the police report. Defendant's brother is currently incarcerated, she never reported the car as stolen, or told Enterprise or the police the brother stole the car. Corriero thinks defendant wrongly accused, and thinks plaintiff should go to police, and then sue the brother. Juarez says her brother took the car, and defendant never told the police the brother took the car, or reported it as stolen. Corriero doesn't want to give the plaintiff a penny. Juarez says defendant did nothing about the theft, so Tewolde and Juarez say $5,000 to plaintiff. $5,000 to plaintiff from Juarez, and Tewolde, Corriero dissents. Plaintiff receives $5,000. 9 February “Cancelñera” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 44, 20 November 2023 “The Long-Term Tenant” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 6 October 2023 Edited February 8 by CrazyInAlabama 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 8 Share February 8 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: A nurse is chasing down her security deposit for an apartment she sublet, but her subletter is adamant that she's not responsible. Def admits she has no clue about being a landlord, and simply puts P's $2,000 deposit in her own checking account. What's wrong with that? So she spent it. What of it? Go get it from "Leo". I liked this case, even though both litigants seemed too old to be this clueless, because there were no texxes loaded with misspelled profanities or threats, no vandalizing of property, no mention of SSMhood, no videos showing one or both acting like wild animals and not a single challenge to fight. And both admitted in the hall that they did learn something. Refreshing! 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: $2,000 to plaintiff for the security deposit. Yes, she got it back. I was hoping the interest would be added on. That wasn't mentioned but maybe it was done. 1 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 12 Share February 12 On 2/6/2024 at 4:00 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: An extreme couponer sues a woman who she claims is, and always will be, Walmart's best cashier. Whackadoodles. I'm so glad the young P doesn't work so has plenty of time and is healthy enough to go on trips and to Disney - a heck of a lot of walking there in the heat - with Pinky, World's Best Walmart Cashier, buy all kinds of Disney junk, AND have enough spare cash to lend to Pinky to buy her dream car, a 31-year-old Volkswagen Beetle (with no key?). And what was with the husband? Sounds like an odd marriage. P is a lot smarter than I was when young and on my own. I worked full-time and still couldn't afford Disney until I got a major promotion and got married. Fool was I. On 2/6/2024 at 4:00 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: I wish Corriero would stop trying to play Dr. Phil. Amen! I don't even want to hear Dr. Phil playing Dr. Phil. Knock it off, Papa. On 2/7/2024 at 3:57 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: A broken relationship is on display in the courtroom. A construction worker claims his ex-girlfriend owes him for withholding her tax return, defaming him online, and keeping his belongings after he was kicked out of the house. Ugh. I got as far as the video where the ghastly Def admits that sure, she was Hulking it up and overturned the table, but so what? Isn't that the way disputes should be settled? 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 12 Share February 12 12 February “Delusions of Grandma” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Rory Williams Jr vs. Jennifer Rivers) From the show site: A young man's grandmother took $4,000 dollars from his duffle bag because she believed he'd stolen it from her daughter. But he says it was HIS money, which he'd planned to spend on his shoe business. Can her actions be classified as "theft?" Or was she within her rights to intervene? Plaintiff / grandson suing defendant/ grandmother for stealing $4,000 out of his duffel bag, and refuses to return it. Litigants were on a road trip to Vegas together, when they argued, and the next morning the money was gone. Defendant says she took the money, because she didn't think the money belonged to grandson, and only took it for safekeeping Grandson had $4,800 in total. Grandmother says when they returned to Victorville, her daughter Nisha, called and claimed she had over $4,000 missing, and so she thinks grandson stole the money. As always, Corriero is making excuses for the grandmother stealing the money from grandson. Grandson didn't know the grandmother gave the money to the daughter. Grandmother isn't talking to any of her kids now (she had seven children, one was murdered) Plaintiff's witness Runisha, is his mother (oldest daughter of defendant), and she tells some story about the grandmother causing problems, and grandmother calls her a liar. Witness says her mother's been in prison several times, the police are looking for her now, and the daughter she gave the money to has a restraining order against the defendant. Grandmother claims she only took $3,000 to give the daughter, so what happened to the other $1,000? Corriero asks grandson if grandmother stole the money. Yes, grandmother is a thief. Corriero says if grandmother only gave it to the other daughter, that it's not theft. Grandmother keeps saying she'll pay the money back, but we all show the show pays the award. Corriero argues that the grandmother was trying to resolve a dispute, so it wasn't theft. Corriero says he won't call the grandmother a thief. He says grandmother was acting as the other daughter's agent. He's taken outrageous positions before but this is beyond ridiculous. Plaintiff receives $4,000. (Corriero dissents). “Breaking Up Was the Breast Decision” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 30 October 2023 1 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 12 Share February 12 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: A young man's grandmother took $4,000 dollars from his duffle bag because she believed he'd stolen it from her daughter. But he says it was HIS money, which he'd planned to spend on his shoe business. 4K in cash, carted around in a backpack? The shoe entrepreneur should have thought of that before asking Granny to wash his clothes. I didn't get too far enough into this. Granny permitted to scream at the judges, her fake wailing, the mysterious 4K, Granny's daughter who "had got drunk" and Granny not speaking to any of her kids - Sorry, Mr. Rockwell. Your family ideals did not match up here. Papa? Were you kidding? Oh, please. 1 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 13 Share February 13 (edited) 13 February “Dude, Where’s My BMW?” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Linda Leong vs. Tyson Cano) From the show site: A used car salesman signed an agreement with his landlady to sell her an old BMW. The purchase price included the cost of repairs, which she paid; but now he says the repairs cost more than expected and refuses to give her the car. What does he mean when he says he was "trying to help her?" Plaintiff suing for cost of a car she purchased from defendant, and he never delivered, and the theft of wood from the property, Suing for $5,000. Defendant says he paid a security deposit, but plaintiff never paid him. BMW defendant sold to car did not include the $1500 in repairs it needed, and plaintiff never paid for. Defendant claims the defendant pressured him to sign the agreement. Repairs really costs $885, not $1500, but defendant doesn't have receipts. Plaintiff claims defendant's 'used car lot' is in a shady area, and basically a junkyard. She calls him a con artist too. Before the car deal was ended, defendant moved out, but plaintiff refuses to give back the security deposit. She also says he didn't pay the last months rent, so she called his father to complain about it. Defendant claims plaintiff was going to sell the BMW, and she could then pay him the security deposit. Plaintiff claims defendant parked his Airstream trailer at her place, and she claims he rented the trailer out to a druggie and his girlfriend, and the handyman that preped the site, and the handyman stole the wood. She claims that defendant talked her into Airbnb the trailer. Defendant says the wood on the utility trailer was free off of Craigslist. Corriero says they should decide by the written agreement, and toss the wood out. Juarez and Tewolde agree. $3,078 to plaintiff, security deposit applied to the last month's rent, so nothing for defendant. “Repo Woman” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 2 November 2023 Edited February 15 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 13 Share February 13 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff suing for cost of a car she purchased from defendant, and he never delivered, and the theft of wood from the property, Suing for $5,000. Nothing about this convoluted wheeling and dealing made sense, or I just couldn't understand it. Def says P didn't have the money to pay the Def his sec. deposit, but she DOES have the money to buy this 21-year-old BMW from him, pay him to repair it, sell it, make a killing from it, and then give him his sec. dep? The car looked to be in a junkyard, probably where it belonged. At first, I was totally on P's side. The Def seems to be a typical, mealy-mouthed, shady POS, a big, hulking, blobby con artist who was so scared of the dainty little P that he did things under duress due to her threats or harassment. But then when we got to her saying he "sweet-talked" into things, I thought, Hmm. Maybe these two deserve each other. That she also called Def's 86-year-old daddy to grouse at him was a major turnoff. I just bet poor ol' Dad has had more than one call complaining about his sonny boy. 3 Link to comment
mtbingmom February 13 Share February 13 On 2/12/2024 at 3:26 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: 12 February “Delusions of Grandma” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Rory Williams Jr vs. Jennifer Rivers) From the show site: A young man's grandmother took $4,000 dollars from his duffle bag because she believed he'd stolen it from her daughter. But he says it was HIS money, which he'd planned to spend on his shoe business. Can her actions be classified as "theft?" Or was she within her rights to intervene? Plaintiff / grandson suing defendant/ grandmother for stealing $4,000 out of his duffel bag, and refuses to return it. Litigants were on a road trip to Vegas together, when they argued, and the next morning the money was gone. Defendant says she took the money, because she didn't think the money belonged to grandson, and only took it for safekeeping Grandson had $4,800 in total. Grandmother says when they returned to Victorville, her daughter Nisha, called and claimed she had over $4,000 missing, and so she thinks grandson stole the money. As always, Corriero is making excuses for the grandmother stealing the money from grandson. Grandson didn't know the grandmother gave the money to the daughter. Grandmother isn't talking to any of her kids now (she had seven children, one was murdered) Plaintiff's witness Runisha, is his mother (oldest daughter of defendant), and she tells some story about the grandmother causing problems, and grandmother calls her a liar. Witness says her mother's been in prison several times, the police are looking for her now, and the daughter she gave the money to has a restraining order against the defendant. Grandmother claims she only took $3,000 to give the daughter, so what happened to the other $1,000? Corriero asks grandson if grandmother stole the money. Yes, grandmother is a thief. Corriero says if grandmother only gave it to the other daughter, that it's not theft. Grandmother keeps saying she'll pay the money back, but we all show the show pays the award. Corriero argues that the grandmother was trying to resolve a dispute, so it wasn't theft. Corriero says he won't call the grandmother a thief. He says grandmother was acting as the other daughter's agent. He's taken outrageous positions before but this is beyond ridiculous. Plaintiff receives $4,000. (Corriero dissents). “Breaking Up Was the Breast Decision” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 30 October 2023 I actually saw this. I'm still trying to figure out Corriero's reasoning. I watched it a second time to see if I had missed something. Nope, still doesn't make sense. 2 2 Link to comment
badhaggis February 13 Share February 13 I really felt for the other judges they were flabbergasted at his reasoning. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 14 Share February 14 4 hours ago, badhaggis said: I really felt for the other judges they were flabbergasted at his reasoning. They need to call Judges DiMango and Acker and ask, "How did you deal with Papa's flabbergasting reasoning?" Reply: "We learned to solicit his opinion, listen to it, and then ignore it". 1 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 14 Share February 14 14 February “Mind Your Own Canna-Business” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Emerald Grant vs. Meoshae Myles) From the show site: A woman says her business partner took her name off their business cards and went out on her own with their product. She's trying to prove the edible cannabis business was stolen from her, but Judge Michael isn't even sure they were authorized to sell marijuana in the first place. Assuming it's legitimate, who does the business belong to? Plaintiff suing former business partner/defendant over their canabis edibles business, and claims defendant stole the business from her, suing for $4,820. The company is called Royal Edibles. Plaintiff also claims defendant took her name of the business, and says defendant was only a delivery business. Plaintiff was given ends by a relative, and she started to make the butters, and other edibles. Corriero points out that the company was not licensed to make and sell edibles by the state of California, so company is illegal. Defendant has registered the business name with the state, but that's not a canabis license. Plaintiff claims defendant was only a sales person, and then stole the business from her. Defendant claims plaintiff asked her to evaluate the quality of the Weed, and when she found out plaintiff stole the Weed, she cut ties with her. Plaintiff cliams defendant stole her skillet (I can't believe I'm listening to this this). Defendant says she wasn't delivering product or selling for plaintiff, after she found out about the theft. Note to plaintiff, she's not even licensed in California to sell weed based products, and selling over state lines is a crime in the other state, and federally. Plaintiff witness Carla Hicks, says defendant was selling edibles from a table in the park. Plaintiff was the baker of the products. Plaintiff claims she came up with the business name, and defendant claims the idea a business was all hers. Every 60 days, defendant has to reregister the business. She didn't bring proof of any registration but the most recent one. Judge Juarez says defendant is a liar. Defendant claims she's being harassed by plaintiff, but then says she's not afraid of her. Corriero still claims that the business isn't legal without the state license. Plaintiff claims to have a grower's permit, but only a license for personal use, up to 12 plants. Plaintiff only uses edibles, doesn't smoke or other methods. Plaintiff wants $500 is ticket sales, from a business with a bishop at church, and defendant was supposed to give her money from ticket sales. Deliberations are going to be strange. Tewolde believes plaintiff, not defendant. Juarez says defendant is a liar, and a theif. Corriero says plaintiff didn't have profit damages from theft, because plaintiff didn't have a legal business. Tewolde and Juarez decide for plaintiff, $1 for the business, and $1500 for punitive damages $1500, plus $50 for something, so $1551. Corriero dissents again. (I think this case should have resulted in nothing for anyone. The business isn't legal as a business, and as a canabis business). “Burning Rainbow Bridges” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 31 October 2023 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 14 Share February 14 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: “Mind Your Own Canna-Business” More captains of industry. Fake document(?) "Dear departed Grandpa left me his weed" - "No, she stole the weed" and the def was jobless, no she wasn't. She had her own business and neither of them had a license to sell weed. Def stole a frying pan and oh my.😱 I watched just until P was bitching that Def was hounding her for weed butter and the audience behind her was cracking up over this dumb shit, one of them so badly he had to put his hand over his mouth. That was the only worthwhile part and it didn't make me lose more brain cells, something I can ill afford. 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Tewolde and Juarez decide for plaintiff, $1 for the business, and $1500 for punitive damages $1500, plus $50 for something, so $1551. Corriero dissents again. Thank you. Granted, I didn't watch much but from what I did see, I agree with Papa and you. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 15 Share February 15 15 February “Mr. Telephone Man, What’s Wrong with My Lines?” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Spencer Marks vs. Yosef Manela ) From the show site: An electronics integrator was hired to install thirty phones in one house, and now the homeowner is refusing to pay him. All that's left to do is test the intercoms and label the buttons, but the owner won't let him back in without another professional supervising. What did he do to break the trust? Plaintiff/telephone installer is suing defendant/homeowner for a not paying for the balance for the job $3375. Plaintiff was hired to finish a job that a third party started the installation of the system. Estimate was $1800 for labor by plaintiff, defendant says $1800 was for the total job. There are only 3 people living in the home, but the home is almost 8,000 sq ft, and needed intercoms, and phones throughout the home. Plaintiff says the prices went up because defendant kept adding lines and features, but defendant refuses to pay the extra. Defendant says the phones aren't labeled, or tested, and aren't finished. Each phone on the intercom has a list of numbers on the system to connect directly. Plaintiff says push the individual button on each phone directory and caller I.D. tells you what that button connects to. Plaintiff says the system only does 27 phones, and defendant needs the portables to make 32 phones, which is over the capacity of the system. Plaintiff says he has to add electronic cards to expand the telephone system capacity. Defendant agreed to pay $5,000 to plaintiff for the system, and says he's not paying for extra charges. Plaintiff said he quit when defendant made it clear that he wasn't going to pay him for the additional work. Defendant is a lawyer and C.P.A. There was no written contract, just an oral contract. $6800 was the final invoice, and defendant claims the extra $1800 was unauthorized by him, and says there are other invoices coming. Defendant claims he would have paid $6800, but says there were going to be more invoices. Corriero yells at the plaintiff about not finishing the job. So, I guess Corriero would show up to film the show for free? Tewolde says emails with defendant didn't show he wasn't going to pay. Defendant refused the offer from plaintiff to refund the $5,000, but would removed all of the equipment he installed. Defendant won't let the plaintiff finish the couple of hours to finish the job, after testing each phone, and labeling the directories, and intercoms, because he won't pay him. The plaintiff had to upgrade the phone system, becasue the original partial install equipment wouldn't handle the system. Juarez says defendant got a good deal, and he should let him handle the finishing of the system. Plaintiff says he didn't have to have a contractor's license, because he wasn't doing anything structural, just installing upgrades without construction. The remaining labor was $1500 over the $6800 because of upgrades defendant wanted. Judge Juarez doesn't understand the actual electronics, just the contract issue. $5,000 was already paid, with $1800 owed, and $1300 more too. Judges Tewolde and Juarez agree, and give that total to plaintiff. $3375 for the plaintiff is awarded. “Truckjacked” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 10 November 2023 16 February “EXplain Yourself” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 3 November 2023 “A Wheely Bad Accident” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 1 November 2023 2 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 16 Share February 16 7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: An electronics integrator was hired to install thirty phones in one house I wanted to hear more about this 8,000 sq. ft house with 30 old-style phones in it. I also want to know if, as I've been reading lately, landlines are going the way of the dodo bird what Def will do then. Yes, MY landline will have to be pried from my cold, dead fingers. It was easy to tell that Def is a lawyer and he explains to a JUDGE that oral contracts are valid in California. Judge J acknowledges that she is aware of that. But the parties have to agree on what the contract was, don't they, Mr. Lawyer? I think I recall seeing precisely one lawyer on these court shows who was competent, kept records, and knew the law. Def says the phones don't work. I mean, he never tried them, but he's pretty sure they don't. He also (so he says) didn't know P was not licensed anymore - something we hear from so many litigants AFTER a job is done and they're not happy. Is he sure he's a lawyer? I enjoyed this case. I didn't understand the electronic details, with brains and such, but it was shocking to hear of two educated professionals (and one a lawyer!) who didn't bother writing a contract of any kind. WTH? I believed P when he said clients keep adding things all the time as the work is going on. That should be reason enough to have contracts! 7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Corriero yells at the plaintiff about not finishing the job. So, I guess Corriero would show up to film the show for free? 😄 No kidding! Who's going to finish a job for someone who says, "No. I'm not going to pay anymore." ? 3 Link to comment
DoctorK February 16 Share February 16 18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: An electronics integrator was hired to install thirty phones in one house, and now the homeowner is refusing to pay him. I loved this case (and hated the defendant)! 11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: wanted to hear more about this 8,000 sq. ft house with 30 old-style phones in it Me too. What was this guy running in that house? In the old days I would have guessed illegal betting but now maybe something in financial shenanigans. 11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I also want to know if, as I've been reading lately, landlines are going the way of the dodo bird what Def will do then. Yes, MY landline will have to be pried from my cold, dead fingers. I also keep my landline for a specific reason but copper in the house (which was already in place) is usable for telephone only which traps the user into obsolete phone technology. We didn't get enough information to figure out what type of interface they were using (the "brain" - I hate that use of the word) but I suspect that it is all obsolete which makes it increasingly harder to support and maintain. Sooner or later they will probably have to go Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) system but I doubt the defendant would spend for that. 11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: It was easy to tell that Def is a lawyer Too true but he was also a chiseler and I totally believe that he deliberately kept nickel and diming for more work from the plaintiff without paying for it and jumped on the golden opportunity at the end to cheat the plaintiff out of money that he (the defendant) had already agreed to on the basis that the paper phone lists on the face of the phones weren't all filled in. Don't you have to know who is on which phone to do this? I rewound to make sure I heard him correctly when he said that the plaintiff had damaged his (the defendant's) integrity; too late, Mr. Lawyer, your integrity is already shot. And finally, Corriero remains an ass. 4 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 16 Share February 16 1 hour ago, DoctorK said: I loved this case (and hated the defendant)! Me too! It was almost like he wanted to be hated. 1 hour ago, DoctorK said: In the old days I would have guessed illegal betting but now maybe something in financial shenanigans. Mining cryptocurrency?😉 Setting up a call center for one of those "Did your mesh collapse? Call Now!" lawyer commercials? I think the Def may be another "Ganz". 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 19 Share February 19 (edited) 19 February (For some bizarre reason, the show site doesn’t have an information for this week. At least Titan TV has the new show titles. Guess it’s because of the holiday?) “To Cash a Predator” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Doy Bowie vs. Dhana Small ) From the show site: no description on the show site. Plaintiff suing defendant for an iPhone he bought for her, and wants the iPhone back, keys returned, and defamation. Defendant says the agreement was that plaintiff would buy the phone for defendant only if she went to his high school reunion with him. Plaintiff says he met defendant at a community event for homeless and impoverished people. Defendant was homeless, and received housing through the organization, and that plaintiff offered to give her a phone. He also gave her Victorial's Secret bag of lingerie. Plaintiff claims the defendant invited herself to his high school reunion, and he offered to take her shopping for a dress to wear to the reunion. Plaintiff claims he never had romantic intentions towards the defendant, but he also wanted to be on a reality show where the he would be shown resisting his romantic intentions for defendant. Plaintiff is 67 years old, and Corriero says he's not supposed to be moving charity clients into his home. Plaintiff claims he's helped other women through the program in the past, and didn't have ulterior motives with them either. His text messages invited her to move into his apartment for 48 hours at a time from her housing situation. When defendant broke it off with plaintiff, he turned her phone off, and she then made a complaint to the charity organization, but she kept the phone and the apartment keys. Judge Juarez asks if plaintiff helped any men through the program, and he didn't. Judge Tewolde says plaintiff is a predator, but defendant's counter claim is also dismissed. Plaintiff and defendant's cases dismissed, but defendant has to give the keys back in court. Phone is considered a gift, and defendant keeps it. “At Least Do the Right Thing!” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 8 November 2023 Edited February 19 by CrazyInAlabama 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 19 Share February 19 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff suing defendant for an iPhone he bought for her, and wants the iPhone back, keys returned, and defamation. I had to stop watching this. I was laughing so hard I thought I might hurt myself. The creepy, dirty old man is so benevolent he just wants to help attractive, very young women, by plying them with cell phones and shopping trips. Shopping trips for food or basic necessities? No, no, no. She's homeless but needs to go shopping for a dress for their date (he wanted all the codgers at his high school reunion to see Grandpa waltzing in with a young tootsie) and underwear at Victoria's Secret.😆 She is all innocent as a newborn babe, has no idea why the geezer bought her underpants and bras and accepted all this shit from horny Grandpa, never dreaming he'd want any kind of payment. Yeah, cuz when I was her age I would have entered a lingerie store with some randy old goat and thought it was normal. He may be a "predator" but the Def was no wide-eyed victim, no matter how much vocal fry she uses. They deserved each other. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 20 Share February 20 20 February “It's a Nice Day for a Red Wedding” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Esther Durand vs. Nicole Smith) From the show site: A wedding planner is sued for a failed wedding, but she places the blame squarely on the bride's vendors for not doing her job of coordinating. Plaintiff/ bride suing defendant/wedding planner for the failure of the bride's special day being special enough. Judges all yell at defendant for the bad job she did. Plaintiff wants a full refund, and pain and suffering punitive damages. Plaintiff paid a deposit, paid the rest on the day of the wedding. Then, plaintiff sent a list of all of the mistakes during the wedding, and claims defendant promised a refund, but didn't pay up. Defendant blames the many friends and family that filled many roles in the wedding who were incompetent, and claims the many last minute changes bride wanted screwed up even more. Defendant was to plan and design the wedding, and be day of coordinator. Defendant said she sent plaintiff the description of what she wanted for centerpieces, sent photos to plaintiff, and plaintiff picked her favorite. Defendant says she delivered what plaintiff picked out, but plaintiff claims that wasn't what she wanted. Photos of the centerpiece show few roses, but defendant claims the centerpieces were wonderful. Plaintiff hairdresser quit right before the wedding, and defendant sent some recommendations, and the second hairdresser cancelled the night before the wedding. Plaintiff claims the replacement hairdresser never showed up, but I can't blame that on the defendant. Wedding reception shows missing centerpieces, but the ones that are present are skimpy. Table clothes didn't match, no chair sashes. $7400 was the price for the entire wedding, and that simply wasn't enough to pay for the wedding plaintiff wanted with the number of guests. Plaintiff is blaming the defendant for the photographer not doing the photos. I think the photographer and videographer, and DJ issues were on the plaintiff, because she picked the vendors. I don't think the plaintiff is blameless in this, bride hired the vendors. Corriero is so upset for the bride. Vendors being friends and family of bride aren't the defendant's fault. Defendant offered a $2700 refund. Plaintiff receives $5,000 for the wedding goofs, and pain and suffering. (I find it interesting that the groom's face is blurred out in all of the photos). “In the Weeds” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 44, 14 November 2023 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 21 Share February 21 21 February “Trouble Brewing” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Jason Ward vs. Devynn Stein) From the show site: And the award for pettiest lawsuit goes to... this guy, who's suing a coffee shop manager for a five-dollar refund. If his demeanor in court is any indication of how he treated the employees, it's no wonder they were reluctant to talk to him. Was he "robbed," or is he making a latte out of a little? Plaintiff suing for ‘the principle’ of a five dollar refund from a coffee shop manager/defendant. For a Hazelnut Soy Latte, and plaintiff drove 120 miles back to the coffee shop for the refund. Plaintiff is suing for $190 for gas, and $5.00 for the refund. He claims the staff of the coffee shop ignored his order, delayed until he no longer wanted the latte, and now he's suing for the gas money and latte refund. He also claims someone else called him impersonating the defendant, and when she called him later she said that she would refund his latte money. She also says plaintiff demanded to know what would be done about the employees who he says was rude to him. Defendant says they never give refunds, and so plaintiff is suing for the gas money and $5.00 refund. The cashier actually offered him a gift card, because she wasn't authorized to give a cash refund. Defendant says a latte takes 2 to 3 minutes to complete, and says defendant wasn't willing to wait for that time for his order. Tewolde says employee was passive-agressive, but so was plaintiff. She says the $5 is deserved, but not the gas money. Corriero wants give him the $5 too. Juarez dissents, and would have given him nothing. $5.00 to plaintiff. “Think We're A-Loan Now” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 9 November 2023 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 21 Share February 21 On 2/20/2024 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: Photos of the centerpiece show few roses, but defendant claims the centerpieces were wonderful. I had to kind of admire the chutzpah. JT (paraphrasing) "So you took these photos from Google Images, told her she would get these, but you knew you couldn't supply them?" Def: "Right". 😄 Eh, seems she got her gastric bypass, so she's happy. 3 Link to comment
DoctorK February 22 Share February 22 (edited) 6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: this guy, who's suing a coffee shop manager for a five-dollar refund. If his demeanor in court is any indication of how he treated the employees, it's no wonder they were reluctant to talk to him. Oh boy, we have seen some major league assholes before but I think this is the worst one I can remember. It is not that he is evil but he is a screwed up personality. He needs a few lessons in being normal, preferably taught with a baseball bat. He confirmed my opinion in his ridiculous histrionic hallterview. Edited February 22 by DoctorK 3 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 22 Share February 22 1 hour ago, DoctorK said: It is not that he is evil but he is a screwed up personality. Just finished this. Only in California would this angry little man become so triggered, so offended, and so infuriated over a coffee - and it wasn't just coffee but a "Hazelnut Soy Latte", of course, 😏 that he calls the police over $5 coffee! The cops should have come and arrested him for having the gall to call them for such stupidity. I have no doubt the employee was doing what he said, maybe goofing off and/or acting up with no manager there but his going ballistic was a loony overreaction. Judge J just couldn't deal with talking to him and threw her hands up. As JT said, if he's this aggressive to 3 judges, it's easy to imagine how he behaved at the shop. It was so simple. Instead of freaking out on the phone with def, he could merely have asked her to mail it, or even easier, given her an email address for her to do an E-transfer. Done. We all have principles, but hey, we've ALL had similar annoyances in stores and elsewhere and I'm pretty sure none of us called the cops or would go to court for $5 (even though he felt he should get $200) and make utter asses of ourselves. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 22 Share February 22 22 February “After a While, Crocotile” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Lisa Mason vs. Brad Wedde) From the show site: A homeowner and a tile contractor square off over a bathroom job gone wrong. She says she had to hire someone else to fix what he'd demolished, but she didn't bring any work order or contract to prove it. Can she prove her case using photos of the work alone? Plaintiff is suing the bathroom tile contractor she hired says she had to hire someone else to fix the bad job defendant did. Plaintiff hired defendant for two jobs, the kitchen tile which was completed, and then the bathroom job that was a disaster. However, plaintiff has no contract or work order to prove what she paid another contractor to fix. Job in kitchen was a backsplash, then the shower, floor and walls in the bathroom. Initial estimate was $7,000. Defendant says plaintiff bought the wrong tiles, had frequent changes that complicated the job and made it more expensive, and he eventually walked off the job. He told her that she hadn't paid him the total of the money, and she could take that money and pay someone else to finish the job. When the bathroom demo was finished, plaintiff didn't have all of the supplies needed for the job. The plaintiff buying the shower valves was because there are so many options, and defendant wanted her to get exactly what she wanted. Plaintiff claims the shower measurements were wrong, tile job was bad, and it complicated the job for the next installer. She also claims the shower bench was cracked by defendant sitting on it. Defendant denies the shower wall was two inches off. He also says plaintiff bought tiles that were too big for the shower, but every tile would have to be cut way down. Defendant claims plaintiff was a nightmare to work with. Corriero actually wants to know why the plaintiff wants $8,000 total, court maximum is $5,000. Plaintiff claims the second contractor cost $5,000, and had no problem doing the 24" tile that defendant didn't want to use. Defendant says plaintiff refused to pay him to finish the job, so he told her to take the remaining $2,000 owed him, and to get someone else to finish the job. Plaintiff only has photos to show the finished tile work, no contracts or work orders. Plaintiff claims nothing was compled, but defendant says he only needed to grout the shower to finish. Plaintiff has no paperwork, just photos she claim show the unfinished work. For once Corriero agrees with the defendant. Juarez says plaintiff didn't prove her case, and claimed diametrically opposed excuses. Tewolde doesn't accept the plaintiff's 'proof'. Plaintiff case dismissed, no proof of anything she said. “I Declare a Door War” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 1 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 41, 11 September 2023 23 February “Cat Snatch Fever” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 43, 6 November 2023 “All Fenced Up” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 44, 16 November 2023 1 Link to comment
Shrek February 23 Share February 23 On 2/21/2024 at 8:24 PM, AngelaHunter said: Just finished this. Only in California would this angry little man become so triggered, so offended, and so infuriated over a coffee - and it wasn't just coffee but a "Hazelnut Soy Latte", of course, 😏 that he calls the police over $5 coffee! Is that because in some other states he would have jumped over the counter & assaulted the barista or worse ? I don't understand the hatred for people who live in California, I mean it's not like there are no stupid people in other states is it? Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 23 Share February 23 19 minutes ago, Shrek said: Is that because in some other states he would have jumped over the counter & assaulted the barista or worse ? I don't understand the hatred for people who live in California, I mean it's not like there are no stupid people in other states is it? I didn't say "stupid". Link to comment
Shrek February 23 Share February 23 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I didn't say "stupid". I didn't say you did but the guy you're talking about certainly fits the category. 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 26 Share February 26 26 February “How I Met Your Motherboard” New, Season 10, (Cheryle Moses vs. Stephanie Sheppard) From the show site : A non-profit employee was given a computer as part of her compensation, but it was way too big, and she wanted to return it. Her boss was only twenty minutes away, but she refused to come pick it up - not because it was a HARD DRIVE, but on principle. She'd rather sue for the value than waste her own gas. Plaintiff/manager is suing defendant/former employee for return of the computer given to defendant as part of her compensation. Defendant says computer isn't the right side, and wants to return it, but wants boss to pick it up. Computer value is $421, it's a Dell Desktop with two monitors. Defendant says plaintiff dropped the computer box off on her porch, without telling her the computer was arriving. Defendant says she only wanted a laptop, and computer was way too big for her space. Defendant told plaintiff she wanted a laptop, not the behemoth of a desktop, but plaintiff says it's on defendant to return the computer. Plaintiff says she has no intention of picking up the computer and returning it, and she only lives 20 minutes from defendant. She wants defendant to bring the computer back to her, and refuses to pick it up. Plaintiff says it's a matter of principle. I'm on the defendant's side, not the plaintiff. Plaintiff is so nasty with her statements in court and over text. Defendant shows a photo of the boxed computer, and plaintiff claims computer was just dumped back in the box. Both litigants say picking up or delivering the computer to plaintiff's home is a matter of principle. Corriero says both are unreasonable, and I agree with him. Defendant told to get computer ready for plaintiff to pick up, and drive it to a halfway point, and Juarez suggests on the courthouse steps. So, they will meet in Lawrenceville, GA at the courthouse steps to exchange the computer, or somewhere they two litigants agree on. (The two litigants will never agree on anything, and are trashing each other in the hall-terviews). “Quad Squabble” New, Season 10, (Sarah Espinoza and Moises Barajas vs. Emanuel Burt) From the show site :The buyers of an ATV claim the seller said that the 16-year-old vehicle "ran perfectly." So when it didn't, the buyers accused him of running a scam, even though he offered to help fix it. Plaintiffs / ATV buyers claims that defendant/seller sold her a lemon, and that she should get $650 on the 'as is' sale. Defendant says she tested the engine, and it ran well. Plaintiff says the ATV/Quad was defective, and claims defendant said 'it runs perfect', and she wants her money back. Tewolde says on the ad "this quad runs perfect". Plaintiff says the ATV started having issues the same evening they purchased it. ATV came with a battery, and defendant gave plaintiffs another battery free, but that didn't fix the ATV. Defendant thought the ATV needed a stator, and he suggested they change that out, and they cost $20Then, defendant sold them a go kart after this. Defendant didn't have a pink slip (he bought it from a military member, and they never sent him a pink slip), and he says plaintiffs weren't interested in a pink slip. Corriero says there is no proof the defendant knew about any issues, and the sale was 'as is'. He can't make up his mind. Juarez repeats it's a 16-year-old vehicle, but defendant said 'it runs perfectly'. Tewolde says it's 'as is' and the plaintiffs ran the engine and could have test driven it at the pick up site. Plaintiff case dismissed, no proof. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 27 Share February 27 27 February “Up in Flames” New, Season 10, Episode (Gerri Stover vs. Glen McKenzie) From the show site: A mechanic's yard was scorched in a wildfire, and his friend is suing him for the cost of her car, which he'd been working on as a favor. Now they're facing another kind of heat: the judges of Hot Bench. Should the mechanic have stayed to fight the fire as she says, or was he right to evacuate? Plaintiff/car owner suing defendant/mechanic for the value of plaintiff’s car that was torched in a wildfire. Plaintiff actually says defendant should have stayed behind to fight the fire, and risked his life. Despicable plaintiff. She claims defendant stole items from her property too. Defendant says this is the first time he's heard the plaintiff's allegations of theft. Defendant gave her a loaner car he owned until her car was fixed. He didn't have insurance either. Plaintiff says defendant should have cleaned up more, and she thinks the fire would have avoided his property. Monica Vannucci is plaintiff's witness about the tool boxes that they claim defendant stole, and say he returned very little. All three judges find the plaintiff's statement that defendant should have stayed to fight the wildfire ridiculous. Just for that statement I would dismiss her claim. Plaintiff case dismissed. “Loan to Smithereens" Rerun, Season 10, Episode p. 43 , 13 November 2023 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 28 Share February 28 (edited) 28 February “Pile High Club” New, Season 10, Episode (Christopher Buono vs. Dylan Black ) From the show site: Dog excrement in a shared yard led to a messy altercation between neighbors, but they both have wildly different accounts of the incident. Can the plaintiff convince the judges that his neighbor brutally assaulted him? Or will they pick this case up in a little bag and throw it out? Plaintiff claims defendant assaulted him over the dog pile incident, after he asked the defendant to clean up huge piles on the beand new synthetic lawn. Plaintiff says after he asked defendant to clean up the poop, that defendant assaulted him, shoved him into a fence, and pummelled him. Plaintiff is suing for $5,000 for the assault. Defendant says plaintiff screamed at him to clean the poop up, was totally out of control, and denies he assaulted the plaintiff. Defendant has a dog sitting business, so tons of poop apparently too. Plaintiff denies yelling at defendant, and says defendant was very aggressive. Defendant admits that he had a beard full of vomit from a fun evening and night. Plaintiff's witness Chloe Buono is his daughter, and testifies what happened, and says defendant shoved her dad into the fence. There are photos of plaintiff's injuries, and they look bad. Defendant's witness says plaintiff threatened to get his "Italian Army' friends to assault defendant. I believe what plaintiff's daughter said, but defendant's witness, Tim Sullivan, is not believeable to me. Both litigants applied for restraining orders, and judge dismissed both orders. Juarez says someone must be lying, she doesn't believe either witness. Corriero believes the daughter. Tewolde also believes the daughter. Video showed plaintiff attempting to settle the dispute. Juarez says $500, so does Tewolde, Corriero wants $1500. Plaintiff gets $1000. “Bad TAT-titude" Rerun, Season 10, Episode p. 44, 15 November 2023 29 February “Rest in Lease” Rerun, Season 10, Episode p. 44, 21 November 2023 (I disagree with the decision. There was no proof of the huge amount of property the landlady got rid of, the photos didn’t show the huge amount of stuff the family claim the brother had in the boxes.) “Rental Home Gone Wrong” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 76 p. 35, 19 Jan 2023 1 March “All's Wheel That Ends Wheel” Rerun, Season 10, Episode p. 44, 22 November 2023 “Dog Fight” Rerun, Season 10, Episode p. 33, 28 November 2022 (Starting Monday the 4th, I will be on Jury Duty, for up to a week. So, the reruns will have information if it’s available , but the new episodes will only have what the show site posts). Edited February 28 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
DoctorK March 4 Share March 4 Today: The Dog Bite and the Chiropractor For the record, I think the amount of money awarded to the plaintiff was reasonable. However, I distrusted much of what the plaintiff testified to. I have doubts about how severe her injury was. I have had a really split lip a couple of times during my younger days and lip injuries (like scalp lacerations) generate a lot of bleeding. If her lip was torn as badly as she claimed (not necessarily lying but perhaps dramatized) she would still have major scarring, especially without specialist surgery. I question her overall judgement about going to a chiropractor for major facial trauma and not even going to see him until the next day. I was concerned by the Venmo $500 transaction where she wanted the defendant to take that back and give her $500 in cash so that it wouldn't "mess up" her insurance (so she had some kind of insurance coverage which was never mentioned again). That sounded to me like trying to scam whatever insurer she had by hiding the payment in order to double dip. A minor item was when she approached the bench and took off what she called very clearly "silicon" tape (which sounds very sciencey). If she doesn't know the difference between silicon and silicone (a pet peeve) then I don't know how knowledgeable she is in her testimony. I also noted that (admittedly on TV (but still HDTV)) her scar looked very minor and barely visible. I believe she was sincere but maybe a little bit of a nutcase. 1 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 5 Share March 5 (edited) 4 March (I have jury duty starting today, probably only will post the show summary. Why do the shows sound interesting the week I can’t see them? Thanks to DoctorK for the summary). (I did get jury duty continuing tomorrow, so I may not be here again). “Citizen Canine” New, Season 10, Episode ( vs. ) From the show site: When a dog attack disfigured a woman's face, she went to her chiropractor instead of the emergency room. The dog's owner felt awful and agreed in writing to pay her medical bills - but when he learned she used her own "natural medicine" instead of seeing a real doctor, he second-guessed his liability. From the previews they showed the judges incredulous at the plaintiff saying instead of going to the ER for her injury treatment, she went to the chiropractor. “Clipper Slipper” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 125 p. 38, 24 April 2023 Edited March 5 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 5 Share March 5 (edited) 5 March “Tumultuous Tenant” New, Season 10, Episode (Kara Henry and (husband) Nathan Luber vs. Whitley Norton ) From the show site: An ex-tenant says her cat got into some succulents and died shortly after she moved in. But the landlords are baffled by the amount of damage it clearly caused. Were there more cats than the tenant is admitting? Plaintiffs/landlords suing defendant/former tenant for damages from her cats. Plaintiffs were renting a condo, let defendant split the security. Defendant claims there were shower issues, carpet stained (plaintiff admits the shower and carpet issues), and moved in with a cat, not on the lease. Defendant claims her cat died from eating succulents on the patio. Plaintiff Henry says there were three overflowing litter boxes left behind, and the carpet was soaked. Defendant admits to having two other cats, none of which were on the lease. Defendant gave oral notice to Henry, but the lease called for 30 days written notice. Plaintiffs say when defendant left she owed a month and a half rent, plus late fees, which is way over California interest laws. Landlords have 21 days to give defendant an itemized list of damages, but they say they didn't have any address for defendant, and were blocked on everything. They finally had to hire a priveate investigator to contact and serve defendant with the rent and other court cases. Plaintiffs say walls were chewed on, ammonia from the cats had to be remediated, and neutralized, cracked granite countertops, they have no move-in pictures. I hope the first-time landlords learned how to landlord from this fiasco. Plaintiffs kept the security deposit. $4250 to plaintiffs, and they keep the security deposit. “Not 50/50” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 128 p. 38, 26 April 2023 Edited March 5 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 6 Share March 6 (edited) 6 March “Roommate Rumble” New, Season 10, Episode (Alyssa Verbeck vs. Brandi Bond ) From the show site: A food truck owner needed a roommate, and one of her regular customers was the perfect fit. But their arrangement became a lot less convenient when that person's Covid rent-relief check got stuck in a bureaucratic loop. The judges must follow the money to determine who owes whom. Plaintiff suing defendant/former roommate for unpaid rent, $5,000. Plaintiff met defendant at plaintiff's food truck. Defendant was working at the food truck, and her pay was deducted from her rent. Defendant applied for Covid rent relief, and claims her payments from the rent relief were put against the wrong account. Rent was $3,000 total, and defendant claims she worked 4 days a week at $150 a day. The application for Covid rent relief was approved, but it was sent to the wrong address, the management company would receive the money, but they applied it to the wrong person's lease. Then, the rent relief people took the money back from the management company, but defendant says it was never paid out again for defendant's account. The rent relief is still pending, and hasn't been paid to plaintiff even though plaintiff had to pay for the shortfall herself. The back rent was over $8,000 including the lease breaking fees. Five months of rent were owed, so $6,500. Defendant says the repayment of rent relief is happening, but it's being paid to the management company, not plaintiff who made up the money to the management company. Payment for the repayment of rent relief was six months before the case was filmed and still no payment. Plaintiff did get her $4,500 deposit back from the management company. Rent payment program personnel first said they would pay the management company, then when it was taken back, rent payment program personnel said the money would be sent to the defendant. Defendant was still living in the apartment when they happened. Corriero says since money is still pending, after six months, and that plaintiff should wait. Tewolde takes plaintiff's side, because repayment says it will be paid to defendant. Juarez and Tewolde agree to the $5,000 to plaintiff, Corriero dissents. $5,000 to plaintiff, still leaving her over $3,000 short. “Wrecked & Robbed” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 124 p. 38, 21 April 2023 Edited March 8 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 7 Share March 7 7 March “You Wreck It, You Replace It” New, Season 10, Episode (Krista Garcia vs. Leah Paxton) From the show site: A woman is on the hook for crashing her friend's car. She claims she wasn't driving - that the car was stolen from her and crashed by someone else. But Judge Corriero's line of questioning makes her change her tune. How does he get her to admit responsibility? Plaintiff suing former friend for crashing her car, but defendant claims her friend took the car without her knowledge, and wrecked it, so she's not responsible. Defendant claims she let the other person drive the car once, but not the second time when the car was wrecked. Defendant's pathetic excuses were discounted by the judges. Plaintiff receives $5,000. “It's My Cousin's Bill, Not Mine" Rerun, Season 9, Episode 123 p. 38, 20 April 2023 8 March “Unsecured Deposit” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 5 p.42, 15 September 2023 “No Shade, No Brows” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 118 p. 37, 12 April 2023 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 11 Share March 11 (edited) 11 March “Daycare Swindler” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Sonia Gardiner vs. Dejha Simpson) From the show site: When a property owner learned her tenant was running a daycare out of her unit, she became concerned about her own liability. The tenant says she did everything above board and filed a restraining order for what she considered harassment. Can the owner successfully sue for legal fees she incurred to fight the restraining order? Plaintiff rented a four-story townhouse to defendant, who moved in with her fiance and two kids, and was running a day care in the rental unit. After several issues, plaintiff wanted defedant out. Plaintiff claims the job defendant claimed she had was running a transportation for kids to and from school. Defendant claims she told plaintiff she was running a day care, and the transportation was part of it. Defendant claims plaintiff knew about the daycare and transportation service, which eventually became licensed. Plaintiff said the daycare and business was violating the CC&Rs prohibiting the daycare. (In at least one state, California, a property owner or HOA can’t prevent a tenant from operating a day care on their property. So, if this was in California, the property owner can’t stop the day care from operating, but they have to have proper insurance and meet licensing requirements). Defendant said she could have up to six daycare kids without plaintiff's consent, and two more with plaintiff's consent. Defendant claims plaintiff had her served with a notice saying she wasn't going to renew the lease, and defendant needed insurance to cover the business. Another issue was the kid's toys in the common area. At the beginning the day care wasn't licensed. Defendant claims she didn't need insurance for the day care. Plaintiff says the CC&R notice came from the HOA, concerning the business, toys everywhere in common areas, and other problems. Temporary restraining order failed, and defendant went forward with an attempt at a permanent restraining order. Corriero brings up a good point, the plaintiff and HOA wanted proper insurance in place to protect them if a child is injured. Plaintiff did an inspection with a video camera, and this was with notice. Defendant claims the plaintiff repeatedly visited the rental. There are no texts in evidence from plaintiff. Defendant's parents did affidavits, and defendant claims that nullifies the need for insurance. No it doesn't, if a child was injured that wouldn't do anything to protect the plaintiff or HOA. Plaintiff had a failed attempt at a restraining order against plaintiff, and plaintiff is suing for $3525 for the attorney fees because she had to go to court twice to defendant herself against the orders. Corriero says that plaintiff should have asked the restraining order judge for the restraining order. Tewolde says plaintiff was being annoying, but not harassing, and doesn't want to give attorney fees, or anything for the defendant's counter claim. Corriero says liability was an issue. Juarez says that the restraining order judge dismissing the applications without testimony means defendant wasn't harassed. Defendant case dismissed. Plaintiff gets nothing. Juarez dissents on the dismissal of plaintiff's fees. “Flipped the Script” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 47(Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p.33, 21 November 2022 Edited March 11 by CrazyInAlabama 3 Link to comment
Chalby March 11 Share March 11 I found I had a lot of compassion for the defendant in this case because I have lived through a situation where the neighbors around me decided to show support for the owner by bogging me down with all sorts of petty complaints or notices. Even after they're proven not true, the situation makes it uncomfortable for everyone involved. The owner didn't even live there so what did she care if the defendant had an after school daycare? 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 12 Share March 12 (edited) The owner was getting notices from the HOA, and the fines can really add up. Plus, lack of insurance, and waiting to get licenses and inspections was a legal liability too. California doesn't allow HOA's or landlords to prevent daycares in any private housing, so landlord couldn't do anything but inspect with notice, and defendant refused service on the notice that lease would not be renewed. I really doubt that defendant told landlord the full picture of what her business was, and that she would have a working day care, with school transportation in the rental property. Considering it was California, plaintiff was lucky defendant actually moved out without having to evict, or pay defendant to leave. 12 March “Under Fire” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Jennifer Taylor-Gawne vs. Sam Sparapani) From the show site: A man crashed into a fire hydrant while having a medical emergency, and his landlady got stuck with the bill. He says she should be suing the HOA for poorly kept roads. But should he have been driving with his condition? Plaintiff is suing former tenant/defendant for costs from him hitting a fire hydrant. Defendant claims he wasn’t going very fast, 25 mph, but the damages are much more severe than if defendant just nudged the fire hydrant the way he claims. Defendant’s medical emergency was from an existing medical issue, so was it legal for him to drive anyway? Fire hydrant was in the HOA common area. Defendant's car insurance had expired, and was driving without any insurance. Liability insurance is required by the HOA rules. Defendant claims the HOA's road conditions were bad and caused the accident. HOA sent plaintiff a letter, saying she owed almost $15,000 for the defendant/tenant hitting the fire hydrant, which is the property of the HOA. Plaintiff has a property manager, Kirk Johnson, who is plaintiff's witness. Plaintiff never met defendant before the court case. Fire hydrant is now painted red, but was yellow at the time of the collision. (Yellow or other high contrast colors are legal for fire hydrants). Plaintiff witness Kirk says road was resurfaced by the city before the accident. Plaintiff was short of oxygen, pulled over, he blamed his accident on Covid and heart conditions. Plaintiff witness Kirk Johnson says they haven't moved to evict defendant, because he would disappear on them. Even if plaintiff gets $5,000, she's still out almost $10,000. Defendant is still plaintiff's tenant. Defendant claims gutter was uneven, and threw him off of the road into the hydrant, and over a tree. Plaintiff says defendant is a bad tenant, because of property damages, amounting to $3,000. Kirk Johnson testifies that plaintiff owns several units in the complex, and defendant's unit needs a lot more damages. Defendant should have been charged by police for driving without insurance too. Defendant has lived in California for many years but still has an Arizona drivers license, and Arizona license plates, so he regularly breaks the law. Defendant claims he's safe to drive, which is obviously a lie. I hate to agree, but when you rent out a HOA property, the owner is liable for damages by the tenant, or fines also. Defendant has renter's insurance, but that doesn't cover anything to do with his truck. Also, lease says tenant has to pay the plaintiff for anything that HOA fines for because of tenants actions. $5,000 to plaintiff. (I hate that defendant disregarded the safety of others, and drove with a condition that disqualified him from driving. He could have killed someone.) “Tripod Charlie” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 60 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p.33, 12 December 2022 Edited March 12 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 13 Share March 13 12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: (Jennifer Taylor-Gawne vs. Sam Sparapani) I had to stop watching this. Def was making me too angry. He has a whole host of serious medical conditions, or so he says, so he drives around with no insurance. He struck me as a smarmy hustler, playing on sympathy when he crashed into the hydrant hard enough to deploy the airbags in his truck,(even though he was going 25mph) inherited from his daddy. He wasn't speeding because everyone there is over 55 and we know no one that age ever speeds. Not his fault. It's the fault of those 10" deep holes in the curb. I guess he still keeps the AZ plates on his car for sentimental reasons, too. Why he hasn't been kicked out of the condo, I don't know. Plaintiff's agent says he's a "flight risk"? Flight from what? He's not on probation as far as I could tell. Five years he's been living there and still lives there! Oh, he's only driven his wrecked truck twice since the accident. I guess it's okay to drive with no insurance and serious health problems that cause crashes if you only do it sometimes. He might hit a person next time, but what does he care? No insurance. Sorry. I don't know how this turned out or if the judges got more on his case for the no-insurance thing. I didn't believe one word from him and I couldn't take any more, so thanks @CrazyInAlabama. 1 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 13 Share March 13 (edited) 13 March “Storage Wars” New, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) (Lori Kohrs vs. Elizabeth Ostermann) From the show site: A mother had power of attorney when her son went to jail but says the property manager of his apartment refused to let her collect his belongings. Instead, the manager moved everything to the shared garage, and items subsequently went missing. Was that negligent, or was she within her rights? Plaintiff/mother claims defendant/property manager owes her $5,000 for property her son left behind in the apartment when son was incarcerated. Plaintiff says she took photos of the apartment when son was arrested, took photos, and retrieved his three cats. Then, when plaintiff went back after son's girlfriend moved out, took more pictures and says property was a lot less than when she took the previous pictures. Freddy Gonzalez, the maintenance man for the complex took the property out to the garage, and says it was all packed. However, the garage is shared by four tenants, but there's a locking storage room. Defendant says someone apparently broke into the storage room. But this was the day before defendant reported the break in. Plaintiff disputes the date of the break-in. Plaintiff claims defendant could have stolen some of the missing property. Juarez says defendant can't deny a POA from son. It depends on what the POA covers. Defendant says she told plaintiff that since the girlfriend was a legal resident, that plaintiff couldn't take property that couldn't be proved to be the son's. Defendant still says there is property from son still in the apartment. Then, defendant says an inventory was produced by tenants, and they agreed they had taken all of their property. Corriero says the POA was notarized, but plaintiff didn't show it to the defendant on the first move out date. When the girlfriend left, defendant called plaintiff immediately. Remaining property was locked up in a storage area. The other three apartment tenants had access to the storage area, because it's where their laundry is. Another issue, the girlfriend gave the apartment key to someone else to help with the moveout. Then, defendant said plaintiff and the girlfriend took what they wanted, and the remainder was locked up too. Corriero says it was negligence to move the property before the lease was up, and not safeguarding the property. Who knows who stole the property out of storage, because the girlfriend also had keys, so the number of suspects that had access is pretty big. $2800 to plaintiff for the tools, Corriero dissents. “Couch-Surfing Cousin” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 75(Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 35, 18 January 2023 14 March “Friendship Fallout” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 7 p. 42, 19 September 2023 “Saving Dasher the Dog; Vanity Insanity” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 71 p. 33, 13 December 2022 15 March “The Drain Game” Rerun, Season 10, Episode (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 42, 20 September 2023 “Double-Cross Training” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 17 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez) p. 35, 13 January 2023 Edited March 14 by CrazyInAlabama 1 1 Link to comment
Kath94 March 14 Share March 14 (edited) On 3/7/2024 at 12:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: 7 March “You Wreck It, You Replace It” New, Season 10, Episode (Krista Garcia vs. Leah Paxton) From the show site: A woman is on the hook for crashing her friend's car. She claims she wasn't driving - that the car was stolen from her and crashed by someone else. But Judge Corriero's line of questioning makes her change her tune. How does he get her to admit responsibility? Plaintiff suing former friend for crashing her car, but defendant claims her friend took the car without her knowledge, and wrecked it, so she's not responsible. Defendant claims she let the other person drive the car once, but not the second time when the car was wrecked. Defendant's pathetic excuses were discounted by the judges. Plaintiff receives $5,000. “It's My Cousin's Bill, Not Mine" Rerun, Season 9, Episode 123 p. 38, 20 April 2023 8 March “Unsecured Deposit” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 5 p.42, 15 September 2023 “No Shade, No Brows” Rerun, Season 9, Episode 118 p. 37, 12 April 2023 O.M.G. I just got around to watching the March 7 episode & I really wonder how this woman functions in the world. What kinda of job does she have because I wouldn't hire her. She tossed out every excuse imaginable, hoping something would stick. "I was at work," "I wasn't there," "I thought he had a license," "I didn't give him permission to take the car." If I could have reached through the TV & slapped her I would have. Her life must be nothing but chaos! Edited March 14 by Kath94 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.