Hot Bench - General Discussion

CrazyInAlabama · March 18

18 March

“Phoney Marriage”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Patrice Geanette Clark vs. Donn Carroll Hobbs Jr)

From the show site: After nearly a decade, this couple discovered that their marriage certificate was never registered. He took that as a pass to be with other women - but that wasn't going to fly for her. She's now suing for thousands over his cell phone bill.

Plaintiff/not really wife suing defendant/not really husband for his cell phone bills, and contract costs, $4399. Married in 2014, paperwork was never registered, and therefore was never legal. Plaintiff wanted to get passports, so ordered birth certificates, and discovered that the marriage license was never recorded. Defendant took this chance to leave. Corriero says the registration might not mean the marriage is legal. In California, the filing is a technicality that doesn't mean the marriage is legal.

Plaintiff has consulted attorneys twice, and they gave her different answers about the legality of their marriage. Common law isn't legal in California (it's legal in very few states, and my state ended it in 2017.).

Defendant claims the lack of registration means he's out of the marriage, and isn't going to discuss anything with plaintiff. Plaintiff says defendant wouldn't take his credit accounts and collections off of her financially, so she's still trying to get free of his financially.

Juarez says in California that the state court settled this issue, so even though the marriage wasn't registered, that the marriage is still legal because it was performed by a person licensed to perform marriages in the state, and both parties signed, it's a legal marriage.

Defendant says phone was a gift. Corriero tells the litigants he can still marry people.

Judges decide to give plaintiff half, because they were sharing bills. $2200 to plaintiff, avoiding the issue of the validity of marriage.

“Give Me My Money, Honey"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 78

p. 40, 10 July 2023

CrazyInAlabama · March 19

19 March

“Tenant Runaway”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Valerie McCarthy vs. Sydney Guier)

From the show site: A Nevada landlady let her tenant pay the security deposit in installments, and it came back to bite her. But she didn't keep a ledger, so she struggles to prove what money is missing. The best way to annoy the judges is to bring a case with no evidence.

Plaintiff/landlady suing defendant/former tenant. Tenant says when plaintiff called or texted her, it was harassment. Suing for $5,000 for rent, damges, missing property. Defendant is counter suing for her security deposit. Deposit was $4500, but landlady agreed to incremental payment for security and rent. Plaintiff paid nothing on move in, owed $1500, and another $1500 by 31 August. Remaining was to be paid over 4 months.

Defendant says she sent plaintiff $1,000 via Venmo on 2 August, but landlady says she never received the payment. Defendant claims she paid $1500 before the end of August. Defendant claims she paid the next month's rent plus $2,000 for October. Electric bills were included in the contract, but defendant never paid water, or electric bills. Landlord finally had to pay the utilities herself. Defendant also claims she mailed a money order for rent, but plaintiff never received that either. Only one payment can be proved, because plaintiff endorsed and cashed the check. Judge J. wants the records of payments, and plaintiff doesn't keep those.

Plaintiff shouldn't be a landlady, she keeps lousy records. Apparently defendant was paying a month behind, and attorney letter to defendant omits to mention November's non-payment. There's something wrong with plaintiff, and I'm worried for her.

Defendant claims there was a mouse infestation, but has no proof. Defendant left the property, but told no one a specific date including the father and son of plaintiff. Plaintiff says defendant's stuff was left in the apartment, but some furniture was left. Sorry, Judge Judy says if your stuff is there, it's still your problem to pay rent. This all happened three years ago. Plaintiff's attorney sent defendant a list of damages to defendant. Defendant says she has a service animal, but dog wasn't at the apartment. How can a service animal stay elsewhere?

Corriero says plaintiff has to prove defendant didn't pay. Attorney letter came back to his office, because defendant never did a change of address.

Insufficient evidence for Tewolde. Juarez says defendant admits she was at least $2500 short. Corriero says defendant left without notice, and there's no proof defendant ever paid the security deposit.

Plaintiff gets $2,500.

“Why'd You Stop Bumper Thumper"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 83

p. 35, 30 January 2023

patty1h · March 20

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Tenant Runaway”

(Valerie McCarthy vs. Sydney Guier)

From the show site: A Nevada landlady let her tenant pay the security deposit in installments, and it came back to bite her. But she didn't keep a ledger, so she struggles to prove what money is missing. The best way to annoy the judges is to bring a case with no evidence.

I swear I've seen these two women before. I had a serious case of deja vu while watching this, wracking my brain if this was a rerun or if these two have been jumping around to different court shows.

CrazyInAlabama · March 20

The tenant case wasn't a rerun, at least on Hot Bench. There have been a few other clueless landlords on this show though. I found it sad that the plaintiff was so vague on everything, and her son had to help her. I'm wondering if the amounts owed were inside the statute of limitations for the state though? There have been several overlaps between The People's Court, and Judge Judy.

20 March

“Dog Gone Doggone It!”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Damilola John vs. Jasmine Saunders)

From the show site: This plaintiff asked his friend to look after his dog while he was in jail, and that friend gave the dog to his girlfriend to watch. She's now refusing to give the dog back. But if she's claiming ownership, why is she also countersuing for the cost to take care of it?

Plaintiff suing to get his dog back from girlfriend of friend who was watching the dog while plaintiff was incarcerated. Defendant/girlfriend is counter suing for boarding costs if plaintiff gets the dog back. Defendant irritates Judge J. when she states that dogs are humans. Plaintiff wants $5,000. Defendant wants $4,500 for dog expenses and harassment from plaintiff. (This was in Atlanta).

Unfortunately, plaintiff still has pending charges from the original case, so it can't be discussed in court.

Dog was dropped off with defendant by the former boyfriend, with nothing but a collar, dog also had health issues that were untreated. Dog, either Scar or Benji, is a French Bulldog.

It was less than a month from dog being dropped off, to plaintiff demanding the dog back, defendant said no, and refused to return the dog. Defendant says dog was neglected, but she took dog to vet, and gave him high quality food.

Plaintiff gave his dog brown rice with something else, and made his own dog food. Defendant says dog was very ill, and vet determined dog had been eating bones.

Plaintiff had dog for six months, defendant had the dog for seven months, one month while plaintiff was incarcerated. Then, plaintiff and Billy, the former boyfriend, showed up at defendant's place twice, after dark, and tried to block her in.

Corriero says legally the purchaser of the dog is the legal owner, totally ignoring dog was abandoned. Defendant points out that plaintiff has pending charges, and may not be around to take care of the dog anyway. Defendant says if plaintiff gets the dog back, she should be reimbursed for costs.

Decision is dog goes back to plaintiff, and defendant is given money she spent until the plaintiff demanded the dog back. $1,000 to defendant. Dog transfer will happen at police station.

“Phone Charge-her"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 49

p. 33, 23 November 2022

Edited March 20 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · March 21

“Don’t Pay Me, I’m Pulling Up!”

New, Season 10, Episode

[Alicia Coronel (Audi driver) vs. Meliza Vasquez (driver and girlfriend) and Angel D. Ramirez Pablo (car owner )]

From the show site: A young woman learning to drive stick shift rolled backwards on a hill and hit another car. Photo evidence only shows a small scratch on the bumper, but she's being sued for three grand. After this ordeal, maybe she should STICK to automatic.

Plaintiff suing defendant/beginning stick shift driver for $3,350 for damages. Plaintiff says defendant rolled back into his bumper, photos don't show much damage, but it is a bumper. Defendant says plaintiff should have gone through her own insurance, but there is no damage anyway. Hill was a slight incline, not a steep hill. Damages are to the bumper on the passenger side.

The high cost is to the sensors in the Audi bumper, they are for parking and automatic stop. So, why didn't plaintiff go through defenant's insurance. Plaintiff called the defendant owner's insurance policy, but insurance company needed information from Pablo, but he never did contact the insurance company with more information. Defendant Vasquez says she went forward three feet from the stop sign, and then her car slipped back.

Plaintiff's husband sent a text to defendant Pablo, asking how the insurance claim was progressing, and told him it wasn't going to be a $500 repair, since it's an Audi with sensors. Pablo didn't answer him for months after this.

The body shop had to take the car bumper apart to get an estimate. Pablo claims he never said he would pay for the car damages, and his insurance company, but he still claims the damages are nothing, and he shouldn't have to pay. Defendant Vasquez denies the bumper and sensor damages are from her car, and claims there is red paint on the plaintiff's car, so her car didn't do the damages. Accident was October 2021, and taken to shop in December 2022.

Judge Juarez is being dense, car paint has to be matched, and probably an over coat to make everything match. June 2022 letter from defendant's insurance company say they need more information from defendant.

Pablo offered $500 to plaintiffs, but that was turned down. Ramirez claims bumpers don't match, and says damages are exaggerated. The 'red paint' defendants claim are on the Audi are just reflections. Defendant's insurance company never followed up with his insurance company.

Corriero and Tewolde agree to give plaintiff $3300. But Juarez wants to give her $1,000.

$3300 to plaintiff. She deserves every penny.

“Ex CATastrophe"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 44

p. 33, 16 November 2022

22 March

“Airing Dirty Laundry”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 4

p. 42, 14 September 2023

“Five Grand Theft Auto"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 79

p. 40, 28 July 2023

CrazyInAlabama · March 25

25 March

"Wedding Faux-tographer"

New, Season 10, Episode

(Maria DeCasas vs. Esequiel Cortez)

From the show site: A bride is distraught over a wedding video with poor audio, shaky camera work, and missing moments.

Plaintiff bride hired defendant/photographer to capture the moments of her wedding day. She's suing for $5,000. Defendant says on the day of the wedding bride told him the ceremony was moved up an hour, and this screwed up his scheduling of photos and video. Contract was 10 hours of video and photo coverage, drone footage, IG video clip. Photographer hired the video team, and right before wedding was to start, ceremoney was moved back an hour.

To me a big issues is bride demanded that no one would communicate to her on the day of the wedding. Maid of Honor Norma was the appointed point of contact. Defendant says he didn't have adequate time to set up audio equipment because of the time change. Defendant says the video is a rough cut that plaintiff demanded, and he told her that the final, edited and corrected video wasn't ready. The final video for Instagram looks lovely.

The drone didn't work out, it malfunctioned. Defendant says he offered refunds, and only gave the rough cut when plaintiff demanded it. Defendant isn't the videographer, so I think the videographer should be in court and not defendant.

Wedding started at 3:00, but defendant claims he was told it would start at 2:30. The full video was online, but plaintiff complained about it, so defendant took the link down. The ceremony video was 30 minutes. Bride didn't like the video. I don't see why defendant is being hammered for the video, it wasn't his job, but the videographer.

Bride refuses to look at the photos or videos, to tell defendant what to reedit, and wants $4,000 for redoing the photo and videos, and $4,500 for drone redo.

Tewolde says defendant screwed up. The other judges agree, and the problem is how much money to give back.

Plaintiff receives $3,000. Plus, defendant will give plaintiff everything he has to plaintiff.

"Bad to the Bone"

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 44, 4 December 2023

CrazyInAlabama · March 26

27 March

“Motor Homeless”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Stacy Dillon vs. Bobbie Burcham)

From the show site: A woman called the police when she found someone inside her RV at 4AM.

Plaintiff was planning to sell RV to defendant's boyfriend, who since died, and claims defendant stole the RV. Defendant claims her boyfriend's Denali was going to be traded for the RV. Plaintiff paid $2800 to get the motorcycle out of impound, but her mechanic said the motorcycle wasn't worth what was paid to get it out of impound. Motorhome is an old model, which can no longer be parked in an RV park (anything over 10 years old can't be parked in the big RV national chain parks, not insurable for their risk).

Plaintiff claims the evidence defendant submitted with plaintiff’s signature on it is a forgery. Defendant says DMV and police thought the transfer document was legit. The court has multiple samples of plaintiff's signature, so the judges will decide if it's legitimate. Plaintiff says after the trade was cancelled, that she agreed with defendant's boyfriend to fix the motorcycle up, sell it, and reimburse plaintiff for her costs, and split the profits. Plaintiff's witness, John Norris, witnessed the defendant and boyfriend breaking into the motorhome twice, and police made plaintiff give the keys to defendants when they saw the document.

Judges compare the signatures they have to the document police accepted, and judges agree the signature doesn't look like the plaintiff's signature.

Jorge Bustamante is defendant's witness, who helped defendant and boyfriend move into the RV. Defendant claims they would become owners of the RV, and she was waiting for more documents, and DMV accepted it. RV is now in impound, because supposedly someone took it on a joy ride, and then was found abandoned, and impounded.

Corriero, as usual, takes defendant's side, in spite of the obvious forgery of the document. Boyfriend was using the RV during the day for business. So, where did defendant get the key. The apartment complex doesn't allow overnight used of RV's, but the defendants used it that way. I disagree with Corriero (as usual), DMV isn't the decider on some possibly forged document, without any other paperwork about a Bill of Sale, or transfer doucment that's notorized.

Juarez says both stories are fishy. Tewolde says the document signature is forged. Corriero says nullify the trade or sale, and have plaintiff get the RV back. However, that means plaintiff will have to pay thousands to get the RV out of impound to sell it.

The judges agree plaintiff didn't prove the RV was stolen. Plaintiff cliams dismissed. No money to plaintiff. Plaintiff can get the vehicle back if she wants to pay the impound fees.

“Parking Problems”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 44, 13 December 2023

CrazyInAlabama · March 27

27 March

“Eye Want Justice”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Kerri Lewis vs. Jo Ann Ferris)

From the show site: Would you undergo a painful eyeliner tattoo if it saved you twenty minutes every morning for the rest of your life? The plaintiff thought it was worth it.

So for her first tattoo (no it's not, she had her eyebrows done before this), plaintiff wanted her eyeliner tattooed on? Plaintiff wants $5,000 to have the service refunded, get the procedure redone, and pain and suffering. Defendant says her policy is no-refunds, no guarantees, and she has 30 years of experience. Plaintiff took a photo of her preferred eyeliner style, and claims when she was finished with the tattoo she had 3 dots lower down, and a big blob too. Plaintiff did her eyebrows first, so eyeliner was her

Sandra Lorene, who redid the tattoo, is plaintiff's witness, she has 20 years experience, and says defendant was careless, unsanitary, had shaky hands, and interfered with the water glands.

Tewolde says her eyes are watering from hearing about the tattoo, and mine are too.

Plaintiff claims the consent form isn't the one she signed, and claims it's copied, and whited out, but plaintiff signed it over the whited out portion. Then plaintiff finally admits she signed the form.

Corriero talks to Sandra, the witness, who says the procedure was botched, and gross negligence.

Defendant brings up that plaintiff's expert witness no longer is in business, and no longer licensed.

Tewolde says defendant isn't credible. Juarez says neither litigant is credible.

Plaintiff receives a refund $820.

“Caster of the House Party Disaster”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 44, 27 November 2023

CrazyInAlabama · March 28

28 March

“Broken Bro Code”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Steve Ramirez Jr vs. Daniel Contreras Jr)

From the show site: A woman came between long-time best friends, and they both said things that can’t be taken back.

Plaintiff is suing for unpaid loans he made to defendant, $2360. Defendant says they met in high school, and was plaintiff's best friend. Plaintiff needed $1,000 for the first loan, to get defendant back home during his divorce, before repayment. Then, plaintiff loaned defendant $ because he wanted to help. Plaintiff says that defendant started dating his prospective girlfriend. Then, defendant claims plaintiff was getting friendlier with the woman, but claims plaintiff was also 'talking' with other women.

Plaintiff admits he threatened the defendant. Both men work at the same comapny too. Plaintiff claims defendant was not only boinking his prospective girlfriend, but trying to get with his dead cousin's widow, and trying to reconcile with the ex-wife.

Plaintiff did receive $200 from defendant, but that's the only payment. Now the defendant calls the prospective mutual girlfriend a gold digger.

Defendant told the bosses about what plaintiff said, so plaintiff and the woman both got called into the office, but didn't get fired.

Plaintiff receives $2360 (I was disappointed not to see the alluring former girlfriend of both men.)

“From Best Friend to Frenemies”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 44, 11 December 2023

29 March

“Unlordly Landlord”

Repeat, Season 10, Episode 6

p. 42, 18 September 2023

“Breast Side Story”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 129

p. 38, 1 May 2023

Edited March 29 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · March 29

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: A woman came between long-time best friends, and they both said things that can’t be taken back.

I really wanted to see all the women who wanted to bump uglies with these two. They didn't strike me as Casanovas.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

defendant was not only boinking his prospective girlfriend, but trying to get with his dead cousin's widow, and trying to reconcile with the ex-wife.

Seriously. I needed to see the ladies.😳

On 3/27/2024 at 3:29 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: Would you undergo a painful eyeliner tattoo if it saved you twenty minutes every morning for the rest of your life?

I haven't been watching lately. It might be time to catch up.

CrazyInAlabama · April 1

1 April

“Good Neighbors Leave Bad Stains”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Estefani and Ricardo Del Riego vs Raymond McClam Jr)

From the show site: A true crime podcaster is in court defending his son after the neighbors accused him of throwing wood stain on their driveway. But if he's so certain of his son's innocence, then why did he send him over to clean up the mess?

Plaintiffs suing defendant for claiming defendant's son threw wood stain on their driveway. Plaintiffs say it was over $5,000 in damages, proven by another neighbor's Ring camera. Defendant claims his son didn't do it, but sent son and wife over to clean the driveway.

Video from neighbor's Ring camera plays, and you can see the defendant's son coming out of his house, crossing behind the three trailers in defendant's driveway, and you can hear the sound of the stain can hitting the driveway. Mr. Del Riego says defendant's son was wearing the same clothes as on the video. Defendant says he has six kids, and many visitors and claims the person on the video isn't his son.

Defendant says his son is on the Autism Spectrum, isn't legally responsible, and isn't responsible for the stain on the driveway or on plaintiff's car.

After plaintiff showed defendant and the son the video that son confessed to doing it.

There is a plaintiff video showing the damages to the driveway, and to plaintiff's Escalade. Plaintiff says stain peeled some chrome off of his car, and can't be removed from the car rim, even by professionals. Two months later plaintiff called police about the vandalism, because defendant refused to pay any of the damages. Police report says defendant admitted his son threw the stain.

That awful fake redwood stain is tough to get out. The defendant's excuses for not paying are ludicrous.

Defendant has a video of plaintiff being aggressive. Trust me, if your kid threw that icky stain on my car and driveway, I would have called the police on the spot, and sued immediately.

Plaintiff already spent $1700 for pressure washing, and cleaning his car off, and stain is still there. Juarez says video isn't convincing enough for criminal court, only civil court. The only cheaper fix would be to stain or paint the entire driveway that horrible color, and I bet that would be patchy too. Juarez keeps says the plaintiff was out of control, but how would she like to have the neighbor's kid ruin her driveway and damage her car?

$5,000 to plaintiff.

“Look at Our Window!”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 44, 28 November 2023

Edited April 1 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · April 2

2 April

“Suspicious Sale”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Karen Lovely [executor for the late Tracy Bettencourt) vs. Shawn Donovan)

From the show site: A woman comes to court on behalf of her deceased friend, who bought a car from her handyman but never received the title. The handyman claims she still owed three grand on it. But the plaintiff shows that her friend had inherited half a million dollars, so that story doesn't add up.

Defendant didn't have the title, and therefore didn't have the right to sell the car to the late Bettancourt, and plaintiff is the executor. Defendant claims he sold Ms. Tracy Bettencourt the car for $15000, and still owes $3,000, and he doesn't have the money to pay the lien holder off, and to get the title. (I don't see how much money the late Ms. Bettencourt had, I've known people that were rich, and were also cheated people, and didn't pay bills.)

Plaintiff claims her friend paid $10,000 for the car to defendant, and was supposed to get the title. Juarez wants to know why the $10,000 didn't pay off the lien on the car, and car originally belonged to his late mother.

Defendant believes that he had $1 million dollars in gold being delivered soon.

Plaintiff claims her late friend had over $200,000 in the bank, and could easily have paid defendant if she actually owed him the $3,000.

Bill of Sale Ms. Bettencourt had wasn't enough to get a title and registration on the car, the title was in the name of defendant's late parents, and defendant never disclosed there was a lien on the car. Another company has the lien, and car is being repossessed by the company that holds the title to the car.

There are a number of title defects, and the lien holder owns the legal title to the car. I'm not sure if car has physically been taken by the lien holder or not.

Judge Juarez says the defendant's sale of the car was a scam. Corriero and Tewolde take the plaintiff's side.

Titlle to plaintiff, and a full refund of the scam sale price, $5,000. Judges are ordering the car is plaintiff's, but that may not have any weight with the lien holder.

“Lawn of the Land"

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 44, 12 December 2023

AngelaHunter · April 3

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant believes that he had $1 million dollars in gold being delivered soon.

I don't know if Mr. Shawn Donovan was preying on Tracy. Although I kind of agree with P, that Def seems like a grifter, the relationship sounded co-dependant to me.

But the mention of gold was my favorite part of the case. I hope Shawn doesn't think he's getting MY gold bars that are coming in a metallic trunk box from Nigeria after I pay a small fee with Steam cards. No, really - they are coming.

I have proof!

Quote

...the consignment contains not less than US$7.5million and it weighs approximately 35kg (Internal dimension: W58 x H146 x D72 (cm) effective Capacity: 560 L)

You are advice to contact our paying bank in Turkey, in the person of Mr. Vincent, but because Mr. Vincent isn't around, you will contact Mr. Greg Deutshc, he will link you to Mr. Vincent.

MR JOHNSON WILLIAMS
Director ATM Department
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA (U.B.A)

If Mr. Vincent isn't around (where can he be?)why bother to mention him? 🤔 I mean if Mr. Deutshc is going to link us up anyway... oh, well.

I just betcha Mr. Donovan is sending everything - and the 3K from the lien - his parents left behind to Lagos.

CrazyInAlabama · April 3

3 April

“Too Hot to Handle”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Trovoyum Branson vs. Pashyon Jackson)

From the show site: A protective mother sues a salon owner after her daughter suffered second degree burns. The daughter wanted box braids for her senior year, but she ended up with an unsightly welt on her neck, which ruined her confidence on picture day. Does that warrant her emotional distress claim?

Plaintiff is suing on behalf of her daughter Daijah Brent-Branson. Daughter says she was burned by hot water at the salon, when her hair ends were dipped in hot water. Plaintiff mother says daughter's skin blistered, and was very painful, and she's suing for $5,000 for daughter's pain and suffering. Defendant was contacted by plaintiff mother, asked for photos of the burn, but never received anything from plaintiff mother.

Cortnie Quanae was the hairdresser at defendant's salon, says daughter was hit by water from her braids, not the electric kettle. Cortnie also says skin was red, but not blistered, or darker red. Plaintiff mother wasn't at the salon, but takes over for daughter every time. Payment was $125, after a deposit from the mother. Defendant Passion (Pashyon) Jackson didn't take the daughter's payment, since mother did the initial deposit, and defendant expected the mother to pay the remaining amount.

Salon owner and stylist claim plaintiff daughter bent forward, and threw hot water on herself. Stylist points out that she would have burned also if it was from the kettle, and stylist wasn't burned. Salon owner was watching when the dipping happened, and says plaintiff daughter moved forward.

Salon owner and stylist claim this didn't happen to either of them before.

Corriero wants to know if salon owner contacted their insurance company (her salon manager is her mother Sayvona Jackson), and the answer is no, there was no evidence to send to the insurance company, because plaintiff mother refused to give photos or proof. Plaintiff mother wants $5,000 because her daughter was embarassed to go to school with the burn.

Decision is $2,500 to plaintiff daughter.

“Property Smothers"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 57

p. 33, 5 Oct 2022

CrazyInAlabama · April 4

4 April

“I’m Not My Brother’s Property Keeper”

New, Season 10, Episode

(George Garcia vs. Raymond Garcia )

From the show site: The plaintiff claims his brother prevented him from collecting his belongings from their mother's garage. The brother denies this, but he does want their mother's restraining order against the plaintiff enforced. Should the brother have done more to facilitate the return of his brother's property?

Plaintiff suing brother/defendant for denying him access to his property, property was left at mother's home, and mother has a restraining order against plaintiff. (From the show site description, the last line sounds like Corriero wrote it. How is it the defendant role to break the restraining order to get the plaintiff's stuff to him?). Plaintiff is suing for return of property, or $2,800.

Plaintiff was living in mother's garage, claims defendant forced mother into getting a restraining order. Defendant says he went through the garage, and nothing belonging to plaintiff is there. Defendant says plaintiff's entire demeanor changed after a 1970's motorcycle incident. Plaintiff was living in the mother's garage for years. Defendant says mother was being neglected by plaintiff, says plaintiff was bringing lots of sketchy people to the mother's home. Some woman told defendant that when she stayed at the home for a week, she reported the mother's situation to APS, and mother has an emergency protective order to get plaintiff away.

Mother later had a restraining order against the plaintiff, citing abuse of the mother. Mother is 96, lives alone, and in great health.

Defendant issued a 30-day notice to plaintiff in 2020, plaintiff moved away, but plaintiff violated the restraining order, and plaintiff was arrested. Plaintiff served six months in jail for violating the restraining order in 2020. Plaintiff claims $2800 worth of property was trashed by defendant, but defendant denies that. Defendant took mother to the eviction office, and mother paid for the eviction process. Dendant's only role was to put the paperwork on the plaintiff's door.

How can the judges even consider the fate of property left behind four years ago?

Corriero says defendant should have inventoried the property in the garage, but it's not his property, it's the mother's property.

Defendant says BPD told him to stay away from the brother. Defendant submitted a photo of what's in the garage, last December there was a burglary in the garage, someone broke the door to get in. Defendant claims the property in the garage is his mother's, not plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims mother told him to pick his stuff up any time. Tewolde doesn't understand why defendant is afraid of plaintiff who hears voices, and assaulted the mother.

Plaintiff claims defendant had his truck towed, which defendant denies. Defendant claims brother did have a truck, but he never had it towed, and truck just disappeared. Mother said she didn't know where the truck went, it just disappeared today. The restraining order is for five years, and includes a stay away provision to keep plaintiff away from the house, and the mother.

Juarez says plaintiff is suing the wrong person, the mother owns the property, and received the restraining order. Corriero says it's not malice on defendant's part. Tewolde agrees. Juarez says plaintiff needs to go to the issuing court, to get an exception to look in the garage for his property.

Plaintiff claim dismissed. Juarez tells plaintiff to apply to the original court for an exception to the restraining order, and with police supervision search the garage. How irresponsible of her! If defendant is to be believed, then plaintiff assaulted the mother already, they don't just issue five-year restraining orders for nothing. I would tell the plaintiff too late, and the restraining order stands.

“LIEcensed Driver”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

(William Nave III vs. Christopher and Elijah (driver) van Mulligan)

(p. 44, 5 December 2023-Chalby's recap on the next posting down on 5 December 2023 is excellent).

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

Plaintiff and his long history of back injuries and surgeries, blames a teen who rear ended him for another surgery. The lack of paperwork from a surgeon claiming the injury resulting in the surgery was recent, and caused by the accident, is missing. However, defendant didn't have a license or insurance. Plaintiff blames the accident for his surgery, homelessness, getting fired by his employer, and getting his car repossessed. Plaintiff says he has the paperwork in storage, because he's homeless, and can't carry paperwork because of his back. Plaintiff waited three weeks to seek medical care after the accident.

I would throw everything out. I'm hoping the judges dismissed the theatrical whining of the plaintiff.

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

Plaintiff receives $2036 for the bumper and cost of his X-ray.

5 April

“Gold Wedding”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 45, 8 January 2024

“Handyman Damage"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 161

(Nasir Choudhery vs. Moses Raiz and Adrienne Villines)

Plaintiff landlord says defendant were tenants at another home, then he moved them into the rental in qesteion. Defendant claims he gave notice to landlord, and property manager a month before moveout, but plaintiff claims he received a week notice of move out.

There is a huge hole in the front door, a big hole where a camera was installed, bullet holes in the house and windows. The lawn looked lovely on move in, but on move out it is awful. lawn care was the responsiblity of the tenants. Also, a large pile of trash bags were left in the driveway. Tenants parked 4 cars in a 2 car driveway, hanging out across the sidewalk, and into the street. That was another police issue too.

Tenants claim they never got the itemized list of damages, and Corriero doesn't believe the plaintiff sent the list in time, or in the proper format. Defendant agrees the address is his new residence.

Back lawn is destroyed, and defendant claims he let lawn die. Defendant Villines claims kids were shooting BB guns.

Chaundry says he never heard anything about a crime wave in the neighborhood, and he didn't replace entire windows. Sounds like a lot of crime for a low crime area.

No pets allowed according to lease. Defendants' lease said no Chows, no Pit Bulls, but defendant Villines claims they had to get big aggessive dogs to protect their property. "no Pets Allowed" is written on multiple pages of the rental agreement. (This happened in Clovis, CA, it doesn't have a reputation as a high crime area. )

Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Judges give plaintiff $1185 for damages, but security was $1150, so judges say it equals out. Nothing for plaintiff.A ridiculous decision by all three judges, as usual Corriero was the worst. See DoctorK’s description of the case for the dirty details of another landlord screwed over by the judges, on p. 41, 21 August 2023. (I missed the episode first time around, fortunately, DoctorK saw it)

(Because of the eclipse on Monday, ABC will air eclipse coverage starting an hour before HB airs in my area. I may only have the show summary,)

Edited April 5 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · April 7

On 3/26/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: A woman called the police when she found someone inside her RV at 4AM.

I just saw this. Some rough-looking litigants. If P's witness, John, was trying to channel Sam Elliot, he failed miserably, looking more like he just woke up on a park bench after a month-long bender. And what kind of "business" is John running that he needs to gain daily access to an old RV in order to conduct it?

I couldn't help but notice that Def attempted to scrunch up her face and squeeze out Tears for Sympathy at the mention of her deceased boyfriend, but she too failed miserably.

On 4/1/2024 at 3:24 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says his son is on the Autism Spectrum, isn't legally responsible, and isn't responsible for the stain on the driveway or on plaintiff's car.

Of course, he is. But even though his son didn't ruin P's driveway (even if it's on video it's not him) he said he would pay to have it repaired just because he's such a great neighbour, but we know he had no intention of doing so, ever. He refused to pay even the paltry sum of $150 for the car damage because P wasn't very polite to him. Hey, he's a "True Crime Podcaster" which he seems to think places him in some special category, since why else would he mention it? I did note how his dopey wife was deemed useless or maybe even impaired and quickly told to "sit down".

If I were the Ps, I would move.

patty1h · April 8

No Good Breed Goes Unpunished: This case could have been a simple failed dog sale, but it had two hella trashy people as litigants. Curtis Waters lost his job and couldn't finish paying for the pit bull (Kash) he bought from his cousin. He has a contract says he can't sell or breed the dog until full payment is received, but he offered to sell Kash to Nicole Luther, who he encounters at a 7-11 at 4AM. Nicole says she saw Kash sitting in the rain while the owner was inside and decided she wanted the beautiful dog. They arrange a sale, but days later someone tells Nicole that Curtis has no right to sell the dog since he still has a balance outstanding. So, then, Nicole uses grifter logic and stops paying Curtis for the dog. However, Curtis still wants money and pick of the litter if Kash has any puppies.

This case was a hot mess - so many face and neck tattoos, missing teeth, dog sales with drugs as payment, bullet casing in cars, both of these fools being upset that they are restricted from breeding the dog per the contract, calls to DHS after Nicole stopped paying, guns being waved around when Curtis stops by to "discuss" payment. Yeesh.

Turns out Nicole read the contract wrong, so the dog could be bred but she still wanted money for defamation or... something. I lost interest. Curtis says he would give Nicole the $400 she paid back - he wanted the dog, but instead the judges let Nicole keep the dog and give Curtis a cash award and a future puppy.

Edited April 9 by patty1h

CrazyInAlabama · April 9

I'm so glad you could see the episode, mine was 'eclipsed'.

AngelaHunter · April 9

On 4/3/2024 at 3:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is suing on behalf of her daughter Daijah Brent-Branson.

A kettle full of boiling water as a hairdressing tool. I had a kettle just like that eons ago. Never thought of using it to style my hair. Daijah, Pashyon, and Trovoyun.

The producers thought we would faint at the sight of a small burn. However, I know from experience that 2nd-degree burns, even if small, are extremely painful, so I guess the $2500 was justified.

10 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm so glad you could see the episode, mine was 'eclipsed'.

I got this ep, but saw "dog" and deleted it. TPC was "eclipsed" for me. I was disappointed in said eclipse. I've seen it get way darker before storms. Meh.

CrazyInAlabama · April 9

9 April

“I've Had Enough, I Want My Stuff"

New, Season 10, Episode

(Bradie Nelson vs. Jeffrey Fugate)

From the show site: A woman had recently moved across the country with her boyfriend but was visiting home for a funeral. While she was there, his ex-wife told her he was breaking up with her. She claims he's now refusing to return her belongings. He says she can have everything - he's just not going to pay for shipping.

Plaintiff/ex-girlfriend suing defendant/ex-boyfriend for the cost of shipping her property to her, $5000 for the value or return of plaintiff's property consisting of 20 or so boxes of property. $3708 is what defendant wants for moving and storage fees for plaintiff's property. They broke up three years ago. Plaintiff moved from Oregon to Oklahoma. Ex-wife and defendant's mother both got involved, with defendant's mother texting plaintiff that she needed to bring a sheriff's deputy when she picked up her stuff.

Plaintiff went to Orgon for her sister's funeral, and that's when the ex-wife told plaintiff that she had been dumped, and couldn't go into defendant's mother's, Sharon Fugate, storage unit.

Defendant's mother claims the text was from plaintiff, saying she was coming with a U-Haul, and bringing a Sheriff's deputy, and that she's going to go through the mother's house to see if any of her property was in Mrs. Fugate's house. Mrs. Fugate said Brandie wasn't welcome in her home.

Defendant says he wants storage and moving costs for moving plaintiff's storage items and keeping them safe for three years.

Plaintiff gave the judges an itemized list of the value of her property, $5,000.

Defendant mother claims the property was wet from being outside in Oregon, and boxes didn't get wet in her possession of the mother.

$5,000 for plaintiff for her stuff. ( I wouldn't have given plaintiff a penney, she had no proof of what was actually in the boxes, and I refuse to believe 20 boxes of stuff is worth $5,000. Plaintiff's demand to go through the defendant mother's house was ridiculous.)

“License to Bill"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 166

p. 41, 5 September 2023

Edited April 10 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · April 10

10 April

“Damn! She Abandoned the Van”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Laura Paolone vs. Taylor Ann Kelly )

From the show site: A woman agreed to sell her niece a van if she paid to replace the power steering pump. The niece paid for the part and agreed to a payment plan for the purchase. But when the van left her family stranded at a hotel, she left it there and walked back on the deal. Did the aunt sell her an unsafe vehicle on purpose?

Plaintiff/aunt and vehicle seller suing defendant/niece and vehicle buyer deadbeat, for the remaining amount of the purchase price of the van niece was buying from aunt. Aunt says the van needed a power steering pump, and sold van to niece for $2700, after replacing the power steering pump. Then, niece knew about the defect and that it was fixed, so niece took the van, when it broke down the niece abandoned the van, and refuses to pay any more on it. Van is a 2007 Kia Sedona.

Aunt says she never would have sent her son on the 6-hour van trip with defendant if she knew the van was unreliable. Niece claims van steering column came apart twice.

Defendant witness is niece's mother, who claims plaintifff knew about all of the issues, and was willing to endanger her own child by sending him on the trip with defendant. Witness says palintiff was desperate to sell the van, so lied about the condition.

Niece just abandoned the van, and Motel 6 had the abandoned van towed, and it costs over $2,000 for towning and storage, and the towing company went out of business, so the other company that now has the van will auction it off soon unless it's bailed out of impound.

Defendant claims she had issues with the van, but still drove it on the long trip.

Plaintiff gave defendant the option to give the van back right after the sale, but defendant refused.

Juarez says if van was available, she would unwind the sale, but since van is in impound that's not going to happen. Tewolde says give plaintiff Blue Book, Corriero says $2000.

So, plaintiff gets $2,000, and van is gone.

“Mother May I Have My Kids"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 169

p. 41, 8 September 2023

CrazyInAlabama · April 11

11 April

“Boom Crash the Sound of My Car"”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Chris Vivar vs. Erin Ward)

From the show site: A retail employee claims he lost his job because Uber consistently made him late, and it's the defendant's fault for hitting and totaling his car. She denies responsibility, saying she was the victim of a hit-and-run; and besides, it's not her fault he failed to leave earlier for work.

Plaintiff suing defendant for making him late for work, getting him fired, and car damages. Plaintiff's car was parked, when defendant ran into the car, and defendant's insurance paid him $5,000. He's suing for $1900 more.

Police report says defendant caused the accident, and was suspected of being impaired. Defendant claims another driver clipped the rear driver's side back quarter panel, that caused her to spin out, and she hit the plaintiff's car. Defendant was put in cuffs, and driven away, and claims she was released after a breathalyzer, and blood test, and no results were released. Police report doesn't mention anything about another car hitting defendant's car.

Police reports said there were no skid marks from defendant either.

Plaintiff says he only found out the insurance company for defendant from the police report.

Insurance release is only for car damages, nothing else. Defendant didn't bring any photos showing the damages on her car from the other vehicle showing red paint. Defendant also throws in that her dog died three weeks after the accident. Defendant's car was totaled.

Defendant's boyfriend, Chris Simmons, claims they couldn't take pictures of the cars.

(I would give plaintiff everything he asked for. Defendant has a lot of testimony about the accident, but no witnesses who saw the accident, or any photos of her car showing damages from the phantom hit and run driver either.

Plaintiff receives $600 for towing and storage fees for his car.

“Take the Money and Van Gogh"

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 44, 7 December 2023

CrazyInAlabama · April 12

novated halfway house12 April

“Contracting Conundrum”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Rodney and Jessie Bruce vs. Debra Shelton-Love)

From the show site: After hitting it off on a cruise to Greece, a property owner hired a handyman to bring her inherited illegal unit up to code. She claims he represented himself as a licensed contractor, which she desperately needed for the project. But he refutes that. Now he's demanding to be paid for his work

Plaintiff /handyman suing defendant /homeowner met on a cruise to Greece. Defendant and handyman developed a relationship, and she became friends with the plaintiff's wife. Defendant wife claimed they renovate halfway houses, but claims defendant was told he's not a licensed contractor. Each side is suing for $5,000. Plaintiff claims defendant never paid him. There is another $900 job estimated for $900, and Rodney says he did some of the work, but defendant interrupted him.

Rodney claims he was supposed to demo a garage on her property, remove all drywall, and garage door, and convert it to an ADU, but he claims he was never paid all of the money, $965, only $900.The garage to ADU was illegal to convert, since there wasn't a licensed contractor on the job. When the city found out the lack of permits and contractor's license, then defendant had to go to court.

There are a variety of properties plaintiff worked on, and he has receipts for thousands of dollars in materials defendant didn't pay for. However, defendant already planning to have her cousin, another handyman do the work for her too.

Defendant brought very little proof of anything.

Plaintiff will get what he has proof for, and what can be done by an unlicensed contractor, $3000

"Lost in Collaboration”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 44, 6 December 2023

AngelaHunter · April 12

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

After hitting it off on a cruise to Greece, a property owner hired a handyman to bring her inherited illegal unit up to code. She claims he represented himself as a licensed contractor, which she desperately needed for the project. But he refutes that. Now he's demanding to be paid for his work

More astute business people who make agreements while they're all drinking. He said he's a licensed contractor. No, he didn't. Who knows? I guess def was okay with that until she didn't like that he brought in "lazy MFers" from his halfway house to work on her properties. Nice language. No proof of anything was needed until she didn't like what he did, or didn't do. Def's cousin is a handyman too, but she was afraid to tell him she needed a licensed contractor to do the work. Why? Well, "You don't know my cousin". I guess he would do something horrible/violent to her if she told him she wasn't going to hire him.

Def throws around "God" and "Jesus" and "Excuse my French".

I couldn't take anymore, so thanks @CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · April 15

15 April

“Jewel Citizenship”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Arianna Fryslie vs. Jean Carlo Gutierrez)

From the show site: A jewelry artist was arrested after a domestic dispute on the Fourth of July. She claims her ex-boyfriend refused to hand over her artwork while she was in jail and believes he is retaining it in his trailer. But how can she prove that when a restraining order prevents her from going there to see for herself?

Plaintiff suing defendant/ex-boyfriend for return of her artwork supplies, tools and jewelry. Defendant has a restraining order against plaintiff, so she can't go on his property and search his home for the artwork. When plaintiff was in the lock up, she wanted her mother to get her jewelry / artwork from defendant. She wants jewelry, artwork, and all of her tools and supplies. Plaintiff's mother Gail Reynolds, testifies that she only got a couple of backpacks, some clothes, a few boxes, and other items but no paintings, supplies, jewelry, etc.

Defendant denies any of the artwork were in his trailer. He claims he packed up everything from the trailer and left it on a bench outside for the mother to pick up. (Interesting eye makeup on plaintiff).

Photo of defendants trailer rooms shows no paintiings, and nowhere to hide the paintings, artwork, or anything else. Defendant did find some shoes later, and few beads and wire, and he returned that to the plaintiff's mother.

Plaintiff submits receipts, one says August, but that's when she was in jail, not shopping. Plaintiff claims her paintings are very valuable, and so is the beaded jewelry she makes (look like imitation turquoise and other jewelry, and look like the cheap stuff that you buy predone, and string).

Then, plaintiff says the receipt for pillows is actually for another pillow.

I believe nothing plaintiff or her mother testified to.

Defendant says the photos of artwork are actually of paintings that were in her mother's house.

The judges have totally given up figuring out who is the liar.

Corriero believes plaintiff about the canvases, and wants to give plaintiff $1,000. Tewolde says throw out plaintiff case, and so does Juarez.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

“Load of Raging Bull” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 3, p. 41, 13 September 2023

Edited April 15 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · April 16

16 April

“Where Did My Van Gough?; The Two Al-EXES”

New, Season 10, Episode 125

“Where Did My Van Gough?”

(Taryn Blackburn vs. Amanda Going and Shane Gough)

From the show site: A mother and her sons were road-tripping to a family reunion when a deer in the road destroyed their van. A local mom and pop repair shop promised to fix it, and even offered to deliver the van to her a state away. But she claims they fell short on that promise, and now she wants a refund and travel reimbursement. Is she asking too much?

Plaintiff/driver suing defendants/car repair place for not meeting her standards repairing her van after an assault by a marauding deer, and delivering the finished van to her in the next state. Plaintiff wants a full refund, and travel reimbursement, a total of $3850 with travel costs.

Defendants were evicted from the shop/home a week or so after the accident. They finished most of the repairs, there were more damages than it looked like there would be, and body work wes very extensive. Plaintiff cliams she just wanted drivable, and she did pick up the van from plaintiffs, at a mutual meeting point. Then, plaintiff claims the van broke down after she picked it up, for $1600.

Corriero wants to give her $1600 for the radiator, and travel expenses.

Juarez and Tewolde say $1600 and that's all.

Plaintiff receives $1600.

“The Two Al-ELES”

(Alexandra Conrad vs. Alexandro "A.J." Contreras )

From the show site: Ex-partners Alexandra and Alexandro come to court over shared credit card debt. He promised in a text to repay her for auto repair charges - but now he claims he "paid his dues" over the course of the relationship. What made him change his tune?

Plaintiff suing defendant/ex-live in for unpaid auto repair charges on a credit card. She also paid for his cell phone on her account. She wants $5,000, half of the balance on a joint credit card bill.

She agreed to the car repairs, but found out defendant was using the credit card for other purchases, and repaid nothing. Defendant says that they were building a life together, and bills weren't his to pay. FIrst car charge was $3,000. Juarez missed the point, the litigants agreed on the car repair, and defendant said he would repay it, but he didn't. The other charges were without her knowledge.

Plaintiff receives $5,000 for the car repair, and expenses charged after they broke up on her credit card.

“Forging Ahead” (I missed this last time, the case sounds interesting from the show summary).

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 2

(Anthony Galasi vs. Daudi Salim Turner)

From the show site: A formerly incarcerated man finds himself back in hot water when a friend he gave power of attorney to cashed checks in his name.

Plaintiffs are suing former friend/defendant for cashing defendant's settlement checks in plaintiff's name, so now plaintiff is in legal trouble, he's suing for $5,000 . Defendant Turner is claimed to have promised to register the plaintiff's truck, rolled The litigants met in custody in San Francisco. Janette Brussil, is plaintiff's girlfriend and witness, and says Mr. Turner was hard to get in contact with.

Defendant says he negotiated the vehicle price down for a certified used, and seller lied, and was going to fix truck and pay plaintiff $7700 in a settlement. He also says that he had a limited POA to do the car registration. However, plaintiff says the POA was limited, and didn't allow defendant to cash the settlement check. Defendant also docu-signed the agreements in plaintiff's name, and didn't tell people he dealt with that he was Turner, not Galasi. Defendant also sent emails using plaintiff's name, and representing himself as plaintiff.

Defendant presents the POA. Witness also says while plaintiff was incarcerated that defendant kept the truck away from plaintiff and witness, and Turner claims it cost him $7900 in travel costs to register and take truck to Texas. Turner also spent 3 weeks in a motel, and wants plaintiffs to pay him for that.

Juarez has issues with plaintiff's credibility, and the POA. Tewolde says both litigants are credible, and that plaintiff didn't understand exactly what the POA covered. Tewolde wants to give $2500 gas, $500 for his own trouble, and hotel costs $250, and other fees, a total of $4450.

Plaintiff receives $7700, minus gas and hotel for the Texas trip, so he gets $4450 after expenses for defendant.

Edited April 17 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · April 17

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Anthony Galasi vs. Daudi Salim Turner

That was funny. We all know what "going away" means on these shows. Two criminals meet in the slammer and of course, they trust each other because criminals have the highest morals.

Who knows how many times they've been locked up, but they go into business and Anthony trusts Daudi so much when he "goes away" he gives him a POA As would we all allow a jailbird to have control of our money. I'm not sure Anthony was able to read and understand the POA. His "girl" or maybe his business manager appears here in an Elly Mae knotted blouse, just in case the judges wanted to see some of her abdomen. Daudi admits he should have given money back to Anthony, but... he didn't. He just kept it. *shrug*

Whatever happened to "honour among thieves"? I'm so disillusioned.

I swear, these judges are kinder and gentler to those who repeatedly break the law than they often are to honest people who have never been "incarcerated".

CrazyInAlabama · April 17

17 April

“You've Lost Your Trucking Mind”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Andre Jackson vs. Marvin Anderson)

From the show site: A trucker broke down in South Dakota and spent his own money to repair a leased big rig. The owner points to the contract, saying repairs are the driver's responsibility. But is it fair for the driver to pay for wear and tear that pre-dates his possession of the truck?

Plaintiff Jackson suing defendants for truck lease he says they owe. Defendants claim the truck broke down after plaintiff lied about the condition of the truck, and are countersuing for truck repairs and lost wages. Defendant said he had to replace a couple of tires, check engine light was on, and brakes needed repairs. $3700 was the cost of repairs to defendant.

Defendant's witness is his wife, Marvet Anderson. She says they rented truck for three months, paid the first month only. She says it was the brake repair, airbags were out, etc. Corriero, as always, takes the defendants' side.

The litigants disagree on the mileage on the truck, when payment was due. They also disagree on the condition of the truck. Plaintiff says until truck ready after starting the check engine and other lights come on, and then when truck is ready to go, the warning lights go off.

Corriero goes totally on the defendants' side. Juarez says plaintiff didnt defraud the defendants.

$2404 for defendant, this is minus the lease price to plaintiff, but takes care of defendant's repair bills.

“To Bead, or Not to Bead”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 44, 29 November 2023

CrazyInAlabama · April 18

18 April

“Rentally Incapable”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Kenyada Ellsion vs. Phyllis Goldsmith)

From the show site: The house was in "perfect" condition when this tenant and her four kids moved out, according to her. But the landlady says floors were scratched, appliances were broken, and cabinets were glued shut. The tenant may have an imperfect definition of "perfect," but do the landlady's actions entitle her to her deposit back?

Plaintiff/former tenant suing defendant/former landlady for return of $4300 security deposit. Defendant is counter suing for $5,000. Plaintiff claims right after move in the house was a nightmare, and they stayed five years. Defendant claims the perfect house was trashed by plaintiff and her four children, including severely scratched floors, appliances destroyed, cabinets glued shut. Plaintiff says house was Section 8, so there was a move-in and move-out inspections by the housing authority. Defendant says she didn't know about an issue with the stove until move-out. Also, defendant says water heater went out, but after four years, and defendant had it replaced immediately, and spent $1600 on it. Security deposit was $5,000, but plaintiff paid $4300.

After four years (not five the way plaintiff claims) defendant gave 90 days notice to plaintiff to vacate, because defendant was selling her current home, and moving into the house occupied by the plaintiff.

Defendant is sleeping on a relative's couch, because she can't afford to fix the damages to her own house to enable her to move back in. Defendant claims the video from plaintiff of the walk through on move-out is altered, and the audio has been deleted. Landlady says move-out video of the walk through was when the cousin and plaintiff were there, and landlady was asking questions. (I'm sure Corriero will take plaintiff's side, but I believe the landlady). (This was in Gardena, CA).

Corriero takes plaintiff's side. Hosing authority failed plaintiff on the move out inspection, the move in inspection passed the defendant's property. Hardwood floors are trashed, tile looks bad. L.A. Country Housing Authority did the move-out inspection.

A company called Open Doors paid some of plaintiff's bills, the rest was Section 8.

Judges compare the move-in inspection, and everything passed. Move-out inspection is horrible.

Juarez says neither side have proof, and Tewolde agrees. Corriero wimps out again.

Decision is plaintiff didn't prove her case, per Juarez and Tewolde, so $0. Correiro would have given plaintiff $1500, so he dissents.

“Can't-strucion”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 45, 19 December 2023

19 April

“Father Nos Best"”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 45, 23 January 2024

“Sick and Tires of You”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode

p. 45, 23 December 2023

Edited April 19 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · April 19

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims right after move in the house was a nightmare, and they stayed five years.

After I heard the landlady say that P is Sec8, I knew P was lying. No one getting their rent paid by Byrd is permitted to move into a premises that is less than perfect and up to their high standards. Deciding to squirt out 4 kids (no baby daddies?) entitles you to privileges unknown to people who don't.

You just know she and her brood thoroughly trashed the place. Who cares? No skin off her ass.

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Decision is plaintiff didn't prove her case, per Juarez and Tewolde, so $0.

Thanks. This case made me too angry to watch it all. Glad to hear she got zippo.

CrazyInAlabama · April 22

22 April

“Portal Kombat”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Madeline Lewis vs. Robyn Hastings )

From the show site: A tenant's roommate was behind on rent, so she decided to change the locks while her roommate was "out at the bars." The roommate takes issue with this characterization; she's a club promoter, so she was out working, not drinking. And furthermore, she claims kicking her out in this fashion is illegal. But since she never signed a lease, what are her rights?

Plaintiff claims defendant/ former roommate owes her for unpaid rent and utilitieslocked her house. She wants $2840 for unpaid utilities, and rent. Defendant says she had challenges in paying rent, and plaintiff locked her out equaling an unlawful eviction, so she owes nothing.

Defendant never actually signed the rental agreement. She claims she paid the rent on the online portal, and it went through, but has no proof. Landlord says he never received the rent, it was insufficient funds, but defendant says her bank never bounced her payments. Defendant also wrote a check for rent, but never signed it.

Plaintiff says defendant (apparently out of rehab), was drinking constantly, and in her job as a club promoter was drinking constantly. Plaintiff says neither roommate was paying, and both were no longer sober, and landlord says since they hadn't signed lease, and weren't paying, that plaintiff should change the locks.

Defendant says she received a text from plaintiff saying "I have a surprise for you", and it was that the locks have been changed. Plaintiff texted defendant that she should coordinate with hare to bring a police stand-by when she picked up her property.

Corriero doesn't take the defendant's side, for once. Landlord issued a 3-day notice to quit to defendant, and that was when she was locked out. Defendant claims she didn't get proper notice, but never paid the rent anyway.

After defendant was locked out, landlord was contacted by police, and told her defendant would have to be issues a 3-day to pay up or quit.

Corriero says since defendant didn't sign the new lease, she owed 30-days notice. Even if defendant signed the lease, she already moved out, and no notice or payment, and never returned the lease to the landlord.

Juarez says rent for two months, utilities, and not the security deposit. Tewolde and Corriero say one month rent is enough. Juarez dissents on rent for May, saying it's owed.

Plaintiff receives $767 (security $600 was offset by the unpaid rent).

“Long Live the Kyng”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 45, 4 January 2024

CrazyInAlabama · April 23

23 April

“Anatomy of a Motorcycle Crash”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Justine Moore vs. Nicholas Webb)

From the show site: A driver claims he saw the plaintiff approaching on her motorcycle and had plenty of time to make his left turn. But then, BAM, she was flying across his hood and sliding across the asphalt! Did he misjudge the distance, or did she speed up at the last second?

Plaintiff/motorcycle rider suing defendant/car driver for an accident when he was turning left, when plaintiff hit his car and flew up on his car hood. Plaintiff was going straight going north, defendant was turning left, and going south. Plaintiff is suing for $5,000.

The injuries to plaintiff were very bad. I'm surprised she survived. Defendant claims he was going less than 5 mph, and says plaintiff was going well over the 40 mph speed limit. Defendant says the speed limit was 35 mph, and the impact totaled the defendant's car, shifted his engine back, and he thinks plaintiff was speeding. Police report says defendant was at fault. Defendant did have his turn signal on.

Plaintiff says defendant didn't have insurance, and she didn't have uninsured motorist coverage. Defendant says plaintiff was disoriented, and he says he thinks she was impaired. He also claims plaintiff said she didn't want the police. Defendant points out that if he had turned as suddenly and was going as fast as plaintiff claims, she would have slammed into his passenger door, not the front of the passenger side of his vehicle.

Plaintiff claims defendant turned right in front of her, but he was going slowly, and unless the defendant didn't see her, or she was speeding. I suspect she was speeding, and maybe impaired. Defendant says he thinks from the damages, that plaintiff was going 50 to 60 mph in a 35 or 40 mph zone (they said 35 and 40 a couple of times.) The direction defendant was turning wasn't a 90 degree angle, it was to turn into an alley, crossing the path of the people coming off of a stop sign on his left. It wasn't a full right angle turn, but much less than that.

As usual Corriero takes the side of the plaintiff. Defendant had been driving without insurance for six months. Defendant also claims the plaintiff seemed to be impaired too. Plaintiff denies speeding. Plaintiff says she had no chance to veer out of the way.

The speed limit is 35 mph on that street. Police report was wrong, and plaintiff was to claim the speed limit was 40 mph.

Plaintiff still wants her co-pays, but doesn't know how much that bills were, and didn't bring her dental bills. Motorcycle was worth about $4500.

I think the police were wrong, plaintiff was speeding. Defendant came to complete stop, and saw motorcycle very far away, but she was speeding.

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

“Scoot Scootin' Boogie"

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 9

p. 42, 21 September 2023

Edited April 23 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · April 24

24 April

“Motherboard Blues”

New, Season 10, Episode

(George Yannoulatos vs. David Gomez)

From the show site: A cellphone repairman admits to accidentally breaking a customer's phone but claims he offered $300 worth of replacement parts to make it right. According to him, the plaintiff then tried to fix it himself, further damaging the phone. Does that absolve the repairman of liability?

Phone is a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ulta 5G.

Plaintiff suing defendant/cellphone repairman for replacement of plaintiff's phone. However, defendant admitted to accidentally breaking the phone, offered $300 worth of repairs. However, plaintiff demanded the parts to fix the phone himself, and it. Plaintiff claims the defendant broke the phone, and wanted the parts to fix it himself. So, defendant paid for the parts, and plaintiff wanted the phone parts, and defendant did that. Plaintiff says he didn't fix the phone, but only tightened a screw. Plaintiff kept going back to defendant's shop for parts over and over. Plaintiff wants a new phone for $1,500.

Defendant says phone had been overcharged, because battery was swollen (it can also happen with aftermarket batteries that are counterfeits). Plaintiff says defendant's wireless charger made the battery swell up. Defendant says two screws on the back of the phone were broken or stripped, when defendant broke the sensor, he purchased $300 in parts for plaintiff, but plaintiff wanted the parts. Defendant claims plaintiff did the work himself.

Plaintiff went to the phone repair shop four times in two weeks. Defendant says he offered to install the parts, but plaintiff only let him replace the motherboard. Defendant also recommended that plaintiff get a refurbished phone, much less than the $1500 replacement costs. Replacement phones are $300 to $800.

Plaintiff gets $350, this was in addition to the $300 in parts defendant gave him.

“The Gig Is Up”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 10

p. p. 42, 22 September 2023

Edited April 24 by CrazyInAlabama

DoctorK · April 25

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gets $350, this was in addition to the $300 in parts defendant gave him.

Today’s case was interesting to me. I haven’t repaired any phones but I have fixed several tablets (touch screens, displays, batteries). I don’t believe a single word the plaintiff said. He has an inflated idea of his ability to open the phone, diagnose problems and finally to install the new parts himself. I believe the stripped screws were caused by the plaintiff messing around before taking it in to the repair guy. Add to that the plaintiff wants to be paid what he paid for the phone when he bought it years ago. The defendant could have handled this better but when he broke a part he bought replacement parts out of his pocket and wanted to install them. The plaintiff (who has screwed around with the insides of the phone before and (I believe) had no idea what he was doing) refused and tried to do the repair himself and botched it. Corriero was not quite as ridiculous as he usually is.

I wouldn't have given him a penny, he started out with a broken phone and botched the repair himself.

AngelaHunter · April 25

12 hours ago, DoctorK said:

He has an inflated idea of his ability to open the phone, diagnose problems and finally to install the new parts himself. I believe the stripped screws were caused by the plaintiff messing around before taking it in to the repair guy.

I know precisely zero about the guts of my phone - I only opened it once while following instructions to insert the battery when brand new - but I thought the same thing. I've stripped a few screws in my time (not in electronics) but how else can screws get stripped if you're not forcing them, and probably more than once.

I bet this guy has messed up more than one device, thinking he knows what he's doing. I kind of wondered if Def breaking a part resulted from the P's improper previous messing around. Personally, I thought the $300 in free parts P got was enough, but what do I know? It seems P only decided to sue after the "Free" gravy train ended.

CrazyInAlabama · April 25

25 April

“Moving Without a Hitch”

New, Season 10, Episode

( Julie Ribiero vs. Justin Stephanson )

From the show site: A woman was between apartments, and her friend allowed her to tow his mobile home. Then she crashed the mobile home while hitching it to her SUV and using it as a moving truck!

Plaintiff suing defendant. Defendant owned a mobile home, and was nice enough (OK, stupid enough) to let plaintiff to borrow it, and use it as a moving truck, at least that's plaintiff's stupid story, it was going to be a surprise when she moved out. Plaintiff wrecked the mobile home, and defendant is now homeless, and plaintiff is suing him. Judge Tewolde is angry with the plaintiff's lawsuit blaming the defendant for her property loss in an accident that was her fault.

Plaintiff was allowed by defendant and girlfriend to camp out in his trailer. Then, defendant's mother showed up, and said plaintiff couldn't put her stuff all over the defendant's property. Then, plaintiff got the keys to her new place early, and she hitched the trailer to her SUV, and it broke loose, car went straight, and trailer went it's own way. Trailer was wrecked, (on Avenue of the Giants), and plaintiff called AAA for a tow, and they declined (they don't tow RVs, trailers, etc.).

Plaintiff wrecked the defendant's trailer, which was his home, and how he's homeless. And the plaintiff has the monumental gall to sue defendant!!!

Defendant claims plaintiff didn' have his permission to use his trailer as a moving truck, and he would have warned her that she couldn't use the trailer that way, since the hitch was defective.

Defendant was stunned when he found out plaintiff stole and wrecked his trailer home, and police declined to get involved, and said it was a civil manner.

Judge Juarez is livid at the plaintiff, and Judge Tewolde is too. Plaintiff tells Judge Tewolde she wanted to surprise the defendant by moving out, it certainly was a surprise. Actually, I would call it a shock.

Corriero takes over, and even Bleeding Heart Corriero can find a way to make plaintiff's despicable actions plausible.

Defendant's travel trailer was only insured in place, not for traveling, so no claim is possible. Trailer is still at the auto shop, and isn't repairable. Defendant gives plaintiff permission to get her property out of the trailer, most generous of him.

The judges' discussion is bizarre. Plaintiff never even apologized, and judges have total contempt for plaintiff.

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's Bull Pucky. She will be given access to retieve her junk within 10 days, and I hope it's all destroyed.

Defendant is awarded $5,000, court maximum. I wish they could give him double. (the way Judge Tewolde smacked her gavel makes me wonder if she wanted to smack something else with it).

“Mind Your Loan Business ; Handi-Snapped”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

“Mind Your Loan Business”’

(Jacqui Ramey vs. Baker)

From the show site: Two ladies at a senior living center used to love watching Netflix together. But when a loan was made between them and nagging ensued, their relationship lost all its chill. The defendant says she'd pay it if she had it, but she's fighting a separate battle to recover lost wages. Is the plaintiff being too pushy?

Plaintiff is suing defendant for an unpaid loan. Loan was $700, and defendant repaid $200. Defendant apparently had no reason she hadn't repaid plaintiff, so the loan was paid to plaintiff by the court. Defendant makes it clear that she has no intention of repaying the remaining $500.

Judges give the plaintiff her $500.

“Handi-Snapped”

(Salomon Navarro vs Daniel Ong)

Plaintiff suing defendant for car damages from parking in defendant's parking lot. Plaintiff parked in defendant's parking lot, and he heard a strange noise, and the concrete bumper was under his car, and caused damages.

Photo shows the metal rebar securing the concrete parking space block was sticking up under plaintiff's car. However, plaintiff parked over the concrete bumper with the concrete piece going front to back under his car, not where his tires would hit the concrete stopper the way it does when you pull into a parking space correctly.

Defendant sent a check to plaintiff, for $429, but plaintiff never opened the envelope or cashed the check. Plaintiff refused to pick the check up at the post office. This is what plaintiff is suing for, and it settles the case.

Judge Juarez is slamming the plaintiff for taking this to court, and clogging up the L.A. County court system. Plaintiff is so stubborn.

$429 check from defendant to plaintiff.

Edited April 26 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · April 26

26 April

“This is Bull Shih Tzu”

New, Season 10, Episode

(Ramona Jones vs. Lily Yoon)

From the show site: An earless dog is allegedly the result of a tragic grooming mishap. Her owner had her hair dyed purple, and an allergic reaction led to severe chemical burns. The groomer claims she advised against the coloring, but the owner was insistent. Should she have stood firm in her professional judgment instead of giving in to keep a client happy?

(I’m confused, I thought the coloring they use on animals is food coloring, not some chemical process that could cause burns? Or am I wrong? I remember watching a dog grooming competition quite a few years ago, and they did use a non-toxic food coloring on the dogs. )

Plaintiff suing defendant/dog groomer for $5,000, court maximum, because groomer agreed to dye dog purple at owner's insistance, and due to an allergic reaction the dog suffered severe chemical burns, and is now earless. I agree with Judge Tewolde, groomer claims she didn't want to do the dye, told plaintiff not to do it, but still groomer dyed the ears and tail purple, which is bizarre. After the dye job, a week later dog was uncomfortable, and vet said allergic reaction and

Plaintiff's dog Pebbles had a litter well before she was one year old, and after puppies are weaned, the dye job happened. Defendant claims the color is safe on animals, and she's never had an issue with a reaction on the dog. Defendant has been using the same brand of dye for eight years.

Plaintiff originally wanted the dogs ears and tail dyed when dog was 2 months old, and groomer refused until dog was over 1 year old. The dye job was two months after her first litter was weaned, and I'm guessing sold.

I can't believe that plaintiff bred the dog very young. I bet it was only for money, because Pebbles cost $5,000.

Plaintiff claims dog had chemical burns, and all for a trendy dye job.

Plaintiff cliams she only trimmed the dog's hair, and still delayed going to the vet until over a week after the dye job.

Corriero mentions that four states don't allow dying dog's hair.

Defendant did refuse several times to do the dye job, but claims plaintiff kept demanding the dye, so she finally did the color job.

Original request by plaintiff was for groomer to pay the vet bills. Now she wants vet bills and pain and suffering. (Plaintiff says she'll never dye the dog's hair again or her own, so I guess that awful wig is the result of that?)

Plaintiff has no vet report about the situation. Defendant reads the Korean dye warnings, none of them say harmful.

Without a vet report, how can the judges give a judgment? But vet bills, and grooming total $700. Corriero wouldn't give pain and suffering, because it might encourage others to dye their dog. So, 700 for vet bills, and grooming. $1,500, with Corriero dissenting for $720 because plaintiff demanded the dye job.

Plaintiff gets $1500.

“Car and Driver Missing Wire"”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 45, 10 January 2024

AngelaHunter · April 26

On 4/25/2024 at 3:43 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Julie Ribiero vs. Justin Stephanson

We've seen cases and people on these shows that leave us shaking our heads and rolling our eyes, but this case? As Judge T said, "This takes the cake!" Really, it had me gaping like a particularly moronic litigant.

Nasty, grifting hag, Julie, says she caught her boyfriend cheating, so she left him even though she had no place to go. I don't believe her. I think he threw her out, and probably for very good reason.

She hangs out at a bowling alley and is grousing about her homelessness. Def overhears that, and even though they've known each other only casually for maybe 6 months from the bowling alley, he tells her she can stay on the couch in his trailer with him and his girlfriend. The trailer sits on his mother's property. I think he may be very naive or possibly challenged in some way. I guess his g/f couldn't deal with this witch sacking out on the sofa and leaves the Def.

On 4/25/2024 at 3:43 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant owned a mobile home, and was nice enough (OK, stupid enough) to let plaintiff to borrow it, and use it as a moving truck.

No, he never let her use it to move. He had no idea she was going to do that. Julie finds a new place to live and starts moving her crap. Without asking permission, she hitches the Def's trailer to her SUV to use as a free U-Haul. Well, on a sharp curve, the trailer hitch breaks loose, and the trailer careens down the hill and is smashed to bits, depriving Def of his home.

Is the hag sorry? Not at all. She bitches that when he got to the scene, Def was angry and threatened to have her arrested. How dare he do that? It's all his fault for not informing her that the hitch was cracked. After all, he told her she could use the trailer, so she just assumed she could take it on the road while he was at work and he'd never know.

The judges informed her that he told her she could use it to SLEEP in (she was no doubt freeloading as well) and not take it on a road trip. That info goes in one ear and out the other since there's nothing in between to stop it.

She's highly indignant that he didn't go through his insurance to pay for the trailer, all the property he lost AND all her shit. He had it insured but only if it was sitting on the property since it's not road-worthy. Still, she insists all this is his fault and he should pay for the junk she lost. He KNEW the hitch was bad and never told her!

Def wasn't going to sue the witch, but now he is, for 5K, which doesn't nearly cover his loss.

For the verdict, the judges try once more to make Julie realize how wrong she is to repay Def's kindness this way, but she stands there shaking her head like an ox ridding itself of flies, so they award the Def 5K. I wish they could have given him more. They tell the vile hag to go wherever the busted trailer is and recover some of her junk.

In the hall, Julie still insists none of this is her fault and would never have happened if only Def had "done the right thing." ??? Pay her for her property after she stole the trailer? Commit insurance fraud? I don't know what she meant.

Def has learned that no good deed goes unpunished, and he won't do this again.

All the judges, even Papa, whose heart usually bleeds for little ladies, are stunned at her incredible stupidity, chutzpah, and inability to "get it".

CrazyInAlabama · April 26

48 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

We've seen cases and people on these shows that leave us shaking our heads and rolling our eyes, but this case? As Judge T said, "This takes the cake!" Really, it had me gaping like a particularly moronic litigant.

Nasty, grifting hag, Julie, says she caught her boyfriend cheating, so she left him even though she had no place to go. I don't believe her. I think he threw her out, and probably for very good reason.

No, he never let her use it to move. He had no idea she was going to do that. Julie finds a new place to live and starts moving her crap. Without asking permission, she hitches the Def's trailer to her SUV to use as a free U-Haul. Well, on a sharp curve, the trailer hitch breaks loose, and the trailer careens down the hill and is smashed to bits, depriving Def of his home.

I

Yes, she stole the trailer, it wasn't a loan by defendant. It boggles the mind that plaintiff claimed defendant was going to be surprised when she moved out, using his trailer as a moving van. It was more like a shock.

CrazyInAlabama · April 29

29 April

“A Dog Walks into a Bar”

New, Season 10, Episode 133

(Sueli Paulsen vs. Lester "I.V." Miller IV)

From the show site: A dog-friendly bar was the sight of an UN-friendly spat between a Great Dane and a Cocker Spaniel. The Great Dane's owner claims he did everything right, and the Cocker Spaniel was unleashed. The Cocker Spaniel's owner says that's impossible because her pet sitter is "very sweet and loves dogs." But she wasn't there, so how does she plan to prove her case

Plaintiff /cocker spaniel owner suing defendant / Great Dane owner for vert bills. Defendant says Cocker was the aggressor, and off-leash, and his dog was on-leash, so he doesn't want to pay anything. Plaintiff wasn't present at the dog fight, and still claims her dog sitter, and her dog weren't at fault. She's suing for $3700 for vet bills, and lost wages.

Defendant claims dog sitter was negligent, plaintiff's dog was off-leash and wandering the bar. Great Dane is 185 lbs, and Cocker is 24 lbs. The Great Dane died a couple of months after this incident, he was only 3 years-old.

Defendant used the shock collar during the fight. Defendant sat 50' away from the little dog, but then he noticed the small dog wandering loose.

Defendant offered to pay $1,000 for vet bills, but plaintiff wants $2700 more.

Plaintiff claims dog sitter (dog sitter is not in communication with plaintiff) says defendant's dog attacked. My guess is the 185 lb. dog would have chewed the plaintiff's dog to pieces.

(I wouldn't give plaintiff a penny, no one saw the fight, and the only eyewitness is gone.)

Tewolde has issues since the pet sitter is unavailable, she believes the defendant. Corriero says defendant isn't responsible, but pet sitter is liable, but unavailable. Juarez points out NY has a one bite rule, unless you know dog is vicious. Tewolde and Corriero agree to give plaintiff $1,000. Juarez say not a penny.

“You Win Some, You Cruise Some”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 45, 15 January 2024

CrazyInAlabama · April 30

30 April

“Knock Knock Zoom”

New, Season 10, Episode 134

(Stephen Archie and Imani Warrick-Archie vs. Lashunda Curry)

From the show site: A couple was startled at home when their front door was suddenly kicked in! Once their adrenaline subsided, they reviewed home security footage to find three boys playing a rough game of ding-dong-ditch. The neighbor the boys were visiting denies responsibility since her son wasn't the "kicker." Are the plaintiffs suing the right person?

Plaintiffs suing defendant/mother of little criminal for her son kicking in their door. Son was with other kids that were visiting, and mother claims since her son wasn’t the door kicker, she’s not responsible. However, since defendant was hosting the boys, they are her responsibility to supervise, and that makes it her bill. I hope plaintiffs filed a criminal report since they have the video footage. Suing for $767, which is half the cost of defendant's son and his guest breaking the door in. There were three closest to the camera, but several others in the group.

Defendant says the three visitors and her son didn't admit they did it, and she claims she knows someone who would fix the door for $100. Defendant claims she recognizes the boys from around the neighborhood.

Police made a report, and looked at the video footage, and police went to defendant's house about the damages. Those kids are lucky they aren't dead.

The brat kids were wandering the neighborhood, harassing neighbors by playing Knock, Knock, Zoom aka Ding Dong Ditch. One of the destructive brats is defendant's nephew. Kids are lucky no one shot them as home invaders. The first kid closest to the door is defendant's son. Defendant is claiming her son did nothing, and also claims the door looks like it was repaired previously.

It's obvious defendant's son was the first one by the door.

Plaintiffs actually replaced the original door with a cheaper door, so the $757 for half of the cost is very reasonable. Tewolde says another kid has his leg raised to kick, but that kid was still a guest of defendant. Judge Juarez is wrong, HOA rules say homeowners are responsible for their guests actions and damages, and that's the rule when you move into a HOA community.

Stockbridge, GA is where this happened.

Judges award plaintiffs $767.

“Rental Case”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 45, 16 January 2024

Edited April 30 by CrazyInAlabama

DoctorK · May 1

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

she claims she knows someone who would fix the door for $100.

That is complete bull shit and the defendant knows it.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Kids are lucky no one shot them as home invaders.

In one case on either Mathis or Joe Brown a drunk jerk went to the front door of an apartment where he mistakenly thought his girl friend was and banged on the door and then tried to break in. As I recall it, the cops showed up in time to stop the jerk from getting in but the judge tried to tell the jerk that he was lucky because the people in the apartment had every right to shoot him dead if he got through the door.

From the video, this case happened in an upper middle class neighborhood, not the gang infested projects, so what kind of parenting and culture raise preteens who think it is fun and games to smash (from the door frame damage) open a stranger's front door? Defendant said a few insincere words in the hallterview but clearly is still clueless about the severity of what the kids did. I hope someone can get the message to the kids before they go down a very destructive path.

AngelaHunter · May 1

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

so what kind of parenting and culture raise preteens who think it is fun and games to smash (from the door frame damage) open a stranger's front door?

And feel free to rove in packs and do it in daylight. I love how the def. was another one who said she offered to pay something even though her little angel did nothing and she wasn't responsible. She was just being "neighbourly". We've heard this nonsensical crap before.

I get it. If my neighbour came over and demanded I pay for scratches on his car, I would pay even though I didn't do it. That's just the kind of caring, neighbourly person I am.🙄

CrazyInAlabama · May 1

1 May

“No-Tell Motel”

New, Season 10, Episode 135

(Savannah Admire vs. Reinard Pollmann and Joconda Nielson)

From the show site: A mountain of evidence indicates the plaintiff was both a resident and an employee at a motel. The owners deny this, claiming her W-2 is fake and the emails from them are forged. So why do they claim the right to her Covid rent relief check and accuse the motel manager of stealing her wages? The plaintiff claims their business was a mess, just like their defense.

Plaintiff/hotel employee suing defendant/ hotel owners for unpaid wages, and a Covid check they stole. Plaintiff says her witness and ex-boyfriend Brad Sullivan, can tell the court she was an employee. Plaintiff was paid $7,000 according to defendant Pollman, but she says she's owed $21,000 for her work and the check. Defendant Pollmann also says it wasn't an issue that her bathroom didn't work, and she could use the gas station bathroom across the street.

Defendant Pollmann claims plaintiff was paid everything she was owed, and this is in spite of her W-2. Nielsen claims the W-2 is fake, and doesn't agree with hotle records. Plaintiff witness Brad Sullivan says defendants didn't keep up maintenance, such as unclogging the main toilet line, and didn't pay on schedule or in full. Pollman and Nielson keep claiming Brad Sullivan was stealing from them, and stealing plaintiff's money too.

Plaintiff only stayed because she was in the middle of a custody battle for her kids, so she had to stay in a steady job. Nielson claims Brad hired people off the books, and didn't pay them. Pollmann's next excuse is they own so many motels they can't keep up with them, and then claims plaintiff wasn't an employee anyway.

There is a video of the septic tanks being pumped into the storm drain, totally illegal. Defendant Pollmann denies this happened at the motel. Brad testifies that the septic system was failing, and tanks had to be pumped out every two weeks.

Pollmann claims he's entitled to $50,000 in payment checks under Covid, that were paid to the landlord. However, he claims plaintiff wasn't a tenant. Defendant Nielson claims she paid plaintiff $7500 cash, which plaintiff denies. Plaintiff was a tenant as part of her employment and an employee. When plaintiff went to Boise to take custody of her kids, and when she was in Boise Pollmann threw half of her property out in the street for the trash pickup. Then, when plaintiff wanted the rest of her stuff, defendants refused to give it to her.

All three judges slam the defendants and their ridiculous excuses. I hope the IRS, state labor board, and every other regulatory authority come down on defendants like a ton of bricks. Nielson claims she never said anything in her sworn statement, everything is a forgery, and everyone else is a thief, and they are victims.

Even Corriero can't make excuses for defendants and their despicable behavior.

Plaintiff receives $5,000, leaving her far short of what she's owed.

“A Doggone Accident”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 45, 9 January 2024

DoctorK · May 2

8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I get it. If my neighbour came over and demanded I pay for scratches on his car, I would pay even though I didn't do it. That's just the kind of caring, neighbourly person I am

Good for you! The windshield on my 7 year old car has a lot of little chips and I want to replace it, about $500. When can I expect your check? OK if it is on a closed account, no problem. Don't worry, I'll pay you back when I get my tax refund next year. Thank you so very much.

AngelaHunter · May 2

55 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

When can I expect your check?

"Being the kind of person that I am" with a "big heart" who just wants to help people, I will gladly pay for your window. The check is in the mail. Fingers crossed my account doesn't get locked or hacked in the meantime, since that happens a lot.

CrazyInAlabama · May 2

2 May

“Loan-Ly Neighbor”

New, Season 10, Episode 136

(Mohammed Qadri vs. Roxanne Craft)

From the show site: After receiving a loan from her neighbor, a woman claims he harassed her so incessantly that she had to move. He refused to accept repayment through an online payment service, and now he’s suing her for the loan.

Plaintiff says he loaned defendant/neighbor money, $3,000, to be repaid in two monthly payments, and she never repaid it. Plaintiff didn’t want repayment through cash transfer services, and defendant refused to pay him any other way. Defendant claims she had to move because of harassment by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff and wife moved to neighborhood, (sadly, his wife recently passed), and he loaned defendant the $3,000 to help her through her divorce. Defendant claims plaintiff demanded she go out with him. Defendant says plaintiff tried to kiss her, and wanted something more from her. Defendant claims she never asked for the money, and plaintiff forced the money on her.

Tewolde says texts look like a romantic overture. However, plaintiff says he never has had any romantic feelings about defendant.

Defendant says she never trusted plaintiff, but then why did she accept $3,000 from him?

I believe the plaintiff, and think defendant took advantage of him.

Defendant offered payment through Zelle, but plaintiff doesn't want to use that payment method. Plaintiff says defendant wanted to change the payment amounts, and he's not familiar with Zelle. If defendant wanted to pay plaintiff, but didn't want to be alone with him, she could have met him at his bank and given him a cashier's check.

(This was in McMinnville OR)

Plaintiff is getting remarried, and buying another house, so he wanted his money repaid.

$3,000 to plaintiff.

“A Whole Latte Drama”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 45, 2 January 2024

CrazyInAlabama · May 3

3 May

“Revenge of the Nerds”

New, Season 10, Episode 137

(Will Peter Paul vs. Brett Schmuckler)

From the show site: A fantasy card-game player says he LOANED his friend a rare deck for a tournament in Las Vegas. The friend claims the cards were GIVEN to him as payment for his mentorship in the game. If that's the case, then why was the friend so apologetic after he lost the cards on an inebriated bar crawl?

Plaintiff suing defendant for losing his cards that were loaned to defendant for a tournament in Las Vegas. Suing for $3,000 . Defendant admits he lost the cards, but only offers $1,000, or lesser value cards. The game is Magic-The Gathering' a trading card game, and collectible cards. Plaintiff denies defendant was a mentor, but worked at the card store running the trading and playing games. Defendant says mentors for the game routinely charge hundreds of dollars an hour for tutoring. (This happened in Horsham, PA, and Vegas).

Defendant asked to borrow a deck of 75 cards, with a binder that had 25 to 30 extra cards from plaintiff. This is where the issues comes in. Plaintiff says the cards were a loan, but defendant says they were given to him.

On the last day in Vegas, defendant was doing a bar crawl (bar hopping according to Tewolde), and he had his wallet, phone and keys, but lost the backpack with the cards. Defendant says the call to plaintiff was because he lost his cards that were valuable, and plaintiff's cards weren't valuable, and he wanted sympathy.

I think plaintiff is telling the truth, and defendant is trying to weasel out of paying for the cards.

Corriero doesn't understand why the litigants play this game, and what they get out of it.

Plaintiff receives $3,000.

“No, You Can't Pick My Part”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode

p. 45, 3 January 2024

Taeolas · May 4

Oooo Magic players. One of my vices (*looks at his dining room table covered in Magic cards that I have yet to sort and put away*). And yeah they were magic players.

I think the Plaintif absolutely was right from the stories. The Defendent's story certainly didn't have the ring of truth to it.

He clearly went to one of the big Magic Conventions in Vegas from the sounds of it, and was playing a Modern deck from the sounds of it, so hitting 3000$ for a deck is almost trivial.

I know in my community, we have a fair amount of trust that builds up among players. We know our playstyles and interests and many will practice decks regularly with eachother to prepare for tournaments. Many could borrow and trade decks for the tournaments too, but most of the time they are either playing the tournaments locally or will be with a group of players from the local store/region, so you have some witnesses (or watchers) to help keep track of your gear.

Sounds like this guy borrowed the deck and went alone which I find a bit strange, but it could happen. But if it was a big enough tournament, selling the cards (either to a company like Star City or to other players) is trivial. Since he said he was moving, flipping a deck at a location like that is probably the biggest bang for his buck he could get.

So if he wasn't that good a player, I could see him burning out fast (going Oh and X in the early rounds) and getting frustrated, selling the cards and using some of the spoils to go on a bar crawl in Vegas, then maybe having remourse later, especially if the Plaintif or other Locals were watching the standings and wondering why he wasn't in the Day 2 rankings.

I did have a moment of worry when the Judges said they would give the purchase value of the cards back... because the MSRP value of the cards is basically 5-8$ per pack of 15 random cards, and most of the cards are not easy to get at "retail" price any more. Stores crack packs and/or buy cards from players and the market settles on the prices of individual cards as the months and years go by. Most players will use a major company's guides (like Star City Games in the US, or Face 2 Face games in Canada) to establish the price once the set comes out and stabilizes. They'll fluctuate a bit in time, as new sets come out, formats shift ("Standard" cards can rotate out every 2-3 years), or popular cards are reprinted increasing supply.

I had to laugh at the Plaintif's offered cards. Two of them were "Storm Crow", which isn't really used much but is a meme deck popular in the community.

Defendent's offered cards weren't all that pricy. A basic island isn't even worth pennies (But is arguably the most powerful card in the game). Most players who have played for any time will have more basic lands than they know what to do with after 2 or 3 set releases. The other island looked to be a shiny full art land, slightly more rare, but still quite common nowadays. Original Zendikar full arts were unique, but nowadays most sets have full art variants that are released on theme.

They also apparently provided a Jace the Wallet Breaker (sorry Mind Sculpter), an older "Planeswalker" card that is quite powerful and quite rare (hence its nickname).

Anyways a good ruling in the end. Defendent is lucky he moved, because his name is probably mud in his old gaming community. Now that this episode has aired, his name is probably mud in his new community too, or at least he'll have to do a lot of spinning. He probably won't be able to borrow any decks fopr a long time, if ever again.

AngelaHunter · May 4

Couldn't stand that lying, weaselly little Schmuckenberger or whatever his name was. Just as repulsive on the outside as on the inside. He must be a real treat when he's piss drunk. I think maybe he sold the cards, personally. That slob couldn't give an honest or straight answer to save his life. Ugh.

I know nothing about these games or cards but I believed everything the P said.

Sign In

Hot Bench - General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

patty1h

AZChristian

ElleMo

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment