Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The networking party included meeting Mike Tyson and Hulk Hogan.

Oh, well then!  Networking parties for part-time bouncers, "Dareka", purloined car doors... not sure if I'm up for this, but thanks as usual @CrazyInAlabama.

I count on your summaries to help me decide whether I'll bother watching or not.

I'm kind of on the fence about this one, but I may not be able to contain my curiosity. 🤨

[CrazyInAlabama]

18 June

“Loan-ly ; With a Little Help From Some Friends”

New, Season 10, Episode  158

“Loan-ly”

(Mona Leza  vs.  Roberto Chavez )  

From the show site: A man's "unofficial" girlfriend takes out a loan to pay off thousands of dollars on his maxed-out credit cards -- but he resists repaying her.

Plaintiff wants defendant to repay a loan she took out to pay off defendant's huge credit card debt, $4,693, with late fees and interest.  Plaintiff took out loan for defendant, defendant put his credit card on file to pay the payments. 

A few months later defendant took the card off the account and stopped paying.  Defendant says the loan was only a repayment issue when they were off in their on again off again relationship.   Defendant did make payments.  Defendant claims plaintiff got mad at him, she said that they were through, and she would pay the loan herself.

Plaintiff also loaned defendant $570 in addition to the big loan. 

Plaintiff receives $4,396. 

“With a Little Help From Some Friends”

(Richard and Patricia  Gordon vs. Victoria  "Tori" Robbins)   

From the show site:  a charitable couple assist a woman who plead for help online, and later realize she took advantage of them.

Plaintiffs suing defendant for scamming them.  Plaintiffs claim defendant wanted an iPhone 8+ because her fingers were too big to use the texting feature on her iPhone 7.   Plaintiffs saw defendant's plea for money on a message board and they supported her for almost a year.   Patricia saw the plea for help with food for Thanksgiving dinner, so she bought Tori food, a microwave, blankets, clothes, and food.   

A couple of months later the plaintiffs started keeping track of the money given to defendant, and had defendants sign a promissory note for $2,000+.  Defendant claims she was supposed to do work for plaintiffs, for most of the money.   Plaintiffs put money on defendant's boyfriend's jail commissary account, this is the boyfriend defendant was claiming domestic violence from.  

Defendant says she has no proof of her claimed payments.  

Juarez wants to give only $2108 from the promissory note.  Corriero and Tewolde are on plaintiffs' side. 

Plaintiffs receive $3,500.

 

 

“Chip Off the Mold Block”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  21

(Milania Monroe [sister] and Jania Monroe [sister] vs. Melinda Carter [mother/owner] and Teresia Childs [daughter])    

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

Plaintiff/former tenants suing defendant/daughter of property owner for damaged property and medical bills due to mold and plumbing issues.   Defendant is counter claiming for unpaid rent.   Daughter / defendant rented her mother’s house without the mother’s knowledge.

Plaintiff want $5,000 for punitive damages.  They claim leaking pipe that means they have huge water

Defendant's nephew had a key to the apartment and would let himself in without notice.  Daughter Monroe says nephew didn't know there were roommates. 

Carter says the second she heard about the mold issue, she sent remediation experts, and says Milania Monroe didn't tell her about the mold issue until defendant Carter demanded rent.   Plaintiff claims she wanted a lease with responsibilities for tenants, and then started withholding rent. 

Defendants are counter claiming for $5,000 for unpaid rent.

Milania claims defendant daughter was deceitful, and then she talked to Ms. Carter about the rent.  Defendant Carter claims the plaintiffs would pay her rent by Cash App directly to her.   

Fred Lee, defendant witness and neighbor, says there were trash bags from plaintiffs dumped in the yard.  Plaintiff Janah does say the trash dumped in the yard was from plaintiffs. 

Alliyah Finley, plaintiff witness, who is wearing a green muppet testifies about the mold smell. 

Juarez says scammer defendant daughter was scammed by plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs owe $4500 in rent, and $500 in utilities. 

Defendants are owed $5,000 in damages too. 

Both cases cancel each other, nothing for anyone.

 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Mona Leza  vs.  Roberto Chavez )  

Mona Leza... this whole case. Is someone putting us on? Mona and Roberto were lovebirds, but unofficially. I guess they hadn't put their names on the Lovebird registry. Well, maybe Mona was in love, but Mr. Chavez was looking for an ATM.

Unofficial or not, Mona Leza got jealous when they were out eating, which I'm sure was often, and a waitress would smile at Roberto. I get it. A 400-lb brokeass moocher is bound to get hit on at every turn.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Richard and Patricia  Gordon vs. Victoria  "Tori" Robbins) 

Here I thought Mona Leza and Roberto the Mooch were way out there. These two - omg. I've wondered who was subsidizing all these online beggars who just post saying "Gimme money". Mr. and Mrs. Gordon want to be seen as saviors or benefactors. That's fine, but does it need to include sending money to Def's jailbird boyfriend who beat her up? There are lots more worthy causes. That's not being nice. That's being stupid suckers but it seems they like it that way.

Mrs. Gordon says she and Def Victoria had so much in common. Like what? Well, they smoke the same cigarettes, something over which they bonded!

I guess the Gordons bought her cigarettes since someone begging strangers for money couldn't possibly afford them. Victoria was in such dire straits they also bought her a new iPhone8+ because her "fingers are too fat" to work the first one they got her.

Oh, well. If that's how this couple likes to use their money, that's their prerogative. Damn freakshow today.

[CrazyInAlabama]

19 June

“Superbad Supercharger”

New, Season 10, Episode  159

(Joseph Anderson jr vs. Redric Dixon)

From the show site: A man paid a specialized mechanic to restore his late father's truck, but says the replacement engine parts were used and in subpar condition; the mechanic says he bought the parts at a swap meet, but everything was brand new.

Defendant put hydraulics on one of his cars,  so the front end jumps, and shows this off on video.      

1965 pickup truck inherited by plaintiff from his late father, and wanted to restore the truck, and hired defendant to do the work.   Defendant said plaintiff had to purchase parts before the work started.  Plaintiff doesn't trust the replacement parts, and says they weren't up to standard. 

Defendant says he bought the parts at a swap meet, and they were brand new parts.   Defendant bought a transmission, and supercharger, and already paid for a $5,000 supercharger.  

Plaintiff is suing for $5,000.   Defendant is also claiming for $5,000.   

Plaintiff has a video claiming the supercharger is used, and it doesn't include all of the parts.  

I'm on defendant's side.  

Plaintiff will only use the transmission, not the supercharger or other parts, and claims he's out of $9,000, plus buying another engine for the truck. 

Corriero sides with the plaintiff.   Juarez and Tewolde side with plaintiff too. 

I disagree with the judges.   Juarez agrees with the defendant.   Tewolde and Corriero say plaintiff can return the supercharger and other parts to defendant. 

$5,000 to plaintiff, supercharger and other parts go back to defendant.  

 

“Eviction Friction”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  23

 p. 42, 11 October 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

20 June

“After a While, Crocotile”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 95

p. 46, 22 February 2024

 

“What the Truck?”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  22

p.  42, 10 October 2023

 

21 June

“How I Met Your Motherboard”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  26

p. 46, 26 February 2024

 

“What a CARtastrophe!"

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  24

p. 45, 11 January 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 6/19/2024 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Eviction Friction”

I never saw that and was kind of surprised that anyone is still using the old, tired, "My account was frozen" as either a scam or an excuse not to pay what you owe. IIRC, no judge has yet asked why the account was frozen.

The plaintiff landlords were beyond kind and understanding to the defendants who started squatting in Jan. Judge T said they should be grateful. Def wife says "(the landlords)Should be grateful to us too".

Judge T then informs them that you're supposed to pay your rent. It's not a favour to the landlord, and they get no "kudos" from her for doing that.

By an amazing coincidence, they stopped paying rent at the same time as their account was frozen, and they bought a house with no access to any funds and no money down because of the VA.

They vacated the premises with virtually zero notice because they "couldn't take the harassment and "pressure" from the Ps. Oh, the pressure! This pressure consisted of the Ps politely inquiring if they might have an idea of when they could pay since the Plaintiffs too have bills. Maybe they can pay soon, the defs tell them, but the account was frozen for two months by the IRS. Sure.

The judges feel all of them are very nice people. I'm not sure if squatting,not paying what you owe, and lying are particularly nice, but what do I know?

The Plaintiffs are awarded what they were stiffed in rent, but I forget how much.

No good deed ever goes unpunished, folks!

[CrazyInAlabama]

24 June

“Wish Upon a Car”

New, Season 10, Episode  160

(Timothy Goeke Jr  vs.  Esteban Ramos Pena)    

From the show site: A man says a seller knowingly sold him a faulty SUV, but the defendant denies knowledge of any faults.

Plaintiff/car buyer suing defendant/SUV seller because plaintiff claims defendant sold him a lemon SUV, but defendant claims he knew nothing about any defects. 

Plaintiff wanted a full refund, $3,000, and would settle for $1500.  

Defendant says plaintiff waited until five days after the purchase to ask for a refund.    Plaintiff says he would settle for brakes and tires, but isn't fixing the motor mounts.  Plaintiff claims mechanic told him not to drive the car off the lot, because it's a death trap.   Judge J says tires were easily visible to plaintiff before purchase.   The motor mounts are the most important in my opinon. 

Plaintiff didn't take SUV to mechanic before purchase, but he test drove it.   

Defendant says KBB is $4,000 to $5,000 not the $3,000 he sold SUV to plaintiff.   SUV is 15 years old.  

Corriero actually is on defendant's side, I could faint from the shock.   

Unanimous decision, no fraud involved, plaintiff case dismissed. 

Defendant gets $75 for the ticket plaintiff was given before SUV was reregistered in plaintiff's name. 

“Truckjacked”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  43

p. 43, 10 November 2023

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Timothy Goeke Jr  vs.  Esteban Ramos Pena

The proliferation of the man-child continues with Groeke here, who buys a 15-year-old SUV on good ol' FB Marketplace, test drives it at 80mph on the freeway, loves it, and takes it.

Then the whining starts. He finally takes it to a mechanic - Safety first! - because it's shaking like a leaf. He says it has bald tires, broken motor mounts, bad brakes, and bad struts or something. He never noticed the tires. Def says he mentioned the tires were a little worn, but okay for now.

The mechanic actually wrote the work to be done as mere recommendations with nothing urgent. But, "Safety first!" Groeke yelps several more times. He didn't feel safe. He never bought a car! He had no experience! "I trusted the sale!"  Groeke, you are WAY old enough to stop expecting the world to be your mommy. He's like  another grown man on TPC who wailed, "There should be more things in place to protect people like me!" You drove it, you liked it, you bought it. End of story. Groeke is also such an idiot that he managed to get a ticket on this terribly unsafe car that he was driving anyway. Def paid for the ticket.

I was afraid to listen to the deliberations since I know how fluid "as-is" can be to these judges.

Sure enough, Judge Papa is sympathetic and thinks the P should get $1000 because he feels sorry for this great big grownup who has buyer's remorse. OH, please! Luckily the other two shut that shit down and won't give him a penny. Def. gets the $75 he paid for the ticket the big baby got.

"Safety first!" No, I have not and will never sell a car privately. I don't want some silly Groeke-like buyer wailing and harassing me.

[CrazyInAlabama]

25 June

“Cross Country Cash Clash”

New, Season 10, Episode 161

(Elfreida Stone  vs.  Michael Steele and (wife) Samantha Davis-Steele) 

From the show site: A woman spent thousands of dollars helping her ex-husband move across the country and be closer to their son, but her ex refuses to repay her, saying they agreed to credit the money toward the back child-support she owes.

Plaintiff suing defendant/ex-husband for repayment of a loan for defendant and current wife to move closer to the litigants' adult son. 

Defendant says the litigants had an agreement to apply the loan to back child-support owed by plaintiff.   The litigants have been divorced for 11 years.   

Defendant says plaintiff owes him over $20,000 in unpaid shild support.  Defendant lived in Indiana for years, and  plaintiff claims he showed up at her house when he was visiting his 21 and 28 year old sons.   Then, defendant decided he wanted to move closer to the sons, and that's when the move and loan happened.   

Corriero wants to know if defendant agreed with plaintiff that the loan would be deducted from the child support arrearage judment, which is $58,000 awarded in 2011.    Judgment was $10 a month from plaintiff's salary.  Plaintiff also inherited a sizeable amount from an inheritance, and she claims defendant garnished $36,000 from her account.  Defendant said he only received $26,000, and still is owed just under $20,000 (No, the amounts don't make sense). 

Plaintiff loaned $1044 for brakes, $3960 deposit on a new house, and $1,014 for the U-Haul rental.   Defendant denies receiving this amount from plaintiff. 

Defendant also says plaintiff introduced their son to meth use, and would let him smoke Weed in her house.   

Tewolde asks defendant why he is owed child support when it's for the child.  Defendant raised the son from ages 3 to 16 1/2, when son wanted to move in with mother until he reached 18.   Plaintiff has no proof it was a loan, and claims to only owe $5,000 in support, and the rest is all interest.  (The interest is for not paying the child support). 

There is an upcoming California child support hearing, and restraining order requests from plaintiff against defendant.   Defendant is still suing for punitive damages in family court, and Juarez is bent out of shape about the $9,000 plaintiff paid already.   

Juarez says this should have been handled in family court, if it was a credit against child support.   The judges want to give $5,000 to plaintiff, and say defendant will get the rest of the arrearages through the family court hearing and garnishment of plaintiff's account. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000, defendant counter claim dismissed.   

 

 

“I’m Not a Money Machine”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  12

 p. 42, 26 September 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

26 June

“Manic Mechanic”

New, Season 10, Episode  162

( “Ralph” Rafael Prieto  vs.  Carlos Sanchez )

From the show site: A man says he sold his car to a mechanic at a discounted price in exchange for parts and labor on some of his other cars; the defendant says he signed the contract without reading it and never understood the barter to be part of the agreement.

Defendant bought the Chrysler from plaintiff for $1,000, in return for discounted parts and labor on plaintiff’s two other cars.  Plaintiff claims defendant told him car overheated, and could have a cracked block or head gasket, and plaintiff claims defendant lied to him.     Plaintiff claims defendant cheated him about the Chrysler, and ghosted him and never worked on the other two cars, a Bentley and a Porsche.  

Defendant says the plaintiff kept bugging him about personalized license plates.   Defendant signed the agreement for two repairs on the Porsche (window replacement) and Bentley (air conditioner). 

The repairs to the other cars are in the written contract, signed by both litigants.  The contract is very short, and defendant claims he didn’t read the contract.  

The biggest dispute is who is paying for the expensive parts for the other two cars.

Plaintiff gets $500 difference between what he sold the Chrysler for, and what plaintiff was going to sell the car for. 

 

 

“The Long-Term Tenant”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  20

p. 42, 6 October 2023