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

[CrazyInAlabama]

27 June

“Citizen Canine”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  100

(Pamela Hayes vs. Russ Kubart)

From the show site: When a dog attack disfigured a woman's face, she went to her chiropractor instead of the emergency room. The dog's owner felt awful and agreed in writing to pay her medical bills - but when he learned she used her own "natural medicine" instead of seeing a real doctor, he second-guessed his liability.

From the previews they showed the judges incredulous at the plaintiff saying instead of going to the ER for her injury treatment, she went to the chiropractor. Plaintiff wants $2200.

Plaintiff suing defendant for medical costs.   Defendant and dog were on a walk, plaintiff asked if dog was friendly because she wanted to kiss the dog.   Defendant has met plaintiff before, and has been warned that dog Telly isn’t the friendliest, so when defendant gave plaintiff a treat, she then got down on all fours, and kissed the dog.  Dog doesn’t kiss on the first date, and nipped plaintiff.   Defendant offered to pay her medical bills, but not for the huge bills plaintiff demands.

Plaintiff didn’t go to a regular doctor, she went to a chiropractor who has a med spa, and had a medical laser used on the wound.   Laser treatment was for six treatments.    Plaintiff claims defendant has been cited for worker’s comp fraud previously, and is deceitful.    $500 is what defendant paid her via Venmo, but she wanted cash so it wouldn’t hurt her Medicare payments. 

Defendant says the Venmo was in August/September, and the demand for cash was in December.   He wanted to see the receipts, and that’s when plaintiff said she would go to court.   

The judges look up close at plaintiff’s lip injury, and I personally don’t see anything that looks that bad.   I also don't see why the defendant should pay plaintiff's med spa doctor bills.    Plaintiff claims it was a huge gash, but plaintiff claims she had medical experience, and could do a better job using her medical alternative medical potions, and see a chiropractor.   Plaintiff claims she doesn't drive, and that an ER doesn't have experience with plastic surgery.    She also didn't go to the chiropractor for two days after the injury.  

Attorney told defendant that plaintiff doesn't have a medical claim because she didn't go to a primary care, urgent care, or ER, just the chiropractor.   So, attorney told defendant he wasn't responsible for her chiropractor, or alternative medicine bills. 

Plaintiff had the laser treatments, botox, and microneedling on her lip.  She claims she's still in pain, and doesn't know if the scar is permanent.   

I would give nothing to plaintiff, she didn't go for treatment until days after the incident, went to her med spa, and still wants microneedling for the scar (they draw blood, reduce it to plasma, and reinject it). 

Tewolde says no future costs, Corriero as usual takes the plaintiff's side but won't give her future costs, and Juarez says PRP (the microneedling is not going to work). 

Plaintiff gets $3685.    

 

“Unprovided Services”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  27

 p. 43, 18 October 2023 

[AngelaHunter]

On 6/26/2024 at 3:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Ralph” Rafael Prieto

Mr. Prieto, who has his name on a vanity license plate, thinks having what sounds like an ancient junker Bentley and Porsche in his driveway conveys a certain status to him.

The $100 price on the Chrysler agreement was explained as confusion by the P. I'm pretty sure it was not, but was there to cheap out on taxes. The judges said nothing more about that.

As usual, these swaps/barter/sales of old cars go wrong.

[CrazyInAlabama]

28 June

“Up in Flames”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  98

p. 46, 27 February 2024

 

“No Free Rent!”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  26

(Jerome Nash vs. Madeline Thomason)

From the show site: A tarot reader was evicted and served legal papers by their building manager, who was in his underwear and crying. They never could have foretold that happening - but they had to know the landlord would come after the unpaid rent. What verdict do the cards hold for this unfortunate ex-tenant?

Plaintiff/former landlord Jerome Nash suing defendant /former tenant Madeline Thomason for unpaid rent, repainting costs and trash removal during Covid.  Defendant lived in the apartment for less than a year.   Plaintiff actually gave the eviction paperwork to defendant in the building laundry room, while plaintiff was in his underwear.    Plaintiff witness Jerome is less than helpful about the conditions of the defendant’s apartment, because he didn’t see the interior of the apartment, just heard about it. 

Defendant is a restaurant hostess, and part time Tarot card reader.  She claims Henry told her to pay what she could, and when she could.  As always, Corriero is full of sympathy for the defendant, and praises plaintiff for not breaking the law also, which is what is supposed to happen.   Plaintiff claims defendant painted one room pink, but can’t prove defendant did it, and only had a walk through of the apartment after defendant moved out.        

Plaintiff receives $4,500 for unpaid rent, but not for repainting the pink room or anything else. 

Edited June 28 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

1 July

“To Cash a Predator”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  92

p. 46, 19 February 2024

 

“Fiction Eviction”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  11

p. 42, 25 September 2023

[AngelaHunter]

On 6/28/2024 at 3:32 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Up in Flames”

Purple Hair and the Junkman were something else, but I get it. I have a friend who comes over and steals my stuff all the time. What can a person do? We're still friends.

Anyway,  the Def whose junkyard burns up often (and is such a mess Judge J had to ask if the photo was taken before or after the fire) looked so much like Andy Kaufman's alter ego, Tony Clifton, that I couldn't take my eyes off him.

 

 

Edited July 1 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 July

“It’s a Nice Day for a Red Wedding”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  93

p. 46, 20 February 2024

“Cheaper by the Cousin”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  25

 p. 42, 16 October 2023

3 July

“Delusions of Grandma”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  88

p. 46, 12 February 2024 (This case is the most outrageous case of Corriero making ridiculous excuses for the thieving grandmother.  Even the two other judges look upset at his bizarre reasoning).

“Improper Property Removal”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  28

p. 43, 19 October 2023

 

Edited July 4 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 July

“Tumultuous Tenant”

Rerun,  Season 10, Episode  101

p. 46, 5 March 2024

“Turf Wars"

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  165

p. 41, 29 August 2023

 

5 July

“You Wreck It, You Replace It"

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 

p. 46, 7 March 2023

“Wouldn't Put It Pastor”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  145

p. 39, 22 May 2023

 

Edited July 4 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Tumultuous Tenant

This was new to me. I believe the Def who at first I thought was a Momma's boy in his first place, was a liar and a dirty pig who had a bunch of animals she didn't take care of. I bet she uses that mild manner and soft-spoken ways to con people. She found perfect suckers in the plaintiffs.

The clueless baby landlord and her little Muppet Man thought having tenants would be easy and fun, I guess, even though they had no idea about tenant/landlord laws. She wanted to charge $100 late fees every 10 days or so. JT says, "You can't do that." "Oh."

[CrazyInAlabama]

8 July

“Tow De Force”

New, Season 10, Episode  123

(Rachelle Coleman vs. Gary Williams)

From the show site: A woman's car was towed by mistake, and when she went to retrieve it, she found scrapes on both bumpers. The ordeal might have gone smoother, but she got off on the wrong foot with the tow man, who denies causing the damage. Who was rude first? And more importantly, who can prove where the scrapes came from?

Plaintiff/car owner suing defendant / tow operator for damages to her car, she claims damage was caused by tow company. Plaintiff claims her car was towed by mistake.    Plaintiff claims a local restaurant owner said she could park in their lot overnight as long as she patronized the restaurant.  One day her car was gone, and she claims the restaurant manager was unaware of the arrangement, and had her car towed.   She's suing for $5,000. 

She says she called defendant, and when she went to pick up her car at defendant's lot, she claims she saw damages on her car bumpers.  Plaintiff claims pipes under the car were scraped too, but defendant says he took a picture of the front bumper, and there was no other damage.   Defendant claims he pointed out the front bumper chip, and says plaintiff said that was old damage.  Plaintiff wants an expensive rental car paid for, but her current car was drivable, so rental should have been for a few days only.   

Car is only worth $7,000, but plaintiff wants $5,000 for damages.  Corriero and Juarez are trying to twist the facts to make plaintiff's charges valid.  The Tewolde starts with her amateur accident recreation.     I think plaintiff is full of bull pucky. 

Tewolde is on plaintiff's side about everything, Corriero agrees.  

Plaintiff receives $2,100.   

 

“Clipper Slipper”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  126

p. 38, 24 April 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 July

“Check Yourself”

New, Season 10, Episode  124

(Arthur Mastne vs.  Zhane Knight)

From the show site: Two men got engaged, but it didn't work out; one sues for a bounced rent check and the other says he owes nothing because money was taken from his account without permission; their voicemails are all the judges need to determine credibility.

Lititgants met on social media, started  dating and got engaged within a month.  They moved into plaintiff's mother's house, it didn't work out, and plaintiff is suing for rent, $1,090.    The two men and plaintiff's mother all moved into a 1 bedroom apartment, mother had the bedroom, plaintiff's adoptive sister lived there, adoptive brother,  and the litigants had the living room.  Everything went bad.   

Defendant claims plaintiff and mother held him captive in the apartment and wouldn't let him leave.   Defendant claims the rent check only bounced because plaintiff stole money out of defendant's account.    

Defendant claims plaintiff took $698 out of his account, and also stole money from plaintiff's mother.    Corriero can't believe defendant knowingly wrote a bad check, so that means he didn't know the account had insufficient funds, it's called check kiting.    

Plaintiff claims to have received threatening voice mails from defendant.  Defendant also plays voice mails from plaintiff threatening defendant. 

What a sordid, nasty little case. 

The judges say plaintiff is a liar. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, none of the judges believed anything he said. The judges say plaintiff and family were scamming others, including defendant in this situation.    

 

“Wrecked & Robbed”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  125

 p. 38, 21 April 2023

Edited July 9 by CrazyInAlabama

[Gramto6]

I just had to post this it made me laugh out loud! Today from the preview for a coming episode, the guy is saying something about trash someone left behind and said"...two giant piles of..." (Voice over says:) Hot Bench..coming up...

LOL, two giant piles of Hot Bench....a lot of these cases are piles of something....

Edited July 9 by Gramto6

[patty1h]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Check Yourself” -- Arthur Mastne vs.  Zhane Knight

From the show site: Two men got engaged, but it didn't work out; one sues for a bounced rent check and the other says he owes nothing because money was taken from his account without permission.

What a pair of clowns... Arthur got a senior boyfriend who had enough money to help with rent and some left over for sodas and cigarettes (and meth?).  Zhane thought he snagged himself a young honeyboy, but sounds like he fell into a barrel full of grifters bleeding him for money. 

I liked Tewolde's blunt "what do you two have in common?".  Two messes.

Edited July 10 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

10 July

“Pile High Club”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  99

p. 46, 28 February 2024

 

“It’s My Cousin’s Bill, Not Mine”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 124  

p. 38, 20 April 2023

[AngelaHunter]

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims plaintiff and mother held him captive in the apartment and wouldn't let him leave. 

I'm tempted. This puts strange visuals in my head. I mean, how many times do we hear of someone's mother holding him captive?

But then:

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

What a sordid, nasty little case. 

Nope. I can't do "sordid" anymore. 🤢

Thanks for the warning.

[CrazyInAlabama]

11 July

“Unsecured Deposit”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  5

P. 42, 15 September 2023

“Whomever Smelt it Dealt it”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  128

p. 38, 27 April 2023

 

12 July

“Under Fire”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  125

p. 46, 12 March 2024

“Not 50/50”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 128  

p. 38, 26 April 2023

 

[Chalby]

I just watched July 9, 2024's "Check Yourself" and I was struck by how both the defendant and plaintiff appeared shifty. I got a feeling that both of them were in on some sort of scam, hoping for a payoff, BUT they would have had to file before Hot Bench got involved. Clearly neither of them has the money to even pay any actual court decision so that defeats any scam plan.

Regardless, when the judges don't believe one and can't decide on the other, the only verdict would be to dismiss.

It drives me nuts when the judges occasionally arrive at some random amount because they believe someone is owed. But in reality, if you don't have evidence that rightfully supports your claim, the case should be dismissed or set aside until evidence is gathered.

[Chalby]

On 7/10/2024 at 9:27 AM, AngelaHunter said:

I'm tempted. This puts strange visuals in my head. I mean, how many times do we hear of someone's mother holding him captive?

But then:

Nope. I can't do "sordid" anymore. 🤢

Thanks for the warning.

However, I do love "sordid" cases when the judges rip into them for behaving inappropriately, or call them out on their horrible actions via phone messages/ texts etc.

It shows the audience who they truly are. Sadly, they probably wouldn't care as the idea of being on TV surpasses any embarrassment they should have.

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, Chalby said:

It drives me nuts when the judges occasionally arrive at some random amount because they believe someone is owed.

What drives me nuts on this show are the arbitrary "as-is" rules. For example, a plaintiff buys a 15+-year-old  "as-is" beater and something goes wrong with it. They want their money back and the judges come up with some amount to reward them for their lack of judgment. What bugs even more is that the plaintiff gets a sympathy judgment if she's a single mother with a history of making bad decisions. I recall even Judge DiMango doing this: "She has KIDS and needs a car!"

9 hours ago, Chalby said:

t shows the audience who they truly are. Sadly, they probably wouldn't care as the idea of being on TV surpasses any embarrassment they should have.

From what I see on court shows and hear about other reality shows, the words "embarrassment", "shame", and "private" may as well be stricken from the dictionary as these people air things on national TV that I wouldn't tell my closest friends.

While I'm at it, it makes me nuts when these judges fawn over a felon because he or she hasn't committed any crimes since the last incarceration, and congratulate someone (who stiffed and lied to a friend)for not lying after they've beaten the truth out of him. 🙄

[CrazyInAlabama]

15 July

“Shoes Clues”

New, Season 10, Episode  165

(Jordan Pitts vs. Curtis McWright)

From the show site:  A sneaker reseller says he trusted his friend to get him five pairs of a specific kind of basketball shoes, but when they failed an authentication test, the friend told him he trusted his supplier, and the sale was "as-is."

Plaintiff/sneaker reseller suing defendant /former friend over five pair of collectible basketball shoes.   Plaintiff claims the sneakers aren't authentic, but defendant says the sale was 'as-is'.     Defendant didn't give a receipt to plaintiff, and refuses to say who McWright Air Jordan one High, Travis Scott edition (or something like that).  

Plaintiff says he paid $7500 for the sneakers, and a loan for $500 to plaintiff.   It took months to get the sneaker for plaintiff, and he says the sneakers are knockoffs.   He's suing for $5,000.  

Defendant says shoes were new with receipts, but would sell them to plaintiff 'as is'.   Defendant says 'as is' and new means unworn, not authentic.  Corriero asks why the plaintiff didn't go to a Nike official outlet, or Foot Locker.  Authentic Air Jordans resale for $2700 to $3200 each.   

Plaintiff says the shoes are high grade replicas.  The Authentication process is through CheckCheck app, to authenticate the shoes from photos.  Shoes didn't pass the authentication app. Plaintiff also went to a legitimate outlet, who said the shoes were from China, but not the authentic Nike factory in China. 

Defendant says he has a connection he bought the shoes from. 

Defendant says he agreed to pay plaintiff $275, but claims they never agreed on paying the other $7500.   Defendant says ''as is' means non-refundable to them. 

There is a text from defendant to plaintiff saying the shoes are replicas, not authentic.  Defendant claims the shoes originally came from Foot Locker, and after plaintiff complained about the authenticity, that defendant claims he already resold the shoes to others who had no problem with authenticity or price. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000, so still out over $2500.   Plaintiff keeps the replicas, to resell as replicas. 

 

 

“Door Jam”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  33

p. 43, 27 October 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

16 July

“Don’t Lien on Me”

New, Season 10, Episode  166

(Richard  O’Reilly vs. Robert  Joyce)

From the show site: A missing person case turned into a homicide investigation, and ownership of the deceased's car was evidently transferred to her mechanic, but after he sold it to his best friend, the original lien holder repossessed it, and things got messy.

Plaintiff / car buyer bought a 2018 Nissan Ultima from Defendant/car seller, with an agreement that if anything went wrong defendant agreed to a full refund.  Plaintiff is suing for $5,000, for the purchase price and upgrades, claims defendant made a couple of payments, and stopped.   Defendant claims he helped plaintiff by paying for a truck rental for him.    Owner of car died, and defendant / mechanic put a lien on the car, finally received an interim title. That's when plaintiff paid for the car, and claims defendant said he would pay plaintiff the purchase price back if he couldn't get a clear title.   

Sadly, owner of car was dead inside the house, it was a homicide, and investigation is still ongoing.   

One purchase plaintiff made was $2,000 for rims.   Then, plaintiff and defendant claim the original inheritor of the car was threatening them, and demanding the car back.   

When defendant rented U-Haul for plaintiff on his card, became a big issue between defendant and his wife.  U-Haul told plaintiff years ago that they would never rent to him.   Plaintiff's girlfriend had to drive the truck, because of the ban from U-Haul. 

Corriero is confused about the enforceability about the contract between the litigants.  The mechanics lien was only for $100, not the value of the car, so it should have gone to the inheritor of the car. Lien was $4700 with storage fees for a year, but car was worth $18,000. So, it was right that the local court awarded the car back to the estate.  

Plaintiff receives $4500 for the car.  Defendant sold a car he wasn't the owner of, and it was an illegal sale. 

 

“Don’t Play-Date Me”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  29

p. 43, 23 October 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

17 July

“Daycare Swindler”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  104

p. 46, 11 March 2024

 

“Copped at the Beauty Shop”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  14

p. 42, 28 September 2023

[AngelaHunter]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Copped at the Beauty Shop”

O.M.G. 😬😧

[CrazyInAlabama]

18 July

“Storage Wars”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 

p. 46, 13 March 2024

“Counter Intelligence”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  

p. 43, 24 October 2023

 

19 July

“Friendship Fallout”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  7

p. 42, 19 September 2023

“Don’t Vent Just Pay Your Rent”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  15

p. 42, 29 September 2023

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 7/17/2024 at 10:00 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Copped at the Beauty Shop”

Okay, even with all the horrors of this case, I did get a good laugh at the picture someone on the Def's side took of P's enormous ass as she bent over the chair. Can't tell me that wasn't an "on-purpose". 

[CrazyInAlabama]

22 July

“Family CON-nection”

New, Season 10, Episode  167

(Misty and Daniel Seifert vs. Samantha Dean and Joshua Hebard)    

From the show site: A young woman says her mother and stepfather tried to force her to make car payments by holding her son hostage.

Plaintiff /car buyers (mother and stepfather of defendant) suing defendant/car owner for car payments    Plaintiffs/parents bought a 2008 Pontiac G5 for $2,000.  they claim defendant owes $2400 in payments, but defendant says car stopped working so she owes plaintiffs nothing.    

Plaintiffs also suing defendant for a false allegation to CPS, that was claiming abuse, triggered a CPS investigation that found no abuse happened.   Defendant is counter suing for payments she made on the car.   Plaintiffs want $850 for attorney fees for defending against the CPS charges.  Plaintiffs say car wasn't stolen as, but repo'd by the loan company and is in impound.

Plaintiffs have had custody of defendant's son since infancy, and the child is 7 now.   Defendant claims she wants visitation, but hasn't visited the child for months.   Defendant claims the son wants to live with her, and she's going to sue for guardianship of her son.   

Plaintiff Daniel put a tracker in car, so he could locate car if defendant 'misplaced' it.    He also says defendant boyfriend Josh was driving car and blew the engine, and that's why car is no longer driveable.    

There is a video from defendant claiming the car has loud knocks, and defendant witness Josh admits he has no driver's license and can't drive the car. 

Plaintiff has photos of the car, repainted, sitting in defendant's garage.   Months ago defendants told plaintiff Daniel car was gone.   Josh, defendant boink, claims a tow truck moved his Jeep, and took the G5.    

Juarez says car was 100% more than what the title loan cost, and the price of the car, so plaintiffs took a loan for $3100 (to pay for the title loan and cost of the car). 

Then, Tewolde claims that once the daughter refused to make payments, the plaintiffs cut off visitation with her child that plaintiffs have custody for. 

Plaintiffs claim defendants have the car, but defendants claim they don't have the car.  

Plaintiff mother claims defendant mother hasn't seen her son in months and hasn't visited at all, but defendant claims she going for custody. 

Corriero sides with plaintiffs for car payments, and defendants counter claim is dismissed. 

Tewolde says the grandparents didn't deny visitation.

$2400 to plaintiffs for car.  Defendant claim dismissed. 

(The defendants have a lot of gall to claim the car disappeared from their garage, when it's obviously still there.   I believe everything the plaintiffs said, and nothing the defendants said.)

 

“In Despair with In Vitro Fertilization”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  31

p. 46, 5 February 2024 (listed under 29 January)

Edited July 23 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Misty and Daniel Seifert vs. Samantha Dean and Joshua Hebard) 

Another case where all the litigants rendered me speechless. That these individuals are permitted to breed freely leaves me shocked and sad.  Good Lord.

[CrazyInAlabama]

23 July (I might not have more than this, my cable/internet went down again).

“Truckin or Duckin? What’s Your 20?”

New, Season 10, Episode  168

(LaMontez Hughes vs. Alena Malone)   

 

From the show site: The owner of a trucking company says she's shocked that her former employee has the nerve to sue her for emotional distress: he's the one who stole gas, drove the truck into a ditch and left marijuana in the cab.

Plaintiff/former truck driver suing defendant/former trucking company owner for emotional distress, $4,000 plus.  Defendant claims plaintiff drove the truck into a ditch, stole gas, and left Weed in the cab of the truck. Defendant is countersuing for $3,000. 

First complaint was defendant says plaintiff went to visit his daughter, instead of going straight to drop off a truck load.   Defendant says she authorized truck fuel for a detour, but instead he used $1,000 worth of gas, much more than the detour to his daughter.  That is when plaintiff drove truck into a ditch, causing tow fees.   After defendant fired plaintiff, he refused to tell her where the truck was.   Truck was parked in St. Louis, in a bad neighborhood, unlocked, and with Weed in the truck.   Plaintiff claims the Weed was planted by defendant, and claims she's a heavy user, but he isn't. 

Defendant had a GPS locator on the truck, and claims plaintiff disconnected it, and that's how she found the truck in St. Louis. 

Laurette Springer is defendant's witness and godmother, and did the background check on plaintiff.   She says plaintiff has a long record, so I'm asking how he keeps his commercial license, and why he was hired.   

Truck picture show the truck after the removal from the ditch.   

Decison is plaintiff case dismissed. 

Defendant gets an award for hotel, tow (cancelled by withheld wages), missing property from the truck, gas for the huge detour. $1,500.

 

“All Bite No Bark”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  32

p. 43, 26 October 2023

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The owner of a trucking company says she's shocked that her former employee has the nerve to sue her for emotional distress: he's the one who stole gas, drove the truck into a ditch and left marijuana in the cab.

Instead of being grateful for a job, the dumb little weasel P (who of course has a criminal record) screws the Def over.

The road was so bumpy it jolted all the gas out of the tank!

I feel for him, being forced to drive on what is the last corduroy road in existence:😧

 

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

24 July

“Trouble Brewing”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  94

p. 46, 21 February 2024

“Sin City Shakedown”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  13

p. 42, 27 September 2023

 

25 July

“Phony Marriage”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  107

p. 47,  18 March 2024

“Car and Driver Missing Wire”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  69

p. 45,  10 January 2024

Edited July 25 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 7/24/2024 at 7:01 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Phony Marriage”

I read your post on this case @CrazyInAlabama because I gave up watching it. The most amazing part is that he - who found all this amusing - can constantly find some women to cheat with and proudly announces he's been doing so since before their (un)wedded bliss.

It's a sad state of affairs that he, fugly, fat, stupid, and nearly incoherent (he declares the wedding photos "irrevelant") can find all these bottom feeders to bump uglies with.

AND the plaintiff who, if nothing else, speaks very well knew about the screwing around and accepted it. When have we last seen a woman on any court show who has an ounce of self-respect and won't degrade herself to keep the most marginal loser around?

[CrazyInAlabama]

26 July

“Tenant Runaway”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  108

p. 47, 19 March 2024

 

“Love Freight Relationship”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  73

p. 45, 17 January 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

29 July

“That’s Gonna Leave a Park”

New, Season 10, Episode  169

(Michellen Harris vs. Jaielen Berry)

From the show site: A young man says he helped his longtime mentor move things out of her garage, but now she's suing him for damaging the garage with his truck.

Plaintiff suing defendant for damages to her garage when he was helping her move for $1024

Since defendant is an amateur, and no contract, and was doing a favor, why should he pay for the garage?  

Since defendant is an amateur, and no contract, and was doing a favor, why should he pay for the garage?   Truck was in plaintiff’s name, and insurance on the U-Haul would have paid for the damages.  

Plaintiff hired a U-Haul truck, and asked defendant to drive it, he agreed to drive the U-Haul to her storage area near outdoor carport area at the complex, and defendant was waiting for her to show him where to park, but she was on her phone.    Defendant was blocking the walkway, in a red zone, so he moved out of the way, near the long carport in the apartment parking lot, but defendant misjudged the height of the carport, and hit the edge of the carport with the top of the truck.

Defendant says plaintiff told him nothing about where to park or anything else, and she tried to hide the damage from the complex.   Defendant claims the complex personnel told him that the damage would have been forgiven if plaintiff didn't try to get away without reporting it, same with the U-Haul people. 

Plaintiff demanded that defendant sign a promissory note to pay for the damage.   This happened after it was time for her to pay rent, and the property manager gave her the bill for the carport.  Manager called plaintiff, and defendant heard the manager talking on the phone to the manager, she came to his school to get a promissory note signed by defendant.

However, U-Haul has insurance that would cover this, but I bet plaintiff didn’t get it, because it cost extra.  

 Judges decide (Corriero and Tewolde with Juarez dissenting) that it should be on plaintiff, the promissory note makes no difference.   Plaintiff case against defendant dismissed.   Juarez would have paid plaintiff because of the note.

“Long Live the Kyng”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  66

p. 45, 4 January 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

30 August

‘Chopper Stopper “

New, Season 10, Episode 

(Marcos Torrico vs. Greg Karapetian)  

From the show site:  A motorcyclist claims he took his bike in for a minor leak and got it back two years later with no engine and three bins of parts. The mechanic admits he may have lost a few nuts and bolts, but he denies responsibility. What took him so long, and why did he take the whole thing apart?

Plaintiff / motorcycle owner suing defendant/motorcycle mechanic for failing to fix his motorcycle, the motorcycle was at defendant's shop for two years.  Motorcycle was returned to defendant without an engine, and three boxes of parts plaintiff already bought.   Motorcycle had to be fixed by another mechanic for $7,000.   Plaintiff claims a lot of the parts weren't right for the motorcycle anyway.    Defendant lost his lease on his shop, and then finally returned the motorcycle to plaintiff in pieces.  Many of the parts fit a larger engine than the plaintiff's bike.   Plaintiff was able to reuse a few parts on the bike.   Plaintiff wants $3,000 in fuel costs, because he had to use his truck instead of him motorcycle, his home is 64 miles one way from his home to work.    

Plaintiff paid $500 deposit to defendant, and $3,000 for parts and labor. Corriero says defendant shouldn't be held responsible for the repair costs, no witnesses, just hearsay.  Tewolde says no proof of the case.  Juarez seems more resonable, but won't pay for fuel or some parts. 

Plaintiff receives $800

 

“Scoot Scootin' Boogie”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  9

 p. 42, 21 September 2023

 

Edited July 30 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

31 July

”Dog Gone Doggone it!”

Rerun Season 10, Episode  109

p.  47, 20 March 2024

“The Gig is Up”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 10  

 p. 42, 22 September 2023

1 August

“Don't Pay Me, I'm Pulling Up!”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  110

p. 47, 21 March 2024

“The Drain Game”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  8

p.  42, 20 September 2023

 

2 August

“Airing Dirty Laundry”

New, Season 10, Episode  4

p. 42, 14 September 2023

“Family Feud”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  83

p.  46, 5 February 2024,  (actual date 2 February 2024)

 

 

Edited August 1 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 7/31/2024 at 6:39 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Airing Dirty Laundry”

I just watched this. I think there's something really wrong with the def. or maybe there's a method to her madness and she's like another vile woman we saw renting rooms on TPC(?) who rents to young people, finds ways to harass them so badly they leave and she keeps the money.

I wonder if the owner of this house knows the Def is using it as a boarding house.

Everything she said was a lie, I'm sure. She sounded demented. Yes, P loaded his stuff in a truck, unloaded it all when it looked like rain, and sat there for three hours while it got ruined. He did this in order to... be annoying? Ruin all his own things to "bully" that crazy witch and have to drag her to court?

Good thing P's girlfriend had the receipt to show she'd paid $1200 for the computer and I think $800 could be a reasonable amount for the belongings.

Not referring to this case necessarily (this guy seemed pretty meek and mild), but I always find it bizarre when women rent out rooms in their dwellings to young guys who are total strangers. Do they really expect perfect harmony? I recall the woman who rented out a room in her home to a felon who had just been released from prison and was shocked when he and his fellow lowlifes stole her stuff, broke her camera, etc. How can you live that long and be that dumb, or naive? She needed to count her blessing that she wasn't beaten up, or much worse.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 August

“All About That Bass-ment”

New, Season 10, Episode  171

(Robert Montoya vs. Paul Termunde)   

From the show site:   After several no-shows and excuses from his contractor, a homeowner gets tired of waiting for his basement remodel to be done; the contractor says he's a single dad with a busy life, and "my promise ain't broken until I'm dead."

Plaintiff suing contractor/defendant for completion of his basement remodel project.    Defendant claims there was no finish date included, but he had repeated reasons he couldn't come and work on the remodel.     Plaintiff is suing for return of his deposit, minus the work alread performed,  suing for $4240.   

Defendant says deposit was nonrefundable anyway. Job was to remodel two tiny bedroom of flooring, redo a tiny bathroom and hallway in the basement.    Deposit was 60% down.   

Job only covered remodeling the bathroom and puting down new flooring.  Job was projected to last two weeks.     Plaintiff went on vacation, leaving home open to defendant, and nothing was done since the flooring tack strips and baseboards removed.    Bathroom fixtures were to be replaced, but the old ones hadn't been removed.   Eventually half the flooring in one bedroom was finished and that's all. 

Plaintiff says the list of excuses why the defendant couldn't work were ridiculous.     Judge Juarez reads the long list of excuses by defendant.   Bathroom only had baseboards removed.   The only contract is an invoice or estimate.   $5900 was the total amount defendant received, including materials of almost $3,000.   When defendant was fired, he still has the materials. Plaintiff demolished the shower.   Plaintiff still has the tools defendant left behind.  

Defendant got refunds for returned materials.  Plus $1500 in labor defendant claims to have performed. 

(This happened in Salt Lake City, UT)  Tools will be picked up by defendant. 

Defendant thinks keeping $1600 for his labor is fair. 

Plaintiff receives $3700, and defendant can pick up his tools.  

 

“You Win Some, You Cruise Some”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  71

p. 45, 15 January 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 August

“Careless Cousins”

New, Season 10, Episode  172

(Anna Nunez vs. Gilbert Chavez)

From the show site: A man owes his cousin for storage of his RV on her property, but he refuses to pay, saying her son stole his belongings out of it.

Plaintiff/property owner suing defendant / cousin for storage fees for defendant's RV parked on her property.  Defendant counters with his own claim that plaintiff/cousin's son stole defendant's belongings out of the RV.  She's suing for $700, claiming her landlord is charging her $100 a month tacked on to her rent for the RV being on the property she rents. 

As usual, defendant is suing for $5,000 because RV had his mother and grandmother's possession stored in the RV.   

Plaintiff says she never called defendants and said her son broke into the RV. Defendants say plaintiff did call them about the break in, saying her son did the crime.   However, there is an 11 minute call from plaintiff to defendants about that time.   Plaintiff says she saw defendant's brother break into the RV, and stole some items.  Defendant says no one else has keys to the trailer, and someone broke the RV door when they broke in. 

Plaintiff says her son was in jail at the time that the break in occured, but she has no proof.   

Tewolde says the $100 a month is only for $600, with the $200 added. 

 Defendant's witness is his wife, Felicia Chavez.   Plaintiff says that defendant is his brother's payee, and now can't even walk because plaintiff's two vicious Pit Bulls attacked the brother on three separate occasions.  She says the dogs severely damaged his leg.   (Sounds like what they call XL Bullies, Pit crosses that are human aggressive). Defendant also claims he's not his brother's payee, but his caregiver. 

Plaintiff says defendant never confronted her about the son's thefts.  Judge Juarez looks at defendant's phone, and finds an 11 minute call from plaintiff on the date that defendant claims she told him about her son being the thief. 

Some lost property was the wife's late mother's property, including a coin collection.   

The one time the defendant wanted to get the RV, plaintiff refused to put the vicious dogs away.    

(My solution, dismiss the plaintiff's ridiculous case, defendant gets the RV towed off of her rented property, and he gets $1,000.   Plaintiff is such a liar, proven by Judge Juarez).  Corriero wants to dismiss both actions, and get his RV back safely.    Tewolde wants to give plaintiff the rent.   Juarez says plaintiff is a total liar, and believes the defendant.  Rent is only paid for the two months, $100 total, because after that he couldn't get the RV off the property because of the dogs. 

Defendant claim dismissed. Return of the RV to defendant, and $100 to the plaintiff for one month's rent, and the dogs needs to be caged during the removal.   Corriero says defendant should take a police escort, and they will deal with the dogs, if needed. 

 

“Mind Your Loan Business; Handi-Snapped”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  

p. 47, 25 April 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

7 August

“Wedding Faux-tographer”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  111

p. 47, 25 March 2024

 

“A Doggone Accident”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  68

p. 45, 9 January 2024

[AngelaHunter]

On 8/5/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says deposit was nonrefundable anyway.

Another idiot who thinks that if the person who took the deposit is the one who breaks the agreement he still keeps the money. If it worked that way, everyone would take deposits for apartments, cars, construction jobs, etc., and then not provide what they agreed to. Easy money!

And he's a liar. "I never told him the job would take two weeks".  But that's exactly what he said in a text (or email?).  Oops.

I'm glad to see some equality with the excuses, using "I'm a single father" to avoid any obligations or paying what you owe.

That hustler says he requires a 60% deposit because people rip HIM off!

He would have finished the P's basement - someday before he dies. Maybe. Why are so many people so damned impatient?🙄

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Wedding Faux-tographer”

I gave up on this when I got a preview of Papa orating. Still, hearing about all these devastated brides on court shows got me wondering when weddings went from being rather quiet, simple but serious ceremonies joining two people, followed by a nice meal and dancing, to Las Vegas-type galas, with everything from Badio maids, 'hierarchical' whirling and twirling down the aisle, the entire guest list spending fortunes on "destination weddings", drones, red carpets, hot-air balloons, dancing horses, and spectaculars that would impress Busby Berkeley. Or TO impress (or outdo) everyone on social media.

Yeah, so, like - I'm just old-fashioned, I guess.