Hot Bench - General Discussion

[CrazyInAlabama]

8 August

“Motor Homeless”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  112

p. 47, 26 March 2024

“The Maltese Falcons Game”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  75

p. . 45, 22 January 2024

 

9 August

“Broken Bro Code”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 114

p. 47 28 March 2024

“InCARcerated"”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  78

p. 45, 25 January 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

12 August

“The Niece Who Broke the Lease”

New, Season 10, Episode  173

(Ida Shavers vs. Cierra Johnson)   

From the show site: An aunt is endlessly supportive of her niece, despite her alleged refusal to take accountability time and time again. She hopes this lawsuit over unpaid rent and a car loan will teach the young woman a lesson. But even the judges have a hard time getting through to her.

Plaintiff aunt suing defendant/niece over unpaid rent and a car loan.   Aunt hopes niece will finally learn to pay her bills, but we all know she won’t.

Judge T tries to talk to niece, and niece claims to be humbled, but doesn't even understand what that means.   

Aunt wants $4600 for unpaid rent, and the car loan.  Niece claims the car was stolen, but it was actually given to niece's boyfriend to drive.  Rent was from niece moving into plaintiff's basement, and refusing to pay rent.   There is a lease clause about subleasers, and tenants not on lease, but boyfriend was a constant presence.    

When car was reported as stolen, police stopped the car and boyfriend was driving the Jeep, and claimed it was loaned by the owner/niece.   Basement apartment was rented to niece and child, but boyfriend stays days at a time illegally.   

Niece claims aunt was monitoring her housekeeping, such as food garbage around, trash all over, clothes laying around, so niece decided to move out. 

Aunt also had to pay for exterminators when niece leaving garbage around.   Niece was a juvenile correction officer working with children.   Corriero tries to get through to niece, and he's wasting his time. 

On a tacky note, what the hell is that dress the niece is wearing?   It looks like those slippers with knit puff balls all over them.    

Aunt gave niece a great deal on the apartment ($950 a month), and niece doesn't want to move to an expensive apartment.    Tewolde tries to get though to niece too, another waste of time.    Niece says she didn't have to pay loan on time, just when she got around to it.    Niece said she doesn't have to clean up her apartment at aunt's house, because she paid rent.  

Niece says aunt 'brought it on herself', niece did move out, and won't say where.   (This happened in Lawrenceville, GA). 

Niece gets lippy with Judge T.    Niece went to jail too, for filing false police reports (I'm guessing that's on reporting the car stolen that was actually with the boyfriend).  Cell phone was bought by aunt for Cierra, and she didn't pay her bills, Aunt still owes $855 on the phone.  Car has unpaid tolls on it, and chages for passing school buses.  

Aunt receives $4,600.   

“Rental Case”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  72

p. 45, 16 January 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Rental Case”

I guess I  missed this the first time.

The Defs were just awful with the fake crying one of the worst acting jobs ever.

I hope Dena has done some research since then and has learned at least some basic landlord/tenant laws.

More than anything, what caught my attention was Papa flaring up at these defs over the idiotic giggling and butting in. He also became exasperated when unable to get a straight answer from Dena about why she kept the security deposit. To be fair, I don't think she knew herself.

Def wifey seemed a little cracked and looked like she was wearing a really cheap mask from a novelty store to disguise herself.

Edited August 13 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 August

“Roommate Gate ; Lift Off”

New, Season 10, Episode  174

“Roommate Gate”

(Yash Gandhi vs. Melanie Burgin)

From the show site: A woman says she didn't take pictures of her subletter's allegedly trashed room because she's "not a mean person." But he claims she wrongfully kept his security deposit, which isn't very nice. How can she defend her actions with no evidence?

Plaintiff/subletter suing defendant/leasor of property for return of his security deposit, $1200.    Then, defendant's daughter moved in, and was couch surfing.  Then, plaintiff decided to move out for more space, and to live with his then girlfriend.    When plaintiff moved out, defendant says plaintiff trashed his room, but she didn't take photos of the mess.

Defendant claims the move out took her by surprise, even though he gave her four months notice.    Defendant says plaintiff couldn't afford the rent on the apartment, and repaid a loan to her aunt, and used plaintiff's security deposit for the loan repayment.     Defendant didn't take photos of plaintiff's supposedly trashed room, because "she's not a mean person".    Defendant also claims plaintiff promised to stay in the apartment for at least two years. 

Defendant claims she's coming into an inheritance and was going to repay plaintiff the security deposit when her inheritance arrives. 

Corriero is very sympathetic to defendant, I might lose my lunch over this. 

Plaintiff receives $1,200. 

“Lift Off”

(Peter Evanenko vs. Joseph Cheng)    

From the show site: a rideshare driver is put out of work when another car slides into him on black ice.

Plaintiff/ride share driver suing defendant/ car driver that hit plaintiff,  for lost wages and car repairs, because plaintiff couldn't drive ride share with a damaged vehicle.   Plaintiff, a Uber driver, claims he lost four weeks wages due to defendant hitting his vehicle.     Plaintiff says defendant slid into his vehicle from a patch of Black Ice.  You can't use a rental for ride share, because insurance won't cover a rental for ride share, and the ride share company doesn't allow it either. 

Defendant claims his insurance company should have paid plaintiff for the damages, and he owes plaintiff nothing.    Plaintiff claims defendant was speeding for the conditions.   (This happened in Sparks, NV).

Plaintiff receives $3,705. 

 

“A Whole Latte Drama”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  64

p. 45, 2 January 2024

[AngelaHunter]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A woman says she didn't take pictures of her subletter's allegedly trashed room because she's "not a mean person."

Well, how could she give him his deposit back? She needed the money for other things, including a supposed loan she had to repay to her aunt. This woman was just nasty as hell, with zero shame or remorse for stealing P's money. And she lost her job, and her free-loading daughter could only pay "a little bit". The P should be happy to help support her.  Defs makes all her many problems the plaintiff's problems. It's all his fault for being so impatient.

Okay, I just realized that her "inheritance" is probably like the millions in inheritances I've been promised for 20 years by Nigerian scammers engineers, reverends, diplomats, the IMF, and Christopher Wray. All I had to do was send a small advance fee to ship my ATM card. (who knew that shipping a little card by FedEx could cost $786?). Unlike this def. my wait is over!

Quote

Today after meeting with Mr. President and top officials of Nigeria government your inheritance has be release now by ATM card to your name ... The ATM Visa Card Value is US$10 Million USD.

Woo hoo! 💰 

I think this may very well be why this def. has no money and had to borrow from Auntie. She appeared to be the perfect scam victim.

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Today after meeting with Mr. President and top officials of Nigeria government your inheritance has be release now by ATM card to your name ... The ATM Visa Card Value is US$10 Million USD.

I think this may very well be why this def. has no money and had to borrow from Auntie. She appeared to be the perfect scam victim.

I'm sorry, you're too late. I received this email last evening, and answered, and my $10 million USD ATM VISA card is on it's way.  

Can you imagine someone being naive enough to think you get $10 mil through an ATM card?  

 

14 August

“RV on the Run”

New, Season 10, Episode  175

(Debra Hudnall vs. Veronica Flores) 

From the show site: These two women share grandchildren, but they can't find common ground on a single thing in this case. Was the RV a gift, a sale, or a rent-to-own? What was to be done with the property inside? A written contract could have alleviated a lot of guff.

(It looks like a big travel trailer, not RV). 

Plaintiff Debra Hudnall suing defendant Veronica Flores for return of property that was in an RV defendant has, and for unpaid payments.   Plaintiff used to own the RV.    There is no written contract, as usual.  So, was RV a gift as defendant says, a sale or rent-to-own as plaintiff claims, or is it simply a case of defendant stealing the RV? 

Terms of sale according to plaintiff, Trailer was $9,000, and agreement was for defendant and son to live in it, and pay $50 a week until it was paid off.    Defendant says she helped refurbish the trailer, and was going to pay a minimal amount for the trailer.   Plaintiff claims defendant only paid $150 total.   Trailer was very filthy before cleaning, and even after two rounds of cleaning by defendant, it doesn't look that great either. 

Plaintiff says trailer was 'as is', and now says it was rent-to-own.   Defendant says trailer was a gift and she owes nothing.  Defendant says she would pay $150 a month.  

A written contract would have settled so much about this case.  

Plaintiff says defendant paid only $145, defendant says she paid $150, or $185.   Corriero is really steamed at both parties, especially defendant.   Then, they can't agree on the sale price either.  Then, defendant told she would give the RV back to plaintiff if she paid her $2,000.   RV was either $4,000 or $5,500.    Plaintiff claims she paid $8800 for the RV, eighteen months earlier.   

Plaintiff doesn't want trailer back, unless she doesn't have to pay for it.   Defendant still says $150 was all she owed, and all she'll ever pay for it. 

The judges say they have no idea about the actual sale price of the RV/trailer.    No idea how much was paid for the RV/trailer.   Plaintiff says trailer was towed, and she doesn't know where it is. 

 

Plaintiff gets $3855, and defendant keeps the RV, if she knows where it is. 

 

“No, You Can't Pick My Part”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  65

p. 45, 3 January 2024

 

Edited August 14 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm sorry, you're too late. I received this email last evening, and answered, and my $10 million USD ATM VISA card is on it's way.  

 

But I already paid the activation fee for my card! Let me have it and I promise I'll share.

Quote

And we want you to know that the fastest way to pay this fee now is to send us a gift card of your choice below by either you send us a $50 via an Apple Gift card or a Steam Gift card or Vanilla Gift card or American Express card or Ebay gift card or Sephora Gift card or Razor Gold Gift card.

Daniel E. Pinto.

President and Chief Operating

Officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank. 

I'm so glad the Mr. Pinto accepts gift cards as payment! Very convenient.

44 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Can you imagine someone being naive enough to think you get $10 mil through an ATM card? 

Let me introduce you to Melanie Burgin.

[CrazyInAlabama]

15 August

"Eye Want Justice"

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  113

p. 47, 27 March 2024

“Bear Necessities/Thou Shall Not Corvette"

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  74

p.  45, 18 January 2024

 

16 August

“Too Hot to Handle”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  117

p. 47, 3 April 2024

“Father Nos Best”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  76

p. 45, 23 January 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

19 August

“Internal Revenue Disservice”

New, Season 10, Episode  176

(Rogelio Mendoza jr vs. Edgar Hernandez)    

From the show site:   A subcontractor says his worker signed a W-9 with a fake name and promised to pay the penalty if the IRS came after him, but when the subcontractor's bank account was inevitably garnished, the worker denied everything and says he owes nothing

Plaintiff/subcontractor suing defendant /former employee for repayment of IRS penalties for defendant signing a W-9 with a fake name, suing for tax garnishment and fees.   Plaintiff claims defendant promised to pay the IRS fees if he got caught.   Plaintiff suing for $5,000.

(Sounds like they're both guilty of tax fraud, I hope someone from the IRS sees this episode). 

Defendant claims everything plaintiff says is a lie.   Judge Tewolde shows texts to defendant showing he sent texts with another name to plaintiff. 

Plaintiff claims the IRS didn't send him a statement about why they garnished $4,000 from his accounts.  Even Corriero can't believe the plaintiff's story. 

Plaintiff receives nothing, no proof of garnishment. (I wouldn't give him a penny, he conspired with defendant to hide his earnings from the IRS, and child support.)

 

“Cat Snatch Fever”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  39

p.  43, 6 November 2023

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Internal Revenue Disservice”

I enjoyed these two crooks and their pathetic conspiracy. Plaintiff was very mild and not snarky and belligerent like Def, but it didn't help him.

Def (Father of the Year)tells his buddy, the P, that no way will he pay for the child he created, so he refuses to go on the books. Plaintiff completely agrees that Def shouldn't have to get nabbed to provide food, clothing, and shelter for his child, so to help him avoid his responsibility P says he paid the Def $51,000 in CASH.

Def sneakily gave him a W-9 with an imaginary name on it. P didn't notice that! Gee, he wishes he had the IRS papers warning him of the garnishment and the reason for it here, but well - he can't find them. In fact, he didn't bring a thing to prove that Def ripped him off and he was the innocent party here.

So outrageous were these liars that not even Papa Mike could find any excuse for them. I got a little worried in the deliberations since it seemed the judges might find something believable about the P crook's story, but thankfully they did not and he gets nothing. Pay the 4K yourself, P.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I hope someone from the IRS sees this episode). 

The gov. really should have someone assigned to watch these shows every day. Imagine how much money could be recouped from the hordes who announce they are paid under the table, or otherwise cheat in every way imaginable? I would happily apply for THAT job, watching court shows all day and getting paid for it!😀

[CrazyInAlabama]

20 August

“Untrustworthy”

New, Season 10, Episode  177

(Josephine Vivirito vs. Ray Rivera)   Vivirito Rivera

From the show site: Nine years after having a living trust made up, a woman noticed that several documents were left unsigned; she sues the estate planner, but he says anything left incomplete was her responsibility to get notarized.

Plaintiff/Josephine Vivirito (assisted by granddaughter, Amanda Conoway, for translation purposes) suing defendant/estate planner Ray Rivera for not getting everything signed, notarized and filed for her living trust in 2013. 

So, in 9 years, plaintiff didn’t look at the trust documents, and couldn't get them notarized?  She's suing for $4,500 (paid in 2013).   

Defendant is a Certified Estate Planner.   Unfortunately, defendant left the files at home.    Plaintiff's husband Ignazio didn't sign either, but he's on vacation and didn't come to court.   Documents aren't signed by plaintiff, or husband, and not witnessed.  

Defendant says he put tabs for signature for plaintiff and husband, and they needed to sign in front of two witnesses, but apparently plaintiff never did.   Corriero, as usual, takes plaintiff's side.    Defendant says the notarized documents were signed in front of the notary, but other documents only needed to be signed in front of two witnesses, and he didn't have witnesses available.   

Why did plaintiff and husband not sign the documents in front of two witnesses in the last 10 years?   The deeds defendant needed to complete the trust were never given to him by plaintiff.   Defendant says he listed what needs to be supplied by plaintiffs to defendant for the trust were never given by plaintff.  

Witness Amanda claims multiple times that she requested defendant to come to where the grandparents live, he didn't show up.   Some of the documents still have the 'sign here' tabs on the, and Judge Juarez asks plaintiff what wasn't clear about what needed to be signed.   

Plaintiff says she didn't even look at the trust documents until last year. 

Defendant says he clearly labeled what had to be signed in front of two witnesses, and witnesses who had no interest in the trust. 

Plaintiff witness admits they needed deed copies for some properties that defendant said they needed and never gave them to defendant. 

Why isn't the other granddaughter who was the trustee and present for the discussions, in court?  

Corriero takes plaintiff's side.   Juarez says 4 year breach of contract statute, so that expired in 2017 or 2018.   Tewolde points out that if something would have happened that plaintiffs would be unprepared.     

Tewolde and Juarez cite the 4 year statues, and dismiss the plaintiff's case, plus note that plaintiffs never gave everything to defendant.    Plaintiffs didn't need defendant to sign the remaining documents, just two witnesses.  Corriero dissents. 

(I wouldn't give plaintiff a penny.   All she had to do was supply the deeds, and get a few documents signed with two witnesses present. )

 Plaintiff case dismissed, statute of limitations expired long ago.  And she had everything she needed to sign the remaining documents.  

“Room Raider”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  82

p. 46, 5 February 2024 (listed in this post under actual air date, 1 February)

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: Nine years after having a living trust made up, a woman noticed that several documents were left unsigned; she sues the estate planner, but he says anything left incomplete was her responsibility to get notarized.

Was it 9 or 13 years ago? I dunno, but I think if I paid $4500 for anything, I might at least glance at it sooner. They didn't, because the cover of the binder was so pretty! They expected the Def, who looked about 90, to remember every detail of their dealings all those years ago.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why isn't the other granddaughter who was the trustee and present for the discussions, in court? 

That's what I was wondering and expected one of the judges to ask, instead of accepting hearsay. And the P's hubby took off on vacation.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Corriero takes plaintiff's side.

Papa has been doing so well lately, but let me down here. Not only does he ignore the "As is" rule when he feels sorry for a litigant, but now he pooh-poohs the statute of limitations to follow his heart for the little lady. Did you notice how he got really surly and sulky when the other two chose to follow the law rather than bow to his feelies?

He took pains to explain to the P that had it been up to him and his bleeding heart, he would have given her every penny back, but he was outvoted by those two Mean Girls ganging up on him.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

He took pains to explain to the P that had it been up to him and his bleeding heart, he would have given her every penny back, but he was outvoted by those two Mean Girls ganging up on him.

Yeah, Corriero remains predominantly a complete asshole. The befuddled plaintiff and her dim grand daughter had everything given to them complete with the colorful "sign here" and other stickers showing them exactly what they needed to do but grandma apparently didn't even open the package and did none of the things she was required to do. Corriero bent over so far backward to try to screw the defendant that his head was up one of his orifices. Once in a great while he makes sense but the vast majority of the time he is an embarrassment to the judiciary.

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Yeah, Corriero remains predominantly a complete asshole.

Yet, I still had to blink when he waved away the statute of limitations as though the other two had suggested something nonsensical, like invoking the Thumper Rule.

[CrazyInAlabama]

21 August

“Wages for Ages”

New, Season 10, Episode  178

(Monique Gloster vs. Tankeika Lathan)  

From the show site: A certified nursing assistant says she's owed wages for elder-care services, but a patient's granddaughter resists paying because, she says, the college basketball players she hired were lazy and unqualified.

Plaintiff/CNA Monique Gloster suing defendant/former employer Tankeika Lathan for unpaid wages.  Defendant claims the workers plaintiff hired were lazy and unqualified.  Plaintiff suing for $3,637. 

Judge Juarez asks defendant why she employed plaintiff for three months after defendant claims she saw on cameras that plaintiff wasn’t doing a good job caring for her relative?  

Defendant claims since plaintiff is a CNA, that all caregivers were to be CNAs.  Many of the caretakers were from a local college basketball team.  However, the duties weren't skilled nursing, light housekeeping, fixing meals, and not items needing a registered nurse skill.  

Defendant claims the students weren't doing the jobs required.   Defendant has no video evidence either.  

Juarez says two issues is money owed for services, second is defendant letting the caregivers into the home for three months while claiming the care was inadequate.    Corriero, as usual, takes defendant's side.   Tewolde agrees with Juarez. 

Plaintiff receives $3,637.  

“Rest in Lease”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  49

 p. 44, 21 November 2023

(I disagree with the decision.  There was no proof of the huge amount of property the landlady supposedly got rid of.  The photos didn’t show the huge amount of stuff the family claim the brother had in the boxes. It’s simply not possible for the leather jackets the familysay the brother kept in the boxes would fit.)

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

22 August

“Good Neighbors Leave Bad Stains”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  115

p. 47, 1 April 2024

"Med-Spat "

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  77

p. 45, 24 January 2024

[AngelaHunter]

On 8/21/2024 at 3:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

A certified nursing assistant says she's owed wages for elder-care services, but a patient's granddaughter resists paying because, she says, the college basketball players she hired were lazy and unqualified.

That was a head-scratcher. I certainly wouldn't want some basketball players who probably don't have the qualifications to care for even a hamster tending to my 95-year-old mother. However, it seemed Def was willing to let them give what she said was sub-standard care until she was ready to move back and take over Grandma's care herself.

[CrazyInAlabama]

23 August

“Suspicious Sale”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  116

p.47,  2 April 2024

“Dead Bugs and Spark Plugs”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  81

p. 46 under 5 February 2024 (listed in the post under the actual air date, 31 January, when PT was down).

[CrazyInAlabama]

26 August

“Roaches, Cats & Rats! Oh, My!”

New, Season 10, Episode  179

(Latisha Wong vs. Greg Zandate)       

From the show site: A tenant accuses her former landlord of failing to exterminate pests, sending only his brother with a few sticky traps; furthermore, she says he kept her deposit in bad faith; he says his brother is a licensed exterminator, and he owes her nothing.

Plaintiff/former tenant Latisha Wong suing defendant/former landlord Greg Zandate for return of deposit, return of appliances (stove and fridge) and lack of pest control.  $2990 was security deposit, rent was Section 8.   Plaintiff bought her own fridge and stove off of Offer Up, and claims defendant didn't return those to her.   She's suing for $5,000.  

Defendant claims Section 8 inspected and fridge and stove worked, but has no proof. Defendant didn't bring evidence to court, in the memorable words of Judge Judy, "where did he think he was coming to today, a tea dance?    

Plaintiff shows a video of huge roaches on the fridge.   Defendant's brother is a licensed exterminator, but claims plaintiff turned the exterminators away, and was abusive to them.   Defendant claims to have proof of the exterminator visits, but left those at home also.  

Plaintiff claims she never reported the roach issues or showed the video to the Section 8 office.   Plaintiff claims there was a rodent problem too.  

Plaintiff claims she returned the key on 2 September, but defendant claims she didn't return the key until the 10th.  She claims that she left the key in the mailbox, but it was actually on top of the door frame.   On top of the door frame is the worst place to 'hide' a key.  

Defendant offered plaintiff $1,000 to move out, but she wanted more money than that amount. 

Plaintiff is suing for double damages.    As usual Corriero takes plaintiff's side.  Defendant claims the freshly painted walls were dirty and dingy, and claims floor damages, but has no photos from move in or move out.  

Plaintiff witness Alvin Arrington is a tenant at defendant's apartment place (it's a triplex).  There were dead, chewed on rats on plaintiff's doorstep, but they were brought by cats.  

Defendant claims plaintiff owed over $1,000 in unpaid rent.   Defendant claims plaintiff tossed his working appliances.  Plaintiff left her appliances behind.   Plaintiff still had copies of apartment keys.  Defendant claims plaintiff came to the property with her spare key after she was supposed to have moved out. So, why didn't she pick up her appliances. 

Judges say defendant is a terrible landlord, but they have to figure out what to deduct from security.   No doubling of security deposit. 

Plaintiff receives $3.000.

(I thought defendant showed he's incompetent, but plaintiff showed she's a professional squatter tenant). 

“Loan to Smithereens”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  

p[JH1] . 43 , 13 November 2023

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

27 August

“Re-Repair My SUV”

New, Season 10, Episode  180

(Marcia Washington vs. Givan Bznuni)   

From the show site: A woman says a mechanic who wants more money from her is holding her SUV hostage, but she refuses to pay for repairs that she says didn't fix the problem: she brought it to him because it was shutting off while driving, and now it won't start at all.

Plaintiff / car owner Marcia Washington suing defendant/ mechanic Givan Bznuni for return of her SUV.     She claims mechanic didn’t fix the issues, and she should get every penny she paid him back, and damages, $5,000. Defendant counter suing for storage and repair for $5,000.   

Defendant claims the first repair was done, and plaintiff only brought car back over a year later, and warranty expired before plaintiff brought car back.   She claims that car broke down after first repair, but she didn't take cars back.  

Defendant says the second time, the complaint by plaintiff didn't happen at the repair shop, and she needed tires replaced, but only agreed to one tire.   Defendant claims vehicle was fixed, and can be driven, but plaintiff refuses to pick it up.   

Plaintiff says she paid $1900 for the first repair, and garage wanted $600 more, and she refuses to pay the bill.  

Car has 150,000 miles on it and Blue Book is $1500.   Car is 25 years old.  Plaintiff claims the value of the vehicle is $7,300, and she's suing for $6,000, and will only get the court maximum of $5,000. 

Tewolde finds plaintiff credible, and also defendant.   Corriero does his usual, and wants to give car back to plaintiff, and nothing to defendant.   Juarez and Tewolde want to give defendant the repair costs.   

Corriero says give plaintiff $1500, and the others agree.  Defendant gets $570 for repair work, no storage fees, and gets the wreck of a car. 

$930 to plaintiff.  

”Lost Dog Run Free”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  80

p. 46, 29 January 2024

Edited August 27 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A woman says a mechanic who wants more money from her is holding her SUV hostage

If her Mercedes, a quarter of a century old, persists in having problems (even though she says it was in perfect condition) has rotted tires, and keeps crapping out, someone must be to blame. She thinks it's worth 7K, even though the Blue Book says $1,500 - probably less in that condition -  and then there was something about not messing up her disability payments. I got distracted because my TeeVee is on its last legs (picture an old-timey horizontal hold freaking out and going at 110mph) and I missed what that has to do with this sad old hulk, but there's always some angle to be worked with these litigants.

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Corriero does his usual

Right. He wants to have the def drawn and quartered for being such a brute to the poor, innocent little lady and not giving her everything for free, I guess. He was all worked up about that in the deliberations as well. Papa Mike - Sir Galahad and Protector of Little Ladies and their As-is or Wrecked Hoopties.

At least the $930 they gave the P is a far cry from the $5K boe-nanza she was looking for.

[CrazyInAlabama]

28 August

“Ex-istential Crisis”

New, Season 10, Episode  181

(Rodney Jack Lampheare vs. Alicia Maria Gomez Acuna) 

From the show site: In their legal separation proceedings, a wife was awarded the family car, but it was repossessed when she didn't make payments, and their credit union took the husband to court.

The litigants are only separated, according to Oregon law.  Defendant filed for separation because she doesn't beleive in divorce, and has four children. 

Plaintiff/ex-husband Rodney Jack Lampheare suing defendant/ex-wife Alicia Maria Gomez Acuna over a car that was repossessed after she stopped making payments.  Defendant was awarded the car in the divorce settlement.  Now, credit union who held the note is now taking plaintiff to court over the amount owed on the car. Plaintiff says car is defendant's car, and her responsibility.  Defendant claims jusge ordered plaintiff to make payments, but also to arrange for title to be in her name.   Car in question is a Prius.    Defendant claims car was awarded to her, but plaintiff would make two months of payments.   

Car is still financed under plaintiff's name and credit, and credit union won't give defendant a loan on the car.    Loan is $206 a month.   Defendant claims poverty, even though she's working, and is using the car for her job.  Defendant only made one payment.  When car had mechanical issues, defendant stopped paying.     After several months of non payment, car was repo'd by credit union, sold, and credit union is suing plaintiff for the shortfall between sale price and remaining loan amount.   

I'm guessing Corriero will support the defendant, and trash the plaintiff.   Juarez and Tewolde point out plaintiff was paying defendant a lot more support than the laon amount, but she didn't pay the loan. 

Credit Union wants $3,600 for the short fall.  

Juarez says court records don't show anything about loan or title.   Final paperwork says defendant is responsible for car and loan. 

Plaintiff receives $3,600.    

“Cancelñera”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  

p. 44, 20 November 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

29 August

“Gold Wedding”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  67

p.  45, 8 January 2024

 

“Forging Ahead”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  2

p. 47, 16 April 2024

 

30 August

30 August

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

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  118

p. 47, 4 April 2024

 

"Bad to the Bone"

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  54

p. 44, 4 December 2023

 

Programming note: Starting 9 September, Hot Bench is still supposed to air, but at the same time on NBC they're showing Judge Milian's new show daily, and Judy Justice on Fox, right before their usual 2 hours of JJ reruns.   

Edited August 30 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I tried to watch yesterday. The blurb sounded promising: "When a businessman goes away and leaves a power of attorney with...."

Well, it turns out the "businessman" didn't go on an urgent business trip, but to - yes - JAIL.

JT (I think it was her) says to him, "You went to jail for a while?" as though this is a perfectly normal occurrence, and committing crimes, being wrangled and locked up is a natural ho-hum part of life.  I recall one on Judge Judy, when asked if he'd ever been arrested replied, "Yeah. Sure. Of course, I've been arrested," with a shrug and an expression that said the question was dumb. Like, who hasn't been arrested? They're so casual about it, just like I might ask  a friend, "You were on vacation for a while?"

No matter how often I hear this, I never get used to it. The very thought of being arrested and going to jail would fill me with terror and shame but I guess doing tours of duty in the slammer really IS part of life for them.

I gave up there.

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 Sept

“Breast Side Story”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  29

p. 38, 1 May 2023

“Look at Our Window!”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  52

p. 44, 28 November 2023

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 Sept

“Path of Lease Resistance”

New, Season 10, Episode  182

(Danisha Wallace vs.  Taylor Denny )  

From the show site:  A salon owner subleased her space to an esthetician who she says moved out without proper notice; the esthetician says she was forced to leave because the lack of air conditioning was bad for her health condition.

Plaintiff/salon owner Danisha Wallace suing defendant/subleasor Taylor Denny for moving without giving proper notice.  Defendant says lack of air conditioning endangered her health so she moved, and owes nothing.   Plaintiff suing for $1,584, for unpaid rent, late fees and lease breaking fees, $600.  

Defendant says she offered to pay some of the rent, but plaintiff declined and decided to sue.  Defendant's ad looking for space said needs air conditioning.   It has to be 68 to 72 degrees for eyelash glue.  Plaintiff runs a salon next to the rental space for defendant, and plaintiff says air conditioning is fine in both spaces.    

Defendant moved out months early, and after she found another space to rent and moved there.  Judge J asks defendant how she could post a video telling her clients she's moving, the day before the next landlord rented the space to her. 

Defendant shows a video of the multiple issues she had with the space, but plaintiff notes that was on move in, and defendant was there for months. The move-in issues look rather minor and easy to fix for me.  Corriero brings up the lease agreement, and the AC issue, and it didn't, and defendant didn't have that put in.  

Corriero won't allow the $600 lease breaking fee, because he says that's coved by the unpaid rent. 

Juarez agrees that plaintiff showed that defendant is a serial lease breaker. 

Plaintiff gets $600 one months rent plus one late fee $40.  Total of $640. 

“To Bead, or Not to Bead”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  53

p. 44, 29 November 2023

(Next Monday Season 11 starts). 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 Sept

“Not So Great Ex-Pectations”

New, Season 10, Episode  183

( Michael McCoy vs. Ellianna DeGuzman )     

From the show site:   The judges contend with one of the most argumentative litigants ever in a case about money allegedly stolen by his ex-girlfriend. He claims she admitted to owing him money and doesn't see what his in-court behavior has to do with his case; but her defense is that she was terrified and only agreed to repay him under duress. So, his behavior has everything to do with it.

Plaintiff/ex boyfriend Michael McCoy suing defendant / ex girlfriend Ellianna DeGuzman for money she stole from him through raiding a joint account, and unauthorized charges on his credit card.   He claims she admitted the theft, and that she stole the money.   Defendant says plaintiff threatened her, and she only agreed to the theft and repayment under duress.   So, plaintiff's in court demeanor is relevant to the case.   Judge J and Judge C both reprimand palintiff for his behavior.  Plaintiff claims to be an attorney. 

Defendant claims plaintiff beat and abused her.   

Plaintiff suing for $5,000

Plaintiffif witness Paris Roark is testifying about defendant stealing plaintiff's property and money.  Paris Roark is plaintiff's personal assistant, and business manager.  I believe everything defendant says, and nothing plaintiff and his witness say.   Tewolde brings up that there is an email from plaintiff to defendant demanding access to her therapist. 

Corriero goes full enraged gerbil on plaintiff. Tewolde yells at plaintiff for contacting defendant's employer claiming she's a thief and scammer. All three judges show they hate the plaintiff as much as I do.  Corriero has zero sympathy for plaintiff which is a nice change.  Tewolde doesn't believe anything plaintiff says.   

When Judge Tewolde reprimands plaintiff, he toss his paperwork into the air and exits stage right from the plaintiff table.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

 

“Load of Raging Bull”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  3

p. 41, 13 September 2023

[DoctorK]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

When Judge Tewolde reprimands plaintiff, he toss his paperwork into the air and exits stage right from the plaintiff table.

This asshole was the worst behaving litigant I have ever seen on a court show. From the beginning he came to court dressed as a pimp, not a lawyer. He also acted, based on his abnormally fast talking and his unwillingness to control his temper, as if he was high on cocaine or speed, and had absolutely no self control. I agree with the judge who told the plaintiff that the judge didn't believe that he actually was a practicing attorney. I can't imagine him in a courtroom without him spending more time in jail on contempt charges than in court as a lawyer. I don't watch Hot Bench as regularly as I used to but I am glad I saw this episode.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 Sept

“Wheel of Misfortune”

New, Season 10, Episode  184

(Thalia Batista and Tayler Graham vs.  Oleva Danyleyvych Uviova)     

From the show site: A man is involved in a crash while he is taking his driving test in his girlfriend's car; she sues the other driver for damages, but the judges want to test the boyfriend's knowledge of road rules.

Plaintiff / car owner Thalia Batista suing defendant/other car driver and owner Oleva Danylevych Uviova for car damages.  Plaintiff boyfriend Tayler Graham was driving car belonging to plaintiff for his driving test, when defendant hit his car.   Judges grill Tayler on his knowledge of road rules.   Defendant has a translator Gene Michael, who says plaintiff hit defendant's car.   

Plaintiff driver was in his driving test, the accident happened.  DMV examiner took control of the accident scene, and then Gene showed up causing a ruckus at the accident scene.   

Defendant witness Eugene Michael, translates that defendant stopped at stop sign, and took her turn, and claims plaintiff car hit her.    Eugene Michael was in front of Oleva, and claims he saw the entire accident, which Judge Juarez says is a crock of bull pucky.    Plaintiff was twice as far into the intersection as defendant was, so it was obviously plaintiff's right of way, and defendant's fault.     

Plaintiff driver says defendant driver ran the stop sign. Gene claims plaintiff Batista threatened to sue defendants. 

Plaintiff says the insurance covering plaintiff was denied, because defendants dropped coverage before the accident. Plaintiff wanted $7,000 because it's the value of her car, because it was totaled.   Car was worth $5,000, plus lost wages.  Plaintiff has insurance, defendant doesn't have coverage. (Defendant and witness are just friends).

Plaintiff is not at fault, defendant was.  Even Corriero agrees the defendant was at fault. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

“Mind Your Own Canna-business"

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  90

p. 46, 14 February 2024

[DoctorK]

Great write up Crazy. I was impressed that all three judges saw through the defendant's dishonest testimony; I am sure the Eugene coached her in what lies to tell. Defendants were clearly bald faced liars in claiming that they had filed a claim with the plaintiff's insurance company (in addition to lying about almost everything else). I wish the judges had yelled at the defendants over driving their car with no insurance instead of just letting that slide by.

P.S. I got a chuckle out of Corriero asking the new driver a right-of-way question and the plaintiff got it wrong.

Edited September 5 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/4/2024 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Corriero goes full enraged gerbil on plaintiff. 

I see it's time for me to catch up.

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 Sept

“I Don’t Give a Deposit”

New, Season 10, Episode 

(Elisa Sacco vs.  Robert Behic)     

From the show site:  An ex-tenant sues for double her security deposit because the landlord returned it seven days late and made deductions for cleaning; he says she moved out without proper notice and had unauthorized chickens in the backyard.

Plaintiff / former tenant Elisa Sacco suing defendant / former landlord Robert Behic for double her security deposit back, $4800.  Defendant landlord returned deposit seven days late, and deducted for cleaning.  Defendant says plaintiff moved without required notice, and also had unauthorized chickens in the back yard. 

Plaintiff and her adult child and boyfriend moved into the house, stayed several years, Rent was $3500 at the beginning.   She claims bad paint on the interior walls, missing screens.  However, defendant has a signed move in document talking about the screens, with a signed document from plaintiff acknowleging screens were replaced.   Landlord allowed big dogs, and as always plaintiff claims she had three big dogs, and that one was the 'service' dog. 

Defendant inherited the house, gutted interior to the studs, but admits outside wasn't updated.   Plaintiff moved when rent went from $3500 to $4500, and it would have been her adult children renting there.  Plaintiff claims defendant wanted to do roof and solar panels, but defendant needed her signature on the electric solar panel install and plaintiff signed, irrelevant to the case.  

Plaintiff also says defendant agreed she could move out on short notice, but he denies that.   Then, there is the matter of chickens which were not allowed in the lease, so plaintiff cites the right to farm statutes, and tries to school the judges about the law.   I'm absolutely disliking the plaintiff and her irrelvant excuses for everything. 

Defendant did allow plaintiff to break the lease.  Plaintiff moved with a few days notice.  Landlord (property manager son) allowed them to move out at short notice and with 30 days notice, but not charge an additional lease breaking fee.   

Plaintff's fiance Tim Sullivan, complains there were no locks on plaintiff's bedroom door when they moved in.  Even I can get a couple of bedroom locks and install them myself, so what was her excuse, or the fiance?   We're talking $20 tops. 

Plaintiff painted a mural in the son's bedroom, but did not paint over it, so $200 for repainting.  Window blinds missing, cost $303. Missing screens.  

Plaintiff says chickens were fine, and landlord weren't allowed, and plaintiff left a huge amount of dog poop behind too.  Also, yard was 2 to 3 feet tall with weeds, on move out, and full of dog poop. Also, lease says professional cleaning paid for by plaintiff on move out, and she failed to do that. 

On move out, piles of donation stuff was left on the driveway, and charity declined to pick it up, so defendant had to pay to have it hauled away. There is also water stain damages to the front of the home from a water feature plaintiff had. 

Plaintiff cites California law on 21 days to report the damages and return security deposit, but defendant did that after all of plaintiff's property was out of the house and yard.   Judge Juarez loses her temper with plaintiff trying to tell the judges about the law, and plaintiff's losing case is done.  

All of the judges cite plaintiff left without notice, and he gave the deposit back with a detailed list of damages. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (Plaintiff takes the loss about as well as I expected, like a spoiled brat).   

“Buh-LOAN-nee”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  85

p. 46, 6 February 2024

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

All of the judges cite plaintiff left without notice, and he gave the deposit back with a detailed list of damages. 

I was relieved that the judges used some common sense in this case (even Corriero!). I disliked the plaintiff but I hated her boyfriend with his histrionic miming about the terrible efforts he had put out to open the windows without breaking the blinds, what a jerk. I was also annoyed with the plaintiff pooh-poohing the problems with having chickens in the back yard - I have been on poultry farms on occasion and anything more than maybe one or two pet chickens makes a nasty smelly mess.  Also, letting the weeds grow as high as the plaintiffs complained about? Why did they let those weeds grow? Did the lease say the the defendant was responsible for lawn maintenance? The plaintiffs were jerks, so obviously that not even Corriero sided with them.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Two news cases this week where Corriero actually made sense, and yelled at the out of control litigants, and I love it.    

Monday is the start of Season 11.   

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/5/2024 at 5:35 PM, DoctorK said:

I got a chuckle out of Corriero asking the new driver a right-of-way question and the plaintiff got it wrong.

Just saw this! The deathly pale Goth lad admits he drove for years with no license (and says it in an "Aw, shucks! Aren't I cute?" way. NO. Not cute.) and claims he passed the test "With flying colours" but STILL doesn't know who has the right of way at a 4-way stop. Nicely played, Papa but you were too nice to the Goth.

I think it was pretty bad for Def to have a translator who had a stake in the game. He could tell the judges whatever he wanted and no one could dispute it.

On 9/6/2024 at 8:56 PM, DoctorK said:

I was also annoyed with the plaintiff pooh-poohing the problems with having chickens in the back yard

For some unknown reason, my town decided that people should be allowed to have chickens in their yards (WHY?) and stipulated it must be no more than 5 and NO ROOSTERS. My neighbour immediately runs out and gets a dozen hens and a rooster.

Yes, we have big, wooded lots averaging 1/2 acre but we are not rural. All summer we heard the rooster crowing constantly all day. I finally got to talk to the guy - no, I didn't egg his house, bust his windshield, or pull a gun on him - and nicely said that people who work every day might not appreciate a rooster crowing at 6 a.m. on the weekends. He did remedy the situation although he still has the hens.

But yeah, I couldn't stand the plaintiff and her idiotic man.

On 9/6/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Judge Juarez loses her temper with plaintiff trying to tell the judges about the law

Ooh, she hated that plaintiff! I enjoyed that.

And then I watched two business tycoons of the type normally seen here. P claims "The only thing Grandpa had left me and that was some weed (plants)".  Touched my heart, thinking of my own dear grandfather who left me his Mary Jane. Oh, right. He didn't. Seems her heartwarming tale was a lie, according to def. 

P. has kids so doesn't want "no interaction with people" when selling her product, weed butter, and the like. She applied for a license to grow and sell the weed, but she "didn't hear nothing back" so I assume she took that silence as tacit permission.

She hooks up with Def. "Meoshae" to be her salesperson? Meoshae was in the weed business before and definitely has a license which would prove her case, but unhappily she didn't bother bringing it. It seems she funds her business with food stamps. Are they negotiable currency? They seem to be on court shows, but I have no idea. I think Def may have used them to barter for that wig.

Why was the business called "Royal (something or other)"? P says it was because she wants people to "feel like royalty" as they scarf up the weed brownies and butter. Def says purple is her favorite colour and purple means royalty!

Their business correspondence includes things like "LOL" and "SMH."  There's a purloined skillet involved and a $50 loan. Even Papa Mike, who usually is sent into raptures over women in business has no patience for these two clowns. They both go to church, of course, which hasn't stopped them from lying and cheating.  For some reason, the judges decide to give P $1500 even though she sells this stuff without a license.

[AngelaHunter]

Wow.  Forget about weed brownies, missing skillets, chicken shit, and vampire-pale Goths who can't drive! 

On 9/4/2024 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

The judges contend with one of the most argumentative litigants ever in a case about money allegedly stolen by his ex-girlfriend.

"Argumentative" is a vast understatement. We've seen argumentative litigants and they weren't this. I think they meant,  "Volatile, raging, hate-filled, abusive lunatic with no self-control". A lawyer? How can this be?  We've certainly seen the worst lawyers in the world on court shows, but this is a whole new level.🤯

For the first time, I believed a claim of "duress", which usually consists of, e.g. "He/she asked me four times to pay the rent I owed".

I don't know what kind of lawyer he is, but I can imagine him being reprimanded by a judge for his insane behavior, throwing a hissy fit, and storming out of a courtroom, as he did here.  I hope he doesn't appear in court with that get-up he had on in this case.

Was that his "personal assistant" in the hoodie sweatsuit, or was she his caretaker? If the latter, I think she missed giving him a dose of whatever meds he needs.

I'm glad the def. is living with her mother. I suggest she stay there until she gets better judgment, as I refuse to believe there were no signs that Mr. McCoy was a vindictive, threatening maniac before she moved in with him. and learns NEVER to add anyone to her bank account or have a joint account with them.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 September Season 11 Premiere

“Little Pink House” (Part 1, Part 2 is on tomorrow)

New, Season 11, Episode  1

(Starla Ehrenfeld vs. Terry Applebee)       

From the show site: A woman sues her uncle, saying he evicted her from his land, then blocked in her RV with boulders and logs. The whole town has been gossiping about their feud.   Tune in tomorrow to see uncle #2 take the stand.

Plaintiff niece Starla Ehrenfeld suing defendant/uncle #1 Terry Applebee or illegal eviction, harassment.   (On tomorrow's show, she's suing uncle #2) .  Suing for $5,000 for destroying and disposing of an RV.  Defendant counter suing for $5,000 for abandoned property.  

Defendant placed huge logs, and boulders to prevent niece from moving her butt ugly, very old pink RV.    Plaintiff put the RV on the property she thought belonged to her father.    However, defendant had a survey when he bought property from plaintiff's father, he did a survey to resell, and found RV was actually over the property line.  Defendant did a legal eviction, and won, so he served eviction papers, won in court, and abandoned cars belonging to plaintiff were towed off by the sheriff.   Uncle then placed the logs and boulders on his property, and moved log so Starla could move have her wreck of an RV towed off by an excavator.  

Uncle says niece had huge drug and alcohol fueled parties, involved in drugs, and property was restricted to parking on the lot, not living there.  Starla received an emergency stay to let her on the property, and that's when uncle dragged her RV off of his property, before he was served with the stay of the eviction.  

Uncle spray painted graffiti on the back of the RV, but Starla covered the RV with paint first (DoctorK apparently paid more attention than I did.   Starla painted defamatory graffiti on the RV about uncles and tow company, and uncle wrote graffiti against Starla over it.).   RV was going to the junkyard.  Also, Starla claims uncle got rid of her tool lockers.    Starla's father, who lives next door, claims the easement RV was on

--------------------------------

Beginning of Case 2 Starla Ehrenfeld suing  defendant uncle #2 Randy Riley for property damages.   

Plaintiff niece Starly Ehrenfeld suing defendant/uncle #2 Randy Riley for theft and property damages.   

Uncle says he didn’t damage her property, but only one camera on Terry’s property, that was tracking him on and off his own property.   Table plaintiff claims uncle stole, was claimed to be $1400, but uncle says table was placed where Starla could take it.    Video will be shown tomorrow. 

“Jewel Citizenship”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 124

p. 47, 15 April 2024

Edited September 10 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Uncle spray painted graffitti on the back of the RV, but Starla covered the RV with paint first. 

Just to clarify a bit (unless I completely garbled the testimony), Starla spray painted graffitti on the RV that insulted and defamed the defendant and a towing company, at least one of which one of the judges called defamatory. Defendant then painted over Starla's graffitti to cover it so that as the hunk of junk was going to be towed away everybody in the area wouldn't see the insulting (and possibly slanderous) messages, causing embarrassment and perhaps reputation damage.

What I just don't get is how all of these people (all of whom are intensely unlikable) have put so much time and energy into the totally useless RV that I doubt that even a scrap yard would take unless the litigants paid the yard to take it. The plaintiff's nebulous plan to convert the RV into a food truck is ridiculous daydreaming. For that matter, the cost of all the spray paint used by all of the litigants was probably more than the value of the RV.

This group was so pitiful that I think I absolutely have to watch part two tomorrow. As AngelaHunter might say, these people make me appreciate the friends that I have and my lack of any living relatives.

Edited September 9 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Jewel Citizenship”

I just saw this. Holy crap. Plaintiff, inappropriately dressed, sounding like a bubbly little girl, and looking like a freaky Tim Burton character, giggles and smiles as she relates how she went to jail for a month after attacking her little boyfriend. The brute must have unleashed some savage beating on him to spend a month in the slammer.😨 Something is not right in her noggin.

Seems she had towering tall black boots with 1ft tall heels that she left in the trailer. Momma helpfully adds that def. b/f wore them at a Halloween party where he went as a woman and her darling daughter as a man. Makes sense.

P reports that D got a restraining order against her and seems offended by that after she went at him like an enraged bear. She's scary and the little guy no doubt fears for his life.

I don't give a damn what happened to her junk and had to quit this.  I felt like JT, and the P's idiotic, insane rambling made me dizzy.

48 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

As AngelaHunter might say, these people make me appreciate the friends that I have and my lack of any living relatives.

Thank you! I have a few relatives, but as yet they haven't brutally attacked me at a funeral parlour, pulled a knife/gun on me, or destroyed my property. I shouldn't get all "high and mighty" and speak too soon. After all, the week has just begun!😏

[AngelaHunter]

How I go on... anyway, I watched the rest of the Insane Clown vs the mopey little boyfriend.

Judge T and Judge J were all, "Nothing for her!" but of course, Judge Papa wanted to give her something, "maybe $1000", just because she's a little lady and for no other reason. JT reminded him of her arrest for domestic violence and that she had zero proof of anything, including an ear pod.

After getting a smackdown from those two, Papa sadly and reluctantly concludes, "We have to follow the law" as much as it pained him to do so when damsels in distress are concerned.

I dunno. We've seen many freak shows and violent loonies, but there was something about her - aside from the fright wig and clown eye makeup - that really disturbed me. I hope the b/f got an alarm system and a shotgun.

 

 

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

10 September

“Crumblin’ Down” (Part 2, Part 1 was Little Pink House on yesterday’s show)

New, Season 11, Episode 2

(Starla Ehrenfeld vs. Randy Riley)

From the show site: Yesterday's tale continues with the plaintiff's second lawsuit against a different uncle. The judges are appalled by the family's fight caught on video. But will it help them determine who's responsible for the alleged theft and property damage?

Plaintiff niece Starly Ehrenfeld suing defendant/uncle #2 Randy Riley for theft and property damages. Suing for $2400.  As usual, defendant counter suing for $5,000.

Uncle says he did damage her property, but only one camera on Terry’s property, that was tracking him on and off his own property.   Table plaintiff claims uncle stole, was claimed to be $1400, but uncle says table was placed where Starla could take it, and she painted graffitti on the table too.    Video will be shown on case continuation today. 

Today’s sordid continuation-

(All of this started because the port authority that owns and leases the property wanted the leased property rules of parking only enforced. )

Starla shows a video that shows everyone behaving badly, especially Starla.  Judge Tewolde is totally disgusted by the video.   Illegal pallett fence is removed by defendant Randy, and video shows plaintiff's husband Bryan attacking the person filming the video.   

Defendant had to pay $600 to get rid of Starla's illegal pallet fence, and he wants that back, and $240 in lost wages to spend time removing the trash and pallet fence from the property.    Andrea Singleton is plaintiff witness, (she's another relative) and she claims Randy assaulted her.   

Corriero is upset about the family conflict.   Riley has a restraining order against Starla and the rest of her posse.  

As usual, Starla claims her previous phone was destroyed, so texts are gone.  

How can Corriero call that shell of an RV Starla's home?  It was illegally on the property, it's a shell of an RV. 

(I wouldn't give anyone a penny.   I believe the defendants). Corriero actually says letter on eviction was to contact them to move her property and the RV.   However, RV was moved right after eviction granted, and after stay was lifted.  

Decision in case #1 is plaintiff receives $5,000, defendant receives $5,000 which cancel each other out and nothing to anyone.  Plaintiff proved no damages. 

Decision in case #2 is $0 to plaintiff, case not proven, defendant $0 no proof, so no money to anyone

(After the verdict Corriero counsels the family to get back together.   He's as delusional as Starla.)

 

“Portal Combat”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 128

p. 47, 22 April 2024

Edited September 10 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Portal Combat”

I missed this the first time around. I just have to comment on what a lying, sneaky hustler Ms. Hastings was.

Yes, she paid the landlord through this portal but the payment didn't go through. She has no idea why. On further questioning she does admit it returned as "Insufficient funds" but claims she had sufficient funds! She shows a picture of a cheque, so she's paid up! Oops, it's unsigned. Oh, well. She shrugs. I don't get it. I often send photos of my unsigned cheques to prove I paid my bills. I have a feeling this is Ms Hastings's modus operandi to squat, not pay, get kicked out, and start again somewhere else.

Then she brings some some druggie to squat with her. I know P shouldn't have locked her out, but really, I feel her safety may have been jeopardized. Ms. Hastings is either twitching for a reason or thinks it looks cute. That pink tat(?) on her throat looked like ringworm, dermatitis, or a big ol' hickey. I hope P will be more careful in the future about who she invites to live with her. I didn't finish this.

[CrazyInAlabama]

11 September

“Mold’N Girls”

New, Season 11, Episode 3

(Kristina Flournoy vs. Havy Hoag)

From the show site: A renter claims her friend and landlady neglected to address household mold issues, which led to her COPD diagnosis. She apologized for calling her a "demon," but she demands compensation for alleged overcharged rent. Did the landlady do everything in her power to make the premises safe?

Plaintiff / former tenant Kristina Flournoy suing defendant / former landlady Havy Hoag for neglecting the apartment repairs, causing mold and leading to COPD.     Plaintiff claims shower leak was shooting water straight out through the wall. 

Plaintiff suing for $5,000, for return of rent, and other damages.   Plaintiff moved in with her daughter and several grandchildren, all with Section 8.    That requires annual inspections from Section 8.    Plaintiff actually took her daughter's income off the Section 8 income records, to reduce plaintiff's contribution to rent.    Don't you have to have all adults on the lease records for Section 8?  

Defendant claiming $5,000 for damages.  Defendant claims plaintiff paid in cash but never the full amount, after the first year.   Why didn't defendant keep a ledger of payments, and give receipts.  

Defendant says after plaintiff notified her about  the crack in the bathroom wall, she we was there the next day.   Howver she says the problems with the shower were caused by mistreatment by plaintiff and daughter.   This is when plaintiff claims the shower pipe busted out the wall and was shooting water out.   Plaintiff claims that the shower had mold issues from 2021 when the shower pipe broke, until she moved out.  

(Personal rant-If you're a landlord, run it like a business.  Give receipts, no sob stories, no breaks for anyone, and keep records of payments and repairs. When someone cheats on the payments, evict them. ). 

If both sides say there were annual Section 8 inspections, then how did the mold problem and other issues not get detected, and reported?   Also, on move out, Section 8 inspects again, so how did the rental pass again?   I'm not believing anything the plaintiff says.

Oded Heinrich is defendant's contractor, and testifies about remediation for the mold, and other repairs.   

Judge Juarez hates that there aren't receipts for a lot of what anyone claims. Shocking, but Corriero says defendant claims the plaintiff never paid the amount owed anyway.    Also, they're wrong, HOA fees are rolled into the rent price with every landlord I know, but not stated as that but just part of the rent, as part of the landlord's cost of renting.  

Judge Juarez believes the plaintiff of $105 a month for one year overpayments. 

Corriero wants to give plaintiff $2000, security.  

Plaintiff gets $3,000. 

“Rentally Incapable”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  127

p. 47, 18 April 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

12 September

“Lease Adden-dumb”

New, Season 11, Episode 4

(Jared Massie vs. Janice Randolph)   

From the show site: A renter claims that her subletter was up to "demonic" activity, citing souvenir masks from his world travels which he kept in his room. Was he really trying to "freak her out"? He just wants his deposit back, and he's had a hell of a time communicating with her.

Plaintiff/subletter Jared Massie suing for return of his security deposit from defendant/renter Janice Randolph he was leasing from.   Defendant claims defendant had demonic masks, and was doing evil things.  Plaintiff is suing for his $1900 security, and double $3800, for damages in not returning the deposit.  Defendant is suing plaintiff for $5,000 because of various claims.  Plaintiff had to follow bizarre rules from defendant about eating, cleaning, and other bizarre rules. 

Defendant never gave an itemized list of damages, and waited 30 days to even communicate with plaintiff.   Defendant claims plaintiff had voodoo dolls, and masks, and calls him a demon and satanic person.   Defendant asked plaintiff to move out 10 days after he moved in.   

Even Corriero can’t side with defendant, and her bizarre claims against the plaintiff.  The other two judges are appalled at defendant and her charges.  Judge Juarez tells defendant to say the three craziest things the plaintiff did, and all sound ridiculous. 

Plaintiff moved out 8 months ago, and defendant never did an itemized list. Corriero tries to limit the damages to plaintiff to $2500, and the other two judges look at him as if he's as bizarro as the defendant. 

Plaintiff receives $3800.  

Defendant's strange claims dismissed. 

 

“Moving Without a Hitch”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 131  

p. 47, 25 April 2024

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Jared Massie vs. Janice Randolph)   

Omg, that poor woman! I, as a Christian, certainly wouldn't want a satanic monster from hell living in my house. He learned voodoo in Haiti and had demonic objects and voodoo dolls hanging around his room.😲 True, they may have looked like harmless little plastic souvenirs from his travels,  but trust me - look them up and you'll see their use in Satanic rituals! Especially that green one. *shiver*

He booby-trapped the washing machine with razor blades! He walked on the stairs at night! He didn't put his toothbrush in the right place! The reign of terror goes on: "The roommate's timeline of horrors - he left water spilled on a desk." 😱

It's all more than any human should be expected to tolerate. Okay, the woman is a complete lunatic who should not have anyone living with her. Or near her.

I hoped the judges would give P treble damages, but double is okay. Papa disliked seeming punitive to a little lady, no matter how much of a psycho she was, so said $2500. Judge T wants to know where the hell he pulled that number from. 😆

P certainly deserved the $3800. She didn't send him an itemized list of damages in eight months because he kept harassing her for his deposit. Makes sense.

In the hall, she said she wished he was "really gone." Wow. That's not very Christian at all.

This blurring out of middle fingers is so dumb and ridiculous.

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 September

“Updo No Good”

New, Season 11, Episode 5

(Dalshone Railback vs. Robyn Burns )

From the show site: A woman treated herself to a new hair style for the first time in years and was devastated when her hair started falling out. The stylist claims she didn't follow aftercare instructions for the chemical relaxer. Both parties are anything but relaxed; they're each suing for emotional distress.

Plaintiff Dalshone Railback suing defendant/hair stylist Robyn Burns for a chemical relaxer service that plaintiff claims made her hair fall out.     Defendant stylist says plaintiff didn’t follow the aftercare instructions, and caused her own hair loss.  Both sides are suing for emotional distress, plaintiff suing for $5,000 for return of payment for services and emotional distress.   Defendant also suing for $5,000 for emotional distress and defamation.

Plaintiff was traveling, searched the nearest salon which was the defendant's salon.   Even though plaintiff's hair was short, she claims it was the first time she had been to a salon in years.    Defendant says plaintiff wanted extensions, which required a relaxer.  Defendant did the relaxer, and extensions, which were applied with a foam solution, sealand on top of a cap that makes a shell, and extensions were glued to the cap and didn't touch the scalp, just the cap.  

Plaintiff claims she wanted natural hair, and didn't ask for extensions.   Plaintiff also admits she has suffered from traction alopecia, and claims she never asked for the cap, sealer or weave or extensions.    Plaintiff paid in full, was told the rules for the weave, and claims she followed them

Defendant says plaintiff was told how long the weave lasts for, and when plaintiff came back defendant says the extensions were still firmly attached and plaintiff had no complaints.

However, plaintiff shows a picture of her bald scalp after what she claims is washing her hair for the first time.  So, how did she have extensions in place for the follow up appointment?  

Defendant says plaintiff came back, weave and cap was removed, and defendant wanted extensions and a ponytail, and had more extensions and was claimed she was happy.   Defendant sold defendant products to wash her hair at home.   

I find it unbelievable that plaintiff claims she didn't see anything but the front of her hair, and never saw the top and back of her head.   Plaintiff claims she was bald after the first hair wash, but yet defendant says there were extensions in when plaintiff came back to the shop.  

Defendant says plaintiff came in with a bag of hair, after she removed her extensions, and demanded a full refund, and blamed the defendant for her baldness. 

Ashley Simmons is plaintiff's niece and hairdresser, and claims defendant made her aunt bald. 

Tewolde makes a lame joke, but says if the cap that was used covered the entire scalp, then the entire scalp would be hairless.   I agree with Tewolde.  Why is Corriero even discussing this case?  

Juarez and Corriero give $5,000 to plaintiff, Tewolde reluctantly agrees in spite of her logical counterpoint to the plaintiff's claims, and dismiss defendant's case. 

(My view, plaintiff has traction alopecia, agreed to the procedures, and paid for it.   I don't see how she can sue for anything.  I believe nothing the plaintiff says. I refuse to believe plaintiff hasn't been to a salon in years.   I think plaintiff's case should be dismissed, and defendant should get her $5,000 for the hit to her professional reputation)

“Damn! She Abandoned the Van”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  121

p. 47, 10 April 2024

Edited September 13 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My view, plaintiff has traction alopecia, agreed to the procedures, and paid for it.   I don't see how she can sue for anything.  I believe nothing the plaintiff says. I refuse to believe plaintiff hasn't been to a salon in years.   I think plaintiff's case should be dismissed, and defendant should get her $5,000 for the hit to her professional reputation)

I generally agree with you on this but the number of cases we see of predominantly black women with these kinds of problems are common. I have seen several articles about class action suits against the sellers  of many of the chemical products (like straighteners) based on the long term damage these products apparently cause over time, and the worst of the chemicals are marketed to black women (not that other women can not be deeply invested in their hair). I am grateful that I am an old guy and men mostly don't seem to be as invested in their hair as women. For the record, my receding hair line and my bald spot are approaching each other. I am not thrilled about this, but it just isn't that important to me. One of the few advantages of getting old is that it is easier to not give a damn about minor things that might have been important to me when I was younger.

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/12/2024 at 3:25 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Moving Without a Hitch”

I had to rewatch that, just so I could enjoy hating that hag all over again, and watching how the judges despised her. Well, okay - Papa didn't hate her of course - she's female - but even he couldn't side with her outrageous demands. Seriously, I wouldn't let that vile woman camp out on my driveway, never mind allowing her to park her carcass on my sofa. She's right up there with the vile, pink-haired Andrea Somethingorother in the top worst litigants list.

I just hope all her junk in the trailer she demolished was ruined.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, Moving Without a Hitch was an amazing episode, just for the ingratitude of the woman who wrecked the trailer.   

I still think the traction alopecia woman had the sparse hair forever, and the cap to put the extensions/weave in was the only way to give her the hairstyle she wanted.    That's why the defendant had to do that cap onto the relaxed hair, and the weave stayed with the extension on it for over a month, and looked fine at the follow up appointment.     The woman had a severe problem, and I bet she's had it for a lot of years.   I find it unbelieveable that she hadn't been to a salon for many years before picking the defendant's salon at random out of an online listing.    If plaintiff's niece was a hairdresser, then why didn't plaintiff call her for a recommendation?   

[CrazyInAlabama]

16 September

“One Flight Stand”

New, Season 11, Episode 6

(Thiago Oliveira vs. Blake Purdy )      

From the show site: After a plane crash at a flight school made the local news, a student who had paid in full wants his money back, but a strict policy says refunds will only be given under extenuating medical circumstances.

Plaintiff/prospective flight student Thiago Oliveira suing defendant/flight school operator Blake Purdy because after a plane crash on the news, plaintiff decided flying was dangerous, and wants his full training fees back.    Strict policy of flight school is no refunds without a medical reason.  Plaintiff suing for $4,000 plus (plaintiff paid $12,000 total). 

Plaintiff claims hearing about the plane crash made him afraid to fly, and he claims that's enough to give him a refund.   Defendant has given partial refunds to student who withdrew for medical reasons, for the flight training they haven't completed, but not plaintiff. 

(I worked where they trained pilots, anyone who didn't know aircraft crash is lying.  If you were afraid to fly, you withdrew or were washing out.  I wouldn't give plaintiff a penny back.)

Plaintiff said no refund and he would write a bad review, and if he got the full amount he requested back, then he would write a good review.  Sounds like extortion to me.   

Defendant is right sometimes aircraft crash, sometimes the instructor dies, and sometimes the student dies, it's just how flying works.     

Judge Juarez doesn't understand anything about the reality of flying, instruction, students, and plane crashes.  She seems to be confusing the flight school with refunds from a department store.   

Plaintiff also claims he never received a copy of the contract, and doesn't remember signing it.    Convenient memory loss. 

I find the plaintiff's claim of giving a good review in trade for a refund to be despicable, and extortion.  Judge Tewolde understands the contact, even Corriero does, but Juarez doesn't.   

Plaintiff gets $3200 back.    

“Boom Crash the Sound of My Car”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  122

p. 47, 11 April 2024