Hot Bench - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims hearing about the plane crash made him afraid to fly, and he claims that's enough to give him a refund.

I disliked the plaintiff. OK, he is freaked out by the fatal accident and decides that he is too frightened to continue flight training. Then go ahead and bail out (no pun intended) from the program but he is still bound by the refund policies that he signed up for. There was some discussion from the defendant that sounded like the plaintiff was getting spotty on the training course before the crash happened (that went by pretty fast) and the plaintiff may have already decided to drop out earlier. The plaintiff lost me for sure when he said that he didn't "remember" signing the contract. Learning to fly is potentially dangerous (so is learning to drive a car). I don't think the plaintiff would work out as a pilot; how would he handle an emergency when he was piloting? Get on his phone and sue somebody?

I agree with our friend crazy that Juarez doesn't understand high cost, potentially dangerous, specialized and highly demanding training processes.

Edited September 16 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Boom Crash the Sound of My Car”

I'm the archives here, but these two were so shady! Def. who seems to have started drinking at 10:00 a.m. was driving no faster than 20 or maybe 35mph, yet hit P's car so hard that both were totaled. The mysterious red car that hit her was nowhere to be found.

Was she fighting with the cops? I think so. She was not arrested! She was merely put in handcuffs and tossed in the back of a cop car.

Slacker P was hilarious. His 17-year-old Chrysler was, like, worth way more than the book value because he had done... things to it.  Def's ins pays him 5k, but that's not enough. He lost his part-time, minimum-wage job at the drug store but first, he, like, took Ubers there and home every day, which cost him, like, $300 $600, nay - $800! He tried to walk there or maybe even take a bus, but then he realized there was no point trying to get there on time, so he said to hell with it and stopped going. *shrug* I mean, like - a bus? I don't think so!

I loved how in the deliberations, Judge T was rightfully outraged at the other two wanting to give the P $300 for the Ubers, just because. He had not a single shred of evidence that he ever took an Uber. He got his tow and impound fees - $600, not the 5K lottery he was gunning for.

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I find the plaintiff's claim of giving a good review in trade for a refund to be despicable, and extortion.

This is why we must take reviews with a grain of salt. His bad opinion of the whole outfit could turn into a good opinion for money.

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, DoctorK said:

There was some discussion from the defendant that sounded like the plaintiff was getting spotty on the training course before the crash happened (that went by pretty fast) and the plaintiff may have already decided to drop out earlier.

I thought so too. All he needed was a medical certificate and if his trauma was so severe surely he could have gotten one easily. But he decided there was "no point" in seeing a doctor.

I didn't like him either. He was obnoxious.

16 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I don't think the plaintiff would work out as a pilot; how would he handle an emergency when he was piloting?

By freaking out and screaming, "We're all gonna DIE!"?

But seriously, I saw a few YT video recreations of plane crashes. The pilots who stay professional, calm, and collected during emergencies are beyond admirable and their cool is sometimes almost beyond belief. Much respect for them.

[CrazyInAlabama]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I thought so too. All he needed was a medical certificate and if his trauma was so severe surely he could have gotten one easily. But he decided there was "no point" in seeing a doctor.

I didn't like him either. He was obnoxious.

By freaking out and screaming, "We're all gonna DIE!"?

But seriously, I saw a few YT video recreations of plane crashes. The pilots who stay professional, calm, and collected during emergencies are beyond admirable and their cool is sometimes almost beyond belief. Much respect for them.

I used to work at a place that trained pilots.   Some washed out because they couldn't handle regular flight operations, let alone emergencies. 

Including one who washed out three times, the third time he was landing the aircraft, and threw his hands up yelling "This is too hard".  Yes, he took his hands off of the controls.  Fortunately the instructor pilot grabbed the contols and saved the landing, so three people weren't killed.     The funny thing is he claimed he was still a flight student, and he wasn't.   The other students shut that down very quickly, and bluntly. 

Edited September 17 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

17 September

“Godmother May I”

New, Season 11, Episode  7

(Latanya  Jackson and Jsane Tyler vs. Kieonna Carter )

From the show site: A mother spends thousands of dollars on a spa-themed birthday party for her 6-year-old, but the party planner backs out suddenly, saying the godmother hijacked the event from her.

Plaintiffs /mother Latanya Jackson and godmother Jsane Tyler suing defendant/party planner Kieonna Carter for canceling the 6-year-old’s party.   Defendant says godmother took over everything, leaving defendant with no choice but to quit.   Plaintiffs suing for $3535, and defendant counter suing for $600.   The party was an outdoor spa day, making bath bombs, facials, nail station for mani / pedis, etc. for a group of 6 year-olds.   

Then, right before the party defendant cancelled, and she said godmother was interfering with everything.  Plaintiff mother wanted t-shirts, water bottles, potato chip bags, and everything with daughter Celebrity's face on it.   Defendant says only $500 was left of the deposits plaintiff mother paid.  Party happened, and was a success.  The juice boxes, and potato chip bags are shown.   Plaintiff paid almost $2,000 more to finish the party.  

Defendant says at the last meeting the godmother Tyler, changed everything. Tyler claims she has extensive party planning experience, and she thought everything costs way too much.   Tyler claims Carter went behind her back, and demanded more money from Jackson.   Money included all of the supplies for the party, gift bags, set up and clean up.   Jackson wanted the items that had been purchased, anything that was specific to the Jackson's party, and not reusable, was given to Jackson.   Things that weren't labeled and Carter could reuse she kept.    

My view is everything would have been great, until Tyler butted in and took over everything.     I can see why the branding from defendant wouldn't be appropriate to put on the party favors.   Defendant also says the plaintiff hadn't paid in full.   

Defendant wanted everything for the party, and didn't want to pay everything still owing.   Defendant says plaintiff wanted to meet at the police station, and wanted everything for the party, including all of the party supplies, and wanted $2,000 back also.    

Juarez takes the plaintiff's side.  Defendant countersuit dismissed. 

Plaintiff gets $2,000 for what she gave the defendant.  

“You’ve Lost Your Trucking Mind”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  126

p. 47, 17 April 2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A mother spends thousands of dollars on a spa-themed birthday party for her 6-year-old,

I recorded this one and started to watch the case. They lost me when I heard about the humongous birthday party for a six year old daughter which was necessary because the daughter was so traumatized because when she was one year old her birthday party wasn't fabulous. A plaintiff with blue lipstick and dark glasses didn't help my impression of the plaintiffs. Because I ff'd, did anyone ask her why she was wearing dark glasses? If there is a medical reason, OK, otherwise it is posturing and not allowing the judge or judges to watch the body language of the eyes. I feel comfortable that I haven't missed much from this case.

[CrazyInAlabama]

18 September

“Sans Francisco”

New, Season 11, Episode 

(Christian Mills  vs. Rowan Henson)    

From the show site: A group of young men planned a San Francisco trip to commemorate their friend's passing, but, the day before, the plaintiff received a photo of his friends on the train en route; he wants his money back.

Plaintiff Christian Mills suing defendant/ former friend Rowan Henson  for San Francisco trip plaintiff was invited to go on, and paid for his part on the hotel, that defendants went on and left plaintiff out.    Trip was to commemorate their mutual friend’s passing.     Plaintiff suing for $300 , for four days of hotel fees. 

Defendant witness Xander  also went on the trip.  Xander's testimony is disjointed, and makes no sense.  He also sasses Judge Juarez, and then cuts her off.  Xander admits to a few concussions, I think he's under estimating the number. 

After the trip was planned, and reservations made for hotel, and train tickets purchased.     Then, defendant  added Rowan's girlfriend, and there were a couple of others going on the trip too.  Defendant's left a day before plaintiff was told the trip was planned for.  Hansen called the hotel to change the dates to the earlier day, but hotel wouldn't change the dates.   There is nothing in the group chat about the date change, or the hotel issue.  

Henson claims he told everyone on the group chat that the girlfriend was coming along, but he didn't. He also didn't mention the date change to plaintiff either.  Even Corriero can't make excuses for defendant and Xander.  Note to Xander, 14 November wasn't a Sunday. 

Plaintiff receives $300.   Rowan and Xander lose, and really deserve to.  

 

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

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  125

p. 47, 16 April 2024

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Rowan and Xander lose, and really deserve to.  

Wow. Those two looked like hard-core gamers, who spent the last 6 months in a basement, gaming, and finally emerged, gray-faced, blinking, and dazed, carrying the aroma of stale pizza and sweat into the world of air and sun.

 

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Xander admits to a few concussions, I think he's under estimating the number. 

He starts his speech with, "I feel it is not reductive to give room to speak." Well. Okay. I wish the judges had asked how he got all these concussions but I think I can guess.

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The Two Al-Exes”

I am so sick of seeing this over and over: Pathetic women pick up some losers, online usually, move them in, immediately co-sign for cars and phones, open credit cards, take out loans, pay for their rotten teeth, and generally fund their lives. I want to shake them until what few brains they have rattle.

Alexandra was deeply moved and inspired by some podcast or something of the def's, so she hooks up with Mr. Contraras. He needs to fix or buy some race car and she's only too happy to take out a new credit card for him since it seems he, a grown man, has no credit and can't pay for his own shit.  They were soulmates!

The best, or worst part, is that Mr. Contraras, a muttering, brokeass, no-credit, homely porker is also a secret Lothario who has a STRING of "girls" who give him money. Whatever he has that drives women mad with desire and eagerness to throw money at him is truly well hidden.

Women? WTF is going on??

23 hours ago, DoctorK said:

the daughter was so traumatized because when she was one year old her birthday party wasn't fabulous.

I skipped this. I cannot deal anymore with smother/dragon mommies throwing hotel parties, with limos and red carpets for 10-year-olds, getting celebrity designers to whip up 1K gowns for high school dances, or whackadoodles spending fortunes they usually don't have (I recall one Momma who didn't pay her rent because what little money she had went to the prom getup) to impress everyone at an infant's B-day party.

[DoctorK]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Xander admits to a few concussions

Maybe his brain is scrambled, but I also think that it is possible that he is an arrogant asshole who uses fancy words (which he doesn't know the meaning of) to impress people. Maybe a bit of both.

28 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Those two looked like hard-core gamers, who spent the last 6 months in a basement, gaming,

I got the same vibe from them and wonder if the basement was in someone's mother's house. I was shocked that one of them actually has a girl friend.

 

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I was shocked that one of them actually has a girl friend.

Yes, I can imagine her. Some sad little mope who thinks this is the best she can do. Oh, well. At least "Rowan" (Rowan and Xander - perfect) hasn't been arrested multiple times and wasn't wearing an ankle bracelet, not that those would have stopped some woman from snatching him up. 

I was going to say at least the boys aren't living with their Nanas, but they very well might be.

[CrazyInAlabama]

19 September

“Re-Lease Me”

New, Season 11, Episode 9

(Laura Tevino vs. Henry Noh)

From the show site: A landlord doesn't return a woman's rent deposit in full, saying her dog "scooted" on the rugs, leaving an odor; the former tenant thinks she can recoup three times the amount by suing for punitive damages.

Plaintiff Laura Trevino suing defendant / former Landlord Henry Noh for $4500, her security deposit of $1500, and triple damages.  There was a proposed rental increase of 15%.    The, she moved out, and received the security back with the damage itemized list, She claims he sent her the deposit back, but it was 'posted' so she couldn't cash it.  

Defendant says dog wasn't totally housetrained, and shed a lot.  Defendant also says dog would scoot it's butt on the floor too.     Plaintiff claims defendant and others feeding pieces of raw carrots on her dogs issues.  However, the scooting and pooping issues sound like something else, like impacted anal glands, or worms or any number of things. 

Defendant kept $600 of the $1500 security deposit.  Then plaintiff lies about the check not being cashable, but it was.   The security deposit deduction included the partial rent plaintiff didn't pay the last month.  

Plaintiff claims she didn't see anything on the rugs she could have been charged $250 for, that her dog scooted on.    However, it was $172 to replace the two area rugs, so defendant replaced them instead because it was cheaper. 

Defendant says check was never cashed by plaintiff, and he will write her another check for $900.    

Corriero and Tewolde want to give $976, plus carpets $172, and $1100 total

 

“Anatomy of a Motorcycle Crash”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 129

p. 47, 23 April 2024

[Chalby]

On 9/16/2024 at 8:01 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Judge T was rightfully outraged at the other two wanting to give the P $300 for the Ubers, just because.

I am finding there are too many times one of these judges becomes a bleeding heart for the plaintiff, when the plaintiff doesn't have the evidence to support why they want $. I think I actually miss Patricia's NY 'realness' when deliberating the issues.

[Chalby]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

19 September

“Re-Lease Me”

New, Season 11, Episode 9

(Laura Tevino vs. Henry Noh)

From the show site: A landlord doesn't return a woman's rent deposit in full, saying her dog "scooted" on the rugs, leaving an odor; the former tenant thinks she can recoup three times the amount by suing for punitive damages.

Plaintiff Laura Trevino suing defendant / former Landlord Henry Noh for $4500, her security deposit of $1500, and triple damages.  There was a proposed rental increase of 15%.    The, she moved out, and received the security back with the damage itemized list, She claims he sent her the deposit back, but it was 'posted' so she couldn't cash it.  

Defendant says dog wasn't totally housetrained, and shed a lot.  Defendant also says dog would scoot it's butt on the floor too.     Plaintiff claims defendant and others feeding pieces of raw carrots on her dogs issues.  However, the scooting and pooping issues sound like something else, like impacted anal glands, or worms or any number of things. 

Defendant kept $600 of the $1500 security deposit.  Then plaintiff lies about the check not being cashable, but it was.   The security deposit deduction included the partial rent plaintiff didn't pay the last month.  

Plaintiff claims she didn't see anything on the rugs she could have been charged $250 for, that her dog scooted on.    However, it was $172 to replace the two area rugs, so defendant replaced them instead because it was cheaper. 

Defendant says check was never cashed by plaintiff, and he will write her another check for $900.    

Corriero and Tewolde want to give $976, plus carpets $172, 

p. 47, 23 April 2024

This case had me initially on plaintiff's side, especially after she complained about the post dated cheque, and the high cost of cleaning.

But then we learn she didn't receive a postdated cheque nor were the cleaning fees exorbitant.

The worst part was when she said he was trying to "suppress her" because she had specific expectations etc (renting a room in someone's house), yet she couldn't comprehend that his nitpicking (she didn't give 30 day notice) is as valid as her own. She ended up being an entitled "zellennial." Or however it's spelt.

[DoctorK]

23 minutes ago, Chalby said:

But then we learn she didn't receive a postdated cheque nor were the cleaning fees exorbitant.

I was about to comment on this case but you have pretty much covered everything I would have said. Great minds think alike.

I also agree with your first post "one of these judges becomes a bleeding heart for the plaintiff", this is a chronic issue with this show and it is almost always Corriero who whenever his bleeding heart and mushy brain decides a litigant (not always the plaintiff) is a poor innocent victim (this always seems to be a woman) he acts not as a judge but as an advocate and completely throws out any consideration of the law.

Edited September 19 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Chalby said:

I think I actually miss Patricia's NY 'realness' when deliberating the issues.

Usually, she could be counted on to be the hard-nosed one, but not always. I remember her nearly fawning over a lowdown thief, and oozing sympathy for a litigant trying to weasel out of an as-is old beater sale, with "She needs to drive her children around!"

I'm finding lately that Judge Tewolde is much more of a hard-liner than Judge J and of course Papa Mike, who seems to be trying her last nerve.

5 hours ago, DoctorK said:

he acts not as a judge but as an advocate and completely throws out any consideration of the law.

Yes, and he seems to have become a bad influence on Judge Juarez.❣️

[CrazyInAlabama]

20 September

“Truck It!  That’s a Wrap”

New, Season 11, Episode  10

(Willonda Ferguson vs. Darryl and Debrea Johnson )     

From the show site: A food truck owner is unhappy with the vinyl-printed graphics she purchased for her truck; the designers of the wrap blame her for her countless revisions and the third-party installer for the reportedly poor application.

Plaintiff/food truck owner Willonda Ferguson suing defendants/vinyl wrap technicians Darryl and  Debrea Johnson for a substandard wrap product.   Defendants blame the third party installer, and the many design changes by plaintiff.  Plaintiff suing for $5,000.  Defendants are counter suing for $5,000.  Plaintiff says she only demanded one real revision, the rest were correcting mistakes by defendants.  Plaintiff cleams she only saw the computer mockup, and actual wrap was blurry.   

Defendants say they did what plaintiff ordered, and that the they did a good job.  There is a video by plaintiff of the complete job.   Defendants say the third party installer made the mistakes, and their wrap was correct. 

Defendant says the terms of service plaintiff signed say issues from the installer aren't the defendants' problem.  Defendant Debrea says revisions before printing are normal, but reprinting everything is a huge expense for the defendants.  

Defendant says plaintiff altered the vehicle, and that altered the wrap and meant they had to reprint.   Plaintiff did a chargeback with her credit care company, and that locked up defendants' account and website.  Defendants did finally get the chargeback cancelled.  Plaintiff was given all of the wrap pieces, but hasn't installed all of it. 

Plaintiff claims she only said part of job was missing, but chargeback said 'product not received'.  Plaintiff claims installer had the truck for a month, but that's not true. 

$5600 was the entire job, but the installer was $2500 which was included. 

Plaintiff gets the $2500 for the installation of the wrap.  

 

“Contracting Conundrum”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  123

p. 47, 12 April 2024

[AngelaHunter]

"Willonda"? "Debrea"? I might get to this tonight.

[Chalby]

19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm finding lately that Judge Tewolde is much more of a hard-liner than Judge J and of course Papa Mike, who seems to be trying her last nerve.

❣️

I can't  remember their names yet, but the Judge who sits on Carrerio's left, is my fave. (She's on the right iif we were in court room.)

She seems to walk a sensible and rational line between the law or speculation.

[CrazyInAlabama]

That's Judge Yodit Tewolde.   She's usually very sensible, and Corriero doesn't fight back against her too much.    Judge Rachel Juarez has the longer hair and on the left side of out screen, some of her arguments are out of left field, but she stands up to Corriero pretty strongly usually too.   I like it when both women tell Corriero their decision and he can't fight them. 

Edited September 21 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Willonda Ferguson vs. Darryl and Debrea Johnson )

I tried, but I was so dazed and distracted by Ms. Ferguson's skin-tight, semi-transparent, 10-lbs-of-bologna-in-a-5-lb-bag ensemble I simply could not go on. 😲

[CrazyInAlabama]

23 September

“BBs, RVs & Caddys”

New, Season 11, Episode  11

(Eddie Pierce and Cindy McPhee vs.Michael Ruiz )   

From the show site: A vehicle window shatters mysteriously in a driveway, but security footage captures nothing but a cat; the owner accuses his neighbor of sniping the window with a BB gun in retaliation for parking an unsightly RV in front of his house.

PLaintiffs / Caddy / RV Owners Eddy Pierce (Caddy owner) and Cindy McPhee (RV Owner) suing defendant/ neighbor Michael Ruiz for shooting their 28' RV with a BB gun, and shooting Eddy Pierce's Caddy.    RV was parked in front of Michael Ruiz's home, Caddy was in Eddy Pierce's driveway.  RV and Caddy both had broken windows from BB pellets.  Eddy Pierce claims Michael Ruiz shot BBs and broke the windows on the Caddy and RV.   Pierce claims the defendant shot the windows out on his video, and the only witness is a cat.   

Corriero yells at Pierce. about making false accusations.  McPhee says she's parked her RV in lots of neighborhoods.    Pierce says the Caddy was broken down for years, but is now running.   

(My view, plaintiffs are delusional, and rude.  I believe nothing they said.)

For once all three judges agree that plaintiffs are outrageous, and falsely accusing the defendant without proof, except the cat witnessed it. 

 Ruiz has security cameras front and backyards at his home, and he didn't leave his house at any time that day. 

Pierce is wrong, modern BB pellets can travel long distances.  You can jack up the pressure on the pistol, and it's much more powerful.  However, Pierce's wife also  lied about having security camera footage of Ruiz doing the shooting.  Judge Juarez objects to McPhee whispering cues to Pierce. 

Corriero is really mad at Pierce and his ridiculous theories about who shot the BBs, and how far they travel. BB guns are much more powerful now, so Pierce is wrong. 

Plaintiffs case dismissed.   

“This is Bull Shih Tzu”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 132  

p. 47, 26 April 2024

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

BB guns are much more powerful now, so Pierce is wrong. 

Yeah, as a kid we had Daisy spring piston BB guns that we shot at each other and got nothing more than a little blood blister. Just for kicks, I did more research in five minutes than Pierce did for a court case, he was too enamored of his own expertise that he didn't update his info from his experience in the 50s and 60s. I found a Crosman pump .177 BB or pellet rifle for about $50 with 700+ feet per second which people hunt squirrels with. I honestly don't know if the defendant was responsible, but plaintiffs clearly didn't make it to a "preponderance of evidence". This made me happy because jerks who park huge ugly vehicles on the street in front of other people's houses because they don't want it in front of their own house deserve what they get.

On the other hand, they did see a cat in the security camera video, so who knows? Cats are clever and sneaky, maybe the cat did it.

Edited September 23 by DoctorK
grammar

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My view, plaintiffs are delusional, and rude.  I believe nothing they said.

Very distasteful, both of them. I was gratified to see how much Judge T disliked Cindy and her, "Who else could have done it?" theory.

The strangely overgrown elf P was kind of amusing, speaking with the authority of a forensic analyst/ballistics/trajectory (a word he couldn't say properly)expert, none of which he happens to be.  Both of them were annoying and obnoxious. Yeah, maybe Def did it, or maybe someone else who is sick of looking at broken-down heaps did it. Maybe some sadistic, cowardly asshole was aiming at the cat which could well have been the case. Who knows?

Both plaintiffs have watched too many episodes of "Forensic Files", but they don't know what the hell they're talking about.  Every time the elf tried to explain some scientific point, he just looked more foolish.

40 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

This made me happy because jerks who park huge ugly vehicles on the street in front of other people's houses because they don't want it in front of their own house deserve what they get.

Agree! Especially at Christmas when neighbours might have guests who need to park and can't because Cindy is in Sacramento and it's inconvenient for her to drag her ugly RV to her own place, or off to the junkyard where it probably belongs.

[CrazyInAlabama]

24 September

“Wristbanned”

New, Season 11, Episode  12

(Kaitlyn Yela vs. Anahi Tinajero)

From the show site: A rap fan buys a music festival ticket from a scalper and takes a trip across the country to see her favorite acts perform, only to discover that her entry wristband has already been claimed

Plaintiff Kaitlyn  Yela bought a music festival ticket/wrist band from defendant Anahi Tinajero, and plaintiff claims wristband had already been used.  She’s suing for $2179 (ticket was $600) . It was the Rolling Loud rap music three day concert. 

Defendant witness is Jessica Sagastume  (sister of defendant) who is friends with defendant, and gave ticket to plaintiff at the airport.   Defendant gave the ticket to  witness Jessica, who gave ticket to plaintiff.  

When plaintiff went to the concert everyone else she was with got into the concert, except plaintiff.   Concert personnel let plaintiff into the concert, but on the second day she wasn't allowed into the concert.   Plaintiff says concert staff looked into it, and other person who claimed the wristband had OfferUp receipts for the ticket. 

Plaintiff thinks defendant hustled her and did sell the ticket to the other person.   

(I'm predicting that Corriero will try to claim that defendant was scammed also, and didn't know wristband was already claimed. Tewolde is saying that too. )

Plaintiff was able to get in one day, so originally wanted $400 from defendant for the other two days.  Then she wanted to go home, and wanted defendant to pay $275 for her airline ticket home. 

Tickets for the other two days would have been $400.  

Judges (only Tewolde and Juarez) decide plaintiff gets $600 , offer by sister to buy the ticket should have mitigated the cost.   (Corriero dissents as usual).

 

“Revenge of the Nerds” 

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  137

p. 47, 3 May 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

25 September

“El Cami-No”

New, Season 11, Episode  13

(Ricky Rollins  vs. Michael Babcock)  

From the show site: A car owner blames his mechanic for major damage to his transmission, but the mechanic says it was his racing that ruined it; the owner denies racing the car but admits to throwing a violent fit in the shop.

Plaintiff / car owner Ricky Rollins suing defendant/mechanic Michael Babcock for damage to his transmission.   Defendant says plaintiff ruined the transmission by racing, and also threw a violent hissy fit in the mechanics shop. Plaintiff suing for $5,000. Defendant counter suing for $1300.  Car is a classic with a V-8 motor, as a project for plaintiff and kids to rebuild.   Defendant says plaintiff wanted to race the car, and says plaintiff broght the car in with a bad drive train and engine.   

Defendant says on test drives the car was running fine, and the squeaky belt was fixed.  Plaintiff claims the car was never fixed.   Plaintiff cliams he picked car up from defendant, and then steering went bad, but defendant fixed that for free.  The steering had nothing to do with the transmission or engine.    Plaintiff maintains that he wanted a show car, and didn't get that. Plaintiff claims he paid $8,000 for the car, but it's still not working.  Defendant says plaintiff was racing the car. 

Plaintiff had bought the car a month before taking it to defendant, and didn't have a prepurchase exam on the car by mechanic.    Defendant says when plaintiff brought car back, he admitted he was doing burnouts with the car, and the transmission exploded.   Burnouts aren't just something you ever do in ordinary driving.  

Plaintiff admits he tossed a cart over at defendant's shop.  As always Corriero is making excuses for plaintiff.    Defendant did admit they misdiagnosed one problem for $2600, and so he fixed that for free.  Plaintiff claims defendant tried to force him to pay $3400 for the same issue.   (I believe the defendant, and nothing the plaintiff says.  I think he was racing the car). 

Corriero misses the point, defendant already redid the transmission. 

(My view, plaintiff destroyed a 35 year old car by racing it, so deserves nothing. Defendant should get his $1300 for abuse from plaintiff). 

$1700 to plaintiff after deduction for the tool cart.   (Ridiculous decision. Plaintiff broke the car, defendant fixed it time after time, including redoing the transmission)

 

“No Good Breed Goes Unpunished”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  119 4/08/2024

(Curtis Waters vs Nicole Luther)

From the show site: A woman purchases a dog from a man living on the street but stops making payments when she learns he still owes a balance to the original owner, saying she's afraid of being held liable for the original contract.

Plaintiff/former dog owner Curtis Waters suing defendant/dog buyer Nicole Luther for return of the dog he sold her, Kash.     Defendant saw Kash sitting in the rain outside a 7/11, bought the dog for $400 from plaintiff.   When defendant found out plaintiff hadn’t paid the cousin he bought Kash from, she stopped paying too.   Another wrinkle is defendant wanted Kash for breeding, but misread the contract and thought she couldn’t breed Kash until original seller was paid off by plaintiff.

Both people were in bad situations, and apparently plaintiff is homeless.   A very awful case, and I suspect Kash is now the sire to many more Pit Bulls, and both litigants are still decorum challenged, arguing over giving drugs instead of money, and only concerned with breeding Kash for money. 

Judges correct the confusion about the contract, and decide plaintiff gets the rest of the $400, and a puppy, and defendant keeps the dog.  So, both litigants get money, one from the judges, the other from breeding Kash.   

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A car owner blames his mechanic for major damage

Ricky wanted an ancient (was it an El Camino?)car to hot rod around in as a lovely family bonding project for him and his children. Maybe they'll learn patience and how to reap the rewards and feel the pride of perseverance and hard work.

Sadly, Ricky has another lesson for them as he drags them to Def's mechanic shop -  to teach the kiddies (no idea how old they are) how reasonable, mature adults come to agreements. We wish. They learned that if you're not pleased that the 38-year-old car you bought and expected to turn into a show car, you may throw a toddler tantrum because screaming, yelling, and vandalizing property should yield the desired results. No need for impulse control, children! Daddy has none!

He blew up his own car and deserved nothing, IMO.

What did Ricky have tattooed on his forehead? It looked like a cartoon rowboat with a sail...?

p.s. I was curious so I just looked at a 1986 El Camino with 43,000 miles and does look like a show car - 21K, so I think for 8K Ricky got what he paid for.

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

He blew up his own car and deserved nothing, IMO.

Totally correct. I haven't been into that kind of stuff for forty years but anyone who watches the Motor Trend channel is very familiar with this situation. Customer (who has a ridiculously inflated idea of his expertise) brings in a vehicle that has been upgraded by someone who doesn't know what they are doing. The car in question had a much stronger engine installed without upgrading the transmission and the rear end. The destroyed rear end with shattered gears shows what happens when incompetent people play at building muscle cars from run of the mill cars. The plaintiff is an ignorant violent asshole with no knowledge of cars (in spite of what he claims) and no self control. Juarez completely screwed up when she said that the steering bolt missing a nut caused the transmission and rear end failure which is ridiculous. Frankly all three judges pontificated based on ignorance. The plaintiff should have gotten nothing and go back to driving around in a 1963 Mercury Comet (my first car, two speed transmission with pollution control consisting of a 1/2 inch pipe from the crank case pointing down).

Edited September 26 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

The car in question had a much stronger engine installed without upgrading the transmission and the rear end.

You'd think Ricky would have known that, given his expertise. I know little to nothing about this but I saw one vintage "muscle" car on Pawn Stars.  There was great interest in it until the hood was lifted and a huge engine had been jammed into it, so big that some other part had to be left out (I forget what - maybe an air filter...?). The interest turned into "No, thanks".

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Juarez completely screwed up when she said that the steering bolt missing a nut caused the transmission and rear end failure which is ridiculous

Even I know that makes no sense, and as the def. said, he couldn't check every single nut and bolt on the old thing. With ancient cars, something may be fixed and something else conks out the next day.

Maybe mechanics should start refusing to work on cars over 20 years old, since if they do, everything that goes wrong afterward will be blamed on them for eternity.

[CrazyInAlabama]

26 September   

“I’ll Be Your Shelter”

New, Season 11, Episode 14

(Julie Smith vs. Sarah Tracy)  

From the show site: A woman expects some help with the rent after she helps her friend out of a pinch by letting her stay in her one-bedroom apartment; the friend says they made no such arrangement and accuses her of forging her signature on a handwritten agreement.

Plaintiff/renter Julie Smith suing defendant / former friend Sarah Tracy for   unpaid rent, and some minor damages, plus utility bills.  Defendant claims they never had an agreement to pay, and claims plaintiff forged her signature on the handwritten agreement plaintiff priduces in court.  Judge Juarez points out that the signature on the agreement looks just like the signature on a letter from defendant.  

Defendant lived with plaintiff, but also her boyfriend Omar was at the place constantly.  

Apartment is a one bedroom, and plaintiff had the bedroom, and the rest of the house was used by Tracy and boyfriend Omar.  Defendant was supposed to pay $400 a month rent, and part of the utilities, but she didn't. 

Corriero tries his family counselor routine.  Agreement is accepted as evidence.  

Plaintiff receives $550 for rent, breakage, utilities.      

 

“Motherboard Blues”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  130

p. 47, 24 April 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

27 September

“Metal Mayhem”

New, Season 11, Episode  15

(Olinser Diaz-Cebreros vs. Lee Meyer )   

From the show site: A mechanic takes more than a year to repair a truck and agrees to a partial refund when the client gets tired of waiting -- but now the client wants all of his money back.

Plaintiff/ car owner Olinser Diaz-Cebreros suing defendant/ mechanic Lee Meyer for a full refund for his truck that's was in the shop for more than a year.   Defendant offered a partial refund, but plaintiff wants it all back. Plaintiff paid $1,000, had to pay $1500 to redo the substandard

One of defendant's reasons for the slow work was 'it was monsoon season', since this was San Diego, how much of a monsoon season can they have?  Plaintiff paid $1,000, was supposed to finish the truck within a year.  Plaintiff would disassemble the truck body for rust and body work, and defendant would redo the cabin and doors, and return those to plaintiff.   All defendant did was prep, body putty on the doors, and that was when plaintiff left for deployment.    Plaintiff paid $1,000, then $3000 also for materials. 

Defendant says he's a one-man operation and has a backlog of a couple of years.   After plaintiff came back from deployment, truck still wasn't finished, a year later.    Plaintiff says when he took the doors to another shop, they said they would have to redo everything defendant did.   Defendant says he does vintage restorations, and they normally take one to two years to finish. 

Plaintiff says too much filler was on the doors, Bondo, and it had to be removed and redone.  

Corriero actually asks a sensible question, he asks defendant why he didn't 

Plaintiff wanted $3,000 back, defendant offered $2500, keeping $1500.   Defendant says $1500 was fair for his labor. 

When plaintiff cashed the cashier's check, it said refund final payment on it, so $1500 is probably going to close the case. 

Juarez dissents, says the memo on the check about final payment should be binding. 

Corriero and Tewolde dissent, and say plaintiff should get $500, so a total of $3500 back. 

Plaintiff gets $500 from C & T.   

 

 

“I’ve Had Enough, I Want My Stuff”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  120

p. 47, 9 April 2024

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/26/2024 at 3:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: A woman expects some help with the rent after she helps her friend out of a pinch by letting her stay in her one-bedroom apartment; the friend says they made no such arrangement and accuses her of forging her signature on a handwritten agreement.

I have to give the judges kudos for even trying to figure out this insane nonsense from these two babblers where neither party can tell the truth or remember anything about some agreement, including the "scrabbly" signature.

My only regret was that the oft-mentioned but elusive "Omar" didn't make an appearance.

Thanks for the verdict, @CrazyInAlabama This case made me too annoyed to finish it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

This week maybe bad for viewing.   Baseball Wild Card games are scheduled for Tuesday through Thursday, so if that happens I won't be seeing any of it.    If I can find the episode descriptions, I can post the show summary for the new episodes.     I did manage to get the titles of the new episodes, but who knows what will actually happen. 

Edited September 29 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/27/2024 at 3:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I’ve Had Enough, I Want My Stuff”

(Bradie Nelson vs. Jeffrey Fugate)  

Just found this gem. Amusing, it was.

The delicious Fugate is a man old enough to have eyebags and gray hair but lives with Mommy and Daddy and is so ensnarled in the apron strings that when the 'rents move and buy a house, he must move with them. In fact, Jeffrey's Momma is here by her boy's side to defend him, speak for him, and back him up. Jeffrey doesn't know much about this suit, since Momma handles all that stuff for him.

Brandie, Jeffrey's girlfriend, lived with them too. It took 3 years for Brandie to realize she was missing all her stuff, like her "kidse's" pictures, and "20 or maybe 30 boxes of stuff".

Jeffrey doesn't even have the cojones to tell Bradie the big love affair is over but sends his ex-wife to deliver the bad, sad news. Quite the man, that Jeffrey. Lucky he has women to fight his girlfriend off.

Bradie hit the jackpot. 5K for boxes of unknown stuff.

[CrazyInAlabama]

(Programming note-October 1 through October3, maybe no Hot Bench, baseball playoffs, or maybe Hot Bench, who knows)

30 September

“Walkin’ the Dog”

New, Season 11, Episode 16

( Kimberly McNab vs. Naomi Reynolds and Lucy Gutierrez )    McNab

From the show site: A pit bull mix is accused of escaping an apartment and violently shaking a little dog; the little dog's owner sues for veterinary bills, but the defendants say she is trying to make them pay for pre-existing cancer treatment.

Plaintiff Kimberly McNab suing defendants/dog owners Naomi Reynolds and Lucy Gutierrez for vet bills after defendants' dog attacked plaintiff’s dog. $1789 is what plaintiff wants for the vet bills.  Despicable defendant Gutierrez says there was no attack, and even if there was it was tiny, and nothing to pay for. 

Gutierrez did nothing to help, but another family member pried the Pit Bull (acutally American Bully) off of little Rocky.  A neighbor took plaintiff's dog in while the plaintiff was having her breast cancer infusion, and then dog was taken to emergency vet.   Neighbor who helped wouldn't come to court, fearing reprisals from defendants.    

Plaintiff had a retractable leash on the dog, but it's pulled tight when she's inside the building.   Only vet bills are for the immediate aftermath of the attack, and no other conditions the defendants try to claim the vet treated for.   Both defendants are despicable liars.   

Plaintiff witness, Michael Mendenhall, heard the attack and plaintiff screaming for help.   

Tewolde doesn't understand, Maisie is an American Bulldog/Pit cross, not a bull terrier.   That's not the same thing, American Bulldog is a Pit Bull adjacent breed. 

Plaintiff says Maisie bit another neighbor who didn't make a report about Maisie, defendant says her dog only scratched the neighbor.  Defendants are total liars. 

Is Juarez kidding?  Plaintiff shouldn't have been screaming for help in her opinion. 

Corriero agrees with plaintiff, and so does Tewolde.

Plaintiff receives $1, 500.

"Breaking Up Was the Breast Decision", Rerun, Season 10, Episode 34

p. 43, 30 Oct 2023

Edited September 30 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

1 October  (They're showing the baseball playoff, so this is all I have. see Angela Hunter's recap following. )

“Pain Pill Predicament”

New, Season 11, Episode  17

( Dibble vs. Elrich)

From the show site: Is the plaintiff in this case a thief who stole Percocet from an elderly man, or a victim of that man's wrongful assumption? She frequently ran pharmacy errands for him, but on one occasion he accused her of pocketing thirty pills and whacked her car with his cane as she tried to leave. She wants him to pay for the dents, but he claims he had every right to try and stop her.

Plaintiff suing defendant for car damages.  Defendant claims plaintiff stole his pain pills, and the whacking her car with his cane was to stop her from fleeing.

Decision is that both cases cancel each other out, so nothing for either one.  

(My understanding from being in the pharmacy line way too long is that with Percocet you can only get a month's supply, so 120 is a lot of pills,4 per day.  Unless you're supplementing from other sources off the books, or having someone get extras in Mexico and sending them to you.  I lived near El Paso, and that works). 

“Burning Rainbow Bridges”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  35

p. 43, 31 October 2023

Edited October 2 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Pain Pill Predicament”

Is Ms. Dibble a pill thief? She claims not to know what Percocets are. Maybe she doesn't pop them herself, but it seems prescription meds are a hot number on the street. Maybe she sold them to drum up the scratch to buy some teefs, since she has none? According to her, she spends her life doing favours for everyone, including the def. That's just the kind of big-hearted person she is. Yeah, we never heard that before.

The def, "Eirlich" or something like that, looked like he was on his way to an audition for some new, hellish, x-rated version of "HeeHaw". He likes to imbibe lots of beer AND down Percocets. And drive, it seems. He claims a whole bunch of pills were missing from his new bottle Dibble got for him since the bag was open when she brought them to him. Dibble says the bag was stapled from the pharmacy.  I don't know, but it's possible in his befuddled state Eirlich miscounted them. That he's alive to tell this tale is kind of a miracle.

He sits there, guffawing and roaring with laughter at everything Dibble says and shouts out. The judges have to reprimand him. He calls Judge T "sweetheart" and she informs him it's "Judge" or "Your Honour."

Dibble spent money on his card at good ol' Walmart. He never uses his card! He pays cash, except maybe at the gas station. She never used his card. He always gives her cash when she runs errands for him 4 or 5 times a week and she asks nothing in return.

He dented her car with his cane 7 or 8 times after the Purloined Pill caper. No, he only hit it a "few" times because she kept trying to run him over.

I don't think Dibble knows what the truth is, or that Eirlich knows what day it is.

His whacking her car and her spending spree at Walmart cancel each other out, and they get nothing. I think

Can people really get a refill of some 120 Percocets at once?

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 October (baseball again, and maybe tomorrow, I guess Wild Card series are best 2 out of 3, so if some team comes through and wins today, maybe I will get to see Hot Bench Thursday.)

“Rent Rift”

New, Season 11, Episode 18

( vs. )

From the show site: An apartment complex owner claims her tenant never caught up on rent before moving out. He claims times were tough; his mother and grandmother passed away, he became his siblings' caretaker, and the VA rescinded his housing allowance due to poor school attendance. Do those excuses excuse the payment of rent?

Plaintiff/ former landlord suing defendant/former tenant for unpaid rent.    Defendant claims several family deaths, and loss of his VA housing allowance due to poor school attendance wasn’t his fault. 

 

“At Least Do the Right Thing”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  41

p. 43, 8 November 2023

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

An apartment complex owner claims her tenant never caught up on rent before moving out.

This apartment was in such shambles, infested with mold and leaks that it was uninhabitable. That didn't stop him from staying there for nearly four years. Maybe it wasn't so bad.

Again, we have the "You knew my situation" defense as an excuse not to pay what is owed and expect to keep collecting a "housing allowance" which was contingent upon him going to school. So, he didn't go to school but the financing body should understand his situation and keep giving him money, just because.

He needed to take care of his siblings, who apparently had no father(s). How he planned to care for them when he couldn't care for himself is a mystery.

The judges congratulate P landlady for actually knowing tenant/landlord laws and keeping impeccable records. That is indeed a great rarity on court shows.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 October (I'd like to thank whatever team won their wild card playoff, and let me see this case.) 

“Dear Sis I Hit a Deer”

New, Season 11, Episode 19

(Leah Mueller vs. Terri Johnson)   

From the show site: A woman borrowed her sister's car at 1AM to go buy beer and butter and claimed a deer flew out and grazed the front end. She claims this was an "act of God," and that she's not responsible for the damage. But the sister accuses her of drinking beforehand and taking her keys without permission, and she wants to be paid for the damage!

Plaintiff/car owner Leah Mueller suing her sister/defendant Terri Johnson for car damages after defendant took sister’s car without permission, and hit a deer.   Plaintiff claims sister was driving drunk when the accident happened.  Plaintiff admits she was inebriated also, so Corriero questions if plaintiff actually knows the sister took her car.   Plaintiff wants $5,000. 

Defendant's story is sister said it was OK to take the car, and she went shopping for beer and butter (for a dessert).   Defendant has to have a breathalyzer interlock on any car she drives.   Defendant admits she relapses sometimes, and claims plaintiff is a drunk too. 

Defendant claims she doesn't have insurance, and sister said she could drive her car, and tossed her the keys.   Defendant says the deer was an Act of God.  Even Corriero can't believe this excuse.  Defendant says deer ran into her, hit the back of the car.   However, plaintiff's car had front end damages.  

Plaintiff says defendant walked in carrying a beer, a tallboy.  

Defendant says she hadn't seen her sister is a year, because she was in rehab, attending meetings, and peeing in a cup for her recovery, for a court ordered program.   But plaintiff says sister walked into the house drinking the beer.   Defendant also says she went to pick up beer and butter.  Defendant doesn't have insurance and drives her own car regularly.   She bought butter and two tallboys, and claims she only drinks beer, not the plaintiff's favorite, whiskey.  

Judge Juarez points out that earlier in the day defendant had gone to court, was finished with her court case, and recovery program, and the drinking started that night with the accident.   That week was her last day of AA, and claims she had six months left on her court ordered rehab, monitoring, AA meetings, etc.   

Damage estimate is $7,700 on a car that's only worth $2,000.  Damages are motor mount, and various other problems, and nothing has been done but the motor mount. Car is still drivable, and has been from the date of the accident, six months ago.  Plaintiff bought car for $2500, and only had it two weeks. 

Litigants are from Oklahoma.

(There are Puppy Chow recipes that don't require butter. 

Tallboys are indeed beers, 16 oz (some are 24 oz. but those are specialty products, and probably don't sell them at convenience stores).    Regular beers are 12 oz.  I think both sisters were buzzed throughout the case.   

I wonder how the judge in defendant's case enjoyed hearing about her actions on the night of the accidents, and during her Hot Bench case. 

Decision is $2,500 for plaintiff, and that's all. 

 

“Dog Day Attack”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  146 (Graphic case of a vicious, fatal attack by defendant's pit bull on plaintiff's Yorkie. There are several videos of defendant walking on other people's property without leashes, including defendant's dog going after another neighbor's dog). 

p. 48, 16 May 2024

Edited October 3 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A woman borrowed her sister's car at 1AM to go buy beer and butter and claimed a deer flew out and grazed the front end.

To tell the truth, both plaintiff and the defendant sounded drunk or buzzed to me during the case. Also, as one of the judges said during deliberations, neither litigant seemed credible though I distrusted the defendant a bit more than the plaintiff. I admired the repair shop that came up with a $7000 repair bill for a $2500 car (that they had kept driving for a year), the mechanic must be financing a new boat. I really wish the scattered brained plaintiff had taken a picture of the FRONT of the car so we could see how bad the damage really was, instead of just taking ONE picture from the side with the hood raised which showed none of the damage. As far as the defendant goes, driving out at 1 or 2 AM in an uninsured borrowed car going to three separate stores to try to buy some butter for a recipe does not sound like a sober person to me.

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff/car owner Leah Mueller suing her sister/defendant Terri Johnson for car damages after defendant took sister’s car without permission, and hit a deer.

Very little of what these two said made any sense at all.  Plaintiff Leah says she gave her Def sister permission to drive her car, but it wasn't really permission since "I was inneebriated". I had a strong suspicion she was inebriated during this case.

Def Terri goes to visit her estranged sister(her momma told her to stay away from Leah and her imbibing) late at night - she says 8 p.m. and Leah says 10 p.m. -  in her car which has a breathalyzer device. and is not insured. Oh, but she only drives during the day so ins. is unnecessary since no one has accidents in daylight. 🤔 I don't think that's really true.

She drove to her drunk sister's house after dark, but couldn't drive her own car to buy butter and beer because it was dark out and she had no insurance on her own car but she drove it to her sister's house in the dark with no insurance?? 🤯

My head is beginning to spin. Judge T grills Def, who can't stand up during this case but can use drugs and alcohol and drive.  She had a sudden, overwhelming desire to make a dessert called "Puppy Chow" (Rice Crispies, peanut butter, chocolate, powdered sugar, and butter, which was missing) and buy some "tall boys"(?) at one a.m.

Are "Tallboys" beer? Is that what they're called in OK? If so, she must have bought them for herself since she says her sister, Leah, only guzzles whiskey and Terri pooh-poohs whiskey. I guess Terri wanted to celebrate being released from her court-ordered AA meetings and 96 days of sobriety by knocking back a few of them there Tallboys!

After this kerfuffle, Terri drives her car to her Momma's house, at around 2:30 a.m. Guess no one in that family has to rise early for work!

I also had a feeling that this "mechanic" who quoted $7,700 to fix the 20-year-old car may have been her drinking partner and boyfriend who would patch up the heap ("He's handy") for a grand or so and pocket the other 5-6K. Even Leah had to snicker when the judges questioned the 7K. She gave a sheepish grin with an "I tried to get as much as I could" shrug.

3 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

o tell the truth, both plaintiff and the defendant sounded drunk or buzzed to me during the case

We posted at the same time.😄

[AngelaHunter]

Okay, I know you all are dying to know how to make "Puppy Chow", also known as "Muddie Buddies", I found the recipe! I see why Terri rushed out into the night in search of butter. I hope she got it before she indulged in those "TallBoys" and remembered to get the unsalted variety.

 

Puppy Chow or Muddie Buddies

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 October

“Best Friends For-Never”

New, Season 11, Episode  20

(Jay Iyengar vs. Vicente Salinas)   

From the show site: A man who moved in with his best friend from high school says he fell behind on rent trying to keep up with his friend's lavish lifestyle, so his friend offered to cover him; the friend says he made no such offer and now wants to be repaid.

Plaintiff/former roommate Jay Iyengar suing defendant/former tenant Vicente Salinas for unpaid rent, utilities and other bills.  Defendant says plaintiff offered to cover his rent, but plaintiff says that’s a lie. Defendant dumped his girlfriend, quit his job, all to move across the state and move in with plaintiff. Plaintiff was living off campus at college, in L.A., and defendant was living with his girlfriend.  Plaintiff had a family member as guarantor on the apartment, but only for a few months, but could still pay the rent and utilities himself.   Plaintiff suing for $3440.   

Defendant is an aspiring songwriter.   He only paid partial rent for one month, shipped rent paying after that, and was supposed to be paying 50/50 on food, utilities, and rent.

Defendant claims first month was forgiven for rent, which plaintiff agrees with.  After that defendant paid very little, and nothing after that.   Defendant finally moved out, but says since plaintiff bought a new car, that he owes plaintiff nothing. 

Juarez says $2992 is rent and utilities, and defendant says he owes about $2492. 

Plaintiff receives $2440

 

“A Wheely Bad Accident”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  38

p. 43, 1 November 2023

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A man who moved in with his best friend from high school says he fell behind on rent trying to keep up with his friend's lavish lifestyle

Oh my! First thing I noticed was the blue pony tail on the plaintiff and the black painted finger nails on the defendant. From there on, it looked to me like a couple of forty year olds still living like immature college students. The plaintiff at least seemed to be able to manage his life but the defendant came across more like a youngster who lives by couch surfing with friends who actual manage to pay their rent. The defendant really isn't capable in managing his life. I didn't care too much about either litigant, but the black nail polish was a first for me.

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/4/2024 at 8:33 PM, DoctorK said:

First thing I noticed was the blue pony tail on the plaintiff and the black painted finger nails on the defendant.

Well, damn! I don't seem to have this episode. Must check again.

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/4/2024 at 8:33 PM, DoctorK said:

The defendant really isn't capable in managing his life.

Okay, disclaimer: I KNOW all young men aren't like these two or the multitude of other useless, grifting slackers we see on these shows, sponging off girlfriends or grandmas, acting like babies, and calling themselves "kids" when they're 25+.  I'm saying that I have never been more glad not to be young and looking.

Anyway, P with the blue-green ponytail seems to want to be a big-time spender but doesn't really grasp that this lifestyle has to be paid for sooner or later.  Champagne tastes on a beer budget, but hopefully, he learned something.

Def, the "songwriter" made the P look good! Another directionless nothingburger who will continue getting handouts and drifting until something gives him a wake-up call. He's another one who thinks that because someone has more than he does, or buys a new car they shouldn't expect him to pay what he owes. The way he ended every sentence on a questioning lilt like a young Valley girl was highly annoying.

On 10/4/2024 at 8:33 PM, DoctorK said:

but the black nail polish was a first for me.

Maybe he's a fan of Christiano Ronaldo, who paints his toenails black. He says it's to protect against fungus while he plays in sweaty shoes. Sorry, but nail polish does the opposite. But that's his prerogative. At least he pays his own bills and he's not painting his nails while leeching and sacking out on someone else's sofa.

 

Edited October 6 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

(They make nail polish that lets oxygen through, mostly in dark colors.  It was created for people like chefs who have their hands in water alot). 

7 October

“Over the Hedge”

New, Season 11, Episode  21

(Danielle Signore vs. Edward Joseph Coover )   

From the show site: A man was cutting down hedges on property he says his family owns when a neighbor told him to stop: she says the hedges were on her property and blocked her view of his unsightly mess.

Plaintiff Danielle Signore is suing defendant/neighbor Edward Joseph Coover for cutting down a hegde that she claims are her property, and defendant claims were on his property. Defendant is the trustee, for his father and brother's neglected property.    Plaintiff says she liked the hedges, because it hid the ugly trailer formerly on the defendant's property.   The map from Portland Maps dot com, shows a strange property line.   Nobody had a survey to settle this.    Defendant consulted his probate attorney, and the hedges were probably his because of adverse possession.    Defendant says he was cleaning out the nasty garbage his father and brother left.    

Corriero says do a survey, which defendant claims is $6,000-I'm calling B.S. on that price.  Plaintiff doubles down, claiming defendant's brother was a heroin addict, and was openly selling heroin from the trailer.   Defendant tore the trailer down, cleaned out the jungle of junk and weeds in the back yard, and then sold the property.   Defendant shows pictures of all of the garbage, needles, and giant weeds.   Defendant's witness and girlfriend Debbie testifies they trimmed the hedge, down to about 3 feet, and cleared weeds off the trailer so he could move the junk trailer out.   Trailer was a construction type trailer.  

Plaintiff isn't even an owner, her mother and husband are owners, and there are no POAs from the owners.   I find the plaintiff insufferable, arrogant and entitled. 

Portlandmaps dot com has a disclaimer that the maps aren't official survey maps.   Judge Juarez notes that plaintiff has no standing to sue.   Corriero says if defendant hadn't fixed the trashed bad yard, and removed the trailer then plaintiff's family wouldn't have good neighbors that they have now.  

Plaintiff gets $2500 for half the cost of the fence.   I wouldn't have given her a penny after she lied about maintaining the invasive hedge.  

(Have the litigants never heard of a survey?   Get a professional survey, cement the corner marker posts in, and then this will be settled). 

(I wouldn't have give plaintiff anything.  It's not her house, she didn't have a POA from the owners, and the defendant couldn't have cleared the back yard with that weedy huge hedge in it.  )

“Cinder-Hella Hurt”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  143

p. 48, 13 May 2024

Edited October 7 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

Boy, what a mess in today's case. Since both parties were convinced that the "hedges" (really stretched the definition of hedge) were on their property (with defendant having a back up claim of adverse possession which sounded correct), what they should have done was to either split the cost of the survey (I also doubt the $6K cost) or do it with wrong litigant paying the whole cost. I know, too much to expect.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I find the plaintiff insufferable, arrogant and entitled. 

Totally agree, she was a nasty snotty witch who after living next door to the alleged drug house covered with trash for years was getting the benefit of a clean up that removed the mess and raised her property value.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I wouldn't have given her a penny after she lied about maintaining the invasive hedge. 

I agree, she got immensely more benefit from the clean up than $2500.

It was sort of fun watching the judges having much more lively deliberations than usual and Papa stood up for himself better than usual.

Edited October 7 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, DoctorK said:

what they should have done was to either split the cost of the survey (I also doubt the $6K cost)

I think she may have misunderstood something. No way is it 6K. Maybe she meant to say $600. More likely even less.

 

15 hours ago, DoctorK said:

she was a nasty snotty witch

Agree!

[CrazyInAlabama]

8 October

“U-Turn on  U-Haul”

New, Season 11, Episode  22

(Janet Lim vs.  Khalid Hashmi)  

From the show site: A woman says her kindly old neighbor became verbally abusive after she lent him $2,000 to get out of a cryptocurrency scam; he says he's a perfect gentleman, and the money was not a loan, but payment for helping her move, although he didn't help her.

Plaintiff Janet Lim suing defendant / neighbor Khalid Hashmi for an unpaid loan, $2,000 to get him out of a cryptocurrency scam.   Defendant says it wasn't a loan, but payment for helping her move, but he didn't help her move.  Plaintiff is suing$1600 for attorney fees to recover the money, for a $2,000 loan, $3600. 

After the loan,the plaintiff claims defendant made a disturbing phone call, and plaintiff is terrified to leave her home.   

Plaintiff lived with her mother, when mother moved to assisted living, plaintiff wanted help moving her household items from San Francisco to her current apartment.    Plaintiff says defendant didn't help with her move, and wanted the money to sue Bank of America over a cryptocurrency, gift card scam.    Is this a Pig Butchering scam?   

Plaintiff has voice mail recordings with defendant, and texts, saying if he helped her move that money wouldn't be a loan, but he didn't help her, so it was a loan.  

Defendant claims he has a flip phone, and can't text.  Plaintiff sends Judge Juarez a text while judge holds defendant's flip phone, and she receives it, and sends a text back, so defendant is lying again.  

Defendant just lost the case, he called Judge Tewolde "Lady".   Defendant claims plaintiff just gave him the money.  

Corriero really loathes defendant, and he's sort of smiling, but through gritted teeth.  He's really grilling defendant. 

None of the judges can stand defendant. 

Defendant says the agreement was for the money, and he would fly to San Francisco with plaintiff, rent a U-Haul, loan her property up, and drive back to where they live, and that didn't happen.  So, defendant twists this to mean he doesn't owe the money.  Plaintiff witness William Talvin says he heard a phone call between the two litigants, her attorney, and it was full of expletives. 

Plaintiff says the week after the loan, defendant was harassing her, knocking on her door three times a day, threatening her, claiming she was part of the Korean Mafia.    She says she wasn't going to be on a plane with defendant, and alone in a moving van with him for at least 6 hours. 

Plaintiff gets $2,000, but not the $1600 for attorney fees.   I would have given plaintiff $3,600. 

 

“Im-Purr-Fect Kitty”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 144

p. 48, 14 May 2024

Edited October 8 by CrazyInAlabama