Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A woman says her kindly old neighbor became verbally abusive after she lent him $2,000 to get out of a cryptocurrency scam;

That woman was incredibly silly and naive for her age - giving 2K to someone who was her neighbour for three months, and thinking she wanted to take a plane ride and road trip with this virtual stranger.  But that def was unbearable - rude, snarky, smirking, insolent, nasty, disrespectful, and a big fat liar: "I don't know how to text! I never texted her". We see a text from him saying he'll pay her back the money, even though he thought not moving her - when she woke up and realized what a dumb mistake she made - converted the 2K into a gift!

Not only did he call JT "lady" (twice) but when she said something to the effect that he was going to make her lose her temper he sneered, "Lose it."

He never uses bad language, except for the filth he spewed at the P. In the hall, someone forgot to hit the "bleep" button. He says, "When she acts like a bitch, I tell her." What a swine and so arrogant for a dopey fool who got taken in a crypto scam.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

But that def was unbearable - rude, snarky, smirking, insolent, nasty, disrespectful, and a big fat liar

Oh my! That sounds like I missed a great show because I botched setting my recording set up.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Keep looking at the rerun schedule, I'm sure they'll start with Season 11 reruns in a while.  (They often do current season reruns on Fridays, so it may be on soon).   It was a good episode.  

Edited October 9 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 October

“Tiny Home Tales”

New, Season 11, Episode  23

(Derek Espinoza vs. Noah  Morgan and Makayla Nicholson)    rent lost wages, damages and court fees.

From the show site: A baker opened his tiny home to an old friend and her boyfriend, who he says paid rent by stealing and selling packages, and the full extent of their behavior is displayed in his video evidence.

Plaintiff  Derek Espinoza suing defendants/ old friend Makayla Nicholson and her boyfriend Noah Morgan for stealing plaintiff’s  property, and claims they were porch pirates.  Plaintiff suing for $3,080. By December plaintiff only received $100, and defendants didn't pay anything owning for rent except that.   Plaintiff says he's afraid of defendant Morgan.  There is a video of defendant Morgan threatening to beat up plaintiff.   Defendants are counter suing for property, $2500.  

Morgan claims plaintiff never demanded rent, but kicked them out and stole their property.   

This happened in Portland.

Defendant Morgan told plaintiff that if he needed money he should steal and sell something. Defendants claim plaintiff tossed their property into a pond and claim to have a video showing them fishing property out of the pond.  Plaintiff claims he didn't toss defendants' belongings into a pond.  Plaintiff says he put the property in the alleyway as requested by defendant Morgan.  Video shows an alleyway with property being picked up by defendants', not a pond. 

Defendant claims his brother gave him air pods, but couldn't pay rent.  Defendant Nicholson doesn't even look at the judges.   

Part of plaintiff's claim is to install a security camera, because of threats from Def. Morgan to trash the plaintiff's tiny house.   Plaintiff says he's suing for $1500, because he could have rented the tiny home to outsiders for $500 a month.  

Defendant Morgan sent a video to plaintiff of a packed refrigerator with filet mignon, salmon and other luxury items, saying he's not paying rent to plaintiff. This is his parents home, where he's mooching now. 

Corriero doesn't think defendant Morgan is so cute, and Judges Tewolde and Juarez don't like Morgan either.    

Defendant's counter claim is tossed. 

Plaintiff receives $700 , for partial rent and rekeying, and cleaning fees and damages, plus utilities.   Judges Tewolde and Juarez joke about giving the plaintiff a lot of money, but they'll follow the claim.  ( I would have given plaintiff every penny he asked for). 

“Just Honda Me the Summons”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  145

p. 48, 15 May 2024

 

 

Edited October 9 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Oh my! That sounds like I missed a great show because I botched setting my recording set up.

It's in several parts, but you can start here. You won't believe this guy:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5SpeEJjNXo

 

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This happened in Portland.

That may explain the litigants. The plaintiff was a bit flakey but the defendants were garbage people. The female defendant may not be able to help herself because she is stupid but the male defendant is a complete piece of crap, an admitted porch pirate stealing stuff from people’s front door as a career. Defendants lied about just about everything, e.g.,  the “we literally had to fish our stuff out of a pond” and he has a video to prove this, well guess what? No damn pond in the video. JJ would have eviscerated Noah the porch pirate, but Corriero thinks that he is just “immature”. No, he is a real worthless asshole. After this case, I think we can assume the defendants will wander on and find more people to leech off of and keep living off of stolen Amazon packages. I did enjoy Tewolde roasting Noah when presenting the verdict but it wasn't as harsh as the defendant deserved.

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Derek Espinoza vs. Noah  Morgan and Makayla Nicholson)    rent lost wages, damages and court fees.

I had to turn this off when I got to the AirPods thing. I'm kind of speechless and... I dunno what to say. I guess I just need to know the names and shades of Derek's lipstick and eyeshadow. They were fabulous.

[CrazyInAlabama]

10 October

“It Wasn’t Rent to Be”

New, Season 11, Episode  24

(Joseph Coleman vs. Derek May)   

From the show site: The plaintiff says that his friend's behavior became "weird" after they moved in together, and that he left abruptly without paying rent, so he is charging him late fees.

Plaintiff Joseph Coleman suing defendant/former roommate Derek May for unpaid rent and late fees, and says defendant started acting very strange. $4900 for unpaid rent, late fees, damages, utilities, and cleaning fees.     Defendant says plaintiff suckered him into moving into a substandard granny flat, without a shower.   

The litigants had a YouTube show about dispensaries.  Plaintiff says defendant only needed a short term rental, for $1200 a month, into the casita.  Defendant says he was supposed to move into the house, for $1000 a month.  No contract.  Text messages are submitted by plaintiff, about the rent.  Defendant claims he only stayed a month, and paid $1500 to plaintiff, in cash.  Plaintiff says defendant was supposed to stay one month, but didn't leave.  Later plaintiff allowed defendant to move into the main house.  Then, plaintiff says defendant was acting strange, and announced his own sister had a judgment against him, and he owed her.  

Corriero takes over the questioning, yelling at plaintiff over all of the charges.  Plaintiff also says defendant's dog was not housebroken, and pooped in the house constantly, and ruined a mattress.  Plaintiff says it took him, and a hired helper took over 5 hours to clean the room where defendant lived with the dog.   Corriero hasn't hired a cleaning crew for a situation like this, or he wouldn't be whining about the cleaning fee.  $1,000 to clean an area this bad is very reasonable.  

Also, defendant left without notice.  Defendant claims his mother was very ill, and he mentioned to plaintiff he would have to leave.  Plaintiff says he never heard anything about the mother or her illness. 

Tewolde doesn't like what plaintiff said about defendant leaving his dog for a week, and didn't let the dog out.  Plaintiff has photos of dog stuff on the floors, mattress and other items in the room.  Mattress had to be replaced. 

$900 of late fees weren't written down, so that's tossed.  

Plaintiff offered $2,000 to defendant to clean up the rooms, and move out, and defendant refused. 

Juarez doesn't want to charge defendant the cleaning fee.  

Plaintiff receives $2400. No late fees, or anything but rent, and an estimate for mattress.  (I would have given plaintiff the cleaning fees, plus the rent, and a reasonable late fee, so I would have given him $3600)

“Roommate Rumble”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  102

p. 46, 6 March 2024

Edited October 10 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The plaintiff says that his friend's behavior became "weird" after they moved in together, and that he left abruptly without paying rent, so he is charging him late fees.

I watched these two goofy YouTube clowns as long as I could until JT started saying something about the dog and I knew it didn't want to hear it.

I bet their YT channel was just riveting.

[CrazyInAlabama]

11 October

“Mold‘N Girls”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  3

p. 50, 11 September 2024

 

"All’s Wheel That Ends Wheel”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 50

p. 44, 22 November 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

14 October

“No Horsing Around”

New, Season 11, Episode  25

(Barbara Johnson vs. Heidi Falke)  

From the show site: A woman loans money to a fellow horse lover whose previous mare had passed away.

Plaintiff Barbara Johnson suing for repayment of loan to defendant Heidi Falke to buy a horse, as always suing for unpaid loan. $2362 for loan, interest, and fees. Defendant says there was no deadline for repayment, and plaintiff is being unreasonable.   Defendant claims plaintiff wanted Venmo, but her card was messed up, and she could only Zelle, and claims plaintiff wouldn't accept that or cash. 

Plaintiff says she loaned the money in October, but there was no start date, and a month later plaintiff asked for payments.   Loan was $1750 for the original loan.    Plaintiff says she never demanded payment in full, until defendant dodged a process server, claimed she was out of town, and had a bunch of excuses not to pay.     

After receiving no payments, plaintiff filed suit, including process server.  

Plaintiff loaned $5,000 to the defendant seven years ago, but defendant paid it back in full.   It took 2 1/2 years to repay that loan. 

Defendant claims plaintiff was insulting, and made horrible statements to her.  

This would have been avoided with a written contract, with payment schedule, and interest amount.   

Plaintiff suit inclues the loan, service fees for two trips, court fees, and interest.  

Defendant claims plaintiff's account wasn't real, and not from a real bank.  

Corriero says plaintiff was unreasonable. 

Plaintiff only demanded full repayment after almost a year of no payments.   

Plaintiff receives $1750.   

“No Dancing the Loan Away”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  79

p. 46, 5 February 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

15 October

“A Ruff Attack”

New, Season 11, Episode  26

(Lyndsey Davis and Sean Knight  vs.  Brian Sanders )   Knight davis Sanders

From the show site: Plaintiffs says a neighbor's pit bull attacked her Jack Russell terrier.

Plaintiffs/Jack Russell Terrier owners Lindsey Davis and Sean Knight suing defendant/Pit Bull owner Brian Sanders for vet bills after a dog attack.Defendant claims injuries are exaggerated, and not his proble.  Attack was December 2020, and plaintiffs have been trying to get defendant pay up ever since. Case was filed in 2023.   

Plaintiff was walking her dog on leash, when defendant's Pit attacked her dog, plaintiff tried to pick her dog by it's leash.     Strangely, plaintiff says dog was white Pit with pink collar, but pictured defendant dog is light brown and white Pit.   Defendant says brother opened his gate to drive in, and Pit ran out, and defendant says Zoey the Jack Russell looked like his dog toys. 

 Defendant dog dragged the plaintiff's dog inside defendant's gate, and gate closed. Then gate opened, and defendant pushed plaintiff's bleeding dog outside the fence.  Neighbor gave plaintiff a ride home, when boyfriend got home he took them to the emergency vet. 

Plaintiff boyfriend was 'too busy' to serve defendant with papers.  However, Sheriff's department does that for a fee, or process servers.  

I find the plaintiff's boyfriend and defendant both to be jerks.  Both plaintiffs are so passive.  

Total bills were $650, plus $1942, medications, etc. for the dog, and therapy for plaintiff $632,  equalling $2800 total,  

Boyfriend wants lost wages, and gas for vet visits.  Plaintiff is the homemaker, but boyfriend needed to go too, because he handles the money.

Defendant claims he hasn't heard from plaintiffs in years. 

Judges discuss the statute of limitations, and if it tanked plaintiff's case.  Three years for personal property damages.  No wages or gas. 

Plaintiff gets vet bills, and therapy, $3460.

 

“Unlordly Landlord”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  6

p. 42, 18 September 2023

[CrazyInAlabama]

16 October

“Vanity Unfair”

New, Season 11, Episode  27

(Eileen  Mendel vs. Francisco Concha )   

From the show site: A woman claims the house painter she hired ruined her vanity with paint splatter; the painter says he has no idea what she's talking about.

Plaintiff Eileen Mendel suing defendant / house painter Francisco Concha for a ruined vanity from paint splatter.    Defendant says plaintiff is wrong, and he didn’t do it. She's suing for $700 refund.  Defendant says she never paid him the $700, and no refund is owed.  Plaintiff hired defendant to touch up paint around the house.    

Judge Tewolde looks at the photo of the vanity, that plaintiff says is robin's egg blue, but it looks yellow in the photo.   Plaintiff insists the vanity is blue, and Judge Tewolde says no way.   Plaintiff keeps talking over Judge T. and never answers anything she's asked.  

Plaintiff claims defendant was painting without a contractor's license, and then claims the Contractors Licensing Board wanted to sent a SWAT team out to arrest defendant.   Judge Juarez is shocked about this claim, and Judge Tewolde tells plaintiff to stop.   I'm hearing the theme to the Twilight Zone, every time plaintiff talks.  The audience members are all shaking their heads. 

Plaintiff admits she agreed to pay defendant, $700, but never paid him anything.   She claims she thought a little solvent (acetone, nail polish remover) would take the paint spots off the vanity, but instead the finish started coming off.   

Corriero actually agrees with the plaintiff.  

Plaintiff claims she has to have the vanity top redone, and six of the walls that were touched up. 

Corriero says defendant dropped the paint, and plaintiff ruined it and he'll give her $350, but he calls it a refund, and it wasn't because plaintiff never paid anything.  Judges Tewolde and Juarez want to cancel everything. 

It's obvious plaintiff ruined the finish. 

Nothing for anyone, Corriero wimps out again and dissents.   (I would have given defendant $700, and told plaintiff to stuff it). 

 

“PT Purple Paint Problem”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  151

p. 48, 29 May 2024

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A woman claims the house painter she hired ruined her vanity with paint splatter; the painter says he has no idea what she's talking about.

This is the kind of kookiness I'm here for. Crazy lady vs. Overly-dramatic Ricky Ricardo.

P was incapable of giving a straight answer to anything. Does the SWAT team really go and bust down the doors of someone who overcharges for painting? I mean, don't they have better things to do? I bet whoever she talked to at the licensing board was just as frustrated as the judges.

Eileen? Putting nail polish remover on furniture - bad idea.  But it's true that you cannot get paint off wooden furniture without stripping the whole top. Even if the paint drip is wet in the middle, it's dried and hardened on the edges. I speak from sad experience.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I'm hearing the theme to the Twilight Zone, every time plaintiff talks.

Yes. 😄

But really, I'm not sure how Francisco is a chef, a painter, or repairs water heaters or whatever since he was unable to even stand during the case. Maybe he hurt himself. Oh, and I believe he dripped paint on the vanity.

Papa, if you gave P $325, that would mean she'd be enriched by that amount, since she never paid Def a penny. If she spends 700$ getting the vanity fixed AND got the painting done, she'd have a $325 surplus. Am I right about that? Numbers make my head go funny.

I was very puzzled at P being willing to pay $700 for anyone to merely touch up some spots. That makes no sense at all.

[CrazyInAlabama]

On yesterdays painting case, the job was to touch up 8 walls, and I guess patching holes too.    Corriero really tried his best to get a lot of money for plaintiff.   She deserved nothing in my view. She's the one who tried to use nail polish to clean up paint spots, or nail polish spots or whatever they were.  She hired defendant without checking to see if he was a licensed contractor.   She also lied about everything, unless the Contractors Board sends out SWAT teams.  

 

17 October

“NOLA Moolah”

New, Season 11, Episode  28

(Adrian Hacker  vs.  Gregory Garrison)  

From the show site: A man says he helped his friend who had been robbed and stranded, and paid for his hotel room; now he's suing his friend for repayment.

Plaintiff Adrian Hacker suing defendant/former friend Gregory Garrison for repayment of a loan.  Defendant says he owes plaintiff nothing. When defendant tells the judges he owes nothing, because things don't look the way they appear, Judge Tewolde demands to know what the reason is for not paying.  Plaintiff is suing for $1500 loan fee, and $500 for the loan.   Plaintiff is not getting that ridiculous loan fee.

Defendant says loan wasn't a loan, but a joke, and not meant to be repaid.  Defendant got robbed on the streets of New Orleans.   

Plaintiff claims defendant said he was inheriting $2 million from an inheritance, and will repay $200 with $1,000.   Then, says plaintiff was told that for $240 defendant would repay $1500.   Money was wired for $440 by plaintiff.  Defendant claims he had $2 million wired to his account as of 12/24/23, then says it hadn't arrived yet by January. Defendant says the huge repayment is a joke.  Tewolde says bank slip said $2 million would be available by the end of February.  

Even Corriero can't make excuses for defendant. 

Defendant refuses to talk to Judge Tewolde about his remark that plaintiff's circumstances changed.

Plaintiff gets $440 for the loan, and 9% loan interest for two months, and late fees because plaintiff took out a loan to get the money defendant, so $500. 

 

“A Huge Missed Stake”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  150

p. 48, 28 May 2024

 

Edited October 17 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims he had $2 million wired to his account as of 12/24/23, then says it hadn't arrived yet by January.

What a shock. I always get all the millions promised to me by Nigerians. I hope he doesn't give up. Probably if he pays one more fee, the money will be in his account. I doubt he got robbed. Police report? Guess not. I think he was broke from sending every penny he had to Lagos.  P was just gullible. I hope he never gets the kind of emails I get every day. He'll fall for them.

I just got this. If any of you can CashApp me some money to tide me over until I get MY inheritance, I'll pay you back 10x the amount and buy you a new car.

Quote

Central Bank of Nigeria and the Federal Reserve Bank Directors, it has been agreed that your real approved Inheritance funds valued US$12,500,000.00 and the compensation Fund of US$5,500,000.00 (Total US$18,000,000.00) will now be processed

All I have to do is provide the following information, even though they don't even know my name.  A no-brainer, right?
 

Quote

 

Bank Name:--------------------------

Address:----------------------------

Account No.:------------------------

Routing No.:------------------------

Swift Code:-------------------------

Account Name:-----------------------

Thanks for banking with the Federal Reserve Bank while we are looking forward to serving you with the best of our service.

 

I'm not sure what the Def's scam is, but he better hope the FBI doesn't appear at his door charging him with money laundering. I'm always amazed that these days as info and warnings abound, anyone is dumb enough to fall for such goofy crap.

[CrazyInAlabama]

18 October

“Paint My Ride”

New, Season 11, Episode  29

(John Cereoli  vs. Charles Mason )    

From the show site: A man accuses a paint correction specialist of damaging the artwork on his 1932 Ford Roadster; the specialist claims the plaintiff didn't properly dry his paint job.

Plaintiff John Cereoli suing defendant/auto paint specialist Charles Mason for damaging the artwork on his classic Ford Roadster, defendant says plaintiff ruined the paint job. Plaintiff says he owes defendant nothing for the two days he spent working  on the car.   Plaintiff says when defendant pointed out damages on plaintiff's car, that plaintiff claimed defendant did the damages.  

Defendant says previous paint and body work were to blame for the damaes. Car needed to be wet-sanded and buffed before being finished.     Defendant says the car had 'orange peel' texture, with pits.   He says paint wasn't smooth and ready for painting and needed to be sanded, and buffed, to look smooth again.  

Plaintiff did the clear coat and previous paint job himself.  There is a video of the finished sand and buff job, and it's lovely.  I think it's previous damages, and plaintiff didn't do his paint job correctly, and paint wasn't property 'baked'. 

I don't believe a word the plaintiff says about how the damages happen.  

Judge Juarez doesn't understand anything about car painting, or 'baking' a car.  Plaintiff had a temporary paint spray booth, and said it collapsed on the car during the painting process.   Car was never baked to finish it.  

Plaintiff was supposed to pay $2500 for the paint job, defendant offered to not charge because plaintiff had to get the doors redone for $2000. 

$5416 is what plaintiff paid total for the car paint finishes.    Since plaintiff did the flames himself, how are giving him money for his own work? 

Decision is defendant didn't say anything about the dent, so he's being blamed for that.   Tewolde wants to give plaintiff $5,000 for the hood repaint.  

Plaintiff receives $4,600

 

 

“Dude Where’s My BMW?”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  89

p. 46, 13 February 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/18/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think it's previous damages, and plaintiff didn't do his paint job correctly, and paint wasn't property 'baked'. 

I thought so too. Although I know nothing about painting and baking cars it does sound like it's not a job for amateurs.

So we've heard that God is in the employment and real estate business. Today we learned he's also involved in the automotive industry. So if a paint job goes wrong and damage is done by accident, would the Def call it "an act of God" and absolve himself for damage?🤔

That's one beautiful car!

[CrazyInAlabama]

21 October

“Family Fallout”

New, Season 11, Episode  30

(Shameka Simmons vs. Michel'le Boyd-Goodine)  

From the show site: When a woman faced eviction, she turned to her sister, who helped her out with a loan and now sues to collect repayment.

Plaintiff/sister  Shameka Simmons suing defendant / sister Michel'le  Boyd-Goodine for repayment of a loan to keep defendant from being evicted.  Loan was $3600.  Defendant is suing for dog care expenses and rent.   Defendant has received several notices from landlord, and then her husband was arrested, so it wasn't a surprise she couldn't pay her bills.

Defendant says she was going to give $1800 back but landlord wanted the next amount, of $1800.   Plaintiff says she breeds and sells Pomeranians, and she gave defendant five puppies to sell, and she never sold them (males sell for $1,000, and females for $1200). 

Corriero is trying to heal the family, what a joke.   

Judge Juarez believes the defendant more and finds her credible.  I find defendant to be a deadbeat and a grifter. 

Plaintiff receives $3600, from Corriero and Tewolde. Juarez would only give $1800.

“Explain Yourself”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  36

p. 43, 3 November 2023

 

[candice]

Can someone help me find the episode and season of the drunk daddy Kinkade suing daughter also claiming to be cousin of painter

Helo what season and episode is this

[CrazyInAlabama]

22 October

“Man’s Best Friend”

New, Season 11, Episode  31

(Joshua Mitchell vs. Rolando Magana )

From the show site: A father of seven says his neighbor's pit bull slaughtered 13 of his animals.

Plaintiff/animal owner Joshua Mitchell suing defendant/Pit Bull owner Rolando Magana for the slaughter of 13 animals owned by plaintiff, and killed by defendant's Pit Bulls.   As always, defendant says not my dog, and even if it was, dog was provoked.  Suing for $3460.

Plaintiff's son Caleb,  recognized the two attacking dogs as  defendants' dogs. Caleb was home, and saw the dogs attacking the pet sheep.   Caleb and Brett Mitchell grabbed paint ball guns and tried to drive the dogs away.   One dog is a Pit, and other is a Pit/Boxer cross.  

Defendant claims that someone shot and killed one of the dogs, so he claims that they're even.  Defendant says his Pit Bulls get out of the fence frequently.   Defendant claims the attacks were by coyotes.   Defendant shows a video that shows coyotes, but plaintiff's sons know the difference between a coyote, and Pit Bulls.     Defendant claims two men who claimed they were Mitchell's workers showed up at his house with guns, and pictures of the dead animals, and said they were going to kill his dogs.  

Corriero shows the blurred photo of dead kittens, and sheep killed by defendant's vicious, rampaging dogs.     I can't stand the defendant, and his pathetic lies.    Defendant shows some wound on his dog, and claims it was a bullet wound, not paintball.   Since Pit Bull was on plaintiff's property, laws say they can be shot.    You can crank a paintball gun cartridge enough to hurt and leave a mark.   Defendant says one Pit was injured and stayed away for a day after the attack, and he thinks died, 

Plaintiff got home, saw and photographed the dead animals, and drove to defendant's house, and saw the mother filling in a big hole under the fence. I bet if the other two men exist, that the Pit Bulls were killing other people's animals too.   

This was the second attack, the Pit Bulls killed a bunch of pet rabbits right in front of plaintiff.   Second attack was the 13 animals slaughtered by the Pit Bulls.     

Defendant is a waste of oxygen.   One Pit Bull is dead, the other one was given away.   Bet defendant replaces the dogs with equally vicious animals.   

Plaintiff denies killing anyone's dog, or even going on defendant's property.    

Judges should give plaintiff $5,000.

Plaintiff receives $3,460. 

“Sub-Spicious”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  87

p.  46, 8 February 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

23 October

“Knight Court”

New, Season 11, Episode  32

(Caleb  Knight vs. Cheryl Knight)     

From the show site: A man says his mother is holding his car hostage as a means to maintain contact with her young grandson; she says she wants the car gone, but is accused of refusing to set up a time for him to come and get it.

Plaintiff/son Caleb Knight suing defendant/mother Cheryl Knight for return of his car.  Defendant says she wants the car gone, but plaintiff claims mom won’t schedule a pickup time.   Plaintiff claims mother is keeping car away from him to force visits with her grandson. Plaintiff suing for $2500, for the inoperable car that's been on the mother's property since 2016.  $3,000 for storage fees claimed by defendant. 1972 Dodge Dart, no doors, no hood, no motor. 

Defendant says the agreement was when he had a permanent home, he would take the car back.   Son moved out in 2017, and bought a house in 2020, but never picked up the car.   There is no text from defendant refusing to let the car leave.   Because of the car being on defendant's property, she has to park her four-horse trailer on a neighbor's property, she wants the Dodge gone.   The relationship broke down after an argument between son, mother, daughter-in-law, and defendant hasn't seen the grandson in a year.  

Car will have to be towed, but plaintiff refuses to set up a date and time to have the car towed, and he wants a police civil standby.   

Why does defendant have to be there for the towing?   Plaintiff is right, son knows when she's working.  Why can't this be coordinated?   

Mother obviously doesn't want car gone, because she knows son and grandson will never be in contact with her again. 

There's a text from son saying that he's contacted her numerous times to set up a time to pick up the car, but she won't cooperate.  Mother keeps a vehicle parked in front of the Dodge so no one can steal it. 

Defendant witness is her daughter /sister of plaintiff. 

Plaintiff says relationship won't be repaired.  Juarez tries to tell plaintiff he should have defendant in his son's life. 

Storage fees dismissed, no contract, so defendant case dismissed. 

Judges dismiss everything, and say they will set a specific date and time to pick up the car.  Any one of the next three weekends, plaintiff tells her which weekend, and if he doesn't show, then it's abandoned, and defendant can get rid of it for the $100 scrap value. 

 

“Mr. Telephone Man, What’s Wrong with my Lines?”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  91

p. 46, 19 February 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

24 October

“Loan of Contention”

New, Season 11, Episode  33

(Gloria Regalado vs. Eduardo Ventura and Silvia Ventura)    

From the show site: A woman says her ex's mother demanded that she make his car payments while he was hospitalized; after his discharge, he assumed the payments were gifts and says she's suing him only because he's not in their son's life.

Plaintiff Gloria Regalado suing defendant / ex Eduardo Ventura (son and ex) and Silvia Ventura (his mother) for car payments she made for him while he was in the hospital.  As usual, defendant says they were gifts, and she’s only suing because he’s a neglectful and deadbeat father.

   Defendant says even though they lived together, they weren't serious.   Plaintiff says defendant man comes from a very religious strict family, and even when plaintiff was pregnant, the mother didn't accept the relationship.  Plaintiff claims mother and the rest of the family wanted him to marry a woman of their faith.    

Plaintiff says defendant mother intimidated her into making defendant's car payments, but defendant mother denies this, and defendant says no one made payments for him.  $2040 was the total of the payments.   

Plaintiff says defendant has never paid any child support for their child.  Defendant claims plaintiff is lying, and is trying to make him come back with her.  Defendant says plaintiff controlled him with money.  He also claims the second domestic violence arrest was also caused by the plaintiff assaulting him first.  

Plaintiff says defendant was cheating on her while she was pregnant, and she received a restraining order against defendant.   Defendant says he married the other woman, received an annulment, and then impregnated her.   Plaintiff says defendant's mother showed up with defendant and his wife and baby.

Plaintiff also sent texts to defendant saying she would harm herself if he left her. 

Plaintiff wants car payments, insurance payments, 1% interest, late fees for when he didn't pay. $556 damages too. 

I just feel sorry for the kids, not the adults. 

Plaintiff receives car payments, and home damages $3,000.   No interest or late fees, or car insurance. 

Defendant's counter claim dismissed. 

“Mustang Around Vegas”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  157

p. 48, 17 June 2024

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Gloria Regalado vs. Eduardo Ventura and Silvia Ventura) 

Ridiculousness Level: High. Female Desperation: Off the Scale

I don't know the ages of these clowns, but Ms. Regalado looked about 40, and her former lover boy, Eduardo, looked early 20s, maybe, and acts like he's 12 which is par for the course these days. They were classmates in college, which seems to be a career choice for both. He hounded Ms. R for sex, so how could she say no?

Ms. R got the boy away from the apron strings to come live with her. She seemed to think that getting him to leave his cozy family for her was a mark of distinction and a declaration. Sadly, at her age and with all her education, she seems not to know enough to use birth control and lets the boy knock her up. I'm sure she thought he'd be a great baby daddy.

In the meantime, another pitiful woman also desires the boy and she thinks it's a capital idea for HER to get knocked up, too. I guess the boy thought it would be fun to get married, but changed his mind later. I dunno, but this whole strict religious thing with the boy's family doesn't seem to be working out all that well. Maybe they should have taught him to keep his pants zipped or cover up as he flits from bed to bed with his various ladies. Boy is so distressed he has a "meltdown" or a freak-out or something and has to check into a mental hospital and tells his sainted single mommies who converge on the hospital to deal with HIS mommy.

Both of these women craving the fruits of the loins of this immature nitwit need to check themselves into the same hospital. P. threatens to off herself if the boy doesn't return to her loving embrace. That anyone, anywhere, would make a threat like that over this silly, pudgy, dopey, inarticulate Momma's boy is disturbed.

Finally, Ms. R has to bribe her stud to stay in her life by paying for his car insurance. "But I pay for my car myself!" this responsible father of (at least)two announces. Good for you! Who's a big boy?

Papa Mike wants to know if he pays child support. Ha! "I'm in school!" the boy huffs defensively. Maybe schoolboys shouldn't be breeding? "In school since 2017?" Papa asks incredulously.

By then I'd had enough, so thanks for the verdict @CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

25 October

“Lickity-Split on the Permit”

New, Season 11, Episode  34

(Theodore Alvarez Sr vs.  Johnny Velasco)         

From the show site:A homeowner says his contractor dropped the ball on getting permits, and now there are engineers who have been paid but can't do anything: he wants his money back in full.

Plaintiff/homeowner Theodore Alvarez Sr wants a refund from defendant/contractor Johnny Velasco because defendant didn’t get permits for his construction job, and plaintiff wants a full refund.  Suing for $5,000.  Build was for an ADU, and five years later it's still unfinished.  Price of job was $3,000, down payment was $1500 paid by plaintiff. 

All of this was done through a third party, Gabriel.    In the summer of 2023, plaintiff asked the defendant for a refund, gave only $1,000 back out of $4500.  Plaintiff paid $4,000 for engineers later.   

Defendant claims plaintiff changed his mind and wanted another addition to add a second ADU, for extra money, $10,000 was the estimate for the second project.    Then plaintiff says defendant suggested they add a second story on his home, costing from $50,000 to $100,000.    When the scope of the job changed, requiring engineers and other problems with the city permits, defendant quit and claimed they would be even for $1,000 refund to plaintiff.    Plaintiff claims the change in the job was all defendant's idea. 

Designs to add the ADU to the garage are finished and submitted to the city, this was the 1 bedroom.  The 2 bedroom addition started everything over, and designs were never completed.       Designs for the second story never were completed either. 

Plaintiff received $1,000 back. 

This all started in 2019.    When plaintiff heard the problems with the 2 bedroom ADU, plaintiff said he was fine with the 1 bedroom, already permitted ADU. 

Where was Gabriel the middleman in this? 

Corriero as usual sides with defendant, and doesn't want to give $4,000 back to plaintiff, and then not $3,000 either.  Engineer was paid $4,000, but can't finish because defendant didn't do his job, so she can finish. 

Plaintiff receives $0.   Since Defendant paid the engineer.   Defendant has to turn over the plans to plaintiff, and if plaintiff wants money back from the engineer or general contractor,  then he'll have to sue them. Defendant turned over one set of plans, and there's still another set defendant has. 

 

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

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  158

p. 49, 18 June 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

28 October

“Pit Bullying”

New, Season 11, Episode  35

( Tim Gilmore and Colby Kean vs.  Blake Bilyeu and Logan Isaacs )       Bilyeu and Isaacs

From the show site:  The defendants' pit bull got loose, and the plaintiffs let him into their house as a kindness, then he attacked their little terrier mix.

Plaintiff/dog owners Tim Gilmore and Colby Kean  suing defendant/Pit Bull owners Blake Bilyeu and Logan Isaacs for vet bills for his dog (Kevin) that was attacked. 

However, plaintiff saw the defendant’s dog loose frequently, with defendants' other dog, and let it into his house for playdates. . Why did plaintiffs do that? You never introduce dogs on one dog's territory.  $1017 for vet bills.   Plaintiffs have four dogs, and when defen

There are specific regulations in Springfield, MO about keeping pit bulls.   Dog has to be registered, and owners have a bunch of requirements to keep a Pit Bull in the city limits.    Dogs aren't registered, aren't neutered, and don't have an adequate fence.   

Plaintiffs' German Shepherd mix was attacked by defendant's Pits. The attack happened for about five minutes. 

After the attack, defendants didn't take their dog to the vet, treated him at home.  

Defendants' Pits get out frequently, male dog can easily clear the fence.   Defendant claims they haven't been able to afford a privacy fence.  

Tewolde doesn't think defendants were negligent. Yes they were, dogs got out all of the time.   Dogs aren't registered, or neutered, must be muzzled, and on leash when off property, all against the Pit Bull regulations.  

First time Pit came over plaintiff said the dogs were all friendly.  Male Pit stayed overnight many times.  Defendant is trying to say plaintiffs' other dog came to their house once.   

After the attack, dog has been roaming loose at least twice. Defendant still claims her dog isn't aggressive.  Defendant Blake blames the dogs are let out by her children and others she babysits.   (I'm wondering if the Pits are a breeding pair, and that's why they aren't registered, neutered, and roam so often). 

Corriero says he's not sure the regulations about pit bulls are relevant.  Yes, they are, and I hope the authorities saw this episode.   Yes, they are, neutered dogs roam less usually, and dog wasn't fenced properly. 

Juarez says negligence is there.  Corriero dissents.   Tewolde agrees with Juarez. 

Plaintiffs receive $0. (Tewolde and Corriero decide for the defendants, Juarez dissents). 

 

“Ex-Cessive Cheat Warning”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  86

p. 46, 7 February 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

29 October

“Plea for the Car Key”

New, Season 11, Episode  36

(Rikki Higgins vs. Wyatt Hoyem)  

From the show site: A young woman purchases a 20-year-old car, and it breaks down on the way home; the seller promises to repair it for free, but the buyer loses the key.

Plaintiff/ car buyer Rikki Higgins suing defendant/ car seller Wyatt Hoyem for the purchase price, after she only drove the car for one day, it broke down.   Defendant was paid $1,000 by plaintiff, on the purchase price of $2500.   However,  Car is  2003 Cadillac, with 107,000 miles on it.    Plaintiff's boyfriend Talan Sidwell, testifies car stopped several times, barely made it home, and then plaintiff lost the keys.   Defendant needs the registration and title to get replacement keys.   

Corriero seems to think 'As Is' isn't what applies to a 2003 Cadillac.  Defendant fixed the car, but needs the renewed registration to get the keys made.  Defendant says two tires were popped when he went to plaintiff's to put the car on the trailer. 

Then the real story comes out.  Plaintiff's mother gave her a car, so she doesn't need the defendant's Cadillac.   Plaintiff also says the diagnotic app for the car will cost her $100 a year, but she won't get the app.

As usual Corriero tries to make the defendant liable for the problems with the car.   

Defendant's girlfriend testifies the two tires were flat when they towed it home.  

I would cancel the sale, no money to anyone, and let defendant keep the car, and the money.    

During the discussion when Corriero is blathering on, Juarez and Tewolde look they want to slap him.    Tewolde and Juarez want to give the $1,000 back to plaintiff minus the key cost, and two tires.  They both say she wanted the car until her mother gave her another car. 

PLaintiff receives $1, 250.  Defendant keeps the car.   (From Juarez and Tewolde) (Corriero is totally pissy about losing to the other two judges)

 

“Double, Double Oil and Trouble ; Luck is no Lady”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  156

p. 48, 12 June 2024

Edited October 29 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

30 October

“Real Housewives of the Trailer Park; Sisterly Loan for a Home”

New, Season 11, Episode  37

"Real Housewives of the Trailer Park"

(Diana Powers vs.  Sandra Aguilar )  

From the show site: A tree trimmer next door accidentally lets a branch fall on a woman's carport awning.

Plaintiff / homeowner Diana Powers suing defendant/tree trimer Sandra Aguilar for damaging her carport while he was trimming trees. Plaintiff says she was in her mobile home cooking dinner, and she heard a huge boom.  It was defendant's tree branch falling on her carport. Suing for $5,000.

Plaintiff's husband is her witness, Franklin Powers.  Carport was permanently dented, couldn't get the dent out far enough to park under it.   Defendant says she got one estimate, but blames the damages on the age of the carport.  Defendant's estimate was from her boyfriend.

Defendant didn't get any estimates.  Plaintiff has one estimate. 

Defendant pormised to fix the carport, but hasn't paid or get a real estimate.

Plaintiff husband says taking the current one down, and replacing it would be $7,000 or $9,000.   This isn't a short carport, it's covering the whole side of the trailer and patio too, you can easily park two standard size vehicle under it. 

Several years ago, defendant replaced a fence, and wants plaintiffs to pay for half of the fence, almost $1,000.   However, plaintiff says fence was only $445, she paid $200 for it. 

Plaintiff gets $5,000.  (Judges don't seem to realize this is a huge carport/patio cover over a big distance, and that they don't make the old materials)

 

"Sisterly Loan for a Home"

(Samiyah Dulin vs. Sasha Brown)        

From the show site: A teenager dips into her inheritance to lend her older sister money for their shared apartment.

Plaintiff sister Samiyah Dulin suing defendant / sister Sasha Brown for an unpaid loan. Suing for $1,300 .  Plaintiff loaned money to mother and defendant, mother paid the money back, all taken from plaintiff's inheritance from father.  Grandmother also had to pay some up front.   

Defendant says she was paying $400, brother was paying $400, but plaintiff was paying nothing.  Grandmother was paying some rent too. The sisters still live together, with the grandmother and brother. There's a written agreement for once.  

Plaintiff shows the rent payments from her bank account.   But the payments don't add up to $400.   Corriero asks why plaintiff not paying rent means defendant won't pay the loan back.  

Plaintiff receives $1,300  because it fits the written agreement. 

(I'm not a fan of the double case episodes, they're usually two boring cases that are obvious what should happen.   However, November is a sweeps month, so the cases should be much better. ) (Sweeps months are November, February, and May, they do ratings for every channel all day long, it helps count viewership, and determine how much advertisers will pay to do ads on the show). 

 

“Can’t Get Far with a Stolen Car”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  155

p. 48, 11 June 2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/29/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

During the discussion when Corriero is blathering on, Juarez and Tewolde look they want to slap him. 

I must catch up this weekend!

[CrazyInAlabama]

31 October

“Furry Bar Brawl”

New, Season 11, Episode 

(Jonathan Andino Beniquez vs. Sheila Schilling)   

From the show site: A woman's pet dog attacked a man's service dog, so he wants her to pay for its surgeries and re-training.

Plaintiff Jonathan Andino Beniquez suing defendant/attacking dog owner Sheila Schilling for surgeries and re-training on his dog Duke, after defendant’s dog, Bo, attacked plaintiff’s service dog.  Suing for $  .  Litigants were at a pet friendly bar, and plaintiff was training and with the service dog with Duke on leash.    Plaintiff saw defendant come into the outdoor bar area, on her standing up scooter, and defendant came in with her dog. Defendant's dog had a leash on, but no one was holding the leash.  Then, plaintiff claims her friend lost his grip on the leash when her coat got caught on the patio gate.  Plaintiff's dog was in a sit/stay, on leash, when defendant's dog attacked.  Suing for $5,000, including over $2,000 for the surgery, and other medical costs. A GoFundMe totaled $2480.   

When defendant's dog attacked, plaintiff pulled his dog back with the leash, and defendant's dog bit the plaintiff's dogs leg severely.     Defendant's story about the attack is bizarre, and a total lie.  She denies her dog was out of control, and the attack is exaggerated.   

 Judge Tewolde is mad at defendant, because she lied to the judge.  I'm mad because defendant is another entitled dog owner who doesn't care about her animal attacking other people or animals.    Defendant lied, she was in court four years ago for her dog attacking another dog.  

Defendant claimed the previous attack was a trespasser on her property.  Plaintiff can prove the earlier attack happened in the city park.  Plaintiff shows a video of defendant coming on the patio, her dog was never on leash with a person holding the end.   The video shows no one was with the defendant, she had the leash on the ground before coming in the gate, and leasurely strolls over to the attack, while you can hear plaintiff's dog screaming in pain.  

Defendant's friend was sitting at a table, didn't even notice the dog or defendant coming into the patio.   Defendant still claims this was her dogs only attack.  Defendant paid $700, and that's all. 

Plaintiff's dog also needed retraining, since Duke is a real service dog.  Meagan Andino, wife of plaintiff is his witness, about the surgeries and medical issues. . 

Even Corriero doesn't find a way to excuse defendant. 

Defendant looks at photos of the injuries, and claims plaintiff's dog has a compromised immune system and that the subsequent surgeries and care weren't her problem.    

Plaintiff receives $5,000.   In spite of Corriero whining about it.  Tewolde and Juarez look like Corriero is getting on their last nerve. 

 

“Cash Appalled”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  148

p. 48, 21 May 2024

 

1 November

“Godmother May I”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 7

p. 51, 17 September 2024

 

 

“The Great Crate Debate”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  149

p. 48, 22 May 2024

Edited October 31 by CrazyInAlabama

[badhaggis]

9 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

31 October

“Furry Bar Brawl”

New, Season 11, Episode 

(Jonathan Andino Beniquez vs. Sheila Schilling)   

From the show site: A woman's pet dog attacked a man's service dog, so he wants her to pay for its surgeries and re-training.

Plaintiff Jonathan Andino Beniquez suing defendant/attacking dog owner Sheila Schilling for surgeries and re-training on his dog Duke, after defendant’s dog, Bo, attacked plaintiff’s service dog.  Suing for $  .  Litigants were at a pet friendly bar, and plaintiff was training and with the service dog with Duke on leash.    Plaintiff saw defendant come into the outdoor bar area, on her standing up scooter, and defendant came in with her dog. Defendant's dog had a leash on, but no one was holding the leash.  Then, plaintiff claims her friend lost his grip on the leash when her coat got caught on the patio gate.  Plaintiff's dog was in a sit/stay, on leash, when defendant's dog attacked.  Suing for $5,000, including over $2,000 for the surgery, and other medical costs. A GoFundMe totaled $2480.   

When defendant's dog attacked, plaintiff pulled his dog back with the leash, and defendant's dog bit the plaintiff's dogs leg severely.     Defendant's story about the attack is bizarre, and a total lie.  She denies her dog was out of control, and the attack is exaggerated.   

 Judge Tewolde is mad at defendant, because she lied to the judge.  I'm mad because defendant is another entitled dog owner who doesn't care about her animal attacking other people or animals.    Defendant lied, she was in court four years ago for her dog attacking another dog.  

Defendant claimed the previous attack was a trespasser on her property.  Plaintiff can prove the earlier attack happened in the city park.  Plaintiff shows a video of defendant coming on the patio, her dog was never on leash with a person holding the end.   The video shows no one was with the defendant, she had the leash on the ground before coming in the gate, and leasurely strolls over to the attack, while you can hear plaintiff's dog screaming in pain.  

Defendant's friend was sitting at a table, didn't even notice the dog or defendant coming into the patio.   Defendant still claims this was her dogs only attack.  Defendant paid $700, and that's all. 

Plaintiff's dog also needed retraining, since Duke is a real service dog.  Meagan Andino, wife of plaintiff is his witness, about the surgeries and medical issues. . 

Even Corriero doesn't find a way to excuse defendant. 

Defendant looks at photos of the injuries, and claims plaintiff's dog has a compromised immune system and that the subsequent surgeries and care weren't her problem.    

Plaintiff receives $5,000.   In spite of Corriero whining about it.  Tewolde and Juarez look like Corriero is getting on their last nerve. 

 

“Cash Appalled”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  148

p. 48, 21 May 2024

They really do look like Corriero is driving them to distraction. I love how expressive their faces are! Also I love how they speak for all of us.

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/30/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Sisterly Loan for a Home"

(Samiyah Dulin vs. Sasha Brown)

Omg. I don't know if you actually watched all of this. I tried but after about 5 minutes I was so bored and irritated by the yammering I gave up.

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/30/2024 at 3:28 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says she got one estimate, but blames the damages on the age of the carport.  Defendant's estimate was from her boyfriend.

That woman was an intolerable liar, so blase about the damage done. When one of the judges asked why she didn't have the tree cutter pay the damage with his insurance, she just shrugged it off, saying she didn't want to talk to him anymore. AS IF he was licensed and insured and had any skill. Probably hired in the usual litigant way - she saw some guy down the street building a fence and said, "Hey - wanna cut some trees?" It took quite a while to find out that the estimate came from her boyfriend.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 November

“Striking Out”

New, Season 11, Episode 39

(David Carlin vs. Michael Ivankich)   

From the show site: A sports card collector who is so excited to purchase two of his dream cards that he declines the seller's offer to have them authenticated before purchasing them later learns that they are fake.

Plaintiff/ card buyer David Carlin suing defendant/ card seller Michael Ivankich for two sports cards.  Suing for $1,934 . Cards were an estate sale contingency deal.  However, plaintiff didn't cards authenticated before they were purchases.   Defendant says he asked plaintiff several times about authenticating the cards. (Willie Mays and Ty Cobb cards).  Plaintiff said he did his own research, and declined to authenticate the cards in person.  Two people looked at photos of the cards, and said they looked good.    

Cards would have been worth about $3,000 if authentic, no matter of the condition.  Defendant sent a receipt. Receipt says at the bottom that card sales are 'as is', not guaranteed.     Then, after the puchase plaintiff sent photos to someone who claimed the cards were fakes.    

Plaintiff claims the cards were from a foreclosure with contents of the house being handled by defendant.    

Ad says cards were not authenticated.   

Plaintiff doesn't want to explain what authenticated would mean.  Then he gets snotty with Juarez over 'authentication'.  Then does the same to Corriero, claiming the law says counterfeit cards mean he has to be refunded, and claims Corriero should know that section of the law.  Defendant made several offers for settlement, and plaintiff won't settle. 

Juarez wants to know how plaintiff set the value of the cards, at $3,000 for both. Juarez says plaintiff is rude. 

Plaintiff admits defendant never said the cards were authentic, and defendant agrees with that. 

There was also a third card that wasn't sold to plaintiff, and plaintiff says that's suspicious. (I suspect the third card was a Satchel Paige card). 

The way defendant's company works is they sell items from estates, and give 65% to beneficiaries of the estate, and keep 35% for his business. 

Corriero gets angry with plaintiff. For once he acts like a sensible person dealing with the plaintiff. 

Juarez says they get a lot of rude litigants in court, but plaintiff is exceptionally arrogant and rude. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

 

“Mending Fences”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  147

p. 48, 20 May 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A sports card collector who is so excited to purchase two of his dream cards that he declines the seller's offer to have them authenticated before purchasing them later learns that they are fake.

How annoying was that weaselly little twerp who looked like he'd been sleeping on a park bench? First of all - and I know very little about cards - condition is everything with these. Collectors want their items pristine and graded. He knew they were in "poor" condition but was so clueless he bought them anyway. Even if they were authentic they'd have very little value, if any. But he didn't know that.

The estate seller (who runs estate sales with items 'as is', and doesn't authenticate or guarantee anything) offered to go to a card shop and get them checked out, but for some reason, the weasel declined to do that. Instead, he takes the word of some anonymous person on an online forum who tells him they're fake, when he posts there to brag about his messed-up cards.

His tone suggested the judges were idiots. He told J.Juarez that her question was "silly."  When even Papa shuts him down and informs him to stop talking while he's asking a question, he snarks, "Go for it."

He calls Def a "jerk". Papa gets riled up at that and when Papa gets P.O'd we know it's bad.  Mouthy little troll was unbelievably rude and arrogant, for someone so easily duped and dopey.

I bet he didn't retire. I bet he got fired for being an arrogant, mouthy, little troll, hated by all.

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

When even Papa shuts him down and informs him to stop talking while he's asking a question, he snarks, "Go for it."

For the first few minutes of this case I was just laughing at the plaintiff's rank stupidity but as the case went on, it stopped being funny to me as it became clear that the plaintiff was (and is) a total rude nasty jerk (and really stupid) with no redeeming characteristics. The arrogance of saying that he read somewhere in the law that he was right but that it was up to judges to look it up left me stunned. I would hate to have to deal with him, actually I would hate to even be in the same room with him.

Edited November 4 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

The arrogance of saying that he read somewhere in the law that he was right but that it was up to judges to look it up left me stunned.

I forgot that part.  Googled his little fingers off, I guess, read half a paragraph, and didn't understand the rest yet he felt he would educate the judges on the law. I love it when litigants do that.

 

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

actually I would hate to even be in the same room with him.

I hated him and I wasn't anywhere near him!  But he was so bad he was fun to hate.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 November

“Sneak Attack”

New, Season 11, Episode  40

(Terrell Oliver vs.  Crystal Millan)  Oliver Millan

From the show site: After his release from jail, a young man goes to his ex-girlfriend's house where, he says, two guys beat him up at her direction.

PlaintiffTerrell  Oliver suing former girlfriend/defendant Crystal Millan for having two men beat him up.  Suing for $ for pain and suffering.  The beat down happened at plaintiff's home, which he shared with defendant. Plaintiff says the two men came home with defendant, and they said something about plaintiff stealing the defendant and her kids' social security numbers. WHen defendant gets rude with Judge Corriero, Judge Tewolde reminds defendant to stop being rude.  Defendant says plaintiff was beaten up, but defendant's witness says she never saw the plaintiff at defendant's home, and she's defendant's roommate. 

Plaintiff claims the beat down happened down the block, defendant says there were a lot of people looking to hurt plaintiff, but the beat down assailants weren't going to kill plaintiff, another person wanted to kill him.  

Where do they live?   It sounds like an action movie where they live. 

(I'm always amazed at the huge number of exhibits and pages of evidence the judges have to look through)

Plaintiff claims the defendant was present when he was being assaulted, but defendant denies this. 

Plaintiff case dismissed no proof.  As Judge Juarez says, defendant is morally culpable, but not legally culpable.  

(You can tell it's ratings sweeps month, where everything gets rated for viewers.  Always has the most bizarre cases). 

“A Housing Dilemma”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  152

p. 48, 3 June 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 November

“Sold Short”

New, Season 11, Episode  41

(Theresa Barbero vs. Nakimbe-Oya  Baobab-Brown )    

From the show site: A web developer says she learned that a marketing program was a scam, but the defendant's policy says she must finish the program to qualify for a refund -- but at the same time, utilizing their materials disqualifies her.

Plaintiff/web developer and student Theresa Barbero suing defendant/marketing program operator  Nakimbe-Oya Baobab-Brown for a refund on a marketing course.  Suing for $997

Contract rules for a refund are bizarre. You have to complete the program of 12 classes, there are 30 videos in total.   Then, after you complete the program, you have to try all of the methods, and at the end of the year, the defendant's team will work with you, and after that you may get a refund, and an Amazon gift card.   Corriero asks if defendant has ever given a refund.  Defendant claims that no one wanted a refund before plaintiff did.   Plaintiff also posted a one-star review, and defendant is suing for defamation, for $5000. 

Defendant claims plaintiff sues very often, and is asked to prove that.  

Judge Tewolde wants to see a court document showing plaintiff is a vexatious litigant.   Defendant presents no proof of her allegations. 

Judge Juarez points out that once the bonus materials are delivered, and if a student uses it, they are no longer able to get a refund. 

Defendant countersuit dismissed, because it's bull pucky. 

Plaintiff receives $997.

 

“Flooring Fiascos & Carpet Conflicts!”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  153

p. 48, 4 June 2024

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Theresa Barbero suing defendant/marketing program operator  Nakimbe-Oya Baobab-Brown for a refund on a marketing course.

JMO, but the Def sounded like a scammer pushing some pyramid scheme, although I could be wrong.

The only time I have ever heard or read from any source whatsoever that if I put money into something success is guaranteed and it's "100% Risk-Free" is the zillion Nigerian scam emails I get. It's akin to a broker saying, "Buy this stock and you are guaranteed to double your money."

Def was an evasive, slick, double talker and not a very bright one after we see the video of her shredding the P and using filthy language. Very professional!

When JT asked her for evidence that P is "very litigious" (she loved saying that) she first tried to sidetrack the question, then offered as proof something she had written herself! Dumb, for sure.  She really thought if she talked fast enough - even when making no sense - she could snow the judges like she did her naive clients. "We offer a complete refund, but there's no way to get it. Ever."

I imagine those 8 reviews she got with an average of 4.5 were all from her family members unless there are people who actually enjoy being scammed, or don't recognize it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

7 November

“Move My Property, Don’t Take It”

New, Season 11, Episode  42

(Barbara Johnson vs. Grace Nix)     

From the show site: A woman accuses her niece of stealing her property instead of moving it into storage while she was in the hospital; the niece countersues, saying her aunt caused her to fall and knock out her teeth.

Plaintiff / aunt Barbara Johnson suing defendant / niece Grace NIx for stealing her property.  Aunt claims defendant assaulted her, and that fighting niece Jonson NixNiece is counter suing aunt for injuries. Niece claims she tripped and broke her teeth and it was the aunt's fault.  Plaintiff suing for $5,000.  Defendant counter suing for $5,000.  

Plaintiff and defendant were living together, when plaintiff went to the hospital.  Plaintiff's son was already tossed out of the apartment, plaintiff was moving soon, and packed her stuff to go to storage.  Plaintiff was evicted.   Defendant says she put her own stuff in storage, but not plaintiff's stuff, whil plaintiff was in the hospital.   Defendant says a friend and plaintiff's son packed her stuff up. Defendant denies having anything that belongs to plaintiff, but says plaintiff has a couple of defendant's items. 

Plaintiff wasn't there when items were packed and moved out of the storage unit, and says her son said that plaintiff's stuff never made it to the storage unit.  Son says niece stole plaintiff's property.   Niece says the shoes she's accused of stealing were too big, that she never wears jewelry, has her own luggage, and aunt claims she stole her jewelry.   Defendant says when aunt claimed she stole from her, that aunt attacked her, and broke her teeth.  

Judge Tewolde asks defendant about the fight, and says aunt came outside with gloves on, went across the street and talked to a group of men.  Aunt is grabbing the men, then grabs the defendant's arm, and yanks her over, and that's how the defendant's teeth were broken.    Aunt claims defendant was drunk, and she was aggressive, and invited a bunch of men into the apartment.  Plaintiff says niece grabbed her arm, and when she shook her off was when the niece fell. 

Video of similar incident is shown.  Niece says aunt is shaking and demolishing the wrought iron fence.   Also it shows plaintiff parking her rental car in the middle of the street, and left it there.  

Police report says plaintiff told them someone broke into the storage unit.  Plaintiff has no proof of who stole her items.    PLaintiff has zero proof she even owned what she says was stolen.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, no proof she owned anything that she claims was stolen, and has no proof that storage unit was broken into. 

Defendant receives $5,000 on her counter claim. 

“Spray Away from Me”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 154  

p. 48, 5 June 2024

 

8 November

“Updo No Good”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode  8

p.  50, 13 September 2024

 

“Lil’ Mamma Drama”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  84

p. 46, 5 February 2024

[AngelaHunter]

On 11/7/2024 at 3:27 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Barbara Johnson vs. Grace Nix

I just tried to watch this. I failed, ending it when big niece ("I'm 5'8" and I've been 180 lbs since I was 16") I think she might be underestimating that weight, but even before she finished her grandstanding or melodramatic monologue, complete with tears, I bailed.

All these designer bags, luggage, and jewelry - certainly more than I ever had- ( I still have never owned "designer" anything), and I was never even evicted when I was renting.

[CrazyInAlabama]

11 November

“Exes and Loans”

New, Season 11, Episode  43

(Macy Franco vs.  Vincent Holguin)  

From the show site: A man says his girlfriend left him and then presented a bill for everything for which she paid in the relationship.

Plaintiff/ex girlfriend Macy Franco suing defendant/ex-boyfriend Vincent Holguin for not paying for bills when they were together.  There are two lawsuits by plaintiff 1. For a loan (in another court) 2. Current court case about not repaying her for expenses she paid for .   Suing for $5,000.

Plaintiff claims she covered the phone bill for their account, but he claims he paid his half to her through cash or Zelle.   She claims defendant only paid twice for the phone bill.   Plaintiff says she's only suing for expenses for his Subaru, his WRX, and cologne and a shirt.   Corriero asks why they broke up, and she says he drank too much, but defendant says they drank together every day.   

Defendant says he left because plaintiff and her friend were using mushrooms on vacation, and he didn't want to be around that.  Corriero obviously taking plaintiff's side as usual.   Defendant says he repaid plaintiff for the tires.  

Defendant says this is all for vengeance.  He says others things were purchased because it's what she wanted.   He says she demanded the upgrades to his vehicle were at her request.   

Payoff of the car loan was $7,000, to carry welding equipment, but he says she wanted all wheel drive for driving in the mountains for family trips.  

(I would dump both cases, no proof it was a loan except for the $1500 loan, the rest were joint purchases during their relationship). 

I love Tewolde and Juarez ignoring Corriero.  They want to pay for the loan, welding machine, phone bill. 

Judges decide for plaintiff for $2553.

“Shoes Clues”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  165

p. 49, 15 July 2024

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A man says his girlfriend left him and then presented a bill for everything for which she paid in the relationship.

I've totally lost patience with silly desperate women like this one, picking up a porcine loser like this one and then begin funding his life up to and including paying off his car loan(!!). Yeah, cologne is what he really needed. Why did he need her money? He's a great big grown-up boy. Oh, right. He couldn't keep a job and got fired. 

Indignant Def disapproved of his whacky ATM girlfriend ingesting 'shrooms. No, sir! He prefers alcohol.

What pissed me off most - and I might have found this mildly amusing otherwise - is that she had kids. I'm sure she's a wonderful mother when she's not getting drunk with some character, getting zonked on mushrooms, or spending a ton of money on schlubs like this one.  Save your tears, Macy, for your kids. 😠

[CrazyInAlabama]

12 November

“Somebunny’s in Trouble”

New, Season 11, Episode  44

(Aye Aung vs. Christy Phillips)     

From the show site: A family's pet rabbit was attacked in their back yard by two dogs whose owner says they should just buy a new rabbit instead of paying expensive vet bills; she admits her dogs were off leash but refuses to accept responsibility for the vet bills.

Plaintiff/bunny owner Aye Aung suing defendant/dog owner Christy Phillips for vet bills after her dogs attacked his pet bunny.  Defendant does the usual heartless, gutless defense of saying plaintiff should have killed the bunny, not paid for vet care, and she shouldn’t have to pay the bills.  Plaintiff suing for $1,300.   Defendant's dog jumped the fence into plaintiff's yard, and attacked the bunny.  Neighbor was with the plaintiff's two sons, and saw the dogs attack the bunny.   Defendant was walking her two dogs off leash on public utility property, and says there are no signs requiring leashes, and claims the plaintiff's property wasn't properly fenced.  

When defendant makes a ridiculous excuse, Judge Juarez calls her out on it. Judge Tewolde can't stand defendant either.  Defendant agreed to pay the consultation fee only, and says plaintiff should have offed the bunny instead of wasting money on the bunny.  By the way heartless *** defendant is a teacher. 

Plaintiff's 10-year-old son, Remi,  saw the attack.  

Corriero can't even find sympathy for the defendant.  He seems to think the defendant will respond to his logic, she won't. 

Plaintiff receives $1300.  

(Since the show pays the awards, defendant's not out a penny).

“Cross Country Cash Clash”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  161

p. 49, 25 June 2024

Edited November 12 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

When defendant makes a ridiculous excuse, Judge Juarez calls her out on it. Judge Tewolde can't stand defendant either. 

Wow, today's defendant is definitely in my top ten of despicable litigants. Her dogs off leash jumped over a fence and attacked the plaintiff's pet rabbit. She was completely certain that she wasn't responsible, it was the fault of some contractor who didn't build a fence adequate to keep her unleashed (and apparently vicious) dogs from jumping into the plaintiff's yard and chewing up the plaintiff's rabbit. What an arrogant and entitled ***! She reminds of another defendant who let his dog kill a neighbor's cat and argued that there is no loss, there are always plenty of cats roaming the streets. If there is a hell, both of these defendants will burn in hell for their arrogance and callousness. Just evil.

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 November

"Don’t Have a Fit Bud“”

New, Season 11, Episode  45

Mylene (Beaudoin vs. Ross Harris)      

From the show site: A woman who created an app for a fitness instructor she met online says she never got paid; he says the app never launched, and she suggested he euthanize his sick son and made underwear with his face on it.

Plaintiff/app developer Mylene Beaudoin suing defendant /fitness instructor Ross Harris for the amount owned for developing a fitness app for him.   Defendant says app never launched, and the plaintiff suggested he euthanize his sick son, and also made underwear with defendant’s face on it.  Plaintiff suing for $5,000.  Defendant counter suing for $5,000. 

There's a written contract for once.   

Defendant's 2-year-old son died recently, and he couldn't be around the plaintiff any longer.   Plaintiff told defendant that he should take his son to Canada to euthanize his son.   

Judge Tewolde asks plaintiff if a certain photo was crossing the line, and plaintiff denies it.  Plaintiff says she was managing his fan page, and they had a falling out. The falling out was over plaintiff being iimpossible to deal with, and he didn't want to deal with her after that.   Defendant says plaintiff crossed the line with suggestive comments, and plaintiff had underwear made with defendant's face on it.  She claims it was a joke, defendant says it was bizarre and creepy. 

Defendant's app never launched as far as he knows.  Plaintiff says the app is active in the app store on Apple.   Defendant also has texts from plaintiff essentially extorting him to get his social media and access to the app, for money to plaintiff. 

Defendant says social media was flagged multiple times for postings from plaintiff.  Defendant also says plaintiff CC: his mother with some of the threatening emails.  

Corriero says the business relationship is the key, and he doubts defendant's case.  Tewolde supports the plaintiff's work payment claims.   Contract has nothing to do with the case, because it was signed after work started, according to Judge Juarez. 

They agree plaintiff gets 40% of the app revenues.  The app has no profits anyway.   Juarez says give plaintiff nothing.  Tewolde agrees with Juarez. 

Both claims dismissed.  

“Tow de Force”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  163

p. 49, 8 July 2024

 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff/app developer Mylene Beaudoin suing defendant /fitness instructor Ross Harris for the amount owned for developing a fitness app for him.  

This was so wild I put down my phone and watched with rapt attention. Both of them are a little off-kilter, IMO, but she is definitely a loon. Her obsession with the kind-of-goofy-looking Def (for me he was a male version of a butterface)could have ended up in Annie Wilkes territory. Lucky for him he never broke a leg. Creepy. I see he has himself plastered all over Instagram. Not sure where his nudies are.

Yes, Mylene - a fitness instructor who took care to tell the judges he does "nude modeling" is going to fall for a very obese woman who looks quite a bit older than he, although she might not be.

But, that he had her in his home with a warning not to make innuendos, behave inappropriately, or make advances on him means he knew very well that she had major hots for him, but invited her over anyway. Very odd. Maybe it stoked his ego, not that it needs stoking. I see he's offering this: 

Quote

"Whether it’s a milestone birthday, an anniversary, or a long-awaited reunion, make it unforgettable with a one-of-a-kind Cameo video from Ross Harris."

Only $14! Okay, Ross. I'll keep that in mind. You can even send him a message for the low, low price of $4.19.

Those giant black underpants with his face all over them?😆 Even those being displayed seemed to bother her not at. Personally, I might die with shame.

And Ross? No one can "euthanize" someone else here in Canada. The person who wishes to end his/her life must meet certain criteria, sign a document, and have it witnessed, something children obviously cannot do. Ross thinks we are barbarians.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Wasn't plaintiff the one who said he could take defendant could take his child to Canada and euthanize the poor kid?    

That was a bizarre case.   Especially the underwear with defendant's face on it.  

I'm glad plaintff was awarded nothing.  

 

14 November

“Getting Kitty Wit It”

New, Season 11, Episode 46

(CozyC vs. William Santos of Gold Mine Studios)     

From the show site: A rapper paid a lump sum upfront for a record producer to produce five of her songs; she says only one was ever produced, and she wants a refund.

Plaintiff/rapper CozyC (also an attorney, her rap name is also Cat Spit) suing defendant/record producer William Santos of Gold Mine Studiosfor a refund of what she paid him to produce five of her songs, and says defendant only produced one song. Suing for $3200.  I am not listening to plaintiff's recording.   One song was recorded, but the other four weren't because they weren't written by plaintiff yet.  

So, plaintiff is suing for not recording something that doesn't exist yet.  Plaintiff also hired defendant to help her move.   

Juarez and Tewolde don't like that plaintiff is suing for a refund for not producing songs, when the songs weren't written by her yet. 

Plaintiff receives $3200

“Wish Upon a Car”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  160

p. 49, 24 June 2024

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Wasn't plaintiff the one who said he could take defendant could take his child to Canada and euthanize the poor kid?

That's the word he used. I don't think Ross knows a whole lot about a lot of things, except how to pose in his undies (or no undies) and show off. Mylene may be an insane beast in heat, but she knows very well that no one gets "euthanized" here at the request of someone else. It's called "assisted suicide" and it's available in some US states as well.