Hot Bench - General Discussion

[CrazyInAlabama]

7 January

“Hardly Davidson”

New, Season 11, Episode  64

(Robert Young vs. Todd Breeding)   

From the show site: An octogenarian sues his friend for the "value of his lost time with a motorcycle," which he was supposed to repair and return. They evidently had some kind of "shared custody" agreement with the bike, but they disagree on the terms. Can the judges sort it out?

Plaintiff/old goat motorcycle owner Robert Young suing defendant/mechanic Todd Breeding for loss of time with his motorcycle.   Suing for $3750 for value of motorcycle.  Defendant said plaintiff told him to 'enjoy the motorcycle as long as you like" Young says the agreement was defendant stole his motorcyle, and he wants the use of the motorcycle or $3750, the value of his lost time with his motorcycle. 

Plaintiff's brother had the motorcycle for 30 years, and didn't have time for it, and then he took it over, and said defendant should repair the motorcycle, keep it for five years, and return to plaintiff.   Texts from plaintiff say he'll pay for parts, and defendant will keep motorcycle, fix it, sell it and split the profits 50/50. 

Bike was bought for $800 in 1977 by plaintiff.  Defendant's counter claim is for $2400 for parts. Defendant has had the bike for 2 1/2 years, clean up, and repairs. 

Plaintiff wants the motorcycle for five years, and then give bike and title to defendant, or the money $3750.   As usual, no proof of the original deal 

Defendant says it would be $2,000 to deliver the bike from Oregon to where the plaintiff lives, because he's not willing to make the trip.   Plaintiff backed out of one possible sale, because he didn't have an accurate appraisal of the bike's value. 

Text messages between the litigants make no sense to Judge Juarez. 

Judges decide to give plaintiff value of the bike, minus cost of parts, $2,750. Defendant gets title and can sell the motorcycle. 

“Up in Flames”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  98

p. 46, 27 February 2024

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: An octogenarian sues his friend for the "value of his lost time with a motorcycle," which he was supposed to repair and return.

I couldn't stand that curmudgeon who brags about being a great salesman and seems proud of his "cash/no tax" ways. Yeah, I know many do it but most don't choose to announce it on national TV. Well, except on court shows where they do so regularly.

I liked how even Papa got annoyed with the curmudgeon butting in and giving non-answers. No one thought he was cute. For all his professional wheeling and dealing, he never thought to put whatever fugazi agreement they had (seems they really had none) in some kind of writing.

He just knows without checking that the bike is worth $6 - 7K. In fact, it seems it's not even a Harley, and just has the sticker on it. I saw the same situation on another show. Maybe it was the same bike. There's nothing wrong with Italian bikes, Papa, but people will pay more for a genuine classic Harley.

What is an 81-year-old going to do with a motorcycle for the next 5 years? Do people ride at that age? I really don't know. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

8 January

“Making Up a Cosmetic Excuse”

New, Season 11, Episode  64

(Stephaney Roy  vs. Asia Roy)  

From the show site: A woman who values education gave her niece a loan for cosmetology school, and now has to sue for repayment; the niece says she should be allowed more time. The niece claims it was an "angel investment," and she should be allowed more time. How does she explain going on a trip to Hawaii instead of repaying her aunt?

Plaintiff / aunt Stephaney Roysuing defendant / niece Asia Roy for repayment of a loan for cosmetology school.  Defendant says it was an Angel Investment and she needs more time to get  her finances in order.  However, defendant took a vacation to Hawaii instead of repaying aunt. Aunt suing for $3689, and niece only made one payment

Defendant says she doesn't have the money to pay all of her bills, but yet went on a vacation to Hawaii. 

Aunt wrote an agreement with niece over text, and niece made a $100 payment.   Aunt is pursuing a doctorate in health care, so she offered to finance the cosmetology degree for her niece.   Aunt was told niece had a job, but she lost that, and hasn't found a cosmetology job because she didn't take the state cosmetology boards, and didn't pay the other part of tuition to her school.  Asia/niece is only doing nails for people out of her home.   

Judge Juarez points out a trip to Hasaii isn't an obligation, but repaying a loan is.  

Then defendant says she quit the job with a big company, for a job of family paid caregiving, but caregiving didn't pay enough.   Defendant paid off the school costs, and didn't schedule the state board test.  She's been voluntarily unemployed for at least five months.  Defendant's grandmother, plaintiff's mom, paid the second part of the tuition, and defendant claims it was a loan. 

Corriero really blasts the defendant's cavalier attitude about the loan, and work.  

Plaintiff receives $3,689.

 

“Delusions of Grandma”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  88

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

Edited January 8 by CrazyInAlabama

[badhaggis]

12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

8 January

“Making Up a Cosmetic Excuse”

New, Season 11, Episode  64

(Stephaney Roy  vs. Asia Roy)  

From the show site: A woman who values education gave her niece a loan for cosmetology school, and now has to sue for repayment; the niece says she should be allowed more time. The niece claims it was an "angel investment," and she should be allowed more time. How does she explain going on a trip to Hawaii instead of repaying her aunt?

Plaintiff / aunt Stephaney Roysuing defendant / niece Asia Roy for repayment of a loan for cosmetology school.  Defendant says it was an Angel Investment and she needs more time to get  her finances in order.  However, defendant took a vacation to Hawaii instead of repaying aunt. Aunt suing for $3689, and niece only made one payment

Defendant says she doesn't have the money to pay all of her bills, but yet went on a vacation to Hawaii. 

Aunt wrote an agreement with niece over text, and niece made a $100 payment.   Aunt is pursuing a doctorate in health care, so she offered to finance the cosmetology degree for her niece.   Aunt was told niece had a job, but she lost that, and hasn't found a cosmetology job because she didn't take the state cosmetology boards, and didn't pay the other part of tuition to her school.  Asia/niece is only doing nails for people out of her home.   

Judge Juarez points out a trip to Hasaii isn't an obligation, but repaying a loan is.  

Then defendant says she quit the job with a big company, for a job of family paid caregiving, but caregiving didn't pay enough.   Defendant paid off the school costs, and didn't schedule the state board test.  She's been voluntarily unemployed for at least five months.  Defendant's grandmother, plaintiff's mom, paid the second part of the tuition, and defendant claims it was a loan. 

Corriero really blasts the defendant's cavalier attitude about the loan, and work.  

Plaintiff receives $3,689.

 

“Delusions of Grandma”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  88

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

Good grief Corriero twisted himself into a pretzel to justify the grandmother. I scared my cat yelling at the television!

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge Juarez points out a trip to Hasaii isn't an obligation, but repaying a loan is. 

Wow, today’s defendant was a real piece of work. I don’t remember any litigant who is such a complete irresponsible, lazy, self-centered, clueless, delusional parasite. She can’t be bothered to complete and use the cosmetology training she scammed her aunt for, but does occasional manicures out of her apartment so everything is OK with her. She is a complete failure as an adult and is perfectly happy about being such a worthless person, scrounging off of her aunt, grandmother and anyone else she can suck money from and feels no guilt about this. Disgusting. For once Corriero understands this kind of person.

Edited January 9 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 January

“That’s What Friends Were For ; Roomie Resentment ”

New, Season 11, Episode  65

“That’s What Friends Were For”

(Damon Blanchard vs.  Jacqueline Sapp)     

From the show site: Two friends of 30 years had a falling-out over a handful of unpaid loans. The defendant was on hard times and claims she agreed to repay the plaintiff once she got on her feet. But she says if she knew how he was going to act, she would have "slept under a bridge."

Plaintiff Damon Blanchard loaned money to defendant Jacqueline Sapp and wants to be repaid $1,896.    Defendant does admit she should have paid plaintiff back, but regrets borrowing the money because plaintiff demanded repayment. 

Originally defendant borrowed money for a hotel room so she wouldn't be evicted, later she borrowed more to pay for the hotel room, and she didn't want to go to a shelter because of her cat.   Then, her car was impounded, and needed a tow.  It was towed to plaintiff's favorite mechanic.   

Corriero reads defendant's statement that 'if she knew what borrowing money from plaintiff would result in, she would have slept under a bridge'.  She also claims plaintiff served papers on her for the first loan of $500.  Plaintiff dismissed the first case. 

Defendant claims plaintiff should have waited until she had a secure job, and was over Covid, and was back on her feet.    

Defendant says she never asked for help with the car, and claims plaintiff was unreasonable demanding repayment.   

Judges decide plaintiff gets $1896.  

“Roomie Resentment”

(Zachary Rodell vs.  Zackary Roysmarynoski)

From the show site: An ex-roommate had to move out on short notice to spend time with his grandmother before she passed away. He admits he owes some rent money but claims he did repairs that should offset the amount. The record keeping is spotty; which of these roommates comes off more credible?

Plaintiff/roommate Zackary Rodell suing defendant/former roommate Zachary Royzmarynoski for unpaid rent.  Defendant claims he did repairs at the property that should replace the rent. Suing for $1854. Plaintiff says for the last two months defendant didn't pay rent or utilities, but plaintiff gave defendant back the security deposit.   So rent owed was $2600.  $1684 is what plaintiff is suing for.  

Plaintiff receives $1,684.

(This episode is why I dislike the two cases in one episode shows, they're usually slam dunks, no suspense). 

“You Wreck It, You Replace It”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  103

p. 46, 7 March 2024

 

10 January

“Lease Adden-dumb”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 4

p.  50, 12 September 2024

“Unsecured Deposit”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  5

p. 42, 15 September 2023

 

Edited Thursday at 08:29 PM by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“You Wreck It, You Replace It”

I only watched a little of this, so far. I got distracted by the fact that Ms. Paxton thought her choice of wardrobe was fetching or flattering, and then even more distracted when hearing that the demure-looking Ms. Garcia had her butt thrown in the slammer and acts like that was just a minor hiccup in her quest to get paid for her wrecked car.

I'm always dazzled when hearing one of the judges say, "And then you went to jail for a while," as though it's par for the course, like going on a weekend trip.

ETA: I watched the rest. The ghastly Ms. Paxton wouldn't know the truth if it ran up behind her and kicked her in her monumental buttocks.

Everything she said was a lie. She couldn't even keep one sentence straight: 'I wasn't home... I was going to go to work... I was working... I was working at home (all at the same time). I wasn't in the car... Mr. X stole the car... I told him to take the car to get my rent money(?) He gave his car to Ms. Garcia after he wrecked hers... He's responsible/I'm responsible... I took $900 in cash in an envelope and pushed it through Ms. Garcia's mail slot (which she doesn't have)... I would have evidence of all this but didn't have time to get it together. I work I work I work."

JT: "So? Everyone works." Has she not watched enough court shows?😄

Whenever the lying lump couldn't think of a lie quickly enough, it was "I don't know/I don't remember/maybe."

She pays the P $400 to rent her car for one day, even though she has no license, of course. Seven days? Who knows? One is a pathological liar and the other a jailbird. I think I believed the jailbird more.

Edited Friday at 05:06 AM by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 January 

“Bills and Thrills”

New, Season 11, Episode  66

(Cort Huckabone vs. Ernesto Preciado)   

From the show site: A good Samaritan says his jobless, homeless friend picked fights with gate guards, neighbors and other houseguests.

Plaintiff Cort Huckabone suing defendant Ernesto Preciado for $2482 for unpaid rent, damages Plaintiff claims defendant followed and harrassed him, and claims defendant sprayed him in the face with glue.   Plaintiff had three people living as roommates, two in bedrooms, and a long family room partitioned off with curtains to make two bedrooms.   

Plaintiff says HOA had issues with defendant from his language, behavior towards one security guard, and racist and profane language.   Plaintiff claims he paid $850 to get defendant's car out of impoind, and parked in visitor spaces until the HOA told plaintiff defendant had to park in the driveway. 

Then, defendant parked in the worng space, and his car was towed. Plaintiff had a restraining order against defendant, and he tried to evict defendant after defendant kicked the door in. .   

Plaintiff finally locked defendant out.   Plaintiff needed to see an attorney to evict defendant, but he didn't. 

Defendant had an altercation with another guest, and still doesn't want to leave, because he wanted to stay just to irritate plaintiff.   

Defendant sounds like a nightmare tenant for plaintiff, and his neighbors. 

Plaintiff receives impound fees, HOA fines, homes damages $1,576, rent dismissed. 

 

“To Cash a Predator”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  92

p. 46, 19 February 2024

Edited Monday at 10:06 PM by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

14 January

“Tit for Tattoo Table”

New, Season 11, Episode 67

(Shane Love vs. Godfrey Richards )   

From the show site: A tattoo artist sues the owner of his workspace for theft and pain and suffering; after a graffiti tag portending violence was left on the door, the owner asked him to leave, and a scuffle ensued.

Plaintiff / Tattoo Shane Love artist suing defendant / shop manager Richards over graffiti tag was left on a door, and owner told plaintiff to leave the shop, and a fight between litigants happened.  Suing for $5,000.   Defendant suing for unpaid rent $3,200.

This was on Cuhuenga Blvd.  Plaintiff was renting a shop from defendant, across the street from defendant's barber shop, 

Defendant says the door graffiti is a threat saying violence is going to happen.  When he saw the graffiti, he told plaintiff he had to leave. 

Plaintiff says defendant accused him of doing the sign, and they got into an altercation.  Plaintiff wants a tattoo table, another marble top table, and a skate board back from defendant. 

Defendant says the tattoo table and some drawings are all that's left in the shop.  Then, plaintiff says he can't operate his business in a shop that doesn't look right, and he only did a few tattoos.   Defendant says plaintiff was doing tattoos, and the tattoo shop looks great in the video shown, except for the overturned chair. 

Plaintiff says the items he left behind are at the barber shop and not clean enough to use for tattoo work.  Plaintiff didn't pay rent for five months, claims he paid another person but has no receipt. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant receives nothing, judges say he didn't prove his case.   Plaintiff can go pick his stuff up.  

“No-Tell Motel”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  135

p. 47, 1 May 2024

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

No-Tell Motel”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode  135

I went back and read your excellent recap of this case, which I just watched. I started by just half-listening while playing my traffic jam game on my phone, but then I put it down and by the end of this, I was all 😲.

The defs, the hateful, vicious hag, and the nasty, chiseling old codger nearly made Judge T stroke out ("Oh my God!")  with their outrageous behavior and their endless lying and denying everything. Vile, they were. Slumlords of the No-Tell Motel.