Hot Bench - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

On 4/24/2025 at 3:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Godmother May I”

I tried to watch this again, but it made me too annoyed and I quit. Thousands of dollars scraped up from somewhere to give The Party of the Century to six-year-old "Celebrity" (?? That is a noun, not a name, and needs a "the")and her little friends. Just think how impressed everyone will be!

 

I would have found it much more impressive had that 2K or so been put into a trust for the Celebrity's education. But no - let's blow it all on chip bags and other junk sporting the Celebrity's portrait. Most litigants really don't think much past the moment, it seems.

[CrazyInAlabama]

28 April

“Childless Cat-astrophe Lady”

New, Season 11, Episode 125

(Tatina Jinzo vs. Emily Gutierrez)      

From the show site: The plaintiff says the defendant went to a mental health facility and left her with unpaid rent, while the defendant asserts that she repaid everything and was prevented from removing herself from the lease.

PlaintiffTatina Jinzo suing defendant Emily Gutierrez for unpaid rent. Suing for $5,000

Defendant says leaving wasn’t her fault, she went to inpatient mental health treatment, and claims she paid everything before the hospitalization, and plaintiff wouldn’t let her get off the lease. The reason defendant went to treatment was because her cat died. 

Lease states removal from lease has to be done in person.  Defendant claims plaintiff could have taken her off of the lease. Plaintiff says both tenants on lease have to sign the lease termination form, and do it in person. 

Corriero asks plaintif if discussing defendant's mental health issues on social media.   However, defendant had a lot of chances to contact the rental office and didn't. she also blocked plaintiff on everything.  

Judge Juarez says some of plaintiff's texts about defendant are vile.  However, I can see plaintiff getting angry with someone who stiffed her on the rent, and refused to do anything to get off the lease. 

Plaintiff is on the lease by herself, but defendant still claims plaintiff is harassing her for money. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

 

“Exes and Loans”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 43

p. 52, 11 November 2024

[DoctorK]

I am split between two possibilities on this Little Red Crying Hood:

First possibility - She is severely mentally or emotionally limited and needs a lot of therapy (with someone to take care of her in the meantime) in order to become a functioning adult. She is completely out of touch with reality and believes that everybody else is responsible for dealing with her problems.

Second possibility - She is a spoiled pathetic drama queen who just sails through life assuming that other people will take care of her and she has no responsibility to do anything for herself.

I lean towards the latter. As always, YMMV.

By the way, I don't ding her for taking the death of her cat very hard. The first time I cried as an adult was when a cat I had grown up with since I was about five years old died (he was about 18 or 19 years old). That cat (Sinbad by name) was part of my daily life for all those years and it was hard to take. But an adult needs to be able to deal with the pain and not fall to pieces. I can't imagine how she will deal when a parent or sibling dies.

[CrazyInAlabama]

29 April

“Track Suit”

New, Season 11, Episode 127

(Roslyn Simpson vs. William "Obea"  Moore)     

From the show site: The plaintiff says she paid the defendant to train her son in track, but he didn't deliver; the defendant says the plaintiff wanted a relationship and is upset over his refusal

Plaintiff Roslyn Simpson suing defendant/track coach William "Obea" Moore for not training her son, Gus Armstrong.   Suing for $5,000 . She claims defenant ghosted her and the son for three weeks before one big meet, and she had to shell out for travel to take her son to track meets.  At the big meet, son didn't make it through the first round, though son eventually qualified for the Junior Olympics.  

Defendant says plaintiff is just angry because he wouldn’t continue a relationship with her. Defendant holds many Pan Am, national and Olympic records and won a lot of races.   Playment was $100 a session, bundling 12 sessions were $1,080, 24 bundle is $1680.

Plaintiff met defendant at a track meet, for a while they were in a relationship, but agreed to end the relationship, but continue the coaching relationship only. Before defendant started training the son, he and plaintiff went on trips together, and other dates.  

Plaintiff loaned money to defendant, but defendant would train 24 times instead.  He received $2400, from plaintiff, owes her 15 more sessions.  Plaintiff claims he owes her more sessions, and son Gus 'does not recall' how many sessions he had.

Defendant says at the end of the season, plaintiff ghosted him, and wanted the loan back. 

Plaintiff wants a coaching refund, and reimbursement for the travel and expenses for the Junior Olympics.  Corriero wants to give her both. 

Plaintiff receives $1260 for the missed sessions only.  (Plaintiff wanted the other $2400, and is unhappy)

 

“Cabinet Chaos”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 70, 1/20/2025  (missed this the first time, it was preempted)

(Cyrus Shahbazian and Candie Givens  vs.  Faustino Nunez)            

From the show site: A lawyer says his girlfriend called him in hysterics because the young man they hired to paint their kitchen cabinets was botching the job; they paid him $250 to stop and go away -- but now they're suing for their money back.

Plaintiffs Cyrus Shahbazian and Candie Givens suing defendant/cabinet painter Faustino Nunez for full refund.  Plaintiff says girlfriend called him and said defendant was botching the cabinet painting job.  He wants a full refund of $1,250. Plaintiff paid defendant $250 to go away. Cabinet photos are terrible, and badly done. 

The paint job was cabinet doors, and drawer fronts.  Plaintif Givens blames the cabinet doors and drawer fronts on the defendant transporting them in two cars.   Defendant says door and drawer fronts were damaged before he was hired.  Defendant says they sand to bare wood, prime and sand and then paint it smooth.  

No surprise plaintiff Shahbazian is an attorney.  

Plaintiffs agreed that they would pay defendant $250, on top of $1250, and defendant would go away. 

Givens said they had several estimates to fix the doors and drawer fronts, and both were more than the cost to replace the drawers and doors, so they replaced them. 

Plaintiffs get $0, they paid the last $250, and told the defendant the contract was over. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Cyrus Shahbazian and Candie Givens  vs.  Faustino Nunez

Cyrus the lawyer and his hysterical lady, Candie, are either cheapskates or their careers aren't going well, so they hire some young guy from Nextdoor to do a huge job of stripping, sanding, patching, and painting their 18 cabinet doors and 13(?) drawer fronts for the super-low, bargain-basement price of $1500.

I looked into having this done or doing it myself (yeah, sure!) until I realized this is a job strictly for professionals who have trucks (not Honda Accords)set up to safely transport the doors, huge stripping baths, sanding machines, and equipment to spray each door with cabinet paint and make it perfect, and it's not cheap. Anything else results in an amateur job that will not last, will have chipping paint, brush strokes, drips, etc., and that's what happened here.  I guess some people do it themselves, but I wouldn't even try.

It seems Cyrus and Candie may indeed have tried the DIY method, considering they smeared wall spackle on the doors.

Faustino was in over his head, and the result was a mess. It's the old, "Do you want cheap or do you want good?"

I guess Cyrus Shahbazian is the type of lawyer regularly seen on court shows, and Judge J was amazed that he didn't seem to know what "Accord and satisfaction" means.

I hired a young guy from Nextdoor to rake my leaves. That worked out okay, for the most part, but that's a job that hardly requires skill and precision. I decided to get my kitchen cabinets refaced and chose to go with known professionals. Just a tip for the future, Mr. Lawyer.

[CrazyInAlabama]

30 April

“Paw & Order”

New, Season 11, Episode  128

(Yvonne Gallegos vs. David Ross)       

From the show site: The plaintiff says the defendant's pit bull savagely attacked her terrier, leading to fatal injuries; the defendant says his dog is being falsely accused without proof.

Plaintiff Yvonne Gallegos suing defendant/another disgusting Pit Bull owner David Ross for the death of plaintiff’s dog when Pit Bull attacked and killed their pet.  Suing for $1,641.  Suing for vet costs, and a replacement dog.  Plaintiff's dog was tiny.  Jesse Machado, the neighbor helped the plaintiff when the attack happened, he also helped the animal control officer confine the vicious dog after the attack. 

Mrs. Ross testifies dog was not neutereed until after the attack.  Mr. and Mrs. Ross claim it wasn't their dog that attacked.  Defendant, as usual, say no proof his dog murdered the plaintiff’s dog. Defendant had his dog returned to him by animal control. (Some places only enforce attack laws when it's a human, not any kind of animal). Shaunta Dumas (wife of defendant) is even more outrageous and despicable than her husband.   Dumas claims the usual, that her dog was around their kids from babyhood. 

Judge T asks about the demand letters defendant received, and he ignored.  He says plaintiff's husband Kenny Viss, confronted him, outside defendant's house.  Despicable David Ross says plaintiff was unreasonable knocking on doors and asking for help. Ross claims the plaintiff witness, Jesse, told him no attack happened. 

Judge J. askes defendant wife if she thinks there were two identical Pit Bulls running loose on the street at the same time.  Judge T. confonts both defendant and witness about their claims that the attack never happened.   Dog was neutered by animal control. Animal control vet says dog was aggressive at the vet facility. 

Then, Mr. Ross apologizes to plaintiff, but why when he still claims his dog is innocent?

Plaintiff receives $ 1,591 (Tewolde and Juarez want to give every penny to plaintiff, Corriero dissents).

 

“Move My Property, Don’t Take It”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 42

p. 52, 7 November 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

1 May

“He Said, She Shed”

New, Season 11, Episode 

(Chelzy Desvigne  vs. David Werdelin )      

From the show site: The plaintiff says the defendant damaged her tiny house during delivery and withheld $1,000 for repairs; the defendant says he sold the house for less, had to cut down a tree branch and move a fence, and offered a $1,000 discount for repairs.

Plaintiff Chelzy Desvigne suing defendant David Werdelin for damaging her tiny house when he delivered it. Suing for $5,000.

Defendant says he sold at a discount, had to do a lot of work for the delivery, and offered plaintiff $1,000 for repairs.  Tiny house looks like it was dropped off of a cliff, not delivered.

House was $10,000, including delivery.  I'm suspicious of the quality of a $10,000 tiny home.  Sounds more like a tool shed.   Plaintiff claims it will cost her $20,000 to fix the house.  Actual house wasn't as pictured, but that's the one plaintiff picked.  House shows an incomplete structure. Flashing is torn off, siding also, plumbing pipes are broken PVC, roof has a huge hole in it. 

Defendant says her agreement to pay $9,000 and her acceptance is the completion of the contract.  He points out that the roof/siding hole was only plastic sheeting.   He says he only was agreeing to sell and deliver, and plaintiff would have to find a contractor to do the hookup, foundation, and permanent supports.     

House ad says it's suitable for a man cave, she shed, garden cottage, but doesn't say suitable for living in.  Plaintiff paid half the price of a complete house, and but is the same one plaintiff saw at defendant's shop.  

The plaintiff is suing for demo costs for the house.  She says she refused delivery, but defendant says she did not refuse delivery.  

My view, she saw it before delivery, it wasn't complete, and was a huge discount.  I think she got exactly what she paid for, and agreeing to the $1,000 discount means contract is completed.   House looked like a wreck in the original picture at defendant's shop, and plaintiff bought it like that. 

Corriero claims defendant needed a permit to move the house, defendant claims he didn't. 

Plaintiff has several estimates ranging from $8474, up to $34,000.  

Corriero says habitable home was what plaintiff would deliver, and she gets $5,000.   Tewolde doesn't understand that $1,000 discount isn't realistic, and Juarez agrees with her. 

I think the house was in bad condition at the defendant's shop, and plaintiff got what she paid for, the shell of an unfinished tiny house.  (Juarez says unwind the sale, and refund, but that's not practical)

Plaintiff gets $5,000.   

 

Security Refund Rant”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 81

p. 54, 5 February 2025

 

2 May

“Sneak Attack”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 40

p. 52, 5 November 2024

“Updo No Good”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 5

p.  50, 13 September 2024

 

 

Edited May 1 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think the house was in bad condition at the defendant's shop, and plaintiff got what she paid for, the shell of an unfinished tiny house

This is the core of this case, but I think it is a bit messier than this sounds. I don't think the defendant delivered "the shell of an unfinished tiny house". He admittedly did a lot of damage to the structure while moving it (personally, I shudder at calling this pile of junk a "structure", it is an insult to the word), it looked like a lot if not most of the roof was gone (not just panels but also the framing), the front steps were gone, large areas of walls were just plastic sheeting stapled to 2x4s. I think this stretches the definition of "shell" too far. The judges certainly did some acrobatics to get to their award, but the defendant was such a complete slimeball that I can live with it. Again, YMMV

Edited May 1 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

What stunned me is that plaintiff wanted to stick her mother in that shed she bought for 1/10th the cost of a real tiny home, with plumbing, kitchen, etc.   She bought a discount, partially finished shed I wouldn't put a lawnmower in, let along a human being.  No ventilation, no insulation, nothing.  

[AngelaHunter]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 She bought a discount, partially finished shed I wouldn't put a lawnmower in, let along a human being.  No ventilation, no insulation, nothing.  

Yes! When this started, I thought we had another crooked contractor case, but as it went on, the P revealed herself as a complete flake.

The shamelessness of the Def. was almost awesome:

"How did those massive holes get in the roof?"

Def (casually) "They got there when I crashed it into some tree branches." What's the big deal? He shrugs it off, and quite rightly, since he gets to keep the money and got rid of that eyesore.

But the plaintiff? She really thought she'd get a "move-in ready" home for 10K, what you might pay for a decent used car? Seriously? She didn't think that included electricity, plumbing, etc, did she? I can't recall.

Lethal dumbness. My homemade plywood shed in my yard, which provides winter quarters for raccoons and squirrels, looks like a mini-mansion compared to that barely-standing junkpile. Even the critters would refuse to occupy that.

18 hours ago, DoctorK said:

The judges certainly did some acrobatics to get to their award, but the defendant was such a complete slimeball that I can live with it. Again, YMMV

"Slimeball" is appropriate—a smirking, smug, slimeball. Of course, he delivered that decrepit hovel at night. I'm not sure how he did all that work since he couldn't even stand for the duration of this case.

The 5K awarded to P won't make a dent in what that shack needs. The contractor who quoted 34K is more in the ballpark.

P could have bought a nice trailer for 10K, and it would have had a roof.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 May

“So Much for Surrogacy”

New, Season 11, Episode 130

(Nikita Clay vs. Bettina Hudson)      

From the show site: The plaintiff says the defendant offered to be her surrogate, requested loans for living expenses, then reneged on the arrangement; the defendant says the plaintiff offered to help with bills, but it all fell apart when the plaintiff lost her job.

Plaintiff/prospective parent Nikita Clay suing defendant / surrogate Bettina Hudson for repayment of loans for living expenses, but defendant backed out when plaintiff lost her job. Suing for $4,300, for household supplies, a utility bill, and a loan. 

Plaintiff had an IVF bnenfit from her employer at the time, has embryos on ice, but then lost her job, and can't go forward with the surrogacy.   There is no contract.  Defendant has had several successful pregnancies and is ready to go.   Plaintiff was born without a uterus, so can only have a biological child through surrogacy, she also only has one kidney.  

Defendant says plaintiff breach the contract, because p. lost her job, and refused to finance d.'s bills. 

One loan was for a gas bill for defendant.  Also hair styling bill, and household supplies.  Defendant says they didn't discuss the specifics of payments. 

Defendant says she expected some payments to cover her living expenses during the surrogacy, but plaintiff says no agreement about extra payments.

Judge T. says she doesn't see where defendant is trying to back out of the deal. Defendant says she's still willing to continue with the surrogacy. 

Plaintiff receives $1600 for the loan only. 

 

“Lease Adden-dumb”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 4

p. 50, 12 September 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

6 May

“Burdened by Dad’s Brain”

New, Season 11, Episode 131 

(Emily McIntyre vs. Patrick McIntyre)       

From the show site: The plaintiff says that, after her father was assaulted, she paid for a brain scan with the agreement he would repay her; he says she insisted on the scan and agreed to pay for it, and he continues to cover some of her bills, so he owes her nothing.

Plaintiff/daughter Emily McIntyre suing defendant/father Patrick McIntyre over a brain scan she paid for and claims father would repay her for.  Suing for $5,000.

Defendant says he never promised to repay her, pays some of her bills, and scan was her idea, so he owes her nothing.  Also, despicable defendant claims daughter's boyfriend paid for the brain scan, and not the daughter, and boyfriend said not to worry about it.  So, he owes no one for the scan.  Defendant claims he was mugged in Tijuana, and daughter demanded he get a brain scan.  

Defendant made five payment to plaintiff, but then talked to the daughter's boyfriend, and this is when he claims the boyfriend said he actually paid for the scan and not to repay Emily.  So, deadbeat dad stopped paying. He also claims he's paid a lot of daughter's bills for years, so he owes her nothing. 

Emily has been paying for the scan bills from her credit card, and says father has been asking for payments for his bills, and she's failing financially.  Emily tells the judges what she's paying for her father, insurance, cell phones are two.  He also took daughter off of the family cell phone plan, but she wanted her own plan too.  Scan was 2020, and she's still paying for it.  She submits the bill for over $5,000 for the scan, but Judge Juarez nots there are over $2,000 in follow up visits also added.  Deadbeat Patrick claims he paid the clinic $1,000 on his own.  

Corriero tries his family counseling routine, and deadbeat admits he loves his daughter, but I bet he only loves the money she pays for him. Judge Juarez admits the case is past the California statute of limitations, but points out periods he spends outside the state suspend the statute time, and he spends a majority outside the state, so debt is still in force. 

Plaintiff receives $3.595, not the additional $1,300.

 

“Truck It! That’s a Wrap”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 10  

p. 51, 20 September 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

7 May

“Sibling Disrespect”

New, Season 11, Episode 132

(Royalty Jones  vs. Jah Jones )     

From the show site: The plaintiff says her brother refused to return a $100 gambling loan and damaged her car during an argument; he says she was drunk and driving recklessly, and any damage was her fault.

Plaintiff/sister Royalty Jones suing defendant / brother Jah Jones for $100 gambling loan, and car damages, and claiming brother assaulted her. Suing for $1500.

Defendant says sister was driving drunk, and damages were her fault.

Both litigants claims the other sibling assaulted them. 

At the casino, brother borrowed the initial $100 from sister.  Then, after the casino they all were going home in plaintiff's car, and she asked him when he was paying the money back, since he didn't spend it.  He claims she wanted her baby daddy to kill him, so he slammed on the brakes, and ran away.  She claims he only ran away after assaulting her.  

Police report didn't mention any injuries on plaintif, from the supposed assault by brother, and no injuries to defendant are mentioned either.   Brother says he was in the front passenger seat when sister was calling her baby daddy on the phone, he reached over and stomped on the brakes and got away from the car. 

Car damages are a cracked windshield, broken door cupholder.   (This happened in St Louis). 

Plaintiff gets $750. 

 

“Petty in Pink”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 68  

p. 54, 15 January 2025

Edited May 8 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff/sister Roayalty Jones

Ooh! "Roayalty" eclipses the Celebrity we had the other day.

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

He claims she wanted her baby daddy to kill him, so he slammed on the brakes, and ran away.  She claims he only ran away after assaulting her.  

I see I was right to pass on this, but it's nice of them to share these heartwarming family moments. 😍

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Ooh! "Roayalty" eclipses the Celebrity we had the other day.

I see I was right to pass on this, but it's nice of them to share these heartwarming family moments. 😍

Her name was actually spelled Royalty.   At least I think it was. I was typing on the fly, so goofed.  

 

8 May

“Rolling in Lies”

New, Season 11, Episode 133

(Ryan Campbell vs. Rodney Ly'Dell Williams Jr)       

From the show site: The plaintiff, once the defendant's caretaker, says the defendant damaged his car after he quit; the defendant says his wheelchair was locked, he couldn't maneuver around the car, and the plaintiff is blaming him for pre-existing damage.

Plaintiff/former caretaker Ryan Campbell suing defendant/former employer Rodney Ly'Dell Williams Jr for car damages.  Suing for $5,000. Plaintiff says when he resigned as caretaker to defendant, that defendant damaged his car out of anger at plaintiff quitting.  

Defendant says he couldn't move his wheelchair to get close to the car, and any damages were pre-existing, and defendant never touched the car. 

On the day of the incident, plaintiff was going to take defendant to get lunch, had to take a bathroom break, and when plaintiff returned he says defendant had dented his car.   Defendant says, "Not me!" 

Corriero says the case is circumstantial, and he defendant has the opportunity, and was angry with plaintiff. 

Plaintiff receives $4,625.

 

“Batteries Not Included”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 75

p. 54, 28 January 2025

 

 

Edited May 8 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Her name was actually spelled Royalty. 

Even better.  I thought it was just one of these names with some weird spelling, bestowed by the Mom to make it stand out. i.e., "Brytnee", "Airwrecka", "Mikaela," etc. 

[DoctorK]

Defendant says he couldn't move his wheelchair to get close to the car, and any damages were pre-existing, and defendant never touched the car.  (quote not working for me today)

He obviously could get close enough to the car to get into it, even if nh needed assistance, and the damages to the car all looked like they were at wheelchair height and lower but not higher. If this was CSI and they did forensics on the wheelchair and car damage, I feel sure the defendant would have been shown to be a liar. I also was annoyed with his defense of repeated "I didn't do nothing", the excuse I used when I was eight years old. Glad with the outcome, good thing this is "preponderance of evidence" venue.

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Batteries Not Included”

(now the quote works)

I use lithium batteries in a few devices, and they outperform other heavy drawing batteries, but they are expensive and can be very particular about charging and discharging. I think the verdict was good because the defendant did agree to reimburse for the bad batteries and has to live with that (and hearing about this from his wife for the rest of his life). As for the batteries, rather than being defective, I centered on what happened during the extended time that the new batteries were not used and nobody seemed to know if they were plugged in and charging continuously, occasionally, or not at all. All of the chargers I use for Li batteries (also NiMH) are smart chargers that can and usually are left charging when not in use because the charger monitors the voltage and current into the battery and just keep it topped off. Li batteries also tend to hold a pretty good charge even when idle and and not on the charger, but it sounded like the cart and batteries were left unattended for at least three months. I think the most likely case is that the when the plaintiff took the cart out after that amount of time, he did not check the charge and/or top off the charge and the batteries were very low. Then he ran it until the batteries were totally dead which can kill rechargeable batteries. Oh well, all's well that ends well, both litigants got a nice trip and the show pays the award and neither litigant seemed to be hostile or nasty.

Edited May 8 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 May

“Trickle Down Effect”

New, Season 11, Episode 134

(Richard Cansino vs. Tracey Gorin)      

From the show site: The plaintiff says the defendant's toilet leaked, causing mold and water damage to his condo; the defendant says the overflow was due to a larger plumbing system issue, and the plaintiff should be suing the HOA instead.

Plaintiff Richard Cansino suing defendant Tracey Gorin for mold and water damages to his condo from a leaking toilet in her condo. Suing for $5,000. Plaintiff rented his condo to a tenant, and that tenant moved out because of the leak and subsequent issues from the leak.  

Defendant says toilet issue was due to a bigger plumbing issue, and plaintiff should be suing the HOA. Defendant says she had issues with her condo's plumbing, and it was fixed.  She claims the plumbing malfunctioned when the condo residents above her flushed their toilet.  Plumber said defendant's toilet was the problem, not the residents above her. 

A second leak was from defective window caulking that leaked during a storm. 

Later plaintiff's tenant threatened to sue him and he settled for $7500, half paid by the HOA, and he wasn't the other half from defendant and repair costs. 

Judge Juarez wants to see the proof of defendant causing the water damages. I'm confused, plaintiff claims he could only claim damages from one of the two leaks on his insurance, so he claimed mold remediation and damages from the first leak from defendant's condo.   

I think plaintiff is odd, but defendant claiming a phantom toilet leak on the unit above hers was the issue, but fixing defendant's toilet clog fixed the plumbing issue. 

I think defendant's plumbing issues caused the water damages, and subsequent mold issues. 

Plaintiff gets $1,000 for his deductible, and half of the mold remediation, so $2,975. Corriero dissents on the defendant's side as always. 

(From other shows, HOA responsibilities depend on how the rules for that HOA are written).

 

“Tenant Tango”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 62

p. 53, 6 January 2025

[CrazyInAlabama]

12 May

“Truck Off”

New, Season 11, Episode 135

(Ryan Dalton vs. Kennedy Hamilton)      

From the show site: The plaintiff says his son eagerly paid a deposit for a truck but later requested half of it back; the defendant contends that the son bought the truck then got cold feet, throwing a wrench into her plans to buy a new truck.

Plaintiff/father Ryan Dalton suing defendant /seller Kennedy Hamilton for the deposit on a truck son paid for plaintiff.  Plaintiff says son, Ashton,  was glad to pay the deposit, but later got cold feet, and that ruined his chances to buy a new truck for himself.  Suing for $1,000 for return of the deposit. Ashton changed his mind after father made the deposit but father wants deposit anyway.  

Defendant says son wanting half of the deposit back ruined her chance to buy a new truck.  She says truck deposit was nonrefundable.  

Son says truck didn't match the pictures on Facebook Marketplace, the mileage worried him.  Truck was a 2008. Son is now 17, was 16 at the time of the truck sale.  Agreed via phone for $14,000.   Deposit was to hold 'as is' truck for 48 hours.     Ashton claims he didn't tell defendant he didn't want the truck.  Defendant says she didn't know son was 16, and she talked to father about the sale. 

Then, 24 hours later in the deposit period, father called defendant. and said son wasn't interested in the truck and wanted the deposit back, and then father wanted half the deposit back. 

Plaintiff claims listing wasn't taken off of FB Marketplace for hours after he told defendant son didn't want the truck. Corriero brings up minor can't make a contract.  But defendant was dealing with the father, so what's his excuse?  

Ashton keeps says he never said he wanted the truck. Judge Juarez also reams defendant out for marking truck as sold on FB Marketplace.   Father and son deny son didn't want the truck.  Judge Juarez asks why truck listing was removed after 24 hours, not 48 hours, and why defendant didn't list it longer.   Another interested party contacted d. about the truck.  She didn't sell the truck until the next month. 

Corriero sides with plaintiffs, and wants to give $500 to them. 

Judges Juarez and Tewolde say deposit was nonrefundable.  Juarez says contract was between father and defendant, not the underage son. 

Nothing to plaintiffs. 

 

“Doodle Days”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 73

p. 54, 23 January 2025

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 May

“Daddy Dearest”

New, Season 11, Episode 136

(Tynoah Thomas vs. Tynicia Thomas and Derek Whitner)     

From the show site: The plaintiff lent money to his daughter and her husband but received only partial repayment before being blocked; they acknowledge the loan but say he harassed them and insist they owe nothing.

 Plaintiff/father Tynoah Thomas suing defendants /(daughter) Tynicia Thomas and Derek Whiner (husband) for repayment of a loan.  Suing for $5,000.

Defendant daughter says she owes nothing, and father harassed her.  Daughter says loan doesn't account for everything she's done for father, and says she owes him nothing.  Daughter also says plaintiff is suing the other sisters too. 

P. says he loaned daughter money before and she always paid it back.   Loan was $830, plus $1800 to son-in-law, and another $1,000, so $3030 total, because they repaid $600. Daughter and husband were evicted, so part was to help them move.  P. says they only repaid him $600. 

Judges remove the interest. 

Plaintiff receives $3030 only for the loans. The defendants repaid $600.

 

“Up in Vapes”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 72

p. 54, 22 January 2025

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

14 May

“Two of a Kind”

New, Season 11, Episode 137

(Vickie Grabowski vs. Lisa  Hamilton)       

From the show site: The plaintiff says she lent the defendant money with the promise of repayment from the defendant's cruise gambling winnings; the defendant insists that the plaintiff owes her for hair services and accuses her of defamation.

Plaintiff Vickie Grabowski loaned defendant Lisa Hamilton money to be repaid out of defendant’s gambling winnings on their cruise.   Suing for $5,000.

Defendant says she owes p. nothing, and that plaintiff never repaid her for her services. Defendant says she's been doing plaintiff's hair for free for years, and that makes the plaintiff even for the loan. 

Plaintiff loaned $1400, plus $138 separately. Plaintiff says for eight months after the cruise she financed defendant's bills, including $3,000 to get off of another cruise ship, because defendant owed the ship a gambling debt. 

Defendant claims the last cruise money came from a transfer from her ex to plaintiff to give to her. Defendant witness Susan Johnson claims that defendant's ex gives defendant money via friends because he doesn't have a debit card.  D. claims John owns a casino, but has no debit cards? 

Defendant is suing plaintiff for $5,000 for haircuts and color that she did for plaintiff over the years. When asked for texts from her ex, John, defendant doesn't have any. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000 for the unpaid loans.   Defendant case dismissed. 

 

“Dear Sis, I Hit a Deer”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 19

p. 51, 3 October 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

15 May

“Squat Happens”

New, Season 11, Episode 138

(Cheri Thomas vs. Darrick Chavis )            

From the show site: A woman says she was unlawfully locked out of her new apartment, and the defendant offered to pay her to leave and threatened eviction if she refused; the defendant says the plaintiff fraudulently moved in after saying the apartment was for a client!

Plaintiff Cheri Thomas suing defendant/landlord Darrick Chavis for locking her out of her new apartment, and threatening her with eviction if she didn’t leave.  Suing for $5,000 (actually suing for $12000).  She signed a lease to rent from defendant, stayed there for a few months and came back to the apartment and found it boarded up and the locks changes. 

Defendant says plaintiff worked at a subsidized housing nonprofit, said she was renting the apartment for a single mother in need of housing.  Then he discovered that someone broke into the apartment and was squatting there, so he boarded it up and changed the locks.  He claims Thomas broke in, and was squatting in the unit.   (This was in the Bay Area).  Defendant says Thomas looked at the apartment for the organization she worked for, but didn't rent anything. 

Defendant says they offered cash for keys to get rid of plaintiff, after she moved into the apartment after claiming she was renting it for a client.  All of the judges are ticked that defendant 

Plaintiff says she was looking for housing for a single person with mental issues, but didn't lease the apartment then.  THere is another program where the organization rents the apartment, and subleases to their homeless clients.  This is called a Master Lease Program. 

Defendant says it has to be in an individual on the lease, so if squatter break in he can't evict them, because they aren't on the lease.  When the program ended p. says the defendant would have to evict everyone that was on a lease under that program, because the organization's funds could no longer pay the rent. 

Corriero wants to know why plaintiff changed the locks when she moved in, but she says she only changed them after the lockout, and Corriero isn't accepting that lie.   Defendant did have a signed rent, but plaintiff signed it, on behalf of the organization.   

Plaintiff never paid full rent, and is still in the apartment. I want to know why plaintiff is wearing what looks like a nightgown and robe?   

Defendant has a pending eviction against plaintiff for nonpayment of rent.  So, p. did sign the lease, but it was supposedly for someone else to move in, but she moved in and is squatting.    Then she says she did change the locks before the lockout, then broke into the apartment again, and changed the locks again. 

There is a letter from the organization saying she is no longer associated with the organization, had no authority to rent anything for the organization, or enter into any business with any prospective landlords.    Plaintiff has no texts with defendant, says the texts were on her work phone.   

Plaintiff owes $4,000 in back rent for two months, but he's just suing for possession of the apartment. 

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's bull pucky.    

 

“Over the Hedge”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 21

p. 51, 7 October 2024

[CrazyInAlabama]

16 May

“Desolation of Smog”

New, Season 11, Episode 139

(Marie Fong vs. Raymond Vance and  Julissa Macias)       

From the show site: A car buyer says the sellers increased the car's price at the last minute, misled her during the sale and refused to cover basic repairs; they say they paid for a smog check and a car part and continued to assist her despite the "as-is" condition.

Plaintiff /car buyer Marie Fong suing defendants/car sellers Raymond Vance and Julissa Macias for increasing car price, lying during the sale, and not covering basic repairs.  Suing for $ 5,000. S Original price on OfferUp was $7,000, then said to be $8,000, and purchased for $7700. She says car cut off in the middle of the freeway, says out of gas even though gauge said full.  THe plaintiff claims gauge said halfPlaintiff says car had the bulb pulled so the check engine light wouldn't come on. 

Defendants say they paid for the smog check, a car part, and helped more than was required for an ‘as is’ car sale.   Mr. Macias offered $500 to plaintiff and says she refused that.    Defendants didn't get the smog certificate before selling car which is a requirement.  

Plaintiff says she had two issues fixed for $800, and still need three more fixes.  

Defendants keep changing stories about what worked on the car and what didn't.  They also claim they renewed the car registration, which apparently requires a smog test too, but say they didn't get the smog test and give it to plaintiff.  Judge Tewolde says defendants did a bait-and-switch.  

Defendant Vance says he gave her $500, for the parts she needed for to pass the smog check. 

Plaintiff claims the defendant Vance told her the car had a smog certificate, but didn't give it to her. 

Judge Juarez points out the car is only worth $3500 on KBB, but plaintiff wants $5,000 to fix the car.   Kalimah Ford is plaintiff's witness to the repairs.   Plaintiff says she can't sell the car because of the smog and check engine light issue.  So, give her $3500 the car is worth, not the $7,000 she claims to have paid, and give the defendants back their car.

Defendant Macias says if car isn't driveable then how come they're getting toll fees for the car, since they're still the registered owners.  Car is a Dodge Challenger.   

My question is why plaintiff who is disabled, retired, and on a fixed income bought a car for over twice the KBB price? 

Corriero says plaintiff should keep the car. Juarez says give p. $5,000, and give car back to defendants.  Juarez says give p. KBB value, $3500.  Judges are really arguing now, and I'm enjoying it.  Tewolde says $4200 for KBB and cost of repairs.   

Plaintiff receives $4,200. Plaintiff keeps the car too. 

 

“U-Turn on U-Haul”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 22

p.51, 8 October 2024

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

19 May

“Love TKO”

New, Season 11, Episode 140

 (Tiaira Ransom vs. Jamal Sutherland)       

From the show site: The plaintiff says she lent the defendant, her ex-boyfriend, money for a car down payment; he says she was generous with her money because she wanted a relationship, and she is asking for repayment only because they broke up.

Plaintiff Tiaira Ransom suing defendant / ex Jamal Sutherland for a car down payment loan. Suing for $5,000. He was giving her boxing lessons.  She loaned him $5,000 cash for the down payment, but he says it was a gift. 

Defendant says she only wanted repayment after they broke up. A text from defendant to plaintiff says "still owing you $5,000".    He wants $5,000 for defamation and loss of business income due to the defamation. 

She says he had until 1 October to pay her back, he denies she wanted the money back, and there was no agreement.  She says where she comes from they just go and hunt the person down, and get they money back. 

PLaintiff witness Alejandra Arreguin testifies she told plaintiff to make it clear when she needed the money back.  However, Judge Tewolde points out the witness's text makes no sense. Arreguin says she was on the phone when plaintiff and defendant were talking about the loan. 

Defendant witness Alliyah Kinchy was also a client of defendant. She says she saw the disparaging.   He claims that plaintiff called his probation officer about defendant being in possession of a gun, and Judge T calls that snitching and says it was none of plaintiff's business. 

Corriero believes the plaintiff, and so does Tewolde. 

PLaintiff receives $5,000.

 

 

“Bills and Thrills”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 66

p. 54, 13 January 2025

 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Bills and Thrills”

The freakshow of Huckabone vs. Preciado(sp?) was new to me.

We've heard so much about the unlimited powers of HOAs, who wield that power to enforce even the colour of a fence or pruning of a bush, so I was shocked that this one allowed the goings-on in Huckabone's residence. Maybe this community is not so upscale.

I believed two things that the little Def claimed: That there were "guys" coming and going constantly and "partying" in Huckabone's Flophouse, and that the much-older plaintiff was looking for more than a roomie in Def. Oh, yes, you were, Huckabone, you chicken hawk. Why else would he let Def move into his place with a "pay when you can, what you can" oral agreement? I'm pretty sure Def knew that right off the bat and figured he'd string the ol' perve along until he could make other arrangements.

Mr. Huckabone (with his hair dyed a weird apricot colour) has a big heart, so naturally, he invited the homeless Def to come live with him, although he barely knew him. I don't know why the young, able-bodied Def was getting food stamps, but as usual, it's confirmed that food stamps are legal tender for all sorts of things.

[CrazyInAlabama]

20 May

“Crypto Bros”

New, Season 11, Episode 141

(Kenneth Bartels vs. Danny Lata)       

From the show site: The plaintiff says the defendant invested his money in cryptocurrency and failed to withdraw it despite instructions; the defendant says it was a scam causing him to be locked out of the account, and they both lost money due to investment risks.

Plaintiff Kenneth Bartels suing defendant/former business partner  Danny Lata for losses on his cryptocurrency investment, Saitama coins. Suing for $1,900, his initial investment minus $100 repayment from defendant.

Plaintiff says he gave investment money to d. and when he wanted out of the investment, d. said he couldn't take the money out, and so he's suing p.   

Defendant says a scam locked him out of the account, and they both lost money.. D. says it was an investment, not guaranteed, and both lost money. D. is actually a chef, and does investment on the side.  He says he was only doing investments for friends and family, showed them how to invest, and he didn't do the investment himself.  Then, old friend Bartels wanted to invest, so d. did the investment directly.   

D. says the actually the crypto owner ran with the investments and they both lost.  Apparently, you buy Enthereum, and somehow buy Saitama from that (I understand nothing).    Lata claims the money was way up in value at one time, then it dropped, and investor ran.

Lata claims he lost $120,000 on this deal. Then, Judge Tewolde asks him about that, and he only lost $6,000, the rest was a paper profit he couldn't cash out so he counts it as a loss.   Lara says investor lost his code to access the wallet, so they couldn't get back into the account.  Then, Lara claims the investment manager will airdrop their money back, but that never happened. 

Lara is a chef at a prison, hope none of the prisoner invested with him.  The U.S. Attorney is bringing criminal charges against the investment fund manager, fat chance that's going to produce money. Lost code didn't really matter anyway. Lara says 40 others were after him about the cryptocurrency too, and all lost money.

Judge Juarez says plaintiff could have obtained his money back, Corriero disagrees and says plaintiff asking defendant to do this for him means the loss wasn't defendant's fault.  Judge Tewolde sides with Juarez, so Corriero dissents. 

Plaintiff gets his $1,900. 

 

“Mold’N Girls”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 3

p. 50, 11 September 2024

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/19/2025 at 3:22 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

From the show site: The plaintiff says she lent the defendant, her ex-boyfriend, money for a car down payment

Hilarious desperation. Her beau/buddy/roommate/lover-boy (who has at least three women see as a real prize) or whatever is a convicted felon on parole who is in possession of a gun. Yeah, and? She simply had to give him thousands to buy a car because, of course, he has no credit or money. If she buys him a car, she won't be forced to drive him 30 miles home every day, because, of course, she had to do that. 

She really needed that FIVE thousand dollars back because that's what her child's show-off birthday party will cost. She has to pay that enormous sum because, of course, she's a single mother, and I assume the baby daddy isn't willing to contribute.

Papa Mike to defendant: "Do you know what 'sarcasm' is?" because telling someone you'll pay them what you owe is merely sarcasm. I assume Papa's question was rhetorical.

[CrazyInAlabama]

(I could watch this free on Youtube TV the next morning)

21 May

“Ants, Lies and Rent Ties”

New, Season 11, Episode 142

(Jazzma Rainey vs. Joseph Freeman)          

From the show site: The plaintiff accuses the defendant of failing to pay rent and leaving the property in utter chaos; the defendant says the property was neglected and ant-infested, and he had no choice but to leave to care for his ailing mother.

Plaintiff/landlord Jazzma Rainey suing defendant/former tenant Joseph Freeman for unpaid rent, and trashing the property.  Suing for $5,000.  (This happened in Las Vegas)

Plaintiff says damages include a fire in the stove.    Security was $2200, rent was $1700.  Plaintiff claims when defendant left he owed three months rent, defendant says he only owed two months when he left.  She bought the townhouse as an investment project, she did a lot of work before defendant moved in, and fixed the back yard in the first month after defendant moved in. 

Video of before and after show property was immaculate, and on move out shows cabinets are filthy, food left behind, bad attempts to patch up damages. Freeman's girlfriend called and told Rainey that her key didn't work, but it worked for all four locks, so she had a neighbor kick the door in for her.  Rainey says Freeman never informed her about the plumbing leaks in all of the sinks. Stove looks trashed, and I agree with Rainey it looked like there was an oven fire.  

Defendant says place was infested with bugs, and he needed to leave to care for his mother, so he owes nothing. He also told plaintiff to cover his last two months rent with his security deposit, but that's only $2,200, not the $3,400 the rent would require.  Plaintiff says he owed three months rent, so $5,100, plus damages to the townhome.  The only pictures he has are on his phone. 

Rainey says the lease was for Freeman and his two children, they had to update after his girlfriend was moving in, and she was extremely rude to Rainey and called Rainey and was interviewing her as if the girlfriend was the landlord and not a tenant.  

After Freeman sent Rainey a phony picture of an ant infestation, the judges were done.  2.5 months rent to plaintiff.    I know landlords claim a tenant destroyed a property, but Freeman really did.  He also said he couldn't send actual pictures of the ants because his child was in the hospital, but he was at Circus Circus.  And his mother who was extremely ill so he had to move out, is now fine.  

Rainey (Plaintiff) received $3500 back.   I would have given her the whole $5,000.   

(Verdict and more details are thanks to patty1h in the next post).  

 

“Hardly Davidson”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 63

p. 54, 7 January 2025

 

22 May

“Suspicious Sale”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 116 

p.47,  2 April 2024.

“It’s a Nice Day for a Red Wedding”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 93

p. 46, 20 February 2024

 

23 May

“How I Met Your Motherboard”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 96

p. 46, 26 February 2024

“Check Yourself”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 164  

p. 49, 9 July 2024

 

 

Edited May 22 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

“Ants, Lies and Rent Ties”

New, Season 11, Episode 142

(Jazzma Rainey vs. Freeman)          

From the show site: The plaintiff accuses the defendant of failing to pay rent and leaving the property in utter chaos; the defendant says the property was neglected and ant-infested, and he had no choice but to leave to care for his ailing mother.

 

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Decision is unknown until I see this again. 

Not sure if you made it to the part where Freeman sent Rainey a Google image of ants and not a pic of any real ants he found in the home.  Scammer.  Anyway, Freeman was found to have broken the lease and owed 2.5 months back rent.  They adjusted the total because the plaintiff withheld the tenants security deposit to pay for repairs and to repaint the whole house instead of just the rooms where there were shoddy paint repairs done.  Rainey got $3500 back.

[CrazyInAlabama]

24 minutes ago, patty1h said:

 

Not sure if you made it to the part where Freeman sent Rainey a Google image of ants and not a pic of any real ants he found in the home.  Scammer.  Anyway, Freeman was found to have broken the lease and owed 2.5 months back rent.  They adjusted the total because the plaintiff withheld the tenants security deposit to pay for repairs and to repaint the whole house instead of just the rooms where there were shoddy paint repairs done.  Rainey got $3500 back.

The internet/cable went down about 10 minutes into the case, so I didn't even get Freeman's first name.    I appreciate the information.  

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

After Freeman sent Rainey a phony picture of an ant infestation, the judges were done. 

These days I usually record the new episodes and then come here to see if they are interesting enough spend the time to watch. Today, I saw "phony ant pictures" I was all gung ho because this sounded like fun. Sadly, thanks to the terminal incompetence of Cox, what they broadcast today (in spite of listing the fake ants case for today's new episode and the motorcycle case as today's rerun), both today's "new episode" and the rerun were the motorcycle episode. Yep, same episode back to back. I was really looking forward to fake ant pictures.

This was what I was hoping for:

 

Edited May 22 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

Not sure if you made it to the part where Freeman sent Rainey a Google image of ants and not a pic of any real ants he found in the home.  Scammer. 

I was so puzzled at to WHY this woman would rent her place to this utter moron who had great difficultly saying words of only one syllable, as when the judges asked about the ripped-out wire hanging in a cabinet. "It's a lie." He meant he had done something with a "light." We don't find out what. Then he pulls out the usual scammer story of a sick mother who was so ill he had to break the lease and rush to her bedside. 

P wanted pics of the ant infestation, so the idiot sends a Google pic of some ants because he was at the hospital with his daughter - the Circus Circus Hospital. When asked why he said that and why he sent a Google image of ants, he just shrugs, which he does each time he's caught in a lie or some other nonsense. What else could a lying idiot do? And the filthy front door, which looked nearly destroyed after his baby momma got some "Indian guy" to kick it in? "Just a smudge," the moron says.

The Plaintiff seemed so sympathetic at first, but she wasn't totally honest either. No, she had no warranty for the brand-new washer because she didn't buy it at Sears, but at an appliance store. Surely appliance stores give warranties? She plays dumb and mumbles about "as is". Judge Juarez informs her that it means they were used.

So, why would she rent her immaculate premises to this incoherent hulk AND then make a new lease when his baby momma joined the party? Finally, it comes out: He tossed a whole wad of cash at her, and it blinded her to anything else. Maybe in the future, she might rein in her greed and do a thorough background check of potential tenants. I'm pretty sure this isn't Def's first time pulling this crap.

Def had a counterclaim. P has taken up his time, and while he's here, his volatile baby momma and kiddies were deprived of the pleasure of his company. Surely he should be compensated?😄

Papa asks him about the status of his mom's health. I guess it wasn't such an emergency, and she's just fine now. Right. He replies with the same smirk as when J Juarez wanted to know why he lied and told the judges he was in the hospital when his text said, "we at Circus Circus."

 

22 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Today, I saw "phony ant pictures" I was all gung ho because this sounded like fun.

I can't bear the thought of you being disappointed, so here you go:

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZezry5_E_c

 

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saqDMVH2WAM&t=8s

You won't thank me. The Def is infuriating.

[AngelaHunter]

BTW, @DoctorK, I think you would really enjoy the Crypto scam, if you haven't seen it. It's also on YT.

[CrazyInAlabama]

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

These days I usually record the new episodes and then come here to see if they are interesting enough spend the time to watch. Today, I saw "phony ant pictures" I was all gung ho because this sounded like fun. Sadly, thanks to the terminal incompetence of Cox, what they broadcast today (in spite of listing the fake ants case for today's new episode and the motorcycle case as today's rerun), both today's "new episode" and the rerun were the motorcycle episode. Yep, same episode back to back. I was really looking forward to fake ant pictures.

This was what I was hoping for:

 

Go to the Youtube channel for Hot Bench, both parts are there, very brief ad, no other commercials, and it was free.   They are available the morning after they run on the TV channel. 

Edited Thursday at 02:25 PM by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/21/2025 at 3:35 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

“How I Met Your Motherboard”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 96

Awesome. Plaintiff: "I only debate with people on my level. All others I educate."

Wow, someone has a high opinion of herself, even though she appears here wearing what looks to be a janitor's stringy old mop on her head. Surprising that someone on such a lofty level would wear such a thing. She can't even stand up for the duration of this case, yet refused to believe the much older and fragile-looking Def had sore legs from standing for a long time.

She compares herself to Amazon, in that if you purchase something from them and don't want it, you are responsible for returning it. Even Papa Mike couldn't see the logic in that comparison. The Def called her a narcissist. I agree, but I failed to see what she has to be narcissistic about. I wish I had such an ego!

[CrazyInAlabama]

26 May

“Knock Knock Zoom”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 134

p. 47, 30 April 2024

“Knight Court”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 32

p.52, 23 October 2024

 

27 May-   

“Running a Racket”

New, Season 11, Episode 143

(Timothy Ton vs. Kathleen Gude)              

From the show site: A tennis coach says he was unfairly fired and not paid for completed lessons; the defendant says the plaintiff's absences caused parent refunds and reputational harm, justifying her refusal to pay.

Plaintiff/tennis coachTImothy Ton suing defendant/after school sports service owner Kathleen Gude suing for unpaid wages, and firing without cause.  Suing for $631. Plaintiff says he missed two scheuled classes, and then he was fired, and he already was owed payment.  

Defendant says plaintiff was often absent, causing refunds to students’ parents, and hurt the reputation of the school, and she owes him nothing. When plaintiff missed the two classes, defendant made refunds to parents, and that amount was deduced from his wages. 

There is no written contract, but they are supposed to pay $75 per session, and he worked nine sessions.  He considers himself an independent contractor.   Defendant says she doesn't pay the coaches until week 4 or 5.   

Defendant is asked why she charged plaintiff for the refunds she chose to do, she says it's right to chage him for the profits she didn't make. 

Plaintiff receives $631

 

“The Need to Breed”

Rerun, Season 10, Episode 139

p. 48, 7 May 2024

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 17 hours ago by CrazyInAlabama

[Chalby]

On 5/1/2025 at 8:59 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

1 May

“He Said, She Shed”

New, Season 11, Episode 

(Chelzy Desvigne  vs. David Werdelin )      

From the show site: The plaintiff says the defendant damaged her tiny house during delivery and withheld $1,000 for repairs; the defendant says he sold the house for less, had to cut down a tree branch and move a fence, and offered a $1,000 discount for repairs.

Plaintiff Chelzy Desvigne suing defendant David Werdelin for damaging her tiny house when he delivered it. Suing for $5,000.

Defendant says he sold at a discount, had to do a lot of work for the delivery, and offered plaintiff $1,000 for repairs.  Tiny house looks like it was dropped off of a cliff, not delivered.

House was $10,000, including delivery.  I'm suspicious of the quality of a $10,000 tiny home.  Sounds more like a tool shed.   Plaintiff claims it will cost her $20,000 to fix the house.  Actual house wasn't as pictured, but that's the one plaintiff picked.  House shows an incomplete structure. Flashing is torn off, siding also, plumbing pipes are broken PVC, roof has a huge hole in it. 

Defendant says her agreement to pay $9,000 and her acceptance is the completion of the contract.  He points out that the roof/siding hole was only plastic sheeting.   He says he only was agreeing to sell and deliver, and plaintiff would have to find a contractor to do the hookup, foundation, and permanent supports.     

House ad says it's suitable for a man cave, she shed, garden cottage, but doesn't say suitable for living in.  Plaintiff paid half the price of a complete house, and but is the same one plaintiff saw at defendant's shop.  

The plaintiff is suing for demo costs for the house.  She says she refused delivery, but defendant says she did not refuse delivery.  

My view, she saw it before delivery, it wasn't complete, and was a huge discount.  I think she got exactly what she paid for, and agreeing to the $1,000 discount means contract is completed.   House looked like a wreck in the original picture at defendant's shop, and plaintiff bought it like that. 

Corriero claims defendant needed a permit to move the house, defendant claims he didn't. 

Plaintiff has several estimates ranging from $8474, up to $34,000.  

Corriero says habitable home was what plaintiff would deliver, and she gets $5,000.   Tewolde doesn't understand that $1,000 discount isn't realistic, and Juarez agrees with her. 

I think the house was in bad condition at the defendant's shop, and plaintiff got what she paid for, the shell of an unfinished tiny house.  (Juarez says unwind the sale, and refund, but that's not practical)

Plaintiff gets $5,000.   

 

Security Refund Rant”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 81

p. 54, 5 February 2025

 

2 May

“Sneak Attack”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 40

p. 52, 5 November 2024

“Updo No Good”

Rerun, Season 11, Episode 5

p.  50, 13 September 2024

 

 

I question Judge C's rulings of late. He seems to miss the glaring legal issues, while trying to play Devil's advocate.