Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Hot Bench

Moderated by PrincessPurrsALot

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts


My explanation for the move in of all of the tanks was that the defendant's room was an ADU with a separate entrance? I don't think it was the main part of the house.   Or defendant moved the tanks in while plaintiff was at work or away from home for a couple of days.   

That's the only explanation I can think of for plaintiff not seeing the giant fish tanks moved in and put in the room, and later moved to  carport or breezeway, or whatever the area was.    I can't imagine what the defendant's room looked like with all of those giant tanks in there, before the flood happened.   

Also, every lease I've ever had, or looked at prohibited running a business from the property, and defendant was obviously running a business breeding and selling fish.    I'm guessing plaintiff thought defendant had fish bowls and maybe one small tank, not the Sea World that defendant actually had. 

I suspect the explanation of the floorplan of the house was cut out, leaving a lot of confused viewers.   

 The fish tanks were apparently in a covered porch or former carport, and I don't think it was just a bedroom on the main part of the house.    

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1
  • Useful 2
Link to comment
15 hours ago, patty1h said:

Those things didn't look like one person could carry them so the defendant must have had help to get them in and the plaintiff missed that? 

I wasn't paying the closest attention but I think one of the tanks is 125gal? Those are typically 72" long so for sure he had help with that.  They also weigh half a ton when filled. Good thing this room was on the ground floor(?) as the floors in a regular home can't support the weight of huge tanks without reinforcement.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2
Link to comment

Funeral Fallout

New, Season 9, Episode 149, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

( Willaim Connie Brown and  Darrell Perry   vs. Tony Bellamy)

Plaintiffs say Bellamy reached out when his father was failing in 2018, and when father died, defendant signed a contract.  Plaintiffs sold the funeral home in 2019, but Bellamy still refused to pay up.   Bellamy says Perry Brothers Funeral Home is now owned by plaintiff's son, and he won't pay the plaintiffs, but the current owner, who is a son of plaintiff.  However, Bellamy hasn't paid the current owner either.   

The defendant claims he had a policy from father that would have paid a great majority of the funeral costs.   However, defendant's father's company sold to another owner, but the policy was no longer in force.  

Defendant gave $1,000 and the insurance information to plaintiff Brown, and Bellamy signed the contract.   When Brown called the insurance company, they wouldn't talk to him, because he wasn't a beneficiary or policy holder.   When Mr. Brown told Mr. Bellamy about the insurance issue, defendant contacted the insurance company, and found out that the policy lapsed years ago, and there would be no insurance payment. 

Defendant Bellamy signed the contract stating that if the insurance didn't pay out, that he would pay. 

Plaintiff’s are suing for more payment of funeral costs from defendant/son of deceased father.  Defendant refuses to pay one more penny for the funeral.  Mr. Brown points out that when defendant claimed he didn't have money, he was posting barbecues he was throwing for the community.    Bellamy had three years to pay this off, but hasn't.   Bellamy says he will pay the son who now owns the funeral home but never has.   

Plaintiff Brown says five or six other people still owe money to him, about $50,000 total.  

When Mr Brown posted on FB, he didn't own the funeral home, and his son didn't own the funeral home.     The FB post was taken personally by defendant, and plaintiff Brown gave the FB and other messages to Connie Brown.  Mr. Brown didn't write any specific customer names either, even though defendant Bellamy wasn't the only person who still owed the plaintiffs money, it was a total of $50k still owed, now $45k after the award. 

 Def. Bellamy says he'll pay Harrington Funeral homes, who now own the former Perry Brothers Funeral home, but the debts did not convey with the purchase by Harrington.  Debt is owed to plaintiffs, not the new owner of the funeral home.   

I absolutely agree with everything Plaintiff Brown said about the FB post.   He's a private citizen, not running the funeral home any longer, and it's not as if Bellamy had any intention of every paying anyone for the rest of the funeral costs. 

(Unfortunately, the quick decisions you make after a bereavement come with a contract for everything you picked out for the funeral services. 

 Also, many of the advertised on TV final expense insurance don't pay on all types of deaths, and often have a time period that reduces the pay out.   Some only pay after a certain number of years.  Also, the ones where you fill out your own health questionaire, if you lie about your health history the payout is cancelled.)

Plaintiffs receive $5,000.   


Eyes Wide Shut

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 108, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 30 Nov 2022

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2
Link to comment

I didn't like JTewolde trying to shame William Connie Brown for putting up that FB post where he stated his feelings on past customers who had outstanding balances to his former business. 

I'm glad he straightened her out that his statement was posted as a private citizen, that he didn't name any names or target the derendant directly, and that he has the right to give his opinion.  If he had still been in business, his words had the potential to irritate customers, but this situation was past that.  Tewolde must be aware that social media now gives everyone a public platform and most are not smart enough to know it has consequences, so don't make this guy out to be a special case... everyone does it.  I liked his spank to Bellamy... "a whipped dog will holler" (if I remember that right).

Defendant Bellamy was trifling to say he was going to pay the new funeral home owners instead of the people he contracted with - I'm sure he did that to stall further.  As a non-lawyer, even I knew that this move was not legal because he didn't have an agreement with the new owners.  Bellamy loses.

Edited by patty1h
  • Like 4
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I'm glad he straightened her out that his statement was posted as a private citizen, that he didn't name any names or target the derendant directly, and that he has the right to give his opinion.

Me too! He schooled Tewolde on something that the judge should know. I also recall Juarez on the fish pimping aquarium flood case misrepresenting a judge's directions to a jury about one lie by a litigant ("if a litigant is lying on one issue, they should be considered to be lying on all of their statements" [paraphrased as I recall]). I liked these two for a while but am now having reservations about both of them and not just in these two cases. I have even found myself agreeing with Corriero a few times.

Edited by DoctorK
  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Wednesday 7 June

2 Wrong Wigs Don’t Make a Right

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  64,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34 , 19 Dec 2022



The Paper Caper

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 115, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 2 Dec 2022

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 6/6/2023 at 2:33 PM, DoctorK said:

I liked these two for a while but am now having reservations about both of them and not just in these two cases. I have even found myself agreeing with Corriero a few times.

Thank you for saying this. I've been struggling with the show's discussion segment (when the 3 judges deliberate) and there's been a few times where I feel as though they didn't hear the details clearly. Or they fixate on something that's not important to the case. So I've not agreed with 3 outcomes which is a lot for judges who are in their first year. (I disagreed with 2 cases in all the years the original 3 were on )

  • Like 4
Link to comment

8 June, Thursday

Wish Upon a Car

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 40,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 32, 10 Nov 2022


Topsy Turvey

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 111, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 1 Dec 2022

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
Link to comment

9 June

All A-Boat a Family Feud

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 41,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 32, 11 Nov 2022


Purple of Confusion

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 92,  (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 19 Oct 2022

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 6/8/2023 at 7:33 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Wish Upon a Car

I just watched this. I can't keep up with the ebb and flow of the "as is" rule. We know it doesn't usually apply to SSMs - at least on this show -  but the exemptions seem to be ever-increasing so now naive idiots way old enough to have more sense get off the hook for the crap they buy when trusting total strangers.

The dopey Brums want an old car they found on CL and meet the seller at Walmart to buy it. Judge J finally asks the Brums why they didn't get this car checked before the purchase.

Mr. Dumbrum starts yammering about how that just wasn't an option! It's a whole hour's drive to where this car is, then he'd have to drive more to take it for an inspection, so anyone could understand how that was not an option. The judges are all, "Oh. Okay then"  and accept this as a legitimate excuse for not doing the most cursory checking of the veehickle. Whatever!

Having the car leak and conk out, getting it towed, and coming to court were all much more convenient, better options for these mature idiots, I guess.

Their son, their BOY doesn't have a car! Oh, tragic it is.

The def. should have taken the jugs of coolant and oil out of the trunk before the marks, I mean the buyers, saw it. Duh.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

12 June

Cat Man Don’t

New, Season 9, Episode 149  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Luis Valadez  Jr vs. Sean Euler)

Plaintiff is suing defendant for unpaid rent, $3800.  Plaintiff and family moved to a home with a 1 bedroom/1 bath apartment, and defendant moved into the apartment.   When defendant moved out without notice, he owed plaintiff seven months rent.     

Plaintiff/ landlord allows his cats to urinate all over an allergic tenant's possessions, so the defendant/tenant withholds rent.  Defendant says plaintiff's cat's ruined his property, and plaintiff refused to corral the cats, and defendant says he owes nothing to plaintiff.  Plaintiff says defendant promised his tax refund, but only gave plaintiff some rent, not all that was owed.  Rent was $540 a month.  

Defendant says cats kept breaking into his room. 

Plaintiff receives $2800 for unpaid rent, minus a penalty ($1,000) for bad kitty management. 


Shoe Me the Money

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 69 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Michal Beaumont vs.  Mcadoo)

Plaintiff gives her boyfriend a rare pair of Air Jordans for Valentine's Day, when she finds out he's cheating on her, she sues to get the shoes back, $513.   Plaintiff also says defendant was not only cheating, he assaulted her when she asked for repayment. 

Both litigants are constantly harassing each other, and fighting, even on video.   Both litigants are out of control. 

Plaintiff revieves $513. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment

I really enjoyed today's Great Cat Piss Case. No one was evil, no one was stupid, nobody slashed any tires or smashed car windows, nobody got in a fight with a baby daddy's new girlfriend, nobody was attacked by a pit bull. Both litigants were fairly polite and reasonable (except maybe for the defendant's emotional attachment claim for his one and only sofa 😁). Just a not very important but fun case to watch, and neither litigant walked out angry. I am not sure I would like a steady diet of cases like this one, but it was a refreshing change of pace.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

13 June, Tuesday

Hissing Cousins

New, Season 9, Episode 150 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Courtney Sims-aunt vs. Andrea Young-niece)

Plaintiff/aunt is suing niece /defendant for an unpaid loan for $1,000.      Aunt/plaintiff has a promissory note, but defendant claims it isn't her signature.   However, Judge Tewolde says the signature on the note looks like other signatures by defendant.   

Defendant swears their grandmother gave her money to repay plaintiff, and claims she never signed any note, and doesn't owe plaintiff a penny. 

Then, plaintiff starts crying, and it makes her gigantic false eyelashes look bad.   

Defendant claims litigants had a great deal and discount at Big Lots, so defendant claims grandmother was owed $300 by plaintiff, and defendant took the money. 

Since previous debt was paid for, that part is dismissed as a deduction from the $1,000 by the judges.  The previous debt is claimed to result from inheritance money by defendant too.    Then the litigants were arguing over a car that one of them sold, and the other one wanted, but lost out on. 

As always, Corriero doesn't care about the promissory note. 

Plaintiff gets $1,000.


Un-Resting Room; Nine Dogs, a Baby and a Boyfriend

Rerun, Season 8, Episode (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 9 Dec 2022


  • Like 1
Link to comment

14 June


Rerun, Season 9, Episode 45 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 17 Nov 2022


Ex Ed

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 3 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Willeen "Lisa"  Jenkins vs. Jason Satchell )

Plaintiff woman purchased a car for her boyfriend, who moved into her house after the first day, but she is taking him to court to get her money back $2,000, and $950 credit card charges. Defendant was unemployed when he moved in with plaintiff. Twelve days after defendant moved in with plaintiff, he was with another woman, his other woman is the defendant's witness.    Plaintiff says defendant was Face Timing with the other woman,Aisha Jones,  right in plaintiff's home. 

Defendant says a short while after he lost his job, that plaintiff tried to control him by telling him to get a job.  Then, defendant moved out, and was engaged to the witness, Aisha Jones.  Plaintiff was tired of paying for his ride shares, that she gave him $2000 for a car.   After that they argued about him cheating, and he moved out.   Plaintiff was upset after she saw that shortly after he moved out, he was engaged to the other woman. 

When plaintiff heard defendant talking to another woman in her home, and she broke the door down to oust plaintiff.    Plaintiff says the defendant and fiance met at defendant's workplace, and were involved for a long time before she found out.  

Defendant claims he didn't ask plaintiff for money, and owes her nothing. Car was towed away after it was totaled in a wreck.   Plaintiff signed for the car, and loaned defendant the money, but all of the insurance money was kept by defendant to pay his expenses for the car.  Defendant says plaintiff is bitter because he's with a younger woman. 

Plaintiff did have defendant sign a promissory note for $2,000. 

Plaintiff receives $2,700 ($2950 minus the few payments defendant made)    


  • Like 1
Link to comment

15 June

Not So Hot Dog

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  43(Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 26 Dec 2022


Watering the Bill ; Drugs, Bed Bugs and Covid

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 145(Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 8 Dec 2022


16 June

It’s a Mice House

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 46  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 18 Nov 2022


Drowning in Debt

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 113 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 7 Dec 2022

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1
Link to comment

19 June

Warrior Renter

New, Season 9, Episode 152  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Mindy Truex vs. Robin Viso)

Plaintiff suing for return of security deposit, $1400 security, and $1350 first month's rent.   .  After letting a tenant out of a lease, landlady refused to return security deposit, and plaintiff is suing for deposit.   Plaintiff never moved in, but kept the keys for a month.    It took another month to get another tenant in the property.  

Defendant/landlady claims plaintiff was out of control, and landlady locked herself in a room, and called police for help.     Plaintiff claims landlady was out of control, threatened her, and she called police also.   Corriero says plaintiff should have security back from the date a new lease was signed, but the new tenant didn't move in until six weeks after plaintiff turned in the keys.    

Plaintiff claims when the new tenant signed the lease that the tenancy would end.  However, defendant didn't get a signed lease and a tenant move in until mid November.  Why would the fact someone signed a lease, but didn't move in yet, means defendant/landlady was still losing rental income.  

When plaintiff tried to force entry to the apartment, both litigants called police. Defendant says when Truex showed up at the apartment, plaintiff was agitated, pacing back and forth, out of control, and so defendant locked herself in the apartment and called police. 

After the confrontation, the text from defendant to plaintiff says since another tenant won't move into November, that the security deposit was taken for the rent.    Defendant didn't change the locks until new tenant moved in.   Juarez wants to know why plaintiff wasn't allowed access to the apartment while her security deposit was still paying the rent, and before another tenant moved in. 

Corriero says in California a landlord has to mitigate the damages, but a tenant who hasn't moved in yet isn't mitigating anything.  My view, even though the new tenant didn't move in until six weeks after plaintiff decided not to move in, defendant wasn't collecting rent on the apartment until the new tenant moved in.    (This happened in Santa Barbara, CA).

Corriero wants to give the $1490 to plaintiff.   Juarez wants to give the plaintiff much less,    When I moved out early, I had to pay rent until someone else moved in, not until the place had a signed lease.

$1040, for half a month's rent, and the utility money back.   I wouldn't have given the plaintiff a penny.   She signed a lease, changed her mind and apartment was empty from September until mid-November.   Not cutting off the utilities is plaintiff's role, and she did nothing.  As usual, Corriero falls on the side of the person who claims they were too incompetent to be an adult.   

Plaintiff receives $1040.  


Poultry in Motion (Part 1)” Part 2 continued on tomorrow’s show. 

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 6, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Aaron Flores  vs. Dale Fritz )

This may be one to skip, synopsis: “A grieving family seeks retribution after their neighbor clubs their dog to death”

Plaintiff is suing for $2500 for bee stings, and $2500 emotional distress.

Plaintiff has been stung on two occasions by bees probably from defendant's many beehives.   Plaintiff saw his two dogs chasing some of defendant's chickens on plaintiff's property, but his dogs chased the chickens off, and never went of defendant's property.  

The beehives that defendant keeps are right behind the property line with plaintiff.   Bee keeping is illegal on defendant's property, and defendant claims 

Suit alleges his neighbor has beehives and besides the regular bees he's had for years, he now has some strain that goes after people with intent - Plaintiff was stung over 15 times one day.  Defendant rented the hives to Almond growers, so he was running a commercial operation, wonder if he has a business license?   The bees were different strains than the first honey bees he had.  

Plaintiff also complains that neighbor has chickens that get loose, come on his property and his two dogs have killed a few.  Plaintiff says his neighbor killed one of his dogs in revenge, and they caught him on their security camera taking the dog out of view, then the dog never came home.

Defendant says Plaintiff's dogs came onto his property and killed some chickens and he had the right to defend his livestock.  He clubbed Plaintiff's dog to death, buried it and never said a word to his neighbor because of their longstanding fued. 

Judges mention that defendant is also out of compliance on the types of bees he's keeping, and the setup of his chicken coops (too close to human habitation), due to local ordinances.  Defendant claims he didn't know about rules prohibiting the bees. There is a photo of the beehives, and there must be 20 hive boxes.     Defendant also used to put his garbage in plaintiff's trash cans. That's against the law. 

Defendant is shown on plaintiff’s security camera leading the dog off the property, and behind his shed.   Then, plaintiff’s daughter heard yelping (she wasn’t watching the security camera), and dog never came home.    Defendant isn't sorry for killing his neighbors pet.   He mumbles some excuse for not having the courtesy to tell his neighbor about their missing dog.  When a judge asks him if the dog die instantly, defendant doesn't answer.  So, my guess is the defendant beat the dog, it didn't die fast enough for him, so he strangled it to death.   

Defendant  never admitted what a POS he was until the film was shown.   You are allowed to kill animals attacking your livestock, but it doesn't mean you trespass, take the animal back to your property and kill it.  Defendant says he killed the dog for killing his chickens, and that's legal. However, can you strangle or beat an animal to death?  I doubt it. 

Chickens were found dead on plaintiff's property, but no evidence of chicken attacks on defendant's property.   

Defendant says he caught Peaches, the dog, on his property, and he was allowed to kill the dog, and wants money for dead livestock.   However, security footage shows defendant taking the dog off of plaintiff's property, and that's illegal.   

Victoria Flores, daughter of plaintiff, was home when the chickens got loose and came on plaintiff property.   She heard the dog yelp, it stopped after 15 or 20 seconds, and she didn't realize that defendant killed the dog. 

Plaintiff thought dog was held captive on defendant's property, but dog was already buried.  Plaintiff says defendant's chickens constantly come on his property.    

(continued on tomorrow’s show, as usual,  just an abrupt ending with a continued screen).

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Sad 2
Link to comment

20 June

Irritation System ; The Costly Cousin

New, Season 9, Episode 153  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

Irritation System

(Manuel Sanchez vs.  Reingold)

Plaintiff was hired to repair defendant's sprinkler system, but claims he did the work and was never paid by the defendant.   Defendant claims he only owed $150, not the $350 plaintiff is claiming is owed.  Plaintiff is suing for the $200, to fix the sprinkler timer, and another item. 

When the job was completed, plaintiff left a bill at the front door, and when he didn't get paid he called the plaintiff.   Plaintiff says defendant claimed he mailed the check, and didn't find the bill until after plaintiff cashed the $150 check. 

Defendant keeps saying he's confused, claims plaintiff was harassing him, which has no proof. 

Plaintiff receives $200. 

The Costly Cousin

(Jeannette Charles vs. Carl McDonald)

Litigants are cousins, plaintiff helped defendant several times over the years.  Defendant needed money to get his car out of impound after it was stolen, and for costs to replace his license plate, and renew his registration,  $450.  Defendant admits he had a loan from plaintiff, but he has reasons to not repay the plaintiff. 

Defendant says plaintiff shouldn't have sued a relative. 

$450 to plaintiff. 



Poultry in Motion (Part 2)

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 7, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Aaron Flores  vs. Dale Fritz)

This may be one to skip.  Synopsis: “A grieving family seeks retribution after their neighbor clubs their dog to death” was Part 1.  

This is Part 2, “ Hospitalized by vicious bees, his dog beaten to death with an ax handle, plaintiff wants more than a perfunctory apology letter from his neighbor”.

The defendant did not kill the dog to get it off of his chickens during an attack.  The chickens were already dead, on plaintiff’s property, that was long before the dog was killed, and there is no proof the dogs were coming onto defendant’s property for the chickens.

Defendant says "his intention was to send a message to the dog".  Corriero reads defendant's statement.  Fritz claims both dogs were in his yard, killing chickens, one escaped back under the fence.   The next day defendant claims the dogs were attacking the chickens, and he chased it into a corner, beating it with a wooden club, killing the dog.   

Defendant said nothing until plaintiff saw the security video of defendant chasing the dog, disappearing behind the shed, and cornering the dog.  Then, defendant slammed the little dog with an ax handle, and buried the dog.    Defendant claims dog didn't make any noise, he's a liar.  Defendant claims he hit the dog on the back of the head, and dog died instantly, and he's lying again.  

The plaintiffs had a video of the defendant taking the dog behind his shed, Plaintiff's daughter, Victoria Flores,  said she heard the dog yelping (but didn't know what was happening at the time).  It would seem to me that the defendant could (and should) be arrested for criminal cruelty to animals. 

However, I bet the local authorities did nothing about defendant’s cruelty.   Plaintiff's didn't find out the dog was buried, until the Monday before the court show filmed, when plaintiffs were in court trying to get a restraining order.  

I feel sorry for the plaintiffs for having to put up with such a horrible neighbor for 25 years. (My experience is a long-term resident will not be touched by authorities, if that person is connected locally.  Some jurisdictions don’t care about anything but protecting their own against people they think of as outsiders).

Apparently, the authorities told defendant to get his massive number of beehives off the property, and that they can’t come back.     Defendant had at least 20 hives, and plaintiff claims that defendant changed to a new, more aggressive strain of bees a couple of years ago.   I wonder if the bee business being banned was before or after defendant slaughtered the poor dog?  

All of this could have been prevented by defendant securing his chickens the way the law says he should, and fencing the fencing gap on his property that allowed the chickens to roam onto plaintiff’s property.  However, defendant would rather butcher the dog by trying to beat the dog to death, and then strangle it when it didn’t die fast enough for him.   

This is one case where Corriero isn't making excuses for the defendant.  

If Corriero or the other judges think this feud is ended, they’re wrong.   I don't know how the defendants still live next to the plaintiff.   Dog slaughter happened on Christmas Eve, and on Christmas morning, defendant dug the dog up, and threw the dog in the trash.  

Plaintiff received a TRO against defendant. Defendant wrote a pathetic apology letter, in the letter he talks about 'loss of friendship' with the plaintiffs, that never existed. 

Defendant is counter suing for loss of reputation, and the time he spent in court defending against the TRO, for $4,000.  Defendant calls the case an 'unfortunate circumstance'. 

All three judges loathe the defendant.   I agree with the judges.   What a pathetic excuse for a human being defendant is.   Judge Acker really yells at the defendant, and he shows no reaction.

Plaintiffs receive $5,000.     Defendant's despicable claim dismissed.       I hope one thing is true that defendant said, that people where he lives now shun him, and I hope everyone there saw this case. 

(I absolutely believe what the plaintiff says defendant said to him when he moved in.   I had a Latina friend who had a similar conversation with a jerk down the road when she moved in to her house.   It absolutely is racism). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Irritation System

(Manuel Sanchez vs.  Reingold)

Gary Reingold is a cheap, chiseling, shameless, pissy little bitch, beating the plaintiff out of 200$ for work he did (and for a fraction of the $1,000 he was quoted by someone else) and willing to come on national TV and show what a lying POS he is.

  • Like 3
  • Applause 2
Link to comment

21 June

Tripod Charlie

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 60, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33, 12 Dec 2022


Risk Jockey

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 29, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Renato Amio vs. Regino Regino)

Plaintiff is suing defendant / DJ for ruining his 50th Wedding anniversary party.

Party was booked a year in advance, for June 2020.  Plaintiff paid $300 deposit, with $600 total.  After Covid hit, June was cancelled, and changed to November, but DJ refused to change unless plaintiff paid him $200 more.  So, plaintiff cancelled the DJ, and wanted a refund.   

Defendant refused the refund, and plaintiff is suing him for the $500 back. 

Defendant says he did want to reschedule for November 2020, but plaintiff refused to pay more for the reschedule.     Defendant claims he was giving plaintiff a discount, from his usual price almost three times what he charged plaintiff. 

Plaintiff receives $300 back.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

22 June

Blinded by the Light

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 39,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 32, 9 Nov 2022


At Least Pay Off the Lease

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 35, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)moved out volunt

(Shauna Robeson vs. Zachary "Luke" Sickels )

Plaintiff/roommate and life coach, suing defendant/ roommate for his half of the rent.   

They signed a lease for a year, on a three bedroom apartment, splitting rent, and  bills 50/50.   When defendant's daughter came to visit, there was an argument, and defendant moved out.  Plaintiff says his portion of the lease breaking, and cleaning fees are $1094.   

Plaintiff claims she was uncomfortable with defendant living in the same space. 

Defendant claims plaintiff arguing with him forced him to move out, and he says it's a constructive eviction.  They can only communicate through email.

Judge Acker gets irate at defendant, saying he moved out voluntarily, and was not constructively evicted.  

Plaintiff receives $1004 for the lease breaking and cleaning fees, minus the defendant's half of security the landlord will keep, so $766 to plaintiff and she keeps the entire security deposit check. .  Landlord gave plaintiff the security check already for both litigants.  


  • Like 2
Link to comment

23 June


Rerun, Season 9, Episode 35 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 32, 3 Nov 2022


A Couch and a Loan

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 27 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

 (Justin  Shelton vs. Ursula Ruiz)

Plaintiff gave defendant a place to live, sleeping on his couch, helped her get a job.  Plaintiff also bought her a car, for $600, and says defendant never repaid him.  Defendant claims plaintiff had ulterior motives for letting her stay and buying her a car, defendant says car was a gift. 

Defendant moved in with her mother, because of her parole residency requirements.   Defendant left for parole requirements, not for any other reason.  So, they leave out the reason she was on parole.     Defendant claims she left because plaintiff made advances, left without saying anything, and left some stuff behind. 

Defendant send plaintiff texts that she will pay plaintiff back.  Corriero thinks plaintiff was wanting a relationship with defendant. 

Plaintiff receives $600 for the car.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1
  • LOL 1
Link to comment

26 June

Ruff Rough Rerun

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 102,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 36, 28 Feb 2023


Nothing But the Tooth

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 141, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 32, 7 Nov 2022


Edited by CrazyInAlabama
Link to comment

27 June


Rerun, Season 9, Episode 67,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 4 Jan 2023



Rerun, Season 8, Episode 129, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 38, 20 Apr 2023

Link to comment

28 June

Phone Charge-her

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 49,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 33 , 23 Nov 2022


Pain in my Grass

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 128 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 38, 19 Apr 2023


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

29 June

Sudden Impact

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 66,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 3 Jan 2023

Bathroom Blow-up

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 84, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 37, 24 March 2023


30 June

You Bought It! You Fix It!”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 68 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 5 Jan 2023


Rerun, Season 8, Episode 76 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 21 Nov 2022


Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

3 July

Business Casual

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  71, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 11 Jan  2023

Dog Sitting Disaster

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 87, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 5 Oct 2022

4 July

Credit Card Madness

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 72, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 12 Jan 2023

Party Girls

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 82, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 3 Oct 2022

5 July

Dude, Where’s My Cat

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 42, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35, 27 Jan 2023

Ghosted Writer

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 133, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 36, 14 March 2023

6 July

Double Cross Training

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 72, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35 13 Jan 2023

Keeper of the Property

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 132, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 36, 9 March 2023 (I disagree with the judgment, plaintiff has no proof of anything being hers, and gets everything out of the storage unit anyway.  I wonder if storage unit was sold for back payments before plaintiff loaded up the contents? )

7 July

Rental Home Gone Wrong

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 76 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35, 19 Jan 2023

Valued Garage

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 85, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 6 Oct 2022


Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

10 July

Give Me My Money Honey

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 79,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Mariela Miotto vs. Danielle Wait)

As always, the couple met online.  

Plan was originally for both to sell their own homes, and then move in together.  Plaintiff was willing to wait after defendant's home was sold, and loan would be repaid from the sale proceeds. 

Couple broke up after defendant borrowed $5,000 from plaintiff to fix her roof. The loan happened within a few months of meeting, and then after the roof repair to sell the house, litigants broke up.   Defendant claims money was a gift, not a loan.   Plaintiff took the money out of her 401k for the loan.  

When plaintiff argued with defendant, plaintiff was locked out of the motel room by defendant.  Defendant says she wasn't angry, but exhausted and asleep when plaintiff wanted into the room. 

There is a text discussion about repaying the money between litigants.  Plaintiff bought concert tickets for defendant, and defendant paid her back, so plaintiff did have a legitimate expectation defendant would repay the loan.  Defendant also says she's unemployed, and surviving on unemployment payments and renting out bedrooms in her home. However, defendant got a job the same week the loan was made.    

Defendant says she wanted plaintiff to write a promissory note for her to sign, but that never happened.  There are multiple texts from plaintiff, asking how much defendant can afford in payments.  Plaintiff says she only made the loan, when the appraiser was saying how much the house was worth after the repair.  Defendant claims the roof was fixed before the appraiser told the price the house was worth.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

Drama Queens

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 80,(Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 31, 4 Oct 2022

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

11 July

Come Flood or High Water

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 80 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Melissa Mills vs. Ellen Watman )

Plaintiff is suing defendant / property seller for defects in the cond, and plaintiff claims defendant knew about the issues, and committed fraud.  Plaintiff says the 'as is' house had two major issues, leaking toilets, and shower was only a trickle.  When plaintiff called home warranty company, they refused to cover repairs, saying the issues were from a long standing problem, and from lack of use of the condo.     Plaintiff says on the walk through defendant said she never used the main bath shower.    

The same real estate agent represented both litigants, double agency is legal in a lot of areas, not just Califormia the way Corriero says. 

Plaintiff says her garage flooded when she used the hose, and garage flooded during heavy rain, and her furniture and boxes were stored in garage. Plaintiff blames the flooding in the garage on landscaping issues 

This was in Fresno, and flooding was after an atmospheric river weather condition that caused a flood of epic proportions in California.   Defendant never heard from plaintiff, until a year later when she received the law suit papers. 

Defendant says during her five years living in the condo, she never had issues with plumbing, landscaping or flooding.   Plaintiff claims her roofer said he worked on the house several times to repair the roof.  Defendant says the HOA sent the roofer to fix a problem one time.   Defendant claims water came up in the bedroom, from grading issues.    Defendant's home inspector was only a termite inspector, and that's all they did, not an overall house inspection.

Plaintiff claims the 'atmospheric river' wasn't unusual, and that's a lie. 

Corriero starts yelling about 'as is' home purchases.    I have a big issue with plaintiff getting a termite and air conditioning inspection, instead of a real home inspector. 

The three judges think the same realtor for both parties in a home sale/purchase is unusual, I've heard of this in several states I've lived in, so it's not unusual.  Joint agency is legal, if both buyer and seller sign an agreement with the realtor, and if it's legal in that state. 

My view is plaintiff screwed up with cheaping out on the inspections, and the atmospheric river was catastrophic to many people with massive rainfall and flooding.   I don't see anything that the defendant did as fraud.  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 


The Dogfather

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 131 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 36, 13 Mar 2023

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2
Link to comment

12 July

Storage for a Car

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 68,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 34, 9 Jan 2023 (How can the judges find in favor of the plaintiff?  She sold stuff that belonged to her jailed sister). 


Salvaged Car Love ; Flake Tahoe

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 28, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

Salvaged Car Love

(Margaret Potts vs. Michael Avalos )

Defendant says the Camry he bought had bad steering, and he's not responsible for hitting plaintiff's beloved parked S-type 2006 Jaguar.    Camry pushed Jaguar into two other cars damaging them.   Defendant says plaintiff was paid by her insurance company, and she's trying to get money out of him.   

Camry was under a safety recall by Toyota, for a steering issue.  Plaintiff would have to get totaled car certified by a mechanic as safe, and she would have to pay extra to get car running again.   Plaintiff says in four more years, car would be classified as a classic and she wants to keep it.  Defendant paid out of his own money to the other car owners, $14000, divided in fourths by the insurance company.   

Defendant wrote the check to avoid lawsuits from the accidents, I guess that isn't working for him.

Plaintiff did receive more than Kelly Blue Book value of her car, but she wants more to restore the car. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Car wasn't a classic, and she's been compensated more than the value of the car.   

Flake Tahoe

(Lorenzo Stewart vs. Oscar Sanchez)

Plaintiff bought a 2007 Tahoe from his tattoo artist, claims the Tahoe is a lemon, and is now suing defendant for $5000.  Plaintiff didn't have the Tahoe inspected before purchase, and he says car is falling apart.  Purchase price was $5500.     Defendant has the car back now.   Plaintiff bought the car because it was pretty.    

Plaintiff drove the car for two weeks, before seeing a mechanic.  Sale was 'as is', and plaintiff also changed out the radio, and that could have caused some of the issues too.   Car is over 15 years old, so mechanical issues are to be expected. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. Plaintiff has three weeks to pick up car, or defendant can consider car abandoned. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2
Link to comment
7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Car wasn't a classic, and she's been compensated more than the value of the car.   

The nerve! If she wants to spend twice the value - 2900$ - of her old Jag she's in love with to fix it up, that's on her.  She got way more than she deserved.

I loved when JDiM informed her what's involved in insuring the old thing as a "classic", and that includes not driving it on the street and not parking it there. She wants to suck up a bundle from Def for her Classic while getting cheaper insurance and still driving it. Sorry, no eating cake and having it too.

"Oh, I only drive it on weekends," she says. Haha. Like so many of our litigants,(who usually lack license and/or insurance) she thinks driving it on weekends or to the club, work or nail salon and back is not really driving it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

13 July

Couch-Surfing Cousin

Rerun, Season 9, Episode  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35, 18 Jan 2023

Get Out

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 118,  (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 13 Dec 2022


14 July

Transmission Impossible

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 77 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35, 20 Jan 2023


Hit & Run & Hide

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 117, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 34, 16 Dec 2022


Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

17 July

Baby Brother Car Wrecker

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 82, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35, 30 Jan 2023


A-Salty Sister

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 55, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Rita Hamlett vs. Tanya Hamlett and Josephine Farr ) Both Hamletts are sisters, Farr is a niece of plaintiff.  

Fight happened when plaintiff was staying with sister, and with a the grandbaby.   Alcohol fueled brawl between grandmothers nieces, sisters and aunts. Plaintiff claims she was holding her one-year-old grandbaby when defendant Hamlett and Farr assaulted her.    Niece Josephine showed up at defendant Tanya's home, where plaintiff was staying.   MarTaneya Purvis is another niece, mother of the grandbaby, and witness for the defendants. 

Plaintiff is blaming Tanya for everything, and assaulting her while holding the baby.   Defendant says plaintiff assaulted her first.   

This is one fight I wish we had the video for.  Defendant Tanya says she didn't assault the plaintiff.   Tanya says I she never touched plaintiff.   MarTaneya says plaintiff was very drunk, and she didn't see anyone assault anyone. Rita the Brawler says she's done with the family members, and she's never going to be around them again.  

DiMango calls plaintiff Miss Out-of-Control.    Corriero calls the apology from Rita to Tanya sincere.  I call it bull pucky. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. 




  • Like 2
Link to comment

That kid in the Baby Brother Car Wrecker made my skin crawl. I had a friend whose nephew had the same careless, thoughtless, recklessness. The same flat-affect. He was deceased before his 23rd birthday. I feel sorry already for his sister. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment

18 July

Pitchin’ a Kitchen Fit

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 85,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p.35, 2 Feb 2023

Bumper Cars

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 53, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Withman Argueta vs. Christian Guel)

Plaintiff was driving Uber, stopped at a red light, and  was rear ended by lying defendant.  Plaintiff say defendant approaching, at a high rate of speed, and was hit.   

Defendant was unlicensed, and uninsured.   Defendant claims he didn't see the plaintiff's car, and stopped.  Then, defendant lies and claims he let off the brakes accidentally, and hit the plaintiff.   Plaintiff submits a video of the litigants talking about the accident, where defendant gets nasty, and admits he has no license, or insurance.  

Plaintiff called the police, who wouldn't even do a report.

Judge DiMango demands to see the copy of defendant's license, I wonder if it's valid? Defendant's license is expired, by over two years, and he still doesn't have insurance. 

Corriero says Blue Book on plaintiff's car is only $3051, but since it's a buisness vehicle the other two judges give the full amount to plaintiff, $3381. 

Plaintiff is suing for $3381, only for car damages.   DiMango says plaintiff should have sued for lost wages also.   

19 July

Brought Up on Charges

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 73,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p.35, 16 Jan 2023

God Bite

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 118, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 12 Dec 2022


20 July

Bee Bang Boom!”

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 75  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35, 17 Jan 2023

Promise Me Not

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 13 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Suzi Perrera  vs. Michael Luna )

The loan was not repaid, and the loan happened over two years ago. 

Plaintiff made the big mistake of loaning her best friend's son $2,000 to keep his truck loan current, now he refuses to repay her, she wants $3156.  She has a promissory note, and the initial loan amount of $2,000, has been increased by interest, and late fees.   His only defense is arguing with Judge DiMango. Acker thinks the interest and late fees were too high.     

Plaintiff says she went to several extravagant parties at defendant's house, but he didn't pay her anything.   

Corriero points out 10% interest is the maximum in California.  So, after two years and four months, $450 , and no late fees. 

$2450 to plaintiff. 

21 July

Vent Control

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 81  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Paul Hamilton  vs. John Sipes )

Plaintiff had issues with defendant paying rent on time. But his major complaint is the living conditions of the trashed house. 

Plaintiff/former tenant is sued by defendant/former landlord for damages.  Plaintiff says he was battling cancer, and he was struggling to keep his Pugs alive during Covid.  The pictures of the room show a disgusting mess, piled high, and horrible.   Just be glad TVs don't come with smell-o-vision, this case would spoil your appetite for days.   Security was over $995, rent was $1,000.  

Defendant claims he spent $15,000 on his female Pug, and went to over 8 different vets, but his dog died anyway. Defendant was unemployed for a long time, and applied for rent relief.  Plaintiff says defendant never finished his rent relief application, and judge ruled that defendant should be evicted. Defendant says sheriff's deputies locked him out without notice, so he couldn't clean up.   

Plaintiff says he knocked repeatedly before entering the defendant's apartment.  Defendant claims plaintiff took the wifi down, illegally.   Plaintiff says he always notified defendant that he would be entering the apartment. 

Photos after defendant was evicted and it's horrific.   One interior door is ripped off the hinges, the frame is ripped apart, trash is piled up everywhere, one room or closet is packed full of what looks like empty boxes.   Juarez says plaintiff should have filed for damages and back rent from the housing court.   How can plaintiff assess the damages when defendant hadn't been evicted yet?   Defendant claims the door damage was from termites. 

Defendant says his estimate for unpaid rent is over $24,000.   Pretty sad when a landlord is coming on this show to get $5,000 judgment paid, when he's owed more than $20,000 more by a former tenant, and Juarez keeps criticizing him.  Now Bleeding Heart Corriero chimes in, and yells at the plaintiff about suing for back rent.  

Plaintiff can only sue for 3 months rent, due to Covid rules in L.A. county.   

Juarez only wants to give one month's rent, dismiss legal fees, two other months rent, and most of the damage chages.   

Plaintiff gets virtually nothing, $2400, against $24,000 in unpaid rent, and horrendous damages.    The security deposit won't even touch the unpaid rent or damages.  Since defendant moved out, will Covid relief pay for his rent? I bet it won't.   There is a pending rent relief application for 18 months.  

Hit-and-Run Fallout

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 31, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Jesus Nuno (car owner and brother) and  Maria Contreras (sister and car driver)  vs.  Anthony Ellison)

Plaintiff was driving brother's Nissan, was stopped at a traffic light, when a third driver hit defendant's car, defendant's car spun out of control, and hit plaintiff's car.  No one was injured. Plaintiff brother (car owner) is suing for $5,000.  

Plaintiff and her three children were in a car hit by defendant/driver, 20-year-old, and were almost killed in the accident.   Defendant was uninsured, unlicensed,  and trying to duck responsibility for almost killing four people.

  There is a video from a street traffic camera.   There is a third car, sitting in the left turn lane, blows through the light turning into the right turn lane, hitting defendant's car, and defendant's car hit plaintiff's car. 

DiMango says car is worth less than $3,000, and estimates for damage repair are $7,000 and $12,000.  However, car owner/brother says he knows car isn't worth $3,000, and just wants the $5,000 to get the repair process going.   Corriero finally admits similar age Altimas are being sold online for $7,000 and up. 

 Defendant claims he just bought the car, going to the DMV to register it.  So, how do you register a car without a valid license, or insurance?   I was shocked to find out you can register a car in California without a valid license, or insurance.  You have 30 days to get insurance, but I think we all know loser defendant won't.   Bet he never gets a license either.   

Defendant gets angry at Corriero, and Acker yells at defendant.   However, Corriero was yelling at both litigants too.  

After the accident, plaintiff says her kids don't even want to get in a car again.  Defendant keeps bouncing around, and Acker calls him out on it.   

Defendant is getting nasty with the judges again. 

$5,000 to plaintiffs. 


Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
On 7/18/2023 at 3:52 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Jesus Nuno (car owner and brother) and  Maria Contreras (sister and car driver)  vs.  Anthony Ellison)

Not fair! Twitchy, jumpy, insolent def was building to working up to getting insurance! He was on his way to get it the very day of the accident. Maybe he could even get a license some day.  Why couldn't the judges understand that? Why is everyone picking on him?

  • LOL 3
Link to comment

24 July

Failure by Design

New, Season 9, Episode 154  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Kisha Irvin vs. Latonya Hopkins)

Plaintiff hired defendant to design the interior of her new home, defendant wants $10k, and refuses to show any receipts to plaintiff or the judges.  Price was $25,000, with $15,000 to home decor, and defendant would have $10,000 for her services.   Plaintiff says defendant was a no show on several occasions.   

Defendant says plaintiff was a nightmare client, harassed her, interferred with the design process.    Defendant bailed on the contract, returned a little money to plaintiff, and delivered other decor items.   

Plaintiff says the 'consultation' fee was ridiculous.  House was just under 4,000 sq ft, a new build, 5 bedroom 4 bath.   Defendant refused to show the receipts to plaintiff for the home decor.  Defendant says she purchased for several clients at once, so she wouldn't give a receipt to plaintiff.  (This was in Hampton, GA).

Plaintiff has a video showing defendant's home, and the multiple decor items supposedly purchased exclusively for plaintiff's home are shown in defendant's home, and plaintiff says were sourced from what defendant already had in her home.  

Defendant claims she has duplicates that match items in plaintiff's home.  One example is a huge gold vase, and plaintiff says her vase is much smaller.   Returns on decor items are only possible with a receipt, and defendant refuses to give receipts.   Defendant had three clients during the plaintiff's design job.

Plaintiff says she only received pictures to approve decor were prior to signing the contract. Plaintiff says she was never sent pictures for selection after the contract was signed, and $10,000 was paid. Plaintiff told defendant she didn't want what defendant had in her home, and they have a different design taste.  

Purchased items are claimed to total $5200.   Plaintiff says a lot of items listed are missing.   Plaintiff says some items had stickers of the store they were purchased from.  The Home Goods manager looked at photos, and manager said they couldn't take any items back because they were purchased at least 18 months ago. 

Plaintiff only liked $2,000 worth of merchandise, but is out over $20k, between unwanted items she can't get refunds for. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000.   Defendant breached her own contract.  (As Angela Hunter points out, defendant is a decorator, not a designer.    Good idea to hire a professional next time, with a real portfolio, and experience).  

The Car-Nash-ians

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 16(Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Tomi Reed vs. Richard Nash )

Plaintiff bought car parts on eBay, and is suing her mechanic/defendant when her car started making strange noises.Plaintiff is suing mechanic for $2200, for all of the repairs.   Car is a 2014 Chevy Cruz.   

There is only one receipt from defendant's shop, in spite how she's claiming multiple repairs on her car.   Plaintiff claims another mechanic said her $100 ebay aftermarket catalytic converter would never work on her car, and never pass smog tests.  After being told by Judge Acker that the judges don't want to hear anything but the facts of the case, plaintiff starts crying in court, claiming she's being attacked by the questions.   Judge Acker is not amused. 

Mechanic installed water pump without charging plaintiff.  Mechanic says plaintiff kept driving car when it overheated, after blowing the head gasket.  Mechanic installed the second catalytic container for free also. 

As usual Judge Corriero takes plaintiff's side. 

Plaintiff has no proof that another mechanic said the mechanic work was bad, or that her engine broke because of defendant's actions. 

Plaintiff case dismissed. Plaintiff has no proof of anything.   




Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4
Link to comment
8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff hired defendant to design the interior of her new home, defendant wants $10k, and refuses to show any receipts to plaintiff or the judges. 

Def is not an interior designer. She's a decorator. Big difference. She doesn't show receipts because I'm sure when she buys a ton of mass-produced knickknacks at HD or HomeSense she shows her business card, gets a decorator discount, and doesn't want the clients to see how much she actually paid. That's okay since she's in business to make money.  It's also normal for a decorator to have items stocked in their homes or offices.

If I were going to spend such a huge amount of money for someone to decorate my home, I'd expect her to source items that aren't in every house in every city. If not, I'd go to HomeSense myself and get what I like.  Which is what I do  - some awesome stuff in the bargain bin!😄

Take a look at Mr.Kate's channel on YT and see how decorating should be done.

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Judge Acker is not amused. 

I'd forgotten that case. The woman was too much with the 'poor little me' tears.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

25 July

A Messy Move

New, Season 9, Episode 155 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Nanci Grube  vs. Malia Tuineau )

Plaintiff/landlady suing former tenant/defendant for moving out of the rental.   Defendant says living conditions were unsafe for her and her son.  Including termite poop on the son’s bed.  Defendant says the ‘apartment’ was actually only a room in plaintiff’s home, and wasn’t up to code. Defendant moved in with boyfriend (now ex), and son.  Lived there for a year on lease, and then month-to-month, moved out when she couldn't afford the apartment, and left owing two months rent, but plaintiff had the security deposit to cover unpaid rent, and damages. 

Defendant says under California law, the apartment must have a separate entrance to be a legal apartment.  Plaintiff advertised the apartment/suite as for single mothers, and named the school district it was in.   

Defendant says when she had a plumbing issue, that plaintiff told her to use Youtube, and later when a plumber was called, defendant had to pay the plumber.     Defendant was renting a MIL suite without a separate entrance.  Plus, no separate entrance, so plaintiff and other roommates, plus defendant used the main entrance.   Rent was $2,000 a month. 

Plaintiff gave defendant a rent reduction during the Covid lockdown.  Defendant paid back almost all of the back rent.  However, defendant says the living conditions deteriorated.    Police also came to domestic violence incident with the now former boyfriend, and that caused some damages to the apartment.  Felony domestic violence was the charge against the boyfriend. 

Defendant says plaintiff told her the outside door had to be removed, because it wasn't a legal apartment, so no second form of egress in emergencies.   Apparently, this boyfriend who attacked wasn't the kid's father, or the current boyfriend. 

During the violence incident, a sliding door was broken, but it was never repaired by plaintiff. When defendant reported termite poop was falling from the ceiling, on her son, plaintiff told her to get a vacuum cleaner and clean it up.   I'm really not liking the plaintiff at all.   Plaintiff's solution to the termite poop is to put plastic sheeting below the ceilings (defendant says trash bags), to catch the poop.   (I agree with Angela Hunter, I've never heard of termite poop raining down, they make tunnels. So, it's either roach poop or mouse or rat. )

Plaintiff is a horrible record keeper, has no records of payments.   There is no separate egress staircase either, a gross violation of the fire and occupancy laws. 

Defendant should have sued for return of security deposit, but didn't, and she wouldd have had $2,000 back. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   I hope the local authorities saw this, and shut down plaintiff's boarding house.   The house is a death trap during a fire, or earthquake, so I hope the authorities got a lot of phone calls about "Baby Jane" and her house of horrors. 

Who Beat the Light? ; Put it on My Tab

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 25, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

Who Beat the Light?”

(Sinthy Kiep vs. Silvia Canales)

Defendant claims she didn't see plaintiff approaching, and accident wasn't her fault.  Defendant's insurance wasn't valid.  Plaintiff received $3500 for her car under plaintiff's uninsured motorist coverage, for $6,000 in damages plus car rental.  Defendant says her aunt gave her the car, and had insurance on it, but insurance doesn't cover cars that are owned in another state. 

Plaintiff was in an intersection, when defendant was turning left, and light went yellow, then red, and hit the plaintiff.   Plaintiff had the right of way. 

Defendant claims plaintiff sped up to beat the light, but plaintiff had a green light. Plaintiff's car has a Blue Book value of $6,000, received $3200 from the insurance company, and paid almost $6,000 more for the car repair.  It's her car, defendant did nothing to prevent the accident, and didn't even have insurance, so why should she buy another car?  

Acker says plaintiff is entitled to everything she wants, and so does DiMango.

Plaintiff receives $5,000

Put it on My Tab

(Robert Thomson vs. Richard Murphy )

Litigants are former friends, plaintiff is suing defendant for unpaid use of plaintiff's credit card.  Bills on the card are $8,000, and no repayment occured. 

Defendant claims the card charges were for marketing and promotion of litigants' businesses.  Defendant claims there was Facebook hacking, and the card was charged by hackers. 

Plaintiff did get $3817, from the fraudulent charges from the credit card company, and Facebook.  Defendant claims it was only $3,000, but not $8,000 plaintiff claims. 

After plaintiff changed the locks, defendant could have worked from home, but defendant didn't want to do that.  Defendant blames plaintiff and his former company for ruining his business.  My opinion, defendant is a permanent, professional victim.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000, leaving a lot unpaid. 


Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3
Link to comment
4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff/landlady suing former tenant/defendant for moving out of the rental. 

So, at least we found out what happened to Baby Jane. She turned her Mama's house (Mama must have been 110) into a seedy flophouse. Baby Jane trolls for SSMs on CL to occupy a room for 2K a month. Def and her kid move in, along with some guy - I don't think he was the baby daddy - who didn't hang around very long. She gets another guy who attacks her, causes damage, and shoves her into a sliding glass door, which breaks. Nice for the kid.

Def saw the premises but complains the room was small, there was no separate entrance, and renting rooms there is illegal, but she stays. I hope she wasn't banging the boyfriends in front of her son.

I don't believe this "termite poop" and think it's more likely it was an army of roaches. P covers the ceiling in black plastic to catch the droppings and considers that a remedy(!!) OH, and maybe some "orange oil"? Don't think so.

Baby Jane is an outrageous, oblivious, kooky hag. No wonder neighbours complained. She needs to sell Mama's house and go live someplace she won't need to move strangers in to pay the mortgage/rent. Def needs to take a hiatus from latching on to men and concentrate on her child who is probably traumatized from all this dramatic crap, domestic violence, and sleeping in roach droppings. Def should have had the sense to countersue for the return of at least some of her deposit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Litigants are former friends, plaintiff is suing defendant for unpaid use of plaintiff's credit card.  Bills on the card are $8,000, and no repayment occured. 

I just watched this and quite enjoyed it. The def was incredibly condescending and pompous for a deadbeat who doesn't pay his debts and can't even get a credit card of his own at his age.

He can't work at home. The ambiance just isn't right and no one should expect him to work in less than idyllic conditions.  His stupid FB got hacked. He got sacked. None of this is his fault. I found it not surprising that his employers declined to pay him - I'd guess for very good reason. He's a grifter who probably ripped them off too.

In the end, he says (still pompous after the scolding he got), "You can't sue me and be my friend', as though he expects the P to grovel to get back in his good graces. What a jackass.

  • Like 1
  • LOL 2
Link to comment

26 July

Dude Hit My Car

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 86, (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 35, 3 Feb 2023

Pay for the Cafe

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 26 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Vandana and Pradeep Jhawar vs.  Kayden Petersen-Craig )

Plaintiffs/landlords were renting cafe to defendant, $4374 was owed by defendant.   Plaintiffs received a picture of a checkDefendant/ café owner blames his failure on his landlords/plaintiffs, but lease says the landlords aren’t responsible for things falling apart. Defendant is counter suing for security deposit, and costs of repairs.    

Plaintiffs testify that defendant and other tenant were responsible for repairs, plumbing, utilities, etc.   

Defendant says plaintiffs should have replaced the water heater, removed snow and ice, fixed electrical timer, and other items.  All of the repairs are in tenants' lease.    Defendant claims there were existing defects before he rented the commercial space.   

Lease was only $1,000 a month to plaintiffs.   Defendant claims he sent a cashier's check, but plaintiffs never received it, and defendant has no proof the check existed.  (This was in Layton, Utah). 

Everything defendant claims he shouldn't have to pay for, is in the lease as his responsibility.   When defendant signed the lease, it had a statement about the condition of the property being acceptable.

Defendant claims he mailed the cashier's check to defendants, and when it never arrived tried to cancel it.   Then, he slips up by stating the check is in his pocket, and claims check was mailed back to him.   

Plaintiffs receive $4,374. Defendant's ridiculous case is dismissed. 


  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

27 July

No Time or Dime for the Cosign Mom

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 101 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

p. 36, 27 Feb 2023 (Any parent considering co-signing for an adult child should watch the ungrateful defendant, and the plaintiff's clueless daughter.  I loathed all three litigants). 


Tow Yard Nightmare

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 21. (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Shannon Palmer  vs. Jesse Copeland )

Plaintiff was moving from one home to another, and then the hit-and-run accident happened.   The next day plaintiff's daughter went to see the vehicle, and she discovered mother's stuff was gone. After a hit-and-run victim leaves the hospital, she goes to the tow yard, and sees something missing from her vehicle.    Plaintiff claims her diamonds and designer bags are missing from her SUV from when it was stored at defendant's tow yard. She's suing for $5,000 for Louis Vuitton (?) backpack, TV, diamonds, etc.    

Defendant's insurance said there was no proof of the items being in the car, or any theft, and refused to give plaintiff anything.  Plaintiff claims the tow yard surveillance cameras should show who stole her items. 

Defendant says he didn't have the keys to the truck, and car was unlocked when he towed it.    DiMango says defendant should have secured the vehicle, but defendant says no keys, and power windows means they can't close them without the keys.    Defendant says someone cut his fence at night, and police won't even respond.  Defendant says cameras don't cover the section where plaintiff's vehicle was parked.  

The plaintiff's car looks horrible, everything on the front end is smashed, and I'm surprised she survived.  

Yard is locked everyday, but the fence is often cut by burglars.   DiMango says that thief must have been in the yard for a long time. 

Plaintiff claims everything was in the truck, how much was really in there?   Insurance required a list of what was in the vehicle, and any proof of purchase. Defendant says his insurance company said plaintiff never sent them a listing, or receipts, about the missing property, so claim was denied. Defendant says he now has an electric fence around the lot, but that still doesn't prevent all break-ins. Defendant says they have a second fence, 12-feet tall, and electrified. The break ins still continue in spite of the fencing.   

Someone needs to prove that LV bag was legit, and really worth $1800, and the cost of the diamond earrings.  (This was in Vancouver, WA). 

The plaintiff had nothing to prove her purchases except defendant admitting he saw the TV, and no receipts.   If she had all of that property in the vehicle, her insurance company should have paid her, but they obviously didn't.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 


Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Any parent considering co-signing for an adult child should watch the ungrateful defendant, and the plaintiff's clueless daughter.  I loathed all three litigants

I loathed them too. I forgot I ever saw this, started watching and couldn't finish it. Yeah, I could see my mother co-signing for a lease for clueless me and my dumbass/smartass boyfriend, "an overfed, long-haired, leaping gnome" (Sing it, Eric!) so we could play house. I guess Def bought that jacket prior to growing that big belly at such a young age. He simply couldn't remember to sign the form before turning it in. Not his fault.

"Shea", who appears to be something of a grinning idiot, is obviously the apple of her momma's eye and couldn't possibly have done anything wrong. These two graduated from some school?

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Since People's Court got the Boot - I am going to start commenting on this show-

My original opinion still holds on the Judges---

Motor Mouth, Half-Awake and Old Yeller.

  • LOL 3
Link to comment

28 July

Five Grand Auto Theft

Rerun, Season 9, Episode 80,  (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Yolanda Simon vs. Jasmine Thompson)

From the show website: Defendant, a mother with seven kids, is paying restitution to her auntie for her fifteen-year-old son's auto theft.   Defendant has seven kids from age 6 to 17.  Did the auntie ruin his life by having him arrested? Did the son really threaten her, as she claims? The judges have the difficult task of deciding what's fair.

(I’ve made up my mind, son ruined his own life, and I bet it wasn’t his first crime his mother is trying to get him off the hook for.  I bet son has a long criminal history).

Plaintiff says defendant's son stole her car, and when it was returned with $5,000 worth of damages, and she wants to be paid for that.  Plaintiff says she called defendant to move her car, because the registration had lapsed.  Plaintiff says defendant took car, and parked it in her yard.  Three days later car was missing from her driveway, and son stole the car.   Key to car was in defendant's purse, and so the theory is son stole the car.   So, son took the key from his mother's purse, and defendant promised plaintiff she would pay her for any damages.   

Six days later, defendant found the car in Henderson, NV, and claims nothing was wrong with the car.  (Did defendant forget to wear slacks? Where did she get that huge jacket with the giant shoulder pads? A Devo leftover costume?).  Then, son was found in another stolen car.  Defendant claims son didn't steal the second car, but the other car thief forced son to swap cars, at gunpoint.  (I will channel Judge Judy, "That's a lot of who shot John!") 

Corriero is yelling at defendant, a nice change for Judge Bleeding Heart. 

Plaintiff has a damage estimate for $5,000.   After car was taken plaintiff made a police report after car was stolen, and before it was found.  Plaintiff says she saw son driving the car by her home, and son was pointing a gun out the window at her.  

Family Court says plaintiff should receive $3,000 restitution.   However, the aunt/plaintiff says the restitution was $2218 for the gun charge.  Son pays $100 a month, but it's from the mother's checkbook.  Son has to pay the restitution off before the probation starts.  

Plaintiff says the exterior of the car is $5,761 in damage, interior damages are even more for radios, and video screens. Plaintiff says she never received any restitution from the other charged kid found in the car.  

Plaintiff bought another, newer car after this.  

Defendant says son is taller, and out weighs her, and she can't do anything to stop son.  

Corriero says defendant was crying, but I see no evidence of tears, or crying.   

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

Rent-Up Anger

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 17, (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

p. 33, 29 Nov 2022

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2
Link to comment
On 7/28/2023 at 1:30 PM, Paperclips said:

Since People's Court got the Boot - I am going to start commenting on this show-

My original opinion still holds on the Judges---

Motor Mouth, Half-Awake and Old Yeller.

Oh, good, and 😄 for the descriptions. 'Old Yeller" indeed.

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant, a mother with seven kids

I haven't watched this yet, but let's see if I can guess - SSMo7?

  • Like 2
Link to comment

What strikes me as odd - the original Judges, minus Old Yeller because I think he had a year left on his contract, went running over to Amazon like Judge Judy did.  I haven't seen one single episode of either of those shows since they moved to Amazon/Freevee.

If Millian is smart, she'll go back to Commercial TV.  

  • LOL 1
Link to comment

31 July

You Auto Know Better

New, Season 9, Episode 155 (Tewolde, Corriero, Juarez)

(Mikel Kartman vs. David Mahgerefteh)

Both litigants take a lie detector test to determine which one is lying. Defendant says plaintiff was always late on payments, so he repo'd the car.  Plaintiff says defendant stole his car.  Plaintiff bought a car from defendant's car dealership, bought a 2015 Audi, but says he saw ads for the same car and the price was wrong.  Defendant says the price was $10,500, and that plaintiff then wrecked the car, and received too much money from his insurance company.   

Plaintiff signed off on a purchase contract, but never looked at the price on the contract.   Plaintiff claims he bought the car the same day the car was advertised.  Defendant claims plaintiff called him over 20 times about the car, and it took weeks to finalize the deal.   Defendant also says plaintiff's interest rate was higher because of plaintiff's rotten credit rating.   $2,000 was down payment plaintiff paid, with $500 more owed on the down payment. 

When defendant sent repo company to get the car, they couldn't repo it, because plaintiff was living in it.   Then, plaintiff totaled the car, and insurance paid him more than he agreed to pay for the car.  Plaintiff also didn't read the contract about other fees added to the purchase price of $10,995.   Ad said car was $9995. 

Defendant says plaintiff is a liar, and he's willing to take a lie detector test, and Judge Bleeding Heart says the judges are the lie detectors. 

Plaintiff never paid the other $500 on the down payment, or made any payments.

Judge Bleeding Heart Corriero thinks plaintiff is right. Plaintiff starts smirking when Corriero takes his side.  Plaintiff says defendant received $1700+ from the insurance company, plus he received $5200 from his insurance, much more than he paid for the down payment.  Defendant even offered a refund, before the accident, but plaintiff refused because he wanted that specific car. 

Juarez says California law says the price difference in that state means plaintiff could get the money he wants back. She also says in the contract plaintiff had to give proof of employment and never did, so he breached the contract. 

Plaintiff already received over twice what he paid on the car, and breached the contract terms,  so plaintiff case dismissed.  

Take a Dance on Me

Rerun, Season 8, Episode 1 (Corriero, Acker, DiMango)

(Imelda Glenn vs.  Jessica Garcia )

Covid cancels a Quinceanera, and plaintiff wants the ‘non-refundable’ deposit back.   DiMango says since government canceled the celebration, that plaintiff should get her money back. 

Plaintiff put a deposit on a dance floor for $400, from defendant for the event. Then, Covid struck, and plaintiff wanted a refund, citing force majeure (?).  However, defendant has a zero refund policy, and won't pay plaintiff back, but offered to reschedule. 

Plaintiff only received a receipt for the payment, but they never had a contract. 

Defendant says she didn't have a written contract with plaintiff because she was referred by a friend.  Defendant says she had a bunch of other clients, and if she refunded to one, she would have to refund everyone.  Many other clients rescheduled, and later had events. 

I see no reason for a refund, plaintiff could have rescheduled the Quinceanera, but didn't.    (This was in Seal Beach, CA)

DiMango says since defendant books and pays per event for employees, that she wasn't out any money.  Plaintiff claims she cancelled two weeks after shutdown started, but defendant says plaintiff didn't call until July. Actual party was September and held at plaintiff's home. 

Plaintiff receives her $400 back.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment

They seem to be getting some pretty good cases on this show now.

Kartman and the Audi he couldn't afford entertained me. Def is a typical car dealer and blames the price mistake on his "girl". He says Kartman was smoking weed constantly during his purchase of this Audi, and also says Kartman was homeless and living in the car. Maybe, but he couldn't drive it without totaling it and he got $5,200 from insurance, realizing a profit, since he'd only paid 2,918$ for the car up to that point.  Def is wildly dramatic, yelling, making grand gestures, and pleading for a lie detector test to prove he's being honest.

Papa wants to know why, in his complaint, P Kartman never mentioned the insurance windfall. Kartman plays it disingenuously with, "Oh, I must have forgotten that! I don't know how these things work." Right.  He also never noticed he was overcharged for the car until days after the purchase, and never mentioned it until the Def. kept asking for the other 500$ owed on the down payment. P allows that maybe he should have looked at the sales contract while at the dealership. The price was only one line on the contract so it's not his fault he never bothered looking at it.

I agreed with Papa that P (who came across as a smarmy con artist who never had any intention of paying for the car) didn't deserve anything and was glad when JJ found a loophole to deny him any money back from def.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...