The People's Court - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

I was getting sort of annoyed with the reruns but today's first case with the totally cray-cray nightmare tenant who got thrown out of court was worth rewatching. That one is going into permanent storage, just in case I am ever tempted to rent out any of my property. Don't miss the hallterview with the nut case as she explains why her business card identifies her as a "Humanitarian". I am not sure if just "Human" would be considered false advertising in her case.

Edited March 22, 2016 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

I was getting sort of annoyed with the reruns but today's first case with the totally cray-cray nightmare tenant who got thrown out of court was worth rewatching.

 

I never saw this ep, and it was well worth a look. "Miss Amy", contrary to the claims on her business card, hardly seems like a humanitarian. Actually, she seems like a lowlife, low class, shrieking scammer/liar and bully. I won't comment on her claim to having lung cancer. I was kind of sorry to see JM throw the harridan out, since her uncontrollable, non-angel-like harangues and cursing was sort of entertaining.

 

The plaintiff displayed a shocking naivety at his age, to think that someone is "an angel on earth" merely and soley on the basis of a card which she no doubt printed herself. Who labels him/herself as a "humanitarian"? He might want to sell his condo, since his judgement and business acument seems seriously flawed.

[SRTouch]

Today's first rerun has well prepared plaintiff suing defendant because of defendant's illegal left turn caused accident. (MM comments on how well spoken plaintiff is, suing she sounds like a lawyer. Plaintiff says no to being a lawyer, but she did study paralegal.) Not much of a case. Plaintiff has all the evidence, even a signed statement from defendant accepting responsibility. Defendant says not her signature, and claims she had right of way because of traffic light. Plaintiff has police statement, defendant cited for failure to yield (and no insurance), and a picture which shows no light. MM is convinced defendant is lying and is ready to rule, but defendant keeps interrupting the ruling so is kicked out. Plaintiff doesn't get the $2000+ she's asking, but gets $1000+ kelly bluebook value.

Next up mom suing daughter for rent. Public assistance is paying mom to let 27yo daughter and her two kids live with her (mom). Daughter says the public assistance has been temporarily cut off, but mom finds out daughter has deposited a couple checks with her (mom's) name into daughter's account. Big fight, daughter moves out and gets apartment with bf. Daughter talks about how badly mom treats her, up to and including being arrested for violence towards daughter. But when daughter moved out she left one of her kids so she could finish out school year - not something you'd expect if mom is as bad as daughter is now saying. Bottom line, daughter fraudulently kept her mom's checks.

Other thing about case is daughter tries for sympathy, claiming she's missing her college graduation because of being in court today. MM shoots that down real fast, saying she could have easily postponed court appearance, so missing graduation is totally on her. Daughter is claiming she wants to go on and eventually become a lawyer, but out on the street ol' Harv points out committing fraud is frowned upon by the bar. Final thought. I just bet daughter was getting additional money to support her two kids. Now, since since she left one of those kids with high bad grandma, I wonder if daughter is passing that money on to grandma.

Last case is tenant (of course receiving section 8) suing for deposit. Once again, tenant doesn't think he has to follow the rules. Landlord agreed to let him out of lease a month early, as long as he was completely out and returned the keys by the end of the month. Tenant admits he didn't return keys as per agreement. He goes back and forth as to when he returned keys, but believes he should be forgiven for returning keys late because of snow storm. Once management got the keys, they say it was a mess and there were damages. Plaintiff says he left no mess or damages but has no evidence. Defendant has picture evidence. At first plaintiff tries to say the pictures are from some other apartment, then that a pictured armoire was there when he moved in. Plaintiff not only loses his case, but defendants win countersuit for money they had been willing to forgive until they were sued. Of course plaintiff complains about the unfair judgement in the hallterview. How dare the judge expect him to live up to the agreement he made when management let him out of his lease early?

Edited March 23, 2016 by SRTouch

[rcc]

I think JM was as disgusted with that mother/daughter duo as I was!

[AngelaHunter]

Not much of a case. Plaintiff has all the evidence, even a signed statement from defendant accepting responsibility.

 

Even though plaintiff was totally in the right and deserved to be paid for her 17 year old Taurus, I couldn't stand her and her smirk. She was so smug, so pompous and pretentious (Yes, I drank every time she said "Sic-nif-icant other" instead of "boyfriend.") Her saying she was "mitigating the damages" in the middle of a car accident shows that a little education is not always a good thing.  Def. was just your run-of-the-mill "It wasn't me/wasn't my fault/that's not my address/what are you talking about??" liar/lowlife. It's a shame she has a child who will grow up with such an amoral example.

 

Another one who is on Sec 8 for life yet thinks he's owed money. How does that work? Once you're on it, it's forever?  A couple who seems perfectly able-bodied, and were probably more so 12 years ago when they started getting the taxpayers to pony up their rent, are never expected to pay their own tab? The snowstorm was so dreadful he could only move all his furniture, drive a U-Haul to the new place and move everything in, but simply could not turn in a key. The def. in her spaghetti-strapped sundress hurt my eyes.

[SRTouch]

Today's first (rerun) case is friendly hospital supply loanshark suing registered nurse for $5000 in loans to her deceased brother and late fees on loan to her. Quick ruling - MM takes the opportunity to educate the viewing public that it's not kosher to charge 30% interest. If you do, at least in New York, you lose not only the interest but the amount you loaned. In this case, nothing in writing saying nurse assumed deceased brother's debt - so that money is gone. Nurse has already paid back the $4000 loan plus $100 for being late. That's it, he doesn't get $100 a month forever. MM tells us if nurse hadn't already paid him $4100, the law would not make her pay a penny.

My real question is, where does this guy get all this money to loan people? Either he makes lots working at his day job in supply, or he's out there loansharking to more people than he admitted to in court. Why would this guy come on TPC and admit to charging this much in interest? Does he really think calling it late fees instead of interest protects him? Hey Einstein, once word gets around to your other loan customers that, according to law, they aren't required to pay you, you'll be in a bind. Asking TPC to only use your last name is certainly no protectioun, nursey is going back to the hospital and let everyone know they don't have to pay. On top of that, you have put yourself out there for any investigator looking for a slam dunk case.

Next we have a couple friends sharing trying to scam DMV. Plaintiff has DUI case coming up and knows his license is going to be suspended, which means he can't keep the car registered in his name. He gets friend to put the car in HIS name. 5 days later car is booted, impounded, and eventually auctioned off. Turns out they switched the registration to guy owing money for old tickets. Both guys have ridiculously exaggerated claims of their loses. Eventually MM decides she's milked all the laughs out of the case, spanks them both, and calls it a wash.

JJ would have settled case in 5 minutes: summarized both sides case; 4 minutes of commercials; come back and ask if they have anything to add; refuse to listen to wild claims; give "dirty hands" speech; and on the next case.

Last case is tenant suing for deposit. Turns out defendant's evidence proves plaintiff's case, and she gets back the deposit.

Edited March 25, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

friendly hospital supply loanshark suing registered nurse for $5000 in loans to her deceased brother and late fees on loan to her

 

Please raise your hands if you've forked over $9000 to some co-worker and her brother (or whoever) - mature people who cannot get their own loans because of "bad credit" = they don't pay their debts.  No one? I figured. Plaintiff is either a loan shark or a complete idiot. Not sure which.

 

Next we have a couple friends sharing trying to scam DMV.

 

 

The best part was they thought JM was going to reward them for their behavior. Plantiff - a well past middle-aged law student - doesn't seem to think that driving drunk, getting his license suspended and circumventing the law to get his old POS car registered in someone else's name might be a problem for someone hoping to be a lawyer. The fact that he caved so easily and admitted to his lying ("I let him drive my car and register it because I'm such a wonderful person. Oh, okay. I did it because I like to drive drunk and can't keep the car in my name.") is tragic.  Def seems to be unable to drive a car without racking up tickets. It's a good thing he lost his coaching job. Who wants someone so amoral, stupid and irresponsible teaching kids?

 

Last case is tenant suing for deposit.

 

I was just mind-boggled that someone would pay that much to rent a place. Even with my terrible math, it comes to something like 38K  year to pay someone else's mortgage. I guess plaintiff has the money and doesn't mind spending it that way, but it just hurts me terribly.

[SRTouch]

Reruns

[AngelaHunter]

plaintiff is suing for nonpayment for services rendered. Both litigants were dirtballs, but I especially didn't like the defendant.

 

I really enjoyed that rerun. Plaintiff surpassed even Harvey Levin category of slimeball-ery. He stood there smirking shamelessly as JM reamed him out and what she said is so true: Juries and judges have to know that an "expert witness" will say anything if he is being paid for his testimony. An expert witness who testifies for no pay, just to see justice done, is so much more credible. Had the jury known he was being paid in this case, they may have decided very differently and the defendant's ass could very well have landed in jail.

 

Part of plaintiff's testimony is defendant watched fight while stoned and smoking pot and commented that he knew his lab mix could take on her pit bull. Even though that testimony is hearsay and not considered, I believe this defendant probably said it.

 

I believe he did too. He seems the type - loud, arrogant, can't listen..

[SRTouch]

First we have long time friends fighting over $240 (I don't remember this one). The one friend had a good night at the casino, and loaned the other $300 from her winnings. The loanee (defendant) somehow took this kindness as a gift, despite there having been a payment plan. Finally, defendant pays back $60 and tries to negotiate a new payment plan. The big winner (plaintiff) isn't happy with how defendant is dragging her feet, so goes over to "talk" with her son along for back up. Now the men (the plaintiff's son and defendant's fiance) get involved, nasty text messages, and defendant refuses to pay (though she admits she still owes money). Plaintiff gets her $240 and they hug in the hall. Whole thing seems like a scam so they get a day trip to the show, even bringing friends in the audience.

Next, plaintiff suing guy he hired to install giant TV on wall. Plaintiff says defendant damaged tv, defendant says tv was 9 months old, and probably already damaged. But wait, plaintiff has security system which had camera aimed at living room and defendant is caught on video (I wonder if there are "smile" signs). Video shows defendant accepting responsibility and promising to replace TV, but he back out when he gets the bill. Plaintiff gets less than half the bloated claim.

NOTE: I'm with MM on the idea of putting an extension cord inside the wall - no way that's kosher. I can't help but think how thrilled I'd if this yahoo had installed anything for me and then I watched this episode.

Last case is potential tenant suing to get back deposit she put down on apartment where previous tenants refused to move out. Defendant is landlord, and he says he doesn't have the money to return, he's spent it on another property, and besides receipt clearly says no refund. Really is no case, defendant clearly did not live up to contract so has to return deposit. Plaintiff also got 1 month storage since she moved out of previous place acting on belief she had a place to move to. Had she gone to a hotel I would have expected defendant to be responsible for a reasonable hotel stay while she found a new place, so I think she was entitled to something for the month she camped out in a friend's basement. MM told landlord he had no legal claim to money, as deposits should be in separate account. It wasn't talked about, but defendant should have had previous tenant's deposit ready to be returned had they moved out as scheduled, so he had spent two deposits, not just the plaintiff's.

Edited March 30, 2016 by SRTouch

[AKA...CJ86]

I was getting sort of annoyed with the reruns but today's first case with the totally cray-cray nightmare tenant who got thrown out of court was worth rewatching. That one is going into permanent storage, just in case I am ever tempted to rent out any of my property. Don't miss the hallterview with the nut case as she explains why her business card identifies her as a "Humanitarian". I am not sure if just "Human" would be considered false advertising in her case.

 

With the original airing and the recent airing, I think both times I missed the humanitarian stuff...did they ever go into what those accomplishments/awards/endeavors ever were?  

 

If they are valid--any of my fellow PTV sleuths try to look this up...but I'd like to see the look on anyones faces she may have worked with if they saw her...and heard what she allegedly (we all know she peed in those buckets) on TPC...lol.

 

Always agreed with MM...the way she was acting on the show proved she did all that outrageous stuff.

Edited March 29, 2016 by CyberJawa1986

[AngelaHunter]

I guess today's first case was a repeat, but I'd never seen it. I thought JM had amnesia, since she seemed so taken aback that the fight between plaintiff and defendant (over $240) was physical, especially after hearing about the drugs and drinking. Has she forgotten that nearly every disagreement before her is a fistfight? She must know it doesn't matter who is involved, even a woman undergoing chemo - it's always a knock-down brawl. As abhorrent and disgusting as it is, it's just normal life for TPC litigants.

 

I did remember the pukey, piggish landlord who seemed to feel that if he couldn't provide the apartment he promised that somehow the prospective tentant should pay for it. "No refunds," he says, with a stupid smirk on his hugely chinned face. The spanking he got made not a dent in his attitude.

Edited March 29, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

I wasn't going to watch this rerun, but as I was putting the harness on Silly cat to go outside to drink coffee I watched the intro. The case involved the plaintiff going to hair salon to get her black and orange hair bleached blond - Maybe it's just me, but I would turn around and walk away before I let this woman work on my hair (not that I, as a 62yo man, get my hair colored very often, or ever). Poor plaintiff cracked up when she heard the announced say the resulting hair color made her look like a freak. She wants $740 for the botched job and to pay to get it redone. Stylist looks like a character from the Adam's Family - sort of a gray/green mop hairdo. Plaintiff not happy after the first 7 hours, so defendant agrees to work on it the next day. Next day plaintiff decides she doesn't trust salon and wants refund to go elsewhere. Defendant has different story. She says plaintiff was happy when she left the first night, and understood that a second session was required to even out the color. MM dismisses case, because according to plaintiff's own testimony she was told it would take two sessions to give her what she wanted.

Next case is little dog/big dog fight at the park. That's all I got on that one - I FF to hallterview. Case was dismissed, because owners assume the risk when they take their dog to dog park, and to win a case you would have to prove someone was negligent.

Last case plaintiff suing for shoddy auto wrap and missing car parts (spoiler). Plaintiff has statement from former shop employee saying shop worker was on roof which caused dents in roof. MM doesn't trust the hearsay statements from the disgruntled former employee. After looking at the pictures and reading all the texts, plaintiff wins.

Hey, Silly

[AngelaHunter]

I really enjoyed the repeat of the leaky condo, solely because the defs. were so clueless. They're the management and ALL their testimony started with, "I think... I suppose...  someone told me...  I don't know... we heard... I surmised," and evidence? "I don't have that with me at this moment." Fifty gallons of water? I wonder how they measured that?  I'm surprised the building is still standing with those doofuses in charge.

[NYGirl]

I don't know about today's rerun regarding the broken DVD player.  First of all how many times does the plaintiff have to bring it back when it keeps breaking?  I think it should have been replaced after the second time he brought it in for repair.  

 

I don't understand why she allowed defendant to say the posts affected his business because he had no proof.  Usually the judges ask for proof that the business was affected.

 

I also think the guy called before the warranty was up to make the appointment and JM just glossed over that.

[teebax]

I don't know about today's rerun regarding the broken DVD player.  First of all how many times does the plaintiff have to bring it back when it keeps breaking?  I think it should have been replaced after the second time he brought it in for repair.  

 

I don't understand why she allowed defendant to say the posts affected his business because he had no proof.  Usually the judges ask for proof that the business was affected.

 

I also think the guy called before the warranty was up to make the appointment and JM just glossed over that.

I agree with you on all fronts; I just don't like the way the case was handled at all. I think she let her annoyance at the plaintiff for getting his friends to leave negative reviews cloud her judgment on the case. It sounds to me like the defendant was dodging the plaintiff until the warranty expired so he would have a defense for not fixing it.

[SRTouch]

First case is dude suing over charges to his cc made by gf after he gave her his card and pin number without setting a limit on how much she could spend. Lots of back and forth - he said/she said nonsense. In the end, MM tell plaintiff he's out of luck, she didn't break any agreement they had, because there was never an agreement to break. Really only two things of not with the case. First off, this couple just proves there's no age limit on stupid couples, these two are old enough they should be advising grandkids against this type of stupidity. Other question - what's going on with defendant's jaw, is it even attached?

Next up is teenage daycare worker going off on her boss when boss gets on her about coming to work late. Both boss (plaintiff) and employee (defendant) are so wedded to their cellphones that they communicate by text instead of walking to where the other person is in the same building and actually talking. Their disagreement is in daycare in front of the kids, but boss sends 14yo daughter to take kids to other room before they get physical. Things end up with defendant keying plaintiff's car. Defendant is own worst enemy who can't control herself, and she accidentally admits to keying car. MM tries to give the teenager some life advice, but she's not hearing it.

Last case is pretty open and shut. Plaintiff is homeowner who hired defendant to install new windows, is unhappy that the defendant is taking so long, and wants back the deposit he put down so defendant could order the windows. MM catches the defendant in lie after lie, but it all boils down to the contract. Defendant tries his best to NOT provide a copy of the contract, by passing up an incomplete copy. But this is not MM's first rodeo, and the missing portion of the contract is a big neon red flag, which makes her wonder what is on that page defendant is trying to hide. Ah, here we go, contract stipulates that work must be started within 60 days, and completed within 120 days. MM asks defendant if he lived up to that timeline, he says no, plaintiff awarded the money because defendant breached. My only real question is, "why drag it out and go on TV to fight returning the deposit?" The defendant obviously knew he breached, as he was trying to slip the incomplete contract and is such a poor liar about why the windows are the wrong size. Another example of why it'seems not always a good idea to go with the cheapest estimate (especially not a good idea when you have no references to check).

Edited April 6, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

First off, this couple just proves there's no age limit on stupid couples, these two are old enough they should be advising grandkids against this type of stupidity. Other question - what's going on with defendant's jaw, is it even attached?

 

Age is definitely no guarantee against stupiidy. The defendant is one of the most horrid, frightening hags ever seen here. Plainitff is just ridiculous. He meets hard-ridden barfly hag in a bar, is smitten(??) and hands over his debit card after a month of knowing her. Really, he deserved to lose the money. Even after he knew she was stealing his money at quite a rate, he did nothing to stop it. I think the show made def. put on the jacket. I noticed her dress had a cutout which revealed her bra-less breast which seemed to hang to her waist. She actually made her witness look good. Yeah, the unhinged jaw was bizarre. It moved side-to-side like a cow, instead of up and down.

 

MM tries to give the teenager some life advice, but she'said not hearing it.

 

I was wishing MM would tell her to stop playing with whoever's hair that was on her head. I have a feeling life is going to teach her some hard lessons.

[Rick Kitchen]

Barfly plaintiff didn't wear a bra.  She really needed one.  Not only did she have the sugar daddy boyfriend, she had a husband that she was on and off with (and she said, "I love my husband " in the hallterview), but another boyfriend somewhere down the line.  She also moved oddly.

 

Teenaged defendant in car scratching case was dressed for belly dancing, not for court.

[AngelaHunter]

she had a husband that she was on and off with

 

She said he died, last week(?) Got hit by  a car? I guess that happens when you're such a drunk that even that defendant protests about it, or so she says. I bet the neighbours just loved those two.

[SRTouch]

First rerun case today is 58yo dirty old man who wants to date 22yo girl. Old dude is fine with saying on TV that his age limit is his younger daughter's age, so he'll chase any woman over 19. 22yo defendant is excited and talks a mile a minute, so MM has to tell her to slow down. When questioned she says, like it should be obvious to everyone, the only reason she's hanging with the old man is the money he can give her. So, like MM said, these two deserve each other. (Whoa, what's this "old man" crap, dude is only 58.)

Anyway, the case is about 58yo dude suing for repair costs because the hefty 22 yo stepped on the gas instead of the brake and rammed his handicap ramp. No question she caused the damage, so she has to pay (a fraction of the bloated amount he wants.) Defendant has counterclaim, asking for emotional distress because old dude is pestering her, saying he'll drop his claim if she'll go out with him. MM manages to dismiss her counterclaim without, as she says, laughing in her face.

Final thought, I can't help but wonder about the reaction next Sunday at the church these folks attend. They all three (defendant's mom was there) talk about their church, and mom says she and the pastor have talked to the defendant about her life choices. And of course, plaintiff is on TV saying he has 4 daughters, and his age limit is 19, that means his three older girls are open game. Watch out church ladies if you're over 20, he's on the prowl.

Next case, plaintiff is suing because she doesn't like the custom headboard the defendant made for her, and besides he took to long to complete job. Defendant is countersuing because when he eventually finished the job she refused to pay balance. He says it took so long because first the fabric and then the crystal nail heads she picked out were on backorder. That may have been true, but plaintiff is upset because he didn't check on the order status. Defendant says she just wants a discount, and he wants full price. MM orders plaintiff to pay for her orde. In hallterview she acts like she won, saying at least now she'll have what she paid for. Well, yeah lady, now that you've dragged the man to court trying to weasel out of paying, and have finally paid the man, you're getting what you paid for.

In our final case totay, plaintiff is suing for refund of a deposit, because she says trailer was still occupied by previous tenant on her move in date. Defendant says previous tenants were out, and that plaintiff changed her mind about moving into the place, so she, the defendant, is entitled to keep the deposit. After a bunch of she said/she said and MM reading the texts (defendant conveniently no longer has that phone) plaintiff gets her money back. Defendant still arguing her case in hallterview. I pretty much stopped believing her when she had so much trouble answering whether or not previous tenants were evicted. I believed plaintiff's story about getting a runaround. And, did anyone figure out what the countersuit was all about? Defendant wanted over a grand for moving fees? What did she move??? Maybe that had something to do with the utilities she wanted to complain about in the hallway, but I don't get it and MM shut her down before we found out what she was talking about.

Although I believe plaintiff was entitled to refund, I can't help but question the whole idea of signing a lease and expecting to move in the day after someone else had to be out because of an eviction. I've done so little apartment complex maintenance, and it was exceedingly rare that a place was ready for a new tenant the next day. Both the potential tenant and the trailer owner must be living in a dream world to have expected that trailer to be ready.

Edited April 7, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

First rerun case today is 58yo dirty old man who wants to date 22yo girl.

 

To be fair, that avaricious beast looked 40. Yeah, I know - he's still a filthy old man who thinks he's really hot and would turn down all the 18 year old lusting after his body.

 

Well, yeah lady, now that you've dragged the man to court trying to weasel out of paying, and have finally paid the man, you're getting what you paid for.

 

I guess one person's "something special" is another person's "Blue velvet, crystal nailheaded tacky shit." But hey - each to his own.

 

Both the potential tenant and the trailer owner must be living in a dream world to have expected that trailer to be ready.

 

From what we've seen here, anyone being evicted kind of trashes the place before they leave. But the trailer park, six kids, etc. had me zoning out.

 

[DoctorK]

 

"something special" is another person's "Blue velvet, crystal nailheaded tacky shit."

Maybe I am not very stylish but that headboard (regardless of the size of the crystal nail heads) was ghastly. Plus it looked like a "full size" bed; I have been single for a very long time and not that socially active but even I have a queen size (great to have space to stack the clean laundry).

[AngelaHunter]

Maybe I am not very stylish but that headboard (regardless of the size of the crystal nail heads) was ghastly.

 

It look like something you might find in boudoir of a 19th century courtesan. OTOH, maybe it's really nice, but just not my taste. I don't want a headboard I have to vacuum.

[SRTouch]

First case of the day is a rarity, MM says it's her first in 17 years. Lady suing tow company because her ford explorer was towed. She ordered take out at the Olive Garden on the phone and drove the 5 minutes to pick it up. She was told the food would be ready in 20-30 minutes, so she parked and ran next door to JJ Penny's to exchange a shirt while waiting for food. Tow driver says she can't leave the premises for any reason. MM says she's seen lots of people who run in and buy something after they see their car has been towed. But, this lady has the order from Olive Garden with the time stamp, and the tow receipt saying her car was towed 10 minutes after the order was placed (tow driver didn't bother to bring any paperwork). Driver still trying to say tow was legit after the ruling. He's saying that she should have gone into the restaurant to check in, and then she could walk to Penny's. Couple problems with that. First, lady was told order would be ready in 20-30 minutes, and he was towing car 15 minutes after order was placed. Second, he had already testified he doesn't to check with the business when a car owner says they were a customer.

I really disliked the driver's attitude, he's an example of why people dislike tow drivers. He showed up in court with a sign saying illegally parked cars would be towed, but had nothing besides his word to show car was illegally parked. Then to make it worse, he double charged the woman, claiming she had to pay to tow the car to his yard, and then a second tow back to Olive Garden. Sounds like a scam to me. As soon as someone parks and walks off the premises he hooks up and tows the car out of sight. Once the car is gone, a second guy, who has been following the car owner, tells the owner the car has been towed, and call this number to get it back (meanwhile the tow truck is parked nearby with the car.) After smoking a cigarette and drinking a soda or whatever, the tow driver brings the car back around the corner, collects double the posted charge (because he gets two tows, one to take the car away and 1 to bring it back), and hides until his spotter sees another mark.

Next up is case of vet malpractice. Lady says she took her dog for a checkup, the dog tested positive for Lyme disease, but the vet never notified owner. A year later, the disease has progressed, the bills are mounting, and when the owner takes the dog back the clinic has lost the test, a different vet at clinic sees the dog and again the dog's Lyme disease is not treated. Eventually, after a third visit the dog is finally treated, but will have more charges in the future as it will have to be closely monitored. Dog owner wins a partial judgement.

Neither side is happy with the ruling in the hallterviews. Dog owner wants clinic to pay all her vet bills. Clinic manager admits they dropped the ball, but says additional, unheard information could have changed judgement. I'm just guessing, but she could have wanted to bring out additional canine lyme disease facts. For instance, up to 75% of dogs in New England test positive, but only 10% actually need treatment. I don't know if MM knew this, but I suspect she probably did, since she said she read several articles on subject before hearing case. I think her ruling had more to do with the clinic failing to notify the owner of the positive results, and not knowing about their own test results when the dog came back a second time with symptoms which could be attributed to lyme disease, and consequently failing to treat the dog at that point. It took a third visit, and an additional test, before the dog was finally treated.

SIDE NOTE: Something similar happened with one of my cats. When the feline aids immunization came out I had my cats get the shot. Couple years later, I took the cat in and saw a different vet at the same clinic, and was told the cat tested positive for feline aids. I was warned my other cats could be infected, especially her daughter, since the disease can be passed from mother to kittens. I went home and read about the disease online. I was pretty upset when I went back and confirmed my reading that the immunization they gave my cat causes false positive test results in a healthy cat. Why did they charge me for a test they should have known would result in a false positive, and especially, why did I have to read about the immunization causing false positives online? Disregarding the fact that they should have known the shot THEY gave caused false positive readings, they should ask if the cat had ever received the immunization before telling the client their beloved cat tests positive for a potentially fatal disease. Which is a big reason why I use a different vet now.

Edited April 8, 2016 by SRTouch

[teebax]

I don't want a headboard I have to vacuum.

Talk about a sentence I never thought I'd read. It's hard enough for me to get up the energy to vacuum the carpeted areas of my house. No way am I vacuuming my bed too!

 

I really disliked the driver's attitude, he's an example of why people dislike tow drivers. He showed up in court with a sign saying illegally parked cars would be towed, but had nothing besides his word to show car was illegally parked. Then to make it worse, he double charged the woman, claiming she had to pay to tow the car to his yard, and then a second tow back to Olive Garden. Sounds like a scam to me. As soon as someone parks and walks off the premises he hooks up and tows the car out of sight. Once the car is gone, a second guy, who has been following the car owner, tells the owner the car has been towed, and call this number to get it back (meanwhile the tow truck is parked nearby with the car.) After smoking a cigarette and drinking a soda or whatever, the tow driver brings the car back around the corner, collects double the posted charge (because he gets two tows, one to take the car away and 1 to bring it back), and hides until his spotter sees another mark.

I remember this case from the first time it aired. It was nice to see a towing case in which the plaintiff was actually wrong. It was also nice to see one of those slimy tow drivers lose. As much as I dislike them, they're usually within their rights to tow.

 

My hatred of towing companies goes back to a car accident I had in Philly in 1999. My car wasn't driveable and got towed. Since I was taken away by ambulance, I didn't get to take my possessions out of my car. At the tow yard, they robbed me blind. They took everything from my car that wasn't attached to it: my laptop, CDs, travel mug, even the change that was in the change compartment. I ended up having to file a claim with my homeowners insurance to get reimbursed for all the things that had been stolen, minus my deductible of course. Freaking assholes. Every time one of them shows up in a court case, I root against them.

[AngelaHunter]

It was also nice to see one of those slimy tow drivers lose.

 

This one was a really slimy scammer, and seemed to think it was cute. I've never had my car towed (knock on wood!) but watching this show has made me much more aware of how and where I park. Too bad the plaintiff couldn't get punitive damages from this creep.

[SRTouch]

This one was a really slimy scammer, and seemed to think it was cute. I've never had my car towed (knock on wood!) but watching this show has made me much more aware of how and where I park. Too bad the plaintiff couldn't get punitive damages from this creep.

I hadn't thought about that. This is one of the few times I'd think someone could get money for missed work, though it wouldn't be much. Here the woman was on her lunch hour, so she must have been late getting back. So, since it's "time for a little rough justice" I figure she should get .... oh let's say.... $250 for being a hour late back to work. Oh, I know, there's no legal basis, but it sounds right to me.

Edited April 9, 2016 by SRTouch

[DoctorK]

 

I don't want a headboard I have to vacuum.

Or steam clean.

[Rick Kitchen]

Or take to the laundry.

[AngelaHunter]

They took everything from my car that wasn't attached to it: my laptop, CDs, travel mug, even the change that was in the change compartment. I ended up having to file a claim with my homeowners insurance to get reimbursed for all the things that had been stolen, minus my deductible of course.

 

I am speechless at this. What kind of thug operations do they run? I wonder how many other people get robbed by these guys and can do nothing about it? Of course no litigants we ever see have insurance of any kind so I guess they're out of luck, plus the number of people we see who claim they had 5K worth of electronics and designer clothes in their 12 year old hoopties ruin it for people with legit claims. It's just so unjust that YOU have to pay for being robbed and get reamed by both the tow thugs AND your insurance company. 

 

 

[SRTouch]

new episode today

First case is double talking con man of a landscaper being sued for not finishing job after being paid in full. I didn't catch where these people were, but plaintiff paid this guy $2000 to clean up leaves and a thorough fall cleanup, along with pruning a tree and thinning out/transplanting some ornamental grasses. Landscaper (and crew, but I never heard how many were in crew) worked for a day and cleaned up the leaves. It rained for a few days, plaintiff upset because crew isn't there working. Time was important to plaintiff because she was leaving town and wanted work down before she left (hey, here's a novel idea, don't pay everything up front so that you have a little leverage if the work isn't up to snuff). Big kerfuffel, and landscaper never goes back to finish work. (Why would he, he's already been paid. I bet if plaintiff hadn't paid up front, he would have been there in the rain, especially if she promised a little something.)

Plaintiff found landscaper through a referral agency, I guess something like Angie's List, so she really didn't know the guy, but she pays him upfront and has nothing in writing. When nobody shows up to finish work, she calls the landscaper and says some woman was screeching in the background. Now she's really nervous about the guy. She does a little research and finds the guy had recently been caught shoplifting an expensive pair of workboots. Guy still hasn't come to finish work, and she really doesn't want call him again, so she files a complaint with the referral agency. Agency contacts landscaper, hears his story, writes up a report, and pays the plaintiff $500 not to go after the agency in court. (And since no one is saying the name of the agency, I think she agreed not to bad mouth them.) And, surprise surprise, agency refuses to recommend landscaper to anyone else unless he pays the back the $500 they gave plaintiff.

Defendant really has no defense. He was paid up front to do the job, and never finished it. His whole business stinks. He claims to have a crew, is charging lots of money to prune back a tree that the plaintiff is worried about growing over her house, and doesn't provide written estimates. When I was doing landscaping as a one man operation, I always had a written estimate signed by the customer before I started work (guess that was also a contract). I never asked for money up front unless I was buying materials or had to hire day laborers which I was going to have to pay that day. Even though the shoplifting charge had nothing to do with the case, I think that started the downhill slide of his credibility. He stood there and told the judge it never happened and he had no idea where the plaintiff was coming up with the story. Then plaintiff presents the court a newspaper blotter report. He's STILL trying to fast talk his way out of the hole he was digging. He finally admits to knowing about the incident, and though still trying to maintain his innocence, says he was banned from the store.

Plaintiff won her case, though didn't get the $1500 she wanted. Judge decided dude did $500 worth of work, and the referral agency had already paid her $500, so she was awarded $1000. Defendant, OTOH, had a $5000 countersuit. He claims that because of her complaint the agency stopped sending him business and wants him to pay them the $500 they paid his customer for the work he never finished. Judge tried to point out that all he had to do to get back on the agency's referral list was to pay back the $500 he hadn't earned, but he said he wouldn't okay because of the principle involved.

Edited April 11, 2016 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

Next we have plaintiff suing because she claims defendant claimed to be a licensed and insured handyman, and he did substandard repairs on her apartments. Turns out, defendant was actually her tenant that she hired to do maintenance on her 23 apartments. He got hurt on the job (cut off an index finger), and he sued her for his medical bills. Plaintiff has been fined $16,000 for not having workers comp, and recently lost her apeal, so is coming after defendant in retaliation. She ends up winning $200 on the basis of text messages.

When the case started, I thought the plaintiff was crazy thinking there was a license and insurance for a handyman. Turns out, like a lot of what we see, the rules vary greatly from place to place. But, yes there are places which license handymen, and require liability insurance. I still think the plaintiff was stupid if she really thought the defendant was licensed and insured. If handymen in her jurisdiction require a license, it's up to her to check his credentials before hiring him. From what I read when I googled it, even where they license handymen, there are limits on how much they can charge, and just what they're allowed to do - pretty much anything that requires a permit is out, as is anything above a certain dollar amount. Besides, she didn't have a problem with his work until he was injured.

[AngelaHunter]

First case is double talking con man of a landscaper

 

I couldn't believe that someone who has a "big business" would rather lose customers and be revealed as a scuzzy petty thief rather than pay back the money he owed. OH, right - he has "principles", which didn't stop him from stealing SHOES. And $500 for cleaning up leaves? Widow or not, plaintiff needs to check stuff out more thoroughly before hiring anyone. Loved scammer's hachet-faced, scary wife in the background, smiling as though her sweetie had done something praiseworthy. Didn't like plaintiff stating up front, "I'm a widow." To me that's the same as "I'm a single mother" or "I'm a woman so can't bother my pretty head about stuff like car repairs/purchase! Oh, woe is me." That's no excuse for paying a stranger 2K up front for a job he hasn't even started. 

 

Next we have plaintiff suing because she claims defendant claimed to be a licensed and insured handyman

 

All parties were super shady, especially def's giant wife, who states that "someone" (or something) told her answer the phone.

[teebax]

I am speechless at this. What kind of thug operations do they run? I wonder how many other people get robbed by these guys and can do nothing about it? Of course no litigants we ever see have insurance of any kind so I guess they're out of luck, plus the number of people we see who claim they had 5K worth of electronics and designer clothes in their 12 year old hoopties ruin it for people with legit claims. It's just so unjust that YOU have to pay for being robbed and get reamed by both the tow thugs AND your insurance company. 

It's common knowledge (at least in Philly) that you don't leave your stuff in the car when it goes to the tow yard. There won't be much left in it when you get back. I don't know if that's the case in any other city.  

 

If you think that's bad, I was the only one in the chain reaction accident who had insurance, so everyone sued me. So in addition to getting hurt, having my car stripped, and having my car totaled, I had the joy of going into the city at least a half a dozen times to fight various lawsuits. (I was hit from behind and was pushed into a car in front of me, which was pushed in to another, etc.) The jerkwad who hit me had no license or insurance; neither drivers of the two other cars were insured. So they all sued me. They all lost, but it was a tremendous inconvenience for me.

 

ETA: New episode today? I can't wait to get home. It's been forever!

Edited April 11, 2016 by teebax

[SRTouch]

First case is Mom suing bakery because they made the wrong cake for darling get baby daughter's birthday cake

Edited April 12, 2016 by SRTouch

[patty1h]

I want to Negan that fool who is suing over the wrong cake.  Boohoo, my daughter is a big baby and we both think life should be perfect at all times and our disappointment is worth $1K.  The mother should be sent to a hospice to see what real suffering is like.  Or, shot into space.   

Edited April 12, 2016 by patty1h

[teebax]

I haven't watched the whole episode, but I watched the first case. I so wish Mommy had brought in her precious snowflake instead of the other daughter. I suspect MM would've had a field day with that entitled brat. At 22, she should be throwing her own parties, or the boyfriend should have thrown it. That's not a milestone birthday. Hell, by 22 I'd already served in a freaking war and gotten engaged! I can't imagine my mother throwing me a birthday bash at that age. Of course, I've never understood why people make a big deal about birthdays. I don't even take off work for mine, so I don't get it.

Now that I'm teaching for a living, I can't even say I'm surprised by the case or the petulant daughter's behavior. There are still a lot of good kids out there, but many of them are entitled and overly coddled. You should hear the way they talk to their parents, in addition to how they talk to us.

It sucks that the cake was wrong, but the second the daughter showed her ass, Mommy should have laid into her and told her not to let something so silly ruin her party. I think the fight with the boyfriend was the cause for the party drama anyway.

[AngelaHunter]

It sucks that the cake was wrong

 

Yeah, it's tragic - TRAGIC, I say. A 22 year old woman pitches a toddler tantrum (over a CAKE!!)and Mommy thinks she's won the lottery, expecting the bakery to pay for the whole party. When Mom said, '"She's a kid" I thought she was six years old. Momma was damned lucky he offered to make a new cake after the first one was already done. Pain and suffering! Over a cake! I really wish that had this case gone to real small claims court, plaintiff would have been heavily fined for wasting everyone's time and money on her utter nonsense.

 

If I ordered a cake and got the wrong one? "Oh", I would say and then just freaking eat the damned thing. How horrible can any cake be?

 

Car seat Hobbit: Did we hear how old this car is? Anyway, the car wash "females" must have been mighty Amazons with sledgehammers if they bent the seat frame. Bonus points for him saying, "I proceeded to exit the vehicle", from someone who says "Bofe" instead of "both."

 

Property clean up: Wow, no wonder the neighbours begged for help. What a mess that place was. No way that happened over the winter.

[AKA...CJ86]

With regards to the cake case, part of me wants to think special snowflake had enough sense, she didn't want to show up to TPC for a verbal smackdown.  With regards to Mom, she was trying to put all the parties troubles on the cake, wasn't she?  I liked other daughter had enough sense to at least add on to why the day was a disaster, and just not follow the Mom's story.  

 

Final point, I agree with SRTouch, Mom could get a venue, DJ, etc...but skimped on the cake.

[WhitneyWhit]

Something similar actually happened to me last year; my siblings and I threw a birthday party for my mom's 60th and the bakery delivered the wrong cake ,we ordered carrot but got vanilla, turns out they got the orders mixed up, we called and they didn't have a carrot cake already made and it would have taken too long to make one so we just served the vanilla cake. I didn't ask for any money back because we ate the cake, but they gave me a small refund anyway because the cake I ordered and paid for was more expensive than the one I got, never did I imagine I could have sued for the cost of the entire party because I got the wrong flavor of cake.

[AngelaHunter]

I threw a birthday party for my mom's 60th and the bakery delivered the wrong cake

 

OH, no! So... like, did you throw a fit and stomp out of the house?

 

I liked other daughter had enough sense to at least add on to why the day was a disaster

 

There are many, many days in life that are disasterous -  you lose a job, have a car accident, get dumped, or MUCH worse, etc,  but the last time you're allowed to have a tantrum over a birthday cake is when you're five years old, and even then it's pushing it.

[wallysmommy]

We had a cake incident years ago at work for the monthly birthday celebration.  The bakery at the grocery store put the decorated styrofoam cake in the box instead of the real cake.  It was hilarious watching my friend try to cut the cake, while we are telling her she's so undomesticated that she can't even cut a cake.  We wish we would have had a video camera to sell the video to America's Funniest Home videos when she stuck the knife in the cake and picked it up and held it upside down.  No one would have ever thought about suing the grocery store.  All three cases yesterday show that America is full of people who don't have a clue as to what real problems are.  

[BubblingKettle]

I was so entertained by the cake case, but I wish a video or photos were part of the evidence. A cell phone video of the cake cutting scene would have made the case's entertainment value soar. 

 

I pity the waiter/waitress who has to serve that family. I wonder how many free meals they have gotten by throwing tanties about the temperature of the food, the presence of sesame seeds on the bun, the consistency of the sauce, the red potatoes instead of white potatoes, etc.

[AngelaHunter]

I wish a video or photos were part of the evidence.

 

I'm sure they have one and yeah, I'd love to see it (rushes off to check YT). Such a momentous occasion after all. Makes me wonder what was done for her twenty-first birthday. I bet daughter decided she hates red velvet cake only after it was it ordered, you know - like a two year old who happily chowed down on spaghetti last week, but hates it with every fiber of his being this week.

[SRTouch]

First case is sister suing older brother because he moved out of the house they were jointly leasing three moves early, taking her big screen TV off the wall on the way out. Brother created a few laughs, but the case is pretty straight forward. His reason for leaving was that her bf was visiting 3-4 times a week, and he didn't like the guy. When MM pointed out that the person who had to come up with his half of the rent was the sister, he said the bf should make up the difference - never mind that according to the testimony bf was paying his rent elsewhere. He excuse for taking the TV was even more ludicrous. TV was $1700 new, and he thought he had the right to take it because he kicked in a couple hundred when she bought it. The exchange about the TV provided some laughs. TV was made by Hitachi, and she called it a hibachi - MM made a crack saying she didn't know hibachi made TV's. Brother said he put $400 towards purchase, but admitted it was $200 after the commercial break before he was caught in a lie. Brother has to pay for the TV and the three months rent he stuck sister with.

Although brother provided some laughs, I found his whole attitude irritating. He mentioned he served in the Marines several times, and sister said in hallterview that his time in the service changed him. What a load of bull!?! If I heard correctly, he's 50+ and served 6 years. While serving he somehow started believing it's a woman's lot in life to wait on her man?

[SRTouch]

Ok, next we have the case of the intelligent sounding plaintiff with absolutely zero common sense. She wants to find a cheap apartment in NY city, so jumps in with both feet when she finds the defendant's place. After negotiating a reduction in the rent, she puts down the first month and deposit, and she is now renting a basement non-apartment for $840 monthly. Just a couple problems. First, the basement is actually a just a basement, no apartment, which is why it's so cheap. She was able to negotiate the rent down because she agreed to pay to renovate it into an apartment. Next problem, actually the BIG PROBLEM, she pays the landlord and some friend/family member/whatever to start the reno with no lease. So, she's paying the landlord for the privilege of renovating his property, and he can legally kick her out at any time with 30 days notice. The first guy she hires starts the (unlicensed and unpermited) work, then realizes he's over his head and leaves town. She gets someone else to come for an estimate. This guy is actually in the trades, looks at the place and tells her he wants nothing to do with it. One entrance, no windows ... it would cost a fortune to get convert the basement into a legal liveable apartment if it is even possible. So, now the intelligent sounding moron wants her money back. Really no case, as landlord rented her basement knowing she wanted an apartment. He has to give back the rent/deposit money.

So, the last case is another moron suing a mechanic. Plaintiff sunk more than his car is worth into his '99 junk heap, and is complaining that it still runs like sh*t. Dude has all kinds of problems with his case, not the least of which is that the repair receipts he presented to court do not match his claims. His evidence that the mechanic did something wrong is that it broke down after work was done - yeah, that happens with 16yo vehicles. Yeah, you can fix a 16yo car, but it ain't cheap, and this guy is trying to nickel and dime it instead of staying on top of the maintenence.

The only way to fix his engine would be a complete rebuild - probably costing more than it's worth. After the engine is done, the transmission will blow. Fix that, it's the suspension or brakes. After a time, you've done a complete frame off restoration and you've sunk a couple times more than what the car is worth into it. It runs great and the custom paint is perfect ... until some unlicensed, uninsured drunk makes a left turn into you because they have a nonexistent green arrow and total your baby.

I really dislike fast talkers who say what they're going to say and totally ignore what the person they're talking to has to say. This guy had his opinion and knew exactly what he wanted to say, so when MM asked something he ignored the question and kept going with the facts as he knows them. At one point when MM is telling him he has no evidence and she's cycling in for the kill, he mumbles, once again talking instant of listening when someone else is talking, that his not having evidence is just her opinion. Well, yeah, the job of the judge/arbitrator is to listen to both sides and give their opinion. Anyway, plaintiff acts shocked to be asked if he actually has evidence from a different mechanic, and when the ruling us against him he walks right by hallway dude without stopping. On the way out of court he theartened to stop in and see defendant that afternoon, so defendant gave us a laugh when he told us in his hallterview that he's no longer at that shop.

Edited April 13, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

next we have the case of the intelligent sounding plaintiff with absolutely zero common sense.

 

I know! Did you see those pics? This was an ancient, untouched basement that would cost upwards of 50K to make it merely habitable. Plaintiff decides to renovate the place without even a lease or agreement of any kind. The stupidity is simply frightening. I understand shady def. If someone walked in and offered to install a new kitchen in my house, I'd probably say okay, then kick that person out after the work was done.

 

First case is sister suing older brother

 

Number 1 - I cannot understand why any woman would buy a house with her brother. I love my brother too, but I wouldn't set myself up to live with him for life. In this case, not only that he's a brother, but THAT brother, who sounded like he was just flushed out of the swamps of Louisiana and who thinks that cleaning up after menfolk is something women are "posed to do." Looking at his toothless girlfriend, I guess she thinks he's the best she can do. I didn't think he was funny at all. 56 years old and stealing his sister's freaking TV. That reminds me: I wonder how plaintiff was able to sign the documents necessary when she was totally unable to even sound out the word "Hitachi" and called her TV an "Hibachi".  

 

the last case is another moron suing a mechanic.

 

OMG. His lower jaw (teeth, lip?) chattering like a territorial squirrel's? Freaked me out. JM has the patience of a saint to listen to the tale of his idiotic love affair with a  Chysler CONCORD POS. He's very attached to it, you see. The mechanic must have done something wrong, because there shouldn't be any problems with a 16 year old beater that should have been sent to the car graveyard years ago. He left the courtroom in high dudgeon, refusing to speak the Hall AssClown.

 

[AKA...CJ86]

On the way out of court he theartened to stop in and see defendant that afternoon, so defendant fave us a laugh when he told us in his hallterview that he's no longer at that shop.

 

And we need an update, stat!  

 

I did love the whole "What?  Bring a mechanic to prove my case?" spiel.  The dude thought it was funny too, didn't he?  He was laughing it off.

[Blissfool]

As far as i know, US Polo Assoc is not Ralph Lauren. US Polo Assoc is a brand i see at discount stores such as Burlington Coat Factory or Ross. I wish the judge would have called the plaintiff out on that. That coat was probably $39.99.