The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

20 hours ago, califred said:

We are a military family just moved for the 10th time in 17 years, this time to Hawaii. We have the advantage that ours moves are paid for by the USMC.  This was the first move where we had horrible movers. They took the Handle  bar breaks out of my husbands Harley, my tv came in between layers of bath towels .. anyway even we sign papers after the pack up and after delivery, granted ours aren't insurance papers but I can't imagine a mover not asking for signatures post delivery.  (In good news we were reimbursed for fixing the Harley and the two things they broke).

/back on topic sorry 

Funny but true story. Back when during my 20 years in the Army I used to hang onto the original packing of my expensive stuff. When Sadam invaded Kuwait my unit was one of the first to deploy, so I was already enjoying the sun and sand when Transportation got around to packing and putting my stuff in storage. I did have time to pack my stereo and tv into the boxes and Styrofoam they had come in when purchased. Anyway, some poor Second Lieutenant got left behind and stuck with everybody's power of attorney to pack our crap, and when they got to my apartment he must have just opened the door and said pack everything. That's what they did, down to scrap lumber left over from a project I had left in a closet, everything packed up except food and flammable liquids, including the TV cable box. (The cable company charged me the first couple months for their box that got put in storage, but refunded the money when I got back 11 months later, returned the box and showed them a copy of my orders.) Of everything, including spare lightbulbs, they stored, the only thing damaged was the stereo receiver I packed in the original manufacturer's Styrofoam and and box. In my 20 years I made multiple moves, but that receiver was my only claim, and they gave me what I paid for it with no problem (I always kept receipts). Only other thing damaged, in my many moves, was an ironing board, if you can believe it!

[califred]

SRTouch when we move in CONUS we take the motorcycle and computers, jewelry, etc with us.  I wish that had been possible to Hawaii but that would be a long bridge lol.

[SRTouch]

9 minutes ago, califred said:

SRTouch when we move in CONUS we take the motorcycle and computers, jewelry, etc with us.  I wish that had been possible to Hawaii but that would be a long bridge lol.

Back in the 70s, my new NCOIC shipped his van from Seattle to Alaska. When the van arrived it still had his toolbox and all the tools he had thoughtfully listed on the inventory. Problem was, he shipped quality tools, and received cheap bargain bin crap. Course, now days you can just take pictures with your phone... you know it's not just for dirty pictures.

[califred]

Nowadays you can leave absolutely nothing in the cars you have the military ship.  :(.  Only the spare tire and floor mats.

[roseslg]

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 7:50 PM, SRTouch said:

Ah, if it's the one I'm thinking, it was a split decision. Foster dad ended up liable for the computer, as he agreed it was a graduation "gift". But the phone, though everybody called it her's, was part of a family phone package deal that he was (maybe still is) making monthly payments on. So no charge there, he can just give that phone to the next of his kids he and his wife are raising when they break the current phone.

Mom and Dad were so lucky they raised me and my four siblings back before cell phones. When I got my first part time job as a high school freshman, I was informed the basics - food, clothing, and a bed were on the parents - but I was to pay the rest. Ah, they paid other expenses when I couldn't afford something, but it wasn't an automatic "give me". Wasn't too bad, back then there were these big glass boxes you could go in, where you put a dime in a phone, spun the dial, and could make phone calls if you ran out of gas or something. The worse was trying to call friends from home. Kind of puts a chill on the conversation when there's one phone in the house, located on a stand midway between the living room, den and kitchen. 

Thanks!

One of the first things i did when i started working as a teenager was to pay for my own home phone in my room.  I would talk for hours and tie up the mainline, so i just got a job and paid for one!

 

In other news, a coworker of mine taped an episode of TPC last week!  He won. Will try to get details.

[ElleMo]

On 9/24/2016 at 4:40 PM, teebax said:

I've moved several times, internationally, intrastate, and interstate. I've never, ever not had something damaged in a move. I always take the insurance because I know they'll break something. I usually just pray it's nothing I can't replace.

So far, I'm enjoying the new episodes. I'm waiting for an epic MM smack down, which I haven't seen this season yet, but I'm sure it will come. I love when she goes off on people, as opposed to JJ, who seems to have content for everyone.

I moved four times using movers.  (not far -- either neighboring states or within same state) First two times I was single and did not pay for insurance.  I truly didn't own anything worth insuring. Last two times were me & hubby and we had some stuff worth something so we paid.  If anything had happened during the first two moves I would have taken whatever measly amount they gave me and either fixed it or gone to IKEA, flea market or garage sale to replace it. I would not have sued.

[ElleMo]

On 9/24/2016 at 5:45 PM, speac said:

I find that particle board items will possibly survive one move but two is kind of pushing it, this was that dressers third move.

My IKEA cabinet survived four moves.  But I think the  reason it did was because I took it apart and put it back together three of the four times .  When we moved into current house,  DH said he wasn't putting it back together again and if it didn't last the move, we'd replace it.  It's more than 20 years old and still standing.  For cheap furniture, IKEA is fairly sturdy.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Lady is in court suing her husband's uncle for work done on uncle's house. Here's the thing: the couple needed a place to live since their old place was being sold, so they call Unc, because she says he has room. According to wifey (husband named in suit, but isn't in court), the deal was they're supposed to do some reno work in lieu of rent. Uncle says when they moved in he asked what they could afford, they said $1700 and paid that the first month. Then they negotiated it down to $1000 a month, but never paid a penny the rest of the time (8 months). Not only do they not pay rent, but she takes it upon herself to move out paying tenants of the guest house - and is actually asking for the money she paid the tenants for their security deposit. He says he planned to sell the house, so the long term plan was they rent the place, do the renovations, and eventually buy it. So he let them renovate as they wanted and move out the paying tenants since she wanted them gone when they bought the place. The uncle travels a lot, but this is his residence when he's in town, and the wife seems to think she could get credit for letting him keep a room in "her" house, even though she's not paying any rent. 

Nuf back story, here's the case. Lady, wants 4k for reno work, despite fact she has no evidence ("I have the text messages, I just can't find them right now. Here's a receipt for the new ceiling fans - oops, no price on it. Etc") Meanwhile Uncle isn't suing for the $8K in back rent because he doesn't want to cause any more of a rift in the family. Heck, he even moved to a hotel in town to avoid fighting with ungrateful couple. MM is disgusted with the plaintiff and her suit, says she understands why the husband stayed away from court, and abruptly dismisses the case. Hallterview is sort of a hoot. Lady starts in that she's surprised the case was dismissed, as she has the evidence right here. Doug points out she couldn't show the Judge anything, and she was basically throw out of court, but she insists she has the evidence and just needed a little more time.

SECOND CASE: Dude suing over some Internet marketing deal. Seems he "invested" a thousand bucks and the defendant promised him a return of $885 in profit. Oh wow, I can't help but laugh when defendant comes in - I swear the guy makes me think of some Dr Seuss character. Skinny, dark olive drab sweater, well groomed beard and mustache and mostly short haircut, with a big black loofah stuck on the crown of his head. Anyway, his story is, yes plaintiff invested 1k, but now is just to impatient to give him time to sell the product. Plaintiff says he was supposed to get the money in 3-4 weeks, defendant says no time limit. Plaintiff does present a note which he wrote with his PayPal payment, but I'm not sure he has anything from defendant agreeing to his "terms". And, as MM points out, the way he wrote the note it's a loan, not an investment, and the $885 is the loan interest - making it usurious or loansharking. In fact his note is a perfect example of loansharking in action, but instead of sending thugs with baseball bats he took the guy to court. Anyway, plaintiff ended up complaining to paypal, getting the account suspended, in effect shutting down the defendant's business. Plaintiff just can't help himself from insisting on his "investment terms" even after MM tells him it's illegal. In the end she rules it was an illegal loan, that he can't collect any interest, and all the defendant has to repay is $1000 - and since he's already repaid $950 he only owes $50. 

THIRD CASE: Used car case, a 1960 VW van. Here the buyer suing because he thought the car came with a third party warranty, now it needs an engine and he wants the money, $4600. Van was purchased for $3900, and seller told him it had been rebuilt within a few months by the defendant's shop and had a 1 year warranty - no Affadavid from the seller about the supposed warranty - actually he has no evidence except "his flapping gums" (eventually he remembers text messages). Defendant actually helps plaintiff's case. He has the mysterious warranty in court, but argues the previous owner, the people plaintiff bought the van from, voided the warranty. Ah, but MM points out he acted like there was a warranty in effect because he spent months on repeated attempts to fix the engine. Defendant all over the place with his story, most of which helps plaintiff, at least in my mind. Oh, and the warranty he has as evidence turns out to be a 90 warranty, and unsigned, and is a whole new defense than his written statement. Plaintiff may not have any paperwork, but he does has texts where defendant told him it was a 1 year warrant. Doesn't matter much, as MM says when defendant acted as though there was a warranty and worked on the engine he in effect reset the clock on the warranty. Sounds to me like it WAS under warranty, and defendant is trying to back step now that he found out the cost to get the thing done right. Plaintiff wins, but only gets the $3900 he paid for the van, not the $4600 he says it will take to get it running.

Edited September 26, 2016 by SRTouch
Improper contractions

[cattykit]

I wish I had a relative who was that kind and considerate.  Plaintiff was lucky he didn't countersue for the back rent because he totally would have won.  Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Lady is in court suing her husband's uncle for work done on uncle's house.

She seemed like a grifter to me. A grifter very much in need of a new hairdresser. Definitely a squatter. Family or not, who would undertake renovating someone else's house without getting a single thing in writing? Oh, yes, she had proof but just couldn't find it.  At least her husband was too ashamed to show up suing his uncle (who is a bit of a slackjaw and seems to think that big words(some of them incorrect) could smooth things over) after ripping him off for eight months.

Quote

I can't help but laugh when defendant comes in - I swear the guy makes me think of some Dr Seuss character.

I was trying to think what he reminded me of, and you've nailed it. Plaintiff is all innocent, like "I didn't know that 90% interest is loan sharking." I don't think even the Mob would have the chutzpah to charge that.

Quote

Used car case, a 1960 VW van.

I really had no feelings either way about Daddy or his very inappropriately dressed young daughter, other than that def. seemed like kind of a shyster.

[Broderbits]

Regarding today's first case: I don't know who ticked me off more, the doormat defendant who would rather run away than have a "family" disagreement or the smug bitch plaintiff with no clue how decent people conduct themselves. Why would you let relatives basically steal your home and run off your tenants? Who needs creeps like that in their life? I just don't understand why family members are forgiven so much bad behavior.

[Guest]

Here's where my brain stopped working - who (in their right mind) would even think of putting his 16 year old daughter in a 1960 VW van?   For many, many reasons it's a bad idea.  He was a true dope.

And can't you just see a long, long red and white striped scarf wrapped around Albert Bee?  I have no idea of his name but he looked like an Albert Bee to me.  And say, doesn't Mr. Bee sell tea?  To me, the tea and Mr. Bee would be heaven-ly. 

I'm having a bit of problem rhyming his "Canada cream".  I know he didn't say that but that's what it sounded like to me.

And just for the record Doug is a hoot.

[Jamoche]

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

Regarding today's first case: I don't know who ticked me off more, the doormat defendant who would rather run away than have a "family" disagreement or the smug bitch plaintiff with no clue how decent people conduct themselves. Why would you let relatives basically steal your home and run off your tenants? Who needs creeps like that in their life? I just don't understand why family members are forgiven so much bad behavior.

He's a doormat, and she's a big muddy pair of boots. When he started off framing so much stuff in passive voice - things happened, but no agent was involved - I thought it was just how he talked, but as it went on it became obvious that the dude lives his whole life in passive voice.

[speac]

I am confused on the van case, since the Judge gave the plaintiffs what they paid for the van, does the now defendant get to keep the van?

Edited September 26, 2016 by speac

[AlleC17]

On 9/23/2016 at 4:34 PM, califred said:

We are a military family just moved for the 10th time in 17 years, this time to Hawaii. We have the advantage that ours moves are paid for by the USMC.  This was the first move where we had horrible movers. They took the Handle  bar breaks out of my husbands Harley, my tv came in between layers of bath towels .. anyway even we sign papers after the pack up and after delivery, granted ours aren't insurance papers but I can't imagine a mover not asking for signatures post delivery.  (In good news we were reimbursed for fixing the Harley and the two things they broke).

/back on topic sorry 

Completely off topic, but welcome to Hawaii!  :-)  I am on Oahu.  :-)

[califred]

2 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

Completely off topic, but welcome to Hawaii!  :-)  I am on Oahu.  :-)

Mahalo!  Me too, on Oahu that is.

That Uncle needs to quit dealing with family and trying to keep the peace.  Or at least make a month to month lease agreement in writing.

[SRTouch]

1. FIRST CASE: Well, I don't know all the right names for different shades of purple, so I'll just call this the violet case. Both sides showed up with violet. Plaintiff has some awful violet lipstick, which is accented during the intro and she stands with a blank look, big li0s, and with her jaw sticking out while looking down at Douglas' shoes. And, what's with his shoes today, defendant, who has a violet shirt on, is also staring down during the intro as he waits to be sworn in. Plaintiff is suing ex bf, and father of her child for bills from when they lived together four years ago. Litigants on both sides have trouble answering questions and making sense with their stories. MM has to really work to try to get info about their eviction, which was a big hit to their financial situation. I'm about to give up on the case when they both give a song and dance about not showing up to the eviction hearing, but keep watching to watch plaintiff's eyes. Her face stays blank most of the time, but her eyes are pretty expression. Ah, and now we find out why the plaintiff is suing years after this money was supposedly loaned. Seems she went a little crazy when she learned he has a new girl. She's showed up at his job making a scene, and sent texts threatening to visit the new girl starts her job. The plaintiff may have gone a little crazy, but when MM asks her about it, and reads the texts, it begins to look more like plaintiff was after him to help support their daughter rather than any jealousy about the new gf. And, oh wow dude, MM is all about family, and that song and dance trying to explain away why you haven't tried to see you daughter is NOT good. Oh, her case is sketchy, too. Seems she left her phone, with info vital to her case, in the car when she came to court. MM takes a recess so that she get her phone. Hey, guess what? A big chunk of what she's suing for relates to that eviction judgement. Neither of these jokers showed up for the eviction hearing, so they weren't there to get the judgement. So, she contacted the ex landlords, and they sent her everything except the judge's order, including a letter saying they owe $4,000+ in damages and rent. Dummy plaintiff is in court trying to sue based on the landlord's claim, not what a judge ordered - she's never seen the order her case is based on. After the recess we find out the actual judgement was for $320. Yep, plaintiff finds out she never owed what she thought - bet she doesn't mind that the judge insisted on reading the actual judgement now - we actually get a smile from her. Ah, but she doesn'the stay happy long, as judge throws out the rest of her claim. She wins half of the eviction judgement, but that's all JM says he has to pay, so defendant ends up only having to pay $160. And, oh is she unhappy when JM tells her that, even trying to argue after MM stands up to leave. 

Good job from Doug again, as he gives deadbeat dad a hard time about not fighting to see his daughter.

SECOND CASE: Plaintiff suing plumber for the $1250 he paid for a deposit on plumbing in a new house. Says he hired the defendant, a licensed plumber, to oversee the work done by a helper who was unlicensed in the town. Says they couldn't get the plumber to come check the work, and eventually found a different licensed plumber, but had to pay for all new permits under the new guy's license. My immediate thought is this is the wrong place for the complaint. This should have gone to the licensing board, which would be filled with the experts needed to judge whether the plumber was acting properly. To me, the plumber should not be able to have unlicensed workers out doing work under his license without a lot closer supervision than it sounds like in this case. Surprise, surprise, plumber argues plaintiff's story is all wrong, and is countersuing $5k for the rest of the money for the job, and of course a little tacked on because the plaintiff has been bad talking his business. Oh, and of course there is no contract, and these two can't even agree on what the plumber's fee was supposed to be, and the mysterious John, the guy who did the work and was the only witness, is missing from court. Ah, little rough justice, plaintiff gets $900 and defendant nada.

THIRD CASE: dry cleaners case, with plaintiff saying his leather jacket was ruined by defendant, and she even refuses to give him the jacket to bring to court. The truth to that is she woildn'the give him the jacket because he wouldn'the pay, but she has it in court. Well, coat is messed up, stiff and dull - not what you expect from a $450 leather jacket. She says she dry cleaned as per instruction on label in jacket - but there's lots of fast double talk from that side of the aisle. Ah well, that could just be the way she talks. Kind of funny how she brought other customers garments off the rack to prove she cleaned those correctly. Hmmm, she brought in what, 4 correctly cleaned garments. Nothing to show there weren't two dozen ruined jackets hanging on the racks. All that fast talking turns out to be excuses of why her establishment damaged his coat, but she admits she DID damage it. She says she offered to release it in hopes she could undo the damage, but he didn’t want that, he wanted replacement cost. MM decides she needs to pay, but has trouble with what he claims it's worth. He shows her a price for a new jacket, but he's doubled that for his inconvenience and the fact he says he'd have to pay more to get one that fits (he's BIG). When MM questions him a little more about doubling the cost he brings out the old "pain and suffering" line. Then we get the explanation that he doesn'the get replacement cost (or anything for inconvenience or pain and suffering). No, he what he gets is what she feels the used, 1 year old jacket was worth when it was ruined.  Now nobody's happy, and both sides try to interject about why she should award more or less than her judgement. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

we find out why the plaintiff is suing years after this money was supposedly loaned. Seems she went a little crazy when she learned he has a new girl.

He loses his job and they're getting evicted so that's a perfect time to get pregnant! They're not married, he's just her boyfriend so he's allowed to find someone else (who must be just as desperate as was the plaintiff). I love how JM is now also getting highly annoyed at people who "played house" years ago and want her to order the repayment of the 20$ for gas or utility bills dating from 2013. And yeah, def. (whose grammar was so atrocious I had difficulty understanding him) doesn't see his child because plaintiff "won't let him." Such a convenient excuse for all these daddies who abandon their children.  I'm sure he really tried. Whatever.

Quote

And, oh is she unhappy when JM tells her that, even trying to argue after MM stands up to leave

Quote

Good job from Doug again

That woman just would not shut up. I was expecting her to follow JM out of the room and continue her irritating whining.

RE: Doug. Definitely. It's nice to watch the hallterviews now, after skipping them for so long due to the intolerable, grabby, rude No-Neck.

[Guest]

RE:  Violet lipstick

It must be the new thing because a client came in the office today wearing violet/blue lipstick.   She wasn't there for me but as I was walking through the waiting room I did a second look.  I honestly thought she was wearing wax lips.  (Remember those as a kid?  Usually found around Halloween time.)

Who would ever think back then when we "wore" them as a joke they would be in fashion 40+ years later.

[AngelaHunter]

Listening to those dumb, inarticulate, meat-headed drunken "boys" (actually grown men who act like children) who can't speak their own language properly but who like to drink and fight: I can't help wondering about the so-called "cougars" out there who find something appealing about these repulsive twenty-something morons trying to prove they have some testosterone. JM took a lot of extra time to try and make the dull-eyed def. understand that getting drunk and fighting in bar parking lots can end in tragedy. Doug tried to elicit something that made sense from the idiot in the hall. His efforts were futile. All he got was, "I'll fight if I have to." (yes, because when you go out and get drunk at seedy bars, there's always a fight for survival, right?) and "Maybe drink less?" Profound.

How I wish I could get paid for "mental aggravation" every time I have to call my ISP. I'd be rich! The "pastor" thought she deserved 2K for her annoyance with the defendant. I have no idea who was telling the truth. I know nothing about religion or if the people who call themselves pastors or ministers are required to have any education whatsoever, but I was saddened by the fact that the def.(for whom English is a second language) had much better grammar than plaintiff. Every "We was", "I brung" and "She didn't want no... " hurt my ears.  Truly appalling, really.

Last case: Def isn't going to miss a damned meal, no matter if he has a client who paid up front for his (non)services.  It's not his fault his computer is too damned slow. His wife said it was dinnertime and she's the boss, so his client can just "go pound sand." Yeah, I'm sure he'll get plenty of business after this airing.  

[SRTouch]

Well, my TPC channel continues with their schedule miscues. I record the episodes, then watch later so I can FF thru stuff I want to skip. Today, I just happened to notice nothing was being recorded. I checked, and the schedule had Judge Faith instead of TPC, but lo and behold TPC is on. Hmmm, did a search and TPC isn't scheduled at all. Guess I just set the DVR to record whatever is on in that time slot and hope for the best.

FIRST CASE: missed the first 5 minutes, but the first case is all about a bunch of drunks and multiple fights in a bar parking lot. Plaintiff claims he was trying to break up one fight, he heard a crash, and turned out a second fight had broken out, and his car ends up damaged as defendant is thrown into the car. Sounds like the bar needs someone like Swayze and Sheppard as closers (remember the movie Road House). Somebody called the cops, and everybody scatters when they arrive on scene. Defendant's brother gets napped, so defendant gives up. No one arrested, but police reports taken. Not sure why this turned into a court case, as defendant has no defense except that he doesn't remember touching the car. Oh he admits to drinking, following someone outside to continue a fight that started inside, being in a fight and running from the cops, just doesn't remember touching the car. Doesn't feel a witness is enough to prove anything, wants a video or maybe CSI to investigate, and besides, why should he have to pay because someone else threw him headfirst into a parked car. After MM figures we've been entertained enough with this numskull she ends the case and orders dummy to pay the damage - along with a lecture to grow up and stopped getting in barfights. Dummy hasn't learned anything, and tells Doug he'll drink a little less, but will still out drinking and having "fun".

SECOND CASE: Nice church lady suing for 3k claiming she rented space for church and irrational defendant wouldn't let her move in. Defendant claims she let plaintiff move in and hold church even though rent money was not paid in full, and also suing for 3k. (3 guesses on what statutory maxin their jurisdiction.) Hallelujah, there's actually a written rental agreement. Problems arise because there is no firm understanding of what is being rented, as plaintiff is only renting part of the church part time, and when she and her church people are there the defendant is sometimes there with her people. Not only isn't she getting exclusive use for the days and times she expects, but she says she can't store some of her church stuff there and ends up having to rent storage unit. In effect, this case turns into a messy roommate case with a lot of she said/she said evidence with little to back up any of the claims. Oh wow, plaintiff story is all over the place. We hear about how defendant and her people are there every time plaintiff holds a service. Then how defendant swapped the location of the altar. MM asks why that was a problem if they were still able to hold services, and suddenly the story is they only held services once... huh, what about the complaint defendant and friends were there every time. That certainly implies more than 1 service. With the one service story we hear that defendant was there with a woman with a mentally impaired child. For some reason, plaintiff and her good Christian Folks get offended when asked to pray with defendant and her friends. OK, maybe things are different in her church, but even assuming they interrupted bible study, I don't get it. MM doesn't get it either, and when she asks we get some weird (weird to me at least) answer that these people weren't "trained" to pray for/with a mentally impaired child... what does that even mean? What special training is needed for anyone of any faith to pray for anyone. The more this lady talks the more I question everything she says. At one point she even tries to bring up race, saying defendant questioned three children in her congregation about being mixed race based on skin color. Possible, I suppose, but totally unsubstantiated as defefandant denies incident ever occurred. Ah well, eventually MM decides she's milked the case of all entertainment value. She lectures both sides on coming to court and jacking up their case to claim the max instead of working together like good Christians should, then rules defendant can keep the $700 deposit since plaintiff did use the church at least once, everything else is a wash.

THIRD CASE: Another yawner on a day of yawners. This time dude hires some guy off Craigslist to move his website side from one host to another. They meet one time, guy pays craigslist nerd dude $113 to move the site, and guy can't get it to uploaded from his home office. Eventually nerdy guy gets called to dinner, so gives up and tells the guy he'll work on it later. He tries again after dinner, never gets it to work, but has countersuit for time he spent trying after dinner - since his time is worth money. Plaintiff goes back to craigslist, hires someone else, who successfully makes the transfer, then tutors him for 5 sessions on making future changes. Paid the second computer nerd $500, but is happy. Now he's in court wanting the money back from first guy. MM agrees first guy did nothing and orders money back.

[cattykit]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

How I wish I could get paid for "mental aggravation" every time I have to call my ISP. I'd be rich! The "pastor" thought she deserved 2K for her annoyance with the defendant. I have no idea who was telling the truth. I know nothing about religion or if the people who call themselves pastors or ministers are required to have any education whatsoever, but I was saddened by the fact that the def.(for whom English is a second language) had much better grammar than plaintiff. Every "We was", "I brung" and "She didn't want no... " hurt my ears.  Truly appalling, really.

Amen, sister!

I've never understood common grammatical disasters, as it's really not any harder to learn basic English than to learn substandard English.  And even assuming children learn what they hear at home, do they sleep through every single year of public school?

[Jamoche]

On September 27, 2016 at 3:18 PM, SRTouch said:

1. THIRD CASE: dry cleaners case, 

Plus he kept arguing it was like new because, despite it being a year old, he'd only worn it once. But his dad had smoked around it!

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

. He tries again after dinner, never gets it to work, but has countersuit for time he spent trying after dinner - since his time is worth money. 

His upload time! Which is taking so much longer because the software is customized! Good thing this wasn't on Judge Judy, because JM totally gets that uploading is something you start up and then just ignore while it does its thing.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

His upload time! Which is taking so much longer because the software is customized!

Thing is, JM had to correct the "professional" and tell him he was "Uploading" and not "Downloading." Oops.

[ElleMo]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Listening to those dumb, inarticulate, meat-headed drunken "boys" (actually grown men who act like children) who can't speak their own language properly but who like to drink and fight: I can't help wondering about the so-called "cougars" out there who find something appealing about these repulsive twenty-something morons trying to prove they have some testosterone. JM took a lot of extra time to try and make the dull-eyed def. understand that getting drunk and fighting in bar parking lots can end in tragedy. Doug tried to elicit something that made sense from the idiot in the hall. His efforts were futile. All he got was, "I'll fight if I have to." (yes, because when you go out and get drunk at seedy bars, there's always a fight for survival, right?) and "Maybe drink less?" Profound.

How I wish I could get paid for "mental aggravation" every time I have to call my ISP. I'd be rich! The "pastor" thought she deserved 2K for her annoyance with the defendant. I have no idea who was telling the truth. I know nothing about religion or if the people who call themselves pastors or ministers are required to have any education whatsoever, but I was saddened by the fact that the def.(for whom English is a second language) had much better grammar than plaintiff. Every "We was", "I brung" and "She didn't want no... " hurt my ears.  Truly appalling, really.

Last case: Def isn't going to miss a damned meal, no matter if he has a client who paid up front for his (non)services.  It's not his fault his computer is too damned slow. His wife said it was dinnertime and she's the boss, so his client can just "go pound sand." Yeah, I'm sure he'll get plenty of business after this airing.  

I was impressed that at least he realized he should drink less.

DH is an IT guy.  Before he got his present job, which pays pretty well, and before I worked full time, he advertised on Craigslist and put flyers up at the super marketing advertising his services on evenings and weekends.  He didn't design web pages, but he would take viruses off people's computers, set up new printers and wireless routers, install new software, etc.  and he even had a few small business where he was the IT person.  If there were a paying customer in my house at dinner time, I would either  bring the food to his office and ask the client if he would like some too or put it aside so he could eat later.  No way would a jeopardize a paying customer and guaranteed payment, especially since his little enterprise grew mostly by word of mouth.  

[NYCFree]

The defendant IT guy was a smarmy idiot.  I too work from my home, and if I am busy on the phone or computer, my spouse or son handle urgent matters.*  Defendant smirked that JM didn't understand the techni issues.  Such bullshit, JM correctly pointed out they literally sat there waiting for the site to upload.  He compared his time to a mechanics, saying you would have your pay a mechanic for two hours while he was trying to find the problem. It would be more analogous to a mechanic who started the car and let it run two hours while reading a magazine,  then said "nope, can't figure out what's wrong." 

 

* unless it's UPS.  They have an ultra sophisticated system that knows when I am in the house alone, and on a conference call, so they can bring a package that requires a signature.

[SRTouch]

1. FIRST CASE: Roommate drama. Two girls, long time friends and god-sisters, move in together. Reminds me of the old saying that you don't really know someone until you live together. Anyway, they bicker and fight, and plaintiff moves out. Plaintiff is suing for a grand for the security deposit and missing items, and defendant reciprocating with her own thousand dollars countersuit. Plaintiff says she was upfront about her concerns of the roommate's bf coming over, as she didn'the think it fair for him to stay over a lot without kicking in rent and utilities. Says after they moved in bf was there 6 days a week instead of the promised 2-3 days. Not only that, bf is walking around in towel, which makes her uncomfortable. Dude has his own key and is coming around whenever he feels like it, sometimes when gf roomy isn't even there, but not contributing anything toward expenses. Defendant roomy says she'll talk to bf, but nothing changes. MM is having fun with this case, thinking of stories she's heard from her kids, no doubt. Anyway, after the third time she complains, 4 months into the lease, she says she tells roomy she is going to move. She offers to find a replacement roommate, but defendant says not to worry, she's going to give up the apartment and move, too. (Defendant already had the apartment when plaintiff moved in.) Then they get into a tiff when plaintiff wants to stop paying rent to roomy, instead wants to hand the money directly to landlord - seems in the past she has had to cover portions of rent for roomy, and she doesn't trust her now. After the fight plaintiff comes home to find the furniture gone. This has all been according to plaintiff, now defendant gets her turn. Defendant says plaintiff complained once about bf, not three times. She feels that since she, the defendant, lived there first, she gets to make the rules and it's up to plaintiff to make any accommodations to the status quo. Finally MM asks what I've been wondering since these girls walked in. Plaintiff is 21 and defendant 23. Plaintiff lived at home with mommy before moving in with defendant, defendant brought her mommy to court with her - couple mommy girls who were babies together and now in court suing each other. Defendant admits taking the furniture, but says she left behind the items plaintiff claims are missing - and she refused to return the security because plaintiff left those items when she moved out (I had to look up uggs to find out they were boots). Course MM gets fed up with the two spoiled brats, lectures them on how rare their lifelong friendship is, and urges them to grow up and make up. Rough justice time. Plaintiff gets $650, part of the deposit, defendant nada (oh, and we get a reminder that in NYC a month to month tenant is not required to give ANY notice). Doug asks about the friendship. Spoiled defendant says her lifetime friend "is dead to her." And plaintiff gives us "it is what it is".
2. SECOND CASE: Plaintiff says she bought vehicle from defendant, and pile of junk broke down 15 miles after she took procession. Says when she bought it defendant assured her it was in good shape, after it broke down he promised to meet her at a mechanic shop and refund the money, but dude never showed. Defendant complains when it broke down she had it towed to his place and put in his driveway, blocking in other vehicles. Says she took the keys, and he ended up having to get it towed after 3 weeks. So he's suing for having to put up with clunker in his driveway and towing. I kind of like her idea of blocking his driveway with the junk heap, if she did what he says, but can't understand why it would take 3 weeks to move it and get his driveway unblocked. Plaintiff found a 2002 Chevy Blazer on Craigslist. Says she took it for a test drive and thought the transmission was slipping. You would think she run away, at at the least have a mechanic check it out, (she fid call her mechanic, but he couldn't check it out til next week). Nooooo, it's such a good deal, she goes ahead and pays 2 grand on the sellers word that the transmission was good to go. At least she got dude to write out that he would refund her money if it broke down right away and it cost more than a grand to fix. Anyway, seller comes to where she broke down on the roadside and tells her to call her AAA and get it towed to his mechanic, he'll meet her there with her money. She's sitting at the mechanics with the tow driver, and of course he's a noshow. She has phone records showing she called 16 times - no answer. Tow driver getting tired of sitting there, so finally she has him tow it back to his house. Knocks on door, no seller but gf answers and says he has some family emergency. She leaves the Blazer in the driveway, saying she'll bring the keys when he contacts her and says he has the money. As days go bye all she gets from him are links to sites saying law says buyer beware, he doesn't have to give back the money. Ah, shady defendant's tutn. Dude speaks a lot better than appearance would suggest, but essentially he just has a song and dance about how he lost his phone so never got her many calls, he researched the problem and all the blazer needed was a $60 part so repair wasn'the above the $1000 limit he set to return the money, yada yada yada don'the believe a word of what toothless scammer is spewing. Says he fully intended to refund the money until he found his driveway blocked. As he hmmm and haws, MM asks where the truck is now, doesn'the get an answer and finally asks who the registered owner is. Dude is selling vehicle registered to the guy he bought it from... thing wasn't even in his name and $60 part for repair sounds like a big lie. Don't know about their state, but in many jurisdictions registering a vehicle with a jumped title is a major hassle. Lady gets her money. 
3. THIRD CASE: Homeowner suing over leaky roof which caused ceiling damage after a rainstorm. Says he hired defendant to fix a leak. Defendant says he did a patch job, but leak must have been coming from done where else. Entirely possible, as water can travel under shingle before it actually drips inside, but if I hire a professional roofer I expect a better result than some diy/handyman work. Ah, but I shouldn't say that, because according to plaintiff he eventually got sick of the professional dodging him and went up and fixed his own gosh darn roof. This professional sure doesn'the sound like someone I would want to hire. Repeated complaints and at best he talk to the dissatisfied customer on the phone, never goes back to see why it's still leaking - maybe that's why he doesn't want his name or company name used on TPC. Plaintiff gets back the money he paid shoddy roofer, but nothing for damaged ceiling because he can'take show that that damage came after the already leaky roof was supposedly fixed.

Another of those contractor cases which probably should have been taken to a licensing board. Ah, but I wonder it this guy is actually a licensed roofer, I suspect he's more a handyman type, but MM didn't question license. I mean, this was a $300 job, not something I would expect a roofer to do. Oh, and not a good handyman, either. He complains it was too cold and wintry to go back and look for the leak. Hey, any self-respecting hard working handyman would have been there asking to do the work, and by the way this is what I'd charge to fix that ceiling. Instead this guy admits he wasn't working those months and in fact took time off for a Mexican vacation.

[AngelaHunter]

The god-sisters/babies/mooch boyfriend displaying his junk case was so boring I kept nodding off.

Quote

Plaintiff says she bought vehicle from defendant, and pile of junk broke down 15 miles after she took procession.

Another trip down the Stupid Lane. A middleaged woman ("I never bought a used car so I don't know anything. Oh, woe is me.") buys a 14 year old junk pile with "low mileage" (150,000 miles? I know it's a Blazer, but still!) when she knew before she paid for it that the transmission was iffy. BUT, she did get def to agree to a warranty of sorts, which is more than most other used car buyers we see here do.

Quote

 Dude speaks a lot better than appearance would suggest

Seriously! From his Neanderthal looks, I expected inarticulate grunts from him. Even so, he was very shady, with the old "My granny died" and "I lost my phone" and the dog ate my homework excuses for not dealing with plaintiff's complaints. Plus, his name wasn't even on the title of  that old beater.  

Quote

Homeowner suing over leaky roof which caused ceiling damage after a rainstorm.

Looking at def. all I could think is that I can't wait until this trend of grown men wearing semi-Prince Valiant, douchebag hairdos is over! Call me petty, but I can't stand it. Cuz, yah - the bangs make you all look douche-y.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Looking at def. all I could think is that I can't wait until this trend of grown men wearing semi-Prince Valiant, douchebag hairdos is over! Call me petty, but I can't stand it. Cuz, yah - the bangs make you all look douche-y.

One more reason (for me) to despise George Clooney.  Damn him.

Edited September 29, 2016 by PsychoKlown

[shittyITguy]

Hey, it's me, the Shitty IT Guy from the September 28th episode. If you have any questions about what it's like to be on The People's Court, I'd be glad to answer them.

[Brattinella]

I haven't seen TPC in a while, but I have been paying a little attention to the IT case.  When I did computer repair, if you are doing a scan, you bet your ass I charge for that time while I wait for the scan to finish.

[shittyITguy]

Well, I finally got to watch the whole thing all the way through and here are my random thoughts.

• Holy shit am I fat. Now I'm extra happy I started my diet/exercise regime a month ago.
• I'm only 6'1", but I look like Andre The Giant next to Doug Lllewelyn. He could get work as a decoration hanging from a car's rear-view mirror
• They edited out a lot, and I mean a lot, of my testimony. His too, but he won so no complaints on that side, I guess.
• They left in a lot of the Judge's lame jokes about GoDaddy, though. I guess that's her "A" material and she is the star of the show.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, shittyITguy said:

Hey, it's me, the Shitty IT Guy from the September 28th episode. If you have any questions about what it's like to be on The People's Court, I'd be glad to answer them.

Would you have rather gone on Judge Judy than The People's Court, if you had a choice?

[shittyITguy]

4 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Would you have rather gone on Judge Judy than The People's Court, if you had a choice?

Honestly, I haven't watched that show in forever. Hard to say.

[califred]

This time difference is making my mom keep calling during TPC and I don't have a DVR so I saw bits of the rent thing and that was it.

[DoctorK]

Quote

This time difference is making my mom keep calling during TPC

Priorities, priorities, let Mom leave a message.

[califred]

I would but she fell on Sunday and I'm 5000 miles away and needed to make sure she was ok.  Tomorrow I'm watching!

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, califred said:

This time difference is making my mom keep calling during TPC and I don't have a DVR so I saw bits of the rent thing and that was it.

If you usually watch this with the interminable commercials and Levin's Short Bus gang, I salute you.

[Jamoche]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

If you usually watch this with the interminable commercials and Levin's Short Bus gang, I salute you.

The two most-used buttons on the remote are the mute and Tivo backup. Ad breaks are for knitting :)

[AngelaHunter]

It was "No evidence" day! Jak-quan(?) had all the proof he needed (receipts, emails etc) to show he's he's actually a big-time promoter who did what he was paid 3,000$ to do and that he's not a worse slimy hustler than Levin. Then we had the couple who gave a deposit and signed a lease but changed their minds about renting an apartment after they saw a one-eyed dog and learned a pedophile lived next door. They had definitive proof of this. Oh they also "sold" their dog - ugh. Anyway, all these people just - darn it - didn't bring any of their evidence TODAY.  Sorry. They could probably have it another day. Maybe. JM gives them all a well-deserved boot, empty handed.

I did enjoy the flooring kerfuffle, if only because def.# 2 was dressed like Long John Silver. All he needed was a peg-leg and a parrot on his shoulder.

[SRTouch]

Let's try this again in the right spot (originally posted on Judge Judy forum)

FIRST UP: Plaintiff is trying to get established as a musician, so he hired defendant as a PR rep to get his name out there. His career is going nowhere, and he wants back the 3k he says he paid defendant, saying defendant took the money but never did as promised. Hey, these guys actually have a written contract, with price rates for various options and levels of PR work. Lots of flowery words promising the moon, and MM reads part of it aloud, making a joke asking if it promises world peace. Guess her point is contract is so vague it really doesn't specify anything except plaintiff pays 3 grand and defendant promises to try to promote him. Sounds like contract stinks, but lots of big name entertainers end up losing big bucks and having to sue members of their "people" over bad contracts. Guy could be lucky he hasn't made it big (yet -maybe someday) and paid $3,000. Plaintiff tells us defendant kept name dropping and arranging interviews and events, but everything was canceled at the last minute. Ah what a dreamer, just before plaintiff signed the contract and forked over the 3 grand, says defendant told him (and has text message to prove it) he arranged to get plaintiff into an interview with Keke Palmer and People Magazine. Drats, canceled. All these promises, and all he says he got for his money was 1 failed photo shoot where photographic didn't provide edited pix in time to meet some deadline. Now MM switches to defendant and asks for his version of the story. Lots of talk, but no matter how many times MM asks he can't come up with what he did for the $3,000. "He wanted overnight success... told him we needed to sit down and make a plan..." can't seem to give a straight answer to snything, including no answer when asked how long he's worked as a PR rep. Finally MM gets tired of the guy's "flapping gums" and asks for anything to prove there was ever anything scheduled with any media. He doesn't have anything with him so we hear the "I'm wearing a black robe... today is the trial" speech. Then she offers to take a recess so he can get a copy of... well anything... "It's in my phone... it's here, I'll find it... give me a little more time..." Dude if you have it and can actually produce it, take the offered recess and find your evidence. Nope, she gets tired of his lame stall and orders he return the 3 grand.

NEXT: Homeowner hires dude she's known since he was in grade school to install laminate flooring in her bedroom. Says he messed up the job, and managed to damage some furniture in the process. Looking at her pictures it does look like a subpar job, but she loses a lot of credibility because her pictures seem to be cherry picked to show a bad job, and she has nothing to show a completed job which looks bad. We see a big gap between the wall and the end of the floor. But then another pic seems to show the first was blown up, and that gap may well have been covered when guy put back the quarter round moulding back. I've watched enough DYI shows to know you don't lay laminate tight to the wall, as it needs to expand and contract with temperature changes. Instead, you need at least 1/4" between the wall and the laminate. Then her pics seem to show gaps between planks of laminate, but those gaps are still there after someone else ripped up the defendant's work and replaced it - it's just the type flooring she bought. More I hear the more it sounds like defendant was ousted prematurely. Defendant and his helper look flakely, but actually sound like they knew what they were doing. Kind of funny when defendant looks at picture on plaintiff's phone. He's holding the phone as far away as his arms reach and complains about how bad the picture is, helper looks over and says not that bad, he can see it. Hmmm, time for glasses, maybe. After MM presses her witness, guy who ended up installing the replacement floor, he finally admits gaps between planks were NOT excessive. He still wants to argue, but plaintiff's case is done for. Plaintiff ends up getting $100 - for the damaged legs on her dresser and the little bit of work left undone when she fired the defendant. Oh, and she wasn't happy.

 Rental refund case: plaintiff wants 4&1/2 grand, twice what she paid, because she found out there was a registered pedophile in the neighborhood. I understand backing out of the lease, since they have three children, but can't see why the landlord owes anything unless she hid the facts. Hey, as we've heard more than once, reasonable people sometimes break a lease for good reasons, but that doesn't mean someone else has to foot the bill. Oh, and these folks not only want back what they paid, for some reason they think yhey deserve double what they paid. Just from the intro and summary from MM, both sides sound kind of unreasonable. Plaintiff tells us a long involved story about finding the apartment, meeting the landlord and putting down the deposit and first month's rent. Not sure why we were told the story, as what I heard made the defendant sound pretty reasonable. Landlord lives downstairs from apartment, has 2 dogs, and asked the potential tenants to bring their dog and kids to make sure there'd be no problem... sounds reasonable to me. Ah, but meeting doesn't go well. One of landlord's dogs, the evil one-eyed-cyclops dog, charged tenant's dog, barked at children, oh it's a scary beasty (picture looks like a tiny fluffball, but no doubt an evil fluffball)... but instead of looking for a different apartment they sign the lease and fork over the $2250 deposit and first month. Plaintiffs go home, think things over wondering if it's really a good move. They search online and find the pedophile next door, because, don'cha knie, she always checks the registry for nearby sex offenders. They decide not to go through with the lease... ok, I can get that, they signed the lease and they want out of it. They're the ones breaching the agreement, maybe for a good reason, but the landlord shouldn't foot the bill for their change of mind. Anyway, over to the landlord, defendant. She decides to help out the plaintiff, as she tells us the story plaintiff told her was about a sex offender who came after the plaintiff as a child, not some offender she found online living next door. Um, to me that story makes the plaintiff more sympathetic, and a better reason for backing out of the lease (still not sure enough of a reason to penalize the landlord, though). Hmmm, sounds like maybe MM doesn't agree though, as she asks plaintiff for evidence she found this offender online. Maybe she just wants to figure out which of these two is lying to her. Or, maybe just MM being noisy. When asked landlord says she never checked to see if there actually is a sex offender next door, saying she doesn't have children so it never occurred to her to search online for nearby pedophiles. Well, doesn't matter why MM wanted that pedophile evidence, as plaintiff doesn't have it. Nah, looking like a case of buyer's remorse. When they backed out the landlord lost rent, as she didn't recent the place right away. Plaintiff tries fast talking her way back, but case is over, leaving me with a questions. Was there a pedophile, and why would it matter? What made the plaintiff think she was entitled to double her money? What's with these people (both sides) bringing up nonsense which had nothing to do with the case, or supported the other side? Who cares how many keys the landlord gave the tenants? Did plaintiff really say she felt pressured because it was the 29th and they really needed an apartment? They waited that long without knowing where they'do be the next month, even sold one of their dogs to take the apartment, changed their minds within 24 hours, but couldn't get back the dog (but they are friends with the new owners and visit Fido). Nah, the more I think about it the more I think she's fill of it... 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 One of landlord's dogs, the evil one-eyed-cyclops dog, charged tenant's dog, barked at children, oh it's a scary beasty (picture looks like a tiny fluffball, but no doubt an evil fluffball

Haha, yeah! Totally evil. Beams of evil shoot out its one eye and gonna put a hex on them all! I missed the part where they wanted double their deposit back, so don't know under what theory they would think they could get that, especially considering they signed a contract and then broke it. Wow, the nerve of some people!

[califred]

You only get double your money in some states if you don't get a letter w/in 30 days explaining why you aren't getting it back.  Not bc you don't grasp not to sign a contract.

[Guest]

Levin's short bus.  Ha!

And don't forget AngelaHunter it's hustla.  Not hustler.  Hustla is worse.  Much worse.

And my compliments to you, SRTouch for the best recaps ever.  Sometimes your recaps are so well done I don't have to watch the actual cases.  There's enough suffering in the world.

Edited October 1, 2016 by PsychoKlown

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I missed the part where they wanted double their deposit back, so don't know under what theory they would think they could get that, especially considering they signed a contract and then broke it. Wow, the nerve of some people!

I kept waiting to hear how they thought they could sue for double, but never figured it out. I think only time double damages were mentioned was the intro and when MM started her summary at the very beginning of the case. I actually went back and rewatched the early part of thd case to make sure I heard that "double" stuff.

Edited October 1, 2016 by SRTouch
Happy fingers

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I kept waiting to hear how they thought they could sue for double, but never figured it out.

They didn't drag out the ol' "emotional distress/pain and suffering" did they? I wish every time someone gets denied that, they would play the Sad Trombone - wah wah waaaahh!

[DoctorK]

Not happy with the watch fiasco. The plaintiff got an unjust enrichment - she got repaid not only for a battery replacement but for a complete overhaul of the watch (that slipped by pretty quickly - all new seals was mentioned, I am sure the manufacturer did everything in the book).  Just because the manufacturer apparently refused to replace the lost screw without padding the hell out of the bill, I don’t think the jeweler should have been on the hook for all of the additional work.  If I have a headlight burn out, and I take it to a shop to be changed (not that I would, bulb replacement is really simple these days) and they start work but accidentally lose a screw and can't complete the repair, then I take the car back to a dealer who replaces the bulb, the headlight lens, the battery, rebuild the alternator, and change the oil (because that is their policy when replacing a headlight bulb), can I get the first shop to pay for all of that?

[SRTouch]

1. dog case: Plaintiff suing because she says defendant whacked her little pomeranian over the head with his walking cane, causing significant injuries, including loss of an eye. Defendant argues he was justified as the little beast was running loose and charged him as he was walking his leashed dog down the street. Plaintiff admits her dog was loose and defendant's was leashed. Don't know about everyone else, but this girl just doesn't sound like a loving pet momma to me with the way she refers to her dog as "the dog" and "the animal". I mean, I never refer to one of my cats as "the cat," I refer to them by name, and maybe add "my cat" after their name when talking to someone who doesn't know me and my crew. Not saying she doesn't love her pet, I mean she has spent a lot of money in vet bills since the incident, but I got the feeling little Sasha was more an accessory than a member of the family. I also found it pretty suspicious that Sasha saw the cane wielding defendant and knew exactly where the tiny hole was to escape the yard, despite plaintiff's claim she had never gotten out before. Anywho, plaintiff tells us defendant has quite the rep for banging fences and threatening dogs in the neighborhood with his cane. Ah, now at last defendant is going to get a chance to talk. Just from plaintiff's testimony, I'd say it's the defendant's case to lose because she didn't see anything except her dog running free and going after the man. Just because her dog is small doesn't stop it from being the aggressor. Guy probably overreacted, but the only eyewitness with 2 legs was the guy with the cane. No doubt the guy is a jerk (I don't buy his story about the pomeranian repeatedly lunging at his collie's throat), but does the fact that he wouldn't even talk to the plaintiff or make any attempt to apologize or to find out how badly the pomeranian was hurt make him liable. MM has to really work to get this jerk to finally apologize in court - too little too late for me. Plaintiff definitely doesn't like the verdict.
2. watch case yep "watch"! Plaintiff took expensive Bulgari watch in for batteries, and shop lost a screw... oops... plaintiff says employees crawled around the floor trying to find the missing screw, but she eventually left. Couple hours later she gets a call, "we found it, come on back!" Ah, no joy, wrong screw, threads don't match. According to plaintiff they "messed" with it, at one time the cover was taped shut. She gets fed up with the clowns, and gets it fixed by Bulgari. Now plaintiff wants the $385 she was charged by Bulgari. Ah well, MM admits it's harsh, but says plaintiff was within her rights to refuse to let shop try to make it good and orders defendant pay $370 bucks (the Bulgari bill minus $15 for the battery he was never paid for). I understand the ruling, but agree with DoctorK, the Bulgari bill was probably padded. 
3. tenant wants deposit: plaintiff wants his $1400 deposit back, but defendant says he left the apartment was a mess when he left. Defendant says he lived in apartment for 4 years, never had heat, bad plumbing, mold etc. Of course, as so many others before him, he's in court making these claims about the slumlord landlord without evidence that he complained in the 4 years he lived there with his family. Says he has lots of texts where he complained, so MM gives him time to go through his phone and find a single complaint while she talks with defendant. I get to add to my NY rental legal knowledge with this case. Seems a month to month tenant has to let landlord show the apartment if he gives notice he's leaving at the end of the month - guess that's to ease the transition to a new tenant for the landlord. Meanwhile, plaintiff gives up on his text complaint search and MM concludes he may not being telling the absolute truth about living through 4 NY winters without heat. Now we get to see the pictures of how he left the place. I'm not normally one to let the landlord keep a deposit after a longtime tenant months out, but this may be an exception. First there's that requirement to let a landlord show the apartment, and she couldn't because the place was a dirty, greasy, smelly mess. Then, when she finally gets in after he leaves, the pictures indicate a little more than normal wear and tear. So, I agree with the judgement. Landlord has to give back $700 (she had offered to return $400) since the place was dirty, but not for painting and new carpet as that would need to be done anyway after 4 years. 

[cattykit]

Y'know, I don't even watch TPC until I check here to see if SRTouch has posted a recap.  It's like a personal guide for lazy brains like mine.  So much appreciated.

Zooey Deschanel's dog was very cute.  Poor furbaby.

Watch?  What is this watch you speak of?

Edited October 3, 2016 by cattykit

[Brattinella]

How does a reputable watch-repair shop/jeweler LOSE a screw from a BULGARI, for goodness' sake?  You take precautions with every watch, you have a receptacle for screws and pins and things, or a magnet, or something.  But you have a hugely expensive watch like that, and lose a screw?