The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

1. Bad vacation: confusing case where friends fight over payments just before leaving on a Caribbean trip, one says she's canceling the other's trip, yada yada. Maybe not so confusing, I just couldn't take defendant's overly dramatic, arm waving, fake crying, manner so ended up hitting FF through much of her testimony. Evidently, the travel agency felt much the same way, as they gave up listening to these two, and ended up double charging for part of the trip. MM ended up taking a recess to get away from the noise and figure it out, then came back and told plaintiff she gets the $500 back that she overpaid, and defendant can go after the agency or her bank, whoever it was that ended up with an extra $500... I don't know, even writing that it doesn't make sense, but I'm not going to go back and watch to figure it out.
2. Tree falls on truck:  apparently, plaintiff parked his car on the street by defendant's property after/during a snowstorm, and a tree trunk split and part of the tree landed on his car. Plaintiff is older guy and speaks broken English, and says when he went in to tell defendant her tree landed on his car she was rude and brushed him off. Defendant, not a spring chicken herself, says when he came to talk to her she couldn't understand him and pretty much ignored him, not even getting up to go see what he was talking about. Pictures sure looks to show a diseased tree, although defendant hubby insists it was healthy, but no proof either way, so plaintiff can't prove any negligence. Not sure why this is in court, seems like an insurance problem which should have had an adjuster come and determine liability instead of going to small claims court. In a twist, the city had put out an advisory banning parking on the streets because of the storm - I guess so snow plows could work. So, not only hasn't plaintiff proved any negligence, looks like he shouldn't have parked there. Case dismissed.
3. Party boat cover: Plaintiff says when he bought defendant's boat he was told it had a cover, but defendant hasn't given it to him. Defendant says after he sold the bought he told plaintiff he MIGHT have a cover, and IF he could find it plaintiff could have it. According to plaintiff he had all kinds of trouble dealing with the guy, even having problems registering the boat because the bill of sale signature didn't match the title. He says after he paid for the boat defendant told him he found the cover, but since the plaintiff was such a nag he wasn't going to give it to him. Anybody else take an instant dislike to defendant when he opens his mouth. Looking down, waving his hand, I don't believe a word. Then, when MM questions him he admits he said plaintiff could have the cover if he found it, he found it the next day, but decided plaintiff was a jerk so he didn't give it to him. MM, "Why are you such a jerk? Why not just give it to him?" Jerk, "(snigger) I don't know, he just rubbed me the wrong way." Jerk may be a jerk, but turns out he's an honest jerk, even seems he wrote in his statement that he told his friend to forge the bill of sale because he doesn't like dealing with the Registry people. MM tells him to give plaintiff the cover... oh, I forgot, he also has a neon orange stripper pole that can be mounted on the party boat, but since plaintiff's gf is going to pick up the cover, and she said she didn't want the pole, we don't know if plaintiff is getting the pole.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

, I just couldn't take defendant's overly dramatic, arm waving, fake crying

Good lord. The thing is that all that screaming, sobbing, snuffling and snorking produced not a single viable tear. So are violently violet eyes and lips a thing now? I really don't know, being severely trend-and-fashion challenged myself. This person, who seemed to be (today at least) rather unstable  is a "motivational speaker"? People pay for her services? I'm in the wrong business.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Tree falls on truck: 

Pretty silly case. Only interesting part was the def's purple chiffon.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Party boat cover: 

I'm sorry, but adding "III" to your name is not impressive. Def - who has no problem with forgery and lying -  really needs to learn to reproduce and bottle his chutzpah, so that silly-looking douchebags everywhere can also think they're precious and "all that."

[teebax]

I disliked the defendant in the party boat cover case, but I hated the defendant in the cruise case. Motivational speaker is just code for someone who rips off those who don't have the good sense to know better. For me, it's right up there with pastors who haven't spent a day in divinity school, but YMMV. I hate the fake crying, and I hate her nasty purple eyeshadon't. 

At least the party boat guy owned up to his bullshit. I don't like dealing with people either, so I can relate, although I don't actively try to be an asshole! I don't know if we got an update, but I'm sure he turned over the cover without any additional damage. I could see how the plaintiff probably pissed him off. I also believe that he mentioned the cover as an afterthought and the plaintiff started dogging him for it. If it had been mentioned in the original ad, the plaintiff would have had it.

[califred]

Teebax I agree I couldn't stand either of them.

i prefer my motivational speakers not break down crying over vacation.  Motivational speaker was the Marine who spoke at our Ball who is a wounded warrior amputee that climbed Mt Everest this May.

 

Boat dude was irritating but knew it.  Even if he had the friend go why couldn't he have signed the title ahead of time?

[Broderbits]

I'm really sick of litigants who are using this opportunity as an audition for their own reality show. Talk about delusional! Most of these people are too self-unaware to realize how ridiculous they appear to rational folks. Maybe the producers think it's amusing, but I found it difficult to watch that phony "motivational speaker".

[SRTouch]

1. Girls' night (in the afternoon): defendant decides to throw a birthday bash and invite a few dozen of her best friends. She hires a couple strippers and the plaintiff - not a stripper. Apparently, the plaintiff is an artist who has found a niche market where he supplies a venue at his studio, painting supplies and wine for parties at $35 a person. This isn't his normal party, though, as defendant is supplying the venue and some of the supplies. Problem is these two don't have a contract or even a firm understanding of what the other does or wants. Plaintiff thinks it's going to be a painting party where a group of tipsy people try to paint and he'll circulate and help with brush strokes. Defendant is looking for a wild party with male strippers, and thinks he should be more "entertainer" than artist. Plaintiff thinks the agreement is he is getting paint $200 for showing up with some of the supplies, than an additional $10 a person for each person who paints. Defendant agrees he was to get a minimum of $200, but she says that was for the first 20 painters, then she was going to pay an additional  $10 for each additional painter over 20. Both sides think the text messages will prove there case, but really no help for either side in the texts. Ah, but plaintiff has a memo in the PayPal invoice that he thinks will help. MM reads it and her interpretation is that it doesn't really prove his case as it's unclear, and as the plaintiff he's the one who needs to prove his case. I really think he believes the deal was what he's claiming, but he hasn't proved it. I'm not so sure if the defendant believes her case. Not sure what she paid the two strippers she hired, but seems like she wanted plaintiff to be more than a sexy looking artist who would help her tipsy friends paint. Plaintiff hasn't proven his case, case dismissed.
2. Rental dispute: plaintiff rents apartment sight unseen from across the country, then wants to back out and get back her money ($2100 in rent, deposit and aggravation) after seeing the place. Defendant agrees she rented the apartment, says she lived there a short time while looking for a different apartment, found a  different place and moved out - he's  got a countersuit for $500 for wasted time. Plaintiff is college student from Oregon who is brining her dog to school with her. (Yeah, she's bringing Siberian husky to college with her... aren't they kind of a high maintenance dog for a college student who will presumably need to be studying and living in an apartment.) She says she saw the apartment via video chat and it looked ok, but when she got to NY it turned out it was an illegal apartment without a kitchen or working sink, and no access to the yard for the dog. Problem is she has nothing to back up her story, no lease or emails from before she drove cross-country. Soon as mush mouth defendant starts in he loses me. After listening to plaintiff's story MM turns to defendant and asks him if the apartment is illegal. Song and dance routine, no answer. Does it have a kitchen? No, then more dancing around.  So, it's illegal? More dancing around.  Dude has no defense, had no right to rent an unfurnished basement as an apartment. One thing he brings up is he says she never said anything about a dog in her video chat or emails, and MM starts to take the time to go through the emails, then decides she doesn't need to, she doesn't believe the girl would drive cross country with a dog without knowing the apartment she has already paid for allowed a dog - besides, IT'S AN ILLEGAL APARTMENT. Oh, girl says she still may have taken the illegal apartment, but while she was out seeing the sights defendant came in unannounced and let the dog out of the apartment (luckily dog was safely corralled). Nope, illegal apartment, can't use the yard, no kitchen, no sink, and now a landlord who comes in unannounced while she's out. More dancing around when MM asks why defendant thinks he should get to keep any of her money. MM needs to stretch this case out to fill up the allotted time, so she comes up with a silly story about selling cocaine instead of just saying you can't keep rent someone pays you for an illegal apartment. College girl gets the money she paid, but no aggravation. In Hallterview defendant tries to convince Doug that he was trying to help the girl out by renting her an illegal dump - huh, how much was he helping when he tried to keep the girl's money - by his testimony he knew she was tight on money because she had trouble coming up with the money when she moved in.
3. hit pedestrian: Plaintiff wants $5k in pain snd suffering after being hit by defendant's car. MM has all kinds of trouble trying to get a coherent account of the accident from the plaintiff. They have the whiteboard set up with a diagram, and plaintiff puts the little pedestrian figure jaywalking across the street, then can't seem to understand that her testimony is that she was illegally crossing the street. MM gives up on the nonsense plaintiff is saying, and asks defendant what happened.  I can just see defendant considering if he should say anything at all, because plaintiff's story makes his case. He does tell his story, saying plaintiff stepped out in front of him from behind two cars which had stopped at a red light. Plaintiff's 12yo daughter was an accident witness and testifies, but isn't much help - she saw mom get hit and land on the ground. Thing is her story agrees with defendant, so mom was teaching her to cut between cars stopped at a red light instead of going to the corner and crossing legally. Really sad thing is even with the little models, the diagram and histrionics MM can't get plaintiff to understand that she caused the accident. Doug doesn't have any more luck than MM, plaintiff just keeps saying defendant lied in court, but both her daughter's and her own testimony torpedoed her case. Have to wonder if she even understood what was being said.

[BubblingKettle]

Indeed, the plaintiff in the "Girls-Only Painting Party" was gorgeous, but I think the defendant really sounded like a perv when she was saying that she wanted a hot guy/painter as the only man at her party. If the genders were flipped, and a man made that statement, no question --- many people would think he was lecherous. I'm no ice queen, but I think the judge displayed too much levity during the stories of him getting groped and having to put up with the women's pleas to strip...and I question the "just a joke" excuse. I guess acting like a lady is a thing of the past in many circles.

In the jaywalking case, I think the plaintiffs needed to hear a clearer description of what jaywalking is -- including a visual with the magnetic action figures and some red and green dots showing the traffic lights. Then, the judge needed to tell them and visually show them what crossing at the light means, and then drive that safety rule into their heads. JMM telling the mother that she is lucky her daughter didn't get hit wasn't enough -- those two needed remediation, because they didn't (and likely still don't) know how to cross a busy street.

[DoctorK]

Quote

the judge needed to tell them and visually show them what crossing at the light means, and then drive that safety rule into their heads

Sorry, I can't believe that would do any good. The plaintif was so locked into her story line (and daughter sounded shy and very coached including the flying through the air part which is not consistent with her mother's minor injuries) and simply wasn't listening to anything said to her. In the hallterview she insisted that she was right and the defendant was lying, she simply didn't understand what JM clearly explained to her, that it was her own testimony that determined the outcome. None so blind as those who will not see.

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, CoolWhipLite said:

Indeed, the plaintiff in the "Girls-Only Painting Party" was gorgeous, but I think the defendant really sounded like a perv when she was saying that she wanted a hot guy/painter as the only man at her party.

Seriously. That mouthy woman just rubbed me the wrong way. "Her girls" (somehow I doubt anyone there could fall into the category of "girl", especially the def. ) And yeah, if plaintiff had been a woman - "girl" - in a roomful of men and was being sexually harassed it would have been a federal case with the SJWs picketing and marching. Who the hell has 50 friends, anyway? Plus, I'm always surprised when I hear people throwing their own birthday parties. Strippers sounded totally gross, but I guess that's par for the course.

40 minutes ago, CoolWhipLite said:

In the jaywalking case, I think the plaintiffs needed to hear a clearer description of what jaywalking is -- including a visual with the magnetic action figures and some red and green dots showing the traffic lights

I don't think it would have mattered. Plaintiff, who clearly saw nothing wrong with wandering out into the middle of the street, and teaching her 12 year old that it's fine to do that, took zero responsibility for her own actions and just wanted a 5K lottery win. If she doesn't know, at her age, what traffic lights mean I doubt any diagrams are going to change that.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Rental dispute: plaintiff rents apartment sight unseen from across the country, then wants to back out and get back her money ($2100 in rent, deposit and aggravation) after seeing the place.

Yeah, a college girl in a rented place, who has been working two jobs really needs a Siberian Husky, which she took off and left in a strange place so she could go sight-seeing.  The perfect breed to be left alone for hours in a rented apartment - NOT. I thought it was funny that def. had "prop" sinks and other amentities in his illegal place. He just couldn't understand - even with JM's cocaine hypothetical - that he's not entitled to keep rent on some dump he's renting illegally.

[Guest]

SRTouch and AngelaHunter did an excellent job recapping and adding commentary for today's episodes.

Nothing really more to add from me except Painting-Party-Princess looks to me like she has the potential to be a sloppy drunk. 

Those painting parties are a big thing here in Massachusetts.  I've been to one and the words "stripper, take it off, and shirtless" never entered the equation.  We sipped wine and painted a pre-chosen scheme of some European street scene.  Mine is no masterpiece but it was fun sipping wine, having cheese and crackers and chatting with the ladies.  And it was for a good cause - helping a family get through some expensive medical treatments.  All money went to the family with the art store taking in just a small amount.

I apparently have crossed over into old people's territory.  And after seeing today's defendant I am not complaining.

[meowmommy]

The thing with the jaywalking case is that even if they had been crossing the street legally, there was no degree of injury to warrant a $5K case.  Plaintiff admitted to some bruising.  

And regardless of the merits of the college girl case, MM was so charmed by the story of the plucky girl working 80 hours a week to afford college that she was ready to accept anything she said.  I do agree the plaintiff was right, but still...

I dunno, I just like the cases where MM is righteously indignant over some asshole's chicanery, so much more than the ones where she's just having a good time, and infinitely more than the ones where she lectures members of broken families on how important it is to be close to people with similar DNA regardless of the actual family dynamics that have led to the splits.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

where she lectures members of broken families on how important it is to be close to people with similar DNA regardless of the actual family dynamics that have led to the splits.

Even though I believe she's totally sincere, I hate when she does that. Just because two people are, by accident of birth, related doesn't mean undying love, especially when one of those people is a scam artist, a thief, a drunk or a jailbird. "Unconditional love" is a wonderful concept, but very, very rare.

Quote

Those painting parties are a big thing here in Massachusetts.  I've been to one and the words "stripper, take it off, and shirtless" never entered the equation.

The image of all those half-drunk, over-aged "girls", hooting and grabbing at "steroided strippers with implants" is exceedingly distasteful.

[EtheltoTillie]

18 hours ago, CoolWhipLite said:

Indeed, the plaintiff in the "Girls-Only Painting Party" was gorgeous,

Yes, he made my day! 

I've received a variety of Groupon offers for painting parties in NYC, and I've seen them as storefronts in other cities.  It usually is promoted as a couples' night out event.  The art studios serve wine and provide the painting supplies and lessons.   I haven't heard of any that were combo bachelorette party/painting classes with strippers added. 

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, GussieK said:

Yes, he made my day! 

I've received a variety of Groupon offers for painting parties in NYC, and I've seen them as storefronts in other cities.  It usually is promoted as a couples' night out event.  The art studios serve wine and provide the painting supplies and lessons.   I haven't heard of any that were combo bachelorette party/painting classes with strippers added. 

Yeah, I got the feeling artist, plaintiff, was taken by surprise a little. He seemed more than a little upset when he talked about defendant wanting him to dress in her outfit to greet the arriving guests. Sure he has probably had to deal with the occasional tipsy guest at his own events, but I think the sexual, girls gone wild, nature of this party may have taken him by surprise. I think he was more than a little insulted to be lumped in with the strippers... Otherwise why bother suing for $120.

Other thing I wonder, having never even heard of this type of painting / wine party. Really seems to me that the guests would be expected to tip the artist. Or, maybe the artist uses the event to showcase his art so he can sell paintings. The whole concept is outside my experience, but I don't see anyone making a living this way.

[momtoall]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Other thing I wonder, having never even heard of this type of painting / wine party.

I've heard of them but they are usually at the location where the artist work.  In Texas and Michigan, I've ben to "Paint with a Twist" events for Baby showers, Birthday and girls night out parties.  Lots of fun, NO strippers.

[wallysmommy]

Painting with a Twist is big in our area for fundraisers, group get-togethers, showers, etc.  They are a franchise where they sell the franchisee 1,000 or so models that people with a modicum of art talent lead you in painting.  There's no "teaching" involved.  You follow the leaders instructions to paint your "masterpiece."  The group leader picks the painting, or you check the calendar of events to see if you're interested, and that's what everyone paints.  I have about 8 of them stacked in a corner of my house.   My thought on Hannah the Birthday Girl -- if she's a multi-millionaire, she needs a better hair dresser and better extensions, and a better wardrobe.  I thought she was obnoxious from the time she sashayed into the courtroom with her satin, ruffles, and bows.

[SRTouch]

today's rerun comes from Sept

1. Disagreement over wedding flowers: another of those no-contract cases, where one sides provides a service for a relative/friend/acquaintance without any agreement on price... ah just do it, I know you'll be fair, we can work out the price afterwards. This time around a amateur florist provides flowers for an ex-coworker's wedding without a contract, and is still after more money ($400 for flowers and $200 for aggravation) three years after the wedding. Plaintiff starts out explaining her nonexistent case, and doesn't take long for me to start urging MM to dismiss the case - of course she doesn't listen any better today than she did 3 months ago. MM asks a very simple, "you were going to what for how much?" Long drawn out non-answer about the many changes the bride made in what she wanted yada yada yada. Again she's asked "how much were you going to be paid?" Now we hear "well, it was all verbal and we never really discussed price." To me, case is pretty much over unless there's some text where defendants agreed to pay "x" amount and never did. According to plaintiff, the first time cost comes up is the day of the wedding - as if the bride had nothing else on her mind that day. Either the day of the wedding, or after the honeymoon, plaintiff says she gave the newlyweds an invoice, (hand written note on stationary where both worked) and eventually received a couple payments. The payments stopped when they stopped being co-workers - actually it's worse than simply working together, as the defendant was plaintiff's supervisor and she quit after a fight at work. Then, after a couple years of texts asking for money, but still never specifying exactly how much is owed, plaintiff files suit. Now defendant bride gives her version of the looseygoosey nonsense. She agrees they never set a price, or even a budget limit. Hubby disagrees, he says he told plaintiff they had a $300 flower budget when they met during the wedding planning stage. Plaintiff's response when asked if that's true, "I don't recall that." Yeah, right! Defendants say plaintiff provided extras that they didn't ask for, and plaintiff agrees she did, saying she had extra flowers and bride was "thrilled to pieces" ... maybe so, but that doesn'the mean she agreed to pay for the extras, maybe she was thrilled with it as a wedding present. Defendants claim a total of 3 payments, totalling $700, but have no receipts. Bride says she never received an invoice, and just forked over money when asked, never knowing the total bill. Eventually hubby learned she's still making payments, and he declares the bill paid. OK, the silliness has gone 20 minutes, time to lecture these fools and kick them out.
2. tow company case: very rare for a driver to win this type case, and this is no exception - only unusual aspect is that this driver has a mental handicap.  Driver gives a ride downtown to a couple of cousins. They're going to a couple businesses, so he drops them off at their first stop, then drives to the final store where he plans to meet them. He parks, then goes across the street to H&R Block. Oops, folks at the store don't know about the others who are coming to shop at this store, so they call and get the car towed. No agrument, plaintiff and witnesses agree that driver was alone when he parked, then he crossed the street. Their argument is that the car shouldn't have been towed because the passengers ended up shopping at the store. They also dispute when the car was towed, but that really doesn't matter much. There was a little kerfuffle when they came to pick up the car, first they tried to pay with credit card instead of cash, then some nonsense about how dare they tow a mentally handicapped drivers car when they had no way of knowing about his disability. Tow company folks were actually pretty nice about it, they released the car that night after hours to cut down on fees and actually dropped the charge from $210? To $180 when that was all the cash they showed up with. I totally buy tow company spokesman's version, as Auntie (she of the wandering eyes) is trying to argue with MM that they shouldn't have to pay because eventually someone bought something from the store, and no, they don't have a receipt. In hallterview tow guy said they would have released the car with no charge if they had produced a receipt, but they didn't have one. I remember saying last time that I would have been looking for that receipt if it would have saved me a couple hundred bucks.
3. ridiculous dog attack defense: Plaintiff's chihuahua, Peanut, is attacked by defendant's larger dog, and ends up in doggy hospital for three days. Defendant denies responsibility, saying she doesn't even know there was an attacks as the vet report talks about tissue damage with no bite wounds. Guess this woman doesn't realise many hunting breeds kill by grabbing the prey and violently shaking. Then she tries to claim it's not her dog, but a neighbor's. Then she's trying to claim the dog didn't come from her yard, but the neighbor's.  Silly silly case, where this mysterious neighbor supposedly gave defendant authority to represent them in court, then when defendant gets in court she can't wait to throw the neighbor under the bus. Doesn't help that the only two legged witness saw the dog come from defendant's yard to attack Peanut while walking the leashed chihuahua. Whole time plaintiff is testifying we see hefty no neck defendant stand there with her arms crossed. MM gets hung up on the pictures of defendant's yard, which shows two or three chain link panels leaning, but defendant is trying to say those panels are inside the fenced yard, not actually part of the fence. Doesn't matter, as this is another short fence which the dog in the picture could easily jump, and plaintiff said the dog jumped the fence to attack her dog. Not sure which defense defendant is trying to use, but she loses with any of them. The kicker is defendant trying to claim she has an eight foot fence, when plaintiff has pictures, which she has already testified is her yard, with of a 4 foot fence. Plaintiff awarded $1890 in vet bills.

[ElleMo]

On 12/9/2016 at 5:27 PM, PsychoKlown said:

Those painting parties are a big thing here in Massachusetts.  I've been to one and the words "stripper, take it off, and shirtless" never entered the equation.  We sipped wine and painted a pre-chosen scheme of some European street scene.  Mine is no masterpiece but it was fun sipping wine, having cheese and crackers and chatting with the ladies.  And it was for a good cause - helping a family get through some expensive medical treatments.  All money went to the family with the art store taking in just a small amount.

 

Darn.  I am going to one next month and I was hoping to see some skin.

[ElleMo]

On 12/10/2016 at 0:01 PM, SRTouch said:

Other thing I wonder, having never even heard of this type of painting / wine party. Really seems to me that the guests would be expected to tip the artist. Or, maybe the artist uses the event to showcase his art so he can sell paintings. The whole concept is outside my experience, but I don't see anyone making a living this way.

 

There are entire businesses dedicated to this. It's all the rage in NY and NJ from what I can tell.  The studios usually do several things including art classes and parties for kids. As I mentioned upthread, I am going to my first one next month but know several people who have gone in the past year or two.  Most of them are small and in the artist's studio.  The one I am going to is a big fundraiser and the artists (I think 2) are bringing their stuff to the location, much like the party described here.  I am still hoping I might see a stripper.  ;-)   

[BubblingKettle]

I can't understand why JMM allowed the obnoxious defendant with the dimple piercings to smartmouth through the whole case. "Lemme finish. Lemme finish." and hollering back at the judge -- I didn't find her funny or entertaining. And all these morons who say they "have a producer" need to find themselves a Mr. Microphone and get a job.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CoolWhipLite said:

I can't understand why JMM allowed the obnoxious defendant with the dimple piercings to smartmouth through the whole case.

Seriously. I like reruns of TPC and JJ. They're usually better than any first-run eps of any other shows out there, but this one? I had to FF, because the low-class, motor-mouthed, hideous, beady-eyed, ignorant gutter-snipe of a def. got on my last nerve. I couldn't believe that JM, even after uselessly ordering her to "take it down a notch" didn't just throw her cheap ass out of there. Maybe I just envy anyone who is so distasteful in every way possible, yet thinks she's a hot property? Instead of a producer, she probably needs a lawyer on retainer, since this isn't the first time she's scammed/ripped off someone.

[califred]

I fast forwarded through her loud mouth too.  I'm shocked she didn't get kicked out.

[AngelaHunter]

Repeats, but just as mind-boggling on second viewing. Plaintiff suing her boyfriend, Reuben, who has two women fighting over him for some unfathomable reason. Are available men becoming an endangered species or something? Anyway, again I tried to imagine asking MY brother for 3,000$ to bail out the disabled, criminal, jailbird husband of my boyfriend's niece. Sure I would.  Judge M, you really need to stop using big words with the majority of the litigants, because it makes them appear even sillier:

JM: "Did you make this recording surreptitously?"

Plaintiff: "Yeah, I told him I was doing it."

Okay, then. BTW, it seems plaintiff is a big fan of vulgar language. I wonder if her daughter was listening to that foul phone tirade?

Then we had the twerpy little muppet, a prime example of the Entitled Generation, who thinks he should be able to leave his unregistered, damaged POS car wherever he likes for as long as he likes, and that the property owner/manager should just understand and get over it. I was really surprised he didn't have his Mommy there with him to vouch for what a good boy he is, even though he's a liar. The def was a total asshole, but that doesn't change the fact that P parked illegally.

[SRTouch]

Busy week, kind of tired of same old same old cases (especially when they're reruns) so haven't watched for a couple days.

1. hot dog tenant loan: Lady rents a room to a guy and his wife after running a craigslist ad. At first they get along great. 8 days after moving in the new tenant approaches the lady, tells her how it was his dead mommy's dream to one day have a hot dog stand. Amazingly, a great deal has just opened up, and he'll be able to buy a stand if she can loan him the piddly amount of two grand. As soon as she loans him the money she turns into a pill popping degenerate drunk, so he gives her 30 day notice, refusing to pay the rent that is due in 3 days. She turns around and files a 3 day notice to vacate for nonpayment of rent 5 days after it's due. Defendant and wife move out owing the rent, and as they leave he yells back over his shoulder that he'll repay the loan "when hell freezes over." So, she goes ahead and tacks on the loan to the suit for back rent, even though the loan technically it isn't due yet. He's a loud brass guy who at one point causes MM,  when she's talking to the landlord, to remark that he doesn't like anyone else to say anything. He tries to educate MM about what his obligations are after giving a 30 day notice, argues that she filed early so he shouldn't have to pay, even though by court date he is $1000 behind in loan payments and still owes last month's rent. He's one of those people who figures he should be able to pay when he gets the money instead of when he agreed to when he borrowed the money. Nope, MM says plaintiff is within her rights to call the loan when he demonstrated he was going to pay, so even though the remainder of the 2 grand isn't due yet, she orders him to pay up.
2. gf throws away crutches during break up: feuding girlfriends break up, and when defendant kicks plaintiff out of her apartment she ends up throwing away everything she left behind, including the crutches needed after knee surgery. Plaintiff wants all kinds of money for those crutches - claiming she had to drop out of school for a semester because she couldn't go to classes. Silly silly case from both sides, nobody making sense. If she needs crutches for school, how did she leave without them when she was kicked out. In preview before commercial, defendant is saying she doesn't remember throwing out the crutches... how do you throw away crutches and forget? Not sure what defendant sounded like, but couldn't take the school girl and her mangled speech any longer and hit fast forward to case #3.
3. college girls fight over $75 AAA charges: another silly rerun. Defendant makes a habit of locking herself out of her car. Her friend, the plaintiff, uses her AAA card to get the car unlocked free the first time. But after that AAA charges her $75 the second time they call, and she wants defefendant to cover the charge. I remember the case for a couple reasons. First, forgetful defendant appears to have trouble keeping her eyes open... could she be high? Second, even though defendant should have paid, MM rules that there was no agreement beforehand, so plaintiff has to pay. I remember there was a bit of discussion after the first airing about the defendant's sense of entitlement, along with her belief that the thing to do when you lock yourself out of your car is call the fire department, who will come open your car for free. Only remarkable thing about this one is just how self absorbed and selfish defendant is.

Edited December 15, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[patty1h]

I liked how Doug Llewellyn ranked on the bozo defendant in the hot dog cart case.  He questioned the scamming dude about how it was his mothers dream for him to have this cart.  Doug says "you'd think your mother would want you to be president or a doctor, instead of selling hot dogs".  Doug's tone of voice left no illusions that this was a BURN!  And I loved it.

[Jamoche]

The cheap crutches you get after surgery are about $25 at a drugstore. I dropped mine off at Goodwill once I didn't need them, so presumably she could get them even cheaper there.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

hot dog tenant loan: 

If any reruns should be watched, this is one of those. Three of the most ridiculous litigants ever. Plaintiff has a 4-bedroom, two-story townhouse - why, I'm not sure when she can't even stand during her case so I can't imagine her going up and down the stairs. Maybe a a two-bedroom place might be better for her, then she wouldn't have to move in strangers to help her pay for the place she can't afford? Anyway, def is a vile, stupid version of Archie Bunker (if Archie were a scam artist) Oh, his degenerate alcoholic momma had big plans for her boy - to have a hot dog stand. It was her dream for him! Make Momma's alcohol-fueled dreams come true!

Quote

gf throws away crutches during break up:

I couldn't take a rewatch of that. Plaintiff is a mature college student who speaks in mangled English - "Me and her went", "Need to get described for crutches", etc. OMG. Def? I think the accusation of doing drugs is probably accurate. Her eyes? So creepy that's part of the reason I had to FF this.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

college girls fight over $75 AAA charges:

Yes, it was silly, but still plaintiff is better off without that guttersnipe, "axed, axed, axed", ex-friend def.

[SRTouch]

13 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

If any reruns should be watched, this is one of those. Three of the most ridiculous litigants ever. Plaintiff has a 4-bedroom, two-story townhouse - why, I'm not sure when she can't even stand during her case so I can't imagine her going up and down the stairs. Maybe a a two-bedroom place might be better for her, then she wouldn't have to move in strangers to help her pay for the place she can't afford? Anyway, def is a vile, stupid version of Archie Bunker (if Archie were a scam artist) Oh, his degenerate alcoholic momma had big plans for her boy - to have a hot dog stand. It was her dream for him! Make Momma's alcohol-fueled dreams come true!

Ah now, be nice. Archie was a bigot who insulted pretty much everybody at one time or another, but the character was a hard working homeowner who let his adult daughter and her college student hubby, Meathead, live with him. I actually kind of liked the character (in reruns, wasn't a fan when it was on), since he grew and developed over the years. As I recall, Sammy Davis Jr reportedly liked the way the character's attitudes changed over time and made a couple appearances on the show.

[AngelaHunter]

24 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Archie was a bigot who insulted pretty much everybody at one time or another, but the character was a hard working homeowner who let his adult daughter and her college student hubby, Meathead, live with him

Yes, I agree. I liked Archie. I guess I meant the def. talked the way Archie did, and let's face it, Archie was always looking for an angle, although - as I mentioned - he never perpetrated scams on anyone!

[Guest]

Doug's the best.

How he slices and dices the dummies that cross the threshold is a work of art - particularly when more than half of the idiots don't catch on that he's doing so.  Now that he's back it's a pleasure to watch the hallway encounters. 

If only they could do away with Levin.......

[AngelaHunter]

41 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

If only they could do away with Levin.......

If only it weren't illegal... so, you didn't like his "Who's the weiner?" today? You really want to know, Levin, you little tiny worm? Look in the mirror.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

If only it weren't illegal... so, you didn't like his "Who's the weiner?" today? You really want to know, Levin, you little tiny worm? Look in the mirror.

Ha!  I know exactly who the wiener is - unfortunately we have to look at it every time we tune in to TPC. 

[OhioSongbird]

Oh come on AngelaH & PsychoK.....tell us how you really feel about Harvey!.....;-)

Man grates on my last nerve, too.

Just caught the case of the Motown revue 'promoter' vs Michael Jackson impersonater  for slander.  I've been a musician since I was 16 (in various bands....all girl band in the 60's-70's....folk/country solo in the 80's...6 pc blues band in the 90's....3 pc jazz/country/ pop in the 00's...damn...I can't keep a job..;D) and have worked for tips at times but that must be a really bad show if all the tips they got was $10.  Our 3pc combo always got at least $30-40 each for tips.  $3 is a joke.  If I was on FB I might have said something, too.

Def missed an opportunity to audition when Doug asked him to moonwalk.  But pl did w/o even being asked!  She was quite animated in the courtroom, mugging and throwing her leg around.  Cool shoes, tho...;-)    

Next up...damaged rims.  "bad rim job"....did you really go there announcer?  Does Harvey write this shit?

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, OhioSongbird said:

Next up...damaged rims.  "bad rim job"....did you really go there announcer?  Does Harvey write this shit?

Do you really have to ask? Levin seems to think he's still in vaudeville, where people probably threw tomatoes at him (hopefully the canned kind) but now his only avid audience is the pack of slackjaws in the doorway.

20 minutes ago, OhioSongbird said:

I've been a musician since I was 16 (in various bands....all girl band in the 60's-70's....folk/country solo in the 80's...6 pc blues band in the 90's.

I guess you aren't going to reveal any of them?

[OhioSongbird]

Well...if you're asking for band names...girl bands were Queen Bees in high school, Chix in the 70's (disco & Eagles stuff), my name solo in 80's, Blues Monkey in 90's and the combo we used our own last names (which made us sound like a law firm..;-)...couldn't convince the guitar player to get a real band name).

Girl...I could write a book...and have thought about it.  Tho the 90's are still a bit of a blur (Blues Monkey).  It was me and 6 guys (my soul brothers...we're still tight today even tho we don't play together anymore).

On topic.  Just watched the horse case and I'm sorry but both these ladies......not the sharpest pencils in the box.

[Jamoche]

Harvey does the smarmy intros, right? I've got to the point where I just mute everything until the case starts.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Jamoche said:

Harvey does the smarmy intros, right?

Yes and no. We have to have TWO intros: One from the overly-dramatic former Hall Clown, but written by Levin in which we hear things like, "The louse", "Not here - not today" and "you dirty rat" (not really, but may as well) and other anchronisms dredged up from Levin's childhood. And then we have to hear ANOTHER summary from Levin himself, while Douglas is giving JM the cases. Usually he talks so long that we miss anything JM and D say to each other and is still talking when JM starts. This is where we get some of Levin's Very Bestest Lines, like the historically delightful and always amusing, "Camper?? HE HARDLY KNEW 'ER!"

[Zahdii]

God, I hate the intro's.  It really takes away from the show.  And those stupid 'man on the street' interviews are just as bad.

[SRTouch]

1. Friends feud over money:  Yet another case where friends get mad at each other, then start calling everything they bought each over 18 year friendship a loan. Only mildly interesting part is that plaintiff claims defendant used her money to pay a psychic to get some dirt on plaintiff's brother when defendant was getting with/conversating with or whatever with the brother. (Actually had long term relationship of 13 years.) Defendant says no way she paid for any psychic, she doesn't need to pay as her daughter "happens to have abilities." Silly case is good for a chuckle or two, but kind of blah otherwise. Big part of case is plaintiff gave $540 to defendant to hold because she didn't have a bank account and knew it was as good as spent if she, the plaintiff, kept it herself. When plaintiff's brother (not bf brother but different one) needed money plaintiff asked defendant to loan this brother some money - not give him part of the plaintiff's $500,  but for defendant to loan him some of her own money. Defendant says plaintiff promised to make good on the loan if brother failed to pay - of course plaintiff says the loan to brother was between those two, and she didn't guarantee any repayment. That's pretty much the story of the whole case - one side claims something, other side says it's a lie, nobody has proof of anything though plaintiff says judge can call the brothers. Convoluted relationship where defendant was dating the one brother for 13 years, at least part of that time while he was married to someone else, then he apparently broke it off with defendant via text while she was at work. Huh, like MM says, not the normal way 50+ year olds break up. With all the give and take over the years the only thing they agree on is that at one point plaintiff gave defendant $500 to hold, and $300 for car repairs - denies anything else, but says she should be paid back for the loan to the brother as well as money she contributed to plaintiff's father's funeral. Defendant's problem is that plaintiff produces pages of texts where she agrees to pay money to plaintiff, and now she's saying that she wrote that to just get plaintiff to stop hounding her. Well, that's the case, MM goes with plaintiff's numbers because defendant's testimony doesn't match her texts. 
2. spammer wants to be paid: plaintiff, a self described marketing specialist, says she was hired to send out several marketing "blasts" to advertise defendant's business. Both sides very lackadaisical about just what was supposed to be done and how much was to be charged. Plaintiff has a tough row to hoe, as even the emails and text she presents as evidence contain the conflicting pricing info. Boring case which would have been prevented with a written contract - and since I don't want to watch open mouth breather litigants I hit fast forward.
3. section 8 rental fail: this is the case of the British landlord with the Beatles hair style being sued for the return of deposit on an apartment plaintiff was going to rent, but couldn't when it failed the section 8 inspection. This case caused a lot of discussion the first time around. Plaintiff (who has almost a Yoko Ono style) is a lifelong section 8'er who is moving from Puerto Rico Silly to New York to be closer to family. They find the apartment, make the deposit so it will be held (as required by section 8 before they'll come inspect it). Place fails the inspection, but landlord refuses to return the deposit. 99.9% of the time landlord would be right to keep the deposit, but with section 8 it's apparently the way the system works. Defendant landlord is in court without having a clear understanding of how section 8 works, works through a broker, has none of the section 8 rejection paperwork, and has never seen the apartment... but he comes to court instead of bringing broker argues with MM about how section 8 works. Dude just keep arguing about the section 8 rejection, and he never saw what was on it. What struck me most the first go round, plaintiff is leaving relatively cheap Puerto Rico to move to expensive New York which sticking tax payers with her much higher rent. Plaintiff wins.

[Percysowner]

On 12/15/2016 at 4:55 PM, AngelaHunter said:

If any reruns should be watched, this is one of those. Three of the most ridiculous litigants ever. Plaintiff has a 4-bedroom, two-story townhouse - why, I'm not sure when she can't even stand during her case so I can't imagine her going up and down the stairs. Maybe a a two-bedroom place might be better for her, then she wouldn't have to move in strangers to help her pay for the place she can't afford? Anyway, def is a vile, stupid version of Archie Bunker (if Archie were a scam artist) Oh, his degenerate alcoholic momma had big plans for her boy - to have a hot dog stand. It was her dream for him! Make Momma's alcohol-fueled dreams come true!

On 12/15/2016 at 2:57 PM, SRTouch said:

Maybe she bought the 4 bedroom townhouse 10-15 years ago when she could go up an down stairs and doesn't want to leave her home?  Maybe a 2 bedroom would be better for her, but, maybe she wants to stay in the home that she shared with a loved one? Maybe 2 bedroom homes have gone up in price so the mortgage she is paying for 4 bedrooms is less than buying a new house? Maybe the townhouse is in a neighborhood that she likes? Maybe she's found a way to afford her home by renting out rooms?

She made a big mistake lending to a tenant. I'm not sure that means she should give up her home instead of trying again.

[AngelaHunter]

10 hours ago, Percysowner said:

Maybe she bought the 4 bedroom townhouse 10-15 years ago when she could go up an down stairs and doesn't want to leave her home?  Maybe a 2 bedroom would be better for her, but, maybe she wants to stay in the home that she shared with a loved one? Maybe 2 bedroom homes have gone up in price so the mortgage she is paying for 4 bedrooms is less than buying a new house? Maybe the townhouse is in a neighborhood that she likes? Maybe she's found a way to afford her home by renting out rooms?

She made a big mistake lending to a tenant. I'm not sure that means she should give up her home instead of trying again.

Each or all of those could be true and are very valid. I guess everyone has sticking points. Personally, I'd rather do anything than have strangers moving in and out of my house to live with me. Yes, these tenants merely conned money out of her. Other strangers might be completely ethical and moral or may burn her house down (which we saw on JJ) or rape/ murder/rob her. I love my home dearly too, but I couldn't take a huge gamble like that.  

[ElleMo]

On 12/16/2016 at 6:59 PM, SRTouch said:

1.  What struck me most the first go round, plaintiff is leaving relatively cheap Puerto Rico to move to expensive New York which sticking tax payers with her much higher rent. Plaintiff wins.

I wasn't involved in the first conversation, but I have to add my two cents now. I literally just finished watching this episode and I am so annoyed. Seriously, It's even worse than what you mentioned. Mother-in-law is now back in Puerto Rico because it was taking too long for her to find an apartment and she was in danger of losing Section 8. So she pays to go back to Puerto Rico and ship all her furniture back with her. And she plans on coming back to New York at some point. So she can afford all those flights and shipping of furniture but she can't afford to pay her own rent.

If that were my family, my parent or parent in law would be living with one of the kids. It's not like she has no one.

I also was wondering why the judge did not speak to the mother in law. She's made it a point to speak Spanish to other litigants before and I don't understand why she didn't do it this time.

This is one case that I wish I had been on Judge Judy. Her crankiness can be a little too much at times, but I like it when she is cranky to the people who abused the system. Mm probably gave her a pass because she looks like a nice old lady

Edited December 19, 2016 by ElleMo
I am doing this on my phone and make horrendous mistakes with this keyboard and small screen

[SRTouch]

1. bad NFL tickets: plaintiff's bought tickets to the big game off Craigslist, but when they try to use them it turns out they're no good. Would be a simple case if all they were suing for was the $350 they paid for the tickets, and maybe the difference in price of the replacement tickets since they showed up at the gate and ended having to either buy tickets last minute or go home. But, noooo, they're suing for $1800+. First plaintiff to talk has a practiced opening remarks that is almost worthy of a game show announcer, but when it's time to present the case he hands off to his co-plaintiff. Pretty obvious why - he's a retired cop who appears to has experience testifying in court. No histrionics, just facts in an orderly fashion, backed by evidence, that has MM quickly asking his background as she can tell it ain't his first rodeo. First glance sounds like defendant scammed them, but maybe he's actually as stupid as his story. When he sold the tickets he had no problem letting the ex-cop have his address, car license #, drivers license, etc. At first he send a text apologizing and offering to refund the money as he learned after selling the tickets to the plaintiffs that his gf bought had already sold them to someone else. Like I said, his story doesn't make sense, as he's trying to blame the double sale on the missing gf, who isn't around to testify. Then there's the whole question about why, if his story is true, he didn't immediately refund the ticket money like his text promised. Ok, MM decides he's going to be paying, but now she starts in on trying to figure out how this $350 ticket sale ballooned into a $1800 case. Plaintiffs don't just want to go to the game, they've decided defendant should send them to the game free (including their parking and refreshments apparently). In addition, the retired cop wants to be paid for his time an hourly rate as a private eye. Plaintiffs end up getting their $350 back, but not the extra $1500. Then, as there's still a little time on the clock, we get to hear MM call the defendant an idiot scammer as she laughs his countersuit out of court.
2. ex-roommates fighting over rent/security: once again the only interesting part of case is trying to figure out just what a litigant's titty tat spells out. This is a weird roommate story... according to plaintiff, the defendant got put of of her baby daddy's place in the middle of the night. Instead of letting defendant sleep on the floor, plaintiff says that for a month she slept in her car with the defendant to keep her company - says she stays at home with her mom, and mom isn't going to let her have a friend overnight in mom's place. Oh yeah, plaintiff lives at home with her mom and her son, but seems to think we should agree that leaving her son with grandma and sleeping in her car with someone is better than staying at home taking care of her son. Oh wow, turns out defendant has open child service cases and a 1 year kid - not sure how many kids these two have at home with respective mom's or in the system somewhere when they decide to stop living in the car and get an apartment together. So, they move in together, but end up fighting over dirty dishes, bf staying over, typical selfish roommate stuff that ended up with cops being called. Along in there somewhere is a $600 POS car that one girl was buying from the other, had partially paid for, and when they started fighting the seller decided to keep the car and the money. That's it, can't take these two, FF to hallterview. Evidently there was something about slander, I'm not going to rewind to figure it out, and defendant is second in hallway so I guess she won.
3. concrete contractor says money still owed on a handicap ramp excavation: another case where the most remarkable thing is a tattoo. In preview before commercial MM says it's an easy case, we'll just look at the contract - and of course there is no contract. Apparently, contractor and customer disagree on what the agreed upon price was - contractor says $6500 while customer says $5500. Contractor says defendant has paid $5500, so $1000 is still owed, customer says he paid in full. Contractor says his son heard the discussion, so MM listens to the totally impartial son. Then we hear from the driver of the concrete truck... Remember the dude sporting a Confederate flag under his chin above his collar who says he remembers everything. Anyway, it's a he said - he said with one side having two questionable witnesses. MM discounts the witness testimony, and judges the case on what she feels is a reasonable price for the work both agree was done. In the end she orders defendant to pay the other $1000. In hallterview defendant disagrees with verdict, but accepts it. When plaintiff comes out Doug asks about dude's flag tattoo. Gap tooth dude says it hurt, but was well worth the pain, and he's happy it's placed where it is highly visible. Ok, definitely not what I would want to be known by, but I guess if you are going to get a tattoo you might as well show it instead of hiding it, or partially hiding it like the titty tat in the earlier case.

[AngelaHunter]

46 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

bad NFL tickets: 

Defendant, a dumb, dopey-looking little troll, better find a new way to scam people - a way that doesn't require he  have a brain. I think he may be as stupid as he presented himself, and maybe his girlfriend ( who could be marginally less dumb, but not much) engineered this silly scam on an ex-cop.  The other plantiff was annoying in that his testimony was so obviously rehearsed and was too bad JM didn't cut him off. I think this was the first case where we heard JM say, "Idiot!" I really wanted to see def's g/f, to see the woman who wants him, but we've learned from this show and JJ there is no loser pathetic enough that he can't get multiple women

 

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

ex-roommates fighting over rent/security:

JFC. These gutter rats can't pay their own rent because they have to spend all their money on hairdos, tats, fake nails, wigs and a lot of lip gloss. Someone might expect them to get jobs? Oh, hell no way - have another baby, be a sainted "single mother" and get a whole bunch of free money! I wonder how much the "baby father" is paying for the fruit of his loins? Def. is 21 years old, with a one-year old and now is eight months preggo. Birth control? We don't need no stinkin' birth control! Maybe after she squirts out this poor, unfortunate child she can hold off getting knocked up until it's six months old instead of two months. Fistfights, Dyfs(?), living in cars, blunts left around and all that other classy stuff -  I really applaud JM for listening to this sordid tale without losing it and beating both of them to death with her gavel.

 

57 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

concrete contractor says money still owed on a handicap ramp excavation:

Did plaintiff and defendant buy  their matching shirts at a K-Mart fire sale? Plaintiff's witnesses looked as though they came from a casting call for Comedy Central. Plaintiff himself seemed to having so much trouble just breathing I was on edge the whole time. This show proves time and again that people can live their lives without a brain. No contract needed - the trust was strong.

Quote

MM listens to the totally impartial son.

Listens to and totally ignores, for good reason.

[shksabelle]

Generation upon generation of welfare hoodrats spawning.

Single mom gets Welfare for the first kid for 18 months, then they should be on their own.

IF they are working but need help with childcare or food stamps, prove you are on birth control.

If you are getting benefits and you show up with a weave, a new tattoo, or a set of fake nails, the cost of those gets subtracted from the benefit.

Oh, and maybe, just MAYBE, learn to speak correctly.

[AngelaHunter]

I wouldn't care what these self-titled "single mothers" get - but they shouldn't be getting it from me, when I worked my whole life and never collected a cent from the public trough. Around here, the more they spawn, the more they get. It should be the other way around: Anyone on welfare who has more kids should have the amount cut, until they "get" it and discover the new, wonderful world of birth control and that they needn't get knocked up every time they spread for some guy. Maybe if they had to work all day they wouldn't have the energy for all that baby-making. And really, with mothers like this, what chance do these poor kids have?

[SRTouch]

1. 'Nother feuding roommate case: reminiscent of yesterday poor girl roommate feud, but today we're treated to rich girl lifelong god sisters acting like spoiled brats... since I didn't actually watch all of yesterday's case, I don't know just how similar the cases. Right off the bat I notice a big difference - these two can speak English (though JJ would be telling them to drop the "basically"). A noticeable similarity - in both cases the immature daughters rely on their respective Mommys to take care of their mess. Here, each side blame the other for the roommate situation disintegrating, so they're suing each other over the costs of separating their crap and moving to new apartments. Similar to yesterday, one point of contention involved a bf of one side who visited too much for the other. MM spanks the girls for throwing away their lifelong friendship over petty nonsense, calling them a couple babies, and sends them on their way.
2. used car deal goes bad: plaintiff bought a 2002 clunker from defendant which broke down on her way home, so she wants to undo the deal, get her money back and the money she spent to tow it back to his house. Defendant refuses to return the money, and he's countersuing because she towed clunker back to his house and parked it in his driveway. Lots of silly back and forth, but what it comes down to is plaintiff bought an old vehicle - so unless defendant gave her some warranty or agreed to undo the deal she owns an old broken down clunker. Ah, defendant put in the bill of sale that he would refund the money if anything costing more than $1000 was found when checked by her mechanic the next week. When the thing broke down 15 miles after she left his house he met her on the side of the road, told her to tow it to his mechanic and he'd meet her there and refund her money. So, tow truck shows up and she rides with driver to defendant's mechanic - place is closed, defendant has stopped answering his phone. After awhile, tow driver is getting tired of waiting and wants to just drop it and leave. Since they're only 5 miles from defendant's house, she has it towed there... defendant not home (lady who answers the door says he had to leave because of a family emergency) and still not answering calls. So, she has tow driver drop the car in the driveway, and she goes home. Subsequently, when she does reach him he's now refusing to return the money, claiming that by law the sale is final and she needs to get her clunker out of his driveway. Ah, under questioning it turns out he wasn't even the registered owner of the vehicle when he "sold" it to plaintiff. His story is full of holes, lies, and inconsistencies. MM undoes the deal based on the jumped title, plaintiff gets back her money and the tow charge while defendant gets nada on his countersuit.
3. bad roof repair: ah, the vacationing roof contractor! This is the case of the homeowner who hires a roofing contractor to fix a leak in mid Dec. Contractor does a little repair, which fails to fix leak, then refuses to come back to check it out. Homeowner calls repeatedly over the next 2-3 months, but apparently this contractor doesn't work in the rain or cold - oh and he went on a Mexican vacation. MM returns the money for the botched repair. Must have been a fair decision as both litigants feel they didn't get to present their case. Defendant is arguing in hallterview that he never warranties leak repairs. Apparently he missed the part where MM is upset that he never went back to check the repair. Plaintiff wanted judge to award damages for the leaky roof damaging the ceiling and drywall. Apparently she was supposed to just accept his testimony without proof, ignoring the fact that the reason for the repair in the first place was leaky roof, so how much was damage from before/after the bad repair.

[AngelaHunter]

Not particularly interesting repeats. Godsisters: Even though they act like babies and I can't understand landlords renting to such silly children, I don't blame the plaintiff for getting disgusted with the exibitionistic, moocher boyfriend displaying his peen to her. I'd move out too. Why should she pay for the hot water for that parasite to take showers?

The "I'm in love with a 14-year truck that has a bad transmission!" case was silly, with the defendant (the Unfriendly Giant) making every excuse under the sun to pawn off his POS truck to the silly plaintiff - "I lost my phone, the one with her number on it, but kept my other phone" "My granny is sick"  "I was there" blah blah. Plaintiff learned a lesson and I guess late is better than never.

Quote

bad roof repair: 

Boring and all I could think is: Men - do not wear sparse, grey ponytails (plaintiff) OR douchebag, hobbit hairdos (def). Neither is a good look.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Apparently she was supposed to just accept his testimony without proof,

Of course. She should know that litigants never, ever lie to her. It's disheartening hearing plaintiff, even at his age, wail, "I trusted him!" Yes, we all put our trust in total strangers we pick up on CL or wherever.

[Brattinella]

25 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Boring and all I could think is: Men - do not wear sparse, grey ponytails (plaintiff) OR douchebag, hobbit hairdos (def). Neither is a good look.

LMAO!  Wish I hadn't missed this one!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Boring and all I could think is: Men - do not wear sparse, grey ponytails (plaintiff) OR douchebag, hobbit hairdos (def). Neither is a good look.

 

This reminds me of a guy who works at the gas station I frequent on my way to work.  He's got a grey ponytail and for the longest time I couldn't figure out what the issue was with it. 

Then, one day I was behind a woman who wanted cigarettes and he turned around to get them and it hit me like a ton of bricks - the guy was bald but used his neck hair to make the ponytail!!

I suppose he thinks he's really hot because I cannot fathom torturing your neck hair into a rubber band "just because".   That, or he's phobic about razors. 

I will say this though  - he has very nice teeth - if they're real or not is anyone's guess but they sure do sparkle.