The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

1. silly 'farmers market' type booth kerfuffle: not really a farmers market, but since I went to the local market the other day that sorta popped up. Defendant has a little business where she sells honey and salad dressing at food fairs. Plaintiff is flakey artsy lady who strikes up a conversation about how she can improve the "presentation" of the defendant's Booth. Not sure how or why, but plaintiff gets hired to make the booth snazzy. Big discrepancy on just what is expected, both in what plaintiff is supposed to do and what she's going to be paid. Plaintiff thinks she's been hired as a marketing specialist who is going to come in and design the booth to get noticed by one and all - special lighting, new plates, maybe a sound system with a Vanna White type model. Not sure what defendant thought - sounded like she was just going along - was willing to invest a hundred bucks to see what plaintiff would come up with, but says she never really hired her. Anyway, next event the plaintiff shows up with new plates, her lighting, burlap bags (maybe part of the set design) and hangs in the booth all day. After the event she emails defendant an invoice for over $200 for all her invaluable work. Easy going defendant wrote out a check - even though she says she thought the agreement was a one-time $100 fee. She mails it off, but it gets list in the mail and eventually returned -even though correctly addressed. Plaintiff is pissed, thinks defendant is lying about the check being given in the mail, and tells off defendant. Defendant is pissed because she doesn't really thinks she owes the money, and now plaintiff is calling her names. So defendant boxes up the burlap bags, plates, etc and mails it back with another check - but decides to reduce the amount because of the hassle. This time the box, with the check, arrives, but plaintiff refuses delivery - apparently the box looked opened and she decided defendant could be a unabomber copycat. Like I said (and MM says) plaintiff is a flake. Ah, but defendant isn't looking so good, either. First and foremost, she has trouble answering MM's questions. Then, some of her answers I find hard to believe. She talks about how she's running a small business, and plaintiff was never hired because she didn't go through an interview and drug test. Then there's the fact she paid the lady, in the undelivered check, without questioning the invoice. Sort of acknowledging the debt, but then turns around and unilaterally reduces the amount when she writes the second check (also undelivered). No surprise, defendant has to abide by the amount of the first check.
2. Auto repair kerfuffle: plaintiff went to his regular mechanic for brake work, then had a wreck shortly after picking it up. Now he's blaming the wreck on a bad brake job, and wants mechanic to pay up. But, mechanic says the wreck was caused by plaintiff's tailgating and bad driving (at least that's what intro says his defense is). Ah, we'll see what da'judge says, but seems like one of those times where plaintiff needs expert witness to prove defendant did a crappy job, and defendant has no ideal what caused accident. Once again actual testimony and intro are at odds. Actual defense is that it was a 15 year old vehicle, needed major brake work, and plaintiff didn't want to pay to fix everything - so slap on a bandaid and hope for the best. Weeellll, didn't work out so good, at least according to plaintiff, as he says pedal went to the floor when he stepped on the brake - Fred Flintstone style. Ok, if mechanic dude really felt the brakes were unsafe he surely wrote that on the work order - right? Ah well, like I said in the beginning, no expert testimony, plaintiff can't prove his case. Oh, and after the accident plaintiff let's the supposedly incompetent mechanic complete the work he had recommended before the wreck. Uh, yeh, makes perfect sense, don't it? Silly case, but they got to meet the cast and got a free lunch. Case dismissed.
3. rental kerfuffle: (after listening to short stuff on the street I thought, what haven't we seen yet in new cases? And in walks plaintiff wanting back her deposit/rent. And, my oh my, doesn't she make an entrance - barging in and flinging both doors wide and she marches into the courtroom.) Her case is based on a moldy apartment. Says she put down a deposit and rent, then when she moved in the place smelled damp and musty. Got it tested, and air conditioner and carpet came back moldy, and she can't live there with her asthma. Ok, if true she gets back anything she paid because place is uninhabitable. Or did she just find a better cheaper place closer to work/momma and wants out of a lease? Defendant says when plaintiff complained he brought in his own testing company, and place tested clean. Once testimony starts, plaintiff says place was musty when she looked at it before putting down the deposit and deposit. MM asks the common sense question, if you have asthma and the place smelled musty, why would you put down a deposit and pay rent? Uhhh... good question. Turns out landlord returned the deposit, but kept the month's rent because he took the place of the market when she put down the money - sounds right to me (assuming his tests came back clean, although if it turns out this is just an excuse to break the lease I say she should pay for his testing.) Plaintiff's story falls apart right away. When she complained about the carpet, defendant offered to replace the carpet (up to $1000). Then she gets the test which shows mold in window air contioner. That would have been easily replaced, but she never gave landlord chance, she decides to break lease. And where does she go after breaking the lease... well she owned a house she was selling, so just stayed there since her closing was almost two months away. Hmmm, sounds like she saved a couple months rent and gave herself more time to apartment hunt. Oh, and landlord re-rented the apartment, after losing a month of rent. New tenant has that old moldy carpet and air conditioner and has had no complaints. Sounds awful iffy - but then defendant has come to court without any proof he actually re-tested and place came out clean. Ok, plaintiff sounds like she's trying to get over, but why oh why come to court with nothing "but you flapping gums." Ah ha, he's relying on her own evidence, which questions whether there is mold, and if there is if it's enough mold to mean squat. Besides, even if there is mold, she has testified defendant offered to remediate the problem, and she ignored the offer and broke the lease without giving him a chance. Sure, as MM says, that may have been best for her, but the expense is on her, defendant shouldn't be out money. 

[meowmommy]

On 3/23/2017 at 8:57 AM, Hockeymom said:

Just a personal question I've always had. Why do people / authorities think its a good idea to take kids from unfit parents and hand them over to the grandparents? These grandparents raised the unfit parents. Clearly something was lacking in their parenting skills to have raised such compromised adults.

I see this all time and think, here we go again!

I'm late catching this because I don't come here during rerun weeks, but I just have to say that's very unfair.  My daughter's twin babies are in foster care.  I did everything I could to raise my daughter with a positive role model.   She didn't have everything she wanted, but she had everything she needed, and that's because I worked hard to raise her with positive values.  She was neither abused nor neglected.  She has not turned out quite the way I would have liked, although I love her dearly, and she consistently asks me for advice and then does exactly what she wanted to do in the first place.  At some point adults have to take responsibility for their own lives.  

Some of MM's cases--you can see apples right next to the trees, and some of them you can't.  

[teebax]

30 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I'm late catching this because I don't come here during rerun weeks, but I just have to say that's very unfair.  My daughter's twin babies are in foster care.  I did everything I could to raise my daughter with a positive role model.   She didn't have everything she wanted, but she had everything she needed, and that's because I worked hard to raise her with positive values.  She was neither abused nor neglected.  She has not turned out quite the way I would have liked, although I love her dearly, and she consistently asks me for advice and then does exactly what she wanted to do in the first place.  At some point adults have to take responsibility for their own lives.  

Some of MM's cases--you can see apples right next to the trees, and some of them you can't.  

A lot of us made that point at the time the comment was originally posted. It's easy to take one post you disagree with and comment on it, but that's an unfair characterization of how that thread went, in my opinion.

[AngelaHunter]

I posted this awhile ago. Unfortunately, I posted it on the JJ forum. Duh. I may need to cut back on the wine consumption.

--------------------------------------

In today's brake case: Plaintiff seemed to think that if he screeched loudly enough in his little monkey voice that JM would believe his ridiculous tale: He drove his 15-year old car away from the def. shop and at NO TIME did he need to use his brakes - not on that street, not turning corners and not anywhere -  until he finally reached a red light somewhere and lo and behold, the brakes didn't work and he rear-ended someone. I've always said that if you want to be a liar you need to have at least half a brain. I really hate people like the plaintiff - tiny little scammers who get more and more indignant as their lies are called out. Pay the person you hit yourself, you little creep.

Two ladies and a honey booth: Plaintiff seemed a little ditzy, but def. was obnoxious and dishonest. If plaintiff did nothing for her and didn't work for her on the day in question, why did def. send her a cheque for 210$? She really didn't seem the type to pay for nothing just because plaintiff kept asking her to. "The payroll office was shut down" = "I can't afford to pay you what I owe you."

Plaintiff sounded silly saying she refused to open package from the def, as though she thought it might contain a bomb or a rattlesnake, but she won anyway and got paid the small amount she was seeking.

As for the woman seeking her deposit back for an apartment she didn't move into: I"m sorry, but there is NO "cable guy" (or electrician or plumber, etc)on the planet who is going to walk into your home and say "What's that smell??" unless there's a dead body or a mountain of rotting food there.  No, she has no statement from him. Just take her word for it. I don't know the real reason she decided not to move in (maybe she found another cheaper place) but I'm pretty sure that any dwelling that's gone over with a fine-tooth comb may show traces of mold and in this case it would have been easily remedied.  She changes her mind two days before moving in and the landlord should just eat a month's rent? Don't think so. Hope plaintiff found a hermetically sealed, mold-free dwelling.

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Plaintiff sounded silly saying she refused to open package from the def, as though she thought it might contain a bomb or a rattlesnake, but she won anyway and got paid the small amount she was seeking.

I liked the way Doug suggested people thought she was acting stupidly. That man is so charming he can call them stupid without them realizing what's going on!

[flyingdi]

Harvey Levin, "Would you sue someone for $300?"

C'mon, Harvey, you'd sue your mom for a buck fifty if it would get your name in the papers and on the TV.

[Jamoche]

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I posted this awhile ago. Unfortunately, I posted it on the JJ forum. Duh. I may need to cut back on the wine consumption.

--------------------------------------

In today's brake case: Plaintiff seemed to think that if he screeched loudly enough in his little monkey voice that JM would believe his ridiculous tale: He drove his 15-year old car away from the def. shop and at NO TIME did he need to use his brakes - not on that street, not turning corners and not anywhere -  until he finally reached a red light somewhere and lo and behold, the brakes didn't work and he rear-ended someone.

And that was totally unnecessary gloss on the story, because I had a brake system that worked fine for normal stopping but failed when I had to slam them on - front disc brakes worked fine, rear drum brakes had been hollowed out too much to hold. Got a second mechanic to verify that, so I got out of the ticket that resulted when I hit the truck that stopped suddenly. (Still pissed at that first mechanic - it would've been a minor fender-bender if the truck's bumper hadn't been at my grill's height. That's how I learned that Geico only does liability on 10 year old cars.)

But it sounds like the incident he's ducking blame for wasn't a sudden-braking event.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Jamoche

[SRTouch]

1. bad breakup has exes fighting over credit card debt: little different than the usual battling exes, as this time it's two guys. According to plaintiff's version of the backstory, they came out to their families when they began their relationship. Way plaintiff tells it, defendant's family was close minded and cut him off, disowned him and took everything they'd given him. Well, still according to plaintiff, defendant needed a computer for school since his family kept his, had no credit, so plaintiff bought him one. Problem is, he didn't buy it outright, but opened an Apple store credit account. He says defendant agreed the account was just for the computer, and defendant agreed to make the payments - the plan was to have it paid off in three months. Things start out fine, they stay together for a couple years, and defendant was making the $75 monthly payments (hmm 3x75 wouldn't have paid off a computer, so maybe I have the 3 month payoff wrong, or they just decided to take longer to pay). Problem is, even though account was in plaintiff's name, defendant was the one actually using it and making payments. Turns out there's a reason defendant couldn't open his own account. Now that the relationship has ended, plaintiff is finding out the account was used for more than just a computer, and is now past due and his credit is tanking. (Yep, not only past due, but a balance of over 6 grand.) Sounds bad for defendant, but he has a different story. He says when the computer was purchased he set it up so the payment could be made online from his bank direct to the credit company. He says he paid off the computer as agreed years ago. Both thought the account was long closed. A year after the breakup, lo and behold the plaintiff gets letter from a collection agency demanding the 6 grand. Plaintiff starts going through the charges. Hmmm, lots of cash advances, all kinds of misc crap charged, and some of it has links back to Defendant's family. Course, MM points out plaintiff could and should have made sure the account had been closed way back when defendant first claimed to have paid off the computer. As MM says, it looks suspicious that only the two of them knew the codes and some stuff was delivered to defendant's mom's address (along with the statements). I can't help but remember that plaintiff talked about defendant being disowned. Was there a reconciliation? Could it be that the family is so bitter that they somehow got access to the account and felt justified stealing from plaintiff because he led their precious boy into sin? Ah, further testimony looks like after the breakup he DID reconcile with the family. Not only that, but his answers to MM don't match the timeline. Worse, after plaintiff learned of the balance defendant initially accepted responsibility, but then hurried to file a restraining order to keep plaintiff from contacting him. Oh dear, his story really falls apart as MM attacks his filing a restraining order tactic. He falls back on "it had to be somebody else" even though MM is convinced he was making those charges. MM even reads us some of the restraining order application... judges DO NOT like it when they think someone us abusing the legal system! Watching the litigants as MM launches her tirade - plaintiff is happy to see defendant get lamblasted, while defendant just stands there blank faced - doesn't look angry, embarrassed... nothing. Plaintiff gets a partial win (nothing for the retraining order as he admitted to making harassing and threatening calls). Had to laugh at Doug's variation on the standard " ... papers to sign... ".  To the defendant he says "Thank you very much. You must leave - the door us that way."
2. Mouse problem: landlord actually suing for back rent, but part of the complaint is that when tenant's family moved in they apparently brought along some free range pets. (No, not really pets, but wild mice.) Ok, during the intro bit about the mouse problem I thought new tenant, but then when defendant is introduced we hear he was a LONG time tenant (44 years). Ah, turns out there wasn't a problem until tenant's family from Jamaica arrived and moved in. Just a thought, but I wonder if at least part of the reason for moving in family was that the guy is getting older and needs help. Not that he's old, but he's wearing dark glasses and seemed like he doesn't have good vision. At least in plaintiff's view, the family was nothing but problems - noisy, fights, got a restraining order forces the original tenant out for awhile, and horror of horrors, running the vacuum too early on the weekends. Apparently, this is a multifamily building, landlord and family downstairs and  renters upstairs. Guy really needs to develop a filter on what he says - has no problem running down folks from Jamaica, even after MM says she has a good friend, her daughter's godmother, who is Jamaican, and the way he's talking is a little upsetting. Hey I don't have any Jamaican friends, but I could see what he's spouting causing hard feelings in certain quarters. I think he was trying to be funny, but his jokes were lame. Next kerfuffle has tenants receiving mail and UPS parcels which don't match any names the landlord's were given. Landlord is sending stuff back, and tenants want the stuff but won't tell landlord who it's for. Ah, when Mrs landlord launched an investigation through the post office, mail fraud and fraudulently cashed income tax checks arose. Ok, has nothing to do with Jamaica, but sounds like these folks aren't the best folks to rent to. Just a thought, but are they really family from the Island, or maybe scammers targeting an old man with a rent controlled apartment - who knows, defendant hasn't had a chance to talk yet. When he does get a chance, I'm leaning more towards him being taken advantage of by these folks who moved in. He actually has records going back to '72 when he moved in - though he needs help because he doesn't seem to be able to read them. He may need help now, but seems like he used to be pretty well organized and on the ball. I could be all wrong, but this guy lived there 44 years,  first renting from landlord's aunt, then his mother, and finally with current landlord. I'm thinking after all that time he was a family friend. Then the scammers showed up and moved in. First the new woman gets him kicked out with a protective order, but then he moves back in. Then the new 23yo step son is playing fast and loose with the mail. Landlord's daughter tax refund stolen. He gets kicked out of his long time home. Yeah, like MM asks him, why is he still with this woman and his new step son. Only thing I come up with is that he is alone and needs someone - ah, kind of depressing line of thought there. When MM asks, he says he was happy before, isn't happy in his new living arrangement, and would rather be back where he was - yep downright depressing. No good outcome here. Landlord would have been happy had he stayed, but wanted the new family gone. No question he owes the rent, so he IS going to lose. Perhaps if I'm right and this new family is a bunch of scammers, they'll split when he loses this case, and he can move back where he was happy. In a perfect world, landlord and family appreciate him more and they help out the old guy living alone upstairs. As they case went on I thought the guy not only had vision problems, but maybe a touch of forgetfulness.
3. questionable faux Tiffany lamp: little old lady plaintiff claims she put down a deposit on a lamp. When she went back later to ask more questions about her soon to be fox-antique (reference to recent faux dreadlock case on JJ) the sale person got snotty with her, so she wants the deposit back. Defendant says his policy is always no refunds, so tough luck. Silly case - well silly shopper anyway. She put down a $500 deposit on a $900 lamp, then decided $900 was too much money for a lamp, so she goes back to ask questions. To be nice, as a proprietor I'd give her back something - how much would depend on how long it was on display, whether it was actually taken off display, and how long between the shopper's visits - oh, and of course whether this store policy is written on the deposit receipt or posted somewhere where customers see it. I'd still question nothing back on a $500 deposit - a 15-20% restocking fee sounds a lot better (and like I said, had it been me I probably would have given the money back.) Ah, short case. Policy is clearly stated, NO REFUNDS, lady is out of luck. Defendant pretty nice about it all - says lamp is still there and she can use the deposit on the lamp or towards anything else, just no cash refund. Again, Doug sums up the fallacy of plaintiff's case during the hallterview. Plaintiff admitted she knew it wasn't an actual Tiffany, so why did she think there would be written providence on a reproduction fake Tiffany lamp?

Edited April 13, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad breakup has exes fighting over credit card debt:

Def's mommy should have spanked him more often. He's such a liar and not even a good one. "Yes, I had the CC statements sent to my mommy's house because... I don't know". Someone else used it. Blame them!  Wasn't me!" The fact that "Lipozene" was charged should be - IMO - enough to convict him. He just wanted to get rid of that belly fat. Sorry it didn't work (and if you believed it would I don't think you should be in college). You're still overly flabby for such a young guy. Plaintiff made me dizzy with how fast and much he could talk. Oh, and what kind of computer to be used for school work costs 2300$?? I bought a new computer about a year ago and it was 750$. I hope plaintiff learned not to be so idiotic with giving out personal information. Yeah, I know he was in love and smitten and  all that. I've been in love but not once did my boyfriends ask for my credit card and I wouldn't have handed it over even if they had.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

questionable faux Tiffany lamp: little old lady plaintiff claims she put down a deposit on a lamp.

She's a tour guide? Whatever. Yeah, I always need to know the provenance on any article I purchase. Doesn't matter if I love it enough to put down a 500$ deposit. If I think about it later and decide I don't know enough about its history, gimme my money back. I kind of have a feeling that she went home and hubby said no way would they spend that much on a lamp.  Once again, a case makes me so happy I never had to deal with the nutty public. This woman annoyed the hell out of me.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Mouse problem:

I felt really bad for Mr.Rose. He's lived quietly in plaintiff's house for 44 years, but his savage wife and her savage criminal son caused him no end of problems, resulting in his eviction. Prissy plaintiff was an asshole to charge Mr. Rose late fees of 25$/month and wanting 25$/DAY.  I"m horrible at math, but I figure Mr. Rose has paid around 250,000$ for all those years, yet asshole plaintiff wants yet more? Screw you, you little weasel.

[Hockeymom]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I felt really bad for Mr.Rose. He's lived quietly in plaintiff's house for 44 years, but his savage wife and her savage criminal son caused him no end of problems, resulting in his eviction. Prissy plaintiff was an asshole to charge Mr. Rose late fees of 25$/month and wanting 25$/DAY.  I"m horrible at math, but I figure Mr. Rose has paid around 250,000$ for all those years, yet asshole plaintiff wants yet more? Screw you, you little weasel.

Yes!

That man lived there for 44 years with no problems. The plaintiff was terrible (in my opinion). He was upset that they woke up early! They walked across the floor!! They made noise! They lived in the space they paid for! The horror of it!

Being a landlord has perks and drawbacks. Money is a perk. Hearing your tenants walk to the bathroom at 5 in the morning is a drawback. You don't get to charge them rent, and then send a note telling them that in America people wake up later on Saturday and Sunday. You don't get to dictate when your tenants get out of bed. 

I'm sure the new wife and stepson were a problem, but give the guy some slack. I really don't think he was inviting mice in for tea. 

Plaintiff was so full of himself that he didn't even realize JM was mocking him. When she said "Why not charge by the minute" in reference to the late fees, he actually thought about it for a second!!! The plaintiff really seemed to have it in for this guy. I would think being a good tenant for 44 years would have earned Mr. Rose some goodwill.

[AngelaHunter]

19 minutes ago, Hockeymom said:

Plaintiff was so full of himself that he didn't even realize JM was mocking him. When she said "Why not charge by the minute" in reference to the late fees, he actually thought about it for a second!!!

I know! He was such a pompous little shit. You know he just kicked out Mr.Rose (who seemed to getting abuse from all sides) so he could jack the rent up.

 

20 minutes ago, Hockeymom said:

Hearing your tenants walk to the bathroom at 5 in the morning is a drawback. You don't get to charge them rent, and then send a note telling them that in America people wake up later on Saturday and Sunday

I really hope that whatever tenants he gets from now on don't pay their rent, have wild parties all night and the police there every weekend. Then he'll have something to really squawk and whine about.

[SRTouch]

1. 'Nother same sex breakup kerfuffle - girl edition: unlike the guys yesterday, the women in this case showed some class, well except for the big fight at the end when they fought dirty. I could see being friends with either of them - but those guys yesterday... not a chance. Today's couple were together for 8 years, even bought a house together. Title was in both names, and when they broke up they ended up sharing the house -they owed more then they could get selling it. Sharing the house actually worked for a couple years, but then things fall apart when they see each other moving on with their lives and starting to date others. Eventually, defendant has a gf spending enough time at the jointly owed house that plaintiff figures she should start paying rent. Unsaid is that at least the defendant is living pretty close to the edge financially - pawning stuff to pay her share of the bills. So, not unreasonable in my view for the new gf to pony up her share towards the bills - if as plaintiff says she was essentially a third housemate. Things go downhill fast, and they decide it's time to sell the house. Now is when things get dirty, to the point where, when defendant goes out, the plaintiff calls in her posse, rents a truck, and cleans out all the furniture while defendant is out for the evening. Yeah, they got pretty vindictive and more than a little petty, but like I said I could like either one. No beating around the bush, when MM asks they admit their misdeeds - the closest to trying to avoid responsibilities was defendant saying no "she" didn't disconnect the cable modem - then when pressed admits she knows who did - her new gf. (Now that's dirty - taking away the internet.) Anyway, the two otherwise likeable women got to the point where they couldn't sit down and work through their issues, and they ended up in need of arbitration. End result is the silly claims are tossed, and defendant has to pay what she admits to owing.
2. shady used car deal: in the intro I gathered plaintiff bought a used car from a friend of his father, but nooo, turns out defendant is a used car dealer who has sold cars to dad in the past. No clean hands in this case, both sides have their little scams going. Right from the get-go, where they're both playing with the purchase price. Plaintiff says he paid big bucks for the junker that only starts when it feels like it (apparently, with this car you don't turn the key in Park - no you have turn spit to the right, turn around three times to the left, get in, put it in neutral, stick out your tongue, turn the key... and maybe it will start) - then he passes up a bill of sale saying he paid $400... ah, trying to cheat on taxes, says MM. Defendant is worse in my book, because you just know he plays this game with other customers - and don't you just hate when someone wants to tell you how honest they are? Seems their State has strong consumer protection laws. When you buy a clunker you have 7 days to get it inspected - if it fails you can get your money back. The defendant dealer sleazy dude knows a loop hole, though. If the consumer pays less than $700 the law figures he knows he is buying a junker, so no money back guarentee. So sleaze ball charges big bucks, but says the purchase price was $400 and the rest is to pay for repairs. Just to show why strong consumer protection laws doesn't work for everyone, instead of getting the car inspection within the 7 days (which would have meant getting his money back if it failed) idjit tows the heap back to dealer and doesn't get the inspection. (Oh, another part of the scam both sides seem to acknowledge the heap would have failed the inspection.) Nope, no clean hands here, and both litigants get on the judge's bad side. Defendant for interrupting and calling plaintiff a liar, and plaintiff for trying to pass off a convoluted, incredibly STUPID, BS story. Plaintiff loses either way: if he paid the big bucks, he loses because he never got the inspection; or if the bill of sale is right he only paid $400 and the lemon law doesn't apply. In the end MM says the sale is final, plaintiff has to finish paying the outstanding repair bill, and has 7 days to pick up the car. I figure this case is not closed. According to defendant there's still a couple things to repair (he stopped work when kerfuffle about wanting to undo the deal came up), but plaintiff leaves saying he us going to pick up the car that day. Litigants continue up to act like a$$holes, both interrupting MM as she rules to ask questions - sometimes I think she needs to adopt JJ's "get up and start walking as she calls "WE ARE DONE" over the shoulder move." 
3. Backing out of a rental - wants back deposit:  Plaintiff puts down a deposit on a basement apartment after viewing it, then backs out when she realizes place was sorely lacking windows and smoke detectors. Should be open and shut case. Depending on jurisdiction, is a Certificate of Occupancy required. Even if not, can a renter back out if an apartment does not meet minimum safety codes for egress. Having cashed the check is not a legal defense for keeping the deposit if you can't legally collect rent. OTOH if the place IS legal, defendant has every right to keep the deposit if like she claims she turned away other potential renters - oh except for the fact it was less than 12 hours between the time deposit was made and plaintiff backed out and asked for money back. Of course, there's more to the story on both sides. Sort of sounds like the smoke detector/egress windows is a convenient excuse - that's something her mom spotted when she saw pictures - what she spent time talking about was possible conflict between her dog and the pit bulls in the yard. Nope, what really does in the defendant is the timing - we don't even need to consider safety and Certificate. Plaintiff viewed and put down the deposit in October with a move in date of mid December. Deposit check placed in greedy defendant's hands (well actually her mom's hands) at 630pm, and plaintiff backed out by text while at work at 530am next morning... and check already cashed. Then defendant said she'd return the money when current tenants left and the place was rented - but, hey, current tenants won't cooperate, won't let her show the place, and in fact are still there but not paying rent. Sooo... deposit was made with a availability date of Dec 15, and to this date defendant the apartment is still unavailable. Falls under the category of "not plaintiff's problem". Defendant tries to blame plaintiff for the uncooperative current tenant's, which goes nowhere with MM. She has to return the deposit - and if description was correct probably shouldn't be collecting rent from anyone for a potential deathtrap.

Edited April 13, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 1:00 PM, flyingdi said:

C'mon, Harvey, you'd sue your mom for a buck fifty if it would get your name in the papers and on the TV.

There's little to which he would not stoop.

[Jamoche]

7 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I know! He was such a pompous little shit. You know he just kicked out Mr.Rose (who seemed to getting abuse from all sides) so he could jack the rent up.

Was that a rent controlled city? I've got a friend in San Francisco (combining the worst of rent control with rapidly climbing rents) whose landlord will always take the newer tenant's word over the older one, because guess who pays more rent? At one point the complaint from downstairs was that her geriatric cat "walked too loudly".

[teebax]

These new cases have been boring to me. After such a long break i expected more! 

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Plaintiff says he paid big bucks for the junker that only starts when it feels like it (apparently, with this car you don't turn the key in Park - no you have turn spit to the right, turn around three times to the left, get in, put it in neutral, stick out your tongue, turn the key... and maybe it will start)

Haha! Something like that. Neither litigant was very honest, but I was enamored with the way the plaintiff could speak English. It's such a rarity here that I could even overlook armed robbery, let alone a little tax cheating, fibbing and his "Oh, poor innocent me! I didn't know anything!" act. He used the word "plethora" and I was in love.  I need to save the episode for times when I'm dizzy and depressed after the usual plethora of mangled words and horrific grammar that is our normal fare here.  Defendant was an obnoxious, slippery shyster who did nothing to change any opinions of used car salesmen.

[califred]

I was watching at the nail Salon yesterday and missed plethora! It's one of my favorite words 

[bref]

Thank God he shaved and/or washed his face. 

[wallysmommy]

I can't believe there hasn't been a comment yet about the horrid Sec 8 renter who paid a grand total of $0 for the first few year or so, then $50 a month, then wanted her deposit back.  This is after she left her trash all over the place for the semi-clueless landlord to clean up.  My cynical side kicked in when I heard about her portion of the rent.  She must be playing a pretty awesome game with Sec 8 to only pay $50 a month as her portion of the rent.  

[AZChristian]

51 minutes ago, wallysmommy said:

I can't believe there hasn't been a comment yet about the horrid Sec 8 renter who paid a grand total of $0 for the first few year or so, then $50 a month, then wanted her deposit back.  This is after she left her trash all over the place for the semi-clueless landlord to clean up.  My cynical side kicked in when I heard about her portion of the rent.  She must be playing a pretty awesome game with Sec 8 to only pay $50 a month as her portion of the rent.  

And I was just quietly wondering how much she paid for her hairdo.  More than a month's rent, obviously.

[DoctorK]

Quote

the horrid Sec 8 renter

She was a complete mess. I think she was so stupid that she actually thought that she had won - after the verdict she said something like "Gimme me my money" in a happy sing song chant to the defendant, and seemed to still think that in the hallterview. Interesting that the defendant failed to notify her about not returning the security deposit so the amount to be returned was doubled, but after JM saw all of the garbage and damage, she decided nothing needed to be returned because the doubled security deposit to be returned was still about equal to the damage she had done. As a side issue, who actually paid the security deposit? I am pretty sure that she didn't.

[wallysmommy]

On a ranking scale of 1-100 of worst jobs, with #1 being worst, Sec 8 case worker has to be in the top 3 if she is any indication of what you deal with every day.  

[teebax]

21 hours ago, AZChristian said:

And I was just quietly wondering how much she paid for her hairdo.  More than a month's rent, obviously.

Why can't she get her hair done before going on TV? 

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, DoctorK said:

after JM saw all of the garbage and damage, she decided nothing needed to be returned because the doubled security deposit to be returned was still about equal to the damage she had done.

I think JM does everything in her power not to give yet more handouts and free money (other peoples' money) to these entitled parasites with bad attitudes. This woman could afford elaborate and no doubt expensive creations to put on her head and appeared to be quite able-bodied, so why does she pay either nothing or 50$ a month for rent? I don't get it and these cases really irk me.

 

15 hours ago, DoctorK said:

after the verdict she said something like "Gimme me my money" in a happy sing song chant to the defendant, and seemed to still think that in the hallterview.

Did Doug clear up that issue for her? I couldn't take one more second of her and her cleavage so skipped the hall.

[wallysmommy]

It wasn't the cleavage -- it was the belly roll that I could't take.  I do my best to camouflage my roll from eating too many oyster po-boys and mac and cheese.  If I ever go on TPC or JJ you can bet your last dollar I will be awesomely Spanx'd up so much that I can't breathe.  Do these people have a mirror?

[momtoall]

23 hours ago, AZChristian said:

And I was just quietly wondering how much she paid for her hairdo.  More than a month's rent, obviously.

Some people (myself inluded) have friends and/or relatives who can do those hairstyles.  She didn't  necessarily pay much or anything to get her hair done for her TV appearance.

Edited April 16, 2017 by momtoall
Spelling

[aemom]

On 4/12/2017 at 5:34 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, and what kind of computer to be used for school work costs 2300$?? I bought a new computer about a year ago and it was 750$.

Well it depends.  When my son started public high school, he was entering a program where they do the bulk of their work on computers.  We were obliged to purchase a Mac which set me back about $2600 CAD (never mind the case, mouse, and mouse pad on top of that).  So perhaps there were stipulations on the type of computer.

The defendant was a first class asshole and I'm glad JM threw the book at him. 

[AngelaHunter]

I'm obsolete. I come from a time in the misty past when the idea of giving 12-year old children 600$ toys to carry around in their pockets was unthinkable. I got my second cell phone last year and it cost me 125$. I cannot adjust to the New World. JM got really peeved when 11-year old defendant continued to lie to her face, while smirking - a smirk which continued in the hall. Kid didn't give a shit that her mother was dragged into court because of her. Plaintiff's mom gave up her own phone so her child wouldn't have to go to school without a constant communication device. Kid needs to get off the phone. She's the first 12-year old I've seen who had bags and circles under her eyes. Personally, I'd be more worried about teaching my kid to say "We was" then about her lack of an expensive status symbol, but what do I know?

"You hit my 22 year old truck!" Plaintiff was a hoot. He goes to Maaco and they, as requested, catalogue every ding on his ancient truck and because they said the roof was dented, he feels def should be responsible for that too, to the tune of 4K for his 1500$ beater. Def was extemely nervous and has high blood pressure. That may have something to do with the fact that her husband is a tiny little dictator and bully who was - even on TV - motioning her to shut up, and that she is morbidly obese. Whichever, I felt very sorry for her. She probably feels trapped.  Def's wife said she hit plaintiff's truck but def argues that some guy he talked to from Geico says the accident couldn't have happened that way. Sigh. Anyway, I always enjoy hearing JM speaking Spanish.

Then we had another landlord who had no idea that, as a landlord, he needed certificates of "stability" and of "good housekeeping." I had an image of all tenants being handed a copy of the magazine upon signing a lease.  At first I thought def. was an obnoxious jerk, with the annoying finger-drumming and tinted glasses. Maybe he is, but he was right. He's a leasing agent. Why should he have to do all the work the landlord is supposed to just because said landlord claims ignorance of any and all leasing laws, right down to how the words are pronounced?

[AlleC17]

I felt bad for the wife in the truck accident case:  her testimony stated that she hit the truck, then when asked in the hallway she said 'no'...under the gaze of her husband, who I think was going to hit her for not lying while under oath.  He just gave off that vibe to me.  Yuck.

[SRTouch]

Back to recaps - have 4 unwatched on the DVR but here's today's:

1. rust bucket repair:  plaintiff found new body shop which gave her a real deal on fixing up her rusty old car. Defendant promised quick turn around, but then his new shop started getting busy, so he backed out of the great deal and never finished the car. Things between the two started out great, but turned nasty when plaintiff got tired of waiting and went on face book and gave a bad review.  First bad review didn't even name the shop, just sort of a rant about how long it was taking and that she was thinking about suing. Shop owner read the review, got hot under the collar, and told plaintiff he was going to slap a lien on the car if it wasn't out of his shop in 30 minutes - ah great customer service relations for a brand new business! She goes to get her rust bucket (undriveable and in pieces) with sheriff deputies and has it towed to a second shop. Sooo, now she goes back on FB and gives a bad review, naming names, which results in defendant's defamation countersuit. Now she wants more than the thing is worth in her suit, because of the sentimental value and fact so few of this particular car was made - and of course the second shop is charging full price, so the work actually cost more than the thing is worth.  Ok, I was cleaning the rat cage, and not watching, but pretty obvious she going to win, but can't collect more than the car is worth. She put down a deposit of $750, so no question she gets that back. Then the defendant kept the car 4 months for a job he said would take 2 weeks, so a little rough justice has MM tacking on $750 for the extra time. For some odd reason, defendant gets nothing for her defamatory review
2. Condo owner versus association: personally, I hate HOA's, condo boards, or in my case trailer park rules and regulations - but OTOH recognize sometimes the rules make sense when you have so many households crammed into a small space. In this case, we're talking BIG condo community with an elected board of 7 members. Plaintiff is up in arms because the board decides to enforce the no window air conditioner rule. (Seems his central air unit is caput, so for two years he's had a window unit.) When the board tells him he's breaking the rules, he ends up spending the big bucks for new central air. But wait, he walks around and notices lots and lots of people ignoring the rule, so he cries discrimination and demands the board reimburse the money he spent to comply with the rule. (Seems he's a complainer with long tine feud with neighbors involving multiple police calls.) Ah, well, MM doesn't much like the ruling, or the fact the board is letting some folks get by with a doctor's note, but decides plaintiff had other options, so case us tossed.
3. 2nd bite of the apple: 'nother case which should have never been filed. Plaintiff is father of adult daughter/single mom and is suing daughter's landlord. From the little I heard, daddy must be footing the bills, as daughter doesn't even know what the rent is/was. Not sure where baby daddy is. Anyway, case is waste of time, as a housing court judge already heard the case and ruled. Once a judge rules, you can appeal the ruling to a higher court, but court TV is not a higher court. We get 15 minutes of listening to stories of backed up sewage, then a quick "second bite" dismissal. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

rust bucket repair: 

I'm sorry plaintiff, but your car is not rotting to pieces because it was in Minnesota. I live in a place with a climate like that and the bottoms of my cars haven't dropped out yet. It's rotting because it's  a 14 year old POS Monte Carlo that you were ridiculous/stupid enough to shower 15,000$ on. I bet the person who unloaded it on her must have been jumping for joy that he/she found someone dumb enough to pay 6K for it. Defendant couldn't even keep his mouth empty for the duration of this case and had to keep chewing on... something, and frankly, I'd be very skeptical of his ability to do major body work on any car without keeling over.  

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Condo owner versus association: personally, I hate HOA's, condo boards, or in my case trailer park rules and regulations

This is why I would never live in a condo. The thought of spending 200K (or whatever) to buy my own home and then have someone tell me I can't have a certain colour of blinds or an a/c just doesn't appeal. I'd rather live in a trailer and do as I please. That being said, plaintiff (who likes to have conflicts and call the police) seems to have much too much time on his hands. If he wants no rules at all, he needs to buy a different kind of dwelling. JM basically tells him to kwitcherbitchin' and go home.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

2nd bite of the apple: 'nother case which should have never been filed.

Call me old-fashioned, but I can't help thinking that a grown women, old enough to decide to become a parent, is old enough to know at least how much her rent is, even if Daddy is paying it, but she had absolutely no idea. Hey, maybe I wouldn't bother learning what my financial obligations are if someone else was picking up the tab!  I understand why def. got out of the rental business. He had Daddy phoning him with threats because his baby girl wasn't living in a place that befits her. You need to pay more, Dad, for loftier dwellings.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Not sure where baby daddy is.

I guess you missed the part where we learned he is in jail. Baby girl doesn't seem to make the best choices, but Daddy feels she can do no wrong. You'll be paying for her screw-ups for the rest of your life, Pop.  

[Jamoche]

When she first described the car I thought "OK, someone with a real classic car, good thing she's not on Judge Judy" because I have an actual classic Miata in very good condition and the idea that JJ would award the minimum KBB value is why I'd avoid her for a car case.

But then she showed the pictures. Sweetheart, that may have been a limited edition, but it's also beyond hope. 

[babs j.]

I live in a condo and there aren't very many rules - just basic good manners and common sense.  There are only 19 buildings and 72 units - 16 4 units, 2 3 units, and 1 2 units.  Whatever you do to the inside of your place is fine - the outside belongs to the Association - although there are no rules about what you can plant in the front or behind your unit.  I downsized from a three-story (full basement and two floors) and did not want to have to deal with a yard anymore.

[SRTouch]

Forgettable cases today

1. no title car sale: crazy case where foolish plaintiff bought a junker for $600, couldn't register it, so says she stored it and now wants over 4 grand in storage charges and miscellaneous BS  (pain and suffering - really?) Not only is the case silly, but WTH is up with the woody woodpecker colored hair and red booties - I actually backed up the video to see if she had stolen Santa's boots before realizing Santa's are black. Something she did right, according to her story, was to go to the DMV with defendant to do the paperwork when she bought the heap - maybe the only smart thing she did in the whole transaction. Why she kept possession when DMV told them there was a Lein on the title is beyond me. Really, though, her story is falling apart as she tells it. In the intro we hear that it would have cost a couple hundred to clear the title, then it jumps in cost a couple times, and now she tells us title was going to cost $800 - really must have wanted that $600 pile of rust if she didn't just give him back the keys right there at the DMV counter. Everybody agrees defendant offered to undo the deal, but then somebody goes MIA (they just exchange accusations the other party was hiding out when it was time to undo the deal). I can see defendant hiding because he already spent the money, but why would plaintiff go into hiding when she surely wanted the deal undone - but then who does what some if these nut cases are thinking, or if they think at all? SIDE NOTE: to be fair after poking fun at plaintiff's appearance, this defendant has one of the dumbest, blank faced expressions on his mouth breathing face as she's telling her story. Between all three of these folks, plaintiff and hubby and defendant,  if you combine all their little bricks they're still a few short of a load, not enough marbles for one head, etc. Another case where I have to wonder how the judge's on these shows don't all end up going postal on litigants and become a little more understanding of some of JJ's outbursts. Anywho, I check the time, find out we still have 15 minutes of these two and almost FF - but no, I want to hear why plaintiff put this thing in storage and thinks she deserves all these thousands of bucks for this clunker. Hey, she was never the registered owner. Why not abandon the thing at the local car precinct and let it be impounded if she can't track down the defendant and sue for the money she gave him? Nah, she claims she was paying "Charles" $125 a week to store this $600 car - no proof or anything, just a typed statement from Charles and a phone number where MM can call Charles for verification. Ah, part of the pain and suffering is she lost her Section 8... huh, why would that be defendant's fault? MM tries to figure that bit out, but doesn't make much sense of this no evidence nonsensical suit. We do learn that plaintiff really didn't want to undo the deal, and eventually did get it in her name after a couple months. Hmm, did they say the lein on the title expired? Anyway, she did get the thing registered in Jan after buying it in Oct, and MM gives her a couple hundred bucks for the couple months it took to register it - says it's for being unable to drive it those months, but I bet she was driving it (uninsured and unregistered, of course).
2. computer woes: friend spills a drink on plaintiff's 'puter, and she says that caused her to fail her SAT because she couldn't look up answers on the computer during the test. Huh, you can get to use computers during the SAT nowadays? Geez, times are a'changing! Nope, once again intro is misleading, testimony is it was an exam - not the SAT - so that makes it more believable. Not sure if she's really suing for the ruined computer or because the friend blocked her on social media. Anyway, her story is she was at bf's frat studying, of course, while the frat boys were partying - no quiet library at this school, I guess. (Bf turns out to be frat pres, while defendant was vice pres.) Course the mama in MM has her checking ages of the partyers - and of course only one of the three students who were there and in court are old enough to drink. I'm about ready to toss the case because plaintiff should have taken better care of her property. Well, maybe make defendant pay a portion, after all he did abuse alcohol and spill beer. Oh no, plaintiff's story is sounding worse and worse for her case. She wasn't studying, she was just "hanging" with bf while the party was going on. Her 'puter was closed on the ground. She was given a drink - of course she just set it down, no doubt because she's underage. Defendant didn't spill just one drink, oh no, she says he spilled several. That's where she lost me, one drink maybe he pays, but according to her testimony dude was drunk as a skunk, spilled several drinks, and yet she left her $1600 computer on the floor in the impact zone. Dude may have a moral obligation to chip in, as I would argue does the frat house or at least the third member of the get together, the bf, but majority of the blames fall on plaintiff, who claims she was the sober one. Ok, defendant's turn to make a fool of himself on national tv. Oh, no, he says, he never offered the two drinks (he's the 21 yo, the other two are underage). Nah, they were drinking bf's roommate's beers, he had maybe 1 beer. Well, yeah, he was a little tipsy, cause he was also drinking mixed drinks. No telling who's drink was spilled on the 'puter, could have been any of their's as they all had partial drinks and beer bottles sitting around (wonder if she was the only one with a final the next day - maybe the party was because everyone else had finished exams). Really question whether the computer is why the girl failed her exam, but then she's suing for the damage, not the back story of a failed test. Hopefully these three are not representative of the best and brightest kids in college - wow, bf comes across as just plain dumb, defendant is a weasel Eddie Haskell type, and plaintiff a snowflake looking for someone to blame. This is almost as depressing as a section 8 scammer case, just in a different way. MM has let the kids make fools of themselves long enough, and wants proof of damage. Song and dance while plaintiff tries to convince judge to award money for new computer, then more dodging when asked if she was partially at fault. Uh, yeah, pretty much as expected, MM devalues the 3yo Mac and rules they share liability.
3. leaky upstairs neighbor: plaintiff wants upstairs neighbor to pay for water damage - says multiple leaks have caused $955.33 worth of damage and wants defendant to pay up. Defendant agrees there's a leak somewhere in the building, but says there are no visible leaks in his apartment, so responsibility falls on building management, not him. So, instead of bringing in someone to find and fix the leak, plaintiff has repaired his ceiling several times since 2014? Just from looking at the pictures, I figure a bathtub leak, but these folks are trying to assign blame without actually finding the leak. Hey, next time dude repairs the ceiling in the bathroom, how 'bout looking up and seeing if he can spot the problem instead of covering it up. Apparently, after one of the earlier leaks, defendant did check - the current ceiling is a drop ceiling about 3 inches lower than then original plaster ceiling, so the plumbing is not visible from below. Still, that plaster will be covered with the repairs, so no reason not to cut it away and see if a leak is visible. Seems obvious to me that plaintiff should determine the actual cause, then sue, not the other way around. His excuse is that the superintendent came, looked at the damage, and placed blame on upstairs neighbor. Course as MM said, the inspection by the super was self serving. Yeah, could be dude taking a shower and letting water splash on tile, could be bad drain, toilet seal, pipe in wall, who knows the cause without an inspection. Dude needs an independant inspection, so this case is premature at best, and may be against the wrong defendant. Case dismissed. MM kept saying hire a plumber, but at least one of the previous leaks was blamed on the roof. So, I say get a general contractor involved. It may not be a pipe or drain, it may be a bad roof

Edited April 20, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

WTH is up with the woody woodpecker colored hair and red booties

Couldn't watch today - had company for dinner. Thank goodness for the gift of DVR! Can't wait to see Woody!

[DoctorK]

Quote

leaky upstairs neighbor

I don't think the plaintiff was a bad guy but he didn't seem to be able to understand what JM was telling him - he needs to spend some bucks to get a plumber to identify the source of the problem then go after the HOA or the defendant, depending on what the plumber finds. Even in the hallterview he still didn't get it, don't know if it was a language problem or he was just dense.

[SRTouch]

skipped first case - toy poodle versus boxer and pit/boxer mix: heard enough while in kitchen getting coffee to visualize attack - to much really. Lady walking her little dog - on leash - down public street. Two unattended dogs charge out of their garage, attack, bite lady and injure poodle enough so it later dies after reaching emergency vet. Attacking dog's owner in court complaining attack caused by yappy little dog, says she already paid big fine from animal control, and animal control put her dog down (later I I watch enough to find that part is bull - her dog was quarantined. She probably just signed over the dog rather than paying the fees, but her dog was not adopted and evidently put down when it's time ran out.) She doesn't think she should be on hook for anything else, after all it was all the little dog's owner's fault for walking her dog in public. arghh, only listened long enough it get coffee and find remote and couldn't FF fast enough to get despicable clueless dog owner out of my head. Guess I'm just a softy, since I still get a little teary eyed thinking about critters I lost years ago. This lady (defendant, not plaintiff who was bitten trying to fight two large dogs off her little dog) did nothing to fight for her dog, or even check to see if it was adopted while on death row.

And, as if this case isn't enough, previews during the commercial break is about an upcoming dog attack case.

1. dodge caravan's a lemon! plaintiff bought an old dodge, and then the tyranny blew. Now he wants back more than thing was worth (uh, yeah, gimme 5 grand because this junker I bought for $900 quit.)  Course he bought the thing without getting it inspected. Actually bought a different junker, but it breaks down same day he bought it. Gets it towed back to seller's mechanic. Seller refuses to give back the $900, but has this Caravan that is actually running. So, he takes the Caravan (again, no inspection) and at least it gets him home to Ft Lauderdale from Miami. So, has the junker van for awhile, but takes it back when he notices it leaking transmission fluid. Ace mechanic dude "fixes" the leak - still leaks, but says it's too big a job and would cost too much to fix - and no you can't get back your $900. Altogether, plaintiff makes a half dozen round trips from Lauderdale to Miami trying to get thing taken care of or get his money back - riding a scooter (like a moped he says). The scooter gets a laugh as he's a tall dude and MM asks what road he was driving on - wants to picture an 8 foot dude on a scooter (not really THAT tall). Dude has lots of texts back and forth, and even went to the cops and has a police report, trying to undo the sale. Ok, sounds bad, but unless you're in one of those places with strong lemon laws, "As Is" means no warranty, buyer beware, yada yada - check the clunker before forking over the money, and a $900 car often breaks down frequently - ride your scooter, dude and save enough to get a $1500 junker. Actually, defendant's story has him going above and beyond, sending a tow truck and making repairs he probably didn't have to - well maybe a small mechanic shop that sells the occasional junker the rules are stricter, but definitely not had it been a private sale. Nope, MM tells tall dude, "As Is" means once you hand over the money repairs are on you. Littttlle bit of back and forth talking, talking over each other, interrupting etc. but case is over. 
2. tenant wants her security back: this is a quick case less than 15 minutes on the clock when we come back from commercial break. WAY different version of events. Plaintiff's version of intro has her wanting her deposit because she was paying her friend the rent, he was pocketing the money and not paying the landlord, resulting in her being evicted. Defendant's intro says he kept deposit 'cause she split with no notice and stuck him with the rent until he found a new sub-leasee. Ah, simple case, liar liar loses. Plaintiff tells her story, and while she's looking for the eviction notice we hear from defendant. Hmmm, these two can't even agree on how long they've known each other. She says they met in 2010, he says they've been great friends for 8 or 9 years. She may be wrong, but I'm getting waves of scam artist con man vibes from defendant. Wow he really wants to talk "I'm going to explain, judge", but MM says she doesn't have time for his LONG version, so "why was this eviction notice on the door if he was paying rent?" Oh boy, dude is interrupting and trying to talk over MM to explain away the eviction notice and court papers which show he was 6 grand in the hole (2 months BEFORE the eviction) and MM is getting louder and louder as she gets wound up and about to pounce. Yep, they both yelling, dude even pointing his finger at her as he insists he paid despite the evidence (no, he has no evidence to show, while plaintiff has the texts, eviction notice, court papers, etc). As we go to final commercial he's shaking his finger saying "no, judge, let me tell you what really happened!" As announcer dude says "I don't think he's really going to tell us what happened." Ah, best case of the day - strictly as comic relief since case is rather pointless. Must be the litigants' accents that made it more entertaining than dumb tall dude "As Is" case - somehow even that BS he was spouting through his gold teeth sounded classy with the accent. Quite the show there at the end, he's spouting his BS, we see MM holding up the eviction notice while he yaps away with a half smile on her face waiting to rule, and cut over and see plaintiff standing with her head down and hand up wanting to say something. Ah lady, put your hand down and accept the win, time's up anyway and I want to hear what Doug is going to say. Hallterview is a bust, though, as I couldn't make heads or tails of scammer dude's doubletalk - just like in courtroom, he was so in love with sound of his own voice he's shouting and Doug barely gets a word in. Finally Doug just laughs and sends him on his way so plaintiff can come out. She doesn't say much - no she won'the be friends with loud dude, but if he says something she'll be polite and answer back - guess that's better than saying she'll knock him on his ass - cause she looks big enough to get the job done.

Edited April 21, 2017 by SRTouch
Added more comments about dog case

[patty1h]

I'm in love with the defendents name in todays dog case:  Subitary Beekoo.   If that was my name,  I would sing it.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

dodge caravan's a lemon! plaintiff bought an old dodge,

God. Did the idiotic plantiff make a special trip to his barber prior to this case and say, "Gimme a class-A douchebag hairdo."? Everyone sent "texes"! Texes and texes! And I thought yesterday's case, where plaintiff wanted 5K for the mess surrounding her 900$ beater was bad.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant wants her security back: this is a quick case less than 15 minutes on the clock when we come back from commercial break.

That was 15 minutes? Felt like 15 hours to me. I couldn't take the def's screeching and ranting about... something, and had to turn it off. I don't even care who won but I have a feeling it wasn't him. But, oh - that jacket! Dazzled me, it did.

 

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 3:02 PM, SRTouch said:

leaky upstairs neighbor: plaintiff wants upstairs neighbor to pay for water damage

Just saw this. Here I thought Douchebag Hairdo with 600$ POS car was bad. (It just keeps getting worse). He looked brilliant compared with this plaintiff. Honestly, have we ever seen anyone as dumb and thick? Yes, my ceiling collapsed. It does it every year, all the time! I don't know know why. Duh.

JM: "Did you call a plumber?"

Plaintiff: *Crickets* Blank stare.

JM: "You need to call a plumber."

Blank stare.

In the hall with Doug - "This judgement wasn't fair."

Doug: "You need to call a plumber, get it fixed and get evidence."

Plaintiff: *crickets* Blank stare. "This judgement wasn't fair."

Doug (paraphrased): "Get out!"

[EtheltoTillie]

On 3/28/2017 at 7:01 PM, Jamoche said:

The plaintiff: a small, sad, and not so bright elderly black man who met the amazing Gary (AKA "Mr Celine the Dream". I am not kidding) in jail, signed a power of attorney to let Gary's common-law wife sign a check to get $3K bail for Gary. Gary's in jail but he sends a recording. Mrs Gary has the worst memory in history, or is the worst liar in history. She's constantly looking this way and that, the way people do when they're dredging their memory, but trawl as she might nothing comes up. She doesn't remember signing the check. She doesn't remember whether she got the $3K back. Gary's just been in jail so many times. Oh, and Mrs Gary met Gary just outside the jail. She does remember that much.

Should be open-and-shut - she wrote "bail" on the check she doesn't remember signing - but there's a detour into a hip-hop Monopoly game that Gary "did some legal work on" for the plaintiff while they were in jail. JM: "Is he a lawyer?" Of course not.

The audience is cracking up behind her. Bet if they could see her face they'd have an even harder time keeping straight faces, because she's all furrowed-brow frowning away like she can't understand why there's any doubt about her story, which persists into the halterview.

This was one of my favorites on first run. 

[EtheltoTillie]

I'm way behind. April 14 same day as Section 8 case. The real gem of the day IMO was the movie copyright case. Plaintiff wrote a movie script about a law student who borrrows from the mob. Then marries mobster's girlfriend to give her a green card.  At monster's behest presumably. Interesting premise, actually.

Said script sits around for 20 years until defendant, an old friend, says he wants to make a film of it with a revised script. Plaintiff nixes the idea--he doesn't like the revision. Defendant secretly makes movie so he doesn't have to pay plaintiff!  Plaintiff finds out and they strike a deal for payment. Then defendant doesn't pay, wouldn't you know it. So we're in court over the contract breach. J gets to use her favorite phrase--we call them litigants!

Anyhoo, defendant has many excuses for not paying, such as I was doing him a favor making the movie, so he wants to get paid too?  Or, he's a PITA, so he shouldn't get paid. JM really raked him over the coals before gleefully awarding plaintiff the full maximum of 5K. 

[Eliza422]

What killed me about the douche with the 900$ car is the way he was talking about his purchase as if he had just bought a Mercedes and the dealership was being difficult. He bought a 15 ish year old car from a random mechanic for chump change.

 

you don't want problems like that, buy a new car! Or at least, one that's just a few years old. 

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, Eliza422 said:

What killed me about the douche with the 900$ car is the way he was talking about his purchase as if he had just bought a Mercedes and the dealership was being difficult. He bought a 15 ish year old car from a random mechanic for chump change.

Especially funny since he admitted to riding back and forth from Ft. Lauderdale to Miami on a mo-ped to seal the deal.  He obviously had no credit, so he couldn't get something from a dealership.  But the $50 you spend on a mechanic's inspection is the BEST $50 you'll spend in a car deal.

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, GussieK said:

Anyhoo, defendant has many excuses for not paying, such as I was doing him a favor making the movie, so he wants to get paid too?  Or, he's a PITA, so he shouldn't get paid. JM really raked him over the coals before gleefully awarding plaintiff the full maximum of 5K. 

That case was great. Yes, JM did rake shifty def. over the coals, but not one word seemed to cause even a tiny iota of shame or embarassment in him. I agree the movie script does sound pretty interesting. Too bad we'll never see it. Plaintiff said Eric Roberts was signed for it? He'd never get paid either.

4 hours ago, Eliza422 said:

What killed me about the douche with the 900$ car is the way he was talking about his purchase as if he had just bought a Mercedes and the dealership was being difficult. He bought a 15 ish year old car from a random mechanic for chump change.

Was he the one trying to invoke the lemon law when he was in the hall? Hilarious. I'm sure Ft.Lauderdale has a bunch of old wrecks he could have perused. Why did he have to travel to Miami to get one? Was there something special about this particular ancient POS?

[AZChristian]

12 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm sure Ft.Lauderdale has a bunch of old wrecks he could have perused. Why did he have to travel to Miami to get one? Was there something special about this particular ancient POS?

Maybe he had already sued all the junker sellers in Ft. Lauderdale.

[Hockeymom]

That hair though!

[SRTouch]

1. dog case right off the bat: actually watched more of this doggy case because of the absurd sound bites in the preview. Hubby owner of the attacking boxer mix - "no way my dog, really just a puppy, could possibly have bitten the collie mix through all that hair" while wife brought along pictures of their boxer with their smaller dog to demonstrate how dog friendly he is. How many dog owners actually research the breed before they bring their puppy home? Yes, boxers are known as fun loving and great family dogs - but folks need to remember they were bred as work/guard dogs, and are known as fiercely protective of THEIR family and home.  http://www.vetstreet.com/dogs/boxer Something I found a little surprising from the article, boxers are more likely to get along with strange cats than strange dogs - maybe because they think of strange dogs as a greater threat. So, lady, sure your dog may be great with your family and his little doggy bro - but when he feels another dog is threatening him or his, expect him to react instinctively - especially if you haven't taken the time to train and recognise impending atracks. Hubby's comment about not being able to bite through fur is so ludicrous not worth remarking on. Anyway, final takeaway thought from article came under the "personality" section: "With structure, discipline and lots of exercise and mental stimulation, a Boxer can become the dog of your dreams. Without those things, well, he can turn into a nightmare. The amount of damage a bored Boxer can do is beyond your wildest imagination. Don’t give him the opportunity to enlighten you." All in all, typical foolish dog owners (plaintiff included) who expected their pups to act like people instead of dogs. I'm with MM, seen way too many dog park attack cases to risk taking my pet. Only watched a portion before getting disgusted, but for me the case comes down to plaintiff assuming responsibility for her vet bills when she took her dog to the dog park - dogs will be dogs, which means attacks can happen. One way out of that is whether defendant knew her dog gets aggressive - if she knows I would sock her with greater liability. And, yes, the boxer HAS attacked in the past, and attacked another dog on the day of the incident before biting the plaintiff's dog. So, plaintiff prevails and defendant is found liable and ordered to pay over $2300. As expected, during hallterview defendant still protesting innocence. What pissed me off all over again was plaintiff, who while hesitant about going back to the dog park is saying she'll probably go back because she doesn't want "the bullies" to win. Lady, PROTECT YOUR DOG! The boxer pup is NOT a bully, just a dog being a dog. I cut her off and FF to next case.
2. tenant wants back security: month to month tenant is bad fit. Apparently she's in training to be a crazy cat lady - she has two cats, but caters to them and land lady does not appear to be a cat person. Plaintiff says place had problems when she moved in (bad cheap blinds, whole in the wall, bad paint, etc.) But she REALLY  needed a place so she moved in. Course nobody has before pictures. Then the lease restricts overnight guests, and defendant claims she was over the limit. 'nother problem, landlady says she was stinky - funky cat smell and too much maryjane. Can't really tell if plaintiff is stretching things or not, since when pressed she caves pretty easy. She makes statements for which she doesn't have any evidence - like she says she called the cops when defendant refused to do a walk through and the cops said the place looked fine. Yeah, she has a police report, but it doesn't support her claim the cops said it was good. Defendant, though, definitely sounds like she padded the damage, claiming more security than she was entitled to keep. Ah, well, maybe I believe plaintiff because she's a fellow cat person (two of my five are napping in the recliner with me as I type this). Anyway, no before pics, and iffy after pics where each side claims the pics support their side, but I see nothing one way or the other. MM issues some tough justice, let's defendant keep some of the deposit but has to return about half of the money.
3. Dude wants gf to repay loan after the breakup: old story, new faces - only 15 minutes on the clock, so it's a quicky. Good thing, too, Princess it getting irritated with the click click keyboard and wants me to stop. Ok, baby, recap's over unless something new and unusual pops up (and no, I DO NOT spoil my cats! Lol)

Edited April 24, 2017 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

dog case right off the bat: 

The Real Housewives of Longuyland: Loved the histrionic plaintiff's 1980s long blond ringlets - "The doowg, the doowg, the doowg". Anyone who thinks the proper reaction to a dogfight is to stand there and scream as loudly as you can should NOT be in a dogpark. Not much that you do could be worse or more wrong than that.  Well, most people in dog parks shouldn't be there, as they are clueless. Remember in the olden days, before the unfortunate advent of the dog park, when people would actually get off their duffs and take their dogs for walks? I"m like JM and always walked my dogs. The exercise won't kill you, people. I did like the retired cop who, for some strange reason, had no idea how to behave in front of a judge. JM was bemused at the shrill yelling and screaming and accusations hurled back and forth, well, until she got sick of the witches' screeching and had Douglas intervene. What a bunch of awful, awful people and the real victims are their dogs.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant wants back security: month to month tenant is bad fit.

Oh, JM. Trying to be kind by insinuating that the plaintiff's great beauty bedazzled the cops? That was very nice of you. Listening to the trivial nonsense from both sides was exceedingly boring.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Dude wants gf to repay loan after the breakup: 

OMG. I'm glad I finished eating dinner before hearing how these two mutants were bumping uglies, or as the charming def so delicately put it, "Fuck buddies." Nice. Very, very nice. I can't believe that even the plaintiff got desperate enough to seek out the favours of the nasty hambeast def. I did wish def's new... whatever he is... had appeared. I wanted to see what kind of man would be willing to totally support HER.

[Broderbits]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, JM. Trying to be kind by insinuating that the plaintiff's great beauty bedazzled the cops? That was very nice of you. Listening to the trivial nonsense from both sides was exceedingly boring.

The Judge must need glasses, because plaintiff was.......plain and not exactly built like Sofia Vergara.

[Eliza422]

8 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

The Judge must need glasses, because plaintiff was.......plain and not exactly built like Sofia Vergara.

And had less personality than a mollusk.