AngelaHunter May 30, 2017 Share May 30, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: unauthorized auto repairs: Def. was just a perfect example of the "shady auto mechanic" stereotype. Even in the hall, he continued to stumble over his words as he kept on denying he'd heard the noise even though it was shown he did in the video. Plaintiff? It's "February" and not "Febawary." Sorry. That just always bugs me. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: skateboard park: Def. was another truly shady creep who, even when caught in the act of showing fake pics to bolster his lies, just kept on lyin'. I have to say that plaintiff annoyed me as well with his "Aren't I just so cute?" act. He's a 23 year old man who sounds and looks 15, mostly because of that silly David Cassidy hairdo. 3 Link to comment
aemom May 30, 2017 Share May 30, 2017 On 5/25/2017 at 5:12 PM, AngelaHunter said: Yikes. Momma is a tatted, toothless, mustachioed mutant drug user/dealer and while she served her latest "incarceration" for, well - dealing drugs, Sonny Boy (who in comparison to Mom sounded almost reasonable even if he was also mutant in appearance) took over the old car and sold it someone or other (Donald? Ronald?). But why can't a person who can pay for Playstations, tats and drugs, etc. get some damned teeth? This was about some old beater car and stolen Playstations which Sonny's ex-girlfriend says he "forced" her to pawn and whatever. These litigants were so frightful I really couldn't concentrate on who was owed what. I heard the words "child support" in there somewhere but I'm eternally grateful JM didn't press for details. The thought of any of these people breeding is profoundly depressing. Did she have a single tooth in her head I wonder? And not just money for tats, drugs, and other luxury items, but they always have snazzy new cell phones too -- most likely with data plans. Maybe they're cheaper in the US, but in my neck of the Canadian woods, a cell phone plan with data will set you back at least $60/month. I also thought that her jail time was not her first rodeo and all I could think was: "Lady. Do you really think that you were such an awesome mother that you instilled right from wrong in your boy?" I've said it before, and I'll say it again, children learn what they are taught from their parents in words and actions. It's when I see a case like this I feel good about myself and say "I am such a good mom!" These cases are so bloody sad. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 31, 2017 Share May 31, 2017 (edited) not the best of the cases to rerun, so I made liberal use of the remote zipping through. motown wannabes: plaintiff is the head of a group of semi-pro folks who enjoy performing old time motown songs. She sets up a schedule and has members of the group singing in bars for tips. Defendant has a hissy fit when his cut at a gig only nets him 3 bucks, and goes on social media and bad mouths the plaintiff and ends up quitting the group. Plaintiff wants 5 grand cause some of her regular gigs and members have second thoughts about the group. Scratched rims on his ride: I spent even less time on this one. Plaintiff spent an insane amount of money on his fancy rims, and defendant scratched them. Defendant admits the rims were damaged, but offers to fix them. His fix is unsatisfactory, so plaintiff wants money. Not my thing at all, and even if it was I drive on too many gravel roads where those fancy chrome rims would be dinged up. number three has something to do with a horse - and no I didn't watch. About all I can tell you is this is the lady who loves horses so very much she got her horse's portrait tattooed on her chest - she ends up pulling back her top to show Doug the tat. Case has something to do with plaintiff helping defendant build a corral on defendant's property, a kerfuffle, friendship ends, plaintiff wants either the money back or the stock panels she bought for the corral. Edited June 1, 2017 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 31, 2017 Share May 31, 2017 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: motown wannabes: The clientele at the venues are obviously of the highest calibre, giving maybe 0.15 tips each? Or maybe the act is really appalling. Whatever, I couldn't finish watching this farce. Plaintiff, with her highly rehearsed testimony, her attempt to squeeze out tears, her claim that she's owed 5K because def said he wasn't happy with plaintiff paying him only 3$ when he was owed 10$ were all silly beyond belief. I can say no more. Skipped the other two reruns. 2 Link to comment
howiveaddict June 1, 2017 Share June 1, 2017 On 5/29/2017 at 3:54 PM, AngelaHunter said: Yeah, Def removed a nasty, stalk-y skin tag thingy from plaintiff and plaintiff is devastated, as we would be at having our moles/tags removed. There was a pinpoint dot of blood on her face, so she raced to the doctor right away... oh wait - she actually went to the doctor days before this case. JM was very clear in that plaintiff tried to figure out a way to get a 5K boe-nanza for the loss of a blemish. You can't replace a skin tag! Gimme 5K! And during the case, I am wondering if that lady can use her magic thread and take off a couple of skin tags I want to get rid of. Guess, even though they are in my armpit, I will call them beauty spots. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch June 1, 2017 Share June 1, 2017 (edited) Crazy duplicate post Edited June 1, 2017 by SRTouch Link to comment
AZChristian June 1, 2017 Share June 1, 2017 10 hours ago, howiveaddict said: And during the case, I am wondering if that lady can use her magic thread and take off a couple of skin tags I want to get rid of. Guess, even though they are in my armpit, I will call them beauty spots. Judge Milian was trying to be polite, but she definitely let the plaintiff know that she looked better without that skin tag - which, as you said, most of us are happy to get rid of. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch June 1, 2017 Share June 1, 2017 (edited) reruns - 2 cases today graveyard drama: granny and ex daughter in law feuding over graveyard plots. Oh dear, tragedy strikes a family 9 years ago when 16yo granddaughter/daughter is killed in random act of violence. Apparently, gangbanger shot at a car load of teenagers, bunch of cousins and sisters, driving through a bad neighborhood killing the girl. Pretty much destroyed the family, as different family members coped with the loss in very different ways. Granny can't even talk about it - she gets the date of the incident then breaks down. VERY different reaction from mama/daughter in law. She, and new hubby, come to court wearing t-shirts with deceased girl's name and portrait on them. Seems she now spends all her time making sure everyone knows about the loss and speaking out against random violence. That's very much at odds with granny and the father and now ex-husband who don't want to be continually reminded of the loss. Anyway, granny is one of those folks who at the time of the death has her own funeral arranged, so she has a grave plot already picked out and paid for - so that's where the girl is buried. Slick salesman at the graveyard convinces the family to buy up three more plots, so when the time comes the family, (granny, her son the father, and the mother) can all be buried near each other. Ah, starts out sounding great, but then the family unit disintegrates. Father and mother agree to pay for the 3 additional plots. Tragedy hits the family again, the couple divorce after a couple years, then a couple years pass and the father commits suicide. Now things get really messed up. Seems after the divorce no one made payments on the additional three plots. Granny steps up and pays for the father's plot - so she has now paid for 2 of the 4 plots. Granny and mom still on good terms, in fact granny was very involved in some of mom's activities she does in memory of the lost daughter even working at a school/daycare mom has named in memory of the daughter. Oops, now they have a falling out, mom leaves that school/daycare because she has a fight with one of the partners, but granny stays on - siding with the partner instead of her ex daughter in law. Ah, the plot thickens - yes, bad pun. They're feuding, granny has paid for two plots but has nowhere to be buried because those other two plots have yet to be paid for and the mom digs in her heels and doesn't want to pay anything for granny's plot. In fact, mom won't even talk with granny anymore after granny lashes out at mom for all the publicity seeking. MM plays at family counselor àla Dr Phil, urging the two to stop bickering and support each other, then makes mom live up to the agreement she had to pay her share for granny's plot. Doug gets the two to hug in the hallterview, but I get the feeling the feud continues. landlord suing bad tenant: ah, the crazy Jewish tenant dude with the 24/7/365 bad hair day, yarmulke (skull cap), ponytail and crazy outfit. Landlady says he was always a problem, always a little angry looking and spoiling for a fight with anyone who crossed his path, and then went nuts and purposely damaged property when asked to move. Seems defendant REALLY wanted the place, after all he would be the first tenant since a major remodel, so he moved in before the work was complete. Oh, and he was monthly tenant, never signed a lease. Ah, that was the beginning of the problems. He moved in knowing work was ongoing, then got upset that work was ongoing - to the point of not cooperating when workers showed up to do the work he complained hadn't been done. Plaintiff starts to tell us about a kerfuffle when he demanded a dishwasher, but then didn't want to be bothered when they came to install it - don't really know, as she switched mid story and started talking about how she takes him to housing court, where he gets in trouble about his phone - again, only half the story. I'm having trouble with the plaintiff's accent and broken English - which may be why MM keeps interrupting her stories. Ok, MM cuts to the chase, he doesn't owe any rent - that was handled in housing court - but let's talk about the alleged malicious damage when he's kicked out. Ah, yes, sure looks deliberate, but he denies doing it, and dares anyone to prove he did. Ok, he's a looney, not worth watching - but it is fun to watch him get MM upset and start chewing him out. I'm half convinced he's purposely acting the part of the crazy dude, but then we learn he's a professional - dentist IIRC - and he IS bouncing around living in month to month rentals. Ah, I hit FF and at one point he pulls out his phone and waves it around - didn't stop to see WTH that was about, but that's probably what got him kicked out of housing court. Anyway, just a little of him was enough - I zip to hallterview. Landlady got about half what she asked for - she wanted money for inconvenience and lawyer fees in the other case. Edited June 1, 2017 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
howiveaddict June 2, 2017 Share June 2, 2017 Those were totally fake hugs between the Grandmother and her ex daughter in law. I don't think they ever made up. I few days back, did anyone see Harvey make a baby cry? His loud talking scared the poor thing. 3 Link to comment
Silver Raven June 2, 2017 Share June 2, 2017 Wow, the guy with the yarmulke was out. of. control. MM really gave him some leeway with yelling at her. No wonder he got kicked out of housing court. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK June 2, 2017 Share June 2, 2017 Quote the guy with the yarmulke was out. of. control. He was one of the most annoying people I have seen on these court shows. He was obviously lying about the damage to the property. Plus he was so self righteous because he is a DOCTOR. The damage he did was so obviously his malicious actions because how dare the landlord evict him just because he wasn't paying his rent. I hope every one of his patients sees him for what scumbag he is and finds another dentist who is not so slimy. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch June 2, 2017 Share June 2, 2017 (edited) rerun Jewish landlord vs tenant: after the nutty Jewish dentist yesterday, today's litigants look much more civilized - still a little nutty, but not batsh*t crazy who go around vandalizing apartments after eviction proceedings. Landlord is an elderly gentleman with a big empty house. Meets the tenant at their Orthodox synagogue where they're both members. Young kid is having marital problems, separates from his wife, and old guy with the empty house offers to let him move in. Here's the disconnect. Young guy says old guy said he wasn't charging any rent - just temporary lodging til he found something. Old guy agrees, it started out as a goodwill gesture, but when young guy overstayed his welcome and it looked like it was no longer simply a short term arrangement while figuring out a more permanent place, he started charging rent. Just $250 a month, undoubtedly a GREAT deal as their synagogue is in Long Beach, NY. Problem was, young guy's money is tied up in his ongoing divorce proceedings. They work out a compromise deal, where instead of rent he's going to start paying some of the household expenses with his credit card. Real loosey goosey arrangement, not even sure if this case meets the tenant vs landlord criteria. Anyway, young guy has proof he WAS paying a Verizon bill for months, and they were getting along. Something is wrong, though, as bill is way higher then old guy thinks it should be, so he doesn't believe the evidence - even though MM is telling him she's looking at the bill with matching credit card payments. Could it be young guy had his own account and was running up big bills, paying on that account, while not paying the bill for the old guy? Nah, MM checks, address, phone numbers and everything match, young guy did pay over 600 bucks on Verizon. Next up, old guy says once the kid left his prized shofar turned up missing. (Not being up to snuff on Jewish culture, I googled and found it kind of interesting http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-shofar ) Young guy admits borrowing it, but says he returned it the next day, putting it back on its shelf in the living room - old guy says he never saw it after it was borrowed. Hmmm, wonder how bad the karma is for stealing a ram's horn used in religious ceremonies. Either one of these guys is lieing, or someone else moved it. Ah, that's another point of contention. Seems old bachelor dude meets and marries a new wife in a very short time - they come from the same place in the old country and have lots in common. She does not approve of young guy. Seems while old guy was out of town, young guy had an overnight guest of the female persuasion - oh the scandal! Big kerfuffle and young guy suddenly asked to leave. Could it be that the traditional orthodox Jewish lady, who doesn't like this kid who is the midst of divorce proceedings, bringing in an overnight female guest, could this new wife be a sh*t stirrer who hid that horn and put this bug in old dude's ear that broke up the men's friendshipship? Young guy says when our elderly dude went out of town the new wife told pretty much sent him to his room, he no longer had kitchen privileges unless old guy was home. I already said, I'm not an expert on Jewish culture, but my understanding of divorce in an orthodox community might be a little jarring to the new, and maybe unsecure, bride. (Who, BTW, we learn, once served on the Moldovan (?) SUPREME Court.) Anyway, after the kerfuffle, young guy is asked to leave, gets a uhaul and leaves that same night. He later came back for some things he didn't take, and found the locks changed. So, he never returned the keys. And part of the lawsuit is about that stuff that was left behind. Old guy wouldn't let him have the stuff because he figures the kid owes him something from the loosey goosey rental agreement, and wants to be paid cause he boxed the stuff up, but now is holding it hostage. Ah what a mess! To complicate things, as he's moving stuff into the uhaul old dude scribbles out a contract where young dude agrees to pay what is owed, collect the rest of his belongings, and return the keys - and young dude signs it. Sticking point is they don't agree what is owed, and neither is willing to proceed with collecting/returning property or keys until they settle what is owed. Sounds pretty childish and petty, and now I wouldn't put it past either of the to be hiding/lieing about that shofar/ram's horn. Well, enough time has been spent with these two. MM does the math, both agree the rent was to be young guy paying some household expenses - he paid Verizon bill, so subtracting what he paid from what plaintiff says he was owed - wow, he still owes the princely sum of $163. No telling what happened to the shofar, but young guy gets his stuff. Kind of refreshing that both sides actually appear to listen to MM's questions and answers honestly - even though the answer doesn't help their case. shady used car lot: plaintiff says she picked out a car, a 07 Mazda, put down a $1500 deposit, then spent an additional $1200+ on insurance. The shady dealer says she took too long to come up with the rest of the money, so he sold that car and offered to let her put the deposit towards a different car. He has a no cash refund policy, so yeah, the policy is for her to use the deposit towards a car she CAN afford. As we go to commercial, clips show MM getting upset with shady dude, and she tells him to cut with the platitudes and give her a straight answer after he apparently back talks and tells her he would answer as soon as she let's him talk - I guess that's litigant speak for tell his carefully rehearsed statement. Strange way to conduct a business. Seems the dealer's employee was letting her make installment payments for the downpayment, even meeting up with her at a Barnes and Noble parking lot to make a payment. Apparently it takes her months to raise $1500 for the down payment - may be a good thing she didn't get the $5500 car with 4 grand financed by Shady dude. It takes awhile, but she finally pays the down payment, is ready to get the car, but it's been sold to someone who actually had money in hand to buy it. Ah, now we get to the blowup - shady car dude claims not to know how much of the $1500 down payment was paid, he thinks maybe $1350 - and according to him it wasn't a couple of weeks, but months, since she test drove and picked out the car of her dreams. Yep, STRANGE way to conduct business! This guy apparently does everything by the seat of his pants - isn't sure how much his client paid, doesn't know when anything happened, didn't bother to bring the employee who was working with the girl - and figures if he speed talks like an auctioneer he can win over the judge. He's not alone in strange business dealings - noooo plaintiff makes these payments, apparently in bits and drabs every two weeks pay period, but isn't positive about things like dates and never had a contract. Whoa... a contract... receipts... you mean sort of like a paper trail... nah, we didn't need any of that, I mean shady dude sounded nice on the phone, like he could be trusted, and was willing to work with her bad credit. Nah, I'm losing any sympathy I had for cute pigtails. Just as I consider hitting FF shady dude giggles when pigtails says she trusted missing sales lady that a contract was ready for her signature, but she forgot to bring it to the B&N parking lot. Ah, giggle bought a reprieve from the remote, as I watch MM spank him for plaintiff's gullibility. Oh boy, more auctioneer talk, talking over the judge, interrupting, cross aisle talk - it's time like these where I wish Byrd was there to shut him down... can't you just see Byrd walking towards him with his hands out, leaning forward and saying something soft like "you have to settle down" and you're hearing STFU, you fool! More nonsense when MM asks dude where the employee is, turns out she's part time and at her REAL job, and please get her on the line. More talking over, manages to bring up the good point about why he would have to pay for $1200 worth of insurance on a car which was never sold. Uh, while he fiddles with his phone to call the missing witness, plaintiff's gives a perfectly reasonable explanation. She could have gotten back the money she gave for insurance IF the dealer had simply given her a letter saying she never took possession. He says they did that already - probably yet another piece of paperwork lost in whatever abyss he calls an office. He says he's got sales lady on the line - not much help, she has the same aversion to record keeping as everyone else in the case. Yes, when they met up in the parking lot the girl made a payment towards the $1500 - new total, plaintiff says she paid a total of $1500, shady dude thinks it was maybe $1350, sales lady Dana says $1490.... receipts people!... Yeah, she test drove a car and had picked one out, maybe a white mazda, but not sure... doesn't recall being told plaintiff would be in in two weeks when she got paid, yeah maybe but unsure, and would have money for tags and insurance... ah, more of that strange business dealings. Now girl has (maybe) made the downpayment, but instead of showing up in two weeks like she says was arranged, another month goes by with phone tag and emails - which no one can find. Geez, shady dude is... shady, but it's hard to find any sympathy for lackadaisical pig tail girl. You'd think after struggling to raise the money she would have been eager to pick up her brand new 10yo clunker, but noooo, not only isn't she there to pick it up on February 11 as per her arrangement with sales lady, she waits til March with only a few (missing) emails and some phone tag. I'm actually finding some understanding of shady dude getting fed up and selling the thing when someone shows up either actual money ready to drive it off the lot... not enough understanding to say he can keep the deposit, though - if they can settle on how much of a deposit was actually paid. Ah, and that's what swings MM, she obviously didn't like shady, but by pig tail girl's own testimony she was due to pick up the car Feb 11, and she waited an additional 2-3 weeks before showing up. Shady can keep the cash, but she can still use the credit towards a different car... whatever figure they decide to use. Doesn't matter, though, pig tails says she refuses to deal with shady, so she'll walk away from her $1500. Then voice of reason, Doug, halfway convinces her that would just be throwing away her money so better to just use the store credit. Dude tired of chasing defendant for the $1500 he loaned her 4 years ago: silly case, either real dummies or a couple idiots willing to come on TV and tell preposterous stories to get in front of the camera - or maybe just a couple of real nut cases. Plaintiff comes in looking dapper in a suit, while defendant and her witness look like central casting's idea of trailer trash (remember, I live in a trailer, so talking about the stereotype, not actual trailer folk). Ok, sort of distant family relations - defendant is the sister of plaintiff's cousin's wife. Somehow, according to plaintiff, for some reason he loaned defendant, this semi stranger crazy woman, $1500 to pay some bills - loan to be paid in 2-4 weeks. Course no IOU or any thing in writing... after all she's his cousin's wife's sister. Defendant says no way, dude loaned money to some cousin's wife's other sister... he's suing the wrong sister, and has been harassing her for 4 years about money she never borrowed. Not only that she says he's the crazy one and her witness is ready to swear he threatened to shoot her 4yo granddaughter in the head, which is why she got a restraining order. Hmmm, certainly do understand he may be crazy - just wonder if what she passes up is a real restraining order issued after a hearing or an automatic temporary order that was issued by a judge just to be on the safe side. Ah, flimsy backfiring evidence. Supposedly there's threatening voice mails, but no recording in court - 'cause the detectives have the recording, but look here's a paper that tells all about it - well, what do you know, she passes up a copy of the complaint... and it totally destroys her earlier testimony about never borrowing any money. Oh no, your honor, judge, that must be a typo where it says he was threatening me because I didn't repay money I borrowed - uh, no, no typing involved, this is your statement, in your handwriting, saying you borrowed money, yet a minute ago you testified you never borrowed any money from the plaintiff. Oh boy, what a tangled Web she wove etc etc - Oh, and you don't need a good memory if you tell the truth... give me a couple minutes and I'm sure I could come up with several more, but the main thing is don't testify to something then present evidence which proves the opposite. Oh boy, turns out that little slip of the tongue/pen blew the witness out if the water, too, it turns out the witness wrote out the statement and defendant signed it. Oops, now we can't trust the witness. Bunch of double talk about how the statement should have read she "owed money," not "owe money" so that means I paid it back - but wait I testified I never borrowed money, so that whole sentence should be cut from the statement - oh dear, I'm just so confused - maybe I, maybe, borrowed, at most $40. Sorry, lady, and lying witness friend, the evidence you presented show your side to be lieing, nothing shows plaintiff to be lieing (though he's an idiot with the whole loaning $1500 to strangers because of some tenuous family connection) quick $1500 awarded to plaintiff and MM hurries out of the room leaving the defendant sputtering "I know things don't look too good, but HONESTLY...." oh well, maybe she'll come up with something in the hallterview. Nope, she's still stuck on it's crazy, it was just a mis-print. Ho boy, hallterview is definitely the best part of the case. Doug loses control as losing defendant turns and starts yelling at the plaintiff standing at the door waiting for his turn. Both defendant and her witness are going off on the plaintiff, saying she never owed him money, the whole kerfuffle was over a failed prescription medication drug buy that fell through... hmmm wonder if that exchange proves useful to the investigating detective - assuming there IS an investigating detective. Oh, last little bit from the hallterview - plaintiff says he's a retired cop. Edited June 3, 2017 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
Silver Raven June 3, 2017 Share June 3, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: old guy says he never saw it after it was borrowed Correction: old guy said he didn't remember seeing it, but retracted that after MM called him on it. Edited June 3, 2017 by Silver Raven 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 4, 2017 Share June 4, 2017 On 6/1/2017 at 8:53 PM, howiveaddict said: I few days back, did anyone see Harvey make a baby cry? His loud talking scared the poor thing. I think it was probably his face that scared the poor baby. I know it scares even me when he turns and shoves it in the camera. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 (edited) NEW cases today - neither very riveting Crazy family dynamics (sad case - worse than clueless pet owners because they're fighting over preschoolers): whoa, here we have the expressionless grandparents suing daughter and son in law for 3 grand they've spent on the grandkids over a three year period, and a couple grand for emotional distress. This will be yet another case where MM, with her very family oriented background, will be totally out of her element. Daughter and son in law, equally blank faced, claim mean grandparents should fork over 5 grand for the emotional distress of being sued. From what I gather in the intro, daughter and son in law live with the grandparents, along with their two preschoolers. Their story is they both work, help with household expenses, and grandparents agreed to look after the kids - oh, and daughter was raised in foster care - so not really close family ties. By the time everything is said and done, little of what any litigant says is the truth - heck, even they contradict Gheorghe own stories. I get the feeling the living arrangement started out with granny trying to reconnect with daughter by stepping up and caring for the babies, and lots of resentment from daughter, who doesn't mind taking advantage of mother who she feels abandoned her to the system. And of course, we have two young kids who have spent the majority of their lives living in the middle. From the little blurb before the intro, grandparents came to visit from out of State when the kids were 2 and 3 years old, and ended up taking the babies home with them for a couple weeks... yep, essentially strangers to the kids, and mommy let's her kids leave on a jet plane with the family who left her to the system... Wonder how soon kids can start getting counseling? Lots of tension and anger in the courtroom, so I have no doubt the kids feel it at home. Granny starts out saying the kids were dumped on her to raise, with the parents contributing nothing in the way of financial support. MM cuts her off before she loses control, and asks daughter what's going on, and we hear the story of how granny came to Florida for the holidays, then left for NY with the 2 and three year olds. MM has trouble with that story - heck I do, too, but at least we hear granny wasn't a complete stranger like it sounded in the blurb. Good grief, just as I was starting to ease up on mommy, we get more of the rest of the story. Seems, the two week visit evolved into a 4 month stay. WTH, no way I can get my mind around that. Even if, as mommy says, the tickets were two high, she and daddy couldn't find the money somewhere to get the babies home?!? Wah wah, we were young parents with no money, we actually bought grandparents the tickets to come visit and they were supposed to fly the kids back. Bull pucky! If the grandparents couldn't afford to fly themselves down, how were they supposed to buy tickets and arrange the trip back. Hell, they could have driven up on a long weekend! If her story wasn't flimsy enough, granny really blows it out of the water when she explodes with how, over the years, she has had to step in and care for the kids for months at a time while daughter did her thing. Whoa, big discrepancy between stories - oh and of course neither matches the intro. Granny, still worked up and about to blow (sort of reminds me of a screaming pressure valve just before it blows). Now she's saying daughter moved back from Florida, but hubby never lived there. Daughter was a free loader, did nothing to provide for herself or the kids, and when you get right down to it the kids have spent more time under granny's full time care and support than they ever did with the parents. Granny has gone to court seeking full custody - yep, granny had legal custody, lost it and got it back. Ah, now mommy's is working at squeezing out a few tears, she tricked me, she tricked me into signing away my kids. Ok, things are making more sense - this is really granny looking for back child support for kids she has legal custody and all the cross emotional distress suit crap is smoke screens. Nah, these are folks well versed in the ins and outs of milking the system for every penny of aid. Granny is not the loving granny stepping up to provide for her grandkids - noooo she has lots of experience with the foster care system, having had 5 kids of her own and raising none. Nope, they're not fighting over the kids at all, they just want the money. Sorry, this case is even worse than clueless pet owners.... zip zip.... I stop FF long enough to see MM go OFF on granny... seems she took off her heels, and Douglas leans over and tattle on her. Oh boy, MM actually stands up and yells, pointing at the offending barefeet - CLASSIC - happens about minute 15 on my DVR... hmmph this thing even goes long and I'm sorry I started watching. I actually catch a little of Harv, and he's explaining the whole case was a waste of time as granny is seeking child support in a small claims case. Nope, if the family court has decided someone owes child support, then you can sue for back support in small claims, but you can't collect support in small claims that has yet to be order in family court. landlord suing his always late paying tenant for back rent and damages: guess today is dysfunctional family day. In this one, landlord and tenant have known each other forever through defendant's mommy. Neither side think they need to do the normal landlord/tenant stuff - little things like, security deposits, paying on time, fixing broken windows, and going through court when it's eviction time, nah, nobody bothers with that. So, the 29yo, disabled man (amputated foot and very hyper) moves in, always late with the rent, pays with bad checks, ect, can't understand why he got kicked out when landlord knew where mom (little gray haired lady who is in court to testify for sonny) lives, and if landlord had gone to mommy she would have fronted the money. Oh, and the reason he felt he didn't have to pay rent like everyone else, well see there was a broken window which landlord left unrepaired, just covered with cardboard. Ah, turns out we're talking illegal basement apartment - building zoned for two families, families living on each of two floors, but then there's two illegal basement apartments. Oops, lots of jurisdictions say he can't collect rent on illegal apartment, so rent case could be over right there. On to damages, and dude can't keep his stories straight... if he doesn't get it together he'll lose on every bit of his claim. Course, no pictures and very iffy testimony which keeps changing - defendant won't have to say much because plaintiff keeps sinking his own case. Ah, but then defendant starts bouncing around, both literally and figuratively, about some of landlord's kitchen stuff (is it still kitchen stuff if there's no stove in the kitchen - guess so since what was taken was a toaster oven and hot plate - viola, shouldn't that count as a stove) was accidently packed up and then taken to momma's house. Now defendant can't keep HIS story straight. MM, "Oh my GOD! You two deserve each other!" Still a few minutes, but again I've watched enough. Plaintiff loses for now, but will get a little ($178) if defendant can't find the missing hot plate and toaster oven that may be at momma's place. Edited June 5, 2017 by SRTouch 1 5 Link to comment
patty1h June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 (edited) God, that case with the grandmother (GM) wanting $5K from her daughter for child support was loud - gave me a headache. Right away I was thinking that the case was not right for civil court - they should be in Family Court. I'm surprised that JM let them air all of their dirty laundry before telling them to take it to the right court, but I guess it was aired for the histrionics. That GM was scary - I believe she did take off her shoes getting ready to start wrasslin'. She looks like the type to fight in a courtroom and I would've loved to see Douglas get that woman in a headlock. The GM made me angry - she had a price tag for everything, including the kids. Plus, she was full of contradictions - saying her daughter/SIL are loser crackheads but pissed off that she's not getting any money from them. Who would depend on hardcore drug addicts to hand over money, even for their children. It may happen sometimes, but not something one should depend on. My belief is that if you're looking out for the best interest of the kids and the parents are so undependable and sketchy, get legal custody (it was not clear to me if GM did have legal custody), cut ties and raise those grand-kids out of your own pocket. Fake eyelash wearing fool. Wanted to add that I didn't think that the slacker daughter was any prize - doesn't seem to me that she tried that hard to get her kids back. Her foaming-at-the-mouth crying didn't sway me. Harsh statement coming: I wonder if she let her mom hold the kids until she figured out a way that she could get some gov'mint money for herself. Hmmm.... Edited June 5, 2017 by patty1h 1 4 Link to comment
meowmommy June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 Screaming grandmother, who can't string together a coherent, literate sentence, is a Ph.D student? Guess it really does stand for Piled High and Deep. Maybe she's a student at Trump University. And she wants the kids, not for the money, but because her own kids were raised in foster care due to her own inadequacy as a parent, and she wants to break the cycle? I need a shovel for that manure piled high and deep. And if grandma is so terrible and mom is so wonderful, why did mom let grandma anywhere near the kids in the first place? 1 3 Link to comment
Guest June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Screaming grandmother, who can't string together a coherent, literate sentence, is a Ph.D student? Correction. A Ph.D. candidate who's opening a liquor store. Jesus Mary and Joseph. Link to comment
WhitneyWhit June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 My favorite part of the first case the PhD student and former drug addict of 22 years was preparing to open her own liquor store, because why the hell not? 1 5 Link to comment
SRTouch June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: Correction. A Ph.D. candidate who's opening a liquor store. Jesus Mary and Joseph. And resents taking care of the kids because she wants to party.... oh, and who thinks an ex-addict (didn't she say she had been clean ten years) should be running a liquor store. 1 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 That was the most appalling family dynamics I have seen in a long time. Everybody talking, no screaming, over each other and not listening to the judge. I think MM let it go on for so long because it (supposedly) makes good TV; she even told the plaintiff not to scream, then let her do it again anyway. I found it frequently unlistenable. Family meals must have been utter chaos with those people at the same table. It's appropriate that plaintiff was called on for taking her shoes off because she did seem dressed more for a Jerry Spinger hair-pulling fest than for a court appearance. None of the people involved came across as particularly suitable for raising children, except perhaps the young father, although his story was inconsistent at times, but not as incoherent and whiny as his wife. The most interesting thing about the second case was that the defendant sounded like Harvey Fierstein's illegitimate offspring. 1 5 Link to comment
Broderbits June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 Doug was absolutely correct when he said the first case was a mess. Despite the tears and indignation, everyone involved was more interested in airing their filthy laundry on tv than doing right by the children (who are going to need some serious therapy SOON). 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 34 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Correction. A Ph.D. candidate who's opening a liquor store. Actually she said she's a "Ph.D student". Sure, why not, with some of the most horrid grammar we've ever heard. "The 36 months they've been on EARF." O.M.G. To answer the question posed by Maximus of "Gladiator" - No, I was not entertained. I was thinking JM had accidently set up her bench at the local zoo, although I'm pretty sure the animals comport themselves with more propriety. This was beyond appalling. The screaming, the yelling, the Momma kicking off her shoes prepatory to challenging darling daughter to fight? I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time. JM knows about this stuff, I guess and she certainly caught on quickly that it's all about scamming the system. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Momma got rid of the 5 kids she squirted out, and daughter - shedding buckets of crocodile tears - got rid of hers too. Hey, she squeezed them out. Isn't that enough? Who doesn't send their 2 and 3 year old kids off for months? I guess the other drunken baby daddy that Momma tracked down doesn't give a shit either. Hey, I work all week, so I had to get rid of those kids and pawn them off on my mother, who I think is a beast, an addict and liar but perfectly capable of child care, when it suits me. Besides, she had to sign away her rights to her kids so they could get proper "educational" assistance = more food stamps/welfare. The kids are meal tickets/welfare pawns, so they had to figure out how to wring the most money out of them. No one can afford these unfortunate kids (who really have no chance in life) but they can all afford to deck themselves out in fake nails, weaves, cornrows and massive eyelashes. I had a headache after this and I cannot believe JM could actually preside over this screeching debacle. Gross in the extreme. Ugh. Really, I would have preferred this on Judge Judy. At least we could have been spared the screaming. When I saw we were getting a landlord/tenant dispute next, I breathed a sigh of relief thinking the litigants might have at least some veneer of civility. Wrong. More dumb, ignorant yelling morons. Plaintiff, wearing a really bad rug, seemed incapable of telling the truth about anything, took no pictures of anything he was suing for ("Just take my word, Judge!") and def? One of the most repugnant litigants I can remember. He's DISABLED! He's DISABILITY! He had his foot cut off, which somehow didn't hamper him from trotting off down the hall, but absolutely precludes him from working at any job at all. JM noted he seemed pretty lively, with his histronics and his jumping around. He's 39 and his momma still has to look after him. People who say life is not complete without kids need to watch some of these eps. Idiot plaintiff really seemed to think JM was going to enforce an illegal contract on an illegal room, just because a "mother and daughter" inhabited it, or something like that. Buzz off, you pack of fools. 1 6 Link to comment
Guest June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 19 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Actually she said she's a "Ph.D student". I stand corrected AngelaHunter. But I think it's only a matter of short time before we can all call her a Ph.D. candidate because I am sure she is occupying her spare time studying for her oral and written comprehensives. Focused. That's what she is. Focused. Link to comment
AZChristian June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 I was distracted by the pretty young woman on the far right side (facing the TV) of Harvey's corner mob. She had a bright white spot right on the tip of her nose. And looking at that was a lot more fun than listening to the "grandmother" in the first case. That woman was all show and no know. Every bit of her was cheap and ill-fitting . . . her wig, her eyelashes, her shoes, her clothes . . . and let's not even get wrapped up with Ms. PhD student who kept screaming, "They left they babies alone in they house." 1 2 Link to comment
seacliffsal June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 As a real doctoral candidate (defending my dissertation later this month) I so resent the grandmother stating that she was one (yep, would love to know which university). Just like as a real teacher I am bothered by those who claim to be teachers but are not...along with people claiming to be nurses, which again...no. Many litigants will say things just to try to make their cases stronger but I doubt that any of the t.v. judges buy any of it. 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 5, 2017 Share June 5, 2017 37 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: I stand corrected AngelaHunter. I only noted it because of the volume with which she screamed it. Did she mention something about an online school? Apparently it's one that would award Ph.Ds to (as one of my former co-workers said) "a goddam kangaroo." 38 minutes ago, AZChristian said: "They left they babies alone in they house." What? You never heard an online college graduate speak that way? Better get used to it. Is it somehow more expedient to say "they" than "their"? My head it spinning and it has nothing to do with my second glass of wine. We also got the infamous "tooken" from daughter. 8 Link to comment
Eliza422 June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 Omg this episode gave me a headache. I don't watch judge Judy anymore, but at least she shuts this kind of shit down. I was really surprised Judge Milian let both cases go on the way they did. 1 3 Link to comment
Guest June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I only noted it because of the volume with which she screamed it. Did she mention something about an online school? Apparently it's one that would award Ph.Ds to (as one of my former co-workers said) "a goddam kangaroo." Sure. But could the goddam kangaroo open a liquor store? I think that's what separates us from the animals. Link to comment
DoctorK June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 Quote A Ph.D. candidate who's opening a liquor store. Wow! I never thought of that as a way to finance grad school. 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, DoctorK said: Wow! I never thought of that as a way to finance grad school. By the way she worded it, I had the impression that she got her online Ph.D from Kangaroo Kollege in order TO open a liquor store. I never heard a student express such an aspiration. It was kind of awesome actually. 1 1 Link to comment
DoctorK June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 (edited) A lot of clueless litigants today (what a surprise). I was fascinated by the costume the long haired guy suing about sublet storage space decided to wear to court. What was it? I especially liked that he had a matching purse. Too bad he didn't look in it to see if he could find a clue. Edited June 6, 2017 by DoctorK grammar 1 2 Link to comment
howiveaddict June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 20 hours ago, Florinaldo said: The most interesting thing about the second case was that the defendant sounded like Harvey Fierstein's illegitimate offspring. Yes! That's who he sounds like. 1 2 Link to comment
patty1h June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, DoctorK said: A lot of clueless litigants today (what a surprise). I was fascinated by the costume the long haired guy suing about sublet storage space decided to wear to court. What was it? I especially liked that he had a matching purse. Too bad he didn't look in it to see if he could find a clue I didn't realize that he was wearing a costume - I just noticed his groovy Star Wars stormtrooper purse after he spoke to Doug. He was a little dense, not seeming to understand that he was in the wrong/suing the wrong person. His whispery voice made my creep-meter go to the red. Edited June 6, 2017 by patty1h 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 (edited) tenant suing landlord's landlord: sort of a funny case. Plaintiff dressed up like some old time rocker who doesn't realise the 70s-80s are over - geez, what an outfit... and those shoes! Anyway, seems plaintiff rented space to store a bunch of junk in a warehouse from someone else who rented the warehouse from the defendant. The middle man, the dude who actually rented space to plaintiff, got evicted, and now plaintiff is suing defendant because his junk was sold off. Well, obviously, if he can prove the stuff was his, defendant would be in great wrong - but it's another of those flapping gums cases where the judge should just believe a litigant. Also.... WTH is the missing link? Both sides keep telling us what they were told by this middle man who rented the warehouse to the plaintiff - guess what, all that is hearsay and means diddly... "I was current with rent to xxx" "xxx told me he was 6 grand behind in rent" Same thing with the sheriff, both sides talk about what they were told by the sheriff, but nobody has any proof. Don't see how rocker dude came to court expecting to win against this defendant, though he might have had a case against missing link/middle man. Really, what did THIS defendant do wrong. He kicked out a nonpaying tenant after going through the legal process. Plaintiff dude knew he was kicking out the middleman, and had the opportunity to get a court order to get his crap - ah, but he says his attorney told him that could get expensive. Only thing I hear defendant do wrong was not have have proof that he notified plaintiff when sheriff was coming to remove middle man - says he called, but plaintiff denies receiving any call. Again, to me, that's more being nice, don't know if defendant had any legal obligation to the plaintiff - though missing link did if plaintiff can prove rent was up to date... again, wrong defendant. What ends up happening, sheriff kicks out middleman, and this defendant goes through court and is awarded legal right to auction off all the junk left behind, including stuff claimed by plaintiff. He sells plaintiff the junk he claims before the auction - all nice and legal, but plaintiff says it amounts to extortion. Again, plaintiff could have reclaimed his stuff without charge with a court order, but plaintiff didn't want that because that costs money. Dude, you figured out how to sue this guy, why not follow the rules everyone else follows, get the court order, then sue the real culprit - missing link/middleman. Nah, MM says there was no extortion, there was a settlement - mediated by the sheriff - and plaintiff paid defendant $2500 for the stuff he claimed. Can't change his mind and decide to sue after reaching a settlement. Geez, as DoctorK said above, "get a clue" Case dismissed. 'Nother tenant case: kind of fun watching clueless litigants come in and get lost on the way to their spots. This time plaintiff has to guide her witness - hmmm, maybe they need more footprints painted on the floor like in the hallway. Defendant also has some trouble finding her spot when she comes in. Anyway, plaintiff says defendant, her ex landlord, made up a bunch of nonsense to justify keeping her deposit... so of course she wants double security plus harrassment money. Hey, it DOES happen, but just as often it turns out to be a tenant from hell who left the premises in shambles. Both sides claim to have proof other side is lieing. Oh yeah, of course we're talking subsidized housing, and the whole kerfuffle started when landlord wanted a $20 increase in rent, section 8 said no, rent can only go up $8. Landlord's mortgage was going up, so she needed to up the rent or lose money, so, when rent increase is vetoed at end of the lease she issues a 30 day notice. Tenant moves out and... yep, they don't do an exit walk through. Soooo, tenant says everything spic and span, landlord says nope... and has pictures. Ok, definitely NOT spic and span, but is that crude or just stains from from decades of rust on those faucets. There WAS a joint walk through prior to move in - with pictures - which tenant signed saying everything was hunky dory. Oops, beginning to look like tenant from hell and not unreasonable landlord - cleaning charges seem reasonable, carpet cleaning receipts, heck, we're not talking about fancy condo with ginormous security, just half a duplex with landlord living on one side and renting out the other. Leopard dress landlady has her charges down to the penny - I believe she spent the money, just not so sure how old the stuff was she was repairing and what can be charged to normal wear and tear... definitely don't see plaintiff getting double security for wrongfully keeping the security - unless this is one of those jurisdictions where landlady has to prove she gave an itemized list of why she was keeping money within a certain time. Uh no, plaintiff really has no case on the security, so we move to the harrassment charges. More nonsense, plaintiff lived there until she was told rent was going up and section 8 wasn't going to pay the $20 a month increase (though they would pay $8 bucks, so she could have stayed if she paid an extra $12 out of her own picket). So she, now that she's gone, she figures it's a good time to claim living next to the landlady was pure hell - why she even has video of defendant yelling at her adult son. Guess the video is supposed to show what a horrible person landlady is, but, really, who hasn't yelled at someone. For all we know 5 minutes after the video she was apologizing, hugging and crying while son for gave her for drinking the last beer. Oh boy, when MM starts to go through and look at numbers, saying, well maybe she charged to much for this or that, loud mouth plaintiff starts getting agitated when she realizes this isn't going to be a big payday... and talks herself out of getting any money when she says REALLY!?! MM, says, yeah really, you get nada, bye bye! Plaintiff is all WOW! and defendant starts celebrating. WOW, 'nother dissatisfied litigant, speechless as she storms out - not even stopping to talk to Doug, well, she stops, but doesn't say anything before storming off to sign those papers Officer Mac keeps around the corner. Defendant still celebrating, and tells us this is what happens even you serve a Mighty God. used car lemon: nothing new here. Lady buys a car, 01 BMW, and claims problems started as soon as she drove it away. Defendant says car was not a lemon, in fact he regularly drove it for months before selling it to the plaintiff. Ok, the above is from the intro - actual testimony makes both sides sound like idiots. Plaintiff finds the car on craigslist. When she goes to see it, what do you know, there's some pesky yellow triangle lit up on the dash. Ah, no problem, no reason not to buy a car just because of warning lights. Oh, and defendant who claims to have driven the car all the time before selling it - he pretends this is the first time he ever heard a warning light might be warning something might be about to blow (ok, just heard Scotty from original Trek, "Cap'n, we're losing containment, it's going to blow!) First off, yeah the light could be nothing, depending on the car. My Mom had a Buick that had a light that came on when it was time to change the oil, and the light stayed on after servicing unless you knew how to reset the thing. Ah, but who would just take the word of the salesman trying to sell you a car that the light doesn't mean anything - especially since just about everyone can google it and KNOW if it is a problem (hey, even if it's nothing, I would have a hard time believing this salesman knows anything after hearing him talk about the light). Anyway, she buys it with the light lit up when salesman tells her not to worry, besides she buying the third party limited warranty. He says its some warning light having to do with traction and tires or some such, and gets huffy when MM asks for an explanation. Three days later whole dashboard goes crazy. She calls defendant, he says bring it in and we'll check it out. So, she takes it in, but the mechanic needs to replace part of the car's brain before it will tell him the problem - only $700 - and then he'll know what needs fixing. Guess what, it's the brake ABS control module - hey, bet that's what that warning light having to do with tires and traction and stuff was warning about. Have to wonder if the dashboard brain would have fried itself if someone had checked out that light and fixed the problem instead of ignoring it - oh, and didn't our huffy salesman claim he has sold other BMWs with warning lights lit up. Anyway, now plaintiff finds out that a limited warranty is - LIMITED. As with most, hers is limited to the engine and drivetrain - electronics, brakes, etc, hey not covered. So, she's back looking at the seller, trying to claim he knowingly sold a car with problems, so he should foot the repairs and refund not only her money, but the insurance money she paid to get it on the road. Nah, don't see it. Sure he should have checked out the light, but then she should have done a little due diligence before buying a 5 grand car - like I said, we pretty much all have a smart phone or Internet access so she could have had an answer in seconds. Heck, when she bought the car she thought it was a great deal, even waived the normal inspection and signed a document saying dealer couldn't be held liable if something cropped up that would have been found during the inspection. Hey, 16 yo car - I want every inspection I'm entitled to before signing saying I accept this is as an is sale - oh, and finding out what all the dashboard warning lights mean - especially the one that's lit up. Nope, no warranty, seller not liable. Ah, but there's a twist. At one point, he offered, on the phone, to pay $800 towards the repair, about half. Ok, a settlement offer. Ah, but she got greedy, and pumped up the bills. Before she gets there he talks to his lawyer. Lawyer says don't believe her about how much it costs to fix, check the receipts. Understandably not happy to find the inflated repair quote, so his offer drops to $550. Ah, but he may or may not have offered $800 on the phone - would that be final or were settlement negotiations on going. She drives half an hour expecting to pick up an $800 check, only to find the offer is now $500. Big kerfuffle, settlement off, and here we are. MM says, the settlement was made when she came to pick up the $800 check. Yeah, if he had not settled, she would get nothing, but he DID settle, so he has to pay the $800. Not sure I agree, but then he does deserve a spanking for selling the car with that warning light. Plaintiff gets $800. Defendant gets some advice - next time talk to the lawyer BEFORE you offer to settle. Edited June 7, 2017 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 10 minutes ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing landlord's landlord: I had an awful day and this made it so much better. Ozzy Osbourne's ugly sister was suing defendant for his junk left in a warehouse. I enjoyed it because no one was screeching in mangled English or described fistfights and the case was rather interesting from a legal standpoint. What I always find amazing is seeing litigants like the def, for whom English is a second language, yet whose grammar is a zillion times better than 97% of the litigants for whom it's a first language. Very sad it is. Disgusting, actually. Loved the second case. Finally, we had a landlord who actually knows how to BE a landlord by documenting everything, taking before/after pics and showing receipts. She didn't even try to get a boe-nanza, when plaintiff made a mess of the place. (Did she think the taped up blinds wouldn't be noticed?) Here's plaintiff, looking for a 5K lottery winning, cuz - more free money! She actually preferred to move rather than cough up 12$ a month from her own pocket for the apartment. Why should she spend a dime of her own? Let the taxpayers cover that too. In her little mind, "harrassment" consists of the property owner taking pictures of her own property(!!) No matter how many times I see it, I can never get over the sense of utter entitlement and the attitude from people who live on the forced charity of others. And seriously - those bathroom faucets were really gross, as was the oven with old food in it. Not only overly-entitled, but a slob as well. "Wow," says plaintiff when she loses, the usual "WOW" of every loser lying/cheating/ trying to get something for nothing. She left the court in such indignation and high dudgeon at losing that she refused to even speak to Douglas. Someone get the crying towel ready! 27 minutes ago, SRTouch said: used car lemon: nothing new here. Nope, nothing new. See, I really want to impress everyone I know by telling them I drive a BMW. I can't afford a new one or even a ten-year old one, so I buy one that's 16 years old. I expect it to be showroom, then bitch if it needs some work. Yes, I bought a 3rd-party warranty and I signed a contract that said I understand the dealer is not liable for any problems, but I didn't read or understand what I was signing, so it's not my fault and he needs to pay. Def. shouldn't have offered her a dime, but he did, so had to pay what he agreed to, unfortunately. No desperate women bankrolling loser guys, no physical altercations and no babies being bartered for welfare tickets. All in all, a good day in TPC! 6 Link to comment
Jamoche June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Ozzy Osbourne's ugly sister IK,R? He tosses his hair more than a California blonde airhead. Not that it does any good because it's too greasy to move. 5 Link to comment
JD5166 June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 6 hours ago, DoctorK said: A lot of clueless litigants today (what a surprise). I was fascinated by the costume the long haired guy suing about sublet storage space decided to wear to court. What was it? I especially liked that he had a matching purse. Too bad he didn't look in it to see if he could find a clue. He was doing major hair tossing too, but it wasn't going anywhere! 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 6, 2017 Share June 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, JD5166 said: He was doing major hair tossing too, but it wasn't going anywhere! I've got it! The love child of Ozzy Osbourne and Tiny Tim! 7 Link to comment
teebax June 7, 2017 Share June 7, 2017 9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: By the way she worded it, I had the impression that she got her online Ph.D from Kangaroo Kollege in order TO open a liquor store. I never heard a student express such an aspiration. It was kind of awesome actually. My cousin recently posted a picture on Facebook of her doctorate in theology from some school I've never heard of. Funny, I don't remember her getting a bachelor's or master's degree before that. In fact, I'm not entirely sure she finished high school. She's now referring to herself as "Reverend Doctor." Freaking charlatans. I do think anyone stupid enough to give their money to someone like her deserves to be scammed. As for today's hot messes, the BMW lady got damned lucky her used car salesman was a moron. You could even see him try to walk back his acceptance of the settlement once he realized where MM was going. Too late, buster. You already admitted to offering her $800... before you called your lawyer. Ha! Also, $5K for a 2001 BMW is a total ripoff. I didn't catch the model, but I'm betting it was a 3 series, which new costs about what a well-equipped Camry does. (I'm car shopping for a newish daily driver and recently test-drove a 2014 fully loaded 3 series that was only $22K.) There are good used car deals to be had. I paid $6K for my 8-year-old Nissan Maxima that will run without problems for at least 5 years. Instead she bought a car that is notoriously expensive to fix and... wait for it... it had a light on in the dashboard. Do not EVER buy a car that has a light on in the dashboard! I only wish MM had asked how many miles were on it. I bet it's over 200,000. Idiot. I share in MM's disbelief about Section 8 refusing to pay a $20 increase and instead deciding to move the tenant in the landlord/tenant case. It's government efficiency at its best, folks. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 7, 2017 Share June 7, 2017 1 hour ago, teebax said: It's government efficiency at its best, folks. They're total spendthrifts, as I would be if it were someone else's money I were throwing around. Maybe they can move her too into a "gorgeous, 3600sq.ft. house." Why not? Byrd doesn't mind paying for the upgrade. 1 hour ago, teebax said: the BMW lady got damned lucky her used car salesman was a moron. He was a moron, for sure. JM asks him what is the meaning of that particular light on the dashboard: "Duh, errr... it's a light. On the dashboard." 1 hour ago, teebax said: I paid $6K for my 8-year-old Nissan Maxima that will run without problems for at least 5 years. Instead she bought a car that is notoriously expensive to fix Yes, but you can't tell your friends that you drive a Beemer. Actually, my niece bought a 10 year old BMW from her boss for 2000$ and got nearly three years of service from it and then sold it for nearly as much as she paid. Much smarter deal. 1 hour ago, teebax said: I'm car shopping for a newish daily driver and recently test-drove a 2014 fully loaded 3 series that was only $22K.) 2014? Car dealer? Haven't you learned anything from watching this and JJ? You should be bartering for a car you heard your co-worker's cousin's ex-boyfriend is selling because he's going "out of town" for awhile. It should be something like a Ford Tempo and minimum 15 - 20 years old. You'll pay cash on the spot and won't need to get a mechanic to check it, because you'll totally trust this stranger, even though he tells you to come get it at 1:00a.m in a Walmart parking lot. He won't let you test drive it, but that's okay because he swore it's in perfect condition, so that's a warranty, right? You'll also take his word for it that the registration is in the mail but if you keep harassing him for it, you can go pound sand. See you on TPC! 9 Link to comment
SRTouch June 7, 2017 Share June 7, 2017 buyer beware case with some twists: first off, these are a couple older dudes who are into collecting bank notes. Oh well, I guess this case just proves age doesn't mean wisdom - I was so hoping it does, having recently qualified for Social Security. Plaintiff, WWII vet, is suing defendant because the defendant sold him way overpriced banknote. Ah, the stories this guy could tell - signed up at age 17, served during the War, and still around. Heck, never mind just war stories, just think of what he lived through. Anyway, he is kind of entertaining and seems to be eager to tell stories - even if he keeps repeating "ah, that's a long story." He says he's always been interested in bank notes, but here lately he's become more of a serious collector. I don't know how knowledgeable, though, as it seems he gave defendant over 4 grand for what he says he later found was a worthless banknote. Way I understand collectibles, you can lose big bucks even when the person selling you something is honest - values go up and down, and he may think it is in "excellent" condition and then some expert grades it as "good." Ah, but defendant is actually in the business of selling rare banknotes, tells us his business is Rare Banknotes of the World. Ah, but how much puffy is allowable when your business is buying and selling collectibles? You hope the guy is honest, but it something should tell you it might be a good idea to have sonething independently appraised before handing over your cash. Course, the other side of the coin is... did our self described "serious" collector think it had made a great find and snapped something up only to find out later it wasn't such a steal. I think the only way he wins is if seller committed some type of fraud - fake authentication, etc. Anyway, these two knew each other for awhile and had done business before. Plaintiff thought he was doing business with a friend who had been a collector since '59 - so get took the guy at his word when he claimed this was an almost mint note. Ah, but then he showed his great buy to other collector friends, who laughed and told him it was improperly graded and he overpaid. Ok, a friend may have agreed to undo the deal, but not sure he has a legal obligation to do a rewind - back to whether seller KNEW the grading was wrong and running a scam. Ok, crossing the aisle - defendant also entertaining. He's a professional buyer and seller, but says he never tells customers a grade, he displays the notes on a well lit table, provides magnifying glasses, and it's up to the customer to decide what sonething is worth. Hmmm, there's the problem - plaintiff thought he was dealing with a friend, while defendant so him as a customer whom he had no obligation to coach. Another problem is there's no record of the transaction - defendant doesn't keep those kinds of records. Oh, sure he has records, jyst didn'the figure he needed to bring them to court. And these guys may as well be remembering different transactions. Plaintiff says he paid $4500 for the disputed note. Defendant says he bought it with others for a total of $1800. I can see these two getting into screaming matches - remember the Grumpy Old Men movies with Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon. Heck, things get a little heated in the courtroom when their different stories clash. Ok, far as the missing records - is it really defendant's job to bring his records? Plaintiff needs to prove his case. He can't even prove how much he paid - claims defendant wouldn't give him a receipt. Huh, I may not always get and keep receipts, but you betcha I would for a $4500 cash transaction. Ok, not much of a case here - but as we go to commercial Harvey actually says something I agree with "Entertaining..." When we get back from commercial, plaintiff further torpedoes his case. Seems he had two appraisals done - one said worth $5-600 and the other says $1-1200. (There, in a nutshell, is why I'm not a collector - even the independent experts placed widely different values on the note.) Anyway, times up, and MM has to tell caveat emptor, buyer beware, you have no case... but she says I love you - and defendant agrees, then appears to offer an olive branch - Mario, now that it's over, let's talk. And plaintiff replies, what's to talk about, you won the case. Ah, hopefully the two make up. bad car sale: plaintiff bought a car, and wants $3100 because seller didn't tell him car had been in a wreck and has no airbags - shades of yesterday, pull out your phone and spend a minute or two researching the thing... Carfax, KBB those things are at free online and the least you should do if you don't want to drag it to a mechanic. Oh, yeah, another dimwit who says he got the freaking carfax AFTER buying the car. Ah, without these knuckleheads a third of the litigants wouldn't be on court tv. Defendant's say no way! He knew about the accident and the airbag light was lit up on the dashboard - he got what he paid for. Oh, and let's not forget, this is an EBAY transaction. So, dude sees an eBay add, and contacts the seller. Hey, pay off 16+ grand lien, the car us yours, drive it away. Dude says he came, saw the car, liked what he saw (even though he says he saw problems not noted in the add) and since he's worked on cars for a long time didn't feel the need to have a mechanic checking it. Unlike some fools, he DID test drive it. Ok, yes, he admits seller told him it had been in a accident, but he claims the damage was far more than he had been told. Ok, he still wants it, negotiates and buys the car. MM asks the question everyone us waiting for, why are you suing them? I actually had to laugh. Dude claims to know cars, admits he saw air bag light was on before the sell, but says seller said he doesn't know why, has to go to dealer to find out why. Uh, my question changes to WHY buy the car? Isn't that sort of a waving red flag? Ah, perfectly reasonable expkanation (NOT) he just assumed the malfunctioning warning light would be covered under warranty. Anyway, he says he bought the car, then on the drive home the check engine light comes on. When he gets home and checks further, more little problems come up, burnt out light, cracked windshield wiper fluid reservoir, etc. Ok, maybe a bad buy, but still waiting for a reason to sue - we're talking about six year old used car, sure it's not showroom quality. (Really, this thing still had $15000 loan outstanding?) MM asks again, why are you suing? Answer, well, I have no proof, but I think it was a shoddy repair job after the accident. uh, when you get in this room and someone us up there behind the desk wearing a black robe, you sort of need proof before the gavel comes down and someone pays you 3 grand. Hey, at least it's not one of those liar liar cases, dude tells us all the dumb sh*t he did, he just thinks he shouldn't face any consequences for his actions - sadly like a little of others. Turns out to actually determine the cause of the airbag light warning, you had to take out the seat and access some airbag control module. Not exactly something a used car seller would know, and plaintiff even said way back when that seller had told him it needed to go to the dealer to figure out why the light was on. Ah, the clincher, insurance paid over 3 grand to repair the accident damage - don't you think, MM asks, if they knew the airbag costs $2200 to fix they would have gone back and had the insurance pay to have it fixed? MM breaks out some folksy talk to tell the plaintiff he's outta gas, no dice, case dismissed. 'Nother laugh when dummy gets out to Doug. He pretty much says ruling was probably right, he's real beef was with the insurance company. Uh, yeah, maybe he'd have a point if it was HIS insurance that didn't finish repairing the car, but to sue someone else because THEIR insurance didn't fix damage that was obvious when you bought the car (damage was obvious, it was just the repair cost that know one knew or checked out before the sale.) landlord suing because of illegal sublet: plaintiff says he rented defendant an apartment, dude turns around and sublets it and moves out, and the new guy failed to pay rent. According to defendant, he's flabbergasted he's getting sued, since he got permission to rent out the place and landlord told him on the phone to go ahead and give new guy the keys. Hmmm, even with some of the lackadaisical rental deals we see, I somehow doubt anybody would rent to someone sight unseen - maybe say you can get out of your lease if you find a new tenant, but have someone he never approved take over the lease - nope don't think so. But, who knows, this landlord DOES seem pretty lackadaisical, actually forgiving his good tenant a month's rent since he was moving. Yep, no written leases for this landlord, so good tenant really only needed to give 30 notice he was leaving, he doesn't need landlord's approval. The surprise came when landlord goes to check the apartment after good tenant leaves, and finds some other guy moving in. Oh no, tats, no ring, not someone he likes the looks of, and then guy lives up to his lowly expectations by not paying rent for months. Sooo he decides to go after the tenant for bad tenant squatter dude's rent. Hmmm not as clear cut as I first thought. Landlord admits he said "Fine" when good tenant said he was leaving, but has a friend interested in the place. I'm sure "fine" meant someone he'd have to meet and approve of, but who knows, seems lots if landlord's skip background/employment checks and hand over the keys. (Actually something I see a lot of with those places who advertise free move in, no deposit, first month free. After 3 months of not a penny of rent collected, I see one of those red eviction notices on the door.) So, real key to case is whether or not it was okay for good tenant to give bad tenant the keys rather then giving the keys to landlord. Uh oh, when MM asks if landlord told him he could just hand keys to squatter/tat/nose ring dude, defendant starts to say Ron (squatter) told me he talked to Bill (landlord) - but he quickly back tracks and changes to Bill told me to give the keys to Ron. Oops, that slip may have cooked his goose. Now Ron told me it was cool, and I called and Bill said, yeah give him the keys... nah, too many fumbles there, sounds like he's making it up on the fly to cover his slip. 'Nother twist, when squatter Ron moves out, he doesn't return the keys to landlord, he gives them to good tenant, Richard, to give to Bill. Landlord sounds confused but honest, but sounds like he's making stuff up. Then we hear Richard gave keys to his gf because he was leaving the state for a job, and Richard says he didn'the know Ron was behind in rent until Bill sends a letter telling him he needs to pay the back rent (two months for Ron, and he's decided to collect for the month Richard stayed at end of his tenancy that was originally forgiven). Nobody has any proof - course not, why bother with written agreements or bringing evidence when you're getting sued. Total credibility case, and I'm on the fence. I'm leaning towards landlord, but not really enough to award him the rent - especially not the retroactive month that was forgiven. Comes down to whether I believe landlord said give new guy the keys... nope, don't believe it, especially since new guy returned keys to Richard like he was the landlord (which, I think, is where MM's question about whether or not Ron paid rent to Richard came from). MM doesn't agree, she doesn't feel landlord has enough to win, and I can see why she feels that way. Case dismissed. 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 7, 2017 Share June 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Ok, far as the missing records - is it really defendant's job to bring his records? But he has records! He has such a huge stack of records it would make JM's head spin, but... well, he didn't bring any of them. Plaintiff may be 90 years old, but his brain seems totally intact and telling JM that his friend literally "fell on the floor" and needed to be picked up when he learned how much he paid for that note, and more hearsay from other people does not a case make. I have no idea about bank notes, but did that one have a picture of Tsar Nicholas on it? Def was an annoying, rude and arrogant A-hole. The way things were going, I thought Douglas might have had to break up a super-old man fight. 11 minutes ago, SRTouch said: bad car sale: plaintiff bought a car, Really, the stupidity we saw here today is mind-boggling. Plaintiff, who says he's worked on cars for years, feels no need to have this car checked by a mechanic (I guess he wanted to look oh-so-sexy in his 2011 Mustang), buys this car when he sees "Airbag" light is on, and the def. told him it was in an accident and fixed by Geico insurance. He chooses to buy it on the spot anyway, then comes to court and makes a complete ass of himself by expecting defs to pay for repairs on an as-is sale of a 6-year old, accidented car? They had a 15K lien on it so were anxious to dump it, but so what? They did nothing wrong. It's not their fault that plaintiff is a dumbass. 20 minutes ago, SRTouch said: landlord suing because of illegal sublet: So, we're back to stupid, clueless landlords. He doesn't know when def gave notice. He doesn't know when he moved. He has no clue when "Bill"(?) moved in. He agreed Bill could move in, or maybe he didn't. Who knows? JM asks if he sent def a letter and he replies he never EVER sent def a letter. Oh, wait - maybe he did, but has no memory of it. Or maybe he does remember it but def. never picked up the letter. Yes, he has a copy of the letter, maybe, but wouldn't you know? He didn't bring it with him. He thinks he's going to win. 1 2 Link to comment
teebax June 7, 2017 Share June 7, 2017 I would never buy a sports car from a 23 year old male. There's no way he didn't already drive it into the ground. I said it yesterday but I'll repeat. Do not buy a car with a light on in its dashboard. Cheese and crackers these people are stupid. I liked the bank note case because it was interesting and educational. The only things I collect are shot glasses, and I never pay more than $5 to $10 for them. I'm glad my hobby is cheap. 1 10 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 7, 2017 Share June 7, 2017 54 minutes ago, teebax said: I would never buy a sports car from a 23 year old male. Seriously, the way he drove it resulted in him slamming into a curb. But what does he care? It's in Daddy's name (maybe it's relevant that Daddy has a Beatle haircut, but maybe not)of course. But I don't blame him. He found a middleaged fool who was panting to buy what he probably thought of as a chick magnet, so why not? We never found out where the 15K lien came in, did we? 1 4 Link to comment
Bazinga June 8, 2017 Share June 8, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: We never found out where the 15K lien came in, did we? The plaintiff paid off the defendant's lien PLUS he gave the defendant another fifteen hundred. He paid around $16,500 for the 2011 Mustang that he knew was in an accident, saw had bald tires, worn out shifter, AND had a check airbag light on. He just had to have that car. He was suing for the "hidden" repair costs for $3,472. Edited June 8, 2017 by Bazinga 1 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 8, 2017 Share June 8, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: buyer beware case with some twists: first off, these are a couple older dudes who are into collecting bank notes. Oh well, I guess this case just proves age doesn't mean wisdom - I was so hoping it does, having recently qualified for Social Security. Plaintiff, WWII vet, is suing defendant because the defendant sold him way overpriced banknote. (...) Ok, far as the missing records - is it really defendant's job to bring his records? I found the plaintiff thoroughly annoying, especially his recurring "it's a long story..." when he never truly got truly into the facts of the story and was getting lost in useless meandering details. I think he may be used to using his old grizzled vet persona to get out of situations where his responsibility may be at issue. He is a novice at collecting and thus made mistakes many newbies make. He should consider it a learning experience, especially in a field where grading items involves subjectivity and personal judgement, just as with stamp and comic-book collecting for example. One person's "mint" is another person's "very fine". The seller is actually wise in not providing grading. As for paperwork, of course litigants are responsible for bringing their paperwork to buttress their own testimony or argument; however they are under no obligation to do so for the other party. Also, anyone who ever bought something in a convention's dealers room knows that sales slips and other transaction records are not always bothered with, although the amount involved in this case might have justified going through the bother. On 2017-06-06 at 4:28 PM, SRTouch said: used car lemon: nothing new here. Lady buys a car, 01 BMW, and claims problems started as soon as she drove it away. Defendant says car was not a lemon, in fact he regularly drove it for months before selling it to the plaintiff The plaintiff in that case was truly lucky that she had come to an agreement with the defendant which allowed her to escape the usual "as is" death trap. However, if it is true that she inflated the costs of repairs during her discussions with the seller, wouldn't such a misrepresentation vitiate the settlement? An argument could have been made, but of course the ninny defendant was too inarticulate and confused to be able to make it. Edited June 8, 2017 by Florinaldo 1 6 Link to comment
SRTouch June 8, 2017 Share June 8, 2017 (edited) reno disaster: ever watch that show where DIYers try to renovate their house, usually first time they've tried any reno work. Almost always creating a big mess, going over budget, and never finish on time. Well, this case would be worth a two parter on that show. Plaintiff decides he wants to upgrade to radiate heat, but sees no need to bring in an actual licensed contractor.... nooooo, that costs too much. Instead, he parts out the work, one guy puts in the tubing, then he hires defendant to put in a new boiler and connect it to the tubing. Sort of a Three Stooges meets Keystone Cops reno, and I guess plaintiff learned why it's best to hire a general licensed contractor instead of pretending to know how to be a contractor and hiring your own subs. Defendant here actually owns a company that installs boilers, so they come in, install the boiler. After work is done, defendant's son tells plaintiff, hey you know the tubing is all wrong, your new radiate heating ain't going heat. Defendant even testifies the tubing has to be redone - tube runs way to long in all the zones, then the son comes up and says the same thing. Plaintiff claims as experts he hired to install the boiler, they ripped him off installing the new boiler KNOWING the tubing was inadequate. Hmmm, maybe so, but I'm not sure that it was boiler guy's job to review the tubing install. I can see him and his son installing the boiler, getting ready to do the final hookup, and then son saying, Dad, are there enough zones here? Hey, plaintiff dude, you're claiming defendant ripped you off, but I don't see negligence yet - at least not his, maybe tube guy and general contractor negligence (oh, right, plaintiff was his own general contractor, and he hired unlicensed tube install guy). Funny thing is, plaintiff admits he hired unlicensed plumber to do the tubing and the guy conned him by pretending to know how to do it. Dude, again, why are you suing boiler dude? Have to laugh when MM asks if plumber was licensed, while plaintiff hmmms and haws about he said he was a licensed, but maybe not in this county, sonny across the aisle interjects "yeah, he had a van." Listening to defendant and his son, I buy their version, especially when son adds after they did the work they were hired to do by installing the boiler, plaintiff had some other friend coming to hook up the electricity - a licensed electrician friend, I'm sure. Ok, plaintiff doing this on the cheap, probably without permits, so wouldn't surprise me to learn boiler dude was the low bid and a better boiler dude would have spotted the problem earlier. Again, that's why you hire a general contractor... and coming from her background, I bet MM has listened to her contractor dad and family discuss just this type of DIY reno disaster. Once the boiler dude does see the problem, he calls in a friend to explain things to plaintiff and puts the boiler install on hold. Plaintiff ends up ripping out the first plumber's work and getting all that done over. Ah, now the real problem. The newly installed boiler is multi-fueled - there's a switch that can switch it between propane or natural gas. Boiler guys expect to be called back when the tubing is taken care of and it's time to actually turn on the boiler. Doesn't happen that way - either because he's in a hurry to have toasty toes or he's hired another sub he shouldn't have - boiler gets turned on and goes boom because it is not switched. MM asks why not just switch it before leaving the job, but I totally get boiler dude's son's story - probably even a section in the instructions on firing the boiler in big bold font - make sure freaking switch is correctly set before hitting the on button. Nope, still not seeing why defendant is being sued... oh, maybe because he's actually the owner of a company who installs boilers and all the other subs are friendly handyman types without insurance. Actually, thinking it over, as a lay person, I think I would have duct taped a note next to the on switch that install not completed - but don't see where boiler guy HAD to put up a notice, especially as they expected to get called back once the electric was hooked up. In fact, they expected the electrician to just bring the wiring to the boiler, and part of their final install process would have been connecting the wires to the boiler and firing it up. Nope, since they weren't called back, someone else did all that and.... kaboom. Ah, back across the aisle, plaintiff claims he repeatedly called boiler dude whrn it was time to fire up the boiler, but kept getting the runaround. That does make his position sound better, and he does have some texts on his phone backing up his claim. First text on Aug 8 saying tubing redone, ready for boiler. Plaintiff says he finally hired someone else in November to finish boiler install and fire it. Defendant scoffs, but when asked he doesn't know dates, just that it no way it was November - see he had health problems, so couldn't make it any sooner. Oh, wow, that sounds bad, doesn't he have a company that installs boilers, and everything I heard says son was the one there doing the work and son already testified he does 4-5 boiler firings a week. Forget everything I said supporting boiler dude if plaintiff actually has texts from Aug - Nov (oh, and I can believe boiler dude put this on some low priority, cause didn't he say he'd already been paid in full). Ah, nope, plaintiff doesn't have the texts - he changes story, now he was calling. Defendant admits they engaged in a phone war, but says plaintiff turned nasty so he felt justified in putting him off - not cool, IIRC and he was paid in full. MM gives dude back his phone when he says he can bring up how many times he called defendant over the months (which he can't find, BTW). Ah another twist is coming - time's running out, so she let's defendant tell "the rest of the story." After the first boiler blows up and plaintiff is threatening to sue, defendant offers to install a second boiler at cost. Plaintiff's pays for another new boiler (which defendant gets at a big discount), defendant installs it and doesn't charge for labor. Hmmm, sounds like a negotiated settlement to me... doesn't matter who was at fault for the first one going kablooey, they already settled that case. Hmmph, guess this is a long case, as MM goes back to talk about the first one blowing up even though, as I see it, case should be over. Now that plaintiff gives up on how defendant dodged him for months until he finally hired someone in Nov, he admits he was hiring people as early as Sept to finish the job. Oh, and defendant and son are redeeming themselves. Son says he always takes pictures of his work, and shows good looking pictures of the job when he finished with the tube connections. Course, that had to be redone when the tubes were replaced, but still his pictures seem to show neat/quality work. Then plaintiff says he hired an electrician at the end of Nov, and it was the electrician who turned it on when it blew up. Even though it doesn't matter with the settlement trumping first boiler blow, I'm back wondering about electrician's qualifications for firing up furnaces. Ah, MM just went back to the blown boiler to shows us she doesn't think defendant and son were incompetent - though they may not have shown the best customer relations with all the delays showing up to finish the job, the delay was not 3-4 months, but 3-4 weeks before he was bringing in someone else to finish the job. Case dismissed - final word - real contractor/licensed tradesmen cost more up front, but sure would have saved this guy money and time in the long run. give me my deposit: ex-tenants have been after defendant for a year looking for their deposit - have to chuckle at defendant's outfit with his layered look, vest, dreads, and 1 pant leg pulled down over boot and other bloused/tucked in - probably not tied. Ah, defendant has slightly different view. Tenants were actually evicted for not paying rent, not due any deposit, in fact still owe her back rent and late fees. Ah, to top it off, in their jurisdiction tenants can sue for double if not notified in writing when deposit is withheld. Oh dear, plaintiff is not a public speaker - I worked late last night, and am about to snooze listening to this guy tell his backstory. Something about how he mailed a money order, which was repeatedly lost in the mail, and he wasn't buying another money order with the first one floating in the mail somewhere. Ah, when we hear from defendant we learn, and plaintiff agrees, he actually sent the rent to the wrong address at least once. Doesn't really matter, though, that's ancient history already ruled on by eviction court proceeding. Confusing backstory case, landlady won eviction, tenant appealed citing hardship and allowed to stay longer before moving. Plaintiff not only not a speaker, but has his facts wrong, saying he wasn't there for eviction hearing but we find out gf/wife whatever, his partner was there. Then, for hardship hearing, landlady didn't HAVE to be there so didn'the go, but MM tells her she should have showed to protect her interests. Anyway, she wasn't there, tenant granted extra time in the apartment, but stayed an extra day over and above the extension. Ah, now I understand why we started with in depth backstory - the countersuit and any fees withheld from security which would have even settled in the earlier court order. Landlady is suing for late fees, but MM informs her any late fees should have been covered earlier, judge forgave the late fees because by the time of the hardship hearing the missent/missing money order had been returned. Anybody catch where these people are? They must have a real problem sorting mail, cause come time to send the deposit refund it gets lost and is returned to sender/landlady. Yep, it's true, both sides have their respective envelopes with that yellow sticker. So, MM has the still sealed envelope and asks permission to open it - plays little kid excited opening present - hey, surprise, even though landlady felt she was owed money, she returned the full deposit. OK time for our ruling. Plaintiff obviously aren't getting double security back for landlady wrongfully keeping their security. They do get that back now, but looks like they could have long ago since the still envelope is stamped that it was at the post office unclaimed before being returned to landlady. Landlady can't get the late fees, those were tossed in earlier hardship ruling, but she does get the court cost plus a hundred bucks rent for staying an extra day after eviction ruling. icy road smashup: ah well, about time to go to work, so just a short recap. Plaintiff following defendant on an icy road. Defendant slips and slides on ice, plaintiff hits him in rear. Plaintiff figures since he wasn't cited for speeding, everything was defendant's fault for losing control. Ah, another of those folks who think just because they didn't get a ticket they did nothing wrong. Dude, the rule is you're supposed to drive at a safe speed for the road conditions - that may be 20mph even if the posted limit is 70mph. Whether or not you got a ticket is immaterial, it sort of follows that if you're behind someone, they stop for whatever reason, and you don't have time to stop before running into them, you were following to close or traveling to fast. Complicating that, defendant should not have been on the road. Yes, I had insurance on my car - storage insurance! Haven't heard that one before, but still means he had no insurance to drive. At best I see this as shared liability. Yes, there would have been no accident had defendant not been driving around without insurance - but also would not have been an accident had plaintiff been driving defensively at a safe speed for conditions. Case would be over on JJ as soon as she heard no insurance. Then some folks would automatically rule against plaintiff because he hit defendant in rear. Nope, I say shared liability. MM disagrees, says following too close and driving to fast for conditions trumps no insurance. Guess you could say her ruling and mine arrive at the same point, since it turns out both guys foot their own repair bills (plaintiff had insurance - liability not collision, so he foots the bill.) Edited June 9, 2017 by SRTouch 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 8, 2017 Share June 8, 2017 14 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Plaintiff decides he wants to upgrade to radiate heat, but sees no need to bring in an actual licensed contractor.... nooooo, that costs too much. Well, he might have been licensed once upon a time... somewhere... maybe? Another perfect example of JM's "The cheap comes out expensive." I didn't particularly care for any of the litigants - although the def's son seemed to be the most credible of the three - but think plaintiff brought most of his problems on himself. What kind of operation does one have for high blood pressure? 18 minutes ago, SRTouch said: give me my deposit: More dimwits (and male plaintiff did seem truly dimwitted, needing JM to rephrase everything she said into words of one syllable) thinking it's appropriate to ask for payment for "pain and suffering" on a rental contract. "Let's just get as much freeeee money as we can!" Why anyone wants to be a landlord these days I just cannot imagine. Did we find out what the plaintiffs' "hardships" were? That reminds me of a dumb old joke, but I'll spare everyone that. 22 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Dude, the rule is you're supposed to drive at a safe speed for the road conditions - that may be 20mph even if the posted limit is 70mph. I just love everyone who smashes someone in the rear and says, "I was driving at a safe distance." If you were, then how on earth did you hit the car? The person in front of you may have to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting a child, the driver may have a heart attack, etc etc, which is why there IS a "safe distance" you idiots. It's just like the morons who open their car doors into traffic, get hit and then claim, "I did look, but there was no one there!" A mystery it is. Too bad def didn't have to pay something for driving with no insurance. He's a scamming liar who claimed he did pay for "storage" insurance. He had "only" been driving his uninsured car for a week - honest! Nothing wrong with that, is there? Another nitwit. 1 4 Link to comment
meowmommy June 8, 2017 Share June 8, 2017 58 minutes ago, SRTouch said: reno disaster: ever watch that show where DIYers try to renovate their house, usually first time they've tried any reno work. Renovation Realities. I flove that show. Of course, it's made me afraid to change a light bulb, but still... 32 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: What kind of operation does one have for high blood pressure? I had the same question. Ran through the list in my head of all the surgeries I've encountered in my 30+ years in nursing, and one that fixes hypertension isn't on that list. However, on the excuses why I didn't do what I was contracted to do list, "I was in the hospital" is an oldie but a goodie. Cases have been too boring. I need some good old fashioned MM outrage. 1 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.