The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

59 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

as the case shows, they have no clue how to safely pick up passengers.

Thanks for the info. I had no idea how this worked, but can't see myself calling some stranger about whom I know nothing to drive me somewhere I need to go. Yes, taxi drivers can have accidents too, but at least there's a company behind them.

 

53 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

She was checking up to see if they ever got that upgraded fire extinguisher she decided that they were required to have (in spite of what the fire inspector said).

Yes and then she ran home to her over-stuffed, middle-aged looking boy and both of them rubbed their sweaty little hands in glee, thinking about all the money they'd get in return for Huey setting his own car on fire. I still don't get how he was blaming the car wash for the fire?

11 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

plaintiff rented her car to some strange woman, and when it was time to return the car (already a day late) reported it stolen. 

I saw that. I'm trying to picture myself giving my car keys to some total stranger about whom I know nothing and saying, "Have a good time with my car! Don't crash it or use it in a bank robbery, okay? Bon voyage!"

All these people hiring private individuals (who could be rapists, alcoholics or murderers, right?) to drive them places, renting out their own homes to complete strangers or letting just anyone take their cars - are people getting dumber? Do they all think that because someone advertises online that the person is automatically above reproach? What the hell is going on?

[AZChristian]

Hubby and I were still talking about Huey and Mama over dinner.  Couple of points:

1. If the dummy was holding a hose in his hand, why didn't he use THAT to put out the fire?
2. He can still go to his truck insurance company to be reimbursed for the $3,500 in property damage he caused to the car wash.  And he probably will.

[BabyVegas]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

If the dummy was holding a hose in his hand, why didn't he use THAT to put out the fire

Because if it was a grease fire, that could have made it worse.

Regarding the flaming car case, is engine washing a thing? Or even washing off the radiator? I've driven cars that were between 14-20 years old (and one of them, being a godforsaken VW, required me to pop the hood and look at the engine all the freaking time) and I never washed anything under the hood, nor was I ever told to wash under the hood. I would occasionally get bugs in the front grille on drives, but one turn through a car wash would get rid of that without getting anywhere near the engine.

There are so many reasons why I loathe taking an Uber (I'll pretty much only take one if it's my only choice or if all of my friends are taking one) and the last case so perfectly demonstrated why. (Apropos story: I ended up having to take an Uber today because of a work thing and the driver had to slam the brakes to avoid an accident at least three times. I say again, I hate Uber.) Those two numbnuts could have easily avoided an accident by just chilling the Hell out but instead they ended up in court.

[SRTouch]

1. bad car deal: plaintiffs "love, Love, LOVE" TPC - just must not watch cases about used car deals, as they think they should get back the $2800 they spent on an "AS IS" sale. This was a craigslist deal from a private owner, dude selling the '04 Ford Escape used by his son, who has left for college, advertised 1 owner, "in pretty good condition," 88,000 miles, $3500 negotiable - not a bad deal according to a quick kbb check. Since they're suing for $2800, they must have negotiated - so surely these savy buyers had it checked by a mechanic.... nope, 3 block test drive around the neighborhood and plaintiff is ready to pay the stranger thousands. Uh, I see multiple red flags in plaintiff's opening statement, not only the no mechanic check, but I think I'd shy away from a high school kid's used SUV. Oh, and car is supposed to be for plaintiff's mom, who was there, but didn't even ride along for the 3 block test drive. Here we are, 5 minutes into the case, and MM breaks into her "not only for dirty pictures" speech because neither side bothered to bring a copy of the bill of sale - surprising for such big fans. Anyway, she buys, registers and insures the car, and then it breaks down - either in 3 days or a couple weeks depending on whose version you listen to. Plaintiff then breaks out her video (so she DOES know how to use her phone camera). In the video she says the car has been running 45 minutes, just look at the smoke and listen to the rattle... and all I'm thinking is TURN IT OFF before you totally ruin it. When she complains to defendant, he offers to refund some of her money, saying he'll come down another $800 because he thinks it sounds like it might need a rebuilt engine. Sounds like a nice guy, he doesn't have to give her anything, but another time when being a good guy backfires.  MM tells them they should have taken the $800. But, noooo, she hears he's willing to refund money, and assumes that means he knew it was bad and is trying to get over on a "lady." Uh, no, by law he owes you nothing at all, he's just willing to help pay the bill. And, BTW, I have a different definition of a lady. To me, a "lady" would NOT show up on the defendant's doorstep and cause such a scene that the cops are called. Seems, the first time defendant even heard of a problem, mom and son came to his house, saying they wanted the money back (oh, and still driving the car around sounding like it'll blow any second). So, maybe he wasn't so much being a good guy, maybe, as he says in court he felt threatened and was willing to pay $800 for them to go away. Yep, should have taken the $800 when he offered, cause they leave with nothing but a trip to Conn and a free lunch.
2. BAD landlord: plaintiff says he rented a room from defendant, and when it was all said and done defendant ripped him off - he wants 5 grand. Oops, as defendant intro says plaintiff is a little strange, he's looking off to the side and reaching into his jacket for... his notes. What's with the defendants today? - second case in a row where defendant isn't countersuing for big bucks worth of harrassment or pain and suffering. This is one of those ancient history cases. Back in '12, plaintiff met defendant through a mutual friend, and rented a room from the defendant. Then, way back in '13 plaintiff had tools and a ford stolen - he says later, in Dec '15, defendant called to confess. First thought - no way, but hey, maybe defendant is going to some 12 step program and trying to make amends. Along with confessing to stealing the truck, he also confessed to stealing other stuff and money. Ok, so in '15 the plaintiff moves out. Now, he's here wanting money for stuff defendant stole 4 years ago and confessed 2 years ago - oh, plus the security deposit for the room he moved out of two years ago. Just in case plaintiff's testimony needs anyouthing else to make it unbelievable - he testifies that in '14 he told defendant he had $2400 in the pocket of some pants, and the next day the money was gone - yep, another of the crimes defendant supposedly admitted. When defendant gets a chance to talk, he begins with "everything he just said is a lie." Have to wonder about him, though. I'd be afraid to sleep if I was renting a room to this guy - but maybe he was normal back in the day... nah, he says dude went nuts about 6 months after moving in. Anyway, no proof of the thefts - no only no proof defendant committed the crime, not even anything showing anything ever happened. So, only thing left is the deposit - fat chance. Defendant says he owed two months rent when he moved out. Plaintiff says he paid cash and never got receipts - ah, time to break out the crayon/toilet paper line. In the hallterview plaintiff makes a crack about the ex-con always winning - so maybe that's why defendant didn't mind renting to him, he got used to nuts back on the cellblock.
3. landlord looking for 5 grand in unpaid rent: ok, this one time defendant is normal, she's countersuing for the 5 grand max. Ok, these folks have known each other forever, and always got along until defendant rented property from plaintiff. Seems they were all horse rider folks. Plaintiff had a pasture and 1 horsey, defendant had as many as 7 in the three years she was there. Plaintiff claims he was charging $1100 rent for the pasture, plus an additional $600 for letting defendant keep her horses in the pasture. Hmmm doesn't sound right, what was she paying $1100 for if she had to pay more to put her horses in the pasture. Her story makes more sense. She says when she rented the place, it was with the understanding that he was going to improve it, build it into a stable with a barn, horse pen etc where she could run a riding school. So, in her countersuit she wants loss of income because she couldn't open her riding school - and also she claims to have provided care for his daughter's horse. Neither side makes much sense, maybe it will be clear after we read the contract. Ah, yes, there is a contract - it just doesn't say anything about building her stuff for her school. Nope, sounds like defendant had a half baked business plan, no money except what she took from her pension and made on the side. She runs out of money after two years, so stops paying rent (oh, and before she ran out of money she paid for improvements on the property). MM went to the defendant early this time since it was easier to get through her counterclaim. She has nothing to prove list of income, and most of her claim for money for caring for plaintiff's horse is shot down. He has proof he paid one of the two months she's suing for, and he gave her yse horse half way through the other. Ah, the twist in the case. Yes, plaintiff has 50 acres, so lost of room for 8 horses. Thing is, it's zoned in such a way that he can keep his own horse(s), but not where he can rent it out to keep someone else's horses (another little hiccup in defendant's business plan, even if he had built the stable, she probably would have had to get it rezone to open her school.) Sooo he can't collect rent for property he can't rent. Another truism - can't come into court demanding payment for a coke deal. So plaintiff gets nothing in back rent (I still don't get the $1100 rent where she pays $600 extra for keeping her horses there). Defendant gets paid for half a month's worth of hay - oh and she keeps his horse.

[patty1h]

35 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

BAD landlord: plaintiff says he rented a room from defendant, and when it was all said and done defendant ripped him off - he wants 5 grand.

I couldn't tell if the plaintiff was in an alcoholic haze or maybe had some neurological issue going.  The bad person in me who watches too many court/crime reality shows and who realizes that people can be garbage believes alky because he had a gravelly voice that I've heard from heavy drinkers.  Anyhoo, he had zero proof of anything and just gave off a real sad sack demeanor during the whole trial.  It was almost sad.

During the third case, did y'all notice that blond chick behind the defendant with the 90's drag queen level makeup job?  Hoo-fah!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad car deal: plaintiffs "love, Love, LOVE" TPC - just must not watch cases about used car deals, as they think they should get back the $2800 they spent on an "AS IS" sale.

They must watch, but not listen to anything. Or maybe they do, but feel the fact that they're "ladies"  who can't and won't worry their little heads about engines and other man stuff should exempt them from the pesky "As is" law. And I totally believe they threatened the def, in spite of their demure and sweet demeanor here. Mom wants to buy a car, but doesn't even want to go - even a passenger - for a test drive? She trusts her darling daughter in all things mechanical even though daughter admits her lady-ness doesn't allow for checking out cars. I don't know why JM said she felt sorry for them - two adults buying an old car from a stranger (and especially two adults who always watch TPC) and then wanting their money back. I hope def. got a good alarm system.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

BAD landlord: plaintiff says he rented a room from defendant

Mr.Bottomly certainly was a peculiar character. His story was fantastic. He tells his landlord (with whom he is not getting along) "Hey, there's 2400$ in cash, in my front pocket. Don't take it, okay? Same for my truck and all my tools and my new radio. Don't take those either." Def. really didn't seem to be so brainless he'd call and say "Yeah, I stole everything - all your stuff." Would I let Mr.Bottomly move in with me? Um - probably not. I was thinking however, he might get a job in movies, the next time some mob parody film or weirdo comedy is being made. He should try that.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

landlord looking for 5 grand in unpaid rent: ok, this one time defendant is normal

I must say, I did not find her to be "normal." I thought both of them seemed a little wacky. You do not starting drawing on retirement funds because your landlord sort of says that he might or might not do something in the future that may or may not enable you to have a business. Of course absolutely none of that deal is in writing and the rental is illegal anyway, which naturally landlord says he knows nothing about. Why would we expect landlords to know anything about rental laws? They never do. Are they idiots or liars? Gotta be one or the other.

[SRTouch]

40 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I must say, I did not find her to be "normal." I thought both of them seemed a little wacky. You do not starting drawing on retirement funds because your landlord sort of says that he might or might not do something in the future that may or may not enable you to have a business.

No, no, not normal as in normal folks - normal as in court TV normal... you sue me, I'm suing you even if I don't know why ?

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

No, no, not normal as in normal folks - normal as in court TV normal...

Okay, I'll give you that. After Mr. Bottomly, horse lady seemed as normal as apple pie. Everything is relative. :D

[califred]

I had to skip the second case.  

 

Why people dont learn used car sales are as is, is beyond me.

 

I forgot to post yesterday but it takes some cajones to burn someomea business and then sue them.

[momtoall]

1 hour ago, califred said:

Why people dont learn used car sales are as is, is beyond me.

Why do the producers keep choosing these cases.  The outcome is predictable and the cases are boring as hell!!  I know they have to have some cases that don't involve gift/loan, dog fights and landlord/tenants but the car cases are tedious. The majority of these cases go the same way, the defendant wins because it was an as is sale.  I skip them.

[SRTouch]

back to reruns

1. ah, the married with children escort girl: soooo, dude meets defendant from a dating website. Says he loaned her money, but she says he was paying for her company. Only question in the case is why would either of them stand up on TV and air their dirty laundry. Ok, made liberal use of the remote and didn't watch 90% of the case. Cutsy girl must have signed a promissory note while milking desperate dude dry and she has to pay the man.
2. luxury ride to Vegas: defendant paid a couple grand for a limo to take her to Vegas, and dirty old clunker with no AC or working stereo took her part way and broke down. Ah, sounds bad, but the defendant did his homework when she tried to reverse the charges to her cc. He's somehow managed to get a copy of her cc history, which purports to show over a dozen times where she reversed charges. He passes up a stack of yelp reveiws, and does the routine where he tries to intimidate MM into just accepting his word, because the evidence is RIGHT THERE! And when MM reads his evidence it isn't what he says. Guess he thinks he can bully her into just accepting his "evidence" without reading it. Then when he gets called on it, he just keeps insisting her cc company sent him a copy of her credit history. Geez, dude, STF UP! Plaintiff got something from his service, so will have to pay something, but she did not get what she a 2 grand limo ride. Ah, but mouthy defendant just won't shut up, as MM is mid way through her ruling dude is still yammering away, interrupting and talking over MM. I would have been just as happy to see Douglas frog march dude out after being ordered to give a full refund - but MM goes ahead and finishes ruling, ordering a $500 refund (again, I didn't watch the whole case).
3. loaned car wrecked: plaintiff left his car keys with his friend of 20 years while dude is on vacation out of the country. They live on one of those streets where you have to move your car on certain days so the city street sweeper or garbage trucks can get by. Well, when the time came to move the car to park on the other side of the street, the friend's son went to move it and the car was totaled when he was rearended. Now they're in court because the friend refuses to replace the car. It's not that the friend refuses any responsibility, he was willing to pay to replace the car. Thing is, plaintiff wants him to pay to upgrade the car, not just replace it. Seems the insurance totaled the vehicle and cut him a check for $9500. Plaintiff goes and finds his new old Honda. Defendant makes the $500 downpayment, then a $259 car payment, then several months of car payments for $300 a month - defendant paid a total of $2500 towards the replacement. Plaintiff has now been paid more than his original car was worth - but he wants defendant to pay not only the difference in value between the original and new car, he wants the guy to pay the 3 grand in finance charges. Oh, and these guys were such good friends that when plaintiff bought the original car, he used defendant's credit to finance it. Case dismissed.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

ah, the married with children escort girl: 

Repeats, but goodies. So, total loser with an attitude problem thinks he can school JM on what's relevant. Well, no - the real reason he refuses to answer where he picked up the def. is that he doesn't want the world to know he's such a loser he has to pay for the dubious pleasure of def's company. She's a moronic, amoral, no-class dollar-store hooker with 1980s troweled-on eye shadow, who appeared to have a broken neck and could not string together five words without sticking in ten "likes". Articulate, she is not, although plaintiff would never notice that.  A match made in Heaven, or on "What's My Price?"(?) a site that seems to be used by amateur hoo-ers who want to supplement their incomes by hooking up with sadsack little creeps like the plaintiff. She helps her mother with CHURCH stuff! She has a big family! She's just a small town girl, livin' in... oh, sorry.  Of course, she needs the twerpy, sad, hostile and homely plaintiff to give her lots of money, just because she's so cute and hot. Or maybe she wanted to make an extra-big donation to the church! Also because she told him she needed money so badly she would go and get it either from the mob ("Vig"? Really? Plaintiff watched too much "Sopranos") or from hooking on the street. So Sir Galahad got on his charger and rescued her from such a fate. Only someone like the high-pitched plaintiff would believe her. JM sums things up so beautifully and succinctly: "He's a fool and she's a snake." Um, well - she's also a fool, since she claims she thought a "promissory note" means a note that says, "Oh, I promise to love you forever and ever." Bwahahahha! Actually, she's not a fool, just a low-life, hard-ridden hustler. How does anyone get to be such a slimeball at such a young age?

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

loaned car wrecked: plaintiff left his car keys with his friend of 20 years while dude is on vacation out of the country.

Plantiff was a disgusting opportunistic leech, bleeding his friend of 20 years dry so he could get a car he couldn't afford since he doesn't pay his bills and his credit is in the toilet. Ugh.

 

The limo case was so boring and the def. so repulsive I couldn't rewatch it.

Edited June 26, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[shksabelle]

Honey, you are a h-o-o-k-e-r. And I'm thinking your "cousin" is your pimp. 

[Jamoche]

Rerun #1: Just when I thought it had hit peak fun levels with JM mocking the def's head-tip and hair twirling, def comes out to the halterview and mocks JM's mockery, completely oblivious that JM was mocking her in the first place!

She's a total poster child for using "cutesy" to get away with it from the time she was a toddler. Those looks won't last, honey.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

she's also a fool, since she claims she thought a "promissory note" means a note that says

I don't think she is a fool, at least not because there is a chance she truly believes her ridiculous explanation; if she is a fool it's because she thought that MM would buy it. The plaintiff was lucky he had a passing moment of lucidity to have her sign that note, otherwise he would probably have received a dismissal for being a complete fool.

2 hours ago, Jamoche said:

She's a total poster child for using "cutesy" to get away with it from the time she was a toddler.

There is a good number of litigants on these shows who seem to use cutesy as a strategy for getting people to cut them some slack or to let them get away with all kinds of stuff; it must work if they keep using it.

There's also the very irritating defense along the lines of " My lady-brain is too delicate to understand such weighty matters as warranties (or lack thereof), stocks and finances, old cars breaking down, home repairs, legal obligations under a lease, and any kind of technical matter". We can now add "promissory notes" to that list.

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, Florinaldo said:

I don't think she is a fool, at least not because there is a chance she truly believes her ridiculous explanation;

Exactly. That's why I said "she claims she thought."

2 hours ago, Jamoche said:

She's a total poster child for using "cutesy" to get away with it from the time she was a toddler. Those looks won't last, honey.

Well, if she thinks she's adorable based on the likes of losers like the plaintiff (I wouldn't take a meal with him for a thousand dollars!) throwing money at her, she's going to get a serious wakeup call soon or later - preferably sooner. I saw nothing attractive about her in the least.

5 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

There's also the very irritating defense along the lines of " My lady-brain is too delicate to understand such weighty matters as warranties (or lack thereof), stocks and finances, old cars breaking down, home repairs, legal obligations under a lease, and any kind of technical matter".

The very best-est part is that they think that's a good defense to use with JM, of all people, when it's probably one of the worst excuses to offer her, since she detests - absolutely despises -  women using the "Oh, I'm a girl and girls don't know such un-girly things. Oh, boo hoo!"

[patty1h]

I guess it's a false alarm for the terrible prom dress case that was written about on Yahoo and supposed to air 6/28 -- the show is back to reruns/no new shows this week.  

[Silver Raven]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

I guess it's a false alarm for the terrible prom dress case that was written about on Yahoo and supposed to air 6/28 -- the show is back to reruns/no new shows this week.  

They showed it at the end of today's show as coming up tomorrow.

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

 

I guess it's a false alarm for the terrible prom dress case that was written about on Yahoo and supposed to air 6/28 -- the show is back to reruns/no new shows this week.

 

My on-screen guide lists "Prom Dress Problems" for tomorrow, but also says it originally aired on 11/09/16.

[patty1h]

I guess I should do more research before posting - I thought the dress thing was a new story, not from 2016 and already shown on TPC.  Sorry for all the confusion.

[Schnickelfritz]

12 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I guess I should do more research before posting - I thought the dress thing was a new story, not from 2016 and already shown on TPC.  Sorry for all the confusion.

Actually, I think that the case today is another case. Looking on line, the prom that your case correlates to was this month. Unless they have a time machine, there is no way they taped it last year. I found the tease for today's case and the dress is blue.

http://peoplescourt.com/videos/2016-11-09-dress-disaster

Maybe yahoo meant that they were taping it on the 28th for the new season.

Can't wait to see that mess on tv!

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I thought the dress thing was a new story, not from 2016 and already shown on TPC.  Sorry for all the confusion.

But sometimes eps are new to some of us. I had never seen the violent psycho felon from last week, but it seems that was a repeat too.

Is the dress one where momma wanted her young daughter to have a nearly-naked, J-Lo type dress made for the prom extravaganza and then complained because when she put on the finished product "her nipples were showing?"

P.S. Oops, just saw Schnicklelfritz' post. "Discard" the above!

P.P.S. Double ooops - both cases I mentioned are from JJ because I thought I was on the JJ forum. Durrr...

Need more coffee.

Edited June 27, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

Well, the State of Oklahoma insists I get a new drivers license, and today is the day.... not sure why.  So no recap, unless I'm really impressed with what's on the DVR when I get home. I did watch the first few minutes of today's prom dress case, and can confirm it's an old case. (It's the one where mommy gives her snowflake any and everything she wants - including bringing sand into the house for a Hawaiian beach themed party.)

[AngelaHunter]

I have little to say about the reruns, except I agree with JM, in  that Chantal, who endured horrific pain and suffering because of her shitty, stupid-looking custom-made prom gown (because nothing off the rack is good enough for Chantal to wear to graduate frickin' high school), is in for a world of hurt when she enters the Real World and finds out that everyone's prime directive is not to make her happy and give her anything she wants. This kind of case would be better on JJ, where at least we would be spared the histrionics, the rehearsed speeches and the heart-rending autobiographical monologues.

And: "It  don't come on no more." Heartache and pain was the order of the day. The subject of all this heartache was a 20-year old Ford that miraculously had a "Cadillac converter." So is this modern Englsh? Must I learn it and immerse myself in rampant double negatives? I think I'd rather go back to Olde English, if that's the case

JFC.

 

Edit:

Quote

Well, the State of Oklahoma insists I get a new drivers license, and today is the day.... not sure why.

So, are you "working on it?"

Edited June 27, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Eliza422]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I have little to say about the reruns, except I agree with JM, in  that Chantal, who endured horrific pain and suffering because of her shitty, stupid-looking custom-made prom gown (because nothing off the rack is good enough for Chantal to wear to graduate frickin' high school), is in for a world of hurt when she enters the Real World and finds out that everyone's prime directive is not to make her happy and give her anything she wants. This kind of case would be better on JJ, where at least we would be spared the histrionics, the rehearsed speeches and the heart-rending autobiographical monologues.

And: "It  don't come on no more." Heartache and pain was the order of the day. The subject of all this heartache was a 20-year old Ford that miraculously had a "Cadillac converter." So is this modern Englsh? Must I learn it and immerse myself in rampant double negatives? I think I'd rather go back to Olde English, if that's the case

JFC.

 

Edit:

So, are you "working on it?"

I'm sure she's in the process of doing it whenever.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Eliza422 said:

I'm sure she's in the process of doing it whenever.

... and was currently planning at that time to go to the DMV and pay in cash.

[AZChristian]

38 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

... and was currently planning at that time to go to the DMV and pay in cash.

You guys know better than that.  She's waiting for her tax refund.

[AngelaHunter]

14 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

You guys know better than that.  She's waiting for her tax refund.

But, due to a mixup, she had to put her tax refund "underneath" someone else's name and that person "stolded" the money and anyway, the car has been sitting for two years, except for emergeny trips to the hair dresser,  so who needs a license?

[AZChristian]

14 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

But, due to a mixup, she had to put her tax refund "underneath" someone else's name and that person "stolded" the money and anyway, the car has been sitting for two years, except for emergeny trips to the hair dresser,  so who needs a license?

Or insurance.

[califred]

My license is expired I'm waiting for NC to cash the check I sent them along with a copy of my military ID, my husbands orders and an eye exam.  (I do have 60 days grace thankfully(

 

Also I live in Hawaii and wouldn't bring sand in my house for any reason.  That woman's kid is in for a shock.  Well has had one by now.

[momtoall]

Just re-watched the case with the "rent-a-hoe" defendant.  Boy, she thought she was all that.  She didn't know what she was signing, please!!  JM was thoroughly disgusted with her and the plaintiff.

[Florinaldo]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I have little to say about the reruns, except I agree with JM, in  that Chantal, who endured horrific pain and suffering because of her shitty, stupid-looking custom-made prom gown (because nothing off the rack is good enough for Chantal to wear to graduate frickin' high school), is in for a world of hurt when she enters the Real World and finds out that everyone's prime directive is not to make her happy and give her anything she wants.

Another overindulgent mom who thinks she can get couture results by paying discount prices to an amateur who ultimately cannot deliver work to her exacting standards. Too bad the defendant could not articulate a structured defence beyond half-sentences and was much too defensive because I think he could have been compensated for the work done, with the admonition to the mother "do not use his services again".

I cringe to think what kind of entitled little princess that mother is training her daughter to be.

 

19 hours ago, Eliza422 said:

I'm sure she's in the process of doing it whenever.

Unless there is a tattoo parlour on the way to the DMV and she decided that it was more urgent to get some body ornaments.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Florinaldo

[SRTouch]

rerun - originally aired 12/05/2016

1. rental bait and switch:  plaintiff rented a place from defendant, signed the lease March 3 - ah, but came to court without a copy of what she signed and is suing about.... so, we get the phone camera is not just for dirty pictures speech. It's ok, though, defendant provides MM with a copy. Anyway, she puts down her deposit on March 3, with a move in date of March 15 (defendant is shaking his head about the move in date). Anyway, she says place wasn't ready for occupancy on the 3rd, but was supposed to be ready on the 15th. Now things start getting complicated, because she claims she had back surgery coming up around the 15th, so was planning to move in before the surgery. When she doesn't hear anything by the 14th, she says she called defendant saying her surgery will be the next day, so now she won't have time to move in before going to the hospital. So, she wants to change the lease agreement to start on April 1. Normally, I'd say tough, she has to start paying rent as of March 15 as per the lease, but... asks landlord ifor apartment was ready for occupancy in March, and he says no. Not only wasn't it ready, but according to plaintiff the defendant sent her a text trying to change the terms of the lease - both the price and length of the lease changed. She wasn't ok with the new terms, so says she sent him a text asking for the return of her deposit. Now things look dicey for defendant. She claims he said he didn't have the $850 to return, he was having money problems - yet she says he was on social media taking about buying stuff for his motorcycle and the rides he was taking. Wasn't too impressed with the faces defendant was making as plaintiff was talking, but even less impressed when MM turns and asks him what was going on. Hand waving, smiling face, guess he thinks he can dazzle the judge with his bs. He says it was never going to be ready March 15, move in was always supposed April 1, and the deposit was to hold it so she'd be at the front of the line when it was ready. Ah, but his testimony doesn't make much sense. After saying it was supposed to be ready April 1, he admits it wasn't - but still figures he should be able to hold the deposit even if it takes a couple more months to complete the renovations... yeah, guess the lady can just couch surf until he gets his act together. Ah, now the bait and switch routine. Seems, even though there is signed lease, he later decided to do the background and credit check. Lo and behold, he decides on his own that she can't afford the apartment he leased her, so he takes it upon himself to change the lease and give her a different apartment. Oh, he even admits her credit wasn't that bad, he's just worried that she will be on disability because of her surgery. Dude, she may have a million bucks hidden under the mattress, you're admitting you had no good reason for refusing to give her the apartment she leased. Oh no, he could make the offer, but she has a signed lease and he has her deposit. It may be a good move to not let her move in if she can't afford it, but no way he can say he's keeping the deposit and her only choice is to take a different apartment or walk away from her $850. Haven't liked old smiley since he opened his mouth, but my opinion just keep getting lower as he spouts his nonsense. Finally MM has enough, and tells him she's leaving if he says another word, and he keeps up with the smiley hand waving routine... another case where I kind of wish it was JJ on the bench because this case should be OVER. Ooookkkkk, case is over for the $850, but somehow plaintiff has blown that up into $3700. Now it's the plaintiff who is spouting nonsense. Turns out there was a good reason she didn't bring a copy of the lease - they never really had a lease because the dates were left out. She wants hotel costs, relocation fees, etc etc, but really the only reason to hold defendant to the April 1st date is that he admits he told her that was when it was supposed to be ready... nope not happening. She gets her $850.
2. Attack at dog obedience class: not worth the watch. Defendant has no defense, initially agreed to pay, but reneged when the plaintiff's dog had to have multiple surgeries and a sky high vet bill. I just watched the intro, then zipped to the hallway. This is the hallterview where we see a young Doug get nipped by a dog in the hallway.
3. shed disaster: plaintiff bought a shed package, and hired defendant to assemble it. Well, defendant is one of those guys with a hammer (or maybe it was a screw gun) who pretends to be a carpenter. Once he had the shed assembled he discovers why real builders also have squares and levels... hey, probably would have been better off buying materials instead of a precut package, cause you can cheat a little. Nope, with the precut packages, if you're out of square you end up with big gaps, or you damage panels forcing things to fit. Which is what the defendant did. Plaintiff ended up with a gap at the roof line which allowed snow and critters to come in. Not only was it poorly assemblef, but panels were damaged so that he ended up needing replacement panels and a real handyman to correct the botch job. Sad sack defendant claim the kit was shipped missing pieces, with bad instructions. Well, yeah, that happens - how many of us have tried to follow instructions which seem to have been translated into English by a faulty translation program, or opened a kit to find something missing (which is why step 1 should always be an inventory). Nobody bothered to bring a copy of the instructions - oh, and plaintiff says defendant refused to use the instructions, anyway. Doesn't really matter, as MM points out, it is obvious things were not fitting, so why continue and force things together and leave gaps? Defendant's answer, we followed the instructions and were on the clock being paid by the hour - yep, this guy has no pride in his work. He even tells us that the instructions didn't tell him to notch the trusses, says he used to do framing and thought that was odd, but he faithfully followed the instructions. Not sure if plaintiff is really as ignorant of simple construction as he's acting, but MM shows she knows a thing or two, as she comes off the bench as explains the notching of the trusses which sad sack handyman didn't do while pointing it out in the pictures (hey, I've never actually used a framing square to make those birdmouth cuts, but anyone looking at that picture can see a step was being skipped... and why in the world would anyone, especially someone who was once a framer, nail on the plywood roof deck with that gap there? Even after being served with the papers saying he was being sued, defendant admits he never bothered checking with the store to see if the instructions left out that step - oh, and he could have looked at a properly assembled shed. MM takes a recess, then after commercial break she comes back with the instructions on her laptop. Guess what, dude didn't even need a framing square to cut the notches - they come precut. Remember step one - do an inventory - maybe the package WAS defective, but don't start assembly without identifying all the parts. Much more likely those notched 2x4's were used in the wrong place. Defendant tries to argue, but MM shuts him down. She does a little rough justice, awards plaintiff the cost of another new shed plus half the labor costs. Defendant not happy, walks out still insisting the instructions were wrong.

Edited June 28, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

rental bait and switch: 

I can't believe I rewatched this. The shifty def, with his yucky runny eyes and stupid, shit-eating grin, acted like the worst kind of shameless clown (I have no idea why anyone found him amusing) and seemed to think he was cute or auditioning for some stupid reality show. "Gross" is the word I came up with and not "cute." Yeah, I"d feel that this fool knows what's best for me too. You know that plaintiff's 850$ was immediately spent on stupidities.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

shed disaster: 

Okay, snaggle-toothed "Not-so-handyman" def was shifty, but plaintiff? I'm not in construction, nor is anyone in my family, but yet I somehow know what the word "Notch" means. Even so, I think I could do a better job at assembling that shed than def did. In fact, a bunch of 3rd graders could probably figure out and do better than he did and he had the gall to charge 1300$ for his amateurish crap job.  No wonder he can't afford any teeth, if this is the way he works.

[aemom]

11 hours ago, momtoall said:

Just re-watched the case with the "rent-a-hoe" defendant.  Boy, she thought she was all that.  She didn't know what she was signing, please!!  JM was thoroughly disgusted with her and the plaintiff.

"Rent-a-hoe" totally cracked me up. Thanks for the laugh!

[SRTouch]

rerun from January 

1. Ex won't pay for his IPhone: 2 months after they started dating, plaintiff bought a new iPhone for her love. Seems he needed the fancy phone, but his credit was bad, so she put it in her name. Course, now he's gone, and she's still paying. He says the phone was a gift, so he owes nothing. She says they were living together, and were supposed to split the bill - with dude paying for his usage and the monthly charge on his new phone. After paying a few months, dude leaves to go back to his ex (a baby momma) and stops paying. She says the breakup occurred when she got the bill and saw multiple calls from him to the ex - he was probably calling his baby every night to read a bedtime story. Anyway, when he moved out, she claims he promised to keep paying his share of the bill, but then never paid anything... hey, maybe there's a pattern here, that may be why his credit is so bad he can't get a phone in his name. Crossing the aisle, dude is in denial. It was a gift, he never asked for it, already had a phone, was never paying towards the bill even when he was living with plaintiff, yada yada. Dude is a taker, from his owe testimony what I'm hearing is he's willing to take anything without feeling any sense of obligation... even if putting him on her bill was a gift, why should she keep giving by making the monthly payments when he leaves to move in with another woman. Oh, and when MM questions him, he says he sold the phone - she points out in his answer to the complaint he claimed it was lost - now he remembers he found it and then sold it. Had to laugh when MM asks what kind of gigolo he is. His version of their deal about expenses is a little different than hers, he says he was supposed to pay the rent and she was to cover the rest of the bills. MM points out that that means he WAS paying towards his phone bill by living up to the deal he just described... oh, and going with his deal as he describes it, he should still be paying the rent cause she's still paying part of his bills by paying for his phone - which he lost, or sold, or lost, found, then sold. Dude then begins arguing that it was never his phone, because it was never in his name... does that mean it was her phone all along? After all, she is still paying for it. If it was hers, then does that mean he sold her property and pocketed her money? Enough of making dude look like a free loading gigolo, back to silly girl who doesn'the plan past next week and thought they'd be together forever and ever. Now MM gets on her for reporting the phone lost/stolen to get out of paying. Why should the phone company eat the loss because these two broke up? Anyway, when dude starts his song and dance routine again, some staffer must have pointed to the clock, cause MM quickly rules and awards girl what she needs to get out of the contract.
2. auto shop mishap: plaintiff claims shop while his car was at the shop somebody hopped in to move it and ended up running into a fence. Now he has a list of things he claims were damaged and wants $2700+. Defendant says he was willing to fix the damage, but plaintiff is now trying to get everything on his '93 car fixed on his dime. This is the case about an old car that was customer to look like a Ferrari. Wasn't impressed the first time around, and still wonder if this plaintiff can even get into the car. Skipped it after the intro. Plaintiff wins, but only gets $650.
3. tenant vs landlord over security: folks were besties while renting the place, but now are squabbling in court over the deposit. Tenants rented the place for 18 months, but left at the end of the lease because a bundle of joy was coming. I should really come up with some acronyms for the oft repeated sayings - this case is the "not just for dirty pictures" speech. Tenant thinks they left place was in great shape, so wants double the withheld security plus interest. Defendant is fussy accountant looking dude, who spends lots of time arranging his stuff JUST RIGHT as plaintiff is making her opening statement. Ah, doesn't take MM long to pinpoint the problem. Landlord and hubby were best of friends, and it's wifey who is all up in arms about the deposit. While they were moving out there were lots of texts (or should I say texus) with hubby asks if he should fix this or that and landlord telling him not to worry. Wifey thinks that means things are good to go, while fussy dude is thinking he'd rather fix it his way and charge for it - Hubby is noticeably absent, seems he would rather be at work. And really, dude is only withholding $430 out of the over $2100, and wifey has turned it into a $1000+ lawsuit. Ah yes, this is fussy dude who went in and charged for every little thing - and brought the evidence to show where every penny he withheld went - $1.61 here, 25 cents for this, etc. A lot of would be normal wear, but 99.99% of the time the tenant would just shake their head and maybe chuckle at the itemized list. Plaintiff admits those things were wrong, even brought the missing wine racks to court. Lady KNEW he was charging for the racks, so why didn't she return them long ago when she first learned he wanted them back? Dude even wrote in his letter of why things he was withholding money that if they returned missing items they would not be charged, and she waited to return them until now. Not just those wine racks, but shelving mounted to the wall in the closets, curtain rods, etc. Hmmm, at first I was thinking dude was WAY too picky, but she had this itemized list long ago, and instead of bringing his stuff back when he asked the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for inflated damages. Now she's in court acting like dude is so-so petty, and if he had just asked she would have replaced those items... Lady he did ask, and told you exactly what he was charging for those items, and told you he would not charge if you replaced them - and you chose to file this case. MM starts out going down the itemized list, but realizes that's taking too long, so starts skipping to the big ticket items. Guess she decides he can keep most of the big ticket items, but not everything. In the end, he has to return a little over a hundred bucks. In the hallterview plaintiff is STILL wondering why defendant didn't call or text... and I'm still wondering why she didn't immediately return his stuff as he asked in his letter instead of grandstanding by bringing it to court.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ex won't pay for his IPhone:

JM can't contain her scorn and disgust at pitiful women who shower creeps and bums with money. It's amazing what expensive tastes people have when buying luxuries with the money of some idiot dying to keep them around. Def had a lovely earring and pink flower on his jacket but is a brokeass moocher who doesn't pay his bills. However, he needed the latest phone so plaintiff gets it for him because they'll be together "forever and ever", but, alas - he's got some baby momma he calls repeatedly on the phone the idiot plaintiff got him. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

"Me and Brandon had spoke." Plaintiff was pretty and seemed bright and with it. Too bad she can't speak properly and for some reason is terribly desperate. JM flattered def/ by calling him a "gigolo." He's just a smarmy, opportunistic, amoral loser. Good luck to baby momma. I"m sure he pays his child support like clockwork.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

auto shop mishap: 

 I remember this one, if only because plaintiff - aging, short, homely and using a walker - felt he needed to tell JM that he "dates" women in their early 20s. He must have a fully loaded wallet, if nothing else. Eww.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant vs landlord over security: 

"I have a one-year old, so I can't do anything, don't know anything so don't expect me to be responsible for anything!" The plaintiff looked a bit shopworn to have a one-year old, so maybe that's why she felt the need to mention that fact every time JM asked her explain something. I hope the 135$-odd dollars she got was worth being away from her one-year old for the duration of this case. Def. seems to be a mite anal-rententive, tacking 1.09$, 3.00$ or even a whopping 7.69$ etc. on the withholding he did of the security deposit. But, really - plaintiff? Stealing freakin' lightbulbs and hooks from closets? Tacky, tacky but to be expected, I guess, from someone who says things like, "I would of went."

[teebax]

I just want to thank SRTouch for watching reruns so I don't have to! I did tune in to re-watch rent-a-ho. I'd forgotten how she stupidly thought she was mocking MM after MM mocked her. She seems delightful. I'm not surprised men are lining up to pay money to go out with her. Well, one man. Okay, one sort-of-a man.

I'm bummed that we're back in reruns since I'm finally officially on summer vacation and was looking forward to enjoying the cases with you fine folks.

I'm back from my sister's mess of a wedding, which was everything I predicted it would be. I swear she's going to end up on a court show someday... I won't bore you with too many details, but it started 1 1/2 hours late and featured my sister deciding she was going to cancel the whole thing because she couldn't fit into her dress that she hadn't tried on in the two months leading up to her wedding date. My response was, "Bitch, I flew almost 3,000 miles to see this hot mess of a wedding. You're getting married today, and if I have to sew your ass into this gown, that's what we're doing." Then she disappeared for almost two hours after the ceremony while everyone was waiting for the reception to start. She and I share parents and not much else.

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, teebax said:

I swear she's going to end up on a court show someday...

IF she, or they, end up on JJ, let us know and we'll jeer at her on your behalf.

Sorry you had to travel 3K miles for this when you could have gone to some tropical island where you might have actually had a good time.. :(

[SRTouch]

On 6/30/2017 at 1:20 PM, teebax said:

I just want to thank SRTouch for watching reruns so I don't have to!

Oh well, sorry, TEEBAX, but I decided to take a few days off... may switch the DVR over to only record new episodes for awhile. Can only take the idjits so long before they all get so predictable that I can almost mute the sound.

Didn't watch yesterday, and turned off today's episode when preview showed plaintiff with TVs falling off the walls in his new house. Bound to be shoddy workmanship, and undoubtedly he'll expect the installer to replace his 5yo TV with latest smartTV. Oh, and if I heard right, he paid the installer with a rubber check.

Edited July 5, 2017 by SRTouch

[Silver Raven]

nm

Edited July 4, 2017 by Silver Raven

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Can only take the idjits so long before they all get so predictable that I can almost mute the sound.

I need to follow your example. My memory is bad so I don't always remember the cases until they really get going.

 

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Bound to be shoddy workmanship, and undoubtedly he'll expect the installer to replace his 5yo TV with latest smartTV. Oh, and if I heard right, he paid the installer with a rubber check.

Yes. Can't remember when we saw two more unsympatheitc litigants. Plaintiff pays with a check that can't be cashed for a few days, and then tells def. to go ahead and cash it, but ooops! It still can't be cashed because it was written to the wrong account. Plaintiff seems to feel no remorse and tells def HE needs to come pick up the new check. Yeah, I"d be pissed too.  Maybe def isn't always so annoying and irritable. I understand it in this case where he's expected to waste his time making futile trips to the bank. If he did use bad language, I kind of don't blame him.

Then we had the infamous "Judge M comes down from the bench and takes a tumble." How embarassing, but what is the worst part is that she took that tumble over the stupid, idiotic clown def. who seemed to think he was auditioning for some brain-dead reality show and thought his imbecilic, screeching and dumb lies were entertaining. They were not. Plaintiff was totally in the right, but I lost sympathy for her when she explained why she was late to her own party,  saying with a smug smile, "I"m always late." Having had a friend (former friend) who was always late (which is a passive-aggressive way of saying "Your time is worthless, so why would I bother being there when I said I would? Just sit and wait for me because I"m special. Consider yourself lucky if I show up at all!") I detest such an attitude.

[AZChristian]

Loved the repeat case of the man who had such a horrible dog bite that he had to go to the hospital in an ambulance.  The picture of his foot didn't show any puncture wound; he didn't bring the Nike that the little dog supposedly bit through, nor did he bring a picture of the shoe.  The hospital bill just says he got a tetanus shot - which most doctors will try to give you if it's been too long since your last one - nothing in the doctor's report about a puncture wound.  MM tried not to look like she was calling the well-dressed plaintiffs scammers, but said, "I don't need much . . . just a little evidence to back up what you're saying, because in America, lots of people use the court system as a supplemental source of income.  Verdict for the defendant."

[califred]

Today was the formal dress weather with the invisible ink signer who was too lazy to take a water bill out ic his name and a tenant who doesn't think he should have to pay the water bill

[Silver Raven]

25 minutes ago, califred said:

Today was the formal dress weather with the invisible ink signer who was too lazy to take a water bill out ic his name and a tenant who doesn't think he should have to pay the water bill

I really want to know how anybody's water bill can be $47,000.

[califred]

How does it not get turned off before that? My water company says they'll turn off after 5 days late, I don't pay bills late so I can't confirm.

[AZChristian]

6 hours ago, califred said:

How does it not get turned off before that? My water company says they'll turn off after 5 days late, I don't pay bills late so I can't confirm.

And he even said he TOLD them to turn it off (rather than filing for an eviction order), but they told him "We can't do that."  This was definitely a fun case, with a landlord who admits to attempted fraud by intentionally using invisible ink on a contract.  And it's the first time I yelled at the TV "VPL (visible panty lines) are usually around the legs, not the stomach."  MM was in heaven on this one.

[AngelaHunter]

These were new eps, right? Was it "Extra-Annoying Litigant" day? The non-profit case: This is why I usually never donate to these organizations. I"m sure many are on the level, but these people certainly weren't. Plaintiff is collecting unemployment and def, who runs the organization, pays him under the table, (Taxes? We don't need to pay no stinkin' taxes!)claiming she didn't know about his unemployment so the donations of people go to paying a salary to someone defrauding those very people. He also solicits "donations" on his own,  which he  pockets and uses (I guess) to pay enough child support to keep him out of jail. I think this place may find their donations drying up after this case airs. Defendant had a voice that made my ears bleed. Plaintiff claims def is "diminishing" his character! I think he must have learned that word just for this case, but sorry - you don't have much character to "diminish." He has no idea who took stuff from the office or removed the CC camera tape, and to add insult to injury, he calls the judge "Miss Milian". JM hated both of them.

Dog case: I coudln't believe JM ruled against the small dog owner. Plaintiff was wearing such a freaked-out wig and was so incoherent I couldn't understand anything she was yelping, couldn't take it and skipped to the verdict.

Then we had a moron - a middleaged man sporting douchebag hairdo, who buys - sight unseen - a 1984 RV and expects it to be in showroom conditions. He even sends, long distance, 1500$ and money to get new tires for it. Gee, iturns out it wasn't pristine and conked out right after he took it (How can that be? It's only 33 years old and should be perfect!) so now he wants his money back. Why would he bother getting a mechanic to check it? He wanted it, you see. He wanted it really badly, maybe to impress his smirking daughter, but who knows? Def was just clueless, but stupidly agreed to refund plaintiff's money when he resells the clunker, but there's a catch: He doesn't want to try to sell it with plaintiff's new tires on it. He consulted a lawyer yet still isnt' sure what to do. Sometimes I listen to these people and just wonder how on earth they managed to live so long being so damned, shockingly dumb.

[califred]

I didn't watch today but that was s rerun.  I remember the RV and tire debacle.

[Florinaldo]

Yes that was a rerun, but I remembered only the first case: I think it may be one of those episodes where I switched the TV off out of frustration during the first case since I could not take either the whiny slobbery defendant or the shifty plaintiff.

I know I would not have forgotten the plaintiff in the dog case who was all new to me; she was a sight to behold!

I think she was suing the wrong person; she should have brought a case against the person who sold her a wig that made her look as if she had draped the carcass of some unknown mammal species over her head. Unless that was a dye job, in which case she could easily have gotten double damages, especially with those grotesque curls.