Katy M September 1, 2017 Share September 1, 2017 On 8/21/2017 at 10:10 PM, teebax said: I've been on hiatus like the show, but caught a new for me episode today involving a dude who ordered glasses but wanted to cancel after opting to have cataract surgery. He was one of the most stubborn defendants I've ever seen. She offered him two choices: nothing or glasses with his new prescription. He chose... neither. Three times. I was completely exasperated by him. MM had the patience of a saint. I was cursing him from my Lazy boy. That's ridiculous. I can't see anything without my glasses on, so I have the hardest time picking out frames, because I can't see myself in them. Anyway, a few years ago, I was kind of just complaining to a friend that I hated my new glasses. She told me to return them. I rolled my eyes, and said, they might let me return the frames, but they aren't going to let me return the lenses, so I would have to find another pair of frames the exact same size. "They'll let you return the lenses." "No, they won't, because they're not going to find anybody else with my exact prescription to sell them to." "So?" yeah, people just don't understand that businesses need to be able to sell what you order, and fairly quickly, if they're going to take it back. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch September 4, 2017 Share September 4, 2017 (edited) new shows - same old nonsense don't need no stinking evidence! sad sack plaintiff suing old friend over a series of car loans. Both sides deny they were bf/gf, just friends - though defendant says he was trying to buy her affection. Plaintiff, who claims to have three jobs, says over time he's bought 4 cars for defendant. Says he takes her to buy a new old junker, she'll wreck it, or tranny will go out because she tried to drive through 2 feet of snow, and it's off to the car lot for another junker. She denies the multiple car story, but admits he bought her a car, which was totaled. Ah, when he talks about buying a car, what he means is he takes out a loan, but the car stays in his name and she is supposed to pay the loan off and pay the insurance. Oh, she says she has a full time job, just has bad credit so uses his name. She has a hard time understanding that just because the insurance wrote him a check, that doesn't mean the loan goes away. Noooo, insurance paid a grand, but the car loan was more than that, and the finance company wants their money. Ok, plaintiff is a fool for buying her a car, but now we learn he's a dummy as well. After the accident, the totaled car is hauled away. He says it's her problem, so he just let's it sit in storage racking up fees. Uh, no, MM explains, junker is in his name, she can't do anything to stop the impound fees, where he could have gone down and signed over the title at any time and they would have scrapped the heap. That's not the end of his dumb foolishness, there's also some additional nonsense about his phone. He says she blew up his phone with messages and missed calls - so he was left with no choice other than throwing the phone away (guess he never figured out the delete function)... so of course, he's also after the cost of a phone. So, anyway, lots of stupid nonsense and dueling harrassment charges. So, a split decision. Defendant is on the hook for the remaining car loan balance, but plaintiff has to settle the impound fees and pay for his own phone. Renter wants her security and expense of exterminator she hired: plaintiff says place was a rodent/bug infested dump. Defendant says she was happy until her hubby got out of prison. Once hubby moved in, nothing but complaints and now this frivolous lawsuit. Defendant says he ended up evicting her, and he's countersuing for damages and rent. As we go to commercial, MM is on a rant about these folks - both sides - running scams to defraud the government... I'm guessing section 8. Anyway, after the break, I'm not getting it. Plaintiff talking about renting this 5 bedroom house for $895. Is that her share, and section 8 paying the rest... and why a 5 Br house? Oh, she says for her "extended family". Hmmm, yeah if she's getting section 8 or some government assistance, sounds fishy to me. Then, she's also suing for almost a grand in exterminator costs. Says she repeatedly paid an exterminator and defendant landlord assured her for almost a year that he'd reimburse her... course those texts where he told her to keep the receipts and he'd pay were all in her "old" phone. Ah, but when MM asks landlord, he denies he ever said he'd pay... then he trips up and admits she told him about the problem. MM asks why he, as the landlord shouldn't have to pay, and he goes into song and dance routine... his story now is that she never showed him receipts. MM asks plaintiff for her receipts... ok, story was exterminator came back multiple times over a year and plaintiff is handing Douglas 1 piece of paper. Now we're getting the reason for MM's scam rant. For the first year plaintiff paid her own rent of $895. But, when hubby got released from prison and came home, the two sides worked some scheme, where the rent was raised with the state paying most of the rent - I guess as a program to help ease hubby back into society - and some story about how she became pregnant and was diagnosed with cancer. I didn't really get that... seemed like the rent was raised so landlord would get more, but tenant would have to pay less with the government picking up most of the rent. Didn't work out, since tenant stopped paying anything, leaving landlord getting less, and eventually he evicted her. Yep, I get why MM gets upset, both sides were trying to run a scam... I say nobody should get anything but the free lunch and bus ride to the studio. Course, one of the reasons I like TPC is that MM actually tries to follow the law, so she takes a recess and to decipher the evidence and determine who the bigger scammer is, and whether either side deserves any money. When she comes back, she says plaintiff still owes rent - even at the reduced amount she claims she was supposed to pay... ah, but defendant should have paid the exterminator bill. Some fast calculator work... plaintiff walks away with a grand... another of those where MM probably wants a shower after dealing with slimy litigants. son's ex wrecked his ride: pops is out a couple grand in car damage when son's gf borrows his car. Defendant's defense seems to be the accident happened when she and sonny were a couple, nobody came looking for damages until they broke up, so she owes nada. Plaintiff's story seems to be that sonny and the defendant lied to him about the accident, and tried to scam his insurance. Sounds like she's legally liable - she admits to driving and rear ending someone... but I agree with MM, I think in his shoes I'd have a serious problem with sonny making up a story and trying to scam the insurance - course pops doesn't see that, and excuses sonny by saying girly is sonny's first serious relationship. Not too impressed with pops, and even less once defendant starts talking. According to her, she and sonny had only been dating a couple months, not exactly my definition of a serious relationship. (But, then later she claims to have been pregnant with sonny's baby a couple months later.) So, I question pops there, and it never helps when the judge looks at pictures of what looks like minimal damage and a litigant is suing for more than the car is worth (and yes, I realise that with today's vehicles there can be high priced damage hidden behind plastic that popped back into place). She also claims that she ended up giving money (as in thousands of dollars) to both sonny and pops, but of course no evidence, all cash. Then, sonny goes to jail, and when he gets out she says he was abusive, she was pregnant at the time and ended up losing the baby. Hmmm, I thought she was giving off an abused type vibe. Ole Greg Mathis would have come down on pops, or at least offered sympathy and/or counselling to the girl. Oh well, pops and sonny may both be a$$holes, but defendant admits she was driving, and has nothing to show she ever gave money to the a$$holes. MM decides for pops, but only gives him half of what he wanted. I don't think Doug did it on purpose, but I got a little smile when pops sticks out his hand and Doug ignores him and turns to the camera ending the hallterview. Edited September 5, 2017 by SRTouch 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 4, 2017 Share September 4, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: don't need no stinking evidence! sad sack plaintiff suing old friend over a series of car loans Oh... my gawd. Those two? Plaintiff seemed to be possessed of no functioning brain cells at all, and def? A doctor employs her to be the first person they see when they enter the clinic? - this ghastly person who can't even speak properly? Must be one of those storefront doctors. Was she chewing something or were her dentures loose or her teeth falling out even as we watched? She must have something special which I, as a woman, cannot see, if the plaintiff - who is far from being a prize - wanted to buy cars for her. I don't DO FB, but now I"m wondering if I should. Maybe I could connect with some brain-dead loser I knew in high school who would buy me a bunch of cars. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Renter wants her security and expense of exterminator she hired: I was kind of dismayed that JM awarded this scammer anything at all. The government certainly is free and easy with the hard-earned money of taxpayers. But hey, plaintiff wants to buy a house, so don't expect her or her "extended family" and her jailbird hubby (all of them also freeloading on the working public) to pay full rent. Let someone else pay it, and the landlord was in full agreement with the scam. I don't even believe her cancer story. She "found out" she was pregnant? Gee, I wonder how that happens? Litigants never seem to know. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: son's ex wrecked his ride: pops is out a couple grand in car damage when son's gf borrows his car. More freaky freaks. I had a hard time watching this, mainly because plaintiff, an Elmer Fudd type character, kept lashing his tongue around and that stuff makes me sick. I had to look away so I could continue eating dinner. Def is just the typical, pathetic, terminally desperate woman who took on plaintiff's weirdo son who is 28 and never had a relationship with a woman before. I was wondering why sonny-boy wasn't there. I should have known he's in the slammer. Def., who appeared to be freezing to death here, thought it would be a great idea to get knocked up by him after she'd known him a very short time, and they could live happily ever after. Yes! A baby is just what she needs. Maybe this sounds heartless, but it may have been for the best that she lost the baby. No child deserves to be saddled with those two losers as parents. 1 7 Link to comment
meowmommy September 4, 2017 Share September 4, 2017 TPC new season! Same cheesy set, same nutty litigants, new MM earrings. First case, I was too distracted by plaintiff's bad teeth and defendant's weird facial tics. Who the hell throws out a phone because someone is blowing it up? That's what block number is for. Unless with a shitty $50 phone, you can't block numbers. 5 br house for $750...hmmm...I would be surprised if there weren't rodents. If you are on section 8 and the landlord has to return money, it should go back to section 8, not you. Interesting that the mice came in the second year--so who was really responsible for mice coming into the house? And how does section 8 feel about "extended family?" She had to get permission just for her jailbird husband to move in. Section 8 should be monitoring this show with the number of scammers MM uncovers. A little surprised that MM didn't delve further into the alleged abuse. Usually she is happy to drive at 80 mph onto that tangent. 1 3 Link to comment
aemom September 4, 2017 Share September 4, 2017 31 minutes ago, meowmommy said: TPC new season! Same cheesy set, same nutty litigants, new MM earrings. The earrings comment gave me a good chuckle. 36 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: More freaky freaks. I had a hard time watching this, mainly because plaintiff, an Elmer Fudd type character, kept lashing his tongue around and that stuff makes me sick. There was a serious lack of teeth in today's litigants. Thank goodness this show is back! There is only so much House Hunters I can watch when washing/folding/ironing laundry. 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 4, 2017 Share September 4, 2017 44 minutes ago, AEMom said: There is only so much House Hunters I can watch when washing/folding/ironing laundry. I stopped watching that ages ago. If I heard the term "Man cave" from one more beta-type male whose parents are putting the down payment on a McMansion where the millenial buyers announce instantly they have to "rip out" the whole kitchen so they can have the mandatory Holy Trinity of hardwood, stainless and granite in order to "entertain", (this entertainment seemed to consist soley of chopping raw veggies and putting out cheap cheese) I was going to puncture my own eardrums. At least with TPC, we sometimes get something original. Not often, but occasionally. 1 7 Link to comment
meowmommy September 5, 2017 Share September 5, 2017 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I stopped watching that ages ago. If I heard the term "Man cave" from one more beta-type male whose parents are putting the down payment on a McMansion where the millenial buyers announce instantly they have to "rip out" the whole kitchen so they can have the mandatory Holy Trinity of hardwood, stainless and granite in order to "entertain", (this entertainment seemed to consist soley of chopping raw veggies and putting out cheap cheese) I was going to puncture my own eardrums. At least with TPC, we sometimes get something original. Not often, but occasionally. I watch some of the HH knockoffs, and the two things that make me crazy are that if the price is below their budget, they claim that gives them extra money for renovations (no mortgage comes that way), and the buyers who can apparently spend more on vacation homes they might visit for two weeks out of the year than most of us can squeeze out for a one and only. Anyway, my favorite TPCs are when MM gets righteously angry--which seems somewhat sad to me and reflective of how mundane most of the cases really are. I wish they could attract more litigants who still have most of their original teeth and are not two nuggets shy of a Happy Meal. 1 3 Link to comment
aemom September 5, 2017 Share September 5, 2017 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I stopped watching that ages ago. If I heard the term "Man cave" from one more beta-type male whose parents are putting the down payment on a McMansion where the millenial buyers announce instantly they have to "rip out" the whole kitchen so they can have the mandatory Holy Trinity of hardwood, stainless and granite in order to "entertain", (this entertainment seemed to consist soley of chopping raw veggies and putting out cheap cheese) I was going to puncture my own eardrums. At least with TPC, we sometimes get something original. Not often, but occasionally. I agree wholeheartedly with your post, which is why I tend to focus on the International ones these days because sometimes you get to see some interesting places. But I hope that we'll be having some interesting cases soon. There seem to be so many car buying cases and former renters wanting their security deposits back. 1 4 Link to comment
Katy M September 5, 2017 Share September 5, 2017 13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Oh... my gawd. Those two? Plaintiff seemed to be possessed of no functioning brain cells at all, and def? They both seemed to have no functioning brain cells. I was up visiting my mom yesterday and we were watching, and I was like I would never ever ever put my name on a title while someone else had physical possession of the car. Nor would I co-sign a loan for someone else for a car. And, I wouldn't want a car that someone else held the title to. 14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I was kind of dismayed that JM awarded this scammer anything at all. The government certainly is free and easy with the hard-earned money of taxpayers. But hey, plaintiff wants to buy a house, so don't expect her or her "extended family" and her jailbird hubby (all of them also freeloading on the working public) to pay full rent. Let someone else pay it, and the landlord was in full agreement with the scam. I don't even believe her cancer story. She "found out" she was pregnant? Gee, I wonder how that happens? Litigants never seem to know. I was surprised there wasn't a little blurb after the case saying that they had both been reported to the relevant agency and they were under investigation, or had been fined, or something. 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 5, 2017 Share September 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Katy M said: They both seemed to have no functioning brain cells. I was up visiting my mom yesterday and we were watching, and I was like I would never ever ever put my name on a title while someone else had physical possession of the car. Nor would I co-sign a loan for someone else for a car. And, I wouldn't want a car that someone else held the title to. Of course you wouldn't. Nor would I do any of those things (or pay bail/buy a car/pay rent or child support or etc etc for some loser guy), which is why we won't be making total fools of ourselves on TPC or JJ and then get ripped to shreds on PreviouslyTV.;) 2 hours ago, Katy M said: I was surprised there wasn't a little blurb after the case saying that they had both been reported to the relevant agency and they were under investigation, or had been fined, or something. How stupid do you have to be to go on national TV and admit a fraud like that? Or maybe both of them just thought JM is so stupid herself that they could easily fool her. JM - who was working up righteous indignation and preparing to force the admission from plaintiff - was momentarily at a loss for words when after only a brief questioning the plaintiff casually said, "Yes." to the accusation of said fraud. 1 2 Link to comment
Katy M September 5, 2017 Share September 5, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: How stupid do you have to be to go on national TV and admit a fraud like that? Or maybe both of them just thought JM is so stupid herself that they could easily fool her. JM - who was working up righteous indignation and preparing to force the admission from plaintiff - was momentarily at a loss for words when after only a brief questioning the plaintiff casually said, "Yes." to the accusation of said fraud. He didn't actually admit to the fraud. He instead admitted to often signing blank forms for others to fill out. Which ought to be a crime in and of itself. It's the paperwork equivalent to leaving a loaded gun out in the open. And, of course, I don't believe him in the slightest. He totally filled it out and signed it. Or at the very least signed it after it had been filled out. Edited September 5, 2017 by Katy M 1 1 Link to comment
SRTouch September 5, 2017 Share September 5, 2017 39 minutes ago, Katy M said: He didn't actually admit to the fraud. He instead admitted to often signing blank forms for others to fill out. Which ought to be a crime in and of itself. It's the paperwork equivalent to leaving a loaded gun out in the open. And, of course, I don't believe him in the slightest. He totally filled it out and signed it. Or at the very least signed it after it had been filled out. The other thing is I wonder why it took a year of her paying rent before they came up with the whole increased rent/going on section 8 scam. I figure tenant lady is to dumb to come up with the idea, so I can buy landlord dude pitching the scheme to her in the hopes of getting at least some of the rent on time. Course, the scheme could be something hubby learned about while in the big house. 1 Link to comment
AZChristian September 5, 2017 Share September 5, 2017 I got the feeling right away that she got a 5-bedroom house under false pretenses, and was renting out the extra bedrooms. So she was getting income while the government was subsidizing her rent. Doesn't matter whether she was supposed to be paying the higher amount or the lower amount. SHE wasn't paying anything. 1 3 Link to comment
SRTouch September 5, 2017 Share September 5, 2017 'Nother "no good deed goes unpunished" case: plaintiff befriends defendant, a single mother and her teenage kids. When the single mom is kicked out of her apartment, plaintiff agrees to help out. At first she agrees to let the oldest daughter move in so she'll have a place to live while attending high school. Ah, but in a classic case of mission creep, more and more of the displaced family moves in, until it's not just one high schooler, it's the whole mob, including a dog and multiple cats. Trouble soon rears its head, and the guests take over and ignore the simple house rules. One of the rules - plaintiff has 8 indoor only cats of her own, so the rule is make sure to not let any of the cats out. Seems one of the guest kids has a habit of leaving the door open when taking the semi-house trained guest dog out to do its business. Big kerfuffle when said brat leaves the door open and let's out a resident kitty, then back talks and refuses to look for Houdini cat. (I have the same rule here with my 5 cats. Closest I came to giving my friend and long time housemate the boot was when I came home and found he has let a cat out without noticing.) Anyway, plaintiff is in court seeking rent and money for damage from the unruly guests. Sounds like she's spinning her wheels, as it doesn't sound like there was any agreement for rent, and she has no proof of the damages - though at one point defendant had agreed to pay for some damaged furniture. Oh, and part of the damage claim is for the guest dog and cats using the house as a big litter box... hey, lady, cats love structure. You mess up their routine, and they sometimes act out and start going outside the box. Just saying, some of the mess might well have been the resident cats marking their territory and objecting to the evil intruders using THEIR potty boxes... Anyway, what started out as a helping hand resulted in guests getting booted and guest mommy applying for a restraining order (denied). Back to the case... when defendant starts talking she accuses plaintiff of running a illegal escort service, saying that was the real reason plaintiff opened her home to her oldest daughter. Oh boy, plaintiff looks like she's about to blow up in some of the shots of her reaction. MM cuts right to the chase... when did defendant learn about this escort service (10 ago) and why in the world would she first allow her 18yo daughter to move into a house where a Madam was running such a Web based business, then move in herself with her whole family. Defendant has zero evidence backing up her charges, except she brought along the 18yo to back up the story... daughter is a terrible witness, really should have rehearsed her lines more. I'm not even sure what she was trying to say, as nothing I heard seemed to back up the charges, and MM easily blew all kinds of holes in her "testimony." Oh, and plaintiff has a text from the girl apologizing for ever bringing her family into the house. Anyway, MM gives plaintiff a chance to refute the charges, but she doesn't have much to say... just she's offended by the lies, she has a 5 year old, yada yada. Oh, BTW, she admits that at one point, years ago, before her daughter was born, she was an escort, but never a madam. Really, all that is beside the point - but maybe they can get booked onto Springer. The case here is about rent and damages. Far as I can see, her claim for rent is retroactive after the kerfuffle. No real proof of damages, well except defendant admitting at one point she was willing to pay for a busted kid sized recliner. Defendant has a better case on her countersuit. She has evidence FedEx delivered a package to plaintiff's house, plaintiff admits it was delivered and her son opened it, but now says she doesn't know where the contents are. Rough justice - plaintiff gets a little, defendant gets something in her counterclaim - net result, plaintiff gets a couple hundred bucks of the 1700 she wanted. Whoa, I paused the tape while plaintiff was talking to Doug... man she looks pissed. Anyway, she says the moral of the story is never lend a helping hand. Really, what she should have learned is not to open her house up to folks when they get kicked out someplace else, cause there might be a good reason they were kicked out. Defendant apparently feels vindicated, continues with prostitution charges and happy she didn't have to pay more. car repair kerfuffle: plaintiff says when she picked up her Mercedes it wasn't acting right, so she took it to a different shop where the new mechanic found a bad fuel pump. Defendant says he replaced a radiator, but plaintiff picked up the 10yo car while it still needed work. Yeah, fuel pump may have fried, but what he repaired was done right... not his fault it still needed work which she didn't want to pay for and resulted in the subsequent repair bill. Simple case, all plaintiff needs to do is have an expert testify first shop did faulty work which caused the later problem, otherwise, what we have is a ten year car with worn out parts going bad. Have to laugh at this one. Right after plaintiff says her car was running fine, but she was taking it in because she was told there was oil in her antifreeze, mechanic starts listing everything he noted and put on the work order before work was done. Anyway, two totally different versions of what happened. What it comes down to is plaintiff can't prove the shop did anything wrong, so her case is a no go. Countersuit also a bust. He admitted at the beginning that his suit was filed because he was PO'ed she sued, now he wants to be paid for stuff he admits wouldn't have been charged for if she hadn't sued... he's even laughing about it as MM explains why his case is going nowhere. different take on a deposit case: rather than the usual rental security deposit suit, this case is about a deposit put down to hold a pool table the dude was interested in buying. Dude sees the table, puts down a couple hundred to hold the table, but then finds out it will cost an arm and a leg to move. So, he wants out of the deal and the money back. Defendant says she had 4 potential buyers when dude put down the deposit and she told the other guys it was sold. Since she took it off the market, and the other interested buyers are out of the picture after he dithered around for 4-5 days, she should get to keep the deposit. Apparently, time was of the essence, as she had a contractor scheduled to redo her floors, and by the time plaintiff backed out she had to give it away to get it out of the contractor's way. Pretty simple, just like a rental deposit, when dude put down the deposit he agreed to the buy, defendant took it off the market, the deposit is, by default, non refundable. Mini-fireworks when dude tries to argue mid-ruling, but MM stands up and rules. Had another laugh in this one, where dude and his crew of friends gave up on moving the table and dude was looking to hire professional movers, and defendant says when she gave it away it was moved by 1 big guy and two little skinny dudes... yeah, work smarter not harder - tip it on its side onto a couple furniture dollys and roll it away (course they still need a ramp to get it on a truck). Really, dude, by your own estimate the thing weighed 8-900 pounds and you were able to lift one end by yourself, yet you couldn't figure out how to get it home with a few friends. Hmmmm sounds more like a case of buyer's remorse... or maybe not having a place to put it... or just the wife saying this is a really dumb purchase. 1 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 5, 2017 Share September 5, 2017 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: 'Nother "no good deed goes unpunished" case: plaintiff befriends defendant, a single mother and her teenage kids. I admit I could not watch all of this. The plaintiff is a "student"? Of what? Her English was so garbled that Douglas had to act as interpreter. Then we heard from defs (whose English was impeccable) accusing plaintiff of running a stable of (online?) prostitutes or being an escort (which turned out to be true) or whatever. Who cares? I stopped there since I didn't want to hear about animals being lost or abused, etc, because yeah - people who are homeless, or living on the edge should get lots of pets. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: car repair kerfuffle: Plaintiff seemed to be an expert in diagnosing car problems, so I was wondering why she doesn't do her own repairs. As JM said, things go wrong on a 10-year old car, even if that car is a Mercedes. Stuff wears out! Somehow I doubt def went out of his way to burn up her fuel pump. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: different take on a deposit case: rather than the usual rental security deposit suit, this case is about a deposit put down to hold a pool table the dude was interested in buying. OH dear. I zoned out so much on the other two annoying cases, I plumb forgot to watch this one! 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch September 6, 2017 Share September 6, 2017 one of the quirks of my local station that I see TPC on, is that when they test their routine emergency broadcast system, instead of a simple alarm and scrolling marquee across the screen, they also cut the audio for 30 seconds or so after their test runs - and of course they end up running the test several times. End result, I get to watch a case without half the audio (I do catch part of the missed audio on CC, but not all of it). Today is the day they did their test, so I only heard half of what was being said during the first case. friendly loan non-payment case: yet another case where defendant feels that "helping out" means "hey, old friend, you've been such a great friend, here's hundreds of dollars." These women apparently worked together 20 years ago, lost touch, then reconnected through FB. Of course, as plaintiff tells the story, she made a series of 2 loans a couple weeks apart, never a receipt, IOU, or anything silly like that, she keeps stressing that with each of these loans she made it clear that they were loans and she needed to be repaid - but never got repaid. Poor defendant messes up her defense right off the line. Her defense is that she thought these were just gifts, not loans. But... right as she starts talking, of course saying she didn't ask for a loan, plaintiff offered it when she was moaning about losing her second job and slow times at her other job... defendant slips up and says she wouldn't have taken the money if she knew the plaintiff wanted to be repaid right away. Course MM caught that and asks if she thought it was a a gift, why would she think she'd have to eventually pay. Time for plan B, now defendant is saying plaintiff gave the money in an attempt to buy her friendship (course Harvey makes it sound like there plaintiff may have been wanting more than just friendship, but I didn't hear anything of that from defendant), and once she made it clear she wasn't interested plaintiff demanded repayment. Oh yeah, time for mud slinging! According to defendant, the plaintiff is known for throwing money at folks to buy friendship and/or affection.... says she throws a couple thousand to this or that person - course she doesn't know any names, but everybody knows. Sounds a lot like yesterday's "no good deed" case where plaintiff went out of her way for someone only to get kicked in the teeth on national tv. Sort of like yesterday where there was a kernel of truth to the escort story, today plaintiff admits that she once sued a friend over a loan, back when she was 19 - she's 42yo, but insists she doesn't make a habit of giving money and suing when people don't become bosom buddies. Amongst the mud slinging, defendant says the money was a gift from june/July til Sept, then when she wasn't being a good enough friend it became a loan. MM asks a couple times, so there was never a request for repayment for months? Ah, MM already knows that plaintiff has the texts where defendant was promising tof pay back the money, and that the check/money order is in the mail. Oh, in the mail, but she didn't believe plaintiff when she said she never got it. Next obvious question, was the money order cashed... nah, defendant never bothered to follow up to see if it was cashed. Ah well, after reading the texts MM tires of poking hole in defendant's various defenses, tells everybody watching to be careful helping defendant cause she might turn on you, and rules for the plaintiff. pit bull attack (skipped most of this one): plaintiff's story is that she was walking down the alley with her son and Boston Terrier. Pit bull was in fenced back yard, but forced it's way through the fence to attack. Plaintiff scooped up her dog when she saw the put, but it pulled her dog out of her arms. Attack happened near a police station, they responded to her screams, maced the pit - no responce, then tasered it to get the pit to release the terrier. After big time surgery, terrier survived. Defendant denies he owns the dog, says it belongs to tenant in basement. Oh boy, what a lame defendant! In his written answer, says he was at the hospital at the time because he had a heart attack... oops, here he says it was because he has cancer. When questioned, it appears he also had a stroke... but of course he has no hospital records to show, just papers showing he doesn't own the dog. Seems the dog's owner is in the wind, but plaintiff claims the dog is still there... where the hell is animal control? If the owner has abandoned the dog, why hasn't it been seized? If this is this guy's dog, why isn't animal control doing something to make him fix the fence? I totally believe the dog is still there, otherwise why the half-assed repair of the flimsy fence. Ok, already watched to much time to hit the button before I end up throwing the remote at the tv.... oops, maybe I quit too soon, seems at one point MM says she doesn't believe a word, defendant gets insulted, has a hissy fit and gets booted. Not enough to go back and watch, though. I gather from the tail end of the case that MM awarded most of what plaintiff asked for, and was pissed enough at defendant to give plaintiff more time to produce evidence of additional damages - but guess she felt she had gotten enough, as no additional evidence was presented. rental case: entitled plaintiff, on a month to month tenancy, breaks up with bf and is asked to leave by landlords. Almost gave up and skipped this one after the nonsense dog case, but decided to watch to see how in the world young Miss Tyi Jones expects to win a case for moving costs and storage fees... I could maybe see the security, but this other stuff? Course there's a countersuit. Yep, landlord's want three grand for back rent and damages above and beyond that covered by the security. Seems both young Miss Tyi and the missing bf were on the lease, but figured the landlords should forgive their not paying rent when they broke up and split with 1 week notice. Oh dear, defendant landlord giving an Elmer Fudd impersonation, slooooowwww talking and considering every word, and I was already thinking of putting the harness on Sillycat and going out to check the bird situation around the feeder. Maybe I'll watch later, but this one looks to be a dud. 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 6, 2017 Share September 6, 2017 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: friendly loan non-payment case: yet another case where defendant feels that "helping out" means "hey, old friend, you've been such a great friend, here's hundreds of dollars." I have friends I've had since we were five years old. I love them dearly, but not once have I showered hundreds or thousands (or any really!) dollars on them, not that they would say, "Hey, if someone offers, I take!" The fact that the def is a rough-looking, lowlife parasite doesn't excuse plaintiff being so stupid and guillible at her age. Hook up on FB with someone I worked with years ago? Of course I'll give her all the money she needs, cuz I'm such a nice person. There are worthier causes a person can spend money on. The old, tired argument of "I was only giving her money back because she harassed me/I was trying to help her out even though it was a gift" that stupid def. trotted out is so boring and trite. Heard the blurb, saw the participants, skipped second case. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: rental case: entitled plaintiff, on a month to month tenancy, breaks up with bf and is asked to leave by landlords. Defs seemed like nice people but I couldn't help thinking that if ever anyone suited the name "Herbert" it was the landlord. Anyway, how many of you have nose rings? Have we ever - on this show - seen someone with any intelligence and education with a nose ring? I don't think so. Plaintiff, who defs let off the hook (she didn't owe Feb rent because she was moving for the whole month therefore shouldn't have to pay anything!) seemed to think her charming nose ring, which I personally find ultra-revolting, and her flipping-around orange/green whatever hair, would win her case. JM found her dumbness/chutzpah not cute in the least. She still thinks she's right in the hall. Not even an explanation in words of one syllable sank into her thick head. I understand why defs were willing to do anything to see the back side of her, but I"m sorry they didn't win their countersuit. Doug in the hall? He just doesn't care what he says to litigants. I love that! 1 6 Link to comment
Broderbits September 6, 2017 Share September 6, 2017 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Doug in the hall? He just doesn't care what he says to litigants. I love that! I love how he doesn't let anyone get away with saying "the judge didn't let me talk" and other bull. So glad they brought him back to the show! 1 7 Link to comment
Katy M September 6, 2017 Share September 6, 2017 The animal cases usually make me so mad. I remember the only case that made me cry. There was this little girl (not sure how old, exactly, maybe like 10-12) and she was walking her dog down a public street. A dog (I think a pitbull, but I'm not sure) attacked her dog and killed it. The owner of that dog had the audacity to blame the girl because she shouldn't have walked it down the public street. She had the poor girl in tears. No kid needs to be blamed for a death, especially one that was NOT anywhere near her fault. And the judge totally ripped into that dog owner and assured the girl it wasn't her fault. I teared up typing that, as I remembered. Man, how low do you have to be to blame a kid for your irresponsibility of not properly securing your dog (which had at least bitten before)? 1 4 Link to comment
Hockeymom September 7, 2017 Share September 7, 2017 15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I have friends I've had since we were five years old. I love them dearly, but not once have I showered hundreds or thousands (or any really!) dollars on them, not that they would say, "Hey, if someone offers, I take!" The fact that the def is a rough-looking, lowlife parasite doesn't excuse plaintiff being so stupid and guillible at her age. Hook up on FB with someone I worked with years ago? Of course I'll give her all the money she needs, cuz I'm such a nice person. There are worthier causes a person can spend money on. The old, tired argument of "I was only giving her money back because she harassed me/I was trying to help her out even though it was a gift" that stupid def. trotted out is so boring and trite. Not to defend the defendant, but, I do think the plaintiff was looking for a little "knight in shining armor" action. The "lowlife parasite" is a waitress. She was talking about work being slow in the summer. I can vouch for that. Sounds like they were from around here. Restaurants do slow down considerably because people head to the shore or the Poconos. Things get back to normal toward the end of September. Of course a grown mother with children should be supporting herself. No question there. And it does look like she was working hard. She had two jobs. Being on your feet all day is no picnic. I don't think the plaintiff ever expected repayment. Defendant couldn't pay her rent. How was the plaintiff expecting her to pay rent and a loan? She wasn't. If a friend confides that they can't pay rent and you reply that you have hundreds of dollars in your pocket, it sounds like you are a) bragging and b) offering to share. Otherwise, you keep your mouth shut and change the subject. I've "lent" money to friends over the years. If people are truly struggling, their situation is not going to improve overnight. You need to be prepared to have the cash leave your life once it leaves your hand. Either they will get it together and their situation will improve, or they will go from crisis to crisis. Either way, if you obsess over the money you will go crazy. Just be thankful you were in a position to give it, and move on. Just my opinion, but I bet if the plaintiff was still invited over to enjoy the air conditioning in the defendant's apartment, the money would be a non-issue. 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 7, 2017 Share September 7, 2017 18 minutes ago, Hockeymom said: Not to defend the defendant, but, I do think the plaintiff was looking for a little "knight in shining armor" action. That very well could be, that she wants to be a savior, although we know def is a liar. I've never seen a single word or display of gratitude from any litigant on this show who's been given money, cars, trips or whatever. The person doing the loaning is always called an evil money-grubber for wanting to be paid back and the borrower usually decides not to pay back anything when the lender asks, since that's "harassment" and will NOT be rewarded by any indignant low-life parasite on this show. As JJ says, 'If you lend money you will always be the bad guy." 1 4 Link to comment
Katy M September 7, 2017 Share September 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Hockeymom said: I've "lent" money to friends over the years. If people are truly struggling, their situation is not going to improve overnight. You need to be prepared to have the cash leave your life once it leaves your hand. Either they will get it together and their situation will improve, or they will go from crisis to crisis. Either way, if you obsess over the money you will go crazy. Just be thankful you were in a position to give it, and move on. I agree. Give money to family and friends. If they pay it back, great. If not, who cares. If you do want to make sure it's paid back, even if it's your best friend, fiancé, mother, brother, whatever, get it in writing, when you are expecting it back. That way they know. There's no question. And, even if you choose not to sue, you can point to the agreement when talking to them. 1 3 Link to comment
SRTouch September 7, 2017 Share September 7, 2017 (edited) who owes the rent: two dude's do their best to make construction workers look like slobs with zero idea of how to take care of simple rent - sounds like an Odd Couple with two slobs and no OCD neat freak. Truth is, I had the case running in the background while I was going around changing Alarm batteries, so just caught a couple glimpses of these two. I did stop to watch when MM stopped to put on gloves before handling the paperwork evidence... really, you just know that apartment was bad if you need gloves to handle a piece of paper. Anyway, plaintiff couldn't answer the simplest question, oh like how much did you pay the landlord. Then, tried to stick the roommate with the whole amount instead of his share. Oh well, that about all I got from half listening, and wasn't interested enough to start from the beginning. bad doggy day care: plaintiff boards his senior dog while on vacation, and finds it limping when he goes to pick it up. So, now he wants vet bills, missed work, pain and suffering, and the moon. Defendant, who is a groomer and also boards pups, says there was no trauma, dog is just old. Plaintiff has an uphill battle here, has to prove defendant was negligent and did something wrong. Doesn't help when he has to admit that the dog has a iffy medical history, which includes bladder and knee surgery. Only chance I see for a win is if he has expert testimony (turns out he does). It also doesn't help that dude is so unsure of his facts... isn't sure if it was defendant or some unnamed mystery worker who told him the dog had an "old lady" limp. Took the dog to the vet - not sure if it the same day or the next, and says vet said x-ray shows dislocated hip. Has a picture of the x-ray on his phone to show - not sure if an actual vet would try to diagnose and injury from a phone. Even if you can see the dislocation, what's to say the defendant is at fault. I mean, us old folks can sometimes hurt ourselves getting out of bed in the morning. And didn't guy admit the dog needed knee surgery? It was either when the dog was 3yo, or maybe 3 years ago, not sure which. And is this a breed known for hip problems? Ah, but defendant does her best to give the case away. Admits the dog was limping days before being picked up, but just observed the old dog instead of contacting the owners or getting it checked by a vet - even tells us it could have just been a hang nail, and even I can see something suspicious on the phone x-ray pic. Not sure what she was charging, but supposedly the owner had called to check up on his dog while out of state, so why not call him when you first see a limp. It definitely doesn't help that defendant keeps offering testimony to events that she didn't witness... mystery employee Stephanie told them about the limp on the phone, mystery unnamed employee shrugged off the limp as "old lady limp." Don't know if that's enough to hold her legally liable, but wouldn't board any of my critters there. Even with plaintiff's earlier sketchy testimony, once his wife stands up she is positive no one told them about the limp, knows they waited til the next day to take her to the vet (and hubby finally remembers why the waited - vet closed early that day). Then MM reads up the vet report, ah the needed expert testimony - definitely dislocated, defendant admitted to vet when called, that dog was limping for a couple days, vet put in report that delay made putting joint back in place more difficult, likely causing the required surgery - oh and the injury "likely, in her expert opinion, caused by trauma." Seems to me, defendant shows more remorse over not getting a liability waiver signed than she did when discussing the dog's injury. Maybe because I don't like the defendant's lack of concern, that's enough for me to award the plaintiffs the case. Once it's apparent MM may go against her, defendant finally shows concern, even interrupting and trying to talk over the judge. Plaintiffs don't get what they're asking, but do get a couple grand. Ah, watching the dog limp around three months after the injury, I think it's too bad pets can't get pain and suffering. big used vehicle case: only thing different in this one is the vehicle is a used dump truck. (Oh, and I needed CC help to interpret what the heck plaintiff was saying - bad case of accented mush mouth.) Yep, old "as is" 30 day warranty holds for big trucks as little compact cars. Heck, seller in this case even fixed it the first couple times it broke down, but apparently plaintiff experts a life time warranty. Guess what, there actually was a warranty... the standard warranty NY State has for used vehicles depending on age/mileage of the vehicle. Seems pretty simple, but it's always bad when the judge asks what a warranty covers and nobody has the warranty to show. Oh, but the truck had over 100,000 miles, so seller didn't have to give any warranty... yet he says he gave a 30 day warranty and was willing to fix anything that went wrong in the 30 days. Heck, defendant even picked up the truck and took it to be inspected prior to plaintiff registering it because the guy didn't plan on using the truck right away and defendant kept it registered in his name after the sale. Ah, but on the trip to get it registered, truck acted up while defendant was driving. Towed it back to defendant's place, and he replaced a fuel pump - no charge to plaintiff. But unbeknownst to any of these guys, this vehicle had multiple fuel pumps, so replacing one doesn't do the trick. Plaintiff take possession of the truck, drives for a few days or weeks, and the problem comes back... now WAY out of warranty. Another tow, they realise there are multiple fuel pumps, so now both pumps are replaced - again no charge. Couple months later it breaks down yet again, but this time defendant says sorry, not going to fix it a third time long after warranty expired. Oops, times up, we get to hear little Spanish and MM tells plaintiff 30 days means 30 days. Case dismissed. Edited September 8, 2017 by SRTouch 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 7, 2017 Share September 7, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: who owes the rent: two dude's do their best to make construction workers look like slobs with zero idea of how to take care of simple rent Watching this hammered home to me why so many women these days are so incredibly desperate. Two grown men - 27 and 29 years old(!) and they behave and speak like little sissy, irresponsible,dweebs and babies. And these ones (unlike most of the others over whom women fight each other in the street) have jobs! I never thought I'd be happy to not be young anymore. These dipshits make me rethink that. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: bad doggy day care: plaintiff boards his senior dog while on vacation, and finds it limping when he goes to pick it up. So, now he wants vet bills, missed work, pain and suffering, and the moon. He was incredibly annoying, with his slow, drawn-out story. JM had to FF him and I'm sure she wanted to scream "GET ON WITH IT!" Anyway, the boarding lady was wrong, very wrong not to call the owners and/or take the doggie to the vet. I bet someone there picked up the dog, maybe it struggled and that person may have dropped it on the floor and just hoped the owners wouldn't notice anything. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: And is this a breed known for hip problems? Very small breed dogs, like this one, which normally come from backyard breeders, are known for having luxating patellas, not dislocated hips. Poor little thing must have been in terrible pain, but no one at the boarding kennel would do anything about it and just let the dog suffer for days, in case it cost them money. Yeah, in the hall? "We love dogs here!" Sure you do, as long as the money from them flows in and not out. Really, in this case, I was sorry plaintiffs (who were just looking for a boe-nanza) couldn't get more money on behalf of the dog's unnecessary pain and suffering, just to punish defendant and make sure she exposed herself and got none of the show's money. Maybe her last name wasnt' used or the name of her kennel, but for sure people in her area will recognize her. What a pig. I could never go and sit at my dinner table and eat, while knowing any animal in my care was in pain. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: big used vehicle case: only thing different in this one is the vehicle is a used dump truck. (Oh, and I needed CC help to interpret what the heck plaintiff was saying - bad case of accented mush mouth.) It wasn't just an accent. I was wondering how someone who appeared to be so dull-witted could hope to run a business. He buys an ancient dump truck - that was surely hard-used in its long life - and expects def to keep fixing it til either he or the truck dies of old age. He just could NOT comprehend "30-day warranty" even though def went above and beyond policy to help him, and was still mush-mouthing in the hall about how unfair it all is. 1 8 Link to comment
califred September 9, 2017 Share September 9, 2017 I couldn't even with the first case today. The handymans speech was too hard to understand. Then the Landlord who thought he should keep the whole deposit because he chose to renovate after tenants left? And finally used car car buyer who is lucky he even got a 30 day 50/50 warranty but didn't grasp how it worked. 1 2 Link to comment
meowmommy September 9, 2017 Share September 9, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, califred said: I couldn't even with the first case today. The handymans speech was too hard to understand. I speak fluent Bostonian but I always watch with the closed captioning on. The most amazing thing about this case was that toothless geezer not only has an ex-wife but has a girlfriend. Edited September 9, 2017 by meowmommy 1 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 9, 2017 Share September 9, 2017 13 hours ago, califred said: I couldn't even with the first case today. The handymans speech was too hard to understand. Yeah, being as toothless as a newborn baby does create that problem. And then the plaintiff, who likes to smoke a lot of weed, looked and sounded zonked here with her slow, rambling tale and unfocused look. Maybe she was drunk. Awful people all around. She tries to save a few dollars by hiring some not-so-handy handyman to change her water heater, makes multiple trips to Loew's or wherever. Handy Kevin figures plaintiff may as well buy him a bunch of tools during the shopping sprees, since he can probably use them on his next handy adventure. My water heater conked out awhile ago. I didn't go looking for someone who appeared to have just come off a 3-week bender (Imagine how he looked when he was drinking and drugging, and yeah, I would love to have seen his girlfriend!) and who appears as though a stiff breeze could knock him over. I'm sure their area has what mine does - a 24/hr water heater supplier/installer who will come within hours and do the job right. I didn't even have to go shopping or smoke weed with the guy who did mine. 13 hours ago, califred said: And finally used car car buyer who is lucky he even got a 30 day 50/50 warranty but didn't grasp how it worked. UNbelievable. He smilingly proclaimed, as though he had caught def in some sort of scam, that the car was listed at 3K but when he called it was 3.9K. Ah ha! Oh, but that's the financing, since he probably has no credit of any kind, is a very bad risk and has to pay exhorbitant rates. The 30-day, 50/50 thing: It's funny when litigants find out the sole argument on which they've based their entire case is voided merely because they can't read properly. 13 hours ago, califred said: Then the Landlord who thought he should keep the whole deposit because he chose to renovate after tenants left? I wonder if he's figured out by now how utterly stupid he looked and sounded? His only answer - and he ran out of answers quickly and resorted to head-hanging silence when questioned - was that he used the money to improve his property, as though that was totally legitimate. I'm glad JM further embarassed him by reminding him that in his answer, he said he thought the counter was cracked from plaintiffs having some sort of uber-vigorous sex on it. He was unable to provide a theory as to how they made the floor boards separate. Maybe they had pneumatic sex on the floor too. OMG, he was so dumb it was almost pitiful. 1 3 Link to comment
SRTouch September 9, 2017 Share September 9, 2017 (edited) recap a day late... I was on a road trip yesterday (chauffeur duty for friend's doctor appointment, and visit to the 45th Inf Division Museum) not so handyman: boozy plaintiff calls for help when her hot water heater "explodes" Christmas night (which she originally calls December 25th, Christmas Eve). Anyway, the noise wakes her up, and she calls Kevin, the friendly handyman to come fix the problem. Dec 26 they head out to Lowes, where she buys everything Kevin says they need to replace the tank for the tidy sum of $1900 - whoa, sounds a little pricey, but then she did say a hybrid water heater so maybe that's right. Turns out they don't have everything needed for the repair (perfectly understandable, I NEVER get everything for a home repair the first trip), for multiple trips for more stuff. Plaintiff can't remember ever getting into a kerfuffle with toothless Kevin, all she remembers is giving him a partial payment for his labor of $300, he leaves to get his truck and never comes back to finish the job. Doesn't make much sense, and we know how JJ thinks when the story doesn't make sense. Soooo, MM goes to Ol' Kevin for his side. Ok, should have turned on the CC when I saw the earlier comments, as making sense of Kevin requires some help. Kev's story has her spending $2800 at Lowes, partially to fill his toolchest (he says new tools was part of his payment), and he says he was never hired to complete the install, just do enough to get water flowing. He says he got things working as agreed, but was sick - 6 weeks of walking pneumonia, so wasn't up to doing the complete job. Besides, he's a long time clean recovering addict, and she was smoking pot and boozing it up. He says he asked her to quit smoking in front of him several times, and eventually he left the job because she kept smoking her weed. When asked, plaintiff admits she may have been smoking a joint. Plaintiff has maybe smoked and boozed a bit too much over the years, she has trouble choosing her words and now she says she and "Jeff" shared a joint... not sure if this is a new person or if maybe she's substituting "Jeff" for "Kev." (I even went back to the intro to make sure Kev is Kev and not Jeff.) For what ever reason - illness, too much weed, or never really hired to complete the job - he leaves the job incomplete... but with some new tools and left over parts. She "harrasses" him by calling and coming to his house trying to get him to finish the job. Eventually she hires a real plumber, licensed and everything, which brings in code enforcement, an electrician, permits, the whole enchilada - which of course she wants Kev to pay for. He on the otherhand, wants money for being harrassed, and because she apparently mentioned to everyone within range what an un-handy handyman he is... oh, and accused him of killing his ex-wife, who he says committed suicide. Hmmm, now he's mentioning "Jeff," not sure who Jeff is, but from the context Jeff might be his helper since he's saying Jeff was included in her badmouthing. Rough justice time ... he keeps the $300 partial payment for labor for the partial job, has to pay for the tools, and for the licensed people who had to undo his jerry rigged / unsafe job, and gets nothing for the "harrassment/slander" countersuit. In hallterview, red faced Kevin says he learned not to do favors for a friend, and is happy to be out of the court. Plaintiff tells us she's still pursuing a criminal case for the extra stuff charged on her card at Lowes... she won't be happy until her friend who answered her call for help Christmas night is in prison and paying a $10,000 fine. tenants want their deposit: hmmmm, I have nothing against hyphenated names, or someone keeping their surname when they marry, just not sure what plaintiff's name is... is her first name hyphenated, is the hyphen in the wrong place in the intro, just not sure why she needs 4 names (Fuima-Faustina Roger's Banks)... and what does she put in the blocks on a computerized form where there are only so many spaces? Anyway, their charge is that landlord is unjustly holding onto their $1,200 deposit. Oops, sounds like this is a case of a landlord wanting to pay for a reno on the tenant's dime. Tenants lived the a couple years, and moved at end of lease. They knew enough to take pictures, but not enough to get them printed so they are usuable - lots of scratches on the pictures with glare. They admit they cracked the bathroom vanity, but otherwise the pictures so a clean, damage-free apartment - certainly nothing to withhold 1200 bucks over. When landlord starts to explain why he kept the money it seems his theory is that if he uses enough multisyllable words he'll wow the judge and she just Ok his keeping the money. Big sounding words, but sounds like he's saying he renovated things on their dime while experiencing a cash flow problem of his own. Once MM shuts that down, he torpedoes his case by saying they caused "basic wear and tear." Ok, case over, unless they're behind in rent they pay for the vanity and case closed - oh unless they're in a jurisdiction where renters get double or triple the deposit when landlord wrongfully holds onto the deposit. He shows pictures of "damaged floors," which not only don't help his case, but bolsters the plaintiff's. Lots of stumbling and hms and haws while he tries to talk his way out of the pickle he's found himself in - all his big words were used up in his prepared/rehearsed opening statement. Dude jyst keeps stepping in it... just said he never said he wasn't going to return the deposit - and of course MM jumps in with "then why are they having to sue for it?" Hmmm was dude's bald head always so shiny, or is he sweating? Rough justice... plaintiffs pay want MM thinks the damage they admit to is worth (twice what they agree with, since they ignored the labor involved in replacing the door and vanity they admit breaking). used car warranty kerfuffle: dude buys a car with a partial warranty, then has a fit when he finds out he's out of pocket for a portion of a needed repair. Both litigants are irritatingly hard of hearing, they're in love with the sound of their own voices and aren't hearing anything no matter how many times and ways MM explains things. Plaintiff wants $5000 to repair a 12yo $1000 Kia - oh and he didn't bother to take it to a dealer to get the $5600 repair estimate until just before the trial, which is months after the warranty expired. Slippery dealer can't be bothered to bring a copy of the warranty or the records for when plaintiff brought the car in for repairs while the car WAS covered by warranty. Doesn't really matter the first time, but he tries to deny the car was brought in a second time while under warranty, yet somehow that second time was when the kerfuffle over 50/50 cost of parts occured. The whole denial of a second time is so that he can claim he doesn't have to pay half the costs of repair since he wasn't notified of a problem with the warranted 30 days. Nope! I totally believe the irritating plaintiff that the check engine light was lit up from the get go, and that he can't get it to pass the inspection needed to register the car with the light on. So, what do we call a car that can't be registered/insured? Uh, big paperweight, or more likely a car being driven illegally. My solution.... make the dealer repair the car under warranty since the problem preexisted the warranty expiration... not a perfect solution, because I wouldn't want to trust slick to fix it right, but think the dealer estimate is to make that '05 like new. MM disagrees, she rules for the dealer... Guess she didn't see enough to believe in that second disputed visit, and that ridiculously bloated dealer estimate certainly didn't help. Edited September 9, 2017 by SRTouch 1 4 Link to comment
califred September 9, 2017 Share September 9, 2017 @AngelaHunter your post gave me some great laughs! 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 9, 2017 Share September 9, 2017 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: not so handyman: boozy plaintiff calls for help when her hot water heater "explodes" Christmas night (which she originally calls December 25th, Christmas Eve). Anyway, the noise wakes her up Who wants to bet that only an explosion at an atomic level could have woken her up from whatever kind of chemically or alcoholically induced sleep/coma she was in? 2 hours ago, califred said: your post gave me some great laughs! Glad you enjoyed. We all need laughs, right? 1 2 Link to comment
aemom September 10, 2017 Share September 10, 2017 (edited) When Doug was speaking to the handyman case litigants, I got the impression that the man with the plaintiff was her son, and he seemed very embarrassed by his mother's behavior. Every episode seems to include cases of a security deposit, a pitbull eating a dog, or buyer's remorse on a used car. Edited September 10, 2017 by AEMom Typo 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch September 11, 2017 Share September 11, 2017 exes fight over sons' expenses: mom is suing pop for 3 grand 'cause he won't help to pay for a portion of one kid's wedding. (They've been divorced 25 years or so.) So, pop decides to sue her 'cause he paid the bill for both sons' college - says it cost a couple hundred grand each, so he wants the court max, 7 grand. Both sides claim the other agreed to pay of what they're suing for, but nobody paid - and neither agrees they agreed to pay. What struck me right off, the son who got married was 29yo... sooo, at 29, mom and pops still paying for the wedding? And, if I heard right, the $3100 mom is suing for was the bill for flowers, rehearsal dinner and a brunch? Ah, now when asked why I never married, I'll just say my folks never had the money. Heck, at 29 I was halfway through my Army career, and wouldn't have thought to ask. What struck me next, what's with mom putting thousands of dollars on a credit card for a adult son's (who I gather has an MBA in finance) wedding. According to mom, she laid out the money, thinking pops would pay half, and for months after the wedding he repeatedly told her he'd pay, then 4 months after the wedding he told her he didn't owe a penny. When MM turns to him and to get his version, he says "hi, um, I don't understand... what do you want me to say?" Well, how 'bout was there an agreement to pay half the expenses mom put on her card, and did you let her think money would be forthcoming for months before finally saying nothing was coming? According to pops, before the wedding he didn't agree or disagree to pay a portion... no, whenever mom brought it up he dodged the question and let her assume whatever she wanted. Thing is, sounds like pops wasn't and isn't at all close to these adult sons, who were toddlers when the the divorce occured. MM "What do your sons do?" Pops "They work... I think one's in construction and the other maybe does something in finance." Mom "One is a civil engineering and the other has his MBA and works in finance." Ok, his countersuit is going nowhere. His basis for claiming she owes something for their college is a phrase in the divorce decree that says that both sides "will attempt to agree to pay" a portion of education costs. Well, he figures after his paying 400 grand for school for which she paid zero, she should just eat the wedding expenses. Hmmmm, maybe so, if they had had an actual agreement, but "attempt to agree" says nothing. OTOH, his claim that he was avoiding talking about his contributing for the wedding before, during and for months after the wedding is false. Nope, another case where a litigant case is torpedoed by their own words in a voice mail (although it sounds like the voice mail came out after MM had already made up her mind). Ok, he doesn't say he'll pay half, but MM says (and I agree) that she thinks he said that he would, and the voice mail telling mom where to put the receipts certainly seems to indicate he was agreeing to pay sonething.... Rough justice, by preponderance of evidence he owes half of her expenses (which now includes interest on her credit card) so she gets the 3100 she asked for, and he gets nothing on his countersuit. dog gets hurt at the groomer: whoa, plaintiff says his dog had a vet bill for almost 5 grand! WTH! Course plaintiff says dog was fine when he took her to the groomer, and when he got there he found the place under new management. He left the dog in their care, but then got a call saying there had been an accident, and the dog had been taken to an emergency vet. Defendants, who apparently refused to provide any insurance info after the incident, say the dog attacked when they tried to get it out of the carrier, it fell and got hurt. (Well, at least these folks didn't pass it off as an "old lady limp" like in another recent case.) Ok, since plaintiff wasn't there for the actual accident, MM changes sides and lets defendants tell what happened. Ah, yet another time when a crucial witness is missing. They tell us the dog bit the employee who was going to bath her - twice - but that employee isn't here. So, the owner/head groomer went to get the dog, and it lunged at him, missed, and fell and broke it's leg. Ok, little terrier type mix, I can buy it might be freaked at strangers trying to pull it out of its crate, and despite the cuteness factors, terriers were originally bred as vermin exterminators, so can be agressive. However, I would expect professional groomers to know how to handle it without injury to themselves or the dog... don't see how they dodge liability for the vet bills. Ah, unlike the other recent case, the owner in this case signed a release before he left his dog. (Any Dr Jeff fans here? Couldn't help but think of him as old dude is talking about the 3-4000 grand estimate for the surgery, and can hear Jeff saying how he'd do it for 3 or 4 hundred. New Season of Dr Jeff coming later this month.) 'Nother ah, MM reads the release, and says it's not enough - the defendant admitted Stella, the terrier, was hurt in an accident he could have prevented in MM's view. She didn't really go into how he could have avoided it, but in my view these folks really need some remedial training in handling skittish and/or aggressive dogs. Right off the bat, lady defendant claimed terrier, Stella, nipped at her through the carrier when owner turned her in. So, did she red flag the kennel so the employee who was supposedly bitten twice knew to be careful. Not an expert here, just someone who has been around a lot of dogs over the years, but holding a towel in front of the open door seems pretty sketchy to me when the dog supposedly just bit someone. Anyway, MM read their release, and determined it did NOT absolve them of liability. Course defendant tells Doug he doesn't agree in hallterview, but what he really should do is take it to a lawyer and get it reworded - after getting that remedial training I mentioned. Plaintiff wins most of what he was asking, just not his travel expenses to the specialist vet who did the surgery. car insurance case: (should have skipped this nonsense - case flipped back and forth so many times i gave up on keeping it straight and i know most of this recap is wrong): hmmm, from the intro, plaintiff charges people to "help" them get car insurance. What does that even mean? And, according to him, he provided defendant with his "help" for $3500. Defendant says he thought plaintiff rates were outrageous, so he went elsewhere. My my, these two are staring each other down while the intro is going on. I guess what plaintiff means is he sells insurance to folks who have trouble getting insured, he sold a policy to defendant, but defendant refuses to pay. He supposedly sold defendant (gap in insurance and history of suspended license) a policy for $2700 for 1 year. Apparently, with the high risk insurance, when the insurance is sold he was committed to pay for 9 months. Ah, but it turns out our high risk dude doesn't disclose everything when he takes out the policy. He has a teenager, which puts him in an even higher risk group. He yaks about how the teenager is actually away at college - plaintiff says he repeatedly asked for proof, defendant says he never got around to it... guess he figured he'd just pay the higher rate - oh, but we're here because he not only didn't provide the needed proof, but didn't pay the extra. So, at the end of the year, he owed an additional 7 some odd bucks.... hmmmm, so, asks da judge, if he owed 700 odd dollars why sue for over 3500. Well, seems dude gave him a deadline for paying off the past due amount if he wanted the policy to continue uninterrupted. Dude strictly observes the Jewish faith, so deadline is the money has to be paid before beginning of Sabbath. Defendant shows up, and pays the past due minutes before Sabbath begins, so policy stays in effect. Ah, but defendant never pays anything towards the second year, which plaintiff claim he is now committed to paying for. Not sure where this will end up.... is defendant legally bound to pay a second year. Ok, VERY confusing, as MM goes back to try to get a clear idea of just what it is plaintiff is charging for - is this the second or third time plaintiff tries to explain? Soooo, what it is us the plaintiff prepays an insurance company the annual premium. Then, for the first 9 months the defendant's monthly payments repay the plaintiff for the money he fronted to get the policy, and the last three months are his profits and administration costs. Hmmmm maybe that makes sense - but I feel a migraine coming on. Soooo plaintiff thought defendant wanted the policy, so he paid the second annual premium upfront, only to learn that defendant didn't want a second year because after being insured for a year he figures he can now get insured cheaper through a mainstream insurance company. So, the question becomes, how much of a rebate, if anything, did plaintiff receive on his front money when the policy is finally canceled. Yet again - Hmmmm, plaintiff just told MM he's still fighting with the insurance company about how much of a rebate he's eventually get on his front money. Right now, he's out a grand, but generally wants 3500 because that MIGHT be what he's out if his negotiations with the insurance company is a total bust. When MM asks, repeatedly, what the cancellation fee is, plaintiff dodges all over while dancing a jig. Nope, he's either brought the case early, or is trying to get money he's not entitled too, and the more he dances the more I hope his whole case is tossed. Ah, but MM is kinder than I would be.... he can prove he's out a grand, so that's what she awards him. 1 4 Link to comment
arejay September 11, 2017 Share September 11, 2017 The $3100 was only Dad's half of the flowers. UFB. However, ya gotta give Mom respect for not being afraid to wear her mini skirt and knee high stilleto boots right up in there. Sassy! 1 2 Link to comment
meowmommy September 11, 2017 Share September 11, 2017 56 minutes ago, arejay said: The $3100 was only Dad's half of the flowers. UFB. However, ya gotta give Mom respect for not being afraid to wear her mini skirt and knee high stilleto boots right up in there. Sassy! Dad would never be nominated for Father of the Year, and doesn't seem like the warmest doughnut in the fryer, but after he shelled out hundreds of thousands for kids' education with no help from "oh, I can't work" mom, and given that both kids are not kids any more but are well-educated adults (thanks to dad) with successful careers who could have and should have financed their own wedding, I think it stinks that he got stuck with this bill. $6K for flowers? I can only imagine what the bill was on the bride's side. Or more likely, the bride's parents, since kiddies couldn't have their superspecial snowflake Barbie dream wedding on their own. 1 11 Link to comment
Katy M September 11, 2017 Share September 11, 2017 42 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Dad would never be nominated for Father of the Year, and doesn't seem like the warmest doughnut in the fryer, but after he shelled out hundreds of thousands for kids' education with no help from "oh, I can't work" mom, and given that both kids are not kids any more but are well-educated adults (thanks to dad) with successful careers who could have and should have financed their own wedding, I think it stinks that he got stuck with this bill. $6K for flowers? I can only imagine what the bill was on the bride's side. Or more likely, the bride's parents, since kiddies couldn't have their superspecial snowflake Barbie dream wedding on their own. He could have completely avoided it by just saying that he wasn't going to pay for it instead of dodging the question, or more likely just saying yeah, OK and not meaning it. So, while I agree that he shouldn't have had to pay for it, the fact that he did was kind of on him. 1 6 Link to comment
quarkuud September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, meowmommy said: Dad would never be nominated for Father of the Year, and doesn't seem like the warmest doughnut in the fryer, but after he shelled out hundreds of thousands for kids' education with no help from "oh, I can't work" mom, and given that both kids are not kids any more but are well-educated adults (thanks to dad) with successful careers who could have and should have financed their own wedding, I think it stinks that he got stuck with this bill. $6K for flowers? I can only imagine what the bill was on the bride's side. Or more likely, the bride's parents, since kiddies couldn't have their superspecial snowflake Barbie dream wedding on their own. Eh, it was a brunch for 100 people, a rehearsal dinner, and some flowers. We did about the cheapest rehearsal dinner we could in our fairly cheap city and it cost $1200 for I think about 30 people not including booze (we had booze of course! it was just extra and I don't remember how much). My parents hosted a brunch that was basically hotel continental breakfast food for about 50 which I think was also about the same cost. With the number of people she was talking about, it may not have been super-extravagant. He should have just said he wasn't going to pay. Edited September 12, 2017 by quarkuud clarifying the booze situation 1 2 Link to comment
teebax September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 My never to be born children are quite lucky. There's no way in hell I'd pay for any wedding expenses, brunch, flowers or otherwise. He's grown enough to get married, he can pay for it. He's a banker with an MBA in finance? I guess I'm not traditional. Not that I thought I was anyway... I was a broker in my past life. Prepaying for a client's insurance is asking for trouble. When I had clients like that, I used an insurance finance company. They fronted the money and took the risk. If the client's defaulted, they went after them like a creditor would. I bought a used car this weekend. I guess y'all will see me on TPC soon. Lol. 1 9 Link to comment
aemom September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 (edited) I didn't have a rehearsal dinner or a brunch and my parents sure as hell wouldn't have paid for them. I was actually laid off a few months before I got married so I was very careful spending money. My dad contributed 3K, my husband's parents 1K, and my mom bought us a microwave and sewed my dress (I paid for materials). We paid the rest, and only did what we could afford. We had a nice wedding, but nothing too big or overblown. Just seems like a waste of money IMHO. Edited September 12, 2017 by AEMom French Keyboard kicked in with an e accent grave for some reason 1 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 16 hours ago, SRTouch said: exes fight over sons' expenses: As I was watching - and I know no one knows what goes on behind closed doors or how people behave in private - I couldn't help but marvel that the plaintiff not only married the crude, boorish, loudmouthed def but stayed with him for at least a couple years. I watched him for 20 minutes and that was all I could take. On the upside, it was a rare treat to listen to people who can actually speak their own language without mangling it beyond recognition. And yeah - I was thinking that man nearly 30 years old shouldn't be expecting parents to pay for everything for the wedding spectacular. How did I miss the miniskirt and Cat Woman boots? 16 hours ago, SRTouch said: dog gets hurt at the groomer: Defs need to learn some thing. If someone wants to take in strange dogs, for stressful (for the dogs) hands-on things like grooming, they better learn to deal with certain issues. A dog is snappy, put a muzzle on it. You don't let it jump from a height and break two legs. The best part is that they felt their waiver absolved them of things that are their fault! If they don't know how to deal with dogs who might unhappy at being groomed, either learn how to do it or get into another business. Trying to make it sound like the dog's fault doesn't do it. Poor dog.:( I can't imagine the pain of two broken legs, caused soley because of def's fear and/or negligence. 16 hours ago, SRTouch said: car insurance case: (should have skipped this nonsense I wish I had skipped it. Def is a mature man (MM obviously didn't hear him call her "Miss.") who can't get insured by any company because he racked up a ton of tickets and didn't bother paying them. Plaintiff ("I'm Jewish") got him insured to the tune of $2700/year. Hee! I just paid my car insurance. It was $433 for the year, but I don't park or drive any way I feel like it and then dodge tickets issued because I feel I shouldn't have to pay them. Def's daughter couldn't get a form from the college administration because she needed months and months to get "acclimated" to school. She seems to be following in Daddy's footsteps. Plaintiff was shady too, and I admit I didn't pay much attention to this case. Doesn't anyone watch this show before appearing here? I guess not, because if they did they'd know that some evidence is required. Just saying, "I'm being honest with you" is not enough. Duh. 10 hours ago, teebax said: I bought a used car this weekend. I guess y'all will see me on TPC soon. Lol. Is it something like a '98 Pontiac Sunfire with 187,000 miles, that the salesman told you was in excellent condition which you took as a lifetime warranty? Let us know when your case will appear here, with you screaming about Lemon Laws and how you took the beater to a mechanic after you paid for it and found out the repairs are 4 times the value of the car. 1 8 Link to comment
aemom September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 For the exes paying for the wedding case, I felt rather uncomfortable watching it. They seemed like reasonably intelligent, well-spoken people who weren't overly hurting for money. They could afford to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars for college and he drives an Escalade. Do you really want to air all your dirty laundry on TPC for a few thousand bucks? 1 1 Link to comment
Katy M September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 1 hour ago, AEMom said: For the exes paying for the wedding case, I felt rather uncomfortable watching it. They seemed like reasonably intelligent, well-spoken people who weren't overly hurting for money. They could afford to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars for college and he drives an Escalade. Do you really want to air all your dirty laundry on TPC for a few thousand bucks? As JM says all the time, in small claims it's not about the money, it's about the principle. And, I'll go one further and say sometimes it's about the hate. 1 3 Link to comment
aemom September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 58 minutes ago, Katy M said: As JM says all the time, in small claims it's not about the money, it's about the principle. And, I'll go one further and say sometimes it's about the hate. I totally agree with you, but I question going on TPC. If it's just about the principle, then stick with your hometown small claims court date and don't come on the show to air all your dirty laundry. Some people live for attention, but they just didn't strike me as the type. 1 1 Link to comment
Hockeymom September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 18 hours ago, meowmommy said: Dad would never be nominated for Father of the Year, and doesn't seem like the warmest doughnut in the fryer, but after he shelled out hundreds of thousands for kids' education with no help from "oh, I can't work" mom, and given that both kids are not kids any more but are well-educated adults (thanks to dad) with successful careers who could have and should have financed their own wedding, I think it stinks that he got stuck with this bill. $6K for flowers? I can only imagine what the bill was on the bride's side. Or more likely, the bride's parents, since kiddies couldn't have their superspecial snowflake Barbie dream wedding on their own. So why exactly are the kids super special snowflakes who couldn't have a Barbie dream wedding on their own? Nobody said that. Ever. It's pretty traditional for the parents of the groom to pay for the rehearsal dinner. What did the kids do wrong? They are working adult professionals who had a nice wedding. Why the animosity? $6k was for flowers, a rehearsal dinner and brunch. That's not super special. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 can't buy love: disabled, lonely, Eagle Scout, inventor of toenail fungus cure, our kind hearted plaintiff meets the defendant on the bus on the way home from his part time job at Home Depot. Geez, this guy must have a bullet list of things to mention to make himself appear sympathetic - but, hey, at least he speaks so I understand him without cringing. Whole time he's telling his story, defendant is nodding, smiling, looks to be having a grand Ole time - so much so that MM cautions her about all her head bobbing antics. Old old story, lonely person throwing money at someone hoping for companionship, and finding someone who can't wait to drain his meager bank account. Oh, and I think dude may need his eyeglass prescription checked out.... intro has him telling defendant he thinks she could be a supermodel. Over to defendent, and I just don't see it. He described her as smart and potential future wife material, oh and of course looks like a supermodel. But in the first 30 seconds she must have said "um" dozen times. Couple minutes later I'm reaching my limit with her fast talking broken sentences which jump all over... I wonder if all these irrelevant details are meant to distract from her lack of defense. Seems like she is saying she was happy to have him pay for stuff, but when things didn't go in the direction he was hoping he decided they were loans - oh, and she's in the middle of a lawsuit because she "got a couple broken discs in her back" when she was hit by a "suburban truck" and now "he wants to get his change back." Really, dude, her intellect is what attracted you? And, apparently, he was so into her that he was borrowing money from friends and family to "help" her out and go on a trip to Virginia for a death in her family... he thought it was for a bus ticket, but she says she and a sister rented a car. MM asks our supermodel intellectual why she kept accepting things, "why did you lead him on?" Answer, "that's what he claimed he like to do." Ok, like I said, old story - but no a case here. Not sure why Tamiya agree to appear, but then I guess she figures she did nothing wrong... yep, she's a taker, if someone is giving stuff away - even if they don't have it to give - she'll put her hand out and take. Case dismissed. landscaper wants to be paid: anybody else wonder if the plaintiff and his witness plan on going bowling after court? Not sure where they are, but as someone who did landscaping in SW Oklahoma, a black Polo shirts would be just about the last thing I would wear. Anyway, plaintiff's landscaping company had a contract for a couple of the defendant's properties (though I ever heard about 1 yard). They said they did the work, but defendant stopped paying. Defendant says they were failing to show up and do the job, and she wrote a letter firing them. They say they never saw the letter, so kept working past the time they were supposedly fired. Anyway, these guys were hired by the defendants' grandparents, and did the job for several years. Well, after the grandparents deaths, defendant and her hubby take over the property, and the relationship falls apart. Defendant just said she waited until late November to complain that no one had been to the property in August - she says she and other family members were there, and never saw landscapers... hey, when I was doing this, more often than not I didn't see the client when I was at their place. Plaintiff says they would do the work, coming weekly, sent out monthly invoices, and then every couple months defendants would pay. Well, come November it was three months since the last payment, and when they called to ask for payment defendant came up with the "no one showed" claim. Soooo, defendant says she canceled the service in August, but her computer was stolen and she doesn't have a copy of the cancellation letter - even if she had a copy on a computer, what says the letter was printed and mailed. And, didn't landscape dude say he sent out receipts at the end of each month? Can he prove he sent invoices? Hmmmm defendant does sound credible, but as per normal, has no evidence - well, she does gave date stamped pictures which she says shows sticks/branches laying in the same place for weeks - I couldn't tell much from what I saw, but maybe MM had a better look. Landscapers have no evidence, either, but you have to wonder, as MM points out, who was cutting the grass after August when defendant says they were fired. She says helpful neighbors.... hmmm, be nice if anybody had bothered to bring affidavits from a neighbor. Oh, but somehow I doubt it was helpful neighbors cutting the grass - the plaintiff's cut the neighbors yards - that was the turning point when I decided defendant was bobbing and weaving and full of it. Oh, and at one point defendant claimed to have video of the yard on the days when plaintiff was billing for service and not showing up.... again, all talk and no evidence. Nope, maybe because I was stiffed a time or two when I did this type work, but the more I hear the more I'm leaning get to plaintiffs... MM agrees, finds for plaintiffs. traffic accident woes: (case starts with a chuckle - seems Douglas hides his coffee behind the bench, MM kicks his cup, and they have a little exchange about spilled coffee) Hmmmm plaintiff claims the police report backs his version that defendant crossed two lanes of traffic making a left turn and caused the accident. While defendant says insurance adjuster placed the blame on the plaintiff. Should be open and shut, assuming of course someone has their evidence. Well, first we go to the board - and find confusing diagram of an intersection. Older plaintiff has some trouble making sense of the toy cars - not sure what he's saying as it looks like he has defendant driving across a median. I'm thinking he means he made a right turn, with the light, and defendant made a left turn and ended up smacking plaintiff's car in the left rear quarterpanel. Ok, quick perusal of the police report... no, it does not blame the accident on defendant, nobody was blamed or ticketed. Defendant comes up - he has a better grasp of toy cars, and manages to make more sense. I couldn't picture what plaintiff was trying to show, but can see defendant's version in my mind. Not that that means defendant is right - just that he's played with hot wheels more. In an unusual court TV twist, everybody has insurance. Thing is, plaintiff is sure defendant was at fault, so he didn't put a claim in with his insurance, and is going after defendant for all his damages. Defendant DID go through his company, but is suing for his deductible. Plaintiff is positive police report backs his version, MM reads it aloud and says it doesn't. So, plaintiff can't prove his case. Ah, but what about defendant's claim that his insurance adjuster said plaintiff was at fault. Again, nope, wishful thinking. What his insurance adjuster said was that he couldn't fault the defendant - no evidence either way - so they paid to fix defendant's car, minus his deductible... so nobody gets anything. 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: can't buy love: disabled, lonely, Eagle Scout, inventor of toenail fungus cure, our kind hearted plaintiff meets the defendant on the bus This case was too messed up even for me, although the story is far from new: Plaintiff is a professor-ish looking Good Samaritan with a yen for kinda rough, kinda louche women. He wants to help them, you see, by buying them wigs/weaves or whatever. "It's what he DO!" It's so much what he DO that he borrows money from his daughter to give to def/girlfriend/friend/financee/sponge who *giggle, snort* had to attend dearly beloved grandpa's funeral. But she didn't "take no 400$" from him. All that is amusingly ridiculous, but if plaintiff is the Toenail Fungus healer (not knocking it. I had fungus on my thumbnail and it took about 8 months to heal) and worked in the medical field all those years, why is he so penniless he lives in what sounds like a cheap motel and has to get 50$ from his kid to give to the def? He's saying he can't work in his field because he has gray hair? Sounds like a crock to me. I doubt the medical research field is limited to the very young but what do I know? I think JM was surprised when she said to def., "He's offering money and you take it, just because you can." And def answered: "Yes." Well, at least she's honest about her amorality. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: landscaper wants to be paid: Comic relief. "Misty" goes on and on about the end of a dynasty and making 17 trips to NJ from Florida, dealing the vast holdings and legacy of Grandma and Grandpa, and proves her sincerity by telling JM, in essence, "I could have lied to you but I decided not to, so you see what a wonderful person I am and even though I have zero evidence, just believe everything I say." Let's give that woman a medal! JM did not agree and it's just def's flapping gums we hear. She had a video of the landscapers not there(?) but it's gone. She had documents and proof on her computer, but darn, it was stolen. Did the dog eat her receipts and her phone too? 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: traffic accident woes: Both of them were very annoying. The only point of interest was young def, who took the time to dress in his electric blue jacket and even brighter blue pants but seemingly never gave a thought to the trainwreck in his mouth. God, that was awful. 1 6 Link to comment
Silver Raven September 12, 2017 Share September 12, 2017 The biggest tragedy of today's episodes is that MM spilled Douglas's coffee. 1 8 Link to comment
califred September 13, 2017 Share September 13, 2017 I've often not seen my landscapers. And ic they were mowing the neighbors lawbs I don't believe the neighbors were upkeeping the Grandparents house. Also a cell phone bill could have at least proved she called. The Defendant in the car case seemed to be under the impression his car insurance only pays him if it's not his fault. That's not how this works. 1 4 Link to comment
quarkuud September 13, 2017 Share September 13, 2017 13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: This case was too messed up even for me, although the story is far from new: Plaintiff is a professor-ish looking Good Samaritan with a yen for kinda rough, kinda louche women. He wants to help them, you see, by buying them wigs/weaves or whatever. "It's what he DO!" God, I had to stop watching. Not before I heard about the picture of her back sent to his close friend, the best dermatologist in the world. Wasn't he claiming it was pityriasis rosea? If so, it isn't fungal... they think it's viral. I guess when you are the curer of toe fungus, you might be biased towards seeing fungus everywhere. 1 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter September 13, 2017 Share September 13, 2017 38 minutes ago, quarkuud said: Wasn't he claiming it was pityriasis rosea? Yes, and he also claimed in the email that def was his fiancee. JM asks him at least five times in a row (as he continued repeating his diagnosis of whatever that woman had growing on her back) "Why did you call her your fiancee?" before he would answer. At least, I guess he answered, maybe with more, "... one day, might be, could happen, if it does the possiblity could be girlfriend/wife/..." JM thought he was a smart, attractive man who could get a nice, decent woman, but personally I think he is - as Judy Judy would say - "a nut." Somehow I don't think nice, decent women ring his bell. 1 6 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.