The People's Court - General Discussion

[Brattinella]

34 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Labradoodles or Goldendoodles or Maltipoos or Puggles - they're all made up names for mixed breed dogs, used by the unscrupulous to suck in the naive or the willfully ignorant, to pay big bucks for them.

Absolutely.  I call them "Mutts".

[SRTouch]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Labradoodles or Goldendoodles or Maltipoos or Puggles - they're all made up names for mixed breed dogs, used by the unscrupulous to suck in the naive or the willfully ignorant, to pay big bucks for them.

I have a theory about pet owners and those made up names... pretentious folks (not really the word I want to use, but then don't want to offend) make up fancy names as conversation starters about their living, breathing status symbols. These are the folks who take their elderly pet to a shelter, declaw a cat because it scratched the leather sofa, or simply got rid of a pet because it doesn't match the decor...

ok, feeling grumpy this morning - need another cup, but hate to get up and disturb 16yo Spotty who's sleeping on the foot rest - ah what the hell, she'll just go eat a little more kibble

Anyway - no recap as I'm playing chauffeur for a friend today... in exchange for a free lunch

[SRTouch]

oops - I lied, as lunch has been postponed. here's the recap

1. can't buy her love: old dude shells out $650 for girl's new phone - says deal was she was supposed to keep him company, and clean and cook 3 or 4 times a week. Once she got the phone she starts dodging his calls, cuz she says he wanted more than a part time maid/cook - says dirty old man wanted some lovin'. Ok, dude may be sad, lonely old man (I'm 76 and lonely), but defendant is irritating from the get go as she wants to interrupt and us shut down by da judge. Ah, dude, do what I did... get a pet. Ok, over to gold digger - oh, quick look and I know she wasn't chosen for her looks or fashionsense - WTH is with that outfit?! And the headband holding back the unbrushed mop on her head! Just to complete the look, there's the right hand doing the underarm monkey scratch when she starts to talk. As I watch her talk I can't help but wonder at how much fun blue shirted audience dude behind her is having. Her defense is that the phone was a bd gift, but when asked she doesn't have anything showing when her BD is. Ah, too easy, with a couple sentences MM trips her up and gets her to say she should get to keep the phone because she kept her part of their bargain... uh, what bargain - remember you said BD gift. Ok, no defense. Couple ways to look at the case. If you think the phone was in exchange for her company (but no sex - both sides say that was off the table) don't know if he has a case. OTOH, can we view the phone as payment for her cooking/cleaning. Phone and service contract are in his name. Here's this phone as a signing bonus for this great cook/cleaning gig, and he pays the monthly bills as long as she does the job. Either way, don't see her having to pay him the purchase price - at most she has to return the phone. Ah, MM likes old geezer, she orders her to pay him the $650 - hmmm maybe the phone is history and can't be returned.

 

Oops, time to head to lunch... more this evening if these other cases are worth it.

Edited September 23, 2017 by SRTouch

[Brattinella]

That sounds like slave wages to me, SRTouch.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

can't buy her love: old dude shells out $650 for girl's new phone - says deal was she was supposed to keep him company, and clean and cook 3 or 4 times a week. Once she got the phone she starts dodging his calls, cuz she says he wanted more than a part time maid/cook - says dirty old man wanted some lovin'.

I haven't seen this yet, but it's an old story on court tv.  I don't get these dirty old men shelling out big bucks for some sugar and not even getting any. They need to visit professional prostitutes and not these skeevy, fugazi hookers, trying to pretend they had NO idea that DOM wanted anything more than to be good buddies. But anyway, how these guys have the gall to turn up on TV suing their scamming tootsies and revealing that they are, indeed, dirty old men and all for not a lot of money, I do not understand. Whoever made up the saying, "With age, comes wisdom" obviously never watched TPC or JJ.

ETA:  Just watched. It was worse than I thought.

Quote

Ok, over to gold digger - oh, quick look and I know she wasn'the chosen for her looks or fashionsense -

Good lord  - the old boy seems to have a yearning for crude, uneducated, rough gutter snipes who do the "underarm monkey scratches" on national TeeVee! Guess that itch just had to be taken care of.  The 650$ would have been better spent on grammar lessons and dental work. JM tried to help get plaintiff hooked up. I wonder if anything came from that.

The short film production brouhaha: Both parties seemed nice, articulate and pleasant, until def mentions texts he got from plaintiff going all thug,  threatening to send "guys" to his house in the middle of the night if he doesn't refund her money. He mentioned it twice yet it was not read or addressed by JM in our hearing. Plaintiff's gripe was, "basically" (both parties used that word incessantly) she hired him to produce, she wasn't feeling well so gave him carte blanche to take over the production then she wasn't thrilled with it and wants all her money back. Don't think so.

Third case: A snoozer. Plaintiff landlord sues annoying def because she broke the lease and took off. OF course def has excuses: She and her son were sick the whole time she lived there because the place is unhealthy and filled with mold. She proves this by taking a picture one inch from a teeny discoloured spot on the bathroom tiles. Turns out the desperate def just wanted to go back to her worthless hubby. She confirms in the hall that she's still miserable with him, but hey - the credo of TPC women is that "Any man is better than no man."  She loses.  Plaintiff learns the truth of the saying, "No good deed goes unpunished. " Defendant should have listened to a litigant on JJ who said in the hall, "Get to know someone BEFORE you start having kids with them." Duh.

Edited September 22, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Jamoche]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, over to gold digger - oh, quick look and I know she wasn'the chosen for her looks or fashionsense - WTH is with that outfit?!

Even knowing something wild was coming, my jaw still dropped. If The Deuce needs any extras for their 1970s Times Square scenes, she's a shoo-in.

[meowmommy]

31 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

Even knowing something wild was coming, my jaw still dropped. If The Deuce needs any extras for their 1970s Times Square scenes, she's a shoo-in.

I started to watch with one blurry eye open and thought this creature was a young girl, and then my eye cleared up--she's fifty if she's a day, and/or she has been rode hard and put up wet.  Also confused that the old man complained that all the women on dating services are either married or not looking for men.  I thought the conventional wisdom is that all women over a certain age are ready to tear each other to shreds to snap up the remaining available old farts? 

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Phone and service contract are in his name. Here's this phone as a signing bonus for this great cook/cleaning gig, and he pays the monthly bills as long as she does the job. Either way, don't see her having to pay him the purchase price - at most she has to return the phone. Ah, MM likes old geezer, she orders her to pay him the $650 - hmmm maybe the phone is history and can't be returned.

So if she gives him the $650 for the phone, what happens to the service plan since she still has the phone? 

[Florinaldo]

19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't get these dirty old men shelling out big bucks for some sugar and not even getting any. They need to visit professional prostitutes and not these skeevy, fugazi hookers, trying to pretend they had NO idea that DOM wanted anything more than to be good buddies.

Except it turns out that's not the sort of service he was looking for; he just wanted company. As he said in probably his saddest and most pitiful statement, his social life was limited to his wife prior to her death. It's an indication of how desperately lonely he was that he chose that sterling specimen of humanity to fill that particular void in his life.

19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The short film production brouhaha:

I have met the plaintiff's type a few times, some amateur who believes they can get into video production by suddenly calling themselves "producers" and put out professional grade work on a shoestring. If she considers herself a "producer" she should have been following the project closely, suspending production while she was ill; instead she gave free rein to an untried guy, which means she renounced all claims on the quality of his work. Although I think that the main problem was not the videographer's alleged lack of skills, but her controlling personality which meant that nothing which did not conform frame by frame to what she would have done, with her delusions of being an auteuress, would ever have been acceptable to her.

She may put one on some foolish customers by smiling coyly and acting cute as she did throughout her appearance, but she will soon run into the brutal reality of the business world. I believe she was even acting flirty with Douglas as the litigants were being introduced.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Florinaldo

[Jamoche]

18 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Although I think that the main problem was not the videographer's alleged lack of skills, but her controlling personality which meant that nothing which did not conform frame by frame to what she would have done, with her delusions of being an auteuress, would ever have been acceptable to her.

She sounded like the kind of client that ends up on https://clientsfromhell.net

[Brattinella]

So, no screenshots of this enchantress?  *hint,hint*

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I thought the conventional wisdom is that all women over a certain age are ready to tear each other to shreds to snap up the remaining available old farts? 

Not the old ladies! They don't want these randy old goats with pockets full of Viagra, thinking they're studs and pestering the old ladies to death! And when they're not doing that, they're asking what's for dinner. Who needs it?

Brattinella, you didn't see the gutter snipe enchantress?

 

 

[Brattinella]

30 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Brattinella, you didn't see the gutter snipe enchantress?

Oh, MY!  This surpasses my imagination!  Thank you, AngelaHunter!  Did she REALLY do the underarm monkey scratch on TV?

[galaxychaser]

Haha itchy armpit means she's dirty.  That is one sad looking woman. 

[DoctorK]

Quote

Brattinella, you didn't see the gutter snipe enchantress?

What is really scary is that that picture is actually flattering to her! The slight blurriness covers up the sharp angles and creases in her face, and we can't see her glorious snaggle toooth. She really looked much worse live.

[Florinaldo]

14 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I thought the conventional wisdom is that all women over a certain age are ready to tear each other to shreds to snap up the remaining available old farts? 

He does not come across as a bad guy, but rather as very emotionally needy and high maintenance. Which may well be a red flag to the women of his age range that he met because they may not want to take that load on, especially if they have already spent years taking care of their own children and do not want to start that routine over with a grown man.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

What is really scary is that that picture is actually flattering to her!

Definitely. You can't get the attitude, the facial scrunches or the horrible, low class grammar.

 

So - Here you are! ETA: Please take note of JM's expression as the def. is scratching herself!

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Brattinella]

Wow I am three minutes in.  He really DID want her to cook and clean and be his "companion" for a six hundred dollar phone!  Are you freakin kidding me?  Ever check how much it costs to have a maid come in once a week and do really light housekeeping?  It is a hundred bucks or more!  He just wanted pretty much a FREE WIFE!   Um, NO!!!!!!!

[Silver Raven]

22 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Wow I am three minutes in.  He really DID want her to cook and clean and be his "companion" for a six hundred dollar phone!  Are you freakin kidding me?  Ever check how much it costs to have a maid come in once a week and do really light housekeeping?  It is a hundred bucks or more!  He just wanted pretty much a FREE WIFE!   Um, NO!!!!!!!

Well, not free, he gave her a phone.  :/

[babs j.]

So often in a marriage it's the wife who is in charge of the social life - maybe the husband has a night out with the boys every so often but in the normal course of events it's the wife's job - that's how it was in my parent's marriage.  I can't write from my experience because I've never been married.

[Brattinella]

Seriously, no one else thinks that cooking and cleaning the house 3 times a week, plus LIVING THERE and/or sleeping with him, would cost a BOATLOAD more than 600 bucks??  DO y'all really think that is a fair deal?? 

[Florinaldo]

31 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Seriously, no one else thinks that cooking and cleaning the house 3 times a week, plus LIVING THERE and/or sleeping with him, would cost a BOATLOAD more than 600 bucks??  DO y'all really think that is a fair deal?? 

She agreed to it, so I can't really muster any indignation about. Plus, she obviously had no intention of keeping her end of the bargain.

His expectations were unrealistic that is certain, another sign I think of how unwordly he is since his social life was so limited before his wife's death. The only emotion he inspires me is pity really. I hope this court appearance was a wake-up call for him.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Florinaldo

[Brattinella]

I think it depends if you are male or female.

Plus, she most certainly didn't agree to FOREVER for a one-time pricey phone!

Edited September 23, 2017 by Brattinella

[Jamoche]

37 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Seriously, no one else thinks that cooking and cleaning the house 3 times a week, plus LIVING THERE and/or sleeping with him, would cost a BOATLOAD more than 600 bucks??  DO y'all really think that is a fair deal?? 

For us? No. But it includes living space, and after seeing so many landlord cases on these shows, I cannot imagine her getting a place on her own, even in the shadiest places. Renter's deposit? It is to laugh.

But likewise, I can't see her cleaning or cooking anything.

[Brattinella]

Well, in my mind, room + board + cellphone does NOT EQUAL unlimited sex forever.  I wonder if the men-folk would agree to that (with an elderly gentleman, that is)

[Florinaldo]

34 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Well, in my mind, room + board + cellphone does NOT EQUAL unlimited sex forever. 

I may have misunderstood, but I don't think that their deal covered sexual relations.  Assuming he told the truth or course. Considering how mercenary she appeared to be, I think that if sexual relations had been involved, she would have upped the price considerably.

[Brattinella]

I assumed it DID include sex.  He referred more than once to being lonely, just lost his wife, etc.  In my own experience, you don't get something for nothing.  I've had the offer of a couch and when I accepted it, I was woken up with unwanted physical stuff.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, babs j. said:

So often in a marriage it's the wife who is in charge of the social life

Exactly. It's usually the wife who arranges and coordinates all the social/family events, especially with older people in traditional marriages, so if the wife is gone, so is the husband's social life.

[aemom]

On 20/09/2017 at 9:19 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Okay, so the "I will quit" designer? He was sued here as recently as June:

 

Thank you.  My initial googling struck out. I'm a bit surprised that MM didn't mention anything about seeing him before unless she's not allowed to.

That dress was never going to look the way she wanted it with that fabric. There was no way to do the wrap and ruching that was required.  The front slit also desperately needed that silky fabric. It was doomed from the start. 

Mind you, I think that if he had made the dress for her in the correct fabric, it would not have sat well on her at all. She did not have the right body type for that type of fabric. 

As for the lockout case, at least they were both well spoken.  I find it interesting how the landlord/tenant laws vary in the US and in Canada depending on province/state. In Quebec, you cannot charge a security deposit. 

Grout guy messed up and I think that the judgement was fair.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I assumed it DID include sex.  He referred more than once to being lonely, just lost his wife, etc.

Sex or no, if this what he thought would ease his lonliness, he needs to seriously take stock of his needs and expectations.

In case anyone missed it, this is JM's face as rode-hard-and-put-away-wet def was scratching herself, like a flea-bitten dog:

 

[aemom]

21 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Sex or no, if this what he thought would ease his lonliness, he needs to seriously take stock of his needs and expectations.

In case anyone missed it, this is JM's face as rode-hard-and-put-away-wet def was scratching herself, like a flea-bitten dog:

 

LOL.  I haven't seen this case yet, but I'm really looking forward to it now!

[AngelaHunter]

42 minutes ago, AEMom said:

 I haven't seen this case yet, but I'm really looking forward to it now!

I'm pretty sure you won't be disappointed.

[Jamoche]

4 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I assumed it DID include sex.  He referred more than once to being lonely, just lost his wife, etc.  In my own experience, you don't get something for nothing.  I've had the offer of a couch and when I accepted it, I was woken up with unwanted physical stuff.

I got the impression that she wasn't worried about that because she thought he was too old to do anything.

[Brattinella]

22 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

I got the impression that she wasn't worried about that because she thought he was too old to do anything.

Even old people can still do SOMETHING.

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Even old people can still do SOMETHING.

Yeah, his hands still work! And don't forget the l'il blue pill, turning limp noodles everywhere into weapons of massive annoyance.

[aemom]

I just finished watching the case with the actress, the bail money, and the dryer.  Gosh, sounds like a money laundering movie. :-)

I also had fun looking for anything that Caroline (StarSira) did and struck out like the rest of you.  I suspect that she's a few pancakes short of a stack.  I do think that she had given over the money, so fair's fair getting it back.

For the bond money case.  Those ladies were charming weren't they?  The plaintiff was dressed in such a classy manner for court and they both had the most proper language you could imagine *eyeroll*.

Defendant is definitely setting an excellent example for her daughter and the plaintiff thinks it's a hoot and a half that she has been arrested multiple times.  I was really shocked that MM didn't rip her a new one about maybe staying out of jail from now on since she has a baby that relies on her?  She's usually good for a lecture like that.  Defendant was full of it that she was going to give the money back, because if it was just about getting something for her trouble, she would have returned the money and withheld $50, $75, or $100.  The plaintiff really had no choice but to sue. 

The guy with the dryer.  He also struck me as a nerdy dweeb but I have to admire his chutzpah at being able to figure out what needed to be done and then suing to get the money back that was rightfully his.  Too many people these days can't be bothered to learn how to fix or repair things and just throw them out, so good on him for making the effort.  The defendant probably figured that if he ignored him long enough, he would go away, but as we've seen before, sometimes suing is not about the money, but the principle.  To charge $500 for a control panel replacement?  Sounds like the repair place tries to rip people off that don't know any better.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AEMom said:

 I was really shocked that MM didn't rip her a new one about maybe staying out of jail from now on since she has a baby that relies on her?

I think she's reached the point where she no longer wants to waste her breath on hopeless cases and cement heads. If someone (who just gave birth because she doesn't know how to prevent that or just doesn't give a shit) finds it amusing that she's been thrown in jail (something I think would horrify and mortify any of us) what's the point in lecturing her? In one ear and out the other, since there's nothing in between to stop it.

[NYGirl]

OMG I hated the defendant today with the $3000 pots and pans.  What a freaking bitch.  She had a ridiculous countersuit.  She changed cell phone carriers and expected him to pay the termination fee..."well it happens".  Her lipstick was a ridiculous color and didn't go with her skin color.

Poor guy didn't get his skillet.

BTW I hated the way JM talked to the defendant about him wanting the skillet...she changed her accent and everything.  I cringed.

[galaxychaser]

I watched 5 minutes.  Had enough

 Yes hire a maid and a cook grandpa.

So did he get the phone back?

Edited September 25, 2017 by galaxychaser

[SRTouch]

yawner, if I hadn't been writing this I would have skipped all three cases

1. wrong color tile: homeowner says store ordered the wrong color tile and wants to charge a big restocking fee. Store dude says he ordered what she wanted... which was actually her second choice because the first choice cost too much. Oh dear, even with CC I can't understand either litigant. If I understand correctly, homeowner not only can't prove the wrong tile was ordered, her receipt, which she presents as evidence, supports the defendant. Which is good for the defendant, cuz this guy has no evidence. Well he does have two tiles, just nothing showing how much they cost. Truth is, I'm getting a headache with these folks accents and lack of evidence. Think MM gave up on them, too.  She lets them ramble on, throwing out a question now and then, but really she's looking up prices of the two tiles on her tablet, and not finding what store dude claims. He claims the tile he ordered is way cheaper than what she originally wanted. Like MM says, if that's true why would he sell her the cheaper stuff when he'd make more with the more expensive tile. Ah, but MM's quick research appears to disprove his claim - and remember he didn't bother to bring a catalog or anything to prove his position. Ah, finally, plaintiff's witness comes up... and him I understand. Still nothing to prove/disprove anybody's case, but it does show store owner being unreasonable. MM says it was a close one, but she rules for plaintiff.
2. EX stole his pots and pans: these two were only married 4 months, but in that time they decided to get extra fancy cookware - $3000 worth. When they split wife took the pans. Hubby says they bought them on credit and he wants her to pay at least half since she has the pans - and no, no one has been making the payments. (Ok, trying to learn what would make these pans cost so much i googled Cookworld http://cookworldusa.com ... hmmm sounds sort like Tupperware... Not sold in stores,  very expensive... and at least one other fool spent big bucks and filed a ripoff report online  http://m.ripoffreport.com/reports/cookworld/nationwide/cookworld-cookware-scam-ripoff-misleading-ridiculous-horrible-company-nationwide-1298140 ) Not to be outdone in the silly court case department, ex wife wants a grand because she used to act as his chauffeur (guess that's because dude is an amputee. ) I just know MM is going to listen to this nonsense, while I just want them to go back to divorce court and fight it out there. Anyway,  case is a waste, I spent the whole time reading the Google articles and thinking WTH is wrong with folks, - 3 grand on kitchenware on credit! Nobody is paying the bill, both names on the loan.... but wife is smart enough to get the nonpayment of the loan off her credit by sending in a copy of the divorce papers. She's awful proud of the fact she stuck him with the bill... I kept hearing Ole Jerry Reed singing "She got the goldmine, and I got the shaft." Not sure how MM dragged it out, as I ignored most of the case. When I started listening again I heard MM say what I expected, should have taken care of this crap in divorce proceedings - oh, and it appears they made a single $100 payment on the $3000 loan.
3. buggy apartment - tenant wants her money back: mom wanted plaintiff and her two teenager out of mom's place, so she found a place for them to go. Plaintiff says it looked ok, but the previous tenants were still in the process of being evicted when she put down the deposit and rent money. So, kind of a hot bunking situation, old tenants moving out as new ones move in. First night, everything hasn't even been moved in, 17yo daughter finds a bedbug is crawling on her arm. So, they're out of there, go back to mom's. They notify the landlady, and never finish moving in... now they want the money they paid. Landlady didn't waste any time, got an exterminator in almost immediately, place was treated and she has a letter saying no more bugs. Ok, I might want to undo the deal, too. Ah, but if landlady did everything she had to, just because I sympathize with plaintiff doesn't mean I think landlady has to refund the rent... deposit, nah, she needs to refund the deposit. She tries to make a case for keeping the deposit, but I'm not buying it. Plaintiff isn't happy to just be getting the deposit,  wants to argue against paying rent, and judge tells her to zip it, because if landlady had sued for it she would have won another month's rent.

Edited September 26, 2017 by SRTouch

[galaxychaser]

Bedbug case made me itchy and scratchy.  Don't blame the lady for running off back to mom. 

[AngelaHunter]

Today we had a lady suing because the tiles she got were not the tiles she ordered. I very recently had my bathroom and kitchen floor done. You absolutely cannot pick tiles without taking one home. The way it looks in the store could be completely different than it looks in your home, depending on lighting, surroundings, time of day, etc. You cannot order tiles from computer pictures. I saw some that looked perfect online - a beige/sand colour and when I went to the store to look at them, they were pink.  Well, she got her money back and I still have no idea why, since she had not one shred of evidence that she didn't get what she picked out. That's why JM is a judge and I"m not, I guess and maybe I lost something in translation.

Then we had this couple who married and immediately broke up and divorced - def. realized plaintiff needs "too much attention" -  but while they were canoodling they got rooked into buying pots and pans for 3,000$. P.T. Barnum was so right. I got a set of gorgeous, red KitchenAid cookware on sale for about 200$. Plaintiff, who is so broke he had to go live with Mama,  never thought about mentioning these pots and skillets or this debt (which neither of them has ever paid beyond 100$) during the divorce proceedings so now he wants... a skillet? Not happening. "He didn't axe for it." I guess if you don't axe, you don't get. I must say, def. had a nasty attitude and thought it a good choice to bring her new beau with her to court. This case never should have been here.

Then we had the usual, "I moved into this apartment and there were BEDBUGS and I want a whole bunch of money." Mature "single mother" Lachette and her two kids are living with Mom. Mom is fed up so Lachette finds an apartment and lo and behold, the first night her daughter screams that there is a bedbug on her arm. There's a pic of something or other, could be a bedbug or could be something else. Lachette couldn't get close to take some good pictures - not even of a "wall covered in bedbugs"  - because she's afraid the bugs will leap into her hair extensions, as bedbugs are known to have a penchant for doing so. Landlord addresses the issue the very next day, but that's not fast enough, so Lachette wants over 1000$. She gets 400$ and lucky to get that, with her non-evidence. She would not stop talking over JM. Words of wisdom in the hall from Mom: "Don't nobody rent no apartment from her."

[Florinaldo]

wrong color tile: So if I understand the legal doctrine MM applied in this case, next time I go shopping for a product that comes in various similar models with names (or numbers and sizes) that closely resemble each other, I should just act very nitpicky, talk a lot while uttering nonsense, including a thick accent and broken grammar (I can do that in at least 3 languages), appear to have difficulty making up my mind and act a little confused. I can then argue that there never was a meeting of the minds and get full reimbursement.

Now, the defendant could have tried to be a little more flexible with her, but she appeared to be unbending. He also should never have agreed to let her pick her pattern from a computer screen; it never looks the same when you actually get the paint, tile, curtains, etc.

I thought the ruling was not justified.

EX stole his pots and pans: Plaintiff seemed to be not very bright and a big pushover. I felt sorry for his situation, but he should have raised that in the divorce proceedings (bad advice perhaps). Too bad because the defendant was a profiteering witch who was oh-so-proud to have scammed both her ex and the finance company. Was the status of that debt ever explained; isn't he still on the hook for it even though he's not making payments?

buggy apartment - tenant wants her money back: This looked more like renter's remorse than anything else. Good thing for the landlord that she acted quickly to correct the problem. I was sorry she did not ask for another month's rental and I could not understand why MM did not tell the mother to shut up with her constant mutterings and commentary.

When the plaintiff walked in I though she had brought her posse, each competing to look as bad as possible in a different hairstyles.

On 24/09/2017 at 9:36 AM, AngelaHunter said:

Yeah, his hands still work! And don't forget the l'il blue pill, turning limp noodles everywhere into weapons of massive annoyance.

I thought older straight women (I don't qualify on any of these three fronts) appreciated when their similar age partner is one of those rare specimens able to get stiffy with it?

Edited September 25, 2017 by Florinaldo

[Broderbits]

That 2nd defendant was some kind of a nasty bitch! I didn't find anything the least bit funny about her attitude, so I didn't care for her laughing in the hall. Her ex is still paying off those pots and you just know she's not doing any cooking.

If we could sue for "turmoil", I would be a millionaire!

[Brattinella]

32 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

wrong color tile: So if I understand the legal doctrine MM applied in this case, next time I go shopping for a product that comes in various similar models with names (or numbers and sizes) that closely resemble each other, I should just act very nitpicky, talk a lot while uttering nonsense, including a thick accent and broken grammar (I can do that in at least 3 languages), appear to have difficulty making up my mind and act a little confused. I can then argue that there never was a meeting of the minds and get full reimbursement.

Now, the defendant could have tried to be a little more flexible with her, but she appeared to be unbending. He also should never have agreed to let her pick her pattern from a computer screen; it never looks the same when you actually get the paint, tile, curtains, etc.

I thought the ruling was not justified.

EX stole his pots and pans: Plaintiff seemed to be not very bright and a big pushover. I felt sorry for his situation, but he should have raised that in the divorce proceedings (bad advice perhaps). Too bad because the defendant was a profiteering witch who was oh-so-proud to have scammed both her ex and the finance company. Was the status of that debt ever explained; isn't he still on the hook for it even though he's not making payments?

buggy apartment - tenant wants her money back: This looked more like renter's remorse than anything else. Good thing for the landlord that she acted quickly to correct the problem. I was sorry she did not ask for another month's rental and I could not understand why MM did not tell the mother to shut up with her constant mutterings and commentary.

When the plaintiff walked in I though she had brought her posse, each competing to look as bad as possible in a different hairstyles.

I thought older straight women (I don't qualify on any of these three fronts) appreciated when their similar age partner is one of those rare specimens able to get stiffy with it?

Only if the stiffy is DESIRED by the older, straight woman.  It isn't always so.

[Bazinga]

On 9/25/2017 at 5:42 PM, Florinaldo said:

wrong color tile: So if I understand the legal doctrine MM applied in this case, next time I go shopping for a product that comes in various similar models with names (or numbers and sizes) that closely resemble each other, I should just act very nitpicky, talk a lot while uttering nonsense, including a thick accent and broken grammar (I can do that in at least 3 languages), appear to have difficulty making up my mind and act a little confused. I can then argue that there never was a meeting of the minds and get full reimbursement.

Now, the defendant could have tried to be a little more flexible with her, but she appeared to be unbending. He also should never have agreed to let her pick her pattern from a computer screen; it never looks the same when you actually get the paint, tile, curtains, etc.

I thought the ruling was not justified.

EX stole his pots and pans: Plaintiff seemed to be not very bright and a big pushover. I felt sorry for his situation, but he should have raised that in the divorce proceedings (bad advice perhaps). Too bad because the defendant was a profiteering witch who was oh-so-proud to have scammed both her ex and the finance company. Was the status of that debt ever explained; isn't he still on the hook for it even though he's not making payments?

buggy apartment - tenant wants her money back: This looked more like renter's remorse than anything else. Good thing for the landlord that she acted quickly to correct the problem. I was sorry she did not ask for another month's rental and I could not understand why MM did not tell the mother to shut up with her constant mutterings and commentary.

Don't just like I love this post, Florinando.

Plaintiff in the tile case proved nothing besides she is a confused person who probably screwed the deal up.  No way should she get away with this as she never proved defendant did anything wrong in her getting the wrong tile.  She never even proved they weren't the tile she ordered beyond her confused utterances about not what she picked. 

I hate when MM indulges some people and just attacks others for no real reason.  Some people can interrupt her, talk out of turn, ask questions, hold conversations with her and others just get pounced on.  The pots and pan defendant had such a nasty attitude and needed to be put in her place but wasn't. 

I just want to discuss something about the credit issue.  The defendant disputed the adverse reporting of this debt on her credit report by throwing her divorce papers, that showed the debt wasn't assigned to her, at the credit reporting agencies.  How does that solve anything for her?  The debt was both of theirs, as evidenced by it appearing on both of their credit reports.  They both agreed to it with the creditor.  That the debt wasn't assigned to her in the divorce decree, doesn't alleviate her of the debt!  Divorce decrees are between the exes not the exes and creditor.  I wont even go into that the absence of the debt being addressed doesn't even resolve the issue as between them.  Even if the divorce decree assigned responsibility for the debt to the ex-husband, that would only mean he is the one who has to pay it and if he filed bankruptcy, the debt for her is not wiped out by his bankruptcy.  Such a debt would still appear on her credit report and if the spouse didn't pay, then it becomes a bad mark on her credit that she can go to court with the spouse over.  Marital debt being assigned to the other spouse doesn't mean anything to the creditor; both spouses still owe the creditor.  She somehow snowballed the credit reporting agencies to remove this listing for absolutely no reason.  So wrong. (FYI, I am a bankruptcy attorney and would know this stuff.).  So she is free and clear from the debt and then has the audacity to keep the items because she doesn't have the time.  What a sense of entitlement.  Though, since neither are paying, neither deserve the overpriced pots and pans.  Then she had the nerve to 1) bring new man; and 2) sue for stuff that happened in the marriage between husband and wife like driving spouse to doctor; and 3) sue for cell phone cancellation on an account she cancelled; and 4) sue for a cause of action she simply made up because she felt like it.  She needed a smack down and didn't get one.  Not that he deserved the pots and pans, but she should have been forced to return them to the plaintiff who owes for them or pay for them.  That is what JJ would do and I know I have seen that happen before but might not have been post-divorce.   

Bed bug lady was another with attitude, no proof, and just expected to get paid.  JM didn't put her in her place, accept to tell her she was ruling against her, so stop trying to butt in.   Bugs probably came with her when she moved in.  And why wouldn't she have kept the bug in the bottle as actual proof instead of a picture of some dot who knows what? 

Hate the something bad happened, must blame someone, so I sue for every expense I have in perpetuity, plus for my time, aggravation, "trauma", inconvenience, harassment, etc.; after all, the world owes me!

Edited September 28, 2017 by Bazinga

[Florinaldo]

29 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Only if the stiffy is DESIRED by the older, straight woman.  It isn't always so.

Then what are they keeping company with the stiffy one in the first place?

[AngelaHunter]

31 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Then what are they keeping company with the stiffy one in the first place?

What I have gathered is that women of a certain age, maybe 65+, who grew up in a different time with different outlooks on certain things (add that to that the way they were brought up) don't want to be bothered with randy old goats and their renewed, chemical stiffies (or even the natural stiffies that may take all night to awaken) once their husbands have passed on, since most women outlive their husbands. This is why the old goat in this case couldn't find  woman of suitable age. Not only that, but men that age - 76 or whatever he was - expect a woman to take care of them and these women are done with that.

 

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

I hate when MM indulges some people and just attacks others for no real reason.  Some people can interrupt her, talk out of turn, ask questions, hold conversations with her and others just get pounced on. 

I don't get it either and I'm glad I"m not the only one who couldn't understand why tile lady got her money back. In the end, she had no idea which tiles she had chosen. Hell, someone could show me a tile I did pick and that is installed now in my bathroom and I couldn't say for sure it's the same one. I know MM looks more kindly on young women the age of her daughters, no matter how outrageously they've behaved - trashing rental properties, etc.

 

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

Bugs probably came with her when she moved in.  And why wouldn't she have kept the bug in the bottle as actual proof instead of a picture of some dot who knows what? 

Agree. She used the same excuse as all the others we see trying to weasel their way out of a lease - "Oh, yuck! Poor me! I'm such a fine lady you can't expect me to get pictures of the very thing I'm claiming was the deal-breaker in order to get out of my obligations!" Bedbugs don't cover walls. Ridiculous, since the landlord did nothing wrong but JM is so freaked out by the mention of bedbugs she chose to just believe everything plaintiff and her crude mother said.

[NYGirl]

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

 

I hate when MM indulges some people and just attacks others for no real reason.  Some people can interrupt her, talk out of turn, ask questions, hold conversations with her and others just get pounced on.  The pots and pan defendant had such a nasty attitude and needed to be put in her place but wasn't. 

I just want to discuss something about the credit issue.  The defendant disputed the adverse reporting of this debt on her credit report, by throwing her divorce papers that showed the debt wasn't assigned to her, at the credit reporting agencies.  How does that solve anything for her?  The debt was both of theirs, as evidenced by it appearing on both of their credit reports.  They both agreed to it.  That the debt wasn't assigned to her in the divorce decree, doesn't alleviate her of the debt!  Divorce decrees are between the exes not the exes and creditor.  I wont even go into that the absence of the debt being addressed doesn't even resolve the issue as between them.  Even if the divorce decree assigned responsibility for the debt to the ex-husband, that would only mean he is the one who has to pay it and if he filed bankruptcy, the debt is not wiped out by his bankruptcy.  Such a debt would still appear on her credit report and if the spouse didn't pay, then it becomes a bad mark on her credit that she can go to court with the spouse over.  Marital debt being assigned to the other spouse doesn't mean anything to the creditor; both spouses still owe the creditor.  She somehow snowballed the credit reporting agencies to remove this listing for absolutely no reason.  So wrong. (FYI, I am a bankruptcy attorney and would know this.).  So she is free and clear from the debt and then has the audacity to keep the items because she doesn't have the time.  What a sense of entitlement.  Though, since neither are paying, neither deserve the overpriced pots and pans.  Then she had the nerve to 1) bring new man; and 2) sue for stuff that happened in the marriage between husband and wife like driving spouse to doctor; and 3) sue for cell phone cancellation on an account she cancelled; and 4) sue for a cause of action she simply made up because she felt like it.  She needed a smack down and didn't get one.  Not that he deserved the pots and pans, but she should have been forced to return them to the plaintiff who owes for them or pay for them.  That is what JJ would do and I know I have seen that happen before but might not have been post-divorce.   

So much word for this post Bazinga!!!  If I could like it more than once I would.  This defendant annoyed me way more than she should!  I need a drink...lol

[Brattinella]

29 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

What I have gathered is that women of a certain age, maybe 65+, who grew up in a different time with different outlooks on certain things (add that to that the way they were brought up) don't want to be bothered with randy old goats and their renewed, chemical stiffies (or even the natural stiffies that may take all night to awaken) once their husbands have passed on, since most women outlive their husbands. This is why the old goat in this case couldn't find  woman of suitable age. Not only that, but men that age - 76 or whatever he was - expect a woman to take care of them and these women are done with that.

Exactly this.  Some men may not understand this, but women sometimes don't want or need sex at all.  And I have never run into any woman who is with a man strictly for sex (on her part).  Men are horndogs, by and large.  For you to ask innocently then why is she with him then, is a major difference in the sexes.

[Florinaldo]

7 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Exactly this.  Some men may not understand this, but women sometimes don't want or need sex at all.  And I have never run into any woman who is with a man strictly for sex (on her part).  Men are horndogs, by and large.  For you to ask innocently then why is she with him then, is a major difference in the sexes.

I you do not like being saddled with a sex horndog, you just a-leave!

Period!!

(As one judge on another court show would say)

And I do not care care how much you may have been socially conditioned to be passively accepting of such behaviour.