Brattinella November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 Every state I've lived in (Calif, OK, OR) have laws that if YOUR tree impacts the sidewalk negatively, YOU have to pay for the repair. 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: has been rapper manager wants to be paid for work on 16yo rapper's album: Plaintiff and defendant were totally unable to string together two consecutive sentences that were related to each other so I quickly lost interest in their stories and it seemed utterly uninteresting anyway, except for their overblown idea of what the work of that 16-year old "child" was worth for them. The mother looked like she was on her way to an audition for a cheap knock-off of Empire or similar musical TV shows. 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I never heard of homeowners being required to maintain city property, but seems that IS how it is in NYC. In some cities, bulding owners are even responsible for sweeping and cleaning the portion of sidewalk in front of their property (that is one way for the city to reduce its operating costs). I was surprised MM awarded the guy anything without some official medical document. His justification was plain silly: you can refuse X-rays and any other diagnostic procedure if you feel it's going to hurt you (not that I was completely convinced by that explanation anyway). Her refusal to look at the police report was also strange, but perhaps based on the fact that the defendant's wife was a bit annoying. Edited November 10, 2017 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
DoctorK November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 (edited) Quote I was just in fear that def. while waving her hands around, was going to cut her own throat with those enormous daggers glued to her fingertips. Personally, I was hoping to see that happen. WTF was in her mind to bring in her mink coat when everybody else (including the people outdoors talking to the asshole Harvey (or is the other asshole?)) were all in shirt sleeves? Don't overlook the fact that her repulsive nails were painted white to match her costume. At best she is a birdbrain who is likely to let her kid (talented? Maybe yes, maybe no) sink his entire future in becoming a multi millionaire rapper. Like the sad millions of kids who really believe thay will make it in the NBA, NFL or the music world and therefore not do anything else to become a success, the odds are overwhelming that this kid will not make millions as a rapper, and be left with nothing else to go forward with except a deep bitterness that he wasn't allowed to become the millionaire artist he deserved. Edited November 10, 2017 by DoctorK 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 1 hour ago, DoctorK said: (including the people outdoors talking to the asshole Harvey (or is the other asshole?)) Yes, the nitwits outside are talking to the asshole Harvey. The Inside Asshole is the announcer, the former No-Neck Hall Clown. 1 hour ago, DoctorK said: the odds are overwhelming that this kid will not make millions as a rapper, and be left with nothing else to go forward with except a deep bitterness that he wasn't allowed to become the millionaire artist he deserved. It's the same around here. Every boy plays hockey and all their fathers are sure their kid will be the next NHL superstar. The odds are astronomical, just as they are for all these zillions of "aspiring rappers." Yeah, play hockey or rap or whatever, but get an education too so that when dreams of fame and fortune fall through they won't be spending their lives asking, "You want fries with that?" 6 Link to comment
Eliza422 November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 Omg, the music producer? Manager? Who knows....I hate these cases where fools can’t string two sentences together to tell a story. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 Heading out now just as TPC is coming on... recap will be late today and next Friday as I'll be out taking care of business. 2 Link to comment
NYCFree November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 NYC homeowner here. We are completely responsible for sidewalks, even if damaged by a tree the city planted. That responsibility includes not only keeping them in good repair, but also free from snow, etc. We have a specified time after the snow stops falling in order to shovel. When I was a kid, my dad made the whole family take shifts guarding fresh concrete, to stop people from scratching their names or sketches into the fresh sidewalk. It is incredible how many people actually feel entitled to do that to the property of another. One guy was even ready to get into a fight with my dad because the guy told his son to put his name into the sidewalk, and my dad said that he couldn't. 5 Link to comment
meowmommy November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Hats off to a judge who can make sense of any of this case. All I heard was Blah blah blah "Corrupt Dogpound"(Is that what I heard?) My closed captioning (I never watch TPC without it) translated it as "Korupt." Perhaps the transcriber has heard of this person? I was just confounded by all the names being dropped--and mostly first names, no last--where MM is all, "Ok, who's that?" and the answer is to connect to yet another name she has to ask about. And I know I'd hire a handyman to manage my child's 'music' career. Of course I'm a terrible person because I think rap is to music what turds are to my cat. 18 hours ago, DoctorK said: WTF was in her mind to bring in her mink coat when everybody else (including the people outdoors talking to the asshole Harvey (or is the other asshole?)) were all in shirt sleeves? Don't overlook the fact that her repulsive nails were painted white to match her costume. Fake nails, fake hair, fake bling, dead animal skin, what's not to love? But AFAIK, several seasons ago, they moved the outside Levin sycophants to LA while the show is still in NY, so the weather won't match. (They might have moved back but I'd never know since I have FFd the Levin segments for a very long time now.) 21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Anyway, I tripped and fell a couple years back because of a big pothole in the road. Why didn't I think about calling the POLICE and then suing? Maybe I thought it wouldn't have happened had I been looking where I was going. Plaintiff wouldn't go to the hospital or even a doctor because they're all such idiots they'd give him all kinds of X-rays when he shouldn't have them. Stupid doctors! We don't need no stinkin' doctors! He wants 2000$ because that's the value he puts on a pressure bandage on his arm. JM gives him 500$. She must know what she's doing. You just need to fall in the right place. Did you hear about the judgment that just came through for $7.5M to a Walmart customer for tripping on a vegetable pallet? When I was buying my former house in CT, I noted that the sidewalk in front of the house was completely crumbling, and asked the realtor who was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. He lied and said it was the town. It was not the town. 6 Link to comment
Brattinella November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Of course I'm a terrible person because I think rap is to music what turds are to my cat. LOLOLOL!!! 1 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 (edited) 59 minutes ago, meowmommy said: My closed captioning (I never watch TPC without it) translated it as "Korupt." Perhaps the transcriber has heard of this person? I was just confounded by all the names being dropped--and mostly first names, no last--where MM is all, "Ok, who's that?" and the answer is to connect to yet another name she has to ask about. The rapper's name is actually Kurupt and the group (duo) is Tha Dogg Pound. I've already erased the episode so I can't translate any more of the names and frankly, I don't care to. I agree with you and your cat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurupt Edited November 10, 2017 by Schnickelfritz 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 10, 2017 Share November 10, 2017 Levin is trolling the abyss for litigants, it seems. I couldn't quite make it through the rental car/emotional distress/punitive damages thing. Yes, of course - I'd put my credit on the line to get a rental car for a mouthy, hideous troll I'd never met before so she can get her baby daddy out of the slammer, an activity in which I have a feeling she is no stranger. Of course I'd do that. Bunch of savages, but the defendant had the most off-putting, nasty grill (one that would engender envy in a shark) ever seen here, and I'm including the toothless set. God, that was gross. Her daughter needs a psychological evaluation after the street brawl? Right. She was sitting there, unable to contain her giggles over the whole sordid, trashy affair. Somehow I think she may be no stranger to violence. You just know it was all lies, because the daughter says, "We were coming home from the dentist." Like hell you were. Next case: I take a look at the defendant who appeared to be some sort of throwback and sort of decided I didn't need to hear anything he had to say. I just know the fractured grammar would have hurt my ears. Then I heard "dog" and that sealed my decision. Pass. Defendants in the third case were renters who sublet the basement of their rented house to plaintiff. It had no kitchen sink and couldn't possibly be legal, but plaintiff loooooved it so much she agrees to put one in!! Seriously? She wants to pay to upgrade someone else's property. Hey, it's her money to throw away as she wishes. Anyway, turns out defs are total scammers who are unable to rent out these premises. They really need to understand that to be successful scammers you should have at least half a brain, which neither of them appeared to possess. Giant fake eyelashes won't get you far in that game. JM made them look exceeding shady and ridiculous, but not nearly as much as they deserved. 1 5 Link to comment
SRTouch November 11, 2017 Share November 11, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I couldn't quite make it through the rental car/emotional distress/punitive damages thing. Yes, of course - I'd put my credit on the line to get a rental car for a mouthy, hideous troll I'd never met before so she can get her baby daddy out of the slammer, an activity in which I have a feeling she is no stranger. Of course I'd do that. Bunch of savages, but the defendant had the most off-putting, nasty grill (one that would engender envy in a shark) ever seen here, and I'm including the toothless set. God, that was gross. Her daughter needs a psychological evaluation after the street brawl? Right. She was sitting there, unable to contain her giggles over the whole sordid, trashy affair. Somehow I think she may be no stranger to violence. You just know it was all lies, because the daughter says, "We were coming home from the dentist." Like hell you were. Hoboy, what a crew - on both sides of the aisle. Wise decision to rent a car for cousin's loud obnoxious trashy neighbor on your debit card.... that way when she doesn't return the car you claim all the bank fees for your bouncing checks are her fault. Only question, how did the $750 debt turn into a 3 grand case? Must have been some pain and suffering. Plaintiff's skinny little cuz better watch out, that 15yo looks like she could take him. Oh, and defendant's countersuit for harrassment and the trauma counseling poor little girl has to endure because she's afraid to leave the house because of mean plaintiff and her skinny little cuz... same little girl mommy leaves alone in the courtroom with the terrifyingly evil adults so momma can get to the hallterview. 19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Next case: I take a look at the defendant who appeared to be some sort of throwback and sort of decided I didn't need to hear anything he had to say. I just know the fractured grammar would have hurt my ears. Then I heard "dog" and that sealed my decision. Pass. Short recap... defendant working on car without blocking the wheels to keep it from rolling down the hill. Surprise, car rolls downhill. Dude jumps in, I guess just to ride along because the steering wheel is chained up so he can't steer and it has no brakes. Ends up upside down in plaintiff's yard, where it takes jaws of life get him out (must be some hill). Next day, plaintiff let's his dog out without thoroughly cleaning up the crash site, and dog licks up some spilled antifreeze. Luckily, plaintiff has a few brain cells firing, gets the dog to the vet before irreversible kidney damage and/or death... but has BIG vet bill. He feels defendant, who he says - but defendant denies - has alcohol abuse in past, should foot the bill. MM says no, defendant is responsible for any foreseeable damages, but isn't responsible for a halfwit letting his dog sniff around a crash site before a thorough cleanup. Granted, antifreeze wouldn't have been my first worry, but think... oil, gas, glass, metal, fiberglass slivers - all kinds of potential hazards. 19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Defendants in the third case were renters who sublet the basement of their rented house to plaintiff. It had no kitchen sink and couldn't possibly be legal, but plaintiff loooooved it so much she agrees to put one in!! Seriously? She wants to pay to upgrade someone else's property. Hey, it's her money to throw away as she wishes. Anyway, turns out defs are total scammers who are unable to rent out these premises. They really need to understand that to be successful scammers you should have at least half a brain, which neither of them appeared to possess. Giant fake eyelashes won't get you far in that game. JM made them look exceeding shady and ridiculous, but not nearly as much as they deserved. Love how Doug asks if she realizes just how expensive that little project could have been... jackhammer up floor, new water and drain line, new concrete - not little job, and all to add a kitchen to an illegal apartment. Oh, and landlords who were not the landlord's renting apartment MM already knows it couldn't be legal... but never mind the single family code, place not only doesn't have a stove, but the only running water is the bathroom - hmmm wash your dishes in the bathroom sink or shower? Then we get the nonsense about whether the REAL landlord gave them permission to sublet, which devolves into giving cop false name and phone number for his report... and no MM can't call real landlord... defendants had a falling out with him because place was such a dump - oh, and defendants /pretend landlords have since been evicted. Edited November 11, 2017 by SRTouch 1 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 11, 2017 Share November 11, 2017 18 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Love how Doug asks if she realizes just how expensive that little project could have been... jackhammer up floor, new water and drain line, new concrete Oh, I missed that (couldn't take any of the litigants any more) so was she surprised? Did she think you just buy a sink and sit it on the counter and presto - instant working kitchen? When I was renting, no way did I spend one dime, not a single penny, to improve someone else's property even though the kitchen floor was a disaster. Anyway, this case bolsters what I'm always saying - nothing good comes from using CL. 1 1 Link to comment
SRTouch November 13, 2017 Share November 13, 2017 (edited) Caribbean vacation blow up: couple of older (not OLD old, but definitely not kids either) women decide to go to the Dominican Republic and relax. Plaintiff made the arrangements and paid up front, but says defendant was supposed to pay her back. Defendant says plaintiff said she'd take care of everything, meaning she was paying... when they got there everything was second rate, no AC in the rooms and no beach at the hotel... not worth the $900 plaintiff claims is her share. Ah, strong accents on both sides, strong but not so bad I'm not understanding them. Pretty quickly MM has plaintiff searching for a text which is to show defendant promised to pay her share while we shift to other litigant to hear her story. Defendant tells us at first she was involved with finding the hotel, talking to travel agents, etc, looking for a first class 4 or 5 star hotel... then plaintiff, who had been there before, said let her handle everything... sounds like defendant is saying plaintiff was going to make the reservations, then almost as if she remembers her defense she changes to she stepped back and let plaintiff handle the reservations because plaintiff was going to pay. Whenever we get litigants who are not testifying in the first language, I find myself wondering if the hiccups in the testimony is from not being comfortable with English. This time, sure get the feeling she was going to pay her share until she arrived and found she was in a 3 star hotel, with a lake instead of ocean front - she says Lake, but I'm thinking lagoon, since she says full of seaweed. Anyway, she apparently had a hissy fit when they arrive, and their ten year friendship is over and now they're on TPC. Ah, but when MM asks plaintiff, the fight doesn't start when they arrive... no, the fight happens later on when she wants to hit the pool and defendant wants to go back to the room and get ready for dinner. So, supposedly they have a minor dust up over the difference, which grows into major yelling screaming hissy fight when she comes back from the pool... Guess defendant went looking and couldn't find her at the pool (place had multiple pools, and plaintiff says defendant must have not looked in the right place). Defendant says being ditched at the pool was just the last straw, the whole trip plaintiff was hooking up with her friends and ditching defendant, leaving her all alone. Anyway, sounds like a couple kids arguing about one ditching the other, and the ditchee having feelings by ditcher. Easy to see these two letting a simple conflict blow up, as neither listens, they have their mind made up and MM has a tough time even asking questions, as they both answer before she finishes asking... oh, and defendant has convenient memory gaps - text? Oh, the 1 where you give her your id information so she can make the reservation, and you tell her you have the money ready. Huh? I didn't mean what it says in the text. Really, I'm thinking Lemmon and Matthau in Grumpy Old Men (but not nearly as entertaining). Ah, MM must realise this case isn't going anywhere, as she makes a quick decision and hurries off the bench at about the 13 minute mark. When they get out to the hallway, it's easy to see nothing MM said penetrated, as they're back to square one as they argue their case with Doug. ah, soon as plaintiff comes in holding a little dog I start reaching for the remote... intro says little pup attacked by 90 lb big dog, so I skip ahead before defendant enters... big dog's owner loses and ordered to pay over 2 grand. Used car fraud? plaintiff claims defendant knowingly hid defects in the car she bought. Ok, either the normal yakity yak, or maybe, just maybe, plaintiff brought some actual evidence. Nah, just from intro, she test drove the clunker with her daddy along instead of a mechanic. Than, a couple days after buying it, takes it to the mechanic, who says it needs work. We'll see, but looking like usual AS-IS case with entitled buyer thinking they should get special treatment - especially looks that way as we go to commercial after the intro and MM is admonishing the plaintiff that she, MM, is running the case, not the plaintiff. Ah, after commercial, plaintiff wants to tell a long winded story, but MM wants to cut to the pertinent stuff (just the facts, not your rehearsed story, little missy). I hear the fools (little missy and her pops, who was there to advise her) were actually considering buying the car with the engine light on... well, case is over for me... buyer beware, all that crap... DON'T BUY USED CARS WITH THE ENGINE LIGHT LIT UP! (Ah, time for another cup of coffee, sorry Princess, gonna get up, now, but don't steal my spot! Ok, Princess, I warned you!) Ok, little missy isn't mentioning having daddy along, and today she brought bf 'stead of pops. This was her first car, she knew what she wanted and this was it, she brought the CL ad, and surely when you say in an ad that a car looks and runs great that equates to a warranty, oh, and I love how she figures going to Autozone to have them plug the car in is the same as taking it to a mechanic... really, they need to have a form down at the courthouse telling people what AS IS means, and explaining that you need expert testimony or actual evidence of fraud to win these cases.... nah, the folks filing these cases all seem to feel entitled and special, they should be exempt from the normal rules everybody else lives by. MM tries to make things more interesting by quizzing missy about her one estimate from the dealer saying car needs over 5 grand in repairs. Yeah, take it to the dealer and they'll want to make it like new (with original nissan parts), no reason to take it to a mechanic who doesn't have a salesman waiting to ask why fix that thing when you can buy something better. Oh, boy, I swear I wrote that before hearing the reason little missy didn't get a second estimate was because she traded it in when they told her she needed all that work... ten minutes left for this case, defendant has yet to speak, but it's his case to lose because nothing plaintiff said comes close to providing any reason to return any money. Closest we have is plaintiff's claim that he ignored her calls when she received the repair estimate. Really, though, he was under no obligation to take her calls. She has to prove he knowing committed fraud, and she proved nothing. Besides, he actually has an explanation... he's a trucker driver, so he couldn't always take her calls - then her bf got involved with texts to "handle it like a man" - hey, he was fed up with missy and her bf. Besides, car worked fine for him, only problem he knew of was the one from the Autozone readout, which could have been fixed for 40-50 bucks... yeh, he was selling the car a few months after buying it, but says he told plaintiff only reason he wanted to sell the car was that he wanted a motorcycle. Anybody catch how old this car was? Can't be too old, as dealer gave her 4 grand on the trade in even though they claimed it need that much in repairs... Anyway, nothing he's saying makes it seem he was trying to pull anything. Nope, just serial bone head decisions by the plaintiff. As expected, case dismissed. Edited November 14, 2017 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
NYGirl November 13, 2017 Share November 13, 2017 Wow today we had a bunch of clueless litigants!! The Defendant in the Punta Cana felt she didn't have to pay for her trip because plaintiff said she'd take care of everything..meaning the reservations. I shook my head. Second case Defendant felt she didn't have to pay the vet bills..I don't know why I tuned out. JM was appalled at her. Third case idiot Plaintiff had red flags running up on every single question she was asked. I couldn't believe she was that dopey. I hate used car cases. I can tell you the verdict just hearing the opening statements. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 13, 2017 Share November 13, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Caribbean vacation blow up: We needed interpreters for today's eps. It was hard to understand them, but today we learned again about the inaccuracy of the old adage, "With Age Comes Wisdom." It most definitely does not. These two couldn't get their act together enough to spend just 6 days on vacation without fighting and sniping like high school girls. No 4-star hotel (I spent my honeymoon in the Dominican Rep. I loved it, but what is considered 4-stars there is not elsewhere) so defendant decides she's not paying. So there! And she left me alone. AND I couldn't find her at the pool. AND i didn't have a good time. Honestly, ladies - at your ages (or any age really) you should just be thrilled that you are healthy enough and solvent enough to take a vacation without turning it into a fiasco. Idiots. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: ah, soon as plaintiff comes in holding a little dog is start reaching for the remote I reached for it too, but didn't hit it. Plaintiff was walking her yappy little dog along the street in her community, when def's dog AGAIN comes charging out from the unfenced backyard and attacks plaintiff's dog - for the second time. Plaintiff says her dog wasn't really injured the first time so she let it pass. This def. was also very difficult to understand, but I gathered that she felt plaintiff should not be walking on that public street, because def's yard is not fenced and when her dog wants to go, "Nobody can stop her" so it can't be def's fault, right? Gee, that might a good reason to have a fence, you goddam fool. She knows everything that happened, including that plaintiff was on her property, even though she didn't see any of it. She just KNOWS. JM shows her pics of the little dog all torn up, and def. says maybe it's not even the same dog. JM gets fed up trying to make her understand why it IS her fault, and just awards plaintiff everything she asked for. Of course in the hall, def is all, "Judge don't let me explain..." blah blah. Doug directs her to the exit. She continues blabbering on the way. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Used car fraud? Sigh. Here we go again. Plaintiff, a bratty little girl, totally trusts every word from some strange guy she found on CL and gives him 7K in cash for his used car with the "Check Engine" light on. JM is trying to question her, and she pouts, "I haven't finished my story yet," which doesn't impress JM who informs her that she's running this train and plaintiff will answer her questions. Anyway, she say Autozone tells her it needs on a 45$ part, but then she hears "all these noises" so goes to Nissan, who tell her it needs 5,000$ of work! Strangely they still offer her 4K for it and sell her another car. Impartial, they are. Yeah, def said he bought the car 3 months ago and was selling it, but so what? There's no proof he deliberately defrauded her. Tough luck for little Missy. JM is of course sympathetic to her because she's the age of one of her daughters. JM, just because a litigants happens by coincidence to be born around the time you gave birth does NOT necessarily mean they are deserving of sympathy. I have a feeling plaintiff is used to getting her own way, everywhere and with daddy and everyone else, but she found out today that the law applies to her too. Edited November 14, 2017 by AngelaHunter OH god - so many wine-induced mistakes. *Cringe* 8 Link to comment
Jamoche November 13, 2017 Share November 13, 2017 Buys a car based on the word of the seller for $7K, sells it on the word of the dealer for $4K. This is someone who has no clue about the value of $3K. Every used car dealer in the country has just pasted her picture up in their break room. 6 Link to comment
teebax November 14, 2017 Share November 14, 2017 15 hours ago, Jamoche said: Buys a car based on the word of the seller for $7K, sells it on the word of the dealer for $4K. This is someone who has no clue about the value of $3K. Every used car dealer in the country has just pasted her picture up in their break room. Yes; I had zero sympathy for her. Like MM said, she is just full of bad decisions. I'm all for people being assertive and handling things on their own, but if you know nothing about cars, you should probably shop with someone who does. And why in the world did she trade it in to the very dealership that told her it was crap? If it were crap, they wouldn't have bought it from her! When I recently bought my used car... well, actually before I bought my used car, I took it to a local chain that I trust because I used to be their insurance agent, and they give discounts for military, teachers, etc. They told me the two things that it would need to be road-worthy and the other things that it would need down the road but weren't absolute necessities. Since I agreed to let them fix the two things that were pressing (for a whopping total of $110 with my discounts), they waived the inspection fee. I used their report to negotiate down the cost of the car to include the work that needed to be done, which I think anyone with common sense would do. Now, I know next to nothing about cars. However, I know two things: find a shop you can trust, and don't be afraid to get a second opinion. I couldn't get through either of the first two cases because I'm terrible with accents. God bless MM, who I think is incredibly patient when it comes to trying to sort out these convoluted stories spoken in thick accents. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 14, 2017 Share November 14, 2017 1 hour ago, teebax said: Now, I know next to nothing about cars. However, I know two things: find a shop you can trust, and don't be afraid to get a second opinion. So you're saying you wouldn't hook up with someone on CL who says the car "runs good" and give him thousands of dollars in cash because you have a sudden, deep and abiding trust in him? Common sense and firing brain cells are two of the things that separate us from litigants. We won't go into decency, morality, conscience and integrity. I know there are many people who have to buy ancient, 850$ beaters because they have no money and no credit, but this girl had 7,000$ in cash. Why, oh why didn't she go to the Nissan dealer in the first place? She could have gotten a nice car - inspected and with a warranty - for that money? She's in college but I've always said that "educated does not alway equal intelligent." 7 Link to comment
SRTouch November 14, 2017 Share November 14, 2017 17 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: So you're saying you wouldn't hook up with someone on CL who says the car "runs good" and give him thousands of dollars in cash because you have a sudden, deep and abiding trust in him? Common sense and firing brain cells are two of the things that separate us from litigants. We won't go into decency, morality, conscience and integrity. I know there are many people who have to buy ancient, 850$ beaters because they have no money and no credit, but this girl had 7,000$ in cash. Why, oh why didn't she go to the Nissan dealer in the first place? She could have gotten a nice car - inspected and with a warranty - for that money? She's in college but I've always said that "educated does not alway equal intelligent." Hmmmm and apparently that free thingy at Autozone is not really just as good as a mechanic who charges you money to run a diagnostic 5 Link to comment
SRTouch November 14, 2017 Share November 14, 2017 dog attack! Ok, never good to have out of control dogs, but kind of ironic that plaintiff is the landlady, and was charged and bitten by tenant's/defendant's two dogs. Oh my, of all the people for your dogs to bite! Apparently this case is from a jurisdiction with a higher maximum, as landlady is suing for $10,946. Hmmm, don't usually watch dog cases, but intro suggests this could be interesting. Defendant came to court with a dog which seems well behaved, and his part of the intro says landlady entered his apartment without notice and unannounced. So, maybe this time we're not talking out of control dogs, but dogs reacting to an invasion of the home. These two litigants have a contentious history, each saying the other is a terrible tenant/landlady... which always begs the question, why don't you just move!? Not that it matters to this case, but defendant was already being evicted. Ok, we learn right off the bat that plaintiff doesn't concern herself with the rules mere mortals live by... yes her jurisdiction has a higher maximum, but the 10 grand max isn't good enough for her, she wants that extra $946 even though it's over and above the max. Could be wrong, but as soon as MM points that out I'm thinking this lady considers the rules are for other folks... maybe she IS someone who enters a tenant's castle unannounced... ah, but too soon, she hasn't even had a chance to speak, yet. Ah, soon as she starts talking, MM easily puts that thought to rest. Plaintiff testifies place is a triplex. Dogs were out in the fenced yard, an area common to all three apartments, and an area that the dog's are not supposed to be out using as a toilet. Dogs still not at fault, they just reacted to someone entering their territory as dogs do... it was up to owner to be out there controlling his dogs - could have been some kid selling school candy, TV repair guy, etc. Not saying plaintiff may not have inadvertently asked for the attack by yelling, screaming etc... but the owner needs to be present (and maintaining control) when the dogs are in areas where others have legitimate access. Oh yeah, course turns out that the second dog, the one dude didn't bring to court, is a pitty. Anyway, dude wasn't even home to monitor the dogs, his gf was there. Plaintiff claims she was there to clean the common laundry room, and the dogs were knocking her down and biting her before she knew they were out. 911 call, cops, ambulance, maybe national guard... heresay evidence that she was bleeding so bad ambulance wanted to haul her away, but truth is lots of places the ambulance folks play it safe (or are privatized and get more money) and always want to take you in. ok, so this is sounding like the normal irresponsible dog owner. I do believe plaintiff may have contributed to the attack, simply because she is terrified of dogs. She tells us that the cute little, well behaved dog (wearing a service dog vest) terrifies her, and at a recent eviction court hearing the judge admonished defendant to keep the dog away from her... hmmm, yeah, I believe she may be scared of the pup, which explains why this whole time she is turned to keep an eye on the dog. Ok, now defendant's turn to talk, and it takes about zero amount of time before I want to smack the guy. First, he wants to argu... other dog isn't a pit bull mix, isn't his anyway as it belongs to live in gf (anybody else think it smells that the picture he brought of the gf's dog is a "lost dog" poster), dogs live in all three apartments at the triplex, and the occupants all let their dogs loose in the common area, they have an understanding, you see.... dude is going to lose on strict liability theory, only question is how much? Gf is standing up by her man (maybe ex-man as at one point landlady called her his ex gf), arms crossed defensively as MM starts ripping apart his defenses, then she starts waving her hand as she wants to argue her dog, the not-a-pit mix wasn't out running loose, she keeps it on a long lease, she doesn't believe the attack happened. Oh, she wasn't actually outside watching the dog, but her baby would NEVER bite anyone. MM has Douglas show her a picture of the wound, do you think she poked the puncture wound in her own thigh? Don't know, but my baby has ever bitten anyone! (Later on defendant questions whether or not that's even her leg) Ok, case has devolved into the typical clueless owner swearing her baby would NEVER EVER do that. Case still has plenty of time, but I'm done... ah, but before I pick up the remote we get more nonsense from defendant. OK, always fun to watch litigants try to educate the lady in the robe. Dude starts off with how he is also a landlord, owning several properties in the LA area, he just rents this apartment because it's at the beach. Now he wants to argue that, in California, a landlord has to provide 24 hour notice before coming to a property, even to common areas. MM says she's read the applicable laws, so show her what he's claiming is the law. Course, he can't produce anything, but that doesn't stop him from arguing. Now he's saying how plaintiff is a horrible horrible person, who might well have kicked his dog to get it to attack (well at least he admits there WAS an attack). Eh, yeah, sure, 13 more minutes... FF now... most of the damages are tossed. Medical bills, tore pants (which she brought to court, but defendant and witness argue aren'the really what she has on), something for pain and suffering. .. oh, and MM puts the award on hold for 1 week to give him a chance to provide the law that requires landlord give 24 notice to enter common areas. (Newsflash: dude never produces anything) Whoa, that $10,946 claim is slashed to 500 bucks. hmmm I did a lot a zipping through on FF during this, but did they ever explain the "service" this service dog performs. by the end, I was wondering if the service isn't for the gf, cuz this guy pretty much ignores the dog except when he wanted a prop. cheap furniture falls apart: plaintiff bought a futon for $500, and it fell apart after 2 weeks. Some of the furniture was store model, some ordered from a catalog. When she notices she problem, she calls to complain. Hmmm, great customer service.... nope. Takes numerous phone calls, emails, eventually a trip to the store - store promises to send someone to do the needed repair... but no one showed. Then she says they told her to send the broken item back, but wanted her to pay for shipping. Yeah, place may not have the best Yelp reviews. Ok, store guy is arguing that the futon must have been abused by the 8yo who slept on it. MM invites him up to show us anything that indicates abuse. He does offer a slightly different take on her claim that they wanted her to pay for the shipping. He says the store was willing to replace/repair the futon, but wanted her to pay half the cost - $60. Ok, better, but why should she pay anything? I wish we knew more about this futon. $500 for a futon is not super cheap, but what is the thing made of. What broke is where there's a hinge to lift the seat up for storage. Looks to be wood, but is that lightweight softwood, particle board, plywood, good hardwood? I can't tell from the picture, but not sure any of those are a good choice for a little rambunctious 8yo. MM is a little miffed at both sides. Plaintiff spent $25 to file a claim instead of $60 to get it repaired. Defendant would rather take the day off and go on TPC than pay the $60. Oh yeah, both sides say it's the principle of the thing. Bull pucky, lady isn't suing for a repair, she wants $500 because she knows she needs something sturdier for her young hellion. Store is getting all this free publicity - how many times have all sides, plus MM, told us the name - MM even told us the store us in Baltimore. Oh yeah, in the end store caves, and agrees to pay the $60 - aw great publicity... what's this??? For all those who skip Harvey, store reneged, never picks up the futon, and lady gets the $500 laptop rental: this could be interesting, if we can figure out WTH dude is suing for. Seems plaintiff was hired for a festival type event for off off Broadway plays. This is something he's been doing for several years, so presumably he was on decent terms with defendant. While on the job, he falls down some stairs, and has a pending workers comp case. Nah, case isn't about his humpty dumpy impersonation. Seems he used his laptop to provide some sound effects for the event, and wants money for using the laptop, but defendant says there was no agreement to pay anything for guy using his laptop. Hmmm, as MM says when she reads the complaint, seems a little steep, over $2300 for the use of a laptop. So, simple... guy has done this festival for several years. If there was an agreement to pay for the use of his laptop, how much has he been paid in the past - unless this is something new this year. And, of course it's up to plaintiff to prove the agreement. Somehow, this doesn't sound like a big money maker, so if there was over 2 grand budgeted for this is would expect something in writing. Ah, but we need to fill time, so MM spends time talking about his great fall, even though it has nothing to do with the case. (And it WAS a bad fall.) Ok, maybe there is a reason to hear about the accident. He ends up in the hospital until after the festival ends, and someone else will have to do his job... maybe not quite so simple, afterall. So, he says defendant asked to rent the computer to make it easier for replacement sound guy... but that's an awful lot of money for us to believe defendant agreed to pay for this operation running on a shoestring. Ah, no, he claims the agreed upon price was $1200. But... he decided to unilaterally charge interest and late fees when defendant didn't pay. (Ah, update on the pending worker comp case... it was heard the day before this case, and plaintiff won $2100. MM takes the time to question that ruling, but, again, more to fill time than because it has any bearing today.) Anyway, turns out it wasn't even the defendant who borrowed the computer, but the standin. Standin sound dude not here, but sent an affidavit with defendant. Sounds like standin dude didn't even use the computer, and although he says plaintiff mentioned charging for the use of the laptop, he doesn't know if the litigants agreed to anything... and like I said, sounds like he started to use the laptop, but ended up using something else. Plaintiff admits there wasn'the an agreement until after the fact.... but he srnt an invoice. No, no contract, case dismissed. Aw, no hallterview on this case, instead, straight out to Harvey. 1 5 Link to comment
teebax November 14, 2017 Share November 14, 2017 Ugh, maybe they can revive Wapner and bring back Animal Court. Seriously, show, enough with the damn dog cases. The other two cases were just folks who want to be on television. Yawn. Wake me up when TPC gets another interesting case. I may be relegated to going back to Judge Judy, who I quit watching a year ago. 1 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 14, 2017 Share November 14, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: plaintiff is the landlady, and was charged and bitten by tenant's/defendant's two dogs. I heard "Dog" and just kind of skimmed this ep. Def was unbearable, and I believe he had a mail-order bride/girlfriend, because no woman would be with him unless she were desperate or dying to leave her homeland. His voice alone had my eardrums bleeding. Of course I could be dead wrong about that, because I really didn't want to know the details of their association. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: he is also a landlord, owning several properties in the LA area, he just rents this apartment because it's at the beach. Yes, and a wonderful living he must make, that he was willing to stay for months in plaintiff's place, filled with filthy, crappy office furniture. Well, I guess if you decide not to pay rent you can put up with all kinds of unpleasant things. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: cheap furniture falls apart: "Home Sweet Home" furniture store. If you live in Brooklyn, never shop there because def. employee is a liar and will not abide by his word. I don't know if plaintiff's kids broke the futon, - I have a feeling they did - but whatever, def stood there in front of millions of people and said he would have it picked up and repaired/replaced. He did not. Even with all that, it was a pleasure listening to litigants who could speak their language without mangling it, and who never resorted to vandalism or physical violence. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: For all those who skip Harvey, store reneged, never picks up the futon, and lady gets the $500 I watched the Harvey just long enough to hear the store crapped out. Levin didn't approve - yeah, like he's so very ethical. Text and drive much, Levin? 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: laptop rental: this could be interesting, if we can figure out WTH dude is suing for. Goofy plaintiff wants to charge def thousands of dollars to def to RENT his laptop. They had no contract for such an amount. Plaintiff has no proof of anything. Someone who works with Off OFF Broadway (with plays that he hopes might some day reach Off-Broadway) is going to fork over that kind of fee for laptop rental? It's not def's fault that plaintiff fell down the stairs. He's just looking for money for nothing. Says in HallClown Voice: "Not here. Not today!" 1 Link to comment
AZChristian November 14, 2017 Share November 14, 2017 Defendant in the last case had either (1) the worse case of dandruff in the history of mankind, or (2) just came in from a snowstorm. 1 1 Link to comment
meowmommy November 15, 2017 Share November 15, 2017 13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Goofy plaintiff wants to charge def thousands of dollars to def to RENT his laptop. They could have bought several new ones for the amount of money claimed. I want to know how falling down the stairs can cause atrial fibrillation (rapid irregular heart rate based on altered electrical pathways in the atrium of the heart). Seems much more likely that he had undiagnosed AF which perhaps caused him some dizziness or instability and led him to fall. 1 5 Link to comment
SRTouch November 15, 2017 Share November 15, 2017 (edited) only two cases today, neither particularly interesting, both filled with despicable litigants who are caught making up evidence - or just plain having no evidence ex-bf/gf battle: 'nother case where jurisdictional limit is 10 grand... hmmm yesterday's was from LA area, wonder if this is another California case. This one is fools with more money than sense, couple get into kerfuffle at a pool party, physically fighting while driving home, gf takes a stick and causes several thousand dollars damage to dude's BMW, cops come, arrest dude. Dude is suing for car damage and bail money, he claims false arrest. Gf doesn't watch, if she did she'd know she's supposed to countersue for the max amount - heck she says he beat her up, that ought to be worth the max easy, in pain and suffering if nothing else. (Yep, MM tells us this is another California case.) What's up with these Californians... heck if I wasn't a born and raised Californian I might be tempted to start believing the Two and a Half Men weirdness after watching this week. Course I was raised over the ridge in the Central Valley among the rednecks and Okies back in the 60s and 70s when homeboy Merle was singing Okie from Muskogee and Fighting Side of Me. Anyway, these two party goers start their little tiff around 3am because Romeo was filming other girls' butts with his phone instead of paying attention to his gal of 2 years. They leave the party, he's driving and she's in the back cuz she won't seat up front... but that doesn't stop the fussing. When he says he's moving out of their shared residence, she reaches up and pops him - Remember, he's driving at the time. She claims she hit him on the arm - he says a scratch to his eye (later we see pix, and dude was bopper hard enough to bruise and has a scratched eye). Either way, she takes it to physical from the back seat as he's driving. He pulls over, holds her down for awhile, then gets out. Course she gets out, too, but this is when she picks up a stick and starts whaling away on his BMW. Cops get called, and believe her side and arrest dude. Uh huh, from his story she scratched his arm, face and eye, and all he did was hold her down to stop the attack - and he was arrested... nah, has to be more - like maybe cop decided he should never have started driving home from this party in the wee hours of early AM. Over to defendant's side. She starts out confirming his story - even confirming she started the physical side by punching him - though she denies scratching him. Oh yeah, she's even laughing when MM mocks her by laughing about "nothing too big, just your garden variety domestic violence." Ah, if she was a viewer she'd know MM is about to unload on her when she crosses her arms and mocks a litigant while pointing out what they did wrong to Douglas. Girly doesn't catch the signs, happy to tells us they had both been drinking. So, yeah, cop was right to not let dude drive, only question is why both didn't get arrested. Ah, maybe because he did more than just hold her down... in fact she ended up in the ER getting x-rays and with a chipped tooth. So, her story is when she got away from him, she wanted to call the cops, but he wouldn't let her have her phone, so she grabbed up the stick to get him to want the cops... hmmm maybe that seemed like a good solution to a drunken party girl who pops the driver from the back seat. Ah, video! Yep, when dude pulled over he stopped right in front of a security camera. So we get to watch as she picks up a board - not just a stick - and starts taking over head whacks at his car. Problem is, this is his video evidence, so we don't see anything until she has the board. According to her testimony, he jumps on top of her while she's in the back seat. Video wouldn't show what happens in the car, but would have shown him leaving the drivers seat and getting in the back... and why get in the back anyway? Why did he think he needed to hold her down? Car was stopped, all he needed to do to stop her attack was get out of the car. Case is pretty much done for me... he gets nothing for being arrested (though I wonder what all he was charged with)... she does take overhead whacks at his car, but IIRC he's claiming a BUNCH of money in car damage, way more than his out of pocket (assuming he went through his insurance). Her claim that she hits the car to make him give her her phone or force him to call the cops falls apart as we see him on the phone calling the cops and she comes back to whack the car some more. I'm not inclined to be generous, as both these fools are not the least bit sympathetic. Ah, but she does continue to whack the car way too long. I kind of wonder about that board... MM calks it a 2x4, but nah, way to much flex, I wonder if it's even wood, and turns out he only has the high estimate and no pictures, even though car still hasn't been repaired. Oh, but as we watch it sure does look like she's making it look like he beat her up like he claims - messing up her hair and scratching her arms with the stick... Wonder what the medical reports say from her ER visit? Her explanation for the video showing her scratch her arms... yeah she scratched her arms, but that's because of previous incidences when cops responded to their little spats and nobody was arrested because there were no visible signs of assault. Hoboy... wrong thing to admit to a judge, "yeah, I'm not gonna lie, I injured myself so he'd get arrested." Girl still clueless about MM sitting their in her crossed arm pose repeating what girly just said... nah, another clueless entitled brat! MM has a lot more sympathy for dude than I do. I agree she manufactures evidence that ended up with him in jail, but I wonder if he wasn't drunk in public and DUI (even though not driving whenot the cops cane, so he's in the clear there). Anyway, this was a toxic relationship, with both sides beating on each other. Girl has really managed to PO MM, and I get the whole manufactured evidence to make him look worse, but, like I said, he's just as bad and I would only give him his out of pocket... ah, but that may be me being old fashioned and taught from an early age that a man should never hit a woman. Anyway, MM is way more outraged by her fake evidence, so defendant pays for the bail, and part of his damage claim, and MM urges plaintiff to take a copy of the show and get defendant charged for false complaint. childhood friend sued over a loan: plaintiff suing her long time friend over money she loaned him to catch up on past due child support. Defendant admits she loaned him money, says they were dating, but isn't going with the oft heard "it was a gift" defense... no, he says he paid other back. Ah, a she said/he said case, probably end up with MM going through texts. Ah ha, as we go to commercial we may have heard the reason they're here... defendant was dating plaintiff - she loaned him money - they broke up 4 months ago... and his current gf is in court with him and is... 4 months pregnant. Ah, after commercial plaintiff tells her tale... is she for real? Dude was living with his baby momma when they hooked up - he moves in with plaintiff "momentarily" when baby momma kicks him out (apparently in her world a moment is a month to a month and a half) - he borrows $1500 to give baby momma back support - he breaks up with plaintiff 4 months ago and moves.... back in with baby momma, the gf here who is presently 4 months pregnant. Ok, this whole story makes no sense to me. Dude borrowed $1500 to pay the woman he was living with back support? Oh well, that mess is sort of beside the point. Everybody agrees he borrowed money, plaintiff says he never paid back a penny, while dude says it's been repaid. Pretty much everything that comes out from her testimony has me repeating the early "is she for real?" Dude had a job, lived with her rent free for weeks, received 5 grand from some lawsuit, but needed to borrow $1500 to pay child support to someone he was living with and shared a bank account with... over to defendant. He has proof that he paid $1500 over the internet. Plaintiff agrees, but is saying that somehow that was a scam, because he got those payments reversed before she actually had the money in her hands. Hmmm, I guess that could hapoen, so surely she would have sonething showing money coming to her (and her auntie) account and then going back... nah, course not. But, she says, she has texts saying he still owes the money. Nonono, says defendant, he never reversed the charge, he can't figure out why the heck he's here getting sued. You'd think she would expect to have to show those texts, but of course when asked she has to pull out her phone and look for them. That gives MM a chance to call up baby momma to quiz her about WTH is going on... really, now that she's up standing there I'm thinking baby mama may be a little old, we got a cougar here. (We learn she's ten years older than either litigant.) Ok, enough of the side track, plaintiff has given up, says she can't find anything, not the text she was looking for, not even the statement where he put money in her account. Case should be over, she can't prove anything, but MM goes ahead and asks defendant for the proof he paid her. Whoa, then MM realizes he doesn't have to give her anything (even though he was opening up his envelope to look for it), and MM calls a recess to let little missy find proof. After commercial break little missy is back... first she offers up a statement - which shows nothing... then she offers up next month's statement - yeah money went in the account, and really, believe her, the money went back out even though that isn't on the statement... ah, you see, he knew her info (I guess she's saying he had her pin/password) and somebody - but not her - withdrew the money. Ok, maybe so, but wasn't $500 of the $1500 put in auntie's account - did he know that password, too? Dude may be the scammer I think he is, but really, she is failing to prove anything. MM is not happy! She calls plaintiff a little liar who is just wasting everybody's time. Only question now is why there's still 7 minutes left. Ah, more time to lecture plaintiff, even time to ask plaintiff's momma (who plaintiff brought for some odd reason) if momma knew she was messing with dude... case dismissed. WTF, lots of time left and as we go to commercial Harvey pops up and tells us when we get back litigants will be in hallway - then he threatens us with how he's going to tell us why it's a bad idea to loan money to pay somebody's child support. Nah, I'm not interested enough to watch more. Edited November 15, 2017 by SRTouch 1 5 Link to comment
meowmommy November 15, 2017 Share November 15, 2017 Two cases today where litigants think being cute and pretty and all that excuses them from being respectable, responsible human beings. I wanna barf. Setting the case for women's equality back about a hundred years. 45 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Girl has really managed to PO MM, and I get the whole manufactured evidence to make him look worse, but, like I said, he's just as bad and I would only give him his out of pocket... ah, but that may be me being old fashioned and taught from an early age that a man should never hit a woman. Dude is no saint, but I didn't see any real evidence that he ever hit her. For me, this case screamed out for punitive damages. And I'm beyond enraged that it's bitches like her that give cretins out there fodder to say that women make up their domestic violence or sexual assault charges. And that it puts me in agreement with Levin over anything. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: She calls plaintiff a little liar who is just wasting everybody's time. She also said the plaintiff was "either incredibly dishonest or a complete moron." My favorite line of the day. I was thinking baby momma looked like she could be baby gramma. And eight minutes left when MM rules? Thank dog for the FF button. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 15, 2017 Share November 15, 2017 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: ex-bf/gf battle: ' This is the only case I got. The next two were butted into so we could hear Trump's speech, which was just so earth-shattering it could not wait. These two - he a muttering wimp and her? She looked as though she planned to go directly to her street corner after the show, and heaven help any other hooker who usurped her spot. Unbelievable savagery here, but the plaintiff must like it since he'd been with her for years. I guess he didn't mind all the physical violence between them, (because you just know it's not the first time) but when she started beating on his pride and joy - his car - that was a whole other thing. Hey, she only punched him a bit. Don't we all settle disagreements with our significant others this way? I know I do. What's a little punching and scratching between lovebirds? I have to admire that guttersnipe's perseverance in beating the shit out of the car. That took strength and determination. The cops automatically assuming she was the injured and helpless party? Kind of disgusting to me. It never occured to them that if he were the aggressor, he woldn't call the police? Duh. Since when do men who abuse women call and report themselves? She's about as helpless as a viper. She is truly scary and I just kept thinking while watching her sociopathic performance here that I really hope she's unable to have kids. No way is he going to report all this - her lying to the cops and falsifying evidence - to anyone. God, this was so distasteful and sordid. I felt for JM, who was terribly disappointed that the revolting video had no audio. 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo November 15, 2017 Share November 15, 2017 On 14/11/2017 at 3:53 PM, SRTouch said: h, update on the pending worker comp case... it was heard the day before this case, and plaintiff won $2100. MM takes the time to question that ruling, but, again, more to fill time than because it has any bearing today Since the complaint for rental fees was patently absurd on its face with no proof of an agreement and thus destined for dismissal, this was the aspect of the case I would have been interested to hear more about. Defendant said it was ruled as an 'Intermittent employee" case, but I wondered on what basis. There is a gray area in labour laws where you must be careful not to create inadvertently an employer-employee relationship, and then have to pay payroll taxes. For example where a freelancer can claim to be a "dependent contractor" (at least in Canadian law). I wouldl not have minded some time being filled with MM asking to see the text of the decision if it was already available. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: that may be me being old fashioned and taught from an early age that a man should never hit a woman. Call me even more old-fashioned than you in thinking that no one, man or woman, should hit someone else, unless in self-defense. Not only did she show herself prone to violence, but she had no qualms in admitting that she was making up evidence and tampering with a potential police investigation, which throws some doubt over her claim of previous domestic violence. In such circumstances, I have absolutely no problem with him getting compensanted. As meowmommy said, "bitches like her that give cretins out there fodder to say that women make up their domestic violence or sexual assault charges". He did not seem very bright or have much initiative so if he does not complain on his own to his district's DA or police, I hope the latter are sufficiently shamed by seeing their lazy work displayed for all the nation to see that they will go after her on their own. She had no remorse, much like the equally disgusting plaintiff in the other case, who also made up a malicious accusation contradicted by the evidence. I felt especially sorry for the defendant and his fiancée; they seemed like ordinary decent people who did not deserve such aggravation. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Harvey pops up and tells us when we get back litigants will be in hallway - then he threatens us with how he's going to tell us why it's a bad idea to loan money to pay somebody's child support. Nah, I'm not interested enough to watch more. Actually, this was a good argument for his segment to be expanded; eliminate or limit the interviews with passerbys and give him more time for his legal summary at the end. He usually has to rush this and gloss over details that might be useful to viewers. Of course much of what he says is just plain common sense and basic knowledge, but as court shows demonstrate, most litigants are profoundly deficient on this one aspect. I am of course assuming that they would have the attention span and brain cells necessary to follow and understand a longer wrap-up, which is far from being a given. 1 Link to comment
Broderbits November 15, 2017 Share November 15, 2017 Today's first defendant and second plaintiff were such disgusting creatures that I wish I could be there when Karma rains down on them. Who (or what) spawned those things? 2 Link to comment
meowmommy November 15, 2017 Share November 15, 2017 21 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: Actually, this was a good argument for his segment to be expanded; eliminate or limit the interviews with passerbys and give him more time for his legal summary at the end. He usually has to rush this and gloss over details that might be useful to viewers. There is so damn much filler and fluff...scenes from upcoming case, Hallclown describes the case, then Levin summarizes the case, then MM gives her understanding about the case...testimony...upcoming scenes...commercial...Levin resummarizes testimony to that point...more testimony...at some point Levin's banal, meaningless, leading questions on the street...not even counting the frequent extraneous questions from MM just because she's curious...lather, rinse, repeat, what's not to love? One of the dear departed judge shows used to have the judge speak to the camera at the end of the case and give a more detailed rationale for why she ruled the way she did. I would love to see MM do something like that. And it's such a shame that Levin has decided to be an assclown instead of a legal expert, because his post-case updates could easily be covered by a BSOJ stating what happened. He adds nothing, nothing. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 16, 2017 Share November 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Florinaldo said: Actually, this was a good argument for his segment to be expanded; eliminate or limit the interviews with passerbys and give him more time for his legal summary at the end. More Levin? If I never see his face again it will be too soon. He needs the pinheads outside. They're mostly so moronic that they make him feel like a bigshot genius as he shoves the mic in everyone's face before turning and shoving his own ugly mug into the camera. 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: There is so damn much filler and fluff...scenes from upcoming case, Hallclown describes the case, then Levin summarizes the case, then MM gives her understanding about the case...testimony...upcoming scenes...commercial...Levin resummarizes testimony to that point...more testimony...at some point Levin's banal, meaningless, leading questions on the street...not even counting the frequent extraneous questions from MM just because she's curious...lather, rinse, repeat, what's not to love? One of the dear departed judge shows used to have the judge speak to the camera at the end of the case and give a more detailed rationale for why she ruled the way she did. I would love to see MM do something like that. And it's such a shame that Levin has decided to be an assclown instead of a legal expert, because his post-case updates could easily be covered by a BSOJ stating what happened. He adds nothing, nothing. Oh, i've been saying this for ages. Cut out all that crap and let us see more of the cases. I have never understood why we need the HallClown to do those horribly cheesy intros and then have Levin repeat the same thing, adding a "He hardly KNEW 'ER!", often still blabbering as JM begins speaking. They must have to cut a lot off the cases to fit in all that other stupid, endless drivel. Yeah, we don't need MORE of Levin - "Ohh, did you see that? His fly was open! (titter smirk)" "That litigant was such a big meanie I'm glad he lost!") Never thought I'd be quoting Alec Baldwin, but he summed up Levin very nicely: “He is a festering boil on the anus of American media.” 6 Link to comment
AZChristian November 16, 2017 Share November 16, 2017 4 hours ago, meowmommy said: She also said the plaintiff was "either incredibly dishonest or a complete moron." My favorite line of the day. One interesting fact about that case. April 29, which the plaintiff kept insisting was the day of the deposit, was a Saturday. Any deposit made on the 29th would not clear until after May 1. Judge Milyan was smart enough to ask for the May bank statement as well. The woman was really crooked, but she was also a moron. 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo November 16, 2017 Share November 16, 2017 Since I do no hold any special animosity towards HL (except for his "he hardly knew her" bad jokes) I actually bother to listen to his summations and he often makes salient points, but is generally too rushed. So I have no hesitation in doubling down on my suggestion that he should be given more time for that, by cutting down on the filler material, including the street crowd. If he falls short, he could be replaced by someone who could put a useful legal context on things. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch November 16, 2017 Share November 16, 2017 family rental disaster: one of those moldy apartment rentals with the added twist that tenants are the adoptive daughter and her gf. Really, no question about the mold problem, everybody agrees it was bad (MM calls it a category 5 mold problem). Problem is that the adoptive parents are slow to react. Mom schedules someone to come test the mold, but when they don't come she doesn't reschedule. Dad is in denial, ah, just tell them to ventilate - open the windows. When they finally see the extent, they agree to help pay for mold damaged property (including 3 grand in furniture only a couple months old). Ah, but these are folks without a lot of money, they only offer 1 grand and 22 year old daughter and gf argue they're out $3500. Looks like this has caused problems in the family, too. Parents already not too happy with the gf (maybe because of the "g" instead of "b" - but then she sort of dominates the relationship, daughter is pretty much a mouse in court until MM has to instruct gf to zip it and let daughter answer questions directed her way.) Dad isn't in court, doesn't want to deal with it. Course, family suing family always has MM questioning why oh why can't you get along? While parents were in denial and not rescheduling an inspection, gf calls and complains to the city... city issues multiple citations and determines apartment is illegal. Now they really need to get out, but nobody has any money, they end up staying a couple more months. Makes me wonder about the mold. There's mold, and then there's mold. Seems like city would have made them evacuate if it was truly dangerous rather than just unsightly. Also, not convinced a lot of the furniture couldn't have been salvaged if they had reacted quicker. I get trashing fabrics, but did they try cleaning anything or did it all end up in a landfill. Heck, moldy fabric can often be cleaned depending on the type of mold and the fabric... hot water, bleach, vinegar, baking soda, all can eliminate most types of mold. Up to MM to figure out what the damage amount will be, should mom and pop pay replacement cost, depreciated value or just for a good cleaning (but of course we still don't know if the clothes and furniture were even salvageable.) Ah, then we find out that they kept and are still using some of the stuff on the list of things they're suing for (including fabric items that I would question being about to salvage like the mattress and box springs). Heck, when momma pointed out that they took the mattress I REALLY question their 3 grand for furniture (which, BTW, included a mirror and tv - they admit keeping the tv, but say the mirror was trashed). Plaintiff win, get 2 grand out of the $3500 they wanted. non-payment for work done on music video: plaintiff says she was hired to work on a video, she did the work, it turned out great, she's still waiting to be paid the promised $900. Defendant says her work was terrible, video out of sync with audio, and there was never an amount set on her wages (another intro defense which never makes it into the testimony). Ah, a contract case - probably minus the contract - nope, we find out they have a contract, and MM says it's actually a good contract). Plaintiff comes in, sets up a laptop, opens her binder full of notes... defendant comes in wearing a t-shirt showing his gym time... strike one for defendant. These two met over the internet, both members on a board/group about music video, both professional entertainment business people . Plaintiff seems prepared, remembers details like dates, and is presenting her case without my need of earplugs and/or CC - she may prove to be a nutcase or crook, but I'm liking how she starts out - only thing not to like is it looks like she's reading her presentation, so it may collapse when she has to answer questions. Pleasant surprise, when MM asks defendant for clarification during plaintiff's opening, he's soft spoken and articulate. Anyway, after the Internet meeting, they agree to work together... the plan is to split locations, film his performance in California, then finish up on location in Paris. Her payment is to be the all expense paid trip to France. They meet, do the work in California, but he dodges any question about when the Paris trip is going to happen. Her binder is full of texts, as she says she wanted the correspondence in text rather than verbal in case there was a problem - hey, smart, just like they always tell us. 'Nother surprise... she has a written contract - a payment schedule, so much per day of work, which is to be partially offset by the trip... problem is an asterisk saying that the producer and executive producer get to decide the trip dates and how much the trip to Paris is worth... guess who the executive producer is - yep, the defendant. Anyway, plans changed, Paris is taken off the table, she wants the money it represented, and the contract says he decides how much it's worth. She's talking sense, she did work, he breached when he canceled the trip. Going back to the intro, his defense that her work was subpar doesn't matter to me. First, I don't really know that it would be the videographer/director's job to synch the audio and video.... I see all those credits at the end of movies, but have never been sure what the titles mean. We know there was an editor, because they talk about him/her, but was there a sound guy. Anyway, to me, a sound guy records the sound, she would have set up and taken care of what we see, then an editor, or a team of editors, match sound to video... His testimony seems to ignore the intro defense anyway. Now it seems to be that since the trip date was to be announced at a later date, her case is premature because eventually he may decide to make the trip. Ok, if you go with that the judge could decide what a reasonable period for plaintiff to wait for the trip... but we don't need her to decide that, as he sent texts that the trip is off. Sooooo plaintiff did work on a promise of a Paris trip, trip is off, he gets to decide what the trip is worth... ah, I guess nothing, because that's what he paid her. Oh, and she's only asking for 1 day of work at the rate specified in the contract even though she claims to have spent a week on the project because there's no question she worked at least one day. Sounds like MM thinks plaintiff should receive more, but at a bare minimum she'll get what she's asking for. Course defendant tries to back off the text about canceling the trip, saying it may still happen, but then earlier he told us his career interest was no longer really as a music performer. Dude has presented three defenses so far, none any good... but, hey, I can understand him without cringing. Simple case, plaintiff gets what the contract said she'd get for 1 day of work. SIDENOTE: defendant reminds of a bearded Dwayne Johnson (The Rock). Especially when, during the hallterview he sort of lifts his eyebrow and looks sideways at the camera - hey, Be Cool, the John Travolta movie (even though in that movie Rock's character had hair). ok, skipping the dog attack case... 1 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 16, 2017 Share November 16, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: family rental disaster: I'm really getting tired of JM playing family therapist. After all her years on the bench and presiding over domestic violence cases, doesn't she know that all families don't, deep down, love and adore each other, or really even give a shit? Not all families are like hers! Some family members hate each other, do not think "blood is thicker than water" and want nothing to do with each other. That's life and no lecturing will change that. JM, as much as I adore you, please stop doing that. You're wasting your breath and wasting our time. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: non-payment for work done on music video: Plaintiff hooks up with... some guy on FB who claims to be some sort of artist. He offers her a job making a music video (I think)and promises payment in the form of a trip to Paris. Who wouldn't want that? Thing is, after she does all the work - ooops, no money and no trip to Paris. Did no one see that coming? Def. starts out with his rehearsed mini-autobiography - on and on to explain his life's journey and why he stiffed the plaintiff. Whatever. Deadbeat scammer owes her the money and in the hall he bitches that JM only let him say "about 6 words" in his defense. Au contraire, she was totally patient with his rambling, irrelevant tale of woe. Such utter BS from a creep with no conscience who didn't pay anyone at all. Plaintiff was articulate, clear and had her evidence. She wins! 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: ok, skipping the dog attack case... You needn't have skipped it. 80-year old plaintiff is walking in the park when def's unleashed dogs run up and bite him on the back of his leg or maybe his butt. He has pics of his pants with a speck of blood on them (pics were so bad they were useless) and pics (which a friend took) of the dogs but no pics of the injuries which is important because he wants 5K. He doesn't own a camera because he lives alone. Def is ultra-annoying and incredibly entitled. She also starts her rehearsed spiel with "It was a beautiful day in the neighbourhood so I took my dogs to the park. I was sitting on a bench doing some reading and blah blah. There was no one there so I just let my dogs go to do whatever they liked. The leash law is not enforced in that park, so it's okay if I break the law." JM is hardly going to ask plaintiff to drop trou in the courtroom, so poor Douglas has to go and take pics of his bitemarks and see plaintiff's butt. He has two puncture marks for sure, but JM awards him only 500$. Personally I think the def. needed more punishment than that for her snotty, imperious attitude. Edited November 16, 2017 by AngelaHunter 1 9 Link to comment
Florinaldo November 17, 2017 Share November 17, 2017 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I'm really getting tired of JM playing family therapist. After all her years on the bench and presiding over domestic violence cases, doesn't she know that all families don't, deep down, love and adore each other, or really even give a shit? Quite agree. And even if the family relationship is all lovey-dovey, if mother (adoptive or not) fails in her duties as a landlord or does not fulfill her obligations under a financial/commercial/employment/etc. agreement, there is no reason to give her a pass just because "this is the only family you will ever get". Which is certainly a very good argument against getting into such contractual relationships with relatives. 1 7 Link to comment
teebax November 17, 2017 Share November 17, 2017 I agree that MM gets too hung up about family stuff. I probably wouldn't sue a family member, but my family wouldn't do to me what some families do to each other. What drives me crazy about TPC, and many other shows I watch, is they feel the need to tell me what's coming up after the commercial. It's such a waste of time, especially since most people are using a dvr. 1 7 Link to comment
meowmommy November 17, 2017 Share November 17, 2017 12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: You needn't have skipped it. The real reason not to have skipped this case was to listen to MM's fascinating stream of consciousness rant starting with how she had a pitbull sniffing her when she was pregnant up to how she thinks it's terrible that we have to endure dogs on planes in the name of therapy (I happen to agree). 14 hours ago, SRTouch said: Course, family suing family always has MM questioning why oh why can't you get along? It really bothered her that this was an adoptive mom, as in, adoptive moms love you more, presumably because they chose you when they didn't have to. 3 Link to comment
NYCFree November 17, 2017 Share November 17, 2017 I live in Riverdale, NY. It's a very quiet section of the Bronx with everything from multi million dollar mansions to homeless shelters. There are SEVERAL dog runs here, including two near the park where the plaintiff was bitten. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 17, 2017 Share November 17, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, teebax said: I agree that MM gets too hung up about family stuff. I probably wouldn't sue a family member, but my family wouldn't do to me what some families do to each other. True. I can understand why some of these people sue family members. No, I'd never sue a family member, but my brother and I have never ended a disagreement with him spitting in my face and busting out all my car windows with a brick. If he did, I probably would sue him. And hate him. And roll my eyes too as JM lectured me with "Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, gotta love one another right now." NYCFree said: Quote There are SEVERAL dog runs here, including two near the park where the plaintiff was bitten So now people are not only too damned lazy to walk their dogs, but even too lazy to take them to a dog park. So many people want dogs, but don't really want dogs, not if it means getting off their asses and taking proper care of them. Edited November 18, 2017 by AngelaHunter 9 Link to comment
SRTouch November 20, 2017 Share November 20, 2017 (edited) family suit... again: picking up where we left off Thursday, more family suing family. Ah, this time we have squabbles over property after a death in the family. Plaintiff is suing stepson for $2500+. Seems when husband/dad died, stepmom told dude he could come over and pick up some of daddy's tools. Son comes over and picks some stuff up alright, including, according to plaintiff, jewelry, a truck, and a few tools. When she finds out what all he took, big kerfufle, cops called, and now they're here airing their family skeletons on TPC. Have to see what proof she has of what he took. Oh, and from intro and previews, sonny is an angry little man (not a young man)... just from his demeanor and the pre-commercial clip I get that he never liked stepmommy, and believed he had a right snap up a few things besides the tools if he got the chance. Ok, husband/dad must be a bit older than stepmom, he was 70 and she still works as a busdriver. Plaintiff starts out listing the stuff she says he took, and defendant gets an early start to tell us his defense. He tells us he asked stepmom if it was okay if he took his dad's tools out of the garage, and was given the go ahead. So, he comes over with his son and grabs all he wants while she's at work... yep, he admits he took more than just the tools she told him he could take. Now we get MM incredulous that less than a year after hubby/dad is buried, these two are in court. Angry little guy argues that it wasn't him that sued, yeah, MM says, you're the one who took stuff then refused to return it when stepmommy called upset over some of the items you took. Not sure how this can last the normal 20 minutes, dude admits he took stuff without permission, and his response is that during the following kerfuffle stepmommy says screw you and your side of the family, just keep it. Uh, MM says, obviously that was heat of the moment stuff and not actual permission to keep the money, why else would she be suing? Oh, yeah, turns out he took the stuff and sold it for rent money. That's bad, but maybe he figured he was being cheated because stepmother was getting the family home.... uh, no, she and daddy were together 14 years (married 10) and she brought the house to the marriage, having bought it in the 80's. Dude doesn't have any defense, so let's get on with it and do the rough justice... what!?! DVR says we're at the 7 minute mark! Well, turns out some of her claim is iffy... your honor, he even took my diamond ring!... how did he know where you kept your ring?... while giving him some of his dad's belongings I opened my dresser drawer and it was in view on top of my socks... you kept your ring on top of your socks?... no it was under the socks... then how did he see it under your socks... oh, and husband/dad had a will (son was executor) but they agreed not to go through probate. So, son took personal items, he was going to keep dad's truck (uh, is this the truck she accuses him of stealing), grandson gets the boat, she gets to keep the car and house... oh, she gets to keep the house she owned before the marriage. Can she keep her underwear, too? asks MM. Ah, well, litigant on one side not above tacking on stuff to her claim, and across the aisle sonny figures he gets to decide what to give stepmommy because he was appointed the executor. Case still only 10 minutes old, and I was ready to hit FF 5 minutes ago... so, zip zip, let MM figure out this mess. Ok, I stop and learn pop appointed son executor even though sonny spent three years in the hoosegow for burglary to fund his drug habit... yeah, perfect choice to see to an equitable distribution of his worldly goods. Hmmm, rough justice will involve lots of guesswork, as plaintiff apparently has no receipts. Sonny admits taking and selling some stuff, and at least some of what he says he got for the stuff is close to what she wants... course, the big ticket item, the ring, he denies taking and she has no proof besides his knowing the password for the alarm and where the spare key was kept. She walks away with $800 odd out of the requested 2500. No hallterview for defendant, he walks by Doug shaking his head. Plaintiff, who saw her 2500 slashed down to 800... well, she's happy, she was just here suing over the principle of the thing anyway and knows she had no proof of the ring. tenant suing over illegal apartment: yet another illegal moldy apartment rental. This time tenant says he was hurt in an accident and away from apartment for a couple weeks, and when he came home he found the place a mess - missing sink and bathtub and moldy. Says the mold made him sick, so he deserves 10 grand. Surprisingly landlord agrees place was illegal (I FF through quite a bit, but I don't think mold ever came up after the intro). Landlord says he didn't know it was illegal when it was rented, and the reason the sink and bathtub were taken out was because the he was ordered by the Housing Authority to remove the unpermitted kitchen and bathroom. Lots of nonsense back and forth... Ok, soon as plaintiff starts talking he loses me. So... dude came to LA in 2004 from NY, he's a screenwriter.... zip zip... Surprise intro wrong, he didn't leave and live with gf for a while. No, this place was her place and he moved in with her and they were paying way more. But, she and landlord didn't get along, so he kicked her out and plaintiff stayed. Which left gf miffed, so she complained to the authorities. And it was her complaint which led to the authorities to tell landlord to remove the unpermitted kitchen and bathroom. Which led to big reduction in rent, as it was no longer an apartment but office/storage space. I can't take this guy and his riveting testimony, and neither can MM, so she goes to defendant, landlord. Ok, once gf is kicked out and makes her complaint, landlord has tenant sign a month to month agreement to rent office space - but MM figures he knew guy had every intention of living there. So, now both sides are in denial mode. Tenant claims he didn't know it was an illegal apartment - landlord says he didn't know he was still living there. Ah, but tenant signed a agreement not to live there (which is provided by defendant because for some reason he can't find his copy when asked) - and landlord buys tenant a gym membership so he can take showers at the gym. Good grief, this case is nonsense... no clean hands here, folks. How long did dude live there with no kitchen and showering at the gym before defendant evicted him? And, did he really go to court to evict the guy? Ah, as we go to commercial we hear MM saying, guys look at me, do I look stupid? And then to plaintiff, you are either the dumbest man in the world or a liar... and he replies, then I must be the dumbest man.... ah, second case in a row, I don't make it to the end.... zip zip... case tossed, but apparently dude is still there, squatting in the illegal apartment. (Confusing case and recap, since I FF through most of the nonsense.) car shop warranty fail: well, this is different. Plaintiff has car with LOTS of miles on it - over 300 thousand according to defendant. He had defendant install a new alternator, but his car dies. He gets another mechanic to come, and ends up buying a battery. New guy tests and says alternator is good. Ah, but it doesn'the stay good, car dies again, and guy who put in battery says alternator now testing bad. Says he called defendant, and was told the alternator was covered by warranty, so tow the car in and the manufacturer will cover the expense. Well, after spending $500+ to get the car to the shop, where the alternator is replaced. This guy is plaintiff is in a big hurry, so they don't wait to recharge the battery and retest the alternator, just place it and the "bad" alternator is shipped back to the manufacturer. Manufacturer does their tests, they declare there was nothing wrong with it and refuse to pay. Plaintiff says he had the car towed from NY to Jersey because defendant told him his expenses would be covered, so it's up to defendant to pay. Ah, but plaintiff has nothing from the battery guy who supposedly says alternator tested bad. Also, under questioning plaintiff admits defendant told him his expenses would be paid IF the alternator was bad. So, seems to me plaintiff is suing the wrong guy... the guy who said it was bad was the mechanic who was wrong (assuming manufacturer was right that nothing was wrong). Guy he's suing did his part, not his fault the alternator ultimately proved to be good and the manufacturer refused to pay. Edited November 21, 2017 by SRTouch 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 20, 2017 Share November 20, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: family suit... again: picking up where we left off Thursday, more family suing family. Def is a boring, garden-variety tiny little ferret-faced shitbag - a thief and liar who spent 3 years in the slammer for his scumbag crimes. He should be totally grateful that plaintiff gave him a car and a boat. He's not her family and she owes him nothing. Why yes, he stole all kinds of stuff from her and sold it, because he's a middleaged man and father who can't pay his own damned rent without pilfering from other people and profiting from their work. Generators aren't tools, you wee little tool. He stormed right past Doug in the hall, giving us barely a glimpse of his bony little shaved skull. He was in high dugeon, or maybe he didn't want any more questions about his crimes that he was too dumb to commit without getting caught. I shouldn't be surprised that some woman wants him and wanted to procreate with him - those superior genes I guess, or just the usual desperation - but it still gives me a "What?" moment. Capital "L" loser. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing over illegal apartment: yet another illegal moldy apartment rental. I couldn't help but wonder how the screenwriter (whose case was utterly ridiculous) managed to write screenplays without every second word being "basically." I have an odd feeling he wasn't a resounding success at his craft. But he's so ethical that when he just happened to find in the garbage a notice from the city that the so-called "appartment" he was renting was illegal - and really, how would anyone know their place was illegal even when all amenities like kitchen and bathroom have been removed? I would never catch on! - he decides he deserves all the rent he ever paid back. He's still living there. Both litigants are kind of scammers and plaintiff gets what he actually does deserve - nothing. No "bo-nanza" for you. Another "It is what it is"("I tried for the lottery but my lies failed me") hallterview. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: car shop warranty fail: Plaintiff should consider a career in comedy. He wants to go to a mechanic so far from his abode that towing his old beater there costs him 500$? That's his perogative. Pay the bill, tubby. 2 Link to comment
teebax November 21, 2017 Share November 21, 2017 That screenwriter drove me nuts. I suspect all his scripts start with, "What happened was..." 4 Link to comment
SRTouch November 21, 2017 Share November 21, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, teebax said: That screenwriter drove me nuts. I suspect all his scripts start with, "What happened was..." What happened.... uh..... was..... basically.... yep, glad to hear his career is back on track (from hallterview). Now he can afford not to live in a dump of an office/basement/storage space.... oh, he still lives in the moldy basement, he just stopped paying the $250.... hmmm guess landlord no longer pays the gym to let him use the shower. Edited November 21, 2017 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
teebax November 21, 2017 Share November 21, 2017 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: What happened.... uh..... was..... basically.... yep, glad to hear his career is back on track (from hallterview). Now he can afford not to live in a dump of an office/basement/storage space.... oh, he still lives in the moldy basement, he just stopped paying the $250.... hmmm guess landlord no longer pays the gym to let him use the shower. I'm surprised he wasn't just happy with the amount of time he managed to live in freaking LA for $250. I live in Tucson, which is one of the cheapest places I've ever lived, and you can't live here for $250; at least not alone! Now that I think of it, he's a typical litigant, so I shouldn't be surprised he sued. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch November 21, 2017 Share November 21, 2017 custom paint on classic 'vette: plaintiff took his restored '77 corvette to defendant for a custom paint job. Seems dude has had a favorite picture for decades, and wanted it airbrushed onto the hood, with a couple changes. (Later on MM questions whether or not there may be copyright enfringement problems, but that's just laughed off.) Defendant was known as a great custom painter in their area (actually, googling Gary Kupfer, "The Local Brush" his custom work is known nationwide, and has been featured in various custom Car/motorcycle magazines going back to the '60s... that's what his page says, anyway), so plaintiff gave a copy of his picture and the 'vette to painter and waited for months and months for the masterpiece to be completed. No doubt, now painter dude wishes he had turned down the job. He says plaintiff was impossible to please, very nit picky and made multiple changes. Finally, plaintiff seemed happy and took the car home... only to later decide the job was unsatisfactory and he ends up suing - asking for the 5 grand max. Yeah, right... assume the hood mural is absolute crap and he takes it back to bare metal and starts from scratch - still don't see him getting 5 grand, but intro says he's actually out more than 5 grand. Course defendant files the automatic counterclaim... but he's not after a bonanza, he just wants $1 for harrassment. Actually, this may be another time when a litigant doesn't mind coming on TPC... I mean unless he comes off as a complete ass, this could be great publicity for painter, not only a chance to brag on his work, but how far he's willing to go to satisfy a difficult customer. Oh, right off the bat, defendant answers one of my questions. I heard plaintiff says he left the picture with the painter for 8 months, and I'm thinking that's a long time to keep a customer's car. Nah, the mural was just on the hood, so the hood was at the shop awhile, but the car was only there a week. Meanwhile, while the hood was at the shop, plaintiff was taking his car to shows minus the hood - supposedly fairly common, especially with hot rods which may not even have hoods. While they talk about the many changes plaintiff wanted made, we learn that this hood mural cost $16-1700, even with all the changes - total bill was about double that, because there was some custom work to the rest of the car done during the week he kept the car... and plaintiff claims he's out over 5 grand because... why? Ah, yes, finally mural is done, hood back on car, customer happy, taking car to car shows, texting how everybody loves the mural and taking pictures of the car... then defendant says plaintiff wants a commission because Gary the Local Brush is getting all this free advertisement. Ah, plaintiff brought the car to court, so we take a recess so MM can go view the thing in the flesh so to speak (also, seems a '77 'vette takes her back to her good old days). Oh, but what we see isn't what defendant did... no plaintiff really didn't like it and had somebody make some changes. I'm no expert, custom paint is not my thing, but sounds like plaintiff's main thing was he wanted softer edges and lighter colors on the white car. Also, the gold leaf text that he liked so much in the beginning is starting to flake off. Plaintiff also tells us that the texts defendant has were about the gold leaf - yes, it looked great at first and he loved it, but now it's flaking off and will have to be redone. Makes me wonder if painter's work may not be for static display and not for a daily driver. Ah, but this is the first chance defendant has had to look at the flaking leaf, and he admits it needs to be redone. Ok, hood mural not really want guy wanted, but even by his testimony he was okay with it until it went on the car, then they started feuding and fussing and he took it to someone else for changes (defendant probably glad to be rid of him). To me the bigger problem is the gold leaf coming off. We didn't get a close up, but if there's clear coat over the text it may need to be sanded down and completely redone. Defendant lost some ground outside, as the gold leaf flaking problem was noticeable to MM even if I couldn't see it... not good at custom car shows. Back inside after commercials, MM gives both sides a bit of a hard time, but mainly calling out plaintiff. Outside he made a point of saying he never liked the mural, and all his texts saying he liked the work was about the now flakey gold leaf. Ah, not true, says text sleuth MM, the texts are clear that he loves the mural at the first show, and even asks about getting more of The Local Brush's business cards because everybody loves it. Ah, plaintiff is one of those rare litigants who actually brought something from an expert. What he has is a letter from another guy who does gold leaf, saying how the area should have been prepped, and that it wasn't prepped properly as it should not be flaking. Ok, nothing for the mural, but I'd give him something for the leaf. Thing is, how much. Original cost was $1800, but it's actually more work to redo now than when it was put on, and plaintiff has a $2200 estimate. Oh, and nothing on the countersuit... sometimes you get fussy customers, you can't sue them... not even for a dollar... Rough justice: nothing on the mural, a couple hundred extra for the gold leaf redo ( so $2050). Oh, and nothing on the counterclaim. In hallterview, defendant says it was fair, admits the gold leaf needed to be redone so isn't too upset that plaintiff is getting money for that. Plaintiff comes out claiming he was robbed. Ah, now we get a taste of why defendant says he was harrassed as he argues with Doug. He seemed reasonable in court, but now... this is a guy you cross the street to avoid. Dude argues while waving both arms, chin sticking out, and standing inside what would be my comfortable personal space. Lady suing roofer: yet another case of trying to go cheap ending up costing in the end. Lady (terrible grammar, especially just before MM calls hubby up) had a leaky flat roof, hired defendant, who replaced the suspected area... Leak not fixed... says she called roofer many times and guy only came back once... roof still leaked... ended up having to call someone else. Dude says he did the initial work... came several times when she called complaining about a leak... she was never home so he left his card. Admits he gave her a 15 year warranty, but says she voided the warranty by hiring somebody else to fix the leak.... ah, job security, hire him and you have to wait for him to come back to fix any problems, and when he comes back he might have to charge you a little something for this new problem he finds. Somebody is stretching the truth a bit about the number of calls... easy case to determine credibility if someone thought to bring phone records. Also, perfect example of why roofers don't like to give warranties on patch jobs. Water could be leaking through roof way over yonder and dripping through the ceiling 20 feet or more away... or roof may not even be leaking, but flashing or calking may be bad. Not really sure what exactly this guy did. Both sides are saying he replaced the roof, but am I right that he charged just $1400? BTW, ceiling in bedroom where water is dripping is already collapsing. First thing I would have done is remove the damaged drywall and see if I could spot the leak from underneath. To me, that's common sense... but then probably not part of a new flat rubber roof job that costs $1400. Ok, after a month of calling and being ignored, hubby gets on the phone and roofer man comes back to "fix" the leak. Great, no leak for a year, but then it starts leaking again. Falling down ceiling still not fixed in the year it hasn't leaked. Good grief, hubby, run down to Home Depot, buy half a sheet of dry wall and a box of screws and fix the ceiling before it falls on the bed - no skill required. Again with the phone tag, dude it's leaking, please come out. Finally, they memorialize things with a text.... hey dude, we've called several times, you say you're coming, but you never show. Ok, they've given MM enough to ask roofer dude some questions. Ok, catchy name, dude calls his business the King of Roofing... and MM says plaintiffs want to behead the King. Ah, perfectly reasonable explanation of his noshows... seems the wheel fell off his truck... and he insists on showing us a picture of the truck. So, you see, he was giving his customers the runaround because his mechanic was giving him the runaround... don't you just hate when someone gives you the runaround. Yep, easy case... despite plaintiff having phone records showing they called repeatedly, he has nothing showing he called back.... but trust him, judge, he was going over and knocking, they just wouldn't come to the door, so he left a card - yeah, I'm sure they'd rather run around with buckets every time it rains. Good for a chuckle, MM asks if plaintiff ever found his card left on their door. Yes, they found a card... after he was served with papers that they were suing. Well, time is about up, and MM is telling him plaintiffs have the evidence and she doesn't believe him. Ah, just love when he talks about his warranty... hire someone else, his warranty is no more good. Ah, not really to do with the case, but I wonder what the guy they eventually hired did for his $475. Just a guess, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this isn't another patch job that works fine until the next hard rain.... or maybe till the cheap patch job drys out, cracks, and starts leaking again. MM decides they get back the $475, but makes clear that roofer dude's 15 year warranty is still good (well, as good as any of his warranties). So, next time the roof leaks, they get to start the dance again, giving roofer dude a chance to fix it, then if he fails to fix it they can mediate their damage by hiring someone rise and suing again... hey, how 'bout fixing that falling down ceiling and including that in the damages next time... or maybe just biting the bullet and hiring a licensed contractor instead of some handyman off a poster at the laundromat. wants back daughter's deposit: not sure what this case is about after the intro. Apparently, plaintiff's daughter rented an apartment with her bestie, the defendant. Short time later daughter moves out, leaving defendant in the lurch. So, if it's a lease, defendant could be suing for daughter's portion of the rent. Even if it's month to month, an argument could be made that defendant moved there relying on defendant to share the rent, so if she incurred expenses moving out because she couldn't afford to stay and couldn't find another roommate she might be entitled to something. Anyway, landlord had the deposit... unless defendant has already moved and received the deposit. Course if there's a new roommie, new roommie can't be living there on daughter's deposit.... and, WTH isn't daughter here to answer questions... ah, enough with the questions, time to listen to the case. First question answered... plaintiff is suing because she pays daughter's bills. Second question may never be answered. MM asks mommy when daughter first came to her with the news that an apartment had been found... and mommy goes into her long involved story and we'll never hear an answer unless MM shuts her down. MM asks her next question, which is my question going back to the intro, where is daughter? Apparently that doesn't fit into mommy's planned testimony, she'd rather offer hearsay evidence. MM, where is your daughter? Plaintiff, she's not here. MM yes I noticed, where is she? Again, a question mommy never answers. Then we get into why are you suing defendant if you loaned daughter money for an apartment. P, I didn't loan daughter the money, it was a gift. MM same question, why are you suing defendant, if this was a gift to daughter it was no longer your money? Really, how did plaintiff survive this long if she's really this obtuse. She can't expect to win this case by refusing to answer the simplest of the judge's questions... ah, what am I saying, of course she can, because she thinks she's always right - which should be obvious to everyone once she explains her reasoning. Actually, only reason to watch is because of how unreasonable mommy is... legally, not sure she even has standing to sue, especially as she already testified the deposit was made with money she gifted to daughter. Hmmm wonder if we'll learn how old this daughter is - we know she's an adult, because defendant said they've known each other for over 20 years. Shifting to defendant, we learn why daughter isn't here. Sure, defendant says they're not talking right now with this lawsuit, but she blames mommy not missing daughter, and she expects to be back to being friends once mommy gets over being out almost a grand plus for an apartment daughter lived in for less than a month. Oh, and we learn more about this deposit which mommy is suing over. Turns out defendant mitigated her damage, and found someone to take over daughter's room. New roomie paid her deposit, and defendant says she in turn gave deposit to daughter.... so, mommy is suing over money which was a gift to someone, and that someone has the money? And, yes, defendant didn't return the whole $900 deposit, only $700... seems reasonable to me, unless the new roomie was waiting in the hallway when daughter split... and isn't mommy suing for way more than $900. Even worse, the difference in what was returned and what was put down for the deposit was money defendant paid for garage parking for daughter. Nope, even if daughter was here, she wouldn't have a case for the money. Mommy never had a case anywhere but in her own mind. After dismissing the case over mommy's continued arguments and attempts to talk over the judge, we learn that missing daughter is 34 freeking years old. Geez, hope mommy sets up a trust to care of daughter after mommy's gone, cause precious snowflake will otherwise be homeless... at least we didn't hear about any grandbabies. Gotta love, Doug! When mommy reaches him in the hallway and asks what she thinks of the decision, she starts with how she never got a chance to speak - and we hear Doug chuckle. Ah, but she's right. She had her speech all prepared, and evil MM kept interrupting with questions. When Doug asks what she would have said, given the chance, she replies that she would need an hour.... huh, did she expect to get a chance to testify for an hour on an hour long episode? Course not, she's special, surely her case should have been "To be continued." Nah, I'm sure she figures once she got going we'd all be easily convinced of her logic, and would have just given her the $1400 she sued for. 1 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter November 21, 2017 Share November 21, 2017 Let's hope screenwriter never writes a redo of a classic. I can just imagine it: "What happened was, it was basically the best of times, it was, like, the worst of times, it was basically the age of wisdom, it was, like, the age of foolishness... basically..." Today's uber-religious Corvette guy vs. car painter - I do enjoy when JM goes out in the field (or the parking lot) to view the evidence. Judge Wapner used to do that too. Other than that this case was not overly interesting, except for car owner sending texts to def, joyously exclaiming about the paint job but then decides he doesn't like the colours after all and wants all his money back. He did get back the cost of the gold lettering, since it was flaking off. Lady suing for crappy roof job: I really need to know where in the world you get a new roof (even a "rubber roof") for 1400$. It must be the tiniest roof on the planet. Mine cost 11K eight years ago. Anyway, I have to wonder about the condition of her house if she feels a huge, gross, gaping and rotten-looking hole in the ceiling is low priority and leaves it that way for over a year. JM wants to hear from her hubby and when we do I understand why the wife does all the talking. Def/roofer - does he think this is a comedy club, where he can play the grinning fool and get away with his shoddy work and not honouring his warranty? Would I hire him? I don't think so. Plaintiffs won the cost of getting that job fixed, but I wish they could have received punitive damages against that clown for his scam job. Then we had Smother Mother, the harridan with the violet eyeshadow, suing on her daughter's behalf. Daughter agrees - after seeing photos and having discussions with def who is her long-time friend - to move in together. Alas, she gets there and there are BUGS in Florida! There are BIRDS who have the temerity to poop outside the apartment! Can't expect Mommy's little Princess to live in such abominable conditions. This is all hearsay of course, since Darling Daughter doesn't show up. "Where's your daughter?" JM asks the harridan. "She's not here." Well, duh, unless she's wearing the cloak of invisibility, we can all see that. The clincher - daughter is a 34-year old woman, whose mommy not only pays her way, but fights for her baby to get her money back after leaving her friend of 20-years in the lurch, because birds poop and the little snowflake had a hard time opening a window. Defendant needs to find new friends, because Snowflake is not one. Def. was totally nice and said not a single disparaging word about her ridiculous friend or her dragon of a mother. Of course in the hall, the Dragon bitches that she had SO much more evidence about why her Princess had to leave the apartment and was never given a chance to explain. Oh, go home, SpiderMother. 6 Link to comment
Broderbits November 21, 2017 Share November 21, 2017 The last defendant today was a lovely woman, but after the hall interview she turned to leave and it looked like the back of her dress had split open! Did anyone else see this? Maybe it was sewn by that recent prom dress designer. 4 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.