The People's Court - General Discussion

[Jamoche]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

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. 

The case is still in the intro voiceover part and I'm already picking all of that up just from her body language. *grabs popcorn*

And now that I've heard her - so straight out of Central Casting for "nosy neighbor in a NYC walkup". So you think she would know from bugs in apartments.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Jamoche

[AZChristian]

56 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

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.

I saw it.  Couldn't figure out whether it was supposed to be a see-through back or whether it was a split.  She seemed like a very nice young lady.

[califred]

 I was shocked when that last defendant said they were 33 and 34.  Mommy should be getting the $$$ back from daughter. 

If someone offered me a $1400 roof I’d say no.  Considering to should cost 10x that/. I assumed originally that was for a patch. Of course I’d also fix a big moldy hole in my ceiling. 

[teebax]

Someone should tell holier than thou, fake news shouting Vette guy there is no book in the Bible called "Revelations." Sorry, but that's one of my triggers. You want to thump the Bible knock yourself out, but get the damn names of the books correct.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Jamoche said:

And now that I've heard her - so straight out of Central Casting for "nosy neighbor in a NYC walkup".

While listening to her I kept flashing to "Minnie Castevet" from "Rosemary's Baby." I was half-expecting her to say, "It's my speci-AL-ity."

[Brattinella]

2 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

While listening to her I kept flashing to "Minnie Castevet" from "Rosemary's Baby." I was half-expecting her to say, "It's my speci-AL-ity."

Ah, now I will have to re-re-rewatch Rosemary's Baby!  Some movies just never get old.

[califred]

I missed the Bible thumping part of the car guy.  I think I was doing dishes while watching that.

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

While listening to her I kept flashing to "Minnie Castevet" from "Rosemary's Baby." I was half-expecting her to say, "It's my speci-AL-ity."

She should have brought the judge some "chocolate mouse"!

Edited November 22, 2017 by Broderbits
messed up the punch line

[teebax]

3 hours ago, califred said:

I missed the Bible thumping part of the car guy.  I think I was doing dishes while watching that.

His entire car was tricked out with Biblical stuff, which again is fine. But he doubled down in his hallterview with some crap about honesty when he himself was caught in a lie by MM. I won't go on a rant, but I despised him. I have no doubt he was nasty to the defendant, and the fact that the defendant countersued for only a dollar made me chuckle.

[DoctorK]

Just finished today's show, boy did I see a couple of infuriating plaintiffs! I am not counting the first one, she of seven (actually ten, thanks SRT) custom tailored leather coats that she left when she moved out, not counted because I missed the verdict.

No, number two was the older and apparently confused lady complaining about not getting her stuff back from the pawn shop. My favorite part was in the hallterview where Doug asked her if she understood what the judge told her about why she lost, plaintiff whined that she didn't understand anything the judge said. I believe her, because she was so busy babbling incoherently while the judge was explaining everything. I am surprised that JM let her trying to talk over the judge after JM went out of her way to explain things to the not listening plaintiff.

Then there was number three, the most perfect example of overwrought indignation based on mind boggling ignorance. Even though JM clearly explained to her that lemon laws don't apply to a car with more than 100,000 miles on it, in the hallterview plaintiff was raging that in spite of that fact she should still be able to use the lemon law, plus she thinks that automatically you can return a used car and get your money back within ten days of purchase. Lady (and I am stretching the definition here), don't go to court based on the legal advice you got from your equally ignorant friends and relatives. Good motto for life: free advice is usually worth what you paid for it, especially if it is dispensed in a bar.

Edited November 22, 2017 by DoctorK
seven versus ten is not really close enough

[SRTouch]

1. a "trust me!" Case - no evidence, just flapping gums: plaintiff moves out of her apartment at the end of the lease, but leaves behind items. Defendant has been the super, 24/7 365 days a year for the past 27 years. Both agree that she comes knocking on his door around 10pm on the last day of her lease - he says as he's getting ready for bed. She turns in the keys, and asks if she can come by later to pick up the last few bits of property. He says sure, no problem, a few things will need to be done anyway to get it ready for next tenant. Ah, another no good deed goes unpunished case. This time it's not just that she left items, she left it for him to pull her air conditioner that she has installed in the window and climb on a ladder and remove the custom blinds she said she would be back to pick up - oh, and the big ticket items, she claims she left ten custom made leather coat folded up on her shopping cart. Uh, really, 10 custom made leather coats? asks MM. Yep, 10 custom coats, worth over 2 grand. Hmmmm, any receipts? Nah, no receipts, had them made over the years. Really? Where did you have them made? Uh, don't remember, it was years ago - but believe me Mayor, uh I mean judge. Ok, says MM, the jackets were all folded, loaded onto your little shopping cart, why would your turn in the keys and leave behind $2500 worth of custom leather coats? Anyway, back to super and his good deed. All he says he knew about was the blinds and AC unit. He goes about getting the place ready, painting, changing cabinets in kitchen etc - and lugging her AC unit and blinds downstairs to his workshop. He could have told her to take everything when she left or he'd charge her rent, but noooo, he was nice and agreed to let her come back... and, since she turned in the keys late at night as he was going to bed, no final walk through or even a clear understanding of what she was leaving. If anything was left in the closet, I sure don't believe it was 10 custom coats, and she doesn't have anything proving these coats were ever purchased. But, let's pretend they did exist, and were left in his care. I don't know about their building in NY, but back when I was doing apartment maintenance I often left the doors and windows open while painting - not overnight, but occasionally I'd be working in a back room and someone would come in looking for me and I wouldn't know they were in the apartment until they came and found me. So, what if some nosy neighbor or thief came in and looked around and found these coats... would super be liable, if that was his normal practice and, as he claims, he didn't know the coats were there. Ah, but that isn't this case... no, this case is simple, made even more so when plaintiff showed up claiming ten coats are missing without proof they ever existed. Super had a big rush to get the apartment ready, because new tenant's lease actually began on the 1st, day after she drops off the keys at 10pm. So, he hurries and gets everything done on the third, and she shows up on the 4th - which just happens to be after the garbage truck empties the dumpster. He admits there were plastic bags in the closet, but he says he was in a big rush and just threw them away without checking them. He says when he agreed to let her leave stuff, he expected her back the next day, not 4 days later, and he did not expect to have to waste time removing her blinds and AC when he was rushing to get place ready. Totally believe the guy, and understand why he's miffed that plaintiff is accusing/suggesting him of stealing her stuff. Hey, if you were ever in his position where you're on call 24/7... well, it gets old fast and this guy takes pride in doing his job for 27 years. Really, only thing I question is his saying he never checked the plastic bags he found in the closet, but then he was in hurry up mode and it was already 3 days past the time he expected her back... yeah, he might have thrown them away without looking inside - in fact, while I might question it, I can easily believe it. Ah, plaintiff has a video which she says proves her claims (and she's calling MM mayor). Nah, her video proves nothing - well except that she again has him working for free while she berates him for throwing away her plastic bags. Have to wonder if she would have tipped him if her plastic bags had still been there? I suspect not, she seems one of those folks who just expects others to do for her as if she's entitled.... run into those folks fairly often in my part time delivery job - had one a couple nights ago, over $120 delivery of food, even included extra free bread stix, free 2 liter, cups of ice, extra napkins and plates... then received a "keep the change" tip... of 81 cents. Hey, round here delivery drivers just barely break unless you tip, so you bet we remember people who tip good and/or bad, and we talk to each oyher... so if your food is late... not saying your driver sabotaged your delivery, but if he left with several orders he'll give the best service to the big tippers, and bad tippers may have to wait... not that I'd ever do that - no, not me ? And, yeah, as MM is off on one of her rants about how silly plaintiff's case is, plaintiff is trying to talk over and interject nonsense throughout, which brings a "do you hear me talking" from MM. Once she gets outside she tells Doug that she didn't expect super to work for free, no she was going to "compensate" him. Yeah, right! When a fair portion of your income is from tips, you learn who the big tippers are. I wish Doug had asked super just what kind of tipper this lady was in the past. Super does say that while she was living there she often expected him to work after hours and weekends, but doesn't say if she "compensated" him. She leaves Doug with she didn't give me enough time... she already made up her mind (yeah, my mind was made up during the intro and you said you had no receipts).
2. lady pawns her  "cross" of David: get our first chuckle as we go to commercial before the case even starts. Seems lady pawned her "cross" of David, and MM asks, do you mean "Star" of David? Oh, yes. Are you Jewish? Yes. Uh, just recently became Jewish? Anyway, this necklace has great sentimental value, and she says the chain was broken while in pawnshop. Hmmm wonder if her 5 grand damage claim is based on actual value or sentimental value. Pawn dude says she pawned it, reclaimed it, then a couple days later shows up claiming it was damaged. Uh, sort of like a dry cleaner case, you really don't have much chance unless you check your property when you pick it up. Anyway, she pawned several pieces, including this necklace, at the pawnshop where she was a regular customer. Necklace was pawned for $320... ah, but pawn dude says that's wrong, he gave her $200 and charged $60 in fees.... time wasted while MM examines the paperwork. May have exhausted the entertainment value of this one if this lady is this clueless. Ah, lady is trying to run a scam on da judge. Judge spots white out and alterations on the paperwork. oops, false alarm... actually she added a third item, so he altered the figures. She did get a total of $320, but only $200 on the necklace. Now it seems her story is changing, as she's claiming she saw him break her chain when she turned it in to be pawned and he was testing to see if it was gold... huh, doesn't that mean she knew it was broken for the three months it was at the pawnshop? Didn't intro say she picked it up and came back a couple days later to complain. Haven't decided yet if she's a clueless scatter brained or just a terrible scammer, but not buying her story. Doesn't help the watchability of case that pawn dude talks like Ricky Ricardo and very unsympathetic. Nor does it help that both litigants rush through their testimony with "futhermore" or "and" without establishing the first part of any statement. Now it's Ricky's turn to get called on to prove WTH he's just said. She claims he still has the star from the necklace, he says, no, this receipt shows she picked it up. Where? asks MM this receipt isn't itemized, it just shows she picked up "something." Come on up here and show me where it says she picked up the star. Apparently dude doesn't get what "itemized" means, as he keeps fast talking and insisting the receipt is itemized, when it clearly isn't. What it sounds like he's saying is that he weighs the items in front of the customer, and the customer signs accepting that what he weighed in front of them is their stuff. What his receipt shows is the weight, but doesn't say what he weighed. Could get tricky for him, since he's the pro and is making out the receipt, so if receipt is wocky it may just bite him.... course her scatterbrained story isn't  helping her all that much here... but he may need to change his way of doing stuff in the future. Ok, MM has heard enough, and is ready to talk damages. Apparently, now she's claiming dude kept the star and damaged her chain. But, even if she's right, she still received most of her stuff back, and part of it would be undamaged. So, why is she seeking 5 grand over a loan of $320. Sure, pawnshops don't give you full value on your stuff, but that's a BIG difference. Ah, scatter brained reasoning at work. Turns out intro was wrong, it wasn't a couple days before she complained, now she's saying she picked up the stuff in March and didn't notice everything wasn't there until June... so, now we're to believe she watched the guy damage her chain in December when she pawned the stuff, didn't complain when she picks it up in March, and then doesn't notice that this cross/star of David, which is of such great sentimental value because her mother gave it to her, well, it's June before she opens the envelope and notices it wasn't returned. Oh, and apparently she makes the rounds of the shops pawning her jewelry, because she offers up receipts of other shops where she pawned stuff... I guess she just pawns the stuff without ever actually opening the envelope. Not sure what these other receipts would show that could possibly help her case... times about up and she has yet to prove any of the different versions of stories about why this guy owes anything. MM let's her rant, but she's come to the conclusion that the lady is confused, not trying to scam anyone, but believes she has been wronged by defendant who failed to show the proper sympathy when she finally did go to complain that her sat/cross wasn't in the envelope. Case dismissed.
3. car deal gone wrong: plaintiff is oh so very happy to be here... comes in bouncing with energy and a big happy smile... just so eager to tell us her story about how defendant took advantage and sold her a lemon... she wants 5 grand. Defendant even delivered it to her mechanic to be checked out, car checked out clean before she bought it. Sounds like an AS IS sale, but guess in some jurisdictions you get a cooling off period where you can undo a deal if certain things prove to go wrong within a certain time period. (Or, IIRC, in California, the car can't be smogged.) Defendant's intro says she drove the car for a month, then the transmission blew... not his fault, he didn't know anything was wrong with it. Only way she wins is having proof he committed fraud - maybe why this case is starting late, either she'll prove fraud or she has no case. Ok, strike one... she wants 5 grand for a car she paid $3450 for and drove a month (well, she claims 10 days). Hoboy, yet another fool buying a car knowing something was wrong. This girl buys the car even when seller tells her something is wrong with some sensor. Which is why she knew enough to have a mechanic check it. Mechanic told her defendant's diagnosis makes sense, he gets the same bad sensor signal when he does his test. Ah, shades of the recent case where foolish buyer thought the diagnostic from parts store is as good as a mechanic. I still know mechanics who can dianose a problem from listening from across the garage, but so many of today's so called mechanics are just plug and play who plug car into a computer and follow a flowchart until the computer gives them an all clear. She admits her mechanic gave her a green light to purchase the car, but her story is the transmission goes 10 days after the purchase. My question at that point is did she get the known problem fixed, or just drive it around knowing a sensor was bad... oh, and could that bad sensor contribute to the tranny going kapuley. Oh, and what does she have to show seller knew any better than her mechanic who checked the car before she bought it, and who she took it to after the transmission goes out. Her theory seems to be that a transmission doesn't just fail, there has to be some prior warning. Huh, I had a transmission goes out. Car was fine one day, only had about 215,000 miles on it, blew a gasket, and all of a sudden I had no transmission fluid. Sucker was only about 12 years old, too (yeah, lots of road trips back when I lived in the barracks - all over Europe, too.) Girl is trying so hard to make her case, sounding so intelligent and using most of her words correctly (think I heard her say "a transmission just doesn't litigate without warning" and later she says "confirmation" when I think she meant "conversation" I could have heard wrong, and not worth going back)... she has so little to work with and needs an expert opinion. Ah, she may not have a case, but MM breaks out her Spanish to try to get defendant to stop yakking away with his strong accent and answer her questions. Ah, seems he doesn't want to snswer, because they were conspiring to cheat the tax man by putting the sale price as $2000 even though everybody admits it was really $3450. Don't you just hate it when you get dragged on TPC and your paperwork lists the wrong price? Eventually both sides admit they lied to pay less in sales tax, which gives MM a chance to tell us how that little white victimless lie actually cost everybody else in the long run. Ah, little missy sunshine is all upset that MM wouldn't listen or let her speak when she raised her hand like a good girl. Can anybody tell me anything that she could possibly say, without an expert opinion, that would have made a difference. Nope, all she tells Doug is a rehash of what was said in court. Hmmm, she seemed to be streaming the 10 day period... Wonder if there might be a time period in their jurisdiction where she gets her money back ifrom transmission goes within 10 days.... don't think so, didn't MM say they were in NY, and a car with over 100,000 has no dealer warranty on the day it's purchased. Anyway, girl storms off all mad. Defendant takes the time to make a little commercial about how well he treats his customers.... yeah, even lies so they won't have to pay all their taxes, wink wink.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

No, number two was the older and apparently confused lady complaining about not getting her stuff back from the pawn shop. My favorite part was in the hallterview where Doug asked her if she understood what the judge told her about why she lost, plaintiff whined that she didn't understand anything the judge said. I believe her, because she was so busy babbling incoherently while the judge was explaining everything. I am surprised that JM let her trying to talk over the judge after JM went out of her way to explain things to the not listening plaintiff.

I think that was a case where MM realized lady was a sad case of early dementia... or lifelong cluelessness. Anyway, no way to reign in her attempts to talk over the judge without appearing to be a meany, easier to just up her volume and sent her out to Doug.

[AngelaHunter]

13 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

a "trust me!" Case - no evidence, just flapping gums: 

For some reason - and we've seen so many scammers here - this particular super-greedy scammer really cheesed me off big time. She had 10 custom-made leather coats that she somehow squeezed into a shopping cart and not a big store cart either, but one of those little ones shoppers drag around. She has no memory of where she got the huge amount of coats, since they were so old, but she wants big bucks for them.  I think if she had been suing the complex owner it might not have been so egregious, but she's trying to scam this poor super, who has been working his ass off for 27 years and no doubt been treated like a slave, the way this cretin treated him. "Take out my a/c and carry it down. Remove my blinds and safeguard my 2500$ worth of coats I left there because it was ten o'clock at night and I can't carry my own shit after seven." How are there so many brazen and shameless people out there? JM told her off, but it did no good at all. Her behavior is disgusting.

19 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

lady pawns her  "cross" of David:

JM didn't cut her off quickly enough when she started with the biography of her grandfather. And then we heard how pawn stood in front of her and deliberately destroyed her jewlery. I feel she had mental problems too, maybe forgetfulness, since she only noticed three months after redeeming her stuff that the "cross of David" was missing. Who knows what she did with it? Maybe she lost it, or gave it away, or misplaced it.  Not the pawn guy's problem.

21 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

car deal gone wrong: plaintiff is oh so very happy to be here...

This was one of the more irritating "I bought this old beater car and signed saying I understood it was "As Is" but I'm just so very special I want DOUBLE my money back when the thing's transmission conks out after a week." Not even a mechnanic saw that coming, but the def. was supposed to check his crystal ball and know  that a problem might crop up in a old car with 143K miles on it. OMG, she was annoying. She could have invoked the Lemon Law, don't you know, but well, she couldn't really.  She was awfully self-righteous for a tax cheat. Well, both litigants conspired to be tax cheats and had no problem with that. People stand there and cheat and lie and then expect a judge to believe anything else you say? "Oh, well, yeah  - I was lying then but I'm telling the truth now. Honest."  And of course, "The judge didn't let me speak!" You buy an old car with no warranty and it conks out. What else needs to be heard? There was no fraud here. Buh bye, big mouth. Go bitch to Doug in the Hall, who gives not a furry rat butt for ur problemz.

[quarkuud]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

For some reason - and we've seen so many scammers here - this particular super-greedy scammer really cheesed me off big time. She had 10 custom-made leather coats that she somehow squeezed into a shopping cart and not a big store cart either, but one of those little ones shoppers drag around. She has no memory of where she got the huge amount of coats, since they were so old, but she wants big bucks for them.  I think if she had been suing the complex owner it might not have been so egregious, but she's trying to scam this poor super, who has been working his ass off for 27 years and no doubt been treated like a slave, the way this cretin treated him. "Take out my a/c and carry it down. Remove my blinds and safeguard my 2500$ worth of coats I left there because it was ten o'clock at night and I can't carry my own shit after seven." How are there so many brazen and shameless people out there? JM told her off, but it did no good at all. Her behavior is disgusting.

JM didn't cut her off quickly enough when she started with the biography of her grandfather. And then we heard how pawn stood in front of her and deliberately destroyed her jewlery. I feel she had mental problems too, maybe forgetfulness, since she only noticed three months after redeeming her stuff that the "cross of David" was missing. Who knows what she did with it? Maybe she lost it, or gave it away, or misplaced it.  Not the pawn guy's problem.

This was one of the more irritating "I bought this old beater car and signed saying I understood it was "As Is" but I'm just so very special I want DOUBLE my money back when the thing's transmission conks out after a week." Not even a mechnanic saw that coming, but the def. was supposed to check his crystal ball and know  that a problem might crop up in a old car with 143K miles on it. OMG, she was annoying. She could have invoked the Lemon Law, don't you know, but well, she couldn't really.  She was awfully self-righteous for a tax cheat. Well, both litigants conspired to be tax cheats and had no problem with that. People stand there and cheat and lie and then expect a judge to believe anything else you say? "Oh, well, yeah  - I was lying then but I'm telling the truth now. Honest."  And of course, "The judge didn't let me speak!" You buy an old car with no warranty and it conks out. What else needs to be heard? There was no fraud here. Buh bye, big mouth. Go bitch to Doug in the Hall, who gives not a furry rat butt for ur problemz.

Today's plaintiffs all annoyed the crap out of me too.

My sister always wore those herringbone necklaces and they always had those kinks in them.  I think it's why those chains aren't popular now.

[AZChristian]

I have a few really nice leather purses (Michael Kors), and I remember where and when I got every one of them.  I can't believe that someone has TEN "custom" leather coats and can't rattle off where she got at least a few of them.

Ross?  T. J. Maxx?  If I bought a coat there, I might not remember it, but if I had a coat custom made, you bet I'd know where I got it.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I can't believe that someone has TEN "custom" leather coats and can't rattle off where she got at least a few of them.

And then she backed off and said they weren't all custom, but she still couldn't say where even one of them came from.  So you move virtually everything you own, down to the salt shakers and safety razors, but you can't find room for a bag lady's shopping cart that has $2500 worth of leather in it.  Un hunh.  The poor super needs to be in the "no good deed goes unpunished"  HoF.  I think MM would have been thrilled to take all the plaintiffs today and bang their heads together.  Although herringbone cross of David can't remember if she's Jewish lady looked like she's had that done already a time or twenty.

Edited November 23, 2017 by meowmommy

[AngelaHunter]

26 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

So you move virtually everything you own, down to the salt shakers and safety razors, but you can't find room for a bag lady's shopping cart that has $2500 worth of leather in it.

Well, it was ten o'clock at night! Maybe 10 custom leather coats get heavier after a certain hour.

1 hour ago, quarkuud said:

My sister always wore those herringbone necklaces and they always had those kinks in them.

I had a necklace and a bracelet. Both kinked really badly, even without someone maliciously destroying them.

[Brattinella]

I used to own a very beautiful 18k gold chain like that.  It always caught my neck-hairs in it.  I never wore it.

[Twiz44]

I had a hard time concentrating on the Roofer case because I was so distracted by the young man sitting behind the defendant. He was really going to town with his tissue. I think my adult-onset ADD kicked in and that's all I could see.

[SRTouch]

Well, I've got a chicken casserole in the crockpot and a cobbler in the oven, which will be my contribution to tonight's potluck at work, so time to recap... and of course wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.

1. auto repair case: unlike the usual, "my 15yo car only has 250,000 miles, I took it to mechanic for a suspension problem and then the transmission blew.... obviously dude owes me for emotional distress and should buy me a new car." This plaintiff may actually have a case... if the intro is correct (I know - big "IF").  Claims his car was overheating. Took it to defendant and defendant replaced the thermostat. Car overheats a second time... back to same mechanic, who checks it out, does whatever he does, and plaintiff drives it away. Then a third time, this time plaintiff is on a short road trip and is stranded for hours. When he finally gets it home, he gets a different mechanic... new guy says first mechanic installed thermostat backwards, and the repeated overheating has caused additional problems. Ok, like I said, dude may just have a case... but will need the second guy to testify thermostate was installed incorrectly and some expert testimony to tell us these additional damages were caused by the overheating - oh and not predating the first time he took it in for the problem. Defendant is little old guy who says he's been working on cars since the 60's, no way he installed the thermostat backwards! Dude just barely gets around using some cane - plaintiff is old guy, too - wonder if this was a case of a friend helping a friend, no good deed goes unrewarded type situation.... nope, not the case at all. Plaintiff was out of town visiting his daughter when he first noticed a problem. Didn't know any local shops, daughter didn't know anyone, but her neighbor pointed out local service station had a mechanic. Next day, defendant looks it over and replaces the thermostat. 10 minutes after picking it up, plaintiff has to pull over... overheating again - let it cool down, add a little water, and back to defendant. This time dude replaces the water pump, and takes it out for a test drive to see if it overheats... oh, and plaintiff admits didn't charge for the water pump. Car overheats again during the test drive, with plaintiff along while mechanic drives. Let it cool doen, and back to the shop they go. Ah, this is a trip to daughter's house this dude wishes he never took! When they get back to the shop, mechanic dude checks EVERYTHING, but can't figure out what's wrong. So far sounds like mechanic maybe couldn't fix the car, but otherwise hasn't done anything that would make him liable for $3000 in repairs. Ah, but plaintiff says after this check, he asks if it's safe to drive the two hours home, and mechanic says yes, probably just a faulty gage on the dashboard. Maybe just me, but before heading out in would have had a second shop check it out... I mean, he didn't know this guy from Adam, why risk being stranded and potentially blowing your engine, is it really that pressing to get home? Either extend your visit while someone else checks it out, or just rent a car or borrow daughter's car (if she can get by without it for a week) have it checked out and come back for another visit (hopefully) next week - not that long a trip, because he said it was about a two hour drive (or, maybe once it his car us running daughter bring his car, visit, then drive back to her home in the rental or her car. Oh, so many, what seems to me, better ideas than driving his 06(?) Jeep Grand Cherokee which is pegging the temperature gauge. Instead, he tries to drive home, ignoring the temperature gauge. Then, the engine light comes on... oh no, if you run hot til the engine light comes on you're probably toast - they call those things idiot lights because when they come on the car is calling you an idiot for ignoring the temperature gauge ?. Dude lets it sit for a half hour iron 45 minutes - car won'the start. Decides to call a tow truck, waits a couple hours, it's getting dark, finally it shows up. Tow driver attempts to start the car - no go - ends up towing his car back home, an hour away. Lucky for him, he has AAA, so the tow was covered. Strike two for dude (strike one for being clueless and trying to drive home)... MM asksKS for everything from the mechanic who saw the car when he gets home, and at first he just hands Douglas the receipt... could it be his evidence is lacking and he has no expert statement about incorrect install? Ah, maybe no, as he comes up with pictures of an incorrectly installed thermostat... well, what he's saying the mechanic told him sounds right,  but he'll need more than hearsay and pictures which may or may not be of HIS thermostat. Time to listen mechanic defendant dude. Starts out with the same story. Says he called and told plaintiff it wasn't overheating in the shop or after a short test drive... probably the thermostat... says plaintiff told him to replace the thermostat. Seems to fix it, but agrees plaintiff was back shortly after he picked it up. Next, he tries a new water pump... seems fine in the shop, but when they both take a test drive car overheats (hmmm, far as I know, and I'm no mechanic, thermostat is still mounted on the water pump... so wouldn't that mean this experienced mechanic made the same bone head mistake twice in two days?) When MM shows him the pictures of the backwards thermostat, dude dances around with, can't really tell what this is a picture of. Dude, seems pretty obivious, should have just turned it around and asked how we know this is a picture taken of what he put into the plaintiff's car. This more than anything else, may lose him the case... course MM may have the proof and expert testimony in the stack of paper plaintiff finally handed in, but we'll have to wait a bit as now she's about to tear into plaintiff's bloated damage claim. See, he didn't spend 3 grand fixing additional damages due to overheating. No, he put about $1500 into it, then ended up trading it in. He's come up with 3 grand by tacking on an inconvenience and time wasted. When we get to rough justice time, MM places more credence in the pictures than I do, and she rules for the plaintiff - after chopping the amount in half. 

ah, 1st case short in time, but long recap... sorry, got to get going and finish up and head to work early, and only watched intro and hallterview so far..... so no recap on next two. Just saying, #2 AS IS car sale - seller wins..... #3 30 year friendship over over loan and barter for car repairs.... another good deed backfire case where plaintiff is singing the praises of defendant, a minister, yet that doesn't stop him from suing over a bad car repair on his '92 Chevy PU... Minister wins

Edited November 24, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

And today, in the ever-enlarging "Too Stupid to Live" category, we have Nigel. Nigel - a mature man -  needs wheels, but seems he never pays his bills and has stiffed everyone he's ever dealt with, so has to buy a car with 100% financing. He falls in love with a coupe (a coupe a coupe a COUPE!) but alas, that car is gone by the time he gets back to the dealer, so dealer says (according to Nigel) "Here. Take this other car. Sit in it, but you're not allowed to take it for a test drive or to get it checked by a mechanic. Just sign here. Trust me." Nigel, of course, does, but who would guess? Nigel doesn't even have enough scratch for the down payment so dealer lends him (or borrows him, if you're in MN) 500$. JM wants to know if Nigel read the contract. Why no - no, he didn't. Turns out his 11K car will cost 22K in the end. After Nigel takes the car home, he has an epiphany and realizes he doesn't like it. He suddenly notices it smells bad and his mommy and g/f tell him to take it back.  Umm, that's not how it works, Nigel. He finally moves his lazy butt and takes the car (too late) to a mechanic who tells him it needs 2200$ worth of work. BUT, he bought an extended warranty that would cover all the repairs. How would Nigel know that, since he never EVER bothered to read any of his paperwork that bears his signature. He's all up in arms about the car dealer having no integrity, when he's the person who has cheated and stiffed so many entities he has the worst credit in the world and hasn't even paid one cent on his loan. Why should he? He and his mommy and his g/f don't like the car so that means he doesn't have to pay for it, right? "Integrity" is not Job 1 for Nigel, but everyone else needs to adhere to his lofty ideals. Anyway, JM  - who did read the contract - tells him to take the car to the dealer and get it fixed under the warranty. In the hall, he says he's not going to do it. He doesn't want the car. Car dealer was smarmy, with his, "I just try to help people" , but did nothing wrong legally. He may not know what his own warranty entails, but still, he's not responsible for the idiocy of a buyer.

Then we had the comedy team of the elderly plaintiff suing elderly def (who says he's a reverend and to prove it sports a massive cross around his neck) for repairs to his ancient beater. This case had way too much going on. Plaintiff's wife apparently gave def 50K to invest in some nebulous business and after she loses it all, plaintiff thinks def should pay to fix his old car and "bring it up to 2000 condition." When def fails to revitalize car so it's only in 17 year-old condition, plaintiff sues, after five years of letting the heap sit in someone's garage. Def reneges on his promise, but JM informs plaintiff that a promise is not a contract and is not enforceable.  Besides, the Reverend already blew 125K on this business, whatever it is so can't afford plaintiff's new transmission. Go home, you old guys and just be glad you're still kicking around above the soil line. Honestly, with age does NOT come wisdom, at least not for anyone we see on this show.

[meowmommy]

Three car cases in one day?  Maybe they figured it was Thanksgiving and nobody would be watching.  [I'm watching just now, but that's because I slept yesterday and worked last night.]

So we have smarmy 2nd defendant going on about what a nice guy he is, and 3rd defendant praising his own "heart."  What swell people they are.  Even though I get what 2nd defendant was trying to say, but MM shot him down each time. 

And actually, the letter says, "I will take care of the cost of bringing the car up to the 2000-year level."  2000 years old, I guess.  I'm glad MM carefully explained the difference between a contract and a promise, so that maybe some idiots out there thinking of suing will think twice.  I think if there had been reliance on the promise, such as if the plaintiff had foregone something he could have had because he was counting on the defendant to paint his vehicle, then there might have been a cause of action.

[SRTouch]

1. furniture sale gone wrong: plaintiff claims defendant bought 4 thousand dollars worth of furniture from his store... sounds like one of those stores which are having a closeout/going out of business sales which goes on for years... no credit - no problem, buy now, we finance, you can take this $1000 bedroom suite of particle board crap home today for next to nothing and just pay $50 a month until the sun burns out. Ok, not really this case, but this slick plaintiff just strikes me as one of those slime balls who testifies about how he bends over backwards to help people buy his crap. This guy is telling us he normally doesn't finance more than 30 days, but that he was so moved by defendant's need that he accepted ONLY $2000 down and financed the rest for 60 days - total bill 4 grand within 60 days... hope this was some top notch quality furniture. MM asks if he has a contract, and if the various pieces of furniture are itemized, with prices of each shown on the contract. Of course, your honor, I have the itemized contract, right here... Ah, now another one of my buttons... dude comes to court suing over a contract - you just know he'll need to produce said contract - but when asked he says he has it - makes a production of unzipping his briefcase and searching through his crap - ah, here it is... oops, I guess it doesn't actually itemize the cost of each item... Of course, says MM. Dude, spend any time preparing your case?... I bet MM knew you were wasting her time after she spend maybe a couple minutes reviewing the filings/statements before she came out. Other thing, I thought he was searching for a contract instead he produces a hand written receipt book - does he have a contract for this 4 grand sale or not? Ok, but it does list the items, just not what each cost indivudually (and it sure doesn't sound like 4 grand worth to me). So, MM turns to defendant and he confirms that's what he bought - so what was the problem, asks MM. Well, first off, says defendant, only 6 of the 8 dining room chairs were delivered - pause for plaintiff to interrupt and say 8 - then some cross aisle talk - nothing major, and they stop without MM saying anything... now plaintiff is using those incredulous faces he practises in the mirror as the defendant talks. Ah, defendant says plaintiff wanted the money up front, but he, the defendant, insisted on half up front and half after delivery. Ok, perfectly reasonable, so why hasn't he paid now that the furniture has been delivered. Well, there's already the missing two dining rm chairs, also the table and server was all scratched up. Says he called asking that damaged items be repaired/replaced and rest of stuff delivered. Says plaintiff came and picked it up and took it back to the store. A month goes by, nothing but excuses. Short time out for MM to tell plaintiff to stop with the faces and bobble head while defendant is talking. Finally, second delivery... but defendant says looks like nothing none and still the  exact same problems. By now defendant is wising up a little, and decides to document and take pictures of the stuff being delivered. Hoboy, another strike against Mr slime furniture dude. Takes MM about two pictures before she asks if this is used furniture... yes says plaintiff... uh, did defendant know he was paying 4 grand for used furniture... yes say plaintiff... NO says defendant. Uh, says MM why doesn't contract/receipt say used furniture? Plaintiff dodges the question, saying it should be obvious, as his store name and business card logo says his sells new, used, and liquidated furniture. Next MM tries to ask how defendant chose this particular furniture... takes a couple attempts, as dude presses another of my buttons - interrupting and answering a question before it's finished being asked... ah, this earns him anotherwrist slap with "let me freeking ask the question before you jump in, Mr Slime" (ok, might have paraphrased a bit, there.) If you ever want an example of how NOT to present a case, this guy is it... even to calling MM "miss" instead of Your Honor (or "mayor" as was done the other day to a round of laughter.) Geez, not sure how much of this guy I can take! After a commercial, (anybody else ever find themselves reaching for the remote only to keep watching because a commercial break gives you hope things are about to improve) more nonsense from furniture dude. Ok, now he's saying the dining room set was the floor model display, and he told defendant he'd repair it and make it like new.... this hasn't been repaired, says MM, while holding up the pictures of what was delivered the 2nd time. Yes, it has so been repaired, argues dude, I have receipts from the repair dude - he actually seems to be arguing that it was repaired twice - once before each delivery... obviously not repaired very well, says the judge. More cross aisle arguing, this time started when defendant butts in... and back to the bobble head and faces from plaintiff. Back to defendant. Says he called to complain as stuff was being delivered the second time, and when he talked to the plaintiff, plaintiff said he'd return the 2 grand but deal was null and void, he wanted everything back not just the disputed dining room set. A month goes by, plaintiff calls back and says he's thought it over and changed his mind. Now he says the new furniture, which is everything except the dining room, has been used for months, so he can't take it back and sell it as new. .. so no, original deal stands, you got what you got, now pay the rest of the 4 grand. Defendant says he's willing to pay for the rest, just not the subpar dining room set - repair that as promised and he'll pay 4 grand. Now MM is fed up with the case and she'd be reaching for a remote if she could. This is when dude calls her "miss" as he's about to review everything he's said for the last... what, only 12 minutes,  seems WAY longer... and dude calls her miss for the second time as she's going through the pictures asking who would want this, it's garbage. Dude isn't happy with the way things are going, and foolishly tries, repeatedly, to interrupt... uh, how many things has dude done which you NEVER want to do while in court? Off to commercial, than out to Shorty to see what the street legal experts think, then time for rough justice. When we come back in I need to retract my earlier thought that defendant was starting to wise up when he took pictures after the second delivery. Nah, now I figure the wife probably took the pictures. Wife insists the damaged stuff out of the house, but hubby defendant goes down and extends the contract another 45 days. Plaintiff says to get more use out the the furniture while not paying, while defendant says it was to give plaintiff another 45 days to fix it. MM decides probably a bit of both, so she splits the baby, saying plaintiff needs to pick up the dining rm set, but gets paid another grand... hmmm still think 3 grand is an awful lot of mobey, but I'm not going back to figure out what all that 3 grand bought.
2. Bike read ends a car: actual liability seems straightforward - plaintiff stops car in middle of road to parallel park, cyclist rear-ends him. Question is, how much damage was done? Plaintiff only asking for $500 - sneeze too hard and you can cause $500 of body damage when you add in the broken tail light. Ah, but this could be a $500 clunker. Oh, and this will be another time when we see MM's well known momma mode kick in, as defendant is a teenager who she'll decide needs a lecture... OTOH, if JJ was hearing the case she'd dismiss the teenager's story out of hand - his lips are moving, so he's lieing. I listen to both sides opening statement, but the speed in which MM gets the story from plaintiff and goes to defendant makes me think, yeah, momma gonna mother the kid. I pretty much stop watching at that point... though watching her face as she spots holes in his story is fun, I'm picking up the remote pretty quick. When kid tells his story, she has him repeat it, then asks if maybe he was texting while riding... oh no, he wasn't texting... then why does police report say you told the reporting officer you were texting... ok, kid caught in a lie, even more obvious he's making this up (probably coached by dad who is siding next to him)... even without the police report, kid's body language says he's lieing. Kid has so many tells hope he never takes up poker. Takes momma, who not only learned to interrogate criminals, but honed her skills on her own teenagers, about a minute to get kid to cave and admit he wasn't paying attention. Ok, no doubt now it's lecture time, then she'll  discuss damages... I zip on out to the hallterview... even Doug can't make this dud any better, so I skip that as soon as Doug asks why lie to the judge.... on to next case
3. tenant wants deposit: well, this one may test anyone trying to be PC. I always heard that when you run into transgender/cross dressing folks, you should address them according to how they're dressed. So, dude dressed as a woman is a "she", gal dressed as man is a "he," etc. But what about when she/he is wearing male clothing but has about two tons of makeup so that his/her face looks plastic? Not sure how to refer to plaintiff's witness. At least plaintiff has on a dress, so she's a she. Defendant says he's a long time landlord, and this is the first time in all those 22 years a tenant has ever left such a mess that he kept the deposit. (Ok, so much for being PC... when I look up I type "she," but then when I look down to type and am just listening, "she" becomes "he". ) Ah, well, could landlord has a thing about cross dressers/transgender, or maybe plaintiff is the pig he says. Everybody agrees he gave plaintiff's an itemized list of damages and an explanation of what the deposit went towards. Problem is, plaintiff says damage list is fabricated. Well, it's up to MM to look at the list and pictures and decide. Course we start with the backstory. Plaintiff had rented defendant's basement apartment about two years, and says they had a good relationship. Then, one day while plaintiff is out, defendant discovers plaintiff's best friend/roommate there... doing someone's makeup for hire. Ok, couple problems there... first this rental is supposed to be single occupancy; second, would this count as running a business out of the basement. Defendant says it wasn't either of those which upset him, it was that plaintiff was leaving the basement unlocked and having friends show up while he wasn't there. Hey, totally get that! If I'm renting a room or even a basement apartment in my home, I'd be upset to find the tenant leaving the place unsecured and others using the place for who knows what. Yes, it would be their home, but I'd say something, hopefully I would have something in the rental agreement about guests... and anyway, threatening not to renew the lease and/or give a 30 day notice to a month to month tenant. Anyway, kerfuffle, resulted in 30 day notice (yes, this was month to month). Oh, and despite plaintiff saying they had a good relationship, over the past two years, 8 months before this latest blowup plaintiff had a fight with his then live-in significant other. Hmmm, maybe that's when it became a single occupancy apartment. On that occasion, things were loud enough that landlord came downstairs to order the significant other out, and called the cops. Uh, how many other times did cops respond to disturbances. Oh, just two (holding up two fingers) times in 2 years... as if that's perfectly normal, cops respond at least once a year, right? Hmmmm, I'm a bit behind, I'm 62, and I've never called the cops - I know, I'll call every day when I finish the recap, and call again if there's a JJ rerun (have to keep track, I think we're about due for reruns and I wouldn't want to go above average). Joking aside, she's saying she called the police when she moved out.... Apparently thinking cops have nothing better to do then do a walk through and check the condition of apartments when a tenant moves out. Hmmm, when the cops do a walk through do they make a police report, or just an incident report. Uh, no, doesn't take long before the police walk through story falls apart. Apparently what really happened was landlord did a walk through with tenant and pointed out damages... they get into an argument... it's 8 or 9PM... he wants her gone, she wants to know about the deposit.... cops called because they're yelling at each other because he says he'll be withholding at least some of the deposit - exact amount to be determined. Ok, that makes a lot more sense. Now, time to start looking at damage claim. Landlord has the pictures. When asked, tenant tries to softpedal, oh, might have done that moving furniture.... looks like a fist through the door, what do you think, that I just started this job, asks MM? ok, obvious damage, but at this point not unusual for landlord to pad the bill - especially if he had to call the cops because tenant wanted to argue and now he's miffed. Tenant is one of those who apparently thinks it's not only fairly normal to have cops come to visit, but also damage to apartment and leave it for landlord to foot the repair bill. Oh, yeah, all those marks and dents are because I had a couch against the wall, and it would bang against the wall when you sat on it... freeking move the freeking couch a couple inches and stop damaging the wall. Though to be fair, with the way she freely admits to some of the damage, it makes me more likely to believe him when he disputes something... oh, and believe when he says ceiling was damaged for ages, landlord promised to fix it but never did. Things aren't looking too good for plaintiff, but now she's saying landlord's estimate for damages is fake... says you can go online to the url on his estimate and put in any figures you want and get a print out. Hmmm possible, so MM asks landlord if he has anything showing the repairs, or proof that he paid anything for the repairs.... nah, he didn't think he'd need anything like that. Ah well, MM says, estimate does look off, and sort of suspicious that he has nothing showing the repairs, but heck, she says, she's been doing this a long time and she can put a pretty good number from the pictures of whether tenant owes for something, and what it should cost. Rough justice time... but defendant pipes up with something which contradicts something she just read in the texts... dude, shut up, every time you say something it's going to cost you money, says da judge. She awards 200 bucks to tenant... everybody seems happy it's over and done with, even though, IIRC tenant was asking for about 2 grand and only got 200 bucks.

Edited November 26, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

39 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

So, dude dressed as a woman is a "she", gal dressed as man is a "he," etc. But what about when she/he is wearing male clothing but has about two tons of makeup so that his/her face looks plastic?

Awww, I didn't get TPC at all today - the US Thanksgiving provided only football games -  and that sounds stellar. I bet this will be up on YT tomorrow, so I hope I'll get to see it then!

[teebax]

I call people by whichever pronouns they prefer, not based on their dress. I had a student last year who is a girl but identifies as a boy, so I respected that and referred to him as such.

I'm curious to know if the TPC producers asked the plaintiff which pronouns to use. I certainly hope so. At first I was worried the landlord kicked him out because of his being transgendered, so I was delighted to find out that wasn't the issue. Hooray for progress. 

[SRTouch]

26 minutes ago, teebax said:

I call people by whichever pronouns they prefer, not based on their dress. I had a student last year who is a girl but identifies as a boy, so I respected that and referred to him as such.

I'm curious to know if the TPC producers asked the plaintiff which pronouns to use. I certainly hope so. At first I was worried the landlord kicked him out because of his being transgendered, so I was delighted to find out that wasn't the issue. Hooray for progress. 

Gotcha, once a preference is known, I agree that's the way to go. 

Remember the recent "stolen" dog case where cousin stole/sold/lost plaintiff's dog while dog sitting while plaintiff is on vacation. MM referred to sort-of-cousin defendant, who was dressed as a woman, with she/her/etc while plaintiff, who grew up with defendant, refused to use anything but masculine terms. 

[meowmommy]

9 hours ago, SRTouch said:

yeah, momma gonna mother the kid.....then why does police report say you told the reporting officer you were texting... ok, kid caught in a lie, even more obvious he's making this up (probably coached by dad who is siding next to him)

Why did MM assume the dad coached the kid to lie, almost stating it as a given?  Teenagers are perfectly capable of making shit up all by themselves.  I hate it when momma goes into momma mode instead of fiery advocate for justice.  She should have been screaming at the kid that he could have killed someone, starting with himself, not giving him the gentle lecture in the same tone you use to tell your preteens about the facts of life.  And I want to see more emphasis on the need for bicyclists to follow the rules of the road.  Cyclists who drive like they're pedestrians but then demand the same rights as motorists have ruined bicycling for millions.

8 hours ago, teebax said:

I call people by whichever pronouns they prefer, not based on their dress.

I can handle that, but apparently there are now people who say they are neither male nor female, with new pronouns for them, sending non-PC me over the edge. 

[califred]

As the parent of a transgender daughter I appreciate those of you who are respectful. 

 

There are people who identify as neither and typically prefer they and it’s not that hard to be respectful.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Hello Courtiers,

At PTV, we use the GLAAD reference guide to assist when discussing topics regarding LGBTQ persons:  Our rule.  Here is a link to the guide for LGB discussions.  Here is one specific to transgender persons. 

Thank you for the respectful tone you are using in this discussion.  If you want to talk about things outside of the actual episodes, remember we have a small talk thread for that purpose.

As always, happy posting!  Here's hoping to not see you in court.

[SRTouch]

reruns: admittedly, I'm  crazy old cat guy, so I quickly got dejavu when today's episode started. Yep, quick check shows this ran back on 5 September, and I wrote a recap... which I found back on page 77... not that interesting first time around, so just quick summary here

1. good deed doesn't work as planned: when defendant, a single mom, with several brats, a dog and three cats, are told her lease is not going to be renewed, plaintiff agrees to let them move in with her, her own daughter, and their 8 cats. I totally get plaintiff booting the defendant and crew when one of the ingrate brats let's one of her indoor-only cats out and won't even help find it. Noteworthy part of case is that at first it was just supposed to only be defendant's teenage daughter who would be living with plaintiff, just so she could attend her high school of choice. Now in court, defendant is charging plaintiff of running an escort service and trying to recruit the daughter. Yes, plaintiff admits, there was a time in her past when she worked as an escort. But that was years ago, before her own 5yo daughter was born. And she shared that story with defendant, in confidence, way back when, maybe 10 years ago. So, defendant is using the fact that plaintiff once worked as an escort to substantiate her charges that plaintiff is running an escort service and trying to recruit her daughter, but let her daughter move into the evil woman's house. Then later on, moved in herself, the younger kids, and their pets. Sort of going to extreme back stabbing in her efforts to avoid paying rent, don'cha think. 
2. car repair case: the usual, 10yo car brought in for one thing, shop does the repair, when something else brings, plaintiff sues. Ah, of course, it's a Mercedes, it should last forever, obviously mechanic screwed up or is trying to scam her. Mechanic gets his back up when he gets sued and countersues, but laughs it off when MM tosses the countersuit, he knew all along he had no case. Nobody hits the lottery, they leave with what they came with.
3. pool table for sale: pool table needs to be gone because of scheduled renovations, so is put up for sale. Dude puts down a deposit, but he and his friends find it to heavy and awkward to move. After several days of turning away interested buyers, seller REALLY needs it gone, like yesterday, so loses the chance to sell and gives it away. Dude loses his deposit... but leaves court thinking he was robbed and defendant a big liar. Laugh comes when we learn big strong fit looking dude couldn't move the table, but the guy she ended up giving it to came with two skinny dudes, tipped it onto a furniture dolly, and rolled it away.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

good deed doesn't work as planned: when defendant, a single mom, with several brats, a dog and three cats, are told her lease is not going to be renewed

I couldn't do it. Single mother? As though there's any other kind on this show. She can't pay her rent, but can acquire a bunch of animals which I'm sure received no care, since apparently she abandoned them when she and her brats decamped from the plaintiff's house and can pay for those fantastical hairdos for herself and her daughter. I had to FF the rest of this.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

car repair case:

What a relief that case was, even though it was the usual - my 10-year old car was in perfect condition, well - except for the laundry list of things wrong with it -  so if it conks out it must be someone's fault. I'm sure def set the fuel pump on fire, just to be a big meanie.

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

pool table for sale: 

Everyone should be allowed to put a deposit on something, have the seller take it off the market, and then when the buyer decides maybe it's too much trouble, they should get the deposit back. Less time at the gym and a little more time spent working the ol' brain for some common sense might be a good idea. I recently bought a furniture dolly and with it, even a 98-lb, 62-year old weakling can move very heavy objects easily. I guess plaintiff never thought of that. Duh.

[Guest]

On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 5:37 PM, teebax said:

I call people by whichever pronouns they prefer, not based on their dress. I had a student last year who is a girl but identifies as a boy, so I respected that and referred to him as such.

Yes. 

 I wrote more but deleted it because it was straying too much from TPC.

Edited November 28, 2017 by PsychoKlown

[SRTouch]

yep still with the reruns.... no recaps till something new comes along unless it's a really fun case....

Quick summary of today's reruns, done mostly from memory and a quick finger on the remote 

1. Insurance dude wants to be paid for policy defendant charged on credit card, then canceled and reversed charges. Really, pretty simple case, only fun part is the defense. Defendant was buying policy for adult son's new motorcycle (also bought bike) and paid for high dollar/high risk policy because son couldn't get regular insurance. Dude bought the insurance over the phone, never having met agent until he was sued. Got his credit card to reverse the charges by claiming his signature was forged. MM takes a look at the forms, where it clearly says charge was done over the phone - no forged signature. Later, MM has a question for the son, who took the bike and left the state, so she gives him a call.... and we hear mommy dearest telling him want to say in the background... seems mommy left state with sonny, they both live out of state now, leaving dad with the bills.
2. case of the good churchgoers big kerfuffle starts over driver refusing to stop to buy some weed on the way home from church. Plaintiff wants to be a minister when he grows up, but for now he's really involved in the youth programs at the church. After the big weed kerfuffle, he goes over to defendant's place to pick up some baby stuff, oh, and smoke a little weed... 'nother big kerfuffle - things get physical, his car windows get the big stick and are smashed. Nothing interesting about the case except how deceiving appearances can be.
3. hair salon plaintiff says braids too tight, so she took them out and now wants a refund. I remember this one because I disagreed with MM. I figured hairdresser did the work, so should get paid after having a chance to redo the hair. MM decides that plaintiff had the right to pull out the braids if they were too painful, and didn't have to give hairdresser a second try to do it right. I get her point, using JJ 's steak analogy, plaintiff ate part of the steak, then sent it back to the kitchen after finding a bandaid in the gravy and now wants complete refund.... heck thinking that way, a restaurant would probably give the refund and a coupon for a free meal to try to head off a bad yelp review.

Edited November 28, 2017 by SRTouch

[galaxychaser]

On 11/25/2017 at 2:30 AM, meowmommy said:

Why did MM assume the dad coached the kid to lie, almost stating it as a given?  Teenagers are perfectly capable of making shit up all by themselves.  I hate it when momma goes into momma mode instead of fiery advocate for justice.  She should have been screaming at the kid that he could have killed someone, starting with himself, not giving him the gentle lecture in the same tone you use to tell your preteens about the facts of life.  And I want to see more emphasis on the need for bicyclists to follow the rules of the road.  Cyclists who drive like they're pedestrians but then demand the same rights as motorists have ruined bicycling for millions.

I can handle that, but apparently there are now people who say they are neither male nor female, with new pronouns for them, sending non-PC me over the edge. 

What? That's new to me.  No gender people. 

[AngelaHunter]

I got different reruns today, including the nasty plaintiff who had his contract to play at the def's club cancelled because he's "a racist, misogynist, pedophile" although he seemed so very mild and polite here. We were having this discussion on the JJ board, about people who think they can post anything they like on social media and never, ever get called on it. It never occurs to them that parents, neighbours, kids, employers or potential employers might see their idiotic posts, their naked pics or their racist rants. This so often applies to the very young, who seem incapable of living off-line for one second, but middleaged plaintiff is plenty old enough to figure out that his "tweets" or whatever the hell he used, with his full name and PHOTO, might be seen by someone who was considering doing business with him. Well, duh, the guy who was hiring him got wind of his shenannigans and cancelled his contract. Sadly, def was incapable of following the terms of his own contract because he didn't want to buy a stamp, so lost and had to pay. "I didn't want to bring up Reddit," says plaintiff, pretending he's in pain from whatever went on with that ridiculous, revolting site with which he's obviously involved. Poor him. The whole world is out to get him, for no reason at all. We saw he's still living publicly and ooh, got back at JM by posting pics of her on a nude beach. What a man! My hero (swoon). This case reminded me of a joke Hesh of the Sopranos told, where people were asked to say something good about a person just deceased. The punchline was, "His brother is worse."

Ms. Apollonia wanted her phone non-repairs to be "documentated" and wanted not only the cost of her old phone that def. disposed of, but the cost of a brand-new phone to boot and got a hand-on-hip attitude when JM told her the cash register wasn't going to ring for her. Plaintiff was sporting one of the worst wigs I've ever seen. Def was very shady and no doubt gets all his money in cash (which seemed to suit plaintiff until it didn't) so of course he has no proof of any kind. He throws away all his receipts. In the hall he admits he might want to change his business practices and conform to the law. As if.

Repeat of the silly little troll suing def. mechanic - who has been in business 44 years without being sued - because his 13-year old junky Nissan wasn't put into showroom condition  by def. Why do people think an ancient, broken-down Nissan (or whatever) is like an investment and have no problem throwing good money after bad to fix something not worth the effort or money?

[SRTouch]

46 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I got different reruns today,

Ah, sounds like you saw what my DVR said I was supposed to see. I remember last time we had a run of reruns my local provider seemed to be out of sync.

[SRTouch]

rerun of 8 Sept - summaries

1. exploding water heater: plaintiff's water heater explodes on Christmas - she calls good friend, a handyman - he comes over and cobbles together a duct tape fix that works, but looks like crap. Problem is, she expected a professional job... oh, and while picking up parts at the big box store, handyman dude put some tools on her account. Once he gets the hot water working, he decides he's just too sick to work - says 6 weeks of walking pneumonia. She gets tired of waiting, doesn't really know if he's coming back, and finally hires a professional - who actually goes and applies for a permit - which brings out the code inspectors - who red card all handyman's "repairs" - which results in lady's cheap fix turning into an expensive repair when she has to hire licensed people to undo what handyman did and do it right. And, of course she blames the whole thing on her friend, and figures the sick dude who came out Christmas night and helped her needs to pay for everything and then some, and spend some time behind bars to boot. 
2. withheld deposit case: ah, the lady with the hyphenated first name! Plaintiff, she of four names, is suing greedy ex landlord, saying he overcharged for damages and withheld too much of their deposit. Ah, landlord, lots of big words to try to impress us, but he needs to dry the sweat off his shiny bald head. Guy says something, then immediately retracts or contradicts what he just said. Like the cracked countertop on the bathroom sink, in court he doesn't want to speculate as to how plaintiffs broke the countertop, but in his filings his suggested that somebody was sitting on it, maybe doing something kinky. He wants money for painting and resurfacing the floors, then admits it needed to be done because of normal wear, nothing extreme the tenants did... the renovations proved to cost more than anticipated, so he kept the whole deposit. Ok, that shoots down his defense. Doesn't mean plaintiff gets back entire deposit - they admit to some damage - rough justice gives them a little over half the deposit back.
3. used car warranty: plaintiff buys 12yo junker, but it DOES have a limited warranty. Problem is, it's a "limited" warranty (which, of course nobody read), and he figures it should be 100% bumper to bumper. These two don't agree on when or how many times plaintiff tried to get the junker fixed, so it may or may not have been covered. Plaintiff has a couple big problems: not knowing what his "limited warranty" covers, not knowing dates, and oh, in preparation of this case he took the car to a dealer and got a bloated estimate of needed repairs. Uh, but the estimate wasn't generated until just before the court date - long after warranty expired. Problem is dude doesn't have any more sense than a rock. He argues that the dealer did a bit and switch on him, car costs more than he was told on the phone... yeah, when you finance a car it costs more. Oh, and the biggy, the all time A#1 reason to walk away from a car deal - dude bought the car with the check engine light on because salesman says don't worry, drive it awhile, if it stays on we'll fix it. Ok, dealer is shady, but buyer has no case.

Edited November 30, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

exploding water heater:

Aww, did we have to get this rerun? I was trying to eat my turkey breast fillet with rice & salad and the sight of Kevin's cavernous, completely toothless mouth was making me queasy. Plaintiff seemed to be totally stoned, with her slurring and struggling to complete a thought, which I guess is the reason she'd hire someone who can't afford any toofies and  looked as though he were just coming off a 6-month bender. The fact that Kevin had an ex-wife (who committed suicide) and now has a girlfriend leaves me all Duhhh? Female desperation has reached critical levels.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

withheld deposit case:

That pin-headed landlord still holds the title of "World's Dumbest" I think. He expects his former tenants to pay for his reno, just because he couldn't afford it. I guess he thought they took a wedge and hammer to separate the floor boards. I hope he knows that he presented himself as a complete money-grubbing idiot and also hope that no one ever rents from him again. But yeah, plaintiff saying the door is only 40$ is true, but the part about it taking a minute to install? Obviously neither she nor her husband have ever put a door in.  It's not that simple, unless all the walls are perfectly square and the hinges (which have to be mortised out) line up just so. I just got all doors changed in my house, and believe me, it was no easy job.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

used car warranty:

I guess this week is "Dumbest Litigants Redux" since plaintiff was another of those morons, who couldn't read, or couldn't understand,  the simple English in his contract for his 12 year old car and didn't seem to understand that he's one of these people who has to pay high financing charges, probably because he doesn't pay his bills and debts.

[SRTouch]

Sept 13 rerun

1. fighting over mortgage: case doesn't make anymore sense the second time around. Not sure what the heck to call these litigants. Legally, they're married, though I get the feeling the whole marriage was more a financial arrangement than anything else. He had a house and mortgage before they married. The plan was to get married, share the expenses 50/50, and they'd each end up paying less, and live in his house. They sort of split up - but not really, since they're now roomies. Even hot buck in the same bed since they work opposite shifts. Problem is gap toothed wife, who claims she works two jobs, averages being $460 short on her share every month... yep two jobs, working 24/7, either at work or asleep, but can't afford to pay her half, which amounts to less than $1300 a month. If this was Greg Mathis he'd be asking if she needs some help for her crackish ways, cause all that money must be going somewhere, and I'm guessing a pharmaceutical habit going by her look. She tells hubby she's paying off her old pre-marriage debts rather than living up to the 50/50 expense deal. She tells us she never really intended to abide by their agreement, just told him that so she could go to sleep after a hard day at work (she's really working that 2 jobs story). Plaintiff, the hubby in this bizarre family, is tired of continually having to cover more than his share, and has tried everything to get her to pay her share... first filing this case, then when that doesn't work he serves her with divorce papers. MM decides he's owed the money, but goes a step further (since she really dislikes the defendant/wife) and advises him to follow through with the divorce, saying he should keep the house and then he should be able to evict her as a squatter.
2. junker dies after being serviced, wants shop to buy new car: plaintiff buys a 20 yo car. Ok, even without knowing how rare it is for someone to win this type case, this plaintiff is off to a rough start. She bought the car out of state, maybe from a person, maybe a dealer (later we find out it was an auction). Who knows, maybe she'd have sounded better if MM had let her talk instead of adding those pesky questions. On the drive home thing shakes and rattles all over the road, and generally rides like crap. So, she takes it to a mechanic when she gets home, and finds there was a safety recall on the struts. Off to a dealer, who ends up as our defendant, who replaces the struts, but finds it still needs a lot of work.... just minor stuff like brakes, control arm, etc etc... oh and a cracked frame. Plaintiff picks it up without doing any of the additional work... yeah, recall work was free, not going to do the stuff that costs her any money - besides, sounds like the additional repairs may be more than whatever she paid for it. Typical story, ever since they fixed the car it hasn't run right, so give me the 5 grand max. Kind of funny to watch, just because plaintiff knows enough to get expert testimony, but the evidence is a typed statement with a scribbled signature - oh, and in the statement the expert claims to have regularly serviced the vehicle and everything was hunky dory until inept dealer mechanic messed it up.... huh, regularly serviced, but plaintiff only owed vehicle a week before taking it to the dealer shop. Right about now we learn plaintiff already tried and failed to get any money from the auction that sold her the clunker... oh, and the vehicle was sold with a salvage vehicle title. Oops, plaintiff doesn't like the ruling and shouts out "LISTEN..." but MM doesn't listen, finishes tossing out the case and leaves muttering "yeah, right - listen..." then plaintiff storms out.
3. security deposit case: same old same old. We do get a couple chuckles from expert litigator plaintiff, who wants to argue points of law with the lady with the degree and black robe... hey, at least she's well spoken. Even better, later on we find out plaintiff wants lawyer fees for help preparing for her small claims case, even though her legal advice included plaintiff using the security as rent. Not alot going on here. Landlord has an itemized list, but some of it is speculative as the work hasn't been done and MM questions the estimates. Landlord ends up having to return about half of what he kept.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

fighting over mortgage: case doesn't make anymore sense the second time around.

Made no sense to me either this time around. We know she "goes to work" (which was her answer to every question JM posed) but must have had one pile of debts since she seems to work 24/7 but can't clear them up. Call me ignorant, but I didn't know one spouse in a married couple - who are living together and sharing a bed - could sue the other for living expenses.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

this plaintiff is off to a rough start. She bought the car out of state, maybe from a person, maybe a dealer (later we find out it was an auction). 

It was hard to know, since she didn't seem to know what the words "private party" mean. Yes, she bought it from a private party, a dealer. Maybe the 20 year old wreck was salvaged from the bottom of a lake, yet defs were supposed to pull out their magic wands and put it into perfect condition. Plaintiff was notable, not only for her "had took" and "had went" but for what I believe were the longest and most gross fake talons ever seen on this show. Maybe it's just one of my weird kinks,(like my revulsion towards dishwater and taking out garbage) but those things just give me the heebie-jeebies. I couldn't help but picture her husband covered in slash marks and scars. "Listen!" she orders JM when she loses her case. JM sneers at her and mocks her. Ranting in the hall ensues, concluding with major wig-flipping and a "Oh, no. No no no".

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

We do get a couple chuckles from expert litigator plaintiff, who wants to argue points of law with the lady with the degree and black robe...

I had forgotten ever seeing this case and she was so well-spoken and seemingly reasonable that I relaxed, thinking we'd see a normal case here, but she turned out to be some kind of nut. More hall-ranting ensues.

[AngelaHunter]

I bring up today's rerun of the scrawny Boyz Who Don't Pay Their Rent only because I realized I feel sorry for the landlord. He or she probably thought, "I watch TPC and I'm doing this right! I have these mature men who are pushing thirty and both have jobs. For sure I'm not going to have all kinds of stupid drama from them. " Sadly, that was not to be. All I could think of while watching these way overaged high school baby boys was this meme, and I think it says it all:

 

 

[SRTouch]

more Sept reruns... quick summary since I was out getting a trailer hitch installed and only watched a little when I got home 

1. two slobs rooming together: this is the two construction workings who live like slobs, neither of which figures they need to pay rent. Plaintiff can't put together a coherent sentence, isn't sure how much rent is owed, but whatever is owed he wants ex-roomie to pay... This is the case where MM stops to put on gloves before handing the paperwork... yeah, the papers are gross. Anyway, I gave up halfway through these idiots... sad thing is the two clueless idiots aren't young kids moving in together in their first apartment, no these fools are 27 and 29 years old.
2. Dog neglect case: made the mistake of watching this the first time, but skipped it this time around. This is the one where plaintiff boards their older dog, and when they return it's limping. Boarder says no big deal, just "old lady walk," it had been limping for awhile. Vet report (yes, actual expert testimony) says dislocated hip, made worse when boarding facility ignored the limp... so what should have been a relatively easy fix turned into permanent disability. Plaintiffs win, but not as much as I'd like... but then pets don't get pain and suffering even when I think they should.
3. used dump truck case: the usual, buyer figures 30 day warranty on his raggedy dump truck means seller ought to just keep fixing it forever. Ah, and one of those where you need CC to make heads or tails of what a litigant is saying. Didn't make it to the end of this case, either

Edited December 2, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

8 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Plaintiff can't put together a coherent sentence, isn't sure how much rent is owed

Maybe he's incoherent and unsure about things, "I"d say it's around..." and constantly says, "Me and him signed/went, etc.." but he sure knows how to perfect the trendy stubble that he no doubt thinks makes him look hot, rugged  and manly. Hahahaha! Oh, excuse me. Sorry, you still look and sound like a little pampered baby, with a stubble, you dork.

[SRTouch]

new episode today... if DVR is correct, new ones through Wednesday, then reruns Thursday and Friday 

1. massage business sale gone bad: plaintiff claims she trained the defendant to run her massage business, sold her the business and client list, but now defendant isn't paying what she owes - she wants the remaining $3216.22. Defendant argues she didn't get what she expected - most of the clients jumped ship (only 8 of 50 stayed on) - and instead of grossing 30 grand a year as expected she's in the red. A contract case, but we'll have to wait and see how the sale is set up. Could be a deal where the previous owner agreed to hang around in the background to offer advice, or there was to be a complete split where one day she was there running tjings, next day she was to stay away. Also, defendant may have had unrealistic expectations.... it is A LOT OF WORK to run a small business, even one already established - and buying the client list does not guarantee you'll keep them - even employees could decide to quit and move on. There are reasons why most small businesses fail... one being that a lot of folks start their business not realising they probably WILL operate in the red when they start out. Anyway, defendant not only wants out of paying the balance, she wants the deal completely unwound, and she's countersuing for 5 grand of the money she's spent. When we get to the case, it turns out defendant is getting even less for her money then I thought. Plaintiff was operating out of her home - no storefront - clients came to her house, or occasionally she'd go to them. So, basically she was selling the client list, agreeing to tell defendant what the individual clients liked/disliked, and introducing defendant to the clients etc. MM is quizzing defendant about what all the deal was, and I'm not hearing anything where plaintiff breached the contract - it's more that defendant maybe paid more than she should have. Apparently, what she received for her 10 grand was two hand written lists, one of 25 regular customers and the other a list of 25 names of occasional clients. Hmmm pretty pricey, but defendant says some of those folks forked over $1200 per appointment. Sooooo, intro said she only kept 8 of the 50 clients.... if those 8 were the high priced clients maybe a good deal after all, or at least worth the gamble. Apparently plaintiff called each of the clients and told them how great defendant was and was willing to help defendant put together a advertising pamphlet/flyer (but defendant didn't have any cash reserve set aside for advertising). Oh, and let's not forget that the contract defendant signed clearly says plaintiff is not guaranteeing any clients will use defendant. Even worse, defendant quit her job managing a spa to devote all her time to the new business... Nope, defendant has no defense, plaintiff delivered what she promised, defendant has to abide by the contract.
2. ex left her stuck with a phone bill: ok, what's up with this plaintiff. She meanders into court with lots of hip sway and at first I think maybe she thinks she's on a cat walk or red carpet... then the head tilt and never looking at the camera has me thinking maybe stoned or drunk... and what's with that top? Anyway, she signs up for one of those phone plans which gives her a free phone (no such thing as free $800 phone) - which she gives to then bf - who shoots it with a nail gun while at work on a construction site. Now that they've split up, she wants him to pay her for the phone. His countersuit is for breaking into his place and trashing the place - oh, and apparently bringing the drama to his work site and getting him canned. My impression of our lovely plaintiff isn't improved much when MM asks her why she's here... in fact, now watching/listening to her, not sure how long I'll listen. Her story is that she went to buy a phone for her daughter because daughter's phone needed to be updated.  By the time everything is done, she and her new bf, who she's known for maybe a month, leave the store with new $800 phones... daughter's out of luck - maybe she got mommy's old phone. Or, maybe not, because she claims they only got one phone, even though when MM checks there are two phones on the bill. He readily admits he was supposed to pay for the phone. Says he made the first $100 payment, then drama queen from hell brought cops to his work site, followed by breaking in and trashing of his apartment, so he figures they're even. Nope, can't go the unilateral self help route, dude owes for the phone.... maybe to be offset by the countersuit... I can't take these two, so I zip ahead when we go to commercial. Nope, no offset, when I stop FF dude is getting a lecture on bringing evidence - which he didn't. Then, plaintiff gets chapter two of the same lecture... she wants money for his using the phone line, but she didn't bring the detailed bill showing how much that was. She gets $800 for the phone... oh, and a chuckle for her request for $109.17 for stress and aggravation.
3. tenant wants deposit: plaintiff rented place for 12 years, but landlord is keeping the deposit. Ok, landlord better have some strong evidence of damage. He claims place was a disaster and reeked of cat urine, so maybe he has a defense. (I've seen places on house flipping shows where they end up gutting a place to get rid of the ammonia smell, so not impossible if she was some kind of hoarder.) Ah, but when MM reads the itemized list I'm not seeing much in the way of damages. Ok, she left owing utility bills for her last month of occupancy, no problem there, bills didn't come until after she moved out and she has no problem with his keeping money for that. But the rest.... worn out ceiling fan, nicotine stains requiring KILZ primer and paint, $400 trash removal and cleaning, and new windows in the living room!?! Once MM asks, he adds that the carpets were stained and place not broom swept. He's not convincing me of anything... at least until he shows the ceiling fan. This is his evidence, but I'm not seeing what he wants me to see. He points to discolored and stained ceiling tiles and wants them replaced because of nicotine stains... what I see is make shift duct tape repairs done on the ceiling - heck, not even the same color duct tape. Nicotine stains... yeah, but definitely looks like sagging tiles and water damage - oh and no cover on that light bulb. Nope, that picture speaks volumes to me... dude needs to do some major renovation, and just guessing, but wouldn't be surprised to hear he needs a roof. Ok, she did leave some stuff behind - not hoarder level stuff, but some things and it wasn't broom swept. I'm tempted to tell him to pound sand, but can't really because of the utilities and not being swept out. Think I'd give him the utilities, and then round it up to the next hundred, whether that gives him 10 bucks or 90. Oh, and she's looking for double.... nah, he has legitimate reasons to keep part of the deposit,  so no bonanza. MM is more generous, she let's him charge for the KILZ primer and a few other things,  resulting in plaintiff getting back $250.

Edited December 4, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

massage business sale gone bad: 

This was hard to believe. My tax preparer decided to get out of the business and sold her client list to another tax preparer for 20K. Part of the deal was for the former to send letters to all her clients, like me, recommending new preparer. I did go with the new one, but if a lot of clients decided to go elsewhere, would new preparer think she could sue to get her money back? OH, hell no. How dumb was def? She really thinks if someone buys a business (in this case she was happy to pay 11K for a list of clients and seller even gave her lessons and encouraged her clients to go with def) and they don't flourish that they not only don't have to finish paying what they agreed to pay, but can get back what they did pay? No one can guarantee the actions of another. Plaintiff gave def all the tools needed to succeed but def just couldn't do it. She couldn't afford to flyers or advertising? That's someone else's fault too I guess and plaintiff should pay her for all the business she could have had but lost because well... just because.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

ex left her stuck with a phone bill: ok, what's up with this plaintiff.

Everything in this case was ridiculous. Plaintiff thought her 10-year old child needed an 800$ phone, but then decided her new boyfriend, the illiterate, jug-headed moron, needed it more. Even though he works 24/7 he couldn't buy his own phone. Plaintiff has no evidence of what is owed, but if JM wants, she can look it up if someone gives her access to a computer. She never knew evidence would be needed. Dumbo, the def, has no evidence of any kind, just a bunch of stupid hearsay. We know plaintiff went all berserker banshee at his place of work, but dang it all, he can't prove it. Someone told him they saw her leaving his place after destroying it (You just know she did it) but not one witness was available I guess.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant wants deposit: plaintiff rented place for 12 years, but landlord is keeping the deposit.

I thought the landlord was such a greedy,, money-grubbing asshole. This woman lived there for 12 years (in the building landlord's mommy gave him) and paid her rent every mohth and he wants to deduct money from her security because there is DUST on the toilet paper holder (he actually has pictures of DUST) and a couple of small items left on the floor? How outrageous that this elderly woman didn't wipe up every speck of dust before she left. No matter how tidy a tenant is, the place still needs paint and new carpets after 12 years and he wanted some of his renos covered by her deposit. Personally, I think he should have just replaced the cracked window and STFU about it. He might be wishing for someone who just left dust around by the time he starts dealing with the kind of Tenants from Hell we've seen here. These cases make me so happy I haven't rented in many many years.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

massage business sale gone bad:

Either the defendant was a complete innocent as far as the basic rules of business and thus should not be allowed to run any company of any size, or she was just playing dumb in trying to find a way to weasel out of her obligations. When you buy a business or a clients list, there never is a guarantee that every customer of the former owner will decide to retain your services. There often is a very strong personal aspect to a customer-provider relationship; if it does not click, you cannot force it to. The fact that so few customers, if any, decided to remain with her makes me suspect she may not be that good of a businesswoman anyway and that she is a major reason for her failure.

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant wants deposit:

There were obviously many things wrong with the apartment as the plaintiff left it. If she was not able to keep it in good order, she should have hired a cleaning service; her age is not an acceptable excuse not to dust or clean up or hire someone to do it. Nor is the fact that she was a long-standing tenant, as MM tried to argue, even though she described the apartment as "filthy" or words to that effect; not the first time she argues from her emotions but then rules from her brains. It's a commercial relationship, no matter how well-behaved the tenant appeared to be for most of her stay, and it should be treated as such.

Landlord was overreaching a bit as most landlords seem to do in those cases, probably in expectation that she would bring formal action against his list of repairs and cleanup so he wanted to leave some room for the judge to claw back on his claim. However, he was reasonable enough not to charge her for the actual painting but only for the special primer necessary because of her heavy smoking for most of her stay there. So he was not really as greedy as MM tried to paint him. The issue of the pet and whether it was allowed or not was left hanging I believe.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Florinaldo

[teebax]

I'm with Angela. I think the landlord was being a jerk. 

My never-to-be-born kids are lucky because they'd be rocking a flip phone, if they had one at all. When I taught middle school last year most of my kids had fancy phones... All of them had cracked screens. Kids don't take care of shit. 

One of my high school students this year asked why I don't have the new iPhone. I asked her what it could do that my old smart phone can't. Crickets. That's the same mentality that makes them go finance cars hey can't afford. Idiots. 

[wallysmommy]

Phone fiasco plaintiff -- close your eyes and you'll swear it's Anjelah Johnson talking.  The affect, the accent, the body language -- it was all spot on.  

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

However, he was reasonable enough not to charge her for the actual painting but only for the special primer necessary because of her heavy smoking for most of her stay there.

Even if she never smoked a cigarette and dusted the top of the toilet paper holder every day, after 12 years he'd still have to entirely paint the place for new renters, so I don't see him as being reasonable for not charging for paint. The smell of smoke goes away the minute you paint the walls.  It's not as though she painted all the walls black or purple or put murals on them.  It's his place. Let him paint it.  It's quite possible she actually didn't see the dirt and/or couldn't clean by herself and also possible she couldn't afford to shell out a couple hundred dollars for a cleaning service. IMO, anyone who takes a pic of dust and prints it out is either OCD or a jerk.  Anyway, he's renovating the place. Wait til he sees how much dust that generates. All just my opinion, of course.  

[Florinaldo]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The smell of smoke goes away the minute you paint the walls.

I am not quite sure that is correct; I have been in homes where the post-nicotine smell was persistent even after painting over. So the special primer may have some use and she was correctly charged for it.

That old lady seemed typical of the "I do not care" tenant who lets dust and dirt accumulate (like that disgusting window sill, to which MM declared she believed she had found the cause of the plaintiff's breathing problems) or does patchwork repairs without telling the landlord (like the duct tape around the ceiling fan); they tolerate it because it is their own personal filth and mess, plus she probably knows that many people will let it slide because of her age. She is typical of a certain species of bad tenant; each time I see a specimen like that, I a glad I was never put in a position to consider becoming a landlord or renting out part of my house, which might have exposed me to people like that.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Florinaldo